Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Parallels in the lives of Jacob and Joseph.


There are many similarities between Jacob the son of Isaac and Rebekah and Joseph the son of Jacob and Rachel. (Everything in Italics is from Louis Ginzberg's - Legends of the Jews - Volume 2. - I don't recommend it)
1. As the mother of Jacob remained childless for a long time after her marriage, so also the mother of Joseph.

a. Rebekah and Isaac had to wait twenty years before having their twin boys Jacob and Esau

b. In the first place Rachel had to wait 14 years to even marry Jacob because Uncle Laban had tricked Jacob into marrying Leah. Then Everyone was having children but Rachel who eventually died giving birth to Benjamin.

2. As Jacob's mother bore two sons, so also Joseph's mother.

a. Rebekah bore two sons, Jacob and Esau.

b. Rachel bore two sons, Joseph and Benjamin.

3. Like the father, the son appropriated his older brother's birthright.

a. Jacob received the birthright from Esau because Esau sold it to him for a bowl of soup.

b. Joseph received the birthright for a few reasons.

i. The first is the Reuben the firstborn son, tried to take over the family in an incestuous way and fell out of his fathers favor.

ii. The second was that Rachel was Jacobs favorite wife and therefore her children were his favorite children, Joseph being the eldest.

4. The father was hated by his brother, and the son was hated by his brethren.

a. Jacob was hated by his brother Esau because not only had Esau lost the birthright for a bowl of soup, but he lost the blessing from his father Isaac because Jacob tricked Isaac into giving it to him.

b. Joseph was hated by his brothers because he was clearly the favorite of his father and he kept having these dreams that his brothers would one day bow down to him, and he told his brothers the dreams.

5. The father was the favorite son as compared with his brother, so was the son as compared with his brethren.

a. Isaac actually favored Esau for a while because he was a hunter cooked food just like Isaac wanted. After he lost the blessing and birthright though, he married some pagan women just to spite his parents.

b. Joseph was the favorite because he was from the favorite wife, as stated earlier.

6. Both the father and the son lived in the land of the stranger.

a. Jacob lived in Haran

b. Joseph lived in Egypt

7. The father became a servant to a master, also the son.

a. Jacob was a servant to Uncle Laban for at least 14 years trying to get permission to marry Rachel.

b. Joseph was a servant in Egypt.

8. The master whom the father served was blessed by God, so was the master whom the son served.

a. While Jacob was in the service of Laban, God blessed the house of Laban.

b. While Joseph served Potiphar and Pharaoh in Egypt, both were blessed by his presence.

9. The father and the son were both blessed with wealth.

10. Great things were announced to the father in a dream, so also to the son.

11. As the father went to Egypt and put an end to famine, so the son.

12. As the father exacted the promise from his sons to bury him in the Holy Land, so also the son.

13. The father died in Egypt, there died also the son.

14. As the father's remains were carried to the Holy Land for interment, so also the remains of the son.

The significance of these parallels.

As we have seen in other bible tidbits Joseph is a type of Christ figure. And as such I think that it is saying he is so like his father that they do the same things, just like Joseph and Jacob do the same things.

But if we can step back even further we see parallels between Abraham and Isaac. Both bear two children, one blessed, one not so blessed. They both have a hard time conceiving and there are more.

I think in a spiritual interpretation Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph all tell the story of salvation.

Abraham is a type for God the Father who offers his son Isaac as a sacrifice.

Isaac as a type of Christ gives birth to Jacob who is a types of the church with the twelve sons.

The sons of Israel (meaning the church) are sent to the nations to feed them, spiritually and physically.
bill bannonsaid...
 
Joseph like Christ is handed over to the Gentiles by his brothers where Joseph is falsely accused and descends into prison from which he rises to the right hand of pharoah just as Christ descends into hades and rises to the right hand of the Father. From the right hand of pharoah, Joseph feeds a starving world with grain from the grainaries whereas from the right hand of the Father, Christ feeds a world starving to be good ...with the Eucharist which is Himself from the grainaries which are the dioceses. Joseph wore a multi colored cloak but Christ wore a seamless garment. Joseph's brothers stand for the Jews whom Joseph/ Christ loves but as they speak to Him...Joseph disguises his identity for now but in the end will talk to them undisguised as Christ.
 

