First philosopher, Thales, likely a Greek borrowing from Joseph of Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “The first philosopher on record is a man called Thales. Thales lived at the beginning of the sixth century B.C., at Miletus, a Greek colony on the coast of Asia Minor”. Tracing the Judaeo-Israelite Origins of Metaphysics The impact of the ancient Near East (particularly Israel) upon our western civilization has been enormously underestimated, with practically all the glory - except in religion - going to the Greeks and the Romans. It is typical for us to read in the context of our western upbringing and education, in favour of Greco-Roman philosophy, politics and literature, statements such as: "Our European civilization rests upon two pillars: Judeo Christian revelation, its religious pillar, and Greco-Roman thought, its philosophical and political pillar". "The Iliad is the first and the greatest literary achievement of Greek civilization - an epic poem without rival in the literature of the world, and the cornerstone of Western culture". "Virgil's Aeneid, inspired by Homer and inspiration for Dante and Milton, is an immortal poem at the heart of Western life and culture". Nor do we, even as followers of Jesus, tend to experience any discomfort in the face of the above claims. After all, Jesus only said ‘salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22); not philosophy, not literature, not politics. But is not "salvation" also wholly civilizing? Yes, it most certainly is. And it will be the purpose of this article and others to show that philosophy and other cultural benefits are also essentially from the Jews, and that the Greeks, Romans and others appropriated these Jewish-laid cornerstones of civilization, claiming them as their own, but generally corrupting them. Let us start with philosophy. Philosophy The typical textbook introductions to philosophy begin with an explanation of the meaning of the term, "philosophy", and introduce us to the first philosopher. These are all purely Greek based. The word "philosophy" first used by Pythagoras, thought to be an Ionian Greek from Samos, is a Greek word meaning "love of wisdom"; with sophia "wisdom", originally having a broad meaning and referring to the cultivation of learning in general. And the first philosopher? Well, he also is said to be Greek: "The first philosopher on record is a man called Thales. Thales lived at the beginning of the sixth century B.C., at Miletus, a Greek colony on the coast of Asia Minor". Unfortunately there is a complete "absence of primary sources" for Thales who "left no written documents". And this is where the problem lies. The real existence of Thales as an Ionian Greek of the C6th BC is wide open to doubt. To Thales is attributed a prediction in astronomy that was quite impossible for an Ionian Greek - or anyone else - to have estimated so precisely in the C6th BC. He is said to have predicted a solar eclipse that occurred on 28 May 585 BC during a battle between Cyaxares the Mede and Alyattes of Lydia. This supposed incident has an especial appeal to the modern rationalist mind because it - thought to have been achieved by a Greek, and 'marking the birthday of western science' - was therefore a triumph of the rational over the religious. According to Glouberman, for instance, it was "… a Hellenic Götterdämerung, the demise of an earlier mode of thought". Oh really? Well, it never actually happened. O. Neugebauer, astronomer and orientalist, has completely knocked on the head any idea that Thales could possibly have foretold such an eclipse. Other, lesser known Greek thinkers, include: (1) Anaximander (ca. 611-547 BC) and apparently known only from the writings of Diodorus (late 1st cent. BC). Anax. is said to have held the view that man derived from aquatic, fish-like mermen,; (2) Empedocles (ca. 490-430) according to Aristotle's writings (??), is said to have believed in the spontaneous generation of life, an idea also held by the Roman Lucretius (96?-55 BC). We see how far back such incredulous ideas reach. That is why the historian Herbert Butterfield said, that the science of the Middle Ages and Renaissance had as its basis the `knowledge' and ideas of the ancient Greeks who were steeped in superstitions. That is also why we discover that, if the Greeks did not mention a particular subject or discuss a specific problem, the Renaissance as a rule did not think about it. Going back to Thales, we need to reconsider who this Thales really was, presuming that he ever existed at all. (a) Thales as the Patriarch Joseph (c. C17th BC) Ironically, the clue to Thales' identity lies in Glouberman's own title "Jacob's Ladder …", and in his contrast of Thales' scientific method with Joseph's supposedly 'magical' one: "… Thales forecast the bumper crop by observing climatic regularities, not by interpreting dreams of lean kine and fat…". Here we have Thales, not in Ionia, but in Egypt, doing, in Egypt, what Joseph is said to have done there, predicting the rise of the Nile - at least that is what would have been necessary in Egypt for the exceptionally good crop that Joseph had predicted (Genesis 41:29). To one familiar with the ancient Egyptian language, the name Thales immediately calls to mind the Egyptian theophoric (god-name) Ptah. Thus, I think: • Thales is simply a Greek retrospection back more than a millennium to the patriarch Joseph of Israel, not Ionia. • The tiny little snippets of information that we have about Thales, vague Greek reminiscences of the biblical Joseph, can be matched with episodes in the life of Joseph. • Apart from the incidents pertaining to Egypt (see also below), there is the classical episode of the young Thales, as the archetypal absent-minded professor, falling into a well whilst observing the stars. • This is simply a corrupted account of the young Joseph whose brothers confined him in a well because of his annoying habit of dreaming, astronomically, to their humiliation - in this case dreaming that these brothers were "stars" bowing down in homage to him (Genesis 37:9,10). • The biblical original probably became corrupted firstly by the local Canaanites - examples of this sort of corruption of the Bible are prolific at the site of Ugarit, for example, on the Levantine coast - and were later shipped to the Greeks by the Levantines (including sea-faring Israelites), or picked up by Aegean sailors. One can see how the Greeks distorted Joseph in their character, Thales, though the original Genesis thread can still be picked up: thus, - a young man - a dreamer - in a well - stars, and: forecasting in Egypt - the Nile - bumper crops.

Jesus as the new Joseph

“In the book of Genesis 38, Joseph … the righteous and innocent son of Jacob, is betrayed by his brother Judah and sold to the Gentile slave traders for 20 pieces of silver”. Dr. Brant Pitre writes: https://catholicproductions.com/blogs/blog/jesus-the-suffering-servant-and-the-new-joseph …. Jesus’ whole passion narrative is really a fulfillment of the Scriptures. He's fulfilling multiple prophecies of the Old Testament. He’s fulfilling multiple events from the Old Testament. He’s fulfilling the Passover of Egypt. He's fulfilling the fall of Adam and Eve. He's inaugurating a new Eden and a new creation by going through his passion. So everything he does here is a fulfillment of the Scriptures. And that’s what he says: At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook him and fled. Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Ca'iaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered. At this point the disciples flee. They take off. He's brought before Caiaphas for the trial. Caiaphas demands that he say whether he is the Christ, the son of God, and he does affirm that. And when he affirms it they react to his declaration by saying: "He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?" They answered, "He deserves death." Then Matthew says in verse 67: Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, saying, "Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?” Here we see Jesus going to the cross silent like a lamb led to the slaughter, and bearing the spitting and the abuse of the soldiers and of the leaders in Jerusalem, just like the prophecies of the suffering servant had foretold. So he is inaugurating a new Passover. He's inaugurating a new creation as the new Adam, and he’s also fulfilling the prophecies of the suffering servant. There's a fourth element here that’s taking place, a fourth fulfillment. If you keep walking through Matthew’s passion narrative, one of the unique things about the passion in Matthew is that it’s going to tell us about the death of Judas. This is something that only Matthew's account relays to us. So I’m going to read it and then unpack it from a Jewish perspective. This is what Matthew tells us: When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor. When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself." And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself. Pause there for second. Why does Matthew tell us about the suicide of Judas at this point? What’s the significance of it? None of the other Synoptics give us this aspect here of Jesus being betrayed by Judas, of him throwing 30 pieces of silver back, and then going off and hanging himself. Well one suggestion that I would make to you is this: that this is another fulfillment of Scripture. Because Matthew would have known, especially as a Jewish writer, that in the Old Testament this isn't the first time a righteous innocent man has been betrayed for silver. In the book of Genesis 38, Joseph, the son of Jacob, the righteous and innocent son of Jacob, is betrayed by his brother Judah and sold to the Gentile slave traders for 20 pieces of silver. And we know what happens after that, Joseph is put into a pit. He is left for dead and then miraculously--watch this—he, in a sense, comes back to life. He's risen from the dead because he's rescued from the pit and he rises to the ranks of second-in-command to Pharaoh in the kingdom of Egypt. So notice the parallel here in the Old Testament. Innocent Joseph is betrayed by one of the twelve sons of Jacob named Judah for 20 pieces of silver. Now Jesus the righteous son of God the father the innocent one is betrayed by one of the 12 apostles named Judas for 30 pieces of silver. That's not a coincidence, especially when you remember that Judas's name in Hebrew is Judah. It's the same name as the brother who betrayed innocent Joseph to the Gentile slave traders. So what Matthew is highlighting here I think is that Jesus isn't just a new Moses inaugurating a new Passover. He’s not just the new Adam setting in motion the redemption of the world. He's also the new Joseph. He is the innocent son whose righteous blood is going to be poured out, who’s going to be betrayed unto death, so that all of his brothers — in this case the disciples — so that they and the whole world might be saved. Not from famine and starvation like at the time of Joseph in Egypt, but from sin and death itself.

