Bebi’s Famine, like Joseph’s, was of ‘many years’ duration

by Damien F. Mackey “Now since famines succeeding one another on account of deficiency of water in the overflowing of the Nile are of the very greatest rarity . . . since Beba [Bebi] … lived … about the same time in which Joseph exercised the office … there remains for a satisfactory conclusion but one fair inference; that the 'many years of famine' in the days of Beba must exactly correspond to the seven years of famine under Joseph's pharaoh”. Henry Brugsch-Bey Patricia Halsey Maxwell has made a valiant attempt, following Dr. Donovan Courville, to identify in ancient Egypt the biblical Joseph and the protracted Famine of his time: https://adventistdigitallibrary.org/islandora/object/adl:359637/datastream/PDF/view THE BIOGRAPHY of Joseph is one of the most beautiful stories in the Bible. But did it really happen? Was Joseph a real person? Or just a fictional character? Were there really seven years of plenty followed by seven years of famine? Is there perhaps some truth in what the Bible says, but is the rest simply exaggeration—or pure imagination? Is the Bible historically accurate? Here is another example in which lovers of the Bible—myself included —had thought it would be a relatively easy matter to prove the Bible true. Just dig around among the pyramids a bit … they thought, and they'd come up with sure and certain proof that there truly was such a famine ... just as the Bible says, Unfortunately. things haven't turned out that way. And skeptics and people who aren't very friendly to the Bible have made the most of the fact. I told you three months ago (Signs, July 19771 about my research into the evidence for Joshua's attack on Jericho. I am convinced, as I wrote in that article, that the traditional dates are inaccurate. If we adjust the dates, we can find the Jericho event in the archaeological record with details that are astonishingly similar to the biblical record of Joshua 3-7. Now let me tell you what I have found regarding Joseph's famine. If we did not have the story of Joseph's life and the famine that is such an important part of it, there would be no historical explanation for the presence of the Israelites in Egypt. And it is impossible to separate Joseph's famine from the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt and their escape at the Exodus. That the Israelites did spend time in Egypt cannot be denied. No scholar worthy of the name even tries to do so. The problems in the conflict of opinions rise rather from the disbelief on the part of many scholars in the dependability of the details of the accounts. The critical details which reflect the participation of a Supreme Being in the affairs of men are denied as being only legendary inventions of later writers. Favorite Son, Jealous Brothers As the story has been recorded in the Bible, Joseph was the next youngest of 12 sons of Jacob, and he was his father’s favorite. The older brothers, consumed with jealousy, sold him to some passing Ishmaelites who took him to Egypt and sold him as a slave to Potiphar, an officer of the pharaoh (king) of Egypt. Genesis 37:23-28; 39:1. Because of his faithfulness as a servant, he was made overseer of the officer's house to the point where Potiphar ''knew not ought he had save for the bread which he did eat." Verses 2-6. After a service of ten years, he was falsely accused by his master's wife of attempting to seduce her, and was imprisoned. Verses 7-20. In prison, he found favor with the prison keeper who put him in charge of all the other prisoners, Verses 21-23. In the course of time, the pharaoh's butler and baker were imprisoned on suspicion of misdeeds. One night both had dreams that troubled them deeply. Genesis 40. Next morning Joseph asked them why they looked so sad. and they told him their dreams, Joseph interpreted the dreams as meaning that the butler would soon be reinstated to his position while the baker would pay for his misdeeds with his life. Joseph's predictions were fulfilled. Now, Joseph had asked the butler to remember him to the pharaoh and get him out of prison, but the butler promptly forgot him. Two years went by—and the pharaoh also had dreams that troubled him deeply, Genesis 41. The king's astrologers could not interpret these dreams. Suddenly the butler remembered his experience in prison and told the pharaoh about Joseph. The pharaoh called Joseph from prison. and Joseph interpreted the dreams. They meant, he said, that there would be seven years of great plenty followed by seven years of very severe famine. Joseph advised the pharaoh to select someone to take charge of preparing for the famine by storing the excess food during the years of plenty for distribution during the years of famine. The pharaoh was impressed by Joseph's ability and assigned this responsibility to him. He elevated Joseph to a position of authority second only to himself. Genesis 41:41-45. This position is known in Eastern countries as vizier, although the term is not used in the Bible. During the seven years of plenty, Joseph built storehouses throughout Egypt, Then, during the seven years of famine, the people were provided grain, First, they had to pay with money. When this was used up, they paid with their cattle. Finally, they paid with their lands. Genesis 45:1420. At the end of the famine … all the real property of Egypt belonged to the king. The lands were leased back to their former owners, who were required to return to the king one fifth of their produce year by year. Verses 23-26. According to the Bible, the famine extended into the land of Canaan (Genesis 41:57) where Jacob still lived with his other sons. When he heard that food was available in Egypt, he sent ten of the remaining eleven sons down there to buy "corn" (an old English term for grain). See Genesis 4221. Joseph, in charge of distribution. recognized the brothers who had sold him into slavery, but they did not recognize him. Verse 8. He wondered whether his brothers had experienced any regrets for their action against himself and designed a plan to test them. As a result he was convinced that they had indeed experienced a change of heart. and he revealed his identity to them. Genesis 45. Then he extended them an invitation to come and live in Egypt. Verses 9, 10. Soon his father and all his brothers and their families moved down to Egypt. Genesis 46:1-7. Joseph provided them with food at no cost during the remaining years of the famine. Genesis 47:12, They were given choice land in the Delta region, and here they lived and multiplied and prospered greatly. Verse 27. We cannot predict famines today. But two Egyptian inscriptions talk about famines that were anticipated and prepared for. Archaeologists say they were different famines, in addition to Joseph's famine. So So much for the Bible account. What about the archaeological record? Boasting in the Tombs It might be supposed that even a severe famine could not be detected archaeologically. And this might be true—if archaeology concerned itself only with old stones and bricks. However, archaeology includes inscriptions, and these play a highly significant part in the interpretation of physical evidence. In fact, without the inscriptions, it would be virtually impossible to correlate the physical evidence—the bricks and pottery and other relics—with history. The inscriptions of Egypt frequently mention famine or famine conditions.1 Unfortunately, in most cases there are not enough details to associate—or dissociate—the inscriptions with the account of Joseph's famine. There are, however, two inscriptions that match the unique details of the Joseph account, and I think they match the details in a most striking manner. Both refer to a famine lasting many years; both indicate that preparation was made in advance to meet the famine: and in both cases the food that was gathered before the famine was distributed during the famine. The only discordant factor is that the dates assigned to the two inscriptions by the traditional chronology of Egypt are separated by many centuries. In other words, there appear to have been two predicted famines, and neither appears to have happened while Joseph was in Egypt. Aside from the ultra-unique detail of advanced preparation, the very occurrence of extended famine in the Nile valley is itself unique. Philip Smith has commented: *'Great famines in Egypt are extremely rare, because they require a succession of very low inundations. …. It should then be evident that a famine inscription which provides data that agrees with all these unique details must surely refer to the famine of Joseph's time. If the dating of any of these inscriptions, as demanded by the traditional chronology does not allow this identification, we should recognize that there is an error in the chronology. …. One of the two inscriptions that refer to severe famine was found in the tomb of a man named Bebi (also spelled Beba). He wrote: "I collected corn as a friend of the harvest god; I was watchful at the time of sowing. and when the famine came lasting many years, I distributed the corn to the city each year of famine." The second inscription was found in the tomb of a man named Ameni who dated his service to the reign of Sesostris I, second king of Dynasty XII. Damien Mackey’s comment: Since Sesostris I of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty belonged to the time of Moses, and not Joseph: Moses and Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (8) Moses and Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Ameni’s situation will need to be seriously reconsidered. …. No archaeologist says that either Bebi or Ameni is to be identified with Joseph. These men were local officers of cities (nomes), and it was their responsibility to collect and distribute food in their areas. Some scholars have discussed whether these inscriptions refer to Joseph's famine. But they have run into difficulty over the dates. Ameni served during the reign of Sesostris I. But Bebi has been dated some 300 years later. Because of this, scholars felt obliged to insist that one or the other of the inscriptions could not refer to Joseph's famine—in spite of the fact that both meet the unique details provided in the Joseph story. The way Henry Brugsch-Bey handled the problem helps us understand how errors of interpretation are sometimes introduced. Arguing that Ameni's famine could not be the same as Joseph's, Brugsch wrote: 'The concluding words of this inscription in which Ameni sings his own praises, have given rise to the idea that they contain an allusion to the sojourn of the patriarch Joseph in Egypt and to the seven years of famine under his administration. But two reasons especially tell against this supposition, which would recognize in Usertasen I [Sesostris I] the pharaoh of Joseph. First is the difference in time, which cannot be made to agree with the era of Joseph, and next, still more … the indisputable fact that, in other inscriptions years of famine are mentioned which thoroughly correspond as to the facts and time with the biblical account.' …. Brugsch's reference to "other inscriptions" is to Bebi's inscription, which he said definitely could be dated to the time of Joseph. He wrote: "Now since famines succeeding one another on account of deficiency of water in the overflowing of the Nile are of the very greatest rarity . . . there remains for a satisfactory conclusion but one fair inference; that the 'many years of famine' in the days of Beba must exactly correspond to the seven years of famine under Joseph's pharaoh." …. Unfortunately, subsequent developments have negated the validity of Brugsch's arguments. A further examination of Beba's tomb has indicated that dating the tomb to the era of the seventeenth dynasty was a mistake. The tomb belonged to a "much more ancient" time. Jacques Vandier wrote: "At El Kab. the most ancient tombs are located high on the slope to the north. This is the case with that of Sebek-Nekht and that of Beba with which we are here concerned and which I believe can be dated impartially in the XIIIth Dynasty. ... Taylor, in his introduction to the tomb of Sebek-Nekht, spoke incidentally of the tomb of Beba and stated that the two tombs are very much more ancient than all the others. " …. But if Bebi's tomb belongs to an era "much more ancient" than the era of . did the ancient Egyptians predict THREE famines —or were all three one and the same? Damien Mackey’s comment: I would agree with the “much more ancient” time conclusion for Bebi, but not the Thirteenth Dynasty, which, again, belongs to the time of Moses (and the Exodus) …. In view of the extreme rarity of extended famines in the Nile Valley, identifying Bebi's famine with the famine of Joseph's time is unavoidable. …. [End of article] Damien Mackey’s comment: Obviously we are going to need to know more about this Bebi [Beba] and to ascertain the precise time in ancient Egyptian history which he lived.