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

On Nimrod, Amraphel and Hammurabi




Blogger
Elijah said...
Sitchen is correct that AmarPal is Amar-Sin whose 9 years (1943-1934bc) are 151 years before Hamurabi (1792-1750bc). However, both share a misidenitifcation as Nimrod. Nimrod lived 500 years, AmraPal lived 215 years. The war of Abram with AmarPal has been reinterpreted as a war between Nimrod and Abram. The 13-year Mars as Marduk new year spans from Babylon's first king dying in 1881bc (14-year rule) to Shem's death, to Esau selling his birthright at 16 the year after Abram died, resulting in the interpretation that this Marduk is Nimrod whom Shem killed and then 26 years later Esau killed.
July 9, 2013 at 5:03 AM
Delete


BloggerElijah said...
The death of 500-year old Nimrod in year 600 (2256am) is actually age 499 in year 599 (1770bc April 22 death on Mekir 15). Since Ussher shifts 21 years, this places year 599 of Ussher Flood 2349bc in 1750bc as if Nimrod's death is dead Hamurabi. Ussher is not the only person to use 1750bc instead of 1770bc. The Maya use 1770bc as Adams 3600, Noahs 1344; but Africanus uses the same 1488 (double 744) that Mayan and Hippolytus use. Mayan Flood 3114-2370-1626bc Amizaduga, Hippolytus Flood 3258-2514-1770bc, Africanus Flood 3238-1750bc. The Nimrod of 2514bc is the 500x 360-day to 2021bc the Dec 25 Xmas of Noah's death used instead as Nimrod's death.
July 9, 2013 at 5:11 AM
Delete



AMAIC replies:

Dear Elijah

See our "Zimri Lim to be Re-Located to Era of King Solomon", at:

http://amaic-archaeology.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/zimri-lim-to-be-re-located-to-era-of.html

wherein the names and/or characters of Solomon's era can be found in the time of Zimri-Lim,

(a) who is the biblical Rezin (Rezon),

(b) whose father Iahdulim is the biblical Eliada,

(c) whose Syrian foe, Shamsi-Adad I, is the biblical Hadadezer,

(d) whose father, Uru-kabkabu, is the biblical Rekhob.

....

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

Abraham’s appeal goes to the heart of the Lord


 
2013-07-01 Vatican Radio
 
(Vatican Radio) We must pray with courage to the Lord, and with tenacity just as Abraham did. That’s what Pope Francis said to the faithful gathered for early morning Mass in the chapel of the Vatican guest house Santa Marta Monday. The Pope reiterated that praying is also “negotiating with the Lord,” even coming “out of left field” as Jesus teaches us.
Listen to Tracey McClure's report:
Cardinal Kurt Koch, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity and Secretary Bishop Brian Farrell concelebrated today’s mass which was attended by members and staff of the same council.
In his homily, Pope Francis referred to Abraham’s courage and tenacity in appealing to the Lord to spare the city of Sodom from destruction. Pope Francis drew from the First Reading, observing that “Abraham is a courageous man and prays with courage.” Abraham, he said, “finds the strength to speak face to face with the Lord and attempts to defend that city.” And he does it with tenacity. In the Bible therefore, the Pope said, we can see that “prayer must be courageous.”

“When we speak of courage we always think of apostolic courage – going out to preach the Gospel, these sort of things…But there’s also (the kind of) courage (demonstrated) before the Lord. That sense of paralysis before the Lord: going courageous before the Lord to request things. It makes you laugh a bit; this is funny because Abraham speaks with the Lord in a special way, with this courage, and one doesn’t know: is this a man who prays or is this a‘phoenician deal’ because he’s bartering the price, down, down…And he’s tenacious: from fifty he’s succeeded in lowering the price down to ten. He knew that it wasn’t possible. Only that it was right…. But with that courage, with that tenacity, he went ahead.”

Sometimes, the Pope said, one goes to the Lord “to ask something for someone;” one asks for a favor and then goes away. “But that,” he warned, “is not prayer,” because if “you want the Lord to bestow a grace, you have to go with courage and do what Abraham did, with that sort of tenacity.” The Pope recalled that Jesus himself tells us that we must pray as the widow with the judge, like the man who goes in the middle of the night to knock on his friend’s door. With tenacity.
In fact, he observed, Jesus himself praised the woman who tenaciously begged for the healing of her daughter. Tenacity, said the Pope, even though it’s tiring, is really “tiresome.” But this, he added, “is the attitude of prayer.” Saint Teresa, he recalled, “speaks of prayer as negotiating with the Lord” and this “is possible only when there’s familiarity with the Lord.” It is tiring, it’s true, he repeated, but “this is prayer, this is receiving a grace from God.” The Pope stressed here the same sort of reasoning that Abraham uses in his prayer: “take up the arguments, the motivations of Jesus’ own heart.”