Zephaniah may afford a link between Babel and Pentecost

by Damien F. Mackey “Pentecost as a reversal of Babel has been widely seen by exegetes since the early days of the Church. However, these two stories are by no means simple “bookends” with empty narrative space between them. Rather, it shall be shown that an extremely significant instance of textual connection comes from the often overlooked text of Zephaniah”. Paul J. Pastor To begin with, the poorly known prophet Zephaniah, traditionally a Simeonite, needs to be more adequately identified. This becomes easier in the context of my revision, which recognises King Josiah of Judah as being the same individual as King Hezekiah of Judah. The Simeonite prophet, Micah, who was still active early in the reign of Hezekiah (Jeremiah 26:18-19), then becomes identifiable with the Simeonite prophet Zephaniah of whom we read (Zephaniah 1:1): “The word of the LORD that came to Zephaniah … during the reign of Josiah …”. For an even more fully expanded Micah-Zephaniah, see e.g. my article: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (6) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu A long-held Christian tradition “On the Vigil of Pentecost, the Old Testament reading is of Babel, the mythical tale of humanity’s hubris and the aetiology of the myriad of languages — and resulting confusion — existing throughout the world. Anyone who has ever fumblingly studied foreign languages can aim his or her frustration at those arrogant ancient citizens clamoring, “Come let us build ourselves a city and a tower (or a wall?) with its top in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the earth”.” Dr Michael M. Canaris It has long been recognised amongst the Christian faithful that the Pentecostal outpouring of the Holy Spirit effectively reversed the human tragedy - the wilful rebellion against the Divine - that was the Tower of Babel incident. Dr. Michael M. Canaris has written about it most perceptively for the Catholic Star Herald: http://catholicstarherald.org/on-pentecost-the-reversal-of-babel-takes-place/ On Pentecost, the ‘reversal’ of Babel takes place The feast of Pentecost was not originally a Christian feast, but rather a Jewish one marking 50 days since Passover and the first-fruits of the wheat harvest. Yet, in the fullness of time, Christians came to remember the Lord’s sending of the Spirit on that day, and so it is sometimes referred to as the “birthday” of the church (though other sources, like Saint John Chrysostom, identify the piercing of Christ’s side as the moment in which the church formally came to exist). On the Vigil of Pentecost, the Old Testament reading is of Babel, the mythical tale of humanity’s hubris and the aetiology of the myriad of languages — and resulting confusion — existing throughout the world. Anyone who has ever fumblingly studied foreign languages can aim his or her frustration at those arrogant ancient citizens clamoring, “Come let us build ourselves a city and a tower (or a wall?) with its top in the heavens; let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the earth.” But in its wisdom, the church points out through the connection of the readings that the havoc wrought by human selfishness can be rectified by the always-greater power of God. For on Pentecost, the “reversal” of Babel takes place. Instead of humanity remaining confounded by the din of voices seeking to talk over one another in pride, the Spirit’s arrival as tongues (lingua) of fire at Pentecost enables each to hear the Word of God proclaimed in his or her native vernacular. Language is then closely associated with Pentecost. Scholars since Wittgenstein and Heidegger have been quick to point out that thoughts do not occur in some “chemically pure” form and then subsequently come to be articulated in language. Rather, language forms and makes possible conscious thought. “Language is not just an instrument by which we express what we already know, but is the very medium in which knowledge occurs. Language is the voice of Being, and [humanity], in whom language takes its rise, is the loudspeaker for the silent tolling of Being…It permits Being to show itself” (Avery Dulles, “Hermeneutical Theology”). Christians of various types, especially charismatics and Pentecostals, believe the Spirit can endow them with a gift regarding “speaking in tongues,” or glossolalia. The second chapter of the Acts of the Apostles is often cited as evidence that this mysterious and effusive verbal outpouring is an authentic fruit of the Spirit. Catholics have historically been cautiously open toward this phenomenon, though it is, to be sure, not a very usual occurrence in suburban parishes on Sundays. While the charismatic wing of the church has fostered a greater willingness to explore the genuine spiritual riches of this reality, and the pope himself has prayerfully engaged in groups where it is practiced, Catholic teaching makes clear that it is not necessary for salvation, somehow evidence of greater holiness than in those who do not experience it, or an integral part of formalized liturgical prayer life for most believers. Images of fire and wind and breath remind us that the Spirit “blows where it will.” Sometimes this is in entirely unexpected places. Popes John XXIII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI all employed language of a “new Pentecost” when describing the Second Vatican Council. The spiritual common ground being sought both within the Catholic Church and across denominational boundaries reminded the participants (which all three popes were in various capacities) of that day when the Spirit enables the Apostles to proclaim anew what they had witnessed, experienced, touched with their hands and accepted in their hearts: the Author of Life, the Rock of Ages, the All-Consuming Fire, the Alpha and the Omega. The victorious Word of God spoken finally, definitively, and irrevocably to human hearers. …. Zephaniah ‘intertextual link between Babel and Pentecost’ “… Zephaniah's prophecy provides an indispensable link between the two texts of Genesis and Acts; simultaneously looking back into the seminal history of the covenant community and forward to the radical in-breaking of the Spirit at the harvest feast of Pentecost. Paul J. Pastor Marc Cortez has summarised the work and original insight of Paul Pastor in this review: http://marccortez.com/2011/04/01/zephaniah-as-the-link-between-babel-and-pentecost/ Zephaniah as the link between Babel and Pentecost Exegetes and theologians have long argued that Pentecost should be seen as a reversal of Babel – the scattering of the human race through the proliferation of languages healed through the unifying power of the outpoured Spirit. But, if these are two events are key bookends in redemptive history, doesn’t it seem odd that relatively little is said about this in the intervening narrative? Does the OT have any concept of Babel as a problem in need of resolution, or is this a brand new theme suddenly tossed into the mix at Acts 2? These are the questions that Paul Pastor raised in the paper he presented at the NW meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. Paul is an MA student at Western Seminary, and the paper was a summary of his MA thesis, “Echoes of ‘Pure Speech’: An Intertextual Reading of Gen. 11:1-9; Zeph. 3:8-20; and Acts 1-2.” Paul has graciously allowed me to upload the complete thesis here. The basic thrust of Paul’s argument is that Zephaniah 3:8-20 provides the intertextual link between Babel and Pentecost. As he summarizes: Pentecost as a reversal of Babel has been widely seen by exegetes since the early days of the Church. However, these two stories are by no means simple “bookends” with empty narrative space between them. Rather, it shall be shown that an extremely significant instance of textual connection comes from the often overlooked text of Zephaniah. It will be argued that the Babel narrative of Genesis 11:1-9 is accessed and developed by Zephaniah 3:8-20; and that that text in turn provides a guiding paradigm of Babel-reversal that is utilized by Luke in the Pentecost account of Acts 2. Seen in this way, Zephaniah’s prophecy provides an indispensable link between the two texts of Genesis and Acts; simultaneously looking back into the seminal history of the covenant community and forward to the radical in-breaking of the Spirit at the harvest feast of Pentecost. Intertextual “echoes” of themes and motifs will be traced at length through the three texts, noting linguistic parallel, narrative similarity, and intertextual dependence for the developing trans-biblical narrative. The thesis that follows is a fascinating example of intertextuality in biblical exegesis. After a brief summary of his intertextual method, Paul argues that the Babel narrative itself is “incomplete,” leaving the reader in suspense as the story never comes to satisfactory resolution. Paul then argues Genesis forms the clear backdrop for much of Zephaniah, setting the stage for identifying further intertextual connections between the two books. The heart of Paul’s argument comes in the third part of the thesis, where he identifies a number of textual connections between Gen. 11 and Zeph. 3. In my opinion, intertextual linkages like this always bear the burden of proof as they need to establish real textual connections rather than mere linguistic or thematic similarities. And, Paul does a remarkable job of identifying and defending the connections at work, though you’ll have to read the thesis for yourself to follow all the different lines of argument that he offers. Finally, Paul turns his attention to Acts 2, arguing that Acts 2 bears many of the same textual markers as the first two passages. Given the strong thematic and linguistic connections, Paul concludes that Luke intends for his readers to see Acts two as the conclusion of a narrative arc that begins in Gen. 11 and runs through Zeph. 3. And, to wrap everything up, Paul offers a few closing words on how a study like this can impact the life and praxis of faith communities: It is my sincere hope that this study may also impact the thinking and practice of our local churches and communities of faith. I believe that when scripture is seen with the literary intricacy and vitality that a study of this type highlights, it is compelling and powerful for those who cling to the scriptures as the word of God. The narrative excellence in view here, the thorough intentionality, and the development of a single coherent narrative across the span of centuries and as the product of three very different communities of faith should capture the attention and imagination of modern believers. Here are a few brief ideas for what the practical and responsive outworkings of this study could look like: Our thoughts about national and international unity should be profoundly influenced by the paradigm offered in these texts. True unity is only possible across ethnic, social, lingual bounds by the power of the Spirit and for the purpose of a shared service and worship of God. This study is a reminder that truly, “All scripture is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16, ESV). The Hebrew Bible is frequently under read by Christian readers, and the Latter Prophets even more so. This section of our Bibles is rich with powerful imagery, concept, and nuance, coloring our theology and worldview. It ought to be increasingly read. In addition to this, it ought to be increasingly taught and preached. Our pastors and teachers ought to carefully interact with this literature both for its compelling content, as well as the dramatic role that it plays in the over arching scriptural meta-narrative. …. Here is Paul Pastor’s Abstract: https://westernthm.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/echoes-of-pure-speech-paul-pastor.pdf Pentecost as a reversal of Babel has been widely seen by exegetes since the early days of the Church. However, these two stories are by no means simple “bookends” with empty narrative space between them. Rather, it shall be shown that an extremely significant instance of textual connection comes from the often overlooked text of Zephaniah. It will be argued that the Babel narrative of Genesis 11:1-9 is accessed and developed by Zephaniah 3:8-20; and that that text in turn provides a guiding paradigm of Babel-reversal that is utilized by Luke in the Pentecost account of Acts 2. Seen in this way, Zephaniah's prophecy provides an indispensable link between the two texts of Genesis and Acts; simultaneously looking back into the seminal history of the covenant community and forward to the radical in-breaking of the Spirit at the harvest feast of Pentecost. Intertextual “echoes” of themes and motifs will be traced at length through the three texts, noting linguistic parallel, narrative similarity, and intertextual dependence for the developing trans-biblical narrative. ….

Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought

by Damien F. Mackey The following samples are taken entirely from Nicolas Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell 1994. P. 67: “Like his Third Dynasty predecessors, Djoser and Nebka, Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king whom later Egyptian rulers such as Ammenemes I sought to emulate when they were attempting to legtimize their power”. P. 71: “… texts that describe the Fourth Dynasty kings …. It was … quite logical for the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom and later to link those past rulers represented primarily by their buildings with the greatest tendencies towards immoderation, thus distorting the real situation (Posener 1969a: 13). However, it is difficult to accommodate within this theory the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors”. P. 73 “A Twelfth Dynasty graffito found in the Wadi Hammamat includes Djedefhor and his half-brother Baefre in the succession of Cheops after Chephren”. P. 79 “The attribution of the Maxims to Ptahhotep does not necessarily mean that he was the actual author: the oldest versions date to the Middle Kingdom, and there is no proof that they were originally composed in the Old Kingdom, or, more specifically, at the end of the Fifth Dynasty. The question, moreover, is of no great importance”. Pp. 80-81 {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. Now, Pepi I and Chephren were married to an Ankhesenmerire/ Meresankh – I have taken Chephren to have been the foster father-in-law of Moses, with his wife Meresankh being Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, traditionally, Merris. Both Pepi I and Chephren had substantial reigns}. Grimal notes the likenesses: “[Teti’s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (‘He who pacifies the Two Lands’) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”. “Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. P. 84: “[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (‘The devotee of Ra’)”. P. 146: “The words of Khety III are in fact simply the transposal into the king’s mouth of the Old Kingdom Maxims”. P. 159: [Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”. P. 164: “[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”. P. 165: “There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”. P. 171: “Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”. P. 173: “… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”. P. 177: “… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty”. …. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s ‘co-regency’ with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”. P. 178: “The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”. Pp. 178-179: “[Ammenemes III’s ‘black pyramid’ and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”. “[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”. “The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”. P. 180: “The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”. P. 181: “A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …". Some Striking Visual Evidence Representations of various Old and Middle Kingdom pharaohs show that artistic styles with regard to them had barely changed in more than 600 years of conventional history. Take pharaoh Khufu (Gk: “Cheops”) as a perfect case of one in desperate need of an alter ego. Incredibly, as we read: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/khufu.htm “Although the Great pyramid has such fame, little is actually known about its builder, Khufu. Ironically, only a very small statue of 9 cm has been found depicting this historic ruler. This statue … was not found in Giza near the pyramid, but was found to the south at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos, the ancient necropolis”. Obviously there is something seriously missing here: namely a detailed historical record, and extensive monuments, concerning the reign of one of the mightiest pharaohs of Egypt! I have begun to fill out Khufu in various articles. After having confidently connected: (i) the 6th Dynasty founder, Teti, with (ii) the 12th Dynasty founder, Amenemhet I, as (iii) the “new king” of the babyhood of Moses, I hinted: “Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemes [Amenemhat] I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Khufu as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8”. Teti, who is found to have borne a most striking likeness to Khufu, is variously thought to have reigned for from 7 to 33 years. Though N. Grimal, in A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1994), thinks a figure such as the last is impossible, otherwise Teti would have celebrated a Heb-Sed Jubilee. Amenemhet I, however, Teti’s proposed alter ego, did reign long enough apparently to celebrate the Jubilee festival. http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=12367 “Inscriptions on the foundation blocks of Amenemhat I's mortuary Temple at Lisht show that the king had already celebrated his royal jubilee, and that year 1 of an unnamed king thought to be his successor Senwosret I had already elapsed”. First Twelfth Dynasty ‘Fold’ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …. it is right here and now that I want to suggest my first possible ‘folding’ for the 12th dynasty: Amenemhet I and II. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My suspicion is (and, yes, my revision does require a shortening of the 12th dynasty) that at least some of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemhet (I-IV), and at least some of the kings Sesostris (I-III), must be duplicates. The same would apply, I suggest, for the double 6th dynasty sequence of Pepi (I and II) and Merenre (I and II). And it is right here and now that I want to suggest my first possible ‘folding’ for the 12th dynasty: Amenemhet I and II. The latter may also be in need of some enfleshing because, despite his reign of about 33 years (including co-regency) (Grimal) - very close to the figure for Amenemhet I - he has fairly little to show for it in terms of building works, according to Phouka: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn12/03amenemhet2.html There is a good chance that Amenemhet II was already middle aged when he took the throne, so the estimate that he ruled for ten or so years is more likely than that 38 attributed to him by Manetho. Ten years also jives better with his lack of building. Amenemhet did very little building during his reign; not many temples bear his handiwork. [End of quote] Like Amenemhet I, Amenemhet II celebrated a Heb-Sed jubilee (see Dorman, Monuments of Senemut, Ch. 5, p. 133): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=I5QrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=amenemhet+II+heb+sed+jubilee&source=bl&ots=dDHlscAsgq&sig=0fBcmm28KNpP3V_ Though the titulary may vary, the mothers’ names at least were similar, Nofret (Nefret), for I, and Nefru for II. And Amenemhet II looks just like his other proposed alter egos:

Long-Range Biblical Expectations

The Lamb; the Angel’s Name; Healing of Blindness. by Damien F. Mackey --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certain questions or statements posed, but unanswered, in the Old Testament, such as Isaac’s: ‘But where is the lamb?’ (Genesis 22:7), or Jacob’s (to the angel): ‘Please tell me your name’ (32:29), may not actually be accounted for until much later, in the New Testament. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first one of these, ‘But where is the lamb?’, is well-known, and its perfect link-up with the New Testament has been explained by able commentators such as Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen. (i) ‘But where is the lamb?’ Deacon D. McManaman, for instance, gives this account of it in “Behold the Lamb of God” (http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/behold-the-lamb-of-god.): Sometimes students will ask: How is it that Christ dying on a cross forgives sins? What does it mean to say that Christ died for our sins? How does a death forgive sins? Over 2000 years before John the Baptist said those words, God revealed himself to Abraham and made a covenant with him. He promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation, that his descendents would be as numerous as the stars of the sky. When Sarah finally gave birth to Isaac, their first born son, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice the child as an offering to Him. Abraham obeyed, and set out for the land of Moriah: "Thereupon Abraham took the wood for the holocaust and laid it on his son Isaac's shoulders, while he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two walked on together, Isaac spoke to his father Abraham. "Father!" he said. "Yes, son," he replied. Isaac continued, "Here are the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for the holocaust?" "Son," Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the holocaust." The angel of the Lord stopped Abraham and revealed that God was pleased with his faith. Instead, a ram was sacrificed. But Abraham said to his son that God would provide the lamb for the holocaust. That promise had to be fulfilled. It was not fulfilled then. In this gospel, written 2000 years afterwards, John the Baptist calls attention to the fulfillment of that promise [John 1:29]: "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world". The sacrifice of Isaac would not have taken away the sins of the world, and neither would the sacrifice of the ram have done so. The entire scene of the sacrifice of Isaac foreshadows the sacrifice that is to come, and that future sacrifice would also be of a first born son, and he too would carry the wood for the sacrifice on his shoulders, as Isaac did, and the sacrifice will take place in the land of Moriah, on the Moriah mountain range, which is where Mount Calvary is located. Only the lamb of God could take away the sins of the world. [End of quote] A brief comment on Isaac This will have some degree of relevance for what will follow. We read far less about Isaac in the Book of Genesis than we do about his father Abraham, or about Isaac’s son, Jacob. I tried to locate Isaac in a real historical context in my: Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac (4) Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And I also read recently an interesting journal article according to which Isaac, but not Jacob, was a priest, and that it was through Isaac that Jacob’s son Levi had attained to the priesthood. Isaac’s son, Jacob, appears to have had many more children than had his father. We know from Genesis 27:1 that Isaac’s eyes became so weak when he was very old that he could no longer see. Now blindness will be the subject matter of our final consideration below, “(iii) Healing of Blindness”. (ii) ‘Please tell me your name’. The patriarch Jacob famously wrestled with an angel, or a man, or God (Genesis 32:24-25): So Jacob was left alone, and a man wrestled with him till daybreak. When the man saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob’s hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with the man. The Hebrew word here means “man” (אִישׁ֙). In the Book of Hoshea this person is variously called (12:4) “a god-like being” (אֶת-אֱלֹהִים), or (12:5) “an angel” (אֶל-מַלְאָךְ). The patriarch will baulk at letting go of the angel until the latter has blessed Jacob, who then insists upon knowing the angel’s name: 26 Then the man said, “Let me go, for it is daybreak.” But Jacob replied, “I will not let you go unless you bless me.” 27 The man asked him, “What is your name?” “Jacob,” he answered. 