Old Kingdom Egypt Famine, even Lake Faiyum dried up

“People were forced to commit unheard of atrocities such as eating their own children and violating the sacred sanctity of the royal dead”. Professor Fekri Hassan We read at (2011): https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/apocalypse_egypt_01.shtml Despair and collapse …. What was the factor that weakened the monarchy and allowed provincial governors to assume royal power over their regions? Mackey’s comment: On this point, see my recent article: Ankhtifi a Joseph type saving Egypt in an extensive Famine (3) Ankhtifi a Joseph type saving Egypt in an extensive Famine | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu One possibility is an invasion by Asiatics. However, there is no evidence that Asiatics invaded Egypt at the end of the Old Kingdom. Alternatively, the initial breakdown of the Old Kingdom was caused by a sudden, unanticipated, catastrophic reduction in the Nile floods over two or three decades. This was so severe that famine gripped the country and paralysed the political institutions. People were forced to commit unheard of atrocities such as eating their own children and violating the sacred sanctity of the royal dead. Mackey’s comment: The Famine did not bring about the collapse of the Old Kingdom. It was of relatively short duration. The Egyptian sage Ipuwer gives a graphic description of the horrendous events of that time. Lo, the desert claims the land Towns are ravaged, Upper Egypt became a wasteland Lo, everyone's hair [has fallen out] Lo, great and small say, 'I wish I were dead' Lo, children of nobles are dashed against walls Infants are put on high ground Food is lacking Wearers of fine linen are beaten with [sticks] Ladies suffer like maidservants Lo, those who were entombed are cast on high grounds Men stir up strife unopposed Groaning is throughout the land, mingled with laments See now the land deprived of kingship What the pyramid hid is empty [The] People are diminished. Mackey’s comment: Some, such as Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos), would locate the Ipuwer event, instead, to the Plagues and Exodus. Egyptologists concede that there can be no doubt that these texts relate to fact. There is incontrovertible evidence that this terrible famine was caused by the reduction of the Nile floods. Climactic change …. The scale of the failure of the floods is shown by the fact that the Faiyum, a lake of some 65 metres deep, dried up. This means that the lake actually evaporated over time. These low floods were related to global climatic cooling which reduced the amount of rainfall in Ethiopia and East Africa. In Iceland, researchers have detected a transition from birch and grassland vegetation to arctic conditions in about 2150 BC. This correlates with a shift to drier climate in south-eastern Europe c.2200 - 2100 BC. …. The most tantalizing recent discovery, however, was made when scientists made a high-resolution study of dust deposition from Kajemarum Oasis in north-eastern Nigeria. The study conclusively revealed that a pronounced shift in atmospheric circulation occurred in around 2150 BC. This data indicates that an abrupt, short-lived event of cold climate led to less rainfall and a reduction of water flow in a vast area extending from Tibet to Italy. This had catastrophic effects on such early state societies as the Egyptian Old Kingdom. Long-term variations in Nile floods are beyond the perceptions of people. The Nile, today and during the prosperous times of the Old Kingdom, is regarded unquestionably as the source of life in Egypt. Therefore, the Nile can be considered as the force which destroyed the civilization that it had nurtured. Inconceivable as it might be, the Nile is a temperamental river. The volume of flood discharge varies wildly in episodes which range from decades to hundreds of years. Furthermore, there is the impact of freak years where the floods can be disastrously low or high. ….