“To convince the Lord with the Lord’s own virtues! That is beautiful! Abraham’s appeal goes to the heart of the Lord and Jesus teaches us the same: ‘the Father knows things. The Father – don’t worry – sends rain down on the just and the sinners, the sun for the just and for the sinners.’ With that argumentation, Abraham forges ahead. I will stop here: praying is negotiating with the Lord, even becoming inappropriate with the Lord. Praying is praising the Lord in the beautiful things he shares and telling him that he bestow these beautiful things on us. And (appealing to him) who is so merciful, so good, to help us!”

Pope Francis then urged everyone to spend no more than five minutes each day to read Psalm 102:

‘Bless the LORD, O my soul;
and all my being, bless his holy name.Bless the LORD, O my soul,
and forget not all his benefits. He pardons all your iniquities,
he heals all your ills.He redeems your life from destruction,
he crowns you with kindness and compassion.’

“Pray all of this psalm and with this we learn the things we must say to the Lord when we request a grace. ‘You who are Merciful and forgiving, grant me this grace:’ just as Abraham did and as Moses did. We forge ahead in prayer, courageous, and with these motivations which come right from the heart of God himself.”

....

Taken from: http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-francis-prayer-requires-courage-tenacity

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

“Abram departed his land carrying a promise: his entire journey is a going toward this promise".



Pope Francis has used his homily at Mass this morning to call for peace in the Middle East.

The Pontiff ‘s plea came as he focused his homily on the first reading of the day, from the Book of Genesis, which tells of the discussion between Abram and his cousin Lot about the division of the earth.

“When I read this,” he said, “I think of the Middle East and so I ask the Lord intensely that He give wisdom to all of us, the wisdom to say let’s not fight, you and I, I from here and you from there, the wisdom for peace.”

According to Vatican Radio, Pope Francis, who was speaking during the service at the chapel of his residence, the Domus Sanctae Marthae, said: “Abram departed his land carrying a promise: his entire journey is a going toward this promise. The way he walked his path is a model for how we ought to walk our own.

“God called Abram, a single person, and that one person makes an entire people. If we go to the Book of Genesis, to the beginning, to the creation, we find that God creates the stars, creates the plants, creates the animals, creates the these and the that’s and the others.

“But He creates Man in the singular, one. And God speaks in the singular. He spoke to Abram and gave him a promise and invited him to come out of his land. We Christians have been called one-by-one: none of us is Christian by pure chance. No one.”

There is a call, “by name, and with a promise,” the Pope added, “Go ahead, I am with you! I walk beside you.” This, he said, Jesus knew as well: “Even in the most difficult moments He turns to the Father.”

The Mass was concelebrated by Cardinal Robert Sarah of the Pontifical Council Cor Unum and by the emeritus vicar-general of the Rome diocese, Cardinal Camillo Ruini.

The service was attended by staff from Cor Unum, the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Vatican Observatory.

....

Taken from: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/25/pope-francis-calls-for-wisdom-and-peace-in-middle-east/

Thursday, June 20, 2013

Did Abraham Build the Kaaba?