28 Then the man said, “Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with humans and have overcome.” 29 Jacob said, “Please tell me your name.” The angel appears to withhold his identity from Jacob, however: But he replied, “Why do you ask my name?” Then he blessed him there. 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” 31 The sun rose above him as he passed Peniel, and he was limping because of his hip. See also my article: Heb-Sed Festival Clues in Genesis (4) Heb-Sed Festival Clues in Genesis | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Samson’s father, Manoah, will similarly inquire of an angel, and with a like result (Judges 13): 17 Then Manoah inquired of the angel of the LORD, “What is your name, so that we may honor you when your word comes true?” 18 He replied, “Why do you ask my name? It is beyond understanding.” Answer in Tobit? I think that we have to wait until the New Testament (Catholic) Book of Tobit to learn the answer to Jacob’s (and Manoah’s?) query. Tobit, ageing and blind like Isaac - though Tobit had become blind due to an accident - and well aware of Isaac and Jacob (Tobit 4:12): ‘Remember that Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our earliest ancestors, all married relatives. God blessed them with children, and so their descendants will inherit the land of Israel’. would verbally wrestle with the angel Raphael prior to the latter’s accompanying Tobit’s son, Tobias, on a long journey (Tobit 5): 11 Tobit said to him, “Brother, which family and which tribe do you come from? Tell me, brother!” 12 The young man answered, “Why do you need to know about my tribe?” Tobit replied, “I would like to know in all honesty, brother, who your father is and what your name is.” This time the angel will yield to the request, but only to provide Tobit with a symbolic, not real, name: 13 Then he answered, “I’m Azariah, the great Hananiah’s son, one of your relatives.” 14 Tobit said to him, “May you come in health and safety, brother! Don’t be offended, brother, that I wanted to know the truth about your family. But you happen to be a relative, and you are from a good and honorable heritage. The Hebrew name, “Azariah” is nevertheless an appropriate description of the angel, as it means, “God (יה) helped (עָזַר, azar)”. He is son of “Hananiah” about which name we read (http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Ananias.html#.VfJclGcVg_w): “… it's probably a pretty safe bet to assume that Ananias is the same as Hananiah. And the name Hananiah consists of two part, the final end being יה (Yah), which is an abbreviated form of the Tetragrammaton יהוה, YHWH, or Yahweh. The first part of Hananiah comes from the verb חנן (hanan), meaning to be gracious”. Finally, only after the angel and Tobias have completed the journey, and the angel, thought to be Azariah, has cured Tobit of his blindness, will the angel will divulge “a king’s secret” (Tobit 12): 11 I have already told you that a king's secret ought to be kept, but the things God does should be told to everyone. Now I will reveal to you the full truth and keep nothing back. 12 Tobit, when you and Sarah prayed to the Lord, I was the one who brought your prayers into his glorious presence. I did the same thing each time you buried the dead. 13 On the day you got up from the table without eating your meal in order to bury that corpse, God sent me to test you. 14 But he also sent me to cure you and to rescue your daughter-in-law, Sarah, from her troubles. The angel’s real name is “Raphael”: 15 I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand in the glorious presence of the Lord, ready to serve him. 16 Tobit and Tobias were terrified and fell to the ground, trembling with fear. 17 But Raphael said to them, Don't be afraid; everything is all right. Always remember to praise God. 18 He wanted me to come and help you; I did not come on my own. So sing God's praises as long as you live. 19 When you thought you saw me eating, I did not really eat anything; it only seemed so. 20 While you are on this earth, you must praise the Lord God and give him thanks. Now I must go back to him who sent me. Write down everything that has happened to you. 21 Then Raphael disappeared into the sky. Tobit and Tobias stood up, but they could no longer see him. 22 They began to sing hymns of praise, giving thanks for all the mighty deeds God had done while his angel Raphael had been with them. And I wonder if that, ‘I AM RAPHAEL’, might also be, finally, the answer to Jacob’s insistent, ‘Please tell me your name’. One might also like to read my related article: A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit Tobit, a new Isaac perhaps, certainly has various likenesses to the patriarch, including a lamb (kid or sheep) motif (2:19-23; 7:9); steadfastness and righteousness; an intervention by an angel of the Lord (Genesis 22:11-12); and the aforementioned blindness. And Greek drama may, in turn, have picked up on the blind holy man, Tobit, and ‘re-issued’ him as the blind seer, Teiresias. For, as I wrote in: Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit …. some readers have found in Tobit similarities to still other pagan themes, such as the legend of Admetus. …. More convincing, I believe, however, are points of contact with classical Greek theater. Martin Luther observed similarities between Tobit and Greek comedy … but one is even more impressed by resemblances that the Book of Tobit bears to a work of Greek tragedy — the Antigone of Sophocles. In both stories the moral stature of the heroes is chiefly exemplified in their bravely burying the dead in the face of official prohibition and at the risk of official punishment. In both cases a venerable moral tradition is maintained against a political tyranny destructive of piety. That same Greek drama, moreover, provides a further parallel to the blindness of Tobit in the character of blind Teiresias, himself also a man of an inner moral vision important to the theme of the play. …. [End of quote] (iii) Healing of blindness. Tobit, as we found, was temporarily afflicted with blindness, and later cured by the angel Raphael in his guise of “Azariah”. And blindness will be the temporary fate also of Saul (later Paul), famously converted on the way to Damascus (Acts 9). 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” 5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked. “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.” 7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything. I think that we may again be meant to make a connection with the Book of Tobit, for just as Saul will be cured of his blindness by one Ananias (Acts 9): 10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!” “Yes, Lord,” he answered. 11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.” 13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.” 15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.” 17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. so - as we have read - was Tobit himself cured by one who had claimed to be a son of Ananias (or Hananiah). See also my article: Luke may be Paul’s healer, Ananias of Damascus (4) Luke may be Paul’s healer, Ananias of Damascus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Joseph of the Old Testament in many ways preparing for Joseph of the New Testament

“St. John Paul II commented on how many events and figures of the Old Testament found their fulfillment in the New Testament in his encyclical Redemptoris Custos”. Philip Kosloski Pope John Paul II wrote (1989): …. The Flight into Egypt 14. After the presentation in the Temple the Evangelist Luke notes: "And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him" (Lk 2:39-40). But according to Matthew's text, a very important event took place before the return to Galilee, an event in which divine providence once again had recourse to Joseph. We read: "Now when [the magi] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, 'Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him'" (Mt 2:13). Herod learned from the magi who came from the East about the birth of the "king of the Jews" (Mt 2:2). And when the magi departed, he "sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under" (Mt 2:16). By killing them all, he wished to kill the new-born "king of the Jews" whom he had heard about. And so, Joseph, having been warned in a dream, "took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, 'Out of Egypt have I called my son' " (Mt 2:14-15; cf. Hos 11:1). And so Jesus' way back to Nazareth from Bethlehem passed through Egypt. Just as Israel had followed the path of the exodus "from the condition of slavery" in order to begin the Old Covenant, so Joseph, guardian and cooperator in the providential mystery of God, even in exile watched over the one who brings about the New Covenant. …. From Aleteia (2022): https://aleteia.org/2022/03/19/similarities-between-the-two-josephs-in-the-bible/ Similarities between the two Josephs in the Bible Renata Sedmakova | Shutterstock Philip Kosloski - published on 03/19/22 Joseph in the Old Testament shares many similar traits and events with St. Joseph in the Gospels. St. Joseph is sometimes called the “New Joseph,” referring to the similarities he shares with the “Old Joseph” featured in the Bible’s Book of Genesis. St. Bernard of Clairvaux shared his thoughts on the two Josephs in one of his homilies. What are we to think of the dignity of Joseph, who deserved to be called and to be regarded as the father of our Savior? We may draw a parallel between him and the great Patriarch. As the first Joseph was by the envy of his brothers sold and sent into Egypt, the second Joseph fled into Egypt with Christ to escape the envy of Herod. The chaste Patriarch remained faithful to his master, despite the evil suggestions of his mistress. St. Joseph, recognizing in his wife the Virgin Mother of his Lord, guarded her with the utmost fidelity and chastity. To the Joseph of old was given interpretation