Ankhtifi a Joseph type saving Egypt in an extensive Famine

by Damien F. Mackey “It should be noted … that the king is absent from Ankhtifi’s autobiography …”. Dr. Doaa M. Elkashef 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 Sirach’s short praise of Joseph (Sirach 49:15): “Nor was anyone ever born like Joseph …”. Ankhtifi’s Famine This was no ordinary famine. It was of long duration, driving Egyptians to resort to cannibalism. Here I am following Dr. Doaa M. Elkashef’s account of it in “Self-Presentation in the Autobiography of Ankhtifi of Moalla between Tradition and Innovation” (2023): https://ijtah.journals.ekb.eg/article_310487_7a8edbc44025d034d58e79abe4b91e05.pdf “I gave bread to the hungry and clothes to the naked. I anointed the unanointed. I shod the one who had no shoes. I gave a wife to the one who had no wife. …. Ankhtifi used the traditional cliché theme of local patronage to introduce the Famine Inscription on Pillar IV. He employed this common theme in a new context in relation to a real event (i.e. the famine): iw ^maw r-Dr.f m(w)t n Hqr s nb Hr wnm Xrdw.f n sp di(.i) xpr m(w)t n Hq m spAt tn iw di.n(.i) TAbt n Sma [Sma] di.n(.i) mHt “All of Upper Egypt died because of hunger, every man eating his (own) children; but I never let death happen because of hunger in this nome. I gave a loan of Upper Egyptian barley …. Ankhtifi stresses that he fed Elephantine and Iat-Negen in the first and second Upper Egyptian nomes respectively, after satisfying Moalla and Hormer in the third Upper Egyptian nome. The formula sanx.n.i “I made … live” (in the sense of “fed”) is recurrent in the First Intermediate Period texts referring to famine. …. The theme of famine also figures in the documents of Heqanakht, a kA-priest (Hm-kA) and farmer during the Middle Kingdom. Heqanakht refers to famine in 4 Letter II as follows: mk Tn tA r-Dr.f m(w)t n Hqr.[Tn] “Look, the whole land is dead and [you] have not hungered.”7 5 mk Tn Dd.tw Hqr r Hqr mk Tn SAaw wnm rmT aA “Look, one should say hunger (only) about (real) hunger. Look, they’ve started to eat people here.”7 Heqanakht boasts of his ability to feed his family while the rest of the country suffers from famine. One might argue that the theme of human cannibalism appearing in the texts of Ankhtifi and Heqanakht is evidence of such terrible famine in their times, so terrible that people were forced to eat their own children. Nevertheless, both Ankhtifi and Heqanakht might be expressing in a rhetorical way how serious the famine events were in their times. The rhetorical device would be hyperbole, an overstatement to impress the audience (contemporaries and posterity) or the addressee. Reference to famine appears again in the Autobiography of Ankhtifi on Pillar V: iw grt sanx.n(.i) Nxn WTs-@r Abw Nbyt Hsi w(i) @r Nxn anx n(.i) @mn iw pH.n it-^ma(.i) Iwnt ^Abt m-xt sanx spAt tn m ……s “Now, I made Hierakonpolis, Edfu, Elephantine and Kom Ombo live so that Horus of Hierakonpolis would favour me and Hemen would live for me. My Upper Egyptian barley reached Dendera and ^Abt after making this nome live with …...” Ankhtifi stresses that he fed the third and second Upper Egyptian nomes of Hierakonpolis and Edfu and the towns of Elephantine and Kom Ombo in the first Upper Egyptian nome for the sake of his local gods, Horus and Hemen.7 He also stresses that he fed the towns of Dendera and ^Abt in the sixth Upper Egyptian nome after supplying his own nome.8 [End of quotes] We read along similar lines at: https://popular-archaeology.com/article/ancient-egypts-great-hunger/#:~:text=People%20were%20so%20hungry%20that,the%20nome's%20inhabitants%20to%20leave. Ankhtifi and Khety the nomarchs Fortunately during these trying times, some nomarchs were competent administrators. They boasted of their achievements on their tomb walls …. Ankhtifi of Hierakonpolis and Edfu, two of the southernmost nomes of Upper Egypt, had such a high opinion of his military abilities and of himself that he called himself the “great chieftain.” He became nomarch just as low floods became commonplace. “All of Upper Egypt was dying of hunger,” his tomb inscriptions tell us. There were reports of cannibalism, of people eating their children; his province becoming like “a starved grasshopper.” As so often happened in famines everywhere, hungry villagers wandered aimlessly in search of food and people fought over water. People were so hungry that they were said to be eating their children. “I managed that no one died of hunger in this nome,” he claimed, as tomb-robbers plundered the dead. Ankhtifi’s grandiloquent inscriptions boasted of loaning precious grain to people upstream, of forbidding the nome’s inhabitants to leave. The nomarch ruled like a pharaoh. “I am the beginning and the end of humankind, for my equal has not and will not come into being.” Fortunately, he controlled food supplies, imposed rationing, and erected temporary dams to impound water. These short-term measures worked and saved many lives, for his leadership was decisive and based on hard-earned local knowledge. …. [End of quote] If Ankhtifi were Joseph, though, the last statement above would need modification: “Fortunately, he controlled food supplies, imposed rationing, and erected temporary dams to impound water. These short-term measures worked and saved many lives, for his leadership was decisive and based on hard-earned local knowledge”. These “measures” were “short-term” in the sense that the dams would have to have been built hastily and may later have fallen into disuse. As I intend to show in later articles, there is abundant evidence for the erection of unadorned, briefly used, infrastructure, such as dams and massive grain storage facilities, in Third Dynasty Egypt, in which I would place Joseph - for one, this accord with the Sehel Famine Stela of king Netjerikhet, a very late document harkening back to Egypt’s Third Dynasty. But I would also definitely expect a (so-called) ‘Middle’ Kingdom correlation with the Old Kingdom’s Third Dynasty, based on articles of mine (Dr. Courville inspired) such as e.g.: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought (6) Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And this could bring Ankhtifi’s cannibalising famine right into synch with Heqanakht’s Middle Kingdom cannibalising Famine, as I think must necessarily have been the case. But leadership at the time was not so much “based on hard-earned local knowledge” as upon Divine inspiration, on Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams, which the Pharaoh trusted to the extent of giving Joseph virtually free rein in the land (Genesis 41:41-44): So Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I hereby put you in charge of the whole land of Egypt’. Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, ‘Make way!’ Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt. Then Pharaoh said to Joseph, ‘I am Pharaoh, but without your word no one will lift hand or foot in all Egypt’. Genesis 42:6: “Now Joseph was the governor of the land, the person who sold grain to all its people”. Ankhtifi: I never let death happen because of hunger in this nome. I gave a loan of Upper Egyptian barley …. Joseph’s new name Genesis 44:45: “Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt”. Can the name Ankhtifi be found in Joseph’s given Egyptian name, Zaphenath-Paneah? This is a difficult matter since no two commentators seem to be able to reach a consensus on the meaning of Joseph’s new name. Here I turn to professor A. S. Yahuda who has proven in the past to be a trustworthy guide in matters pertaining to Egyptian linguistics. Abraham Yahuda suggested for Zapheath-paneah, ḏfꜣ n tꜣ pꜣ ꜥnḫ, "the living one is the sustenance of (the) land", or ḏfꜣ n tꜣ pw ꜥnḫ "the sustenance of the land is he, the living one." (Yahuda, A. S. (1930). Eine Erwiderung auf Wilhelm Spiegelbergs "Ägyptologische Bemerkungen" zu meinem Buche "Die Sprache des Pentateuch". Leipzig. p. 7., cited by Vergote, p. 144). In professor Yahuda’s explanation of this Egyptian name I think that we can basically find, in hypocoristicon form, the three elements that constitute the name, Ankhtifi: viz., Ankh (ꜥnḫ); ti (tꜣ); fi (fꜣ). I should mention that Eulalío Eguía Jr. has also made the identification of Joseph as Ankhtifi, whom he, however, connects with Egypt’s Ninth Dynasty. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7oLeJannks This video raises some interesting points not to be found in my present article. Ankhtifi a polytheist? Whilst Ankhtifi fails to refer to a king, and also makes little reference to the Egyptian gods, he does tell of his guidance by the god Horus, and also mentions Hemen. Horus-Hemen can be reduced to the one compound deity. Since Egypt would likely have had no name for – nor interest in – the God of the Hebrews, the best that the writer of Ankhtifi’s Autobiography might have been able to come up with may have been simply Horus, the god of kings. The monotheistic pharaoh, Akhnaton, much later on, would have to grapple with the problem of how to represent the one true God to the polytheistic Egyptian people.