The body of this paper will deal primarily with places and destinations, not theology or personality. I will examine the Biblical accounts of Abraham in the natural and sequential order in which they are preserved in the Bible, while I examine and compare a small sampling of the similarities and differences in the Quran and other Islamic sources. In doing so, I'll point out the several fatal contradictions in the Islamic perspective and leave the reader to determine whether the Islamic version is truth to be believed or fable created to connect a pagan Arabian shrine to the Biblical patriarch of the Israelites. I will cover the ancient evidence and promptly dismember Islamic dogma as inauthentic and based on inadequate grounds. In the end, it will be hard to ignore that the Biblical account is far more reliable and historically accurate and that the Islamic version is mere conjecture imagined in the mind of a suicidal poet of the seventh century.
Nothing is more important to the foundations and development of Islam than the re-casting of Biblical personalities into newly assigned roles as devout Muslims. Shaping Israelite patriarchs into ancient Muslims who worshiped Muhammad’s god is step one. Turning the Lord Christ into a minor image of Muhammad was step two, and worldwide conquest which wars against the soul is now a real possibility [Peter 2:11; Revelation 11:7, 12:7]. While the claims against the Bible are similar to those put forward in Mormonism, and falsified just as easily, both Muslims and non-Muslims need to be reminded that the books of the Bible are the measuring stick to evaluate the historicity and integrity of Muhammad’s often fictional portrayals of these ancient and important people.
Why did the Kaaba play a central role in Muhammad’s fantasies? While no historical facts support his claims, Muslims are seldom deterred. Islam is built upon the notion that Abraham was not only a Muslim [Q. 2:31] but that he was selected by Allah to build the Kaaba in Mecca [Q. 2:125-127], and that while doing so he established the rituals and beliefs which are the cornerstones of Islamic worship. The pagan origins and practices of the Kaaba will not be discussed here, only the patriarchal journeys and the Islamic corruption of the Bible’s texts. Muslims claim that Mecca and the Kaaba are the centers of worship for the entire world. Christians and Jews know that it is Jerusalem, where lays the chief cornerstone of Yahweh's kingdom [Psalm 102:16; I Peter 2:6]. The City of David [Zion] is mentioned nearly 50 times in the Bible as the home of God's people [Isaiah 10:24] and where the hosts will reign [Isaiah 24:23]. Are Muslims going to tell us that these references are corruptions in the texts and that Mecca was the intended city the whole time? Hardly even remotely plausible.
The Kaaba in Mecca is without equal in veneration in Islamic tradition, and had been revered by Arab pagans long before Muhammad’s birth. The Muslim religion holds that the Kaaba was built by Abraham and Ishmael after hearing a direct revelation from Allah. This seems improbable. After all, once Allah guides a people on the right course and provides a mode of conduct for worship through a chosen Prophet, Allah does not then lead them astray into confusion or an inability to see the right course [Q. 9:115]. How is it then that such a man as Abraham would be sent to Mecca to deliver the people from polytheism and build the Kaaba only to later have them fall into apostasy and disbelief, needing yet another prophet in the 7th century A.D.? Abraham being in Mecca is just not consistent with important Islamic doctrines, and a myth. For example, in Q. 2:125 the Kaaba is being purified [Ar. 'tahara'], yet in Q. 2:127 the foundation are still being raised [Ar. Rafa'a]. Depending on the traditions being reviewed, the Kaaba was built by Allah or maybe Adam or possibly Abraham. But, is it true?
Reconstructing ancient events in search for truth is never an easy task, but within the literature handed down from the earliest days, confirmed by corroborating testimony where it is available, certainty looms dreadful for Islamic claims. For example, American scholars such as Albright have discussed the groupings of people and popular migration patterns into and around cultivated areas of the Fertile Crescent, and it is nigh impossible to think that the barren wasteland of the Hijaz would be such a destination for Mesopotamian travelers. Crossing over from Ethiopian lands may be plausible, but Abraham was never in Ethiopia. General migration patters are important to consider if we are going to place the journeys of Abraham into historical context. It is very likely that many people, Abraham's troop included, traveled from Ur to Canaan via the established routes such as the Kings Highway or the International Coastal Road. It is far less likely that these same people then had any reason to travel another 700 miles south into the central Hijaz.