of dreams, to the new Joseph a share in the heavenly secrets. His predecessor kept a store of corn, not for himself, but for the whole nation; our Joseph received the Living Bread from heaven, that he might preserve it for his own salvation and that of all the world. St. John Paul II commented on how many events and figures of the Old Testament found their fulfillment in the New Testament in his encyclical Redemptoris Custos. The oft-repeated formula, “This happened, so that there might be fulfilled,” in reference to a particular event in the Old Testament, serves to emphasize the unity and continuity of the plan that is fulfilled in Christ. With the Incarnation, the “promises” and “figures” of the Old Testament become “reality.” The Joseph of the Old Testament was in many ways preparing the way for the Joseph of the New Testament, both participating in God’s divine plan. They both had their role to play in salvation history, echoing each other’s lives in many ways. The following taken from: https://millhillmissionaries.com/year-of-st-joseph-the-two-josephs/ Year of St Joseph: The Two Josephs March 2021 By Rev. Francis J. Peffley What’s in a name? Do people with the same name sometimes have much in common? We can look at two famous men in the Bible, both named Joseph, and see their similarities. Joseph of the Old Testament is the first Joseph. The Church refers to him as a type, or foreshadowing, of Christ. But many saints hold that the first Joseph is also a prefigurement for St. Joseph. Let us consider ten parallels between Joseph of the Old Testament and St. Joseph. First, both of them had a father named Jacob. Remember the biblical references to the great patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Jacob’s son was Joseph. Matthew’s gospel, which traces the family tree of Jesus, says that Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Christ was bom. The second parallel is that both of them were royalty. The first Joseph was a patriarch, following the great line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He was the last and perhaps the greatest of the Old Testament patriarchs. St. Joseph also was royalty since he was a descendant of King David. Some Scripture scholars speculate that if Rome had not occupied Palestine at the time, and if the Davidic line was still intact, St. Joseph would have been eligible for the throne. The third parallel between the first Joseph and St. Joseph is that both of them suffered and put up with the difficulties of their daily life without complaint. The first Joseph was minding his own business going out into the fields to see his brothers, and they plotted to kill him. They seized him, stripped him and threw him into a well. Then, when they saw a caravan of gypsies going to Egypt, they sold him into slavery. Joseph could have said, “Lord, here I am; a good man. Why are you allowing this suffering in my life?” Isn’t that what we say at times? When we have difficult times in our life, we often ask “God, why me? What have I done wrong?” But, sometimes God allows us to go through suffering and pain for a greater good, just as he did with Joseph in Egypt. Because Joseph was able to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams, Pharaoh made him lord and ruler over his house. Joseph, formerly a shepherd boy, was now one of the most important men in Egypt. St. Joseph had to go through many sufferings as well. Mary was well along in her pregnancy when, as members of the House of David, they had to journey to Bethlehem to take part in the census ordered by the Roman rulers. That involved a difficult journey of perhaps 85 miles on a donkey with no advance lodging reservations. But Joseph obeyed the law. He went and could find no lodging since Bethlehem was packed with other visitors who came for the same purpose. He kept knocking at the doors, but found no room. Think what was going through Joseph’s mind. He was the husband, the provider, and knew that Mary’s child was of divine origin. Finally, they found a cave in the countryside where the shepherds tended their sheep, and Jesus was bom in a place where animals were sheltered. The King of heaven and earth was laid in a manger – a trough where the animals ate. Think of the suffering, the difficult time that Joseph went through. But, looking at it, good came from even that trying experience. For example, the prophecy that the Messiah was to be bom in Bethlehem was fulfilled. It was not the prophecy that the Messiah was to be born in Nazareth. Additionally, the Holy Family had more privacy in the cave than they would have had in the crowded inn. A secondary benefit is that now we can sing songs like “Away in a Manger” rather than “Away in a Marriott.” The fourth similarity between Joseph and St. Joseph is that both left their homes and went to Egypt. Joseph was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt. St. Joseph fled to Egypt with his family to escape Herod’s wrath. The ability to understand dreams is their fifth similarity. In the Old Testament, Joseph gained fame for this ability. While still in prison, he was able to interpret the dreams of the baker and the cupbearer of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh had a strange dream of 7 fat cows being devoured by 7 skinny cows, he couldn’t understand it. Pharaoh also had the dream of the stalk, which had seven healthy ears of corn. Suddenly there was a stalk with 7 withered ears of corn, which swallowed the healthy stalk. Pharaoh couldn’t understand these dreams, so he called his magicians but they could not interpret the dreams. Pharaoh had heard of Joseph’s ability, so he sent for him and asked him to interpret these dreams. Joseph gave Pharaoh the interpretation – that God was going to bless Egypt with 7 years of plenty, but after that would come 7 years of terrible famine. Because of this insight into the future, Pharaoh picked Joseph to be the manager of his house and ruler over all his possessions. St. Joseph also understood the meaning of his dreams. The New Testament relates four dreams, which St. Joseph understood and unhesitatingly acted upon. The first was when he had doubts about whether to take Mary as his wife. The angel said “Fear not, Joseph, to accept Mary as your wife. It is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived this Child.” Joseph recognized the guidance in the dream as coming from God and followed the angel’s bidding. Likewise, he recognized the urgency of the message conveyed in the second dream – “flee into Egypt. Herod is trying to kill the Child.” In the third dream, Joseph understood that it was safe to return to Palestine since Herod was dead. Lastly, in the fourth dream, Joseph accepted the angel’s advice to return to Nazareth because Herod’s son had become king. St. Joseph’s ability to recognize the divine guidance sent to him in dreams literally saved the Holy Family on several occasions. The sixth parallel is that of being the ruler of the king’s house and possessions. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, made Joseph ruler and lord over all his possessions in Egypt. St. Joseph, as head of the Holy Family, was ruler over the King of the Universe’s home in Nazareth. Jesus, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, chose Joseph to be the head of the Holy Family, to be the lord, master and ruler over the house. The seventh similarity between the Joseph of the Old and Joseph of the New Testament is their purity and chastity. Remember what happened to Joseph. Joseph was a very strong man, a very handsome man, and Potiphar’s wife fell in love with him and tried to seduce him. Day after day she would ask him and try to lead him into having an adulterous affair, but Joseph steadfastly refused. Eventually, she lied and told Potiphar, “Look what this Hebrew tried to do to me.” Potiphar put Joseph into prison, where he stayed for two years. In the New Testament, St. Joseph is the virginal husband of Mary. St. Joseph, the most pure and chaste man that God ever created, married the Blessed Mother. They lived a virginal life their entire marriage. The beautiful virtues of purity and chastity are thus exemplified in both Joseph of the Old and St. Joseph of the New. The eighth parallel is that they both experienced poverty. Joseph of the Old Testament had everything material taken from him – his brothers stole his inheritance, he was sold into slavery and owned nothing, and he was unjustly imprisoned for a few years. St. Joseph knew poverty as well. We are told in the gospels that he was a carpenter, a member of the working class. When he uprooted his family and went to Bethlehem and then to Egypt, he probably took his tools with him so he could continue earning a living, but that is about all he had in terms of material goods. We also know that the Holy Family was poor because at the Presentation they gave two turtle doves, the offering of the poor. Both Josephs were responsible for feeding the entire world, which is their ninth similarity. Because of Joseph’s advice, Egypt was the only country in the world that had grain during the famine. The other nations came to Egypt to buy their grain. Thanks to Joseph, the peoples of the world had food, and Pharaoh became even richer and more powerful. How does that relate to St. Joseph? St. Joseph was the nurturer and the one who fed Jesus. He practiced his trade and earned the money to buy the food, which fed Jesus. St. Joseph, as head of the Holy Family, taught Jesus a trade and provided his initial religious instruction. He helped Jesus grow to manhood and become for us the Eucharist, feeding us with his own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Thus, indirectly Joseph has fed the entire world with the Bread of Life. Lastly, we can go to both Josephs in times of need. The people of Egypt and the other nations went to Joseph for the grain they needed during the great famine. During this time of suffering there was a saying, “Go to Joseph for what you need.” Because Joseph had such tremendous influence with the Pharaoh, many peoples’ petitions were answered. We priests, religious and lay people can go to St. Joseph in our time of need. Whatever difficulties and sufferings we have, we go to Joseph because he has great influence with his Son, the King of the Universe. Jesus, good Son that he is, still follows the precepts of the Fourth Commandment and, so long as it is in accord with the will of the Father, does as his mother and foster father ask. These, then, are ten similarities between Joseph of the Old Testament and St. Joseph, two of the greatest figures in the Bible. Let us now recognize how they have experienced many of the same trials and sorrows we face, and let us follow their example of steadfast love and service of God. They stand ready and able to help us, if we but “go to Joseph.”