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

by Damien F. Mackey “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”. Autobiography of Ankhtifi Senenmut (Senmut) was merely “the greatest of the great in the land [of Egypt]”. Ankhtifi, on the other hand, claimed an honour that would later be accorded by Jesus to John the Baptist, ‘greatest ever born’ (Matthew 11:11). What we would term today, the GOAT (Greatest Of All Time). We know precisely when Senenmut lived, during the reign of the female Pharaoh, Hatshepsut, of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/senenmut/ Senenmut Senenmut (literally “mother’s brother”, sometimes transliterated as Senemut or Senmut) was one of the most powerful and famous (or infamous) officials of ancient Egypt. At the height of his power he was the Chief Steward of Amun, Tutor to the Princess Neferure and confidant (and possibly lover) of the Pharaoh Hatshepsut. However, both his early career and the circumstances surrounding his death and burial are obscure. …. And we can know his era even more precisely thanks to Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s revision, as set out in his book Ages in Chaos (I, 1952), according to which Hatshepsut was King Solomon’s exotic visitor from the south, the Queen of Sheba. And I am hopeful that we are able to precisify the situation even further again by recognising “the greatest of the great in the land”, Senenmut, as the sage King Solomon of Israel himself: Solomon and Sheba (5) Solomon and Sheba | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Senenmut informs us: "I was the greatest of the great in the whole land; one who heard the hearing alone in the privy council, steward of [Amon], Senemut, triumphant." "I was the real favorite of the king, acting as one praised of his lord every day, the overseer of the cattle of Amon, Senemut." "I was … of truth, not showing partiality; with whose injunctions the Lord of the Two Lands was satisfied; attached to Nekhen, prophet of Mat, Senemut." "I was one who entered in [love], and came forth in favor, making glad the heart of the king every day, the companion, and master of the palace, Senemut." "I commanded … the storehouse of divine offerings of Amon every tenth day; the overseer of the storehouse of Amon, Senemut." "I conducted … of the gods every day, for the sake of the life, prosperity, and health of the king; overseer of the … of Amon, Senemut ." "I was a foreman of foremen, superior of the great … [overseer] of all [works] of the house of silver, conductor of every handicraft, chief of the prophets of Montu in Hermonthis, Senemut." "I was one to whom the affairs of the Two Lands were [reported; that which South and North contributed was on my seal, the labor of all countries …was [under] my charge." "I was one, whose steps were known in the palace; a real confidant of the king, his beloved: overseer of the gardens of Amon, Senemut." Senenmut held impressive titles such as: 'Overseer of the Gardens of Amun', 'Steward of Amun', 'Overseer of all Royal Works' and 'Tutor to the Royal Heiress Neferure'. Despite all of this greatness, though, Senenmut - sometimes even referred to as ‘the real power behind the throne’ - admitted, according to good protocol, to have been under the command of the [female] king: According to one of his statues: ‘I was in this land under [her] command since the occurrence of the death of [her] predecessor ...' [Baikie, J., A History of Egypt, A. & C. Black Ltd., London, 1929, Vol. 11, p. 80. 21]. Ankhtifi apparently had, as we shall find, no such scruples as to right protocol. [It needs to be noted, when we talk about the Autobiography of a particular Egyptian official, that rigid Egyptian rubric had to be observed, overlaying what may have been the true thoughts and sentiments of the official under consideration. Thus Ankhtifi’s, Senenmut’s seemingly shameless boasting may have been, to some extent, just the standard practice of the Egyptian scribes]. In the case of Ankhtifi, unlike Senenmut, Egyptologists do not know for sure when he lived, or who was his Pharaoh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankhtifi The precise pharaoh under whom Ankhtifi served is anything but certain; the sequence and number of kings in the 9th and 10th dynasties is a matter of widely varying conjecture. Only a few of the many names on the much later king-lists have had their reigns or existence corroborated through scattered archaeological finds. …. As with Senenmut, later, Ankhtifi bore some astounding titles: https://www.osirisnet.net/tombes/moalla/ankhtifi/e_ankhtifi_01.htm The titles carried by Ankhtifi are very high in the hierarchy; the first of these is that of "great chief of the nome of…", indicating his dignity of nomarch, to which is attached "the count" and the priestly title of "leader of the prophets", an essential title at this time to confirm his status. He also carries the titles of "hereditary prince", "chancellor of king of Lower Egypt", "general", "leader of the mountainous regions", "leader of the interpreters", and "sole companion". …. Dr. Doaa M. Elkashef has written of the singularity of Ankhtifi, in “Self-Presentation in the Autobiography of Ankhtifi of Moalla between Tradition and Innovation” (2023. My emphasis in bold): https://ijtah.journals.ekb.eg/article_310487_7a8edbc44025d034d58e79abe4b91e05.pdf …. Ankhtifi’s statement that he surpassed his ancestors through his achievements and that even his successors could not equal him is one of the innovations in his autobiography. He also claims repeatedly that he has not “found” something to have been achieved by other predecessors before …. This claim 4 is attested twice in the Old Kingdom, in the Autobiography of Qar of Edfu (n gmt.n(.i) is pw m-a Hry-tp wn m spAt tn tp-aw(y), “This is something that I have not found in the hand of a chief who was in this nome before”) and the Autobiography of Harkhuf of Aswan (5 n sp gmy(.i) ir (i)n smr imy-r iaAw nb pr r IAm tp-aw(y), “I have never found this done by any Companion and Overseer of Foreign Mercenaries who went to Iam before”) dating to the Sixth Dynasty. The formula is employed in these texts 6 in slightly varied form. It should be noted, however, that the king is absent from Ankhtifi’s autobiography, while the Sixth Dynasty high provincial officials stressed their service to the king and competence in office. In contrast, the Sixth Dynasty official Weni the Elder boasts in his autobiography, encompassing different stages in his career starting in the reign of Teti and culminating in his promotion to the office of Overseer of Upper Egypt under Merenre, that “the like had never been done for any servant” (n sp pA.t(w) irt mitt n bAk nb), when referring to the receipt of royal favour‒ being provided with tomb equipment by Pepy I. This traditional phrase was employed 7 by late Old Kingdom high officials to stress that they received a special favour from the king which was unique and had never before been granted to other officials.3 …. Just who was this incredible character like no other, the mysterious Ankhtifi?