Respected biblical scholars have placed the journeys of the patriarchs in the Middle Bronze Age [2000-1550 B.C.] and this would include the relevant chapters in the Book of Genesis [Chapters 12-50] as well as the narrative accounts in both the Quran and Tradition of the Muslims. In this paper, I will present the narrative from the Book of Genesis, chapters twelve thru twenty-five, as those speak specifically of the travels of Abraham from his calling to his death. Let’s introduce a few of the Islamic fables first, take a close look at the Bible, then we’ll touch upon a few more Islamic myths before closing. That will complete the comparison, and the reader can decide which is believable and which is not.
One Islamic tradition holds that Abraham brought both Hagar and Ishmael to Mecca [Source: Bukhari Volume 4, Book 55, Number 584] then returned to Canaan after leaving both Hagar and her infant son in the uninhabited region of Arabia which would later serve as the ground for a building used to quarter the idols of the Kaaba. However, Sam Shamoun points out in ‘Ishmael is not the Father of Muhammad’ that eminent scholar Alfred Guillaume has written,
‘"... there is no historical evidence for the assertion that Abraham or Ishmael was ever in Mecca, and if there had been such a tradition it would have to be explained how all memory of the Old Semitic name Ishmael (which was not in its true Arabian form in Arabian inscriptions and written correctly with an initial consonant Y) came to be lost. The form in the Quran is taken either from Greek or Syriac sources." (Alfred Guillaume, Islam [Penguin Books Inc., Baltimore, 1956], pp. 61-62).
Another tradition holds that Muhammad himself is said to have told his favorite wife Aisha that, “Had not your people been still close to the pre-Islamic period of ignorance I would have dismantled the Kaaba and would have made two doors in it; one for entrance and the other for exit”. [Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 3, Number 128].
So much for the importance of the Kaaba. Yet, we are to believe that the Meccan prophet held the Kaaba in the highest esteem, and believed it had been built and rebuilt after a revelation from Allah.
Let’s examine the Bible and see what we can gather about Abraham, his journeys as agent of Yahweh among the nations and his role as a channel for God’s blessing to the world.
What does the Bible tell us of Abraham, and is it possible that he had spent time in Mecca? Let’s review the Scriptures now. The answers to all these questions lay within a survey of the Book of Genesis. Most of this is common knowledge to Christians, but by way of review, let’s go over the complete list of places Abraham traveled. A good Bible atlas would be useful to the reader. I suggest the Holman Bible Atlas but any Bible Atlas will help to put the following discussion into geographical perspective. The point of this exercise is to elucidate where Abraham did travel, in order to discover where he did not. Obviously, the Muslims will quickly claim that the Christian Scriptures are corrupted, and that we removed the parts which corroborate the worth and validity of the Islamic claims from the germane chapters of the Book of Genesis. The accusation of corruption is silly and unsupported by fact but it’s the only card Muslims have to play, so I don’t blame them for playing it. As I noted, Abraham went outside of Canaan a couple of times. However, the Bible nowhere mentions that Arabia was part of his journeys. Muslims may claim that this has been “removed” from the text, but for what reason? The text of Genesis was fixed many centuries before Islam. Why would it mention several travels outside of Canaan but remove Arabia/Mecca when neither the author (Moses) nor the Jews for many centuries would have the slightest idea about Islam? We have plenty of manuscripts from centuries before Muhammad, none of which place him in Mecca.
Born in Ur, his father Terah began his migration to Canaan [Genesis 11:21]. After Terah’s death, Abraham was called by Yahweh to continue the journey to Canaan [Genesis 12:1] where God promised to Abraham and his descendants the land inhabited by the Canaanites. Let’s note here that we are given the names of the Tribes which would be displaced to establish Abraham in the land. None of them inhabited the Hijaz. The point is, that the area in which the Ka’aba was allegedly built by Abraham was nowhere near the region where Abraham was to establish his family, so why build a temple or an altar so far from Canaan? [Genesis 12:7-8; cf. First Epistle of Clement 10:3-5 (source for I Clement)]. Soon, Abraham and his family arrived in Canaan, and drove his herds into the region of Bethel, Shechem and Moreh [Genesis 12:4-6]. After an appearance of God in Canaan, Abraham moved his house further south, into the Negev. The Negev is in Canaan, on the West side of the Dead Sea, north of the Wilderness of Zin. It is bordered on the east by Edom, and could not have possibly included the Syro-Arabian desert region further to the east, and certainly excludes the uninhabited lands surrounding Mecca 700 miles to the south.
Next, a famine struck Canaan, and Abraham sought refuge by going ‘down to Egypt’ [Genesis 12:10] and later, his son Ishmael would take an Egyptian for a wife [Genesis 21:21]. To summarize so far, Abraham had yet to travel farther south than the centers of power in Egypt. Still a long way from Mecca.
Abraham later left Egypt a wealthy man and soon separated from his nephew Lot [Genesis 13:14]. Abraham then moved to Hebron, and built an altar to Yahweh. Later, a war breaks out in the region of the Dead Sea [Genesis 14:1-24] and Abraham defeats a tyrannical king in a battle north of Damascus near Mt. Hermon [vv. 13-17] frees Lot and establishes himself as ‘blessed by the God Most High’. God then establishes His covenant with Abraham, and promises to his descendants ‘this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the River Euphrates’ [Genesis 15:18-21]. Notice by using your atlas that the boundaries for the covenant lands are not even close to Mecca or central Arabia. The river in Egypt was most likely the Wadi el-Arish. The Euphrates is in northern Syria. It makes no sense that God would tie a people to a land and the land to the people, only to draw his Prophets from someplace else.
Next we find that Abraham had been living in Canaan for ten years, traveling about Canaan as seasonal weather patterns required [Genesis 16], when he became impatient with God’s plan and took Hagar as a second 'wife'. The same Hebrew word is used in 16:3 to describe both Sarai and Hagar as wife. However, the status of Hagar is debatable. Follow this link for a fuller discussion on 'Hagar in Abraham's Household'. The Egyptian maid conceived, in Canaan, and bore Abraham's son, in Canaan. Abraham’s anxiousness to have a son caused him and his family great grief. Rather than exercising self-control and forbearance, he took a course that was a threat to his faith. While Abraham’s actions nearly lead him astray, he was not the first nor the last to doubt God’s promises. Hagar soon suffers intense humiliation at the hands of Abraham and Sarah, but at Beer-Lahai-Roi is met by the Angel of the Lord, and delivered from her plight. This event took place West of the Wadi el-Arish, in Egypt and nearly 1,000 miles from Mecca. She was most likely trying to return home to Egypt.
After the establishment of the Covenant of Circumcision, we find Abraham talking to God under the ‘holy tree of Mamre’, which is near Hebron, nearly 1,000 miles from Mecca [Book of Genesis 18:1]. Later, Abraham intercedes for Sodom, which is then destroyed for its depravity and Lot escapes to Zoar [Genesis 18:16-19:30; cf. First Epistle of Clement 11:1-2]. Outside of Zoar, Lot was the victim of a scheme concocted by his eldest daughter. Zoar was in the southern tip of the Dead Sea in the Valley of Siddim, and like every other event from the OT, a long way from Mecca. From Lot’s daughters are born the Moabites and the Ammonites, longstanding enemies of Israel and Judah. Moab and Ammon lay on the east side of the Dead Sea and later form the eastern edge of the Covenant Land. The southeastern extreme of the Covenant Land extends no farther than this and no prophets would ever be called from beyond these borders.
Following the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, we encounter Abraham in Gerar, between Kadesh and Shur. In Gerar Isaac was born, wells were dug and treaties were struck. In short, there is no reason imaginable that God would take Abraham from his wells, family and tents in Canaan and command him to raise the foundations of the Kaaba over 1,000 miles away. All of this is a death blow to the Quran’s claims to Abraham, but let’s discuss a few more Biblical passages, ending with the death and burial of Abraham in order to close the lid on Islam once and for all.
Isaac is later weaned and tension again increases between Sarah and Hagar. Sarah pleaded with Abraham to cast Hagar out, and the following morning she was given bread, a water skin and her son. She then wandered into the wasteland of Beer-Sheba, in southern Canaan [Genesis 21:8-21]. In these passages, God addresses Abraham and calls Hagar the ‘maidservant’ [Hb אמה 'amah' not ‘wife’ as in 16:3; compare the Latin Vulgate where in 21:8-12 ‘ancilla‘ is ‘maidservant’ or ‘female slave’ ]. Hagar had lost any status she may have earlier enjoyed, so her status as a wife at all can be questioned.
Before we leave Hagar to history, let me remind you of four important differences between the Bible and Quran surrounding this narrative. In the Biblical narrative, Hagar’s suffering and plight are of paramount importance to understanding the events surrounding the birth of the Promised Son. These events also give us insight into the treatment of women in the ancient Near East, which are still evident in Islam today. Hagar is the only woman in the Scriptures who is given the honor of giving a name to God, and she receives her own distinct covenant as a reward for her suffering and submission. What does the Quran say about this incredible woman who endured so much suffering? Nothing. So much for Islam honoring its pivotal women.
Eventually, Ishmael settled in the Wilderness of Paran, and took an Egyptian wife. Just where is the Wilderness of Paran, and does it, as Muslims claim, include the lands far to the south in the Hijaz? Let’s again look at our atlas. Paran is an ill-defined term in the Old Testament, suggesting that outside of it being a place on the route of the Exodus [Numbers 12:16], the region had very little geographical or theological importance to the Israelites. There is no prophetic scripture suggesting that a prophet would come from the Wilderness of Paran, nor a promise of prophetic license promised to Hagar or her descendants [Gen 16:7-16]. It is also worth noting that God spoke to Hagar, never to Ishmael. Very curious.
Located in the Sinai, Midian and Edom are natural borders to the east. Canaan is due north and central Sinai to the west. Not only are the borders of Paran well within the Sinai Peninsula, but as mentioned earlier, migration across the barren lands of Arabia was far less likely than remaining close to the routes of the Exodus. While migrations of people from Palestine into the Hijaz appear to be rare from the extant evidence, armies from Babylon did venture south. One example is Nabonidus King of Babylon who in the 6th century B.C. established outposts and colonies in the region. A total of six oasis towns are listed in the extant inscriptions, and while Yathrib is mentioned, Mecca, which is 280 miles south of Yathrib is nowhere to be seen on his lists. Mercantile movements were more common, but not until the 10th century and long after the death of Abraham. A notable case in favor of the Quranic view of Abraham’s travels can be found in the Book of I Kings [10:1-13] where the Queen of Sheba did in fact make the journey from S.W. Arabia to Israel. However, the territory of Sheba and also Tema are mentioned in the Book of Job [6:19] and yet while the region was traveled by merchants and known to the Biblical writers, there is still no mention of Mecca. Sheba is again discussed by the Prophet Isaiah [60:6] and nothing is said of Mecca or any dialectal variant of the name offered by Muslims. The Sabeans of Yemen never even mention the city either. The conclusion is evidently that Mecca was not in existence until long after Abraham's journeys.
Following God’s expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael, life continues for Abraham and his only wife Sarah. A disputed well becomes a source of controversy with King Abimelech. This name may translate 'Slave of Molech'. If this Biblical name were a derivative of the Canaanite name, that would serve as strong evidence that much of the Book of Genesis pre-dates Israel's Kingdom Period and gives even greater evidence to the non-existence of Mecca during the period of Abraham's travels, and an oath is sworn in Beersheba, again in Canaan [Genesis 21:22-34]. Later, Abraham is called to Mt. Moriah and the well known 'binding of Isaac' is played out. Mt. Moriah is also in Palestine, north of Beersheba. While the exact location is unknown, it only took Abraham three days to travel, so it could not have taken place in Mecca [Genesis 22]. An important observation here is that Isaac is called ‘your only son’ three times in this chapter. How can that be? Because Ishmael had already been sent away. He was to have no part of the covenant promised to Abraham and given to Isaac.
Soon, we find that Sarah had died, and Abraham arranges for the purchase of the Cave of Machpela. Yet again he has not left Canaan [Genesis 23]. Here Muslims need to explain why God would allow Abraham to build a tomb in Canaan for his family, but then a temple 1,000 miles away in a barren region of the Hijaz. In chapter twenty-four, we find that Abraham had become 'old in years' [24:1] It was time to find a wife for Isaac. Note that Abraham had nothing to do with finding a wife for Ishmael. Abraham's chief servant was selected for the task of conducting the search. An oath was sworn that the wife would not be a Canaanite but from Abraham's people in Mesopotamia. Let’s be reasonable here. If Abraham had built the Kaaba, then why wouldn’t Isaac’s wife be taken from the local tribes in the Hijaz or even farther south? . He returns home with Rebekkah to south Canaan, she weds Isaac and later Abraham dies and is buried with his wife Sarah in Machpelah. Both Ishmael and Isaac attended the funeral. Both must have been very close to Canaan, and in no way can we conclude that any of these men ever travels to Mecca to build a shrine to Allah and the other pagan gods native to Mecca. The Quran 11:49 clearly states that there had been no prophets to the Arabs before, so it can't be true that Abraham built the Kaaba. Also note that the Islamic traditions point out that before Muhammad’s claim to the prophetic office, none of his people had made the claim before him [Bukhari, Vol 1, Book 1, #6].
This all leads us to a connection with the nation of Israel, the Davidic Kingdom and the Savior who even now offers mercy to his wandering sons [Psalm 100:5,8; Luke 1:50; cf. Apology of al-Kindy, p.121].

Monday, June 3, 2013

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.

....

Taken from: http://marccortez.com/2011/04/01/zephaniah-as-the-link-between-babel-and-pentecost/

Monday, May 13, 2013

Dinah's Daughter, Asenath, Gives Legitimacy to Joseph

 


Dinah’s Daughter: A Vital Link


   
LBJ-120911
This week’s parsha, Vayislach, relates a shocking episode that causes genuine outrage in the Israelite camp -- the Canaanite Prince Shechem’s brutal assault of Yaakov’s [Jacob's]daughter Dinah. “And Yaakov’s sons came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved and agonized in fury because he had committed a despicable deed against Israel by laying Yaakov’s daughter – a thing not to be done” (Bereshit 34:7).  The Torah then depicts the aggressive revenge of Yaakov’s sons against the Canaanite tribe, and the narrative flows on to additional future events, but of Dinah’s fate there is no further mention.

Two parshiyot later (Miketz) we learn of Yosef’s [Joseph's] amazing rise to power in Egypt. Paraoh, in elevating Yosef to an exalted position, makes two ceremonial gestures. One: he grants Yosef a new name: "And Pharaoh called Yosef Tzafenat Paneah” (Bereshit 41:45) -- and the second: he arranges a prestigious marriage for Yosef:  “…he gave him for a wife Asenat the daughter of Potiphera, the priest of On..."(Ibid.)

These two official gestures by Paraoh seem linked: a prominent Egyptian name and a prominent Egyptian wife were designed to launch Yosef's illustrious governmental career in Egypt. Egyptologists tell us that in the language of ancient Egypt Tzafenat translates as "supplier of food," and Paneah as "vital." From the connotation of the name given to Yosef it is apparent that it was a title denoting his job as Chief Steward, a preeminent and powerful governmental position further enhanced by his marriage to a woman hand-picked by Paraoh. By taking an Egyptian name and marrying a highborn Egyptian woman, Yosef acquired great prestige and, most importantly, an Egyptian identity.

When he married the daughter of Potiphera, the priest of On, Yosef became a member of a socially and politically prominent family. On, the equivalent of the Greek Heliopolis, neighboring the Eastern Delta or Goshen, later the site of the Hebrews’ settlement, was the center of sun worship. During the reign of Akhenaton when sun worship was the official religion in Egypt, the chief sanctuary to Ra, the Sun God, was erected in On, rendering the Priest of On the Supreme Clerical Authority.

Asenat, the daughter of the Supreme Clerical Authority, eventually became the mother of Menashe and Efraim. On his deathbed Yaakov raised Menashe and Efrayim to become Israel's tribal fathers, on par with Yaakov's own sons. Asenat, who, according to the Midrash, was the adopted daughter of Potiphera (whom Rashi identifies with Potiphar) thus became one of the eemahos of Bnei Yisrael, sharing that honor equally with Rachel, Leah, Bilhah and Zilpah.

Who was Asenat if not the natural daughter of Potiphera? Where did she come from? Rabbinic literature picks up the thread that the Torah text did not continue to weave. Midrash Esther reveals that Asenath was in fact Dinah's daughter, born of Dinah's disastrous encounter with the Canaanite prince Shechem. How did the tale evolve? How did Dinah’s daughter become the adopted child of the Egyptian potentate? What miraculous coincidence helped the beautiful young girl to reach Potiphera’s home?

"And Dinah gave birth to a daughter and named her Asenat, saying, `To my woe did I bear her for Shechem the son of Chamor who had taken me by force to his house'" (Midrash Esther). The same Midrash discloses that when "Yaakov saw that his sons regard Asenat with hostility, he took a gold medal and wrote upon it the Holy Name and placed on her neck."  With that Asenat left Yaakov’s household and the Almighty guided her to the house of Seleikha, wife of Potiphar.

"And Seleikha was barren of child, and she saw the lovely girl who came to her house, and she gathered her to her house, and she became her daughter" (Ibid.)

Years later, when Asenat was presented to him by Pharaoh, Yosef instantaneously noticed the medallion with the Holy Name on Asenat's neck, and understood that it was the Divine Hand, which guided Asenat to him.

This Midrash solves several problems with one stroke. First, the brutality of Dinah's fate is mitigated by this sequel. We are updated on Dinah’s story: the child born of the unhappy