Patriarch Joseph unlikely to have come to power under Hyksos king

by Damien F. Mackey “Joseph shaved when going to see Pharaoh, hinting at a native Egyptian administration. Asiatics usually wore beards, Egyptians typically were clean-shaven”. Jon Gleason Genesis 41:14: “So Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was quickly brought from the dungeon. When he had shaved and changed his clothes, he came before Pharaoh”. According to Nahum M. Sarna, though, Joseph was likely contemporaneous with the Hyksos rule of Egypt: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/12/research-and-perspectives/who-was-the-pharaoh-who-knew-not-joseph?lang=eng Who Was the Pharaoh Who “Knew Not Joseph”? By Nahum M. Sarna The biblical account of Goshen, slavery, brickmaking, and midwives matches well with current knowledge about Egypt, according to a modern scholar. Israel sojourned 430 years in Egypt. Recent archaeological discoveries and increasing knowledge about languages and cultures have helped us understand that sojourn as never before. …. The biblical account accurately portrays two ancient civilizations, which were at first allies, then bitter enemies. It takes us from Joseph, who rose to power under the Egyptian dynasty known as the Hyksos, up to dire bondage two dynasties later under the Pharaoh Ramses II. …. The Hyksos were Asiatics who ruled Egypt for about a century and a half. …. The name itself means “Rulers of Foreign Lands.” The Hyksos were a conglomeration of ethnic groups who infiltrated Egypt over a long period in ever-increasing numbers, probably coming from Canaan. By about 1720 B.C.., they controlled the Eastern Delta of the Nile and had established their capital at Avaris. …. By about 1674 B.C., a Hyksos king with the Semitic name Salitis occupied Memphis, the ancient capital of Egypt. The Hyksos constituted the XVth and XVIth Dynasties, adopting the style and bureaucratic institutions of the traditional pharaohs. Gradually, Semites replaced Egyptians in high administrative offices. The rise of Joseph to power and the migration of the Hebrews fits in well with what is known of the era of Hyksos rule. …. [End of quote] The only thing that can be said in favour of the Hyksos being rulers at the time of the Patriarchs, Jacob and Joseph, is that their conventional dating - which we now know, in fact, to be hopelessly wrong - fits relatively well with the standard biblical dates. Jon Gleason gives some reasons why Hyksos was not the historical period for Joseph (2012): A King Who Knew Not Joseph | Mind Renewers … many scholars put Joseph in the Hyksos period so we’ll take a few minutes on it. …. One reason cited is dating. Some think Galatians 3:17 puts Abraham in the time of Senusret III, and thus they put Joseph in the time of the Hyksos. This is not the only way to understand Galatians 3:17, so alone it is not conclusive. Another reason sometimes given is the idea that a foreign Pharaoh was more likely to promote a Hebrew than a native Egyptian would be. I give this little credence — the record of Genesis 41 provides enough explanation for his promotion, even if one forgets the sovereign working of God (and one should never forget that). Joseph doesn’t fit in the Hyksos period very well:  Joseph shaved when going to see Pharaoh, hinting at a native Egyptian administration. Asiatics usually wore beards, Egyptians typically were clean-shaven.  Joseph was placed “over all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:41, 43). The Hyksos only ruled the northern part of Egypt.  Joseph’s wife was a daughter of a sun-priest (Genesis 41:45) — a great honour under a native Egyptian, less so to a Hyksos.  Egypt’s rulers held Hebrews in abomination (Genesis 43:32). The Hyksos would likely have seen Hebrews (from the same region) as potential allies, not abominable enemies.  They also hated shepherds (Genesis 46:34, etc.). Though the Hyksos may or may not have been “Shepherd Kings,” there is no evidence they hated shepherds, and it makes little sense given their background.  Genesis 47:18-20 doesn’t make sense if the Egyptians were slaves under the Hyksos. While the identity of Joseph’s Pharaoh can’t be certain, if one takes the clues in the Biblical record seriously it is hard to see how Joseph fits in the reign of the Hyksos. “More and Mightier than We” Exodus 1:8-10 8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. 9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: 10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Verse eight hints at more than the normal succession of father to son — a change of dynasty, perhaps, to one with no appreciation for Joseph and his service to Egypt. There were many dynasty changes in Egyptian history — but in many cases, appreciation for past service would continue. That would not be the case if the new king was a foreigner, especially if he came to power through an invasion. .… [End of quotes] The era of Moses was the pyramid building era of the Fourth Dynasty (Old Kingdom), which must be aligned with the similarly mighty Twelfth Dynasty (Middle Kingdom). And this may have been a new, foreign (even Hyksos) dynasty. Pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’, thought by many to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression based on Genesis 1:11, “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh” - clearly a later editorial addition - belongs to a much later era. See e.g. my article: The Complete Ramses II (6) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Joseph and Daniel parallels

by Damien F. Mackey “Both kings accept the respective interpretations of Joseph and Daniel and recognize that God has revealed things to the young men”. Christ the King Church Taken from: http://www.christthekingkirk.org/blog/2020/8/25/comparing-daniel-and-joseph August 25, 2020 Comparing Daniel and Joseph One of the fascinating things about the Book of Daniel is how the life of Daniel mirrors that of Joseph in the Book of Genesis. There are three main parallels. Firstly, both were exiled from home at a young age. Genesis 37 tells the story of how Joseph was sold as a slave by his brothers and taken to Egypt. He seems to have been 17 when this happened (Genesis 37:2). Likewise, it appears that Daniel was a teenager when he was taken into exile in Babylon (Daniel 1:3-6). Secondly, they both have the ability to interpret dreams. In both cases, this comes to the fore when they are able to interpret the king's dream when the other experts fail. Joseph interprets Pharaoh's dream of the fat and skinny cows (Genesis 41) when the magicians of Egypt could not: So in the morning Pharaoh's spirit was troubled, and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt and all its wise men. Pharaoh told them his dreams, but there was none who could interpret them to Pharaoh. (Genesis 41:8) This perfectly mirrors the story of Daniel 2:1-11, where the magicians of Babylon are not able to interpret Nebuchadnezzar's dream. Both dreams contain a revelation of the future which God gives to the king. Joseph says “God has revealed to Pharaoh what he is about to do” (Genesis 41:25), while Daniel says: There is a God in heaven who reveals mysteries, and he has made known to King Nebuchadnezzar what will be in the latter days. (Daniel 2:28). In this way, both Joseph and Daniel downplay their own abilities and give God the credit. Thirdly, both Joseph and Daniel are promoted to a position of political power. Both kings accept the respective interpretations of Joseph and Daniel and recognize that God has revealed things to the young men: And Pharaoh said to his servants, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the spirit of the gods? Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Since God has shown you all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater than you”. (Genesis 41:38-40) Nebuchadnezzar responds in a similar way: Then King Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and paid homage to Daniel, and commanded that an offering and incense be offered up to him. The king answered and said to Daniel, “Truly, your God is God of gods and Lord of kings, and a revealer of mysteries, for you have been able to reveal this mystery.” Then the king gave Daniel high honors and many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over all the wise men of Babylon. (Daniel 2:46-48) Later on, in Daniel 4:8, Nebuchadnezzar also acknowledges that “the spirit of the holy gods” is in Daniel. There are a number other parallels, but with these the order varies. Both Joseph and Daniel are given new names, but Daniel is named Belteshazzar on his arrival in Babylon (Daniel 1:7), while Joseph is named Zaphenath-paneah after his promotion (Genesis 41:45). Both Joseph and Daniel have their own dreams, but Joseph's dream of wheat sheaves and stars comes when he is still in Canaan (Genesis 37:1-11), while Daniel's dreams come when he is an old man, starting in the first year of Belshazzar (Daniel 7:1). Finally, the Bible teaches us similar lessons in the stories of both men. Both focus on God's sovereignty in using these men to preserve his people during their time of exile. At the end of Joseph's story, he gives his brothers his view of their selling him into slavery: As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:20) This is not made as explicit in the Book of Daniel, but Daniel 1:21 says that Daniel “was there until the first year of King Cyrus” – that is, when the decree went out that the temple should be rebuilt (Ezra 1:1-3). In this way, Daniel himself ushers in the return from exile. The theme of God's care for his people comes to the fore in the second half of the Book of Daniel: But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever, forever and ever. (Daniel 7:18) Thus, there are historical parallels between the lives of Joseph and Daniel, but there are also literary parallels between the accounts: the author of the Book of Daniel is writing it in such a way as to make us think about Joseph. Joseph and Tamar comparisons The Tamar intended here is “the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David” (2 Samuel 13:1), not the Tamar of Genesis 38:11, the daughter-in-law of Judah. A parent’s favourite, given a special cloak, sold out by brothers, mocked, sexually harrassed, emerging from the desert on a spices-laden camel train, imprisoned, though much admired, capable of good management, ruling in Egypt as second only to Pharaoh. These are just some of the similarities that Tamar at the time of King David shared with Joseph. This comment presupposes my previous multi-identifications of Tamar as: “Conclusion 2: Abishag, of uncertain name, the same as Tamar (her given Hebrew name), hailing from Shunem, was hence “the Shunammite” of King Solomon’s Song of Songs. Ethnically, she may have been Egypto-Canaanite, which thought will lead to the consideration … that she was also Velikovsky’s Hatshepsut = “Queen of Sheba”.” Some of the Comparisons Joseph, beloved of his father (Genesis 37:3): “Now Israel [Jacob] loved Joseph more than any of his other sons …”, was hated by his brothers (v. 4): “When his brothers saw that their father loved him more than any of them, they hated him and could not speak a kind word to him”. The “Shunammite” was (Song of Solomon 6:9): “… the favourite of her mother, perfect to the one who gave her birth”, but mis-treated by her brothers (1:6): “My mother’s sons [brothers] were angry with me and made me take care of the vineyards”. Joseph’s father “made an ornate robe for him” (Genesis 37:3). Tamar “was wearing an ornate robe, for this was the kind of garment the virgin daughters of the king wore” (2 Samuel 13:18). The exact same Hebrew words to describe “ornate robe”, or “coat of many colours”, are used in the case of Joseph and of Tamar, ketonet passim (כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים). Jacob sent Joseph to his brothers (Genesis 37:13): ‘As you know, your brothers are grazing the flocks near Shechem. Come, I am going to send you to them’. ‘Very well’, he replied. David sent Tamar to her ‘brother’, Amnon (2 Samuel 13:7, 8): “David sent word to Tamar at the palace: ‘Go to the house of your brother Amnon and prepare some food for him’. So Tamar went …”. From “Hebron ….” (Genesis 37:14). Six of Tamar’s ‘brothers’ were born to David at “Hebron” (I Chronicles 3:1-4). Joseph asks a man at Shechem (Genesis 37:16): ‘I’m looking for my brothers. Can you tell me where they are grazing their flocks?’ Similarly the Shunammite asks her beloved (Song of Solomon 1:7): ‘Tell me, you whom I love, where you graze your flock and where you rest your sheep at midday’. Joseph’s brothers “plotted to kill him” (Genesis 37:18). Tamar was a pawn in a conspiratorial plot by Absalom and his adviser to kill Amnon. “So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe—the ornate robe he was wearing” (Genesis 37:23). “Tamar … tore the ornate robe she was wearing” (2 Samuel 13:19). Joseph’s brothers “looked up and saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead” (Genesis 37:25). Were they “flock of goats”-like? (Song of Solomon 4:1): ‘Your hair is like a flock of goats descending from the hills of Gilead”. “Their camels were loaded with spices, balm and myrrh, and they were on their way to take them down to Egypt” (Genesis 37:25). (I Kings 10:1, 2): “… the Queen of Sheba … came … to … Jerusalem with a very great caravan—with camels carrying spices …”. “Judah said to his brothers, ‘… after all, he is our brother’.” (2 Genesis 37:26, 27). “Her brother Absalom said to [Tamar], ‘…. Be quiet for now, my sister; he is your brother’.” (2 Samuel 13:20). “… his brothers pulled Joseph up out of the cistern and sold him for twenty shekels of silver” (Genesis 37:28). “Solomon had a vineyard in Baal Hamon; he let out his vineyard to tenants. Each was to bring for its fruit a thousand shekels of silver” (Song of Solomon 8:11). “… the Ishmaelites … took [Joseph] to Egypt” (Genesis 37:28). ‘I liken you, my darling, to a mare among Pharaoh’s chariot horses’ (Song of Solomon 1:9). “Reuben returned to the cistern and saw that Joseph was not there, he tore his clothes. He went back to his brothers and said, ‘…. Where can I turn now?’ (Genesis 37:29, 30). ‘What about me? Where could I get rid of my disgrace? And what about you? You would be like one of the wicked fools in Israel’ (2 Samuel 13:13). “Then Jacob tore his clothes, put on sackcloth and mourned for his son many days. All his sons and daughters came to comfort him …” (Genesis 37:34-35). “The king stood up, tore his clothes and lay down on the ground; and all his attendants stood by with their clothes torn” (2 Samuel 13:31). Given the above similarities, it would be no accident that the narrative concerning Joseph is suddenly interrupted by Genesis 38, the account of Judah and another “Tamar” who is treated with some disrespect by Joseph’s brother, Judah. “Joseph found favour in his eyes and became his personal attendant. Potiphar put him in charge of his household, and he entrusted to his care everything he owned” (Genesis 39:4). “Abishag … took care of the king and waited on him …” (I Kings 1:4). “And Achitophel said to Absalom. ‘Go in unto thy father’s concubines, which he hath left to keep the palace …’ (2 Samuel 16:21). “Now Joseph was well-built and handsome …” (Genesis 39:6). “… Tamar, the beautiful sister of Absalom son of David” (2 Samuel 13:1). “… they searched throughout Israel for a beautiful young woman and found Abishag, a Shunammite” (I Kings 1:3). ‘O thou fairest among women …’ (Song of Solomon 1:8). “… Hatshepsut still described herself as a beautiful woman, often as the most beautiful of women …” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut). “… after a while his master’s wife took notice of Joseph and said, ‘Come to bed with me!’” (Genesis 39:7). “In the course of time, Amnon … grabbed her and said, ‘Come to bed with me’ …” (2 Samuel 13:1, 11). {So Judah with the other Tamar ‘Come now, let me sleep with you’ (Genesis 38:16), before his having to concede: ‘She is more righteous than I …’ (v. 26) – something Amnon would fail to do in the case of the other Tamar}. “But he refused. ‘…. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?’” (Genesis 39:8, 9). ‘No, my brother!’ she said to him. ‘Don’t force me! Such a thing should not be done in Israel! Don’t do this wicked thing’ (2 Samuel 13:12). When he heard me scream for help, he left his cloak beside me and ran out of the house’ (Genesis 39:15). “Tamar put ashes on her head and tore the ornate robe she was wearing. She put her hands on her head and went away, weeping aloud as she went” (2 Samuel 13:19). “When his master heard the story his wife told him … he was furious” (Genesis 39:19). “When King David heard all this, he was furious” (2 Samuel 13:21). “Joseph’s master took him and put him in prison, the place where the king’s prisoners were confined’ (Genesis 39:20). “[Amnon] called his personal servant and said, ‘Get this woman out of my sight and bolt the door after her’.” (Genesis 39:17). “And Tamar lived in her brother Absalom’s house, a desolate woman” (39:20). “When two full years had passed …” (Genesis 41:1). “Two years later …” (2 Samuel 13:23).