Joseph of Egypt’s Canal

“This was Joseph’s artificial river (to match his granaries) which turned the Fayoum into the first man-made lake”. William Golding An interesting observation made when walking in Egypt: http://www.ancient-egypt.info/2012/05/josephs-canal-1985-walking-through.html Joseph’s Canal, 1985 | Walking Through Egypt Joseph’s Canal, 1985 William Golding …. Then we drove south for about twenty kilometres along the side of the canal in sugar cane country. I looked at this canal until it became ordinary to me. It was a canal, that was all. Idly, I asked Alaa which canal it was and he said it was the Bahr Yusuf. I was moodily and quite illogically vexed. For Joseph’s Canal is alleged by all persons like myself who prefer a good story to literal historical accuracy (whatever that may happen to be) is, I say, alleged to be the very canal that Joseph he of the coat of many colours built for Pharaoh. They say that lot say that it isn’t Joseph’s canal but a canal built by a much later Joseph. Did you ever hear anything so silly? Before I had seen it I had already made my mind that even if it wasn’t biblical Joseph’s actual ditch, his must have lain along the same line so what’s the odds? You put a canal in the best place for it so the later one was no more than a restoration of the original. I had promised myself such a thrill at seeing it; but now I had been looking at it for twenty kilometres and made it so ordinary to myself that my promised frisson was entirely lacking. But still, it was Joseph’s Canal. It was, I think, a greater, a more impressive, a wider leap of the imagination than the pyramids. There was and is a great depression in the desert on the western side of the Nile opposite Cairo. This is the Fayoum, between twenty and thirty miles square. Right back in the earliest pharaonic days someone conceived the idea of deflecting surplus flood water from the river into that depression and then here is the leap of letting it out again into the Nile when the flood was inconveniently low. But this join between the main stream and the Fayoum could not be made down by Cairo. The main stream for obvious hydrostatic reasons had to be tapped hundreds of miles to the south so that the gradient of the canal would be so gradual the water would be controllable. So there the canal is, huge in length, vast in scope and breathtaking in the sheer imaginative size of the conception. Now here it was, a canal like any other and I found I had to screw my wits up to remember what it was I was looking at. This was Joseph’s artificial river (to match his granaries) which turned the Fayoum into the first man-made lake.

Nile pyramid waterway discovered

Taken from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01449-y Found at last: long-lost branch of the Nile that ran by the pyramids Geological survey reveals the remains of a major waterway that ancient Egyptian builders could have used to transport materials. By Freda Kreier Stretching beneath the ground near the Giza pyramid complex in Egypt lie the remains of an ancient branch of the Nile River that might once have helped ancient Egyptians to build their monuments. The highest concentration of pyramids in Egypt can be found in a stretch of desert between Giza and the village of Lisht. These sites are now several dozens of kilometres away from the Nile River. But Egyptologists have long suspected that the Nile might once have been closer to that stretch than it is today. Satellite images and geological data now confirm that a tributary of the Nile — which researchers have named the Ahramat Branch — used to run near many of the major sites in the region several thousand years ago. The discovery, reported on 16 May in Communications Earth and Environment1, could help to explain why ancient Egyptians chose this area to build the pyramids (See ‘Ancient river’). “The pyramids seem like pretty monumental work,” says Judith Bunbury, a geoarchaeologist at the University of Cambridge, UK. “But it’s less arduous if you can bring big stones up by boat rather than carrying them over land.” Wandering waterways For thousands of years, the Nile and its flood-plain have provided food, agriculture and water to Egypt’s inhabitants. The majority of the country’s population still lives in the Nile basin. But the river is prone to migrating, and in the past, populations have had to relocate to keep up. Over the last few hundred years, the Nile has moved several kilometres to the east, possibly owing to shifting plate tectonics. There is evidence that some of Egypt’s important archaeological sites do not have the same relationship to the river as they would have had at the time they that were built. There are remains of harbours and other such clues at sites between Giza and Lisht. But scientists have found it difficult to chart the scope or locations of these lost waterways. While looking for traces of ancient water, a team led by Eman Ghoneim, a geomorphologist at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, spotted what looked like a dried-up river channel several kilometres west of the Nile. The channel ran for around 60 kilometres through agricultural areas and had a similar depth and width to the modern Nile. To investigate whether the channel could be part of an ancient riverbed, the researchers collected core samples of sediment from the channel. Beneath the wet mud of the fields, they found an layer of gravel and sand consistent with that of a riverbed. Combining this sample data with satellite imagery allowed the team to map the branch’s location. They found that it would have flowed past more than 30 Old- and Middle-Kingdom pyramids dating from between 2686 to 1649 BC — thus the decision to called it the ‘Ahramat’ branch, using the Arabic word for pyramid. The Ahramat “connected all these different pyramid fields”, says Suzanne Onstine, an egyptologist at the University of Memphis in Tennessee. “Their valley temples and causeways all oriented exactly to where the water would have been.” Riverside sites Researchers have long debated the significance of the pyramids’ locations. The waterway running right past them could have been an important factor, because it would have provided a convenient way for builders to transport materials to the sites. This theory aligns with documents from the era which state that building materials were brought in by boat, says Bunbury. Eventually, the movement of the Nile and sand blowing in from the Sahara Desert would have caused the Ahramat Branch to dry up and become unnavigable. Today, only a few stray lakes and channels remain where the major branch once ran. But knowing the ancient river’s location provides a blueprint that archaeologists can use to try and uncover more ancient Egyptian settlements, says Onstine. And the finding that Egyptians were probably using boats rather than land transportation to move materials to build the pyramids hints that they were “a lot more pragmatic than perhaps we realized before”, says Bunbury. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01449-y References 1. Ghoneim, E. et al. Commun. Earth Environ. 5, 233 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-024-01379-7

Shiloh as Ta’anath Shiloh in valley east of Shechem

“Overall conclusion Shiloh in the valley of Shechem? It would certainly make supreme sense in the light of the earliest covenantal renewal ceremonies celebrated in the North, as my studies have shown”. John Wijngaards I (Damien Mackey), finding somewhat unsatisfying the almost universally accepted archaeological identification of the ancient shrine of Shiloh with Khirbet Seiloun, did a quick search at academia.edu for a dissenting view, and straightaway found this intriguing article by John Wijngaards: An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh? (1) (PDF) Alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh? An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh | John N M Wijngaards - Academia.edu Whilst I warmly encourage those interested to read Wijngaards’ 2020 article in full, here I shall simply reproduce the final part of it (pp. 23-24): …. In Gen 33,18 we find the following Massoretic vocalization: wayyâbô ya°aqôb shâlem °îr shekem ‘asher be’ereș kena°an. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render shalem as 'to Salim'. Many modern versions, following the Targum, read 'beshalôm', meaning 'safely, unscathed' (RSV; JB.; Powis-Smith; De Fraine). The text would then mean: “Jacob arrived safely at the town of Shechem in Canaanite territory”. However, this reading does violence to the consonantal text. Observing that Samaritanus and some other manuscripts presuppose the reading 'shl-o-m', I suggest the following vocalization: wayyâbô ya°aqôb shilô - m - °îr shekem. This would mean: 'And Jacob reached Shiloh of the city of 'Shechem' (enclytic mem). The parallelism with Gen 12,6 is striking: 'Abram came to the sanctuary (meqôm: status constructus) of Shechem. The text would, therefore, seem to imply that Shiloh is the sanctuary near the city of Shechem. From Gen 33,19 we learn further that, the site of Jacob's encampment, and consequently of Shiloh, was 'facing the city of Shechem', probably meaning 'East of Shechem', and certainly implying that it was not on the Ebal or Gerazim, but rather in the valley itself, facing Shechem across the open space of the valley. A. Alt has drawn attention to the extraordinary fact that “Shiloh the early prominence of which as centre of Jahwistic worship cannot be doubted” seems all the same devoid of vital relationships with the patriarchs. …. And yet we know that it was the 'God of Israel' who gave oracles at Shiloh (cf. 1 Sm 1,17; 2,30), that Yahweh's decrees promulgated at Shiloh (cf. Ps 78,5 and 78,60) were 'decrees for Jacob'. In other words: as amphictyonic centre Shiloh almost had to have had vital connections with Jacob. If our vocalization of Gen 33,18a is correct, Gen 3,18b-19 would provide the link between Jacob, Shiloh and Shechem. Overall conclusion Shiloh in the valley of Shechem? It would certainly make supreme sense in the light of the earliest covenantal renewal ceremonies celebrated in the North, as my studies have shown. …. Once every seven years, probably during the Sabbatical Year (Lev 25,1- 7), the tribes would gather at Transjordanian Succoth to re-live the forty years in the desert by celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant. There they would be given instructions on the covenant with Yahweh and on new legislation that would form part of the covenant. To re-enact the crossing of the Red Sea and the landgiving, the Ark would then be carried, ahead of the people, across the Jordan into the valley of Shechem. After depositing the Ark in its sanctuary at Shiloh, the people would then formally renew the covenant by calling on themselves the blessings and curses of the covenant. Portions of the land would then be re-allocated, or re-affirmed, to the tribes at Shiloh before they would return to their own provinces (Josh 13,8 – 17,18). Taking everything into consideration, it seems certainly possible, if not likely, that the ancient pre-monarchic sanctuary of Shiloh lay in the valley of Shechem. “With the help of historical notes from Ptolemy and Eusebius and from the geographical data of the context Ta’anat-Shiloh is usually identified either with Khirbet Tana et-Tahta or Khirbet Tana el Fauqa, both of which lie east and south-east of Tell Balatah in the Valley of Shechem …”. John Wijngaards John Wijngaards sets out on pp. 2-3 the plan of his article (as referred to above): In this essay (1) I will first elaborate how and why topographic information about biblical sites has been lost. (2) I will spell out my reasons for doubting Shiloh's identification with Khirbet Seiloun. (3) I will, from biblical sources, add a brief reconstruction of what Shiloh’s sanctuary must have looked like. (4) I will explain why biblical texts seem to favour a location of Samuel’s Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. (5) I will then proceed to illustrate why Ta'anath Shiloh, i.e. present-day Khirbet et-Tana or Kirbet el- Fauqain the valley of Shechem, could have been the location of early Shiloh. …. Now, on to his pp. 23-24, where he briefly discusses his proposed new site for ancient Shiloh: 5.2 Ta’anath Shiloh in the valley of Shechem --- Jos 16,6 In Jos 16,6 we learn of a place called tant šlh, vocalised by the Massoretes as ta’anathshiloh, rendered by the Septuagint as thênath sêlô. In modern translations the place is known as ‘Ta’anath-Shiloh’. Its location would satisfy the required conditions of Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. With the help of historical notes from Ptolemy and Eusebius and from the geographical data of the context Ta’anat-Shiloh is usually identified either with Khirbet Tana et-Tahta or Khirbet Tana el Fauqa, both of which lie east and south-east of Tell Balatah in the Valley of Shechem. …. I am unaware of any attempt to explain the derivation of the name, but it seems, to me that a Ugaritic passage may throw light on the question. In the text Baal speaks to Anath in these words (verses 18 to 29): “18. I've a word I fain would tell thee, 19. a speech I wouId utter to thee, 20. speech of tree and whisper of stone, 21. converse of heaven with earth, 22. even of the deep with the stars. 23. Yea, a thunderbolt unknown to heaven, 24. a word not known to men, 25. nor sensed by the masses on earth. 26. Come, pray, and I will reveal it 27. in the midst of my mount Godly Zaphon, 28. in the sanctuary, mount of my portion, 29. in the pleasance, the hill I possess.” The Ugaritic original of verse 21 reads: tant šmm °m arș. The word 'tant' in vs. 21 is here rendered by 'conversation' on account of the context. If we were to bring the word in connection with the Hebrew root tâ’ (room, parlour; cf. 3 Kgs 14,28; Ez 40,7ff.; Septuagint transliteration thê; cf. Assyrian ta'u), we might also understand it to mean 'meeting-place', 'parlour'. Ancient sanctuaries were, in fact, considered to be such points of contact between heaven and earth (cf. Gen 28,10-22; 11,4). In the Ugaritic text Baal is therefore inviting Anath to come to his holy mount, his sanctuary, the meeting place of heaven and earth, where through the stone and the tree an oracle will be communicated to her. Is it pure chance that the sanctuary in Shechem's valley possessed such a tree and such a stone? Should it not rather be seen as such an ancient 'meeting-place' between heaven and earth? This would explain why it is also called ‘the navel of the land’ and 'the diviners' oak' (Jdg 9,37), why it is the scene of oracles to Abram (Gen 12,7), to Jacob (Gen 35,1) and to the Shechemites (Jdg 9,7ff.)? Shiloh is also described as a meeting place in Psalm 78,60: “He forsook his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among people”. Taanath Shiloh might, therefore, well fit as the holy place in the valley of Shechem, both on account of its position and on account of the implication of its name. ….

Melchizedek King of Salem

by Damien F. Mackey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Commentators and Bible readers generally have puzzled over the nature and identification of that most mysterious biblical figure, “Melchizedek king of Salem”, who makes a brief appearance in the presence of the victorious patriarch Abram in Genesis 14:18-20. And Saint Paul has greatly added to the mystery by declaring Melchizedek to have been (Hebrews 7:3): “Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, resembling the Son of God, he remains a priest forever”. Who, and what, was this Melchizedek? Was he a human being, an angel, or was he divine? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biblical ‘Types’ Emmaus According to Luke’s Gospel account about the two disciples accompanied by the Lord on the way to Emmaus (24:25-27): “[Jesus] said to them, ‘How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself”. Here Jesus was emphatically proclaiming that the Scriptures were all about, were all leading to, Him. Incidentally, a Roman Cardinal who once spoke to a large gathering in Sydney (Australia), when the suggestion was put to him by a nun that at least one of those two disciples may have been a woman, replied that he, too, had heard of this, but he could not accept it. Jesus, he said, never addressed a woman with those words, ‘foolish and slow to believe’. The nun promptly sat down. In retrospect, though, I think that she may have had a point: Marvellous things happened on the way to Emmaus (4) Marvellous things happened on the way to Emmaus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu At http://www.theopedia.com/biblical-typology we learn the following about: Biblical typology Typology is a method of biblical interpretation whereby an element found in the Old Testament is seen to prefigure one found in the New Testament. The initial one is called the type and the fulfillment is designated the antitype. Either type or antitype may be a person, thing, or event, but often the type is messianic and frequently related to the idea of salvation. The use of Biblical typology enjoyed greater popularity in previous centuries, although even now it is by no means ignored as a hermeneutic. Typological interpretation is specifically the interpretation of the Old Testament based on the fundamental theological unity of the two Testaments whereby something in the Old shadows, prefigures, adumbrates something in the New. Hence, what is interpreted in the Old is not foreign or peculiar or hidden, but arises naturally out of the text due to the relationship of the two Testaments. …. Motivation The study of types, particularly, types of Christ, is motivated by a number of factors related to New Testament use of the Old Testament. Firstly, the authors of various New Testament books use the Old Testament as a source of pictures pointing forward to Jesus. Among the most obvious passages are 1 Cor. 10:1–6, Gal. 4:21–31 and the letter to the Hebrews. From 1 Corinthians, we find Paul using the desert wanderings as typological of the Christian life, while in Galatians, he famously uses Sarah and Hagar as typological of slavery to Law under the Old Covenant against the freedom of grace in the New Covenant. The author of Hebrews is concerned to write explaining how the Old Testament points forward to Jesus; in so doing, he draws on heavily on Moses the man, as well as the Mosaic Law, with its sacrifices and Temple rituals. …. [End of quote] Saint John the Baptist is an interesting case in this regard. ‘In the Spirit of Elijah’, but not Elijah When the angel Gabriel foretold the birth of the Baptist to his father, Zechariah, the former likened him to the prophet Elijah (Luke 1:17): ‘And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord’. This same John, upon whom Jesus himself would bestow the highest of accolades: ‘Among those born of women no one greater than John the Baptist’ (Matthew 11:11; cf. Luke 7:28), was, also according to Jesus, ‘Elijah who is to come’ (Matthew 11:14). This, a reference to the prophet Malachi, is well explained at: http://www.gotquestions.org/Elijah-end-times.html According to Malachi 4:6, the reason for Elijah’s return will be to “turn the hearts” of fathers and their children to each other. In other words, the goal would be reconciliation. In the New Testament, Jesus reveals that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy: “All the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come” (Matthew 11:13-14). This fulfillment is also mentioned in Mark 1:2-4 and Luke 1:17; 7:27. Specifically related to Malachi 4:5-6 is Matthew 17:10-13: “His disciples asked Him, saying, ‘Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?’ Jesus answered and said to them, ‘Indeed, Elijah is coming first and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished . . . .’ Then the disciples understood that He spoke to them of John the Baptist.” Yet John the Baptist himself seems to contradict this very statement in the Gospel of John, when, having told the priests and Levites that he was not the Messiah (1:20), then also denied that he was Elijah (v. 21): “They asked him, ‘Then who are you? Are you Elijah?’ He said, ‘I am not’.” Though the “Elijah” foretold by Malachi, who would come “before that great and dreadful day of the LORD” (4:5), was specifically identified by Jesus as the John the Baptist, the latter, in turn, would make it quite clear that he was not the actual Old Testament prophet Elijah. The Baptist, of the same fiery and ascetical spirit and disposition as the ancient prophet Elijah was, nevertheless, a person quite distinct from the historical Elijah. The very same situation occurs with the Old Testament’s “Immanuel”, who is yet another type of Jesus Christ. Immanuel I have had pious Christians insist to me that this Immanuel is Jesus Christ purely and simply, and no other. And they have become extremely angry when I have disagreed with them. Here follows my explanation as to why I think this. Despite the fact that the prophet Isaiah is obviously placing Immanuel, his soon to be born son, in the context of the neo-Assyrian invasions of Syro-Palestine, at the time of king Ahaz of Judah (7:10-17): Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, ‘Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights’. But Ahaz said, ‘I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test’. Then Isaiah said, ‘Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria,” and hence this text has nothing vaguely hinting at the Greco-Roman scenario into which Jesus Christ was born, Matthew has no qualms about expanding its meaning to embrace Jesus Christ (1:23): “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’)”. Jesus, a divine Person, is more Immanuel, ‘God is with us’, than was Isaiah’s son. Nevertheless, “the virgin” who gave birth to Jesus did not call him “Immanuel”, as had Isaiah’s wife in the case of her son, but called him “Jesus” (Luke 1:3-33): … the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end’. Nor can it be said that Isaiah’s wife - who may have been a virgin when she married Isaiah - was a virgin when she gave birth, as according to Matthew 1:23. The rare Hebrew noun used to describe Isaiah’s wife, ‘almah, is however an interesting choice. It is explained as follows at: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/isaiah7.14 With respect to the Hebrew noun ‘almah,[2] the editors of HALOT[3] list among its meanings: "marriageable girl," "a girl who is able to be married," and "a young woman" (until the birth of her first child). The basic meaning is a woman (the age is less important) ready (able) to be married. The span of life covered by this term is poorly defined and quite long, ranging from the onset of puberty to the birth of a woman's first child.[4] We propose a different etymology, namely, to derive the noun ‘almah from the root ‘-l-m I "to be concealed, hidden," well attested in Hebrew. If this etymology proves to be correct, ‘alem (masculine) and ‘almah (feminine) would designate an engaged couple, which would accordingly be rendered as "the concealed ones." During the period of betrothal, fiancés used to live in their parents' homes, separated, secluded, forbidden from seeing one another. The feminine form, ‘almah, may also be rendered "the concealed one" or even "the veiled one." This last rendition would reflect the custom of engaged women wearing veils over their faces as a sign of seclusion, or concealment, during the time of betrothal. We may mention that, given the ethical standards of the ancient Israelite society, the idea of virginity, though not distinctly stated, is nevertheless implied in the term ‘almah. As is the case concerning the providential woman from Genesis 3:15 (ha-‘ishshah "the woman"), the noun ha-‘almah "the concealed one" from Isaiah 7:14 has the definite article attached, which points to a special female character …. [End of quote] It appears that Matthew the Evangelist has cleverly expanded the Immanuel of the neo-Assyrian era in order to demonstrate that this child was merely a type of the real Immanuel, who was Jesus Christ the son of the Virgin Mary. Melchizedek ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thus Melchizedek was, like Immanuel son of Isaiah, a real Old Testament character and most certainly a flesh and blood human being. But, as well as this, he was a type of the One, Jesus Christ, of whom the descriptions, “God is with us” (Immanuel) and “King of Righteousness” (Melchizedek), are far more befitting. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ “Melchizedek” is first introduced under that title (“King of Righteousness’) in the Genesis 14 narrative, which belongs to the toledôt of Ishmael according to my: Toledôt structure of Genesis (6) Toledôt structure of Genesis | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In Genesis 14:17-20, we read this: After Abram returned from defeating Chedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine. He was priest of God Most High, and he blessed Abram, saying, ‘Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And praise be to God Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand’. Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything. At the beginning of an article, Did Melchizedek Eternally Exist? Who Was He?, the author, William F. Dankenbring, asks questions about Melchizedek similar to the ones that I posed at the beginning: http://www.triumphpro.com/melchizedek-origin.pdf What does it mean in Hebrews 7:3 where we read that Melchizedek was “without father or mother . . . without beginning of days or end of life”? Did Melchizedek eternally exist? Who was he, anyway? Was he the patriarch Shem? Was he an angel? Was he the Logos, the one who later was born as Jesus Christ? Was he a human being, a created being, or did he eternally exist? What do we know about this mysterious figure? Whilst I have always recognised Melchizedek as a type of Jesus Christ based on Hebrews 7 and also Paul’s interpretation of Psalm 110, my understanding was that the original Melchizedek, who was the contemporary of patriarch Abram as introduced in Genesis 14, was - as according to certain traditions - the great SHEM, son of Noah. Thus Melchizedek was, like Immanuel son of Isaiah, a real Old Testament character and most certainly a flesh and blood human being. But, as well as this, he was a type of the One, Jesus Christ, of whom the descriptions, “God is with us” (Immanuel) and “King of Righteousness” (Melchizedek), were far more befitting. One of those traditions naming Melchizedek as Shem is from the Book of Jasher. Here Dankenbring tells of it: The book of Jasher, which is ancient Jewish literature apart from the Bible, dating to hundreds of years before Christ and most probably even earlier, says: And Adonizedek king of Jerusalem, the same was Shem, went out with his men to meet Abram and his people, with bread and wine, and they remained together in the valley of Melech. And Adonizedek blessed Abram, and Abram gave him a tenth from all that he had brought from the spoil of his enemies, for Adonizedek was a priest before God” (Jasher 16:11-12). Shem, of course, was the first born [sic] son of Noah who held the office of high priest in the patriarchal system, long before the Levitical priesthood. In the patriarchal age, the oldest son was the “priest” of the family, and the oldest son of the oldest son, descended from Seth, son of Adam, was the “chief priest” or “high priest” in the earth. The righteous men of God, descended from Adam, were in each generation both “king and priest” – Seth, Enosh, Cainan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech, and Noah. The high priesthood then went to Shem, after the Flood and the death of Noah, his father. Thus Shem was a king of “righteousness” – “Melchizedek” – and a king of “peace” – “Salem,” representing the city of Jerusalem [sic]. .... They were, like Noah, “a preacher of righteousness” (II Pet.2:5). Shem was also a “preacher of righteousness.” .... This makes basic sense to me, and it is apparently chronologically plausible if one is not bound to the Ussherian system. Dankenbring shows how it is possible for Abram to have encountered Shem (though I do not necessarily accept his dates as being fully accurate): At this point, the Biblical genealogy tell us, “And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran” (Gen.11:26). Yet the book of Jasher clearly states that “Terah was thirty eight years old, and he begat Haran and Nahor” (Jasher 9:22). Therefore, the fact that the Bible says Terah was 70 when he begat Abram, Nahor and Haran, must refer to the date when ABRAM was begotten – 32 years after his two brothers. Abram was the youngest of the three, but is listed first because the birthright became his due to his righteousness and excellency. This is a straight-forward chronology. However, it differs from that of Archbishop James Ussher. Ussher, in his mammoth chronological work, concluded erroneously that Abram was born seventy five years before Terah his father died. Terah died at the age of 205 (Gen.11:32). The next chapter of Genesis tells us that God told Abram to leave his country and Abram did so at the age of 75 (Gen.12:1-4). Ussher assumes that Terah’s death and Abram’s departure for Canaan was the same year – therefore, since Terah died in 1921 B.C., Abram's birth would have been, according to Ussher, 75 years sooner – in 1996 B.C. Notice! This date is precisely 60 years later than the true date for Abram’s birth! Unfortunately, Archbishop Ussher did not have access to the book of Jasher when he calculated the birth of Abram! When this correction is made, however, it suddenly frees up our understanding of events that occurred after the Flood. But which are we to believe – the book of Jasher or the conclusion of Archbishop James Ussher? As incredible as it may sound, we have solid confirmation of the dates given in the book of Jasher. The ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus of the first century corroborates the date given by Jasher for the birth of Abraham! Notice this remarkable fact. Josephus writes in Antiquities of the Jews: “I will now treat of the Hebrews. The son of Phaleg, whose father was Heber, was Ragau; whose son was Serug, to whom was born Nahor; his son was Terah, who was the father of Abraham, who accordingly was the tenth from Noah, and was born in the two hundred and ninety second year after the Deluge; for Terah begat him in his seventieth year” (bk.1, chapt.6, sec.5). The Flood was in 2348 B.C. According to Josephus, Abraham was born 292 years after the Flood. This would put his birth in 2056 B.C., just as the book of Jasher states! Archbishop Ussher, who puts Abraham's birth 60 years later, in 1996 B.C., is thus proved to be in error on this point. Josephus also confirms that Abraham was born in Terah’s 70th year – not in his 130th year. Of course, this also confirms the Scriptural account which states plainly that Abram was born in Terah’s 70th year (Gen.11:26). A straightforward reading of this passage could be interpreted as follows: “And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram [and he had also begotten] Nahor, and Haran . . .” Abraham was seventy five when he departed from Haran to the land of Canaan, in obedience to God (Gen.12:1-4), in 1981 B.C. He was 100 years old when Isaac was born 29 (Gen.17:1, 21), which would have been in 1956 B.C. Thus the war Abraham fought with the kings of the east would have been perhaps midway between the two dates – or about 1969 B.C. At that time Shem, who was born in 2248 B.C. and who died at the age of 600 years, in 1848 B.C., would have been 479 years of age. He lived for another 121 years. Thus Shem and Abraham were definitely contemporary, and Shem was the ruling patriarch of those willing to obey God. He was God’s representative and king over the earth, for those willing to obey God’s laws. Very few, however, were willing, as the story of human rebellion, led by Nimrod, unfolds. Shem was still alive when Abraham defeated the kings of the east in battle, rescuing his nephew Lot and his household. So it makes sense that Melchizedek, in the personage of Shem at that time, conferred a blessing on Abraham, and Abraham gave him, as God’s representative on earth, a tenth of all the spoils. Nevertheless, we must remember – the name “Melchizedek” is really a TITLE – an OFFICE – not a personal name as such. He had a dual office – he was a peacemaker, and was “king of peace.” And he was a righteous servant of God, thus “king of righteousness.” Shem then was serving in the office of high priest on the earth during his lifetime. .... [End of quote] The Pauline Expansion There were, in fact, two persons Immanuel, two persons Melchizedek, the flesh and blood version, and the blueprint heavenly version who “became flesh” (John 1:14). Dankenbring well explains this also: King of Salem and Righteousness Notice that Melchizedek was king of Salem. “Salem” comes from the Hebrew word meaning “peace.” Salem was the city of “Jerusalem” – the city of “peace.” The Hebrew word “Melek” means “King” or “Ruler.” Therefore, that would make Melchizedek the Ruler or King of Peace (Heb. 7:2). The word “Zedek” in Hebrew means “righteousness.” The Hebrew name Melchizedek itself literally means “King of righteousness” (Heb. 7:2). Shem held this title of office during his lifetime, as had Noah and his predecessors before him. Therefore, in truth, the TITLE “Melchizedek” goes back to Adam, the first human priest of God of the human family. However, there is a strange prophecy in Psalm 110:4, where David stated: “The Eternal hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.” This verse is quoted again in Hebrews 5:6,10, and is a prophetic reference to the coming of Christ, Yeshua the Messiah. And he will find support for this from: The Dead Sea Scrolls New light on the mystery of Melchizedek is provided by a text found among the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran, appropriately labeled “11Qmelchizedek.” In the Qumran text, “Melchizedek is presented as an angelic being who raises up God’s holy ones for deeds of judgment and who takes divine judgment on evil. Here Melchizedek has superhuman status, which clearly involved living eternally, just as he has in Hebrews” 30 (James Vanderkam, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and Early Christianity,” Bible Review, December 1991, p.46). Another Qumran text which appears to mention Melchizedek has also been published – the “Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice.” Says Bible Review, “Although the relevant fragments are poorly preserved, here Melchizedek seems to officiate as the heavenly high priest, just as Jesus does in Hebrews” (ibid.). In other words, there was a HIGH PRIEST “MELCHIZEDEK” IN HEAVEN even before the patriarchs, serving the Father! It was none other than the Logos, the Word of God, the One who became Jesus Christ! No one really knew who the original “Melchizedek” was until the apostle Paul identified him as the One who became Jesus Christ. [End of quote] Concluding Point According to the above I would insist that it is wrong to suggest that such biblical types as Elijah, Immanuel and Melchizedek did not have a real flesh and blood existence and individuality back in Old Testament times, as personally distinct from those to whom they pointed in the New Testament, be it John the Baptist or Jesus Christ. But Jesus Christ, as the pre-existent Logos (John 1:1), was the perfect Exemplar from whom these types arose and to whom they again pointed. As said earlier, “the Scriptures were all about, were all leading to, Him”.