Joseph anticipatingly gave the famine-starved Egyptians a taste of their own future Oppression

by Damien F. Mackey “As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then the LORD said to him, ‘Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions’.” Genesis 15:12-14 King Solomon referred to Joseph, “the upright man”, and his falling/rising in Egypt, in Wisdom 10:13-14: She [Wisdom] did not forsake the upright man when he was sold, but snatched him away from sin; she accompanied him down into the pit, nor did she abandon him in his chains until she had brought him the sceptre of a kingdom and authority over his despotic masters, thus exposing as liars those who had traduced him, and giving him honour everlasting. The wise King of Israel also excoriates Egypt for what he considered to have been its base ingratitude towards the Hebrews (15:14; 19:13-22): But most foolish, more pitiable even than the soul of a little child, are the enemies who once played the tyrant with your people, …. On the sinners, however, punishments rained down not without violent thunder as early warning; and they suffered what their own crimes had justly deserved since they had shown such bitter hatred to foreigners. Others, indeed, had failed to welcome strangers who came to them, but the Egyptians had enslaved their own guests and benefactors. The sinners, moreover, will certainly be punished for it, since they gave the foreigners a hostile welcome; but the latter, having given a festive reception to people who already shared the same rights as themselves, later overwhelmed them with terrible labours. Hence they were struck with blindness, like the sinners at the gate of the upright, when, yawning darkness all around them, each had to grope his way through his own door. A new attuning of the elements occurred, as on a harp the notes may change their rhythm, though all the while preserving the same tone; and this is just what happened: land animals became aquatic, swimming ones took to the land, fire reinforced its strength in water, and water forgot the power of extinguishing it; flames, on the other hand, did not char the flesh of delicate animals that ventured into them; nor did they melt the heavenly food resembling ice and as easily melted. Yes, Lord, in every way you have made your people great and glorious; you have never failed to help them at any time or place. The following article by David Porush offers an interesting view of Joseph’s severity. Taken from: https://davidporush.com/2022/12/29/why-is-joseph-so-cruel-to-the-egyptians/ Why Was Joseph So Cruel to the Egyptians? Posted on December 29, 2022 by David Porush Joseph has prophetic gifts and uses them to preserve Egypt. But he radically transforms his host nation. The average Egyptian, we are told, was grateful to be saved from starvation. But today, we would see Joseph as a tyrant. He interprets Pharoah’s dreams to foresee seven years of plenty will be followed by seven years of famine. He advises Pharaoh to make all Egyptians give him part of their crops during the years of plenty. When the famine strikes, Joseph wields his power with uncompromising ruthlessness. When they run out of food, Joseph sells their own food back to them from Pharaoh’s storehouses that they stocked. When they run out of money, they sell him their livestock. When they run out of livestock they sell him their land. Finally, the only thing they have left to sell is their own their bodies and their labor, and they agree to indentured servitude to Pharaoh. Pharaoh already has supreme authority, but now Joseph has used the famine crisis to consolidate everything into Pharaoh’s grasp. It’s an amazing saga and the first in human history of the orderly transition from what was an open agrarian society of landowners under a monarchy to totalitarian rule by an absolutist, an autocrat. All Egyptian citizens – except priests who already serve Pharaoh as god-king – lose not only all their possessions, but the most precious thing, their freedom. They no longer own themselves. What follows is one of the most disturbing scenes of all, another turn of Joseph’s screw: Joseph now forcibly re-locates whole Egyptian towns to new ones, playing a cruel game of mixmaster with them for reasons that seem gratuitous and harsh. So Joseph gained possession of all the farmland of Egypt for Pharaoh. Every Egyptian sold his field because the famine was too much for them, so the land passed over to Pharaoh. And he [Joseph] removed the population town by town, from one end of Egypt’s border to the other. (Gen 47:20-21) We might say Joseph uprooted the Egyptians for strategic reasons. …. His measures saved Egypt from starvation, but the result is effectively enslavement of the entire populace. We could say he was averting a revolution against Pharaoh but he created a totalitarian regime. Everyone has a visceral attachment to his or her own land and home and local culture. When they made the deal, the Egyptians did so willingly. They were starving and even declared their gratitude to Pharaoh for saving their lives so they might live until the Nile flooded again and they might prosper and maybe even buy their old land back. But how long before the formerly free landowners and farmers chafe against their servitude to Pharaoh? Joseph wanted to make sure they were completely detached, dislocated, disunited. …. Ibn Ezra, a 12th century Spanish commentator even says Joseph was staging a notorious tactic – it was used used by Mao in China’s Cultural Revolution of the 20th century – to move urbanites from the major cities to farms, “from the capital to villages so that they would till the soil” as Ibn Ezra says. In both instances, it still seems cruel. Americans old enough will remember Depression-era dislocation in the Oklahoma Dust Bowl and in towns across the country when banks repossessed mortgages. Think of movies like the Grapes of Wrath or It’s a Wonderful Life. In The Plot Against America (2004), Philip Roth imagines an alternate history in which Charles Lindbergh, a Nazi, becomes president in 1940. In league with Hitler, he implements a much subtler plan to destroy the Jews than burning them wholesale. He separates individuals from their families in Jewish enclaves like Newark and re-settles them in places like rural Kentucky. It’s a form of cultural and psychic extermination. It’s also what nations do to each other. A bully country invades and if they haven’t slaughtered the natives, make them slaves or force them into exile. Some natives escape and take to the hills to fight a heroic guerrilla war. Every nation has this story. It is the story of the American Revolution against the British. It’s the story of the Americans and their cruelty to both African slaves and Native Americans. And long before white men slaughtered and herded them onto reservations, Native Americans did this to each other. In the 19th and 20th centuries we celebrated British rule over an empire of brown-skinned peoples as a victory of civilization. Now, we treat their subjugation of indigenous people as a paradigm of imperialist crimes, including colonialism and racism. …. Why shouldn’t we be outraged by Joseph rule in Egypt? Naturally, we root for the underdogs, the scrappy, poor natives fighting against wealthy cruel rulers with overwhelmingly larger, better-equipped armies. Why shouldn’t we be outraged by what Joseph did in Egypt? How could we possibly redeem Joseph from these accusations of cruelty and violence? What justification could he have had? Goshen was the most fertile region in Egypt and closest to Sinai and Canaan. Let’s dismiss the fact that we’re being cultural narcissists and judging history anachronistically by our overly-refined standards today, like accusing Shakespeare of being a male chauvinist. We could simply say Joseph was getting revenge for what he saw the Egyptians were going to do to his people down the road. Like I punch my brother in the nose because I know he’s gonna beat me up next week. …. We could look at it as clever strategy. While Joseph is staging his Maoist-like Cultural Revolution, Pharaoh also grants Joseph’s brothers their own region. They are shepherds, abhorred by the Egyptians who worshipped animals as gods, not just commodities. Perhaps out of hospitality and enthusiasm for Joseph, and to protect the strangers, he gives Joseph’s brothers the fattest land in Egypt, Goshen. East of the Nile delta, it is still the most fertile part of Egypt. Its very name in Egyptian, Pa-qas, or the modern Faqous, means “pouring forth.” The fact is, it was either a fabulously lucky accident or yet more evidence of God’s finger stirring the pot of history and fate, or at least Joseph’s prescience. Goshen allowed the Hebrews to prosper and multiply. …. Goshen was the first Jewish ghetto, both good and bad for them. It kept them apart from the Egyptians, the perennial “other.” When the new pharaoh resolves to crush the Hebrews generations later, it became easier to slaughter their first born, and round the Hebrews up for slavery. But it also had the effect of preserving Hebrew ethnic purity and cultural integrity so they could ultimately receive the Torah and be forged into a nation. Rashi says we should give Joseph credit for uprooting the Egyptians. By making them “strangers in their own land” Joseph might have been preparing the way for the Hebrews, his brothers, to be aliens, “strangers in a strange land.” If everyone is dislocated then no one will notice the foreign invaders. …. So in conquering Egypt he makes it more congenial for the Hebrews. …. In the same way, by making the native Egyptians into slaves, he is giving them a foretaste of what they will eventually do to the Israelites. Supporting this interpretation is a secret signal in the Hebrew of our verse, Gen 47:21, which reads “וְאֶת־הָעָם הֶעֱבִיר אֹתוֹ לֶעָרִים וְעַד־קָצֵהוּ׃ [v’et-ha’am he’evir oto larim…] Translators struggle with the meaning of the he’evir oto l’arim usually translated as “town by town” but more literally implying something like “and [Joseph] moved over [the Egyptians] from their towns. But “evir” contains the same root that gives the Israelites their names, Ivri – Hebrews. It comes from the nickname for Abraham, who is called ‘HaIvri” because he came from “the other side” [of the Eupherates river]” in Genesis 14:13.[5] This makes the translation much more comprehensible. Joseph is literally “hebraicising” the Egyptians, making them into ivri when he uproots them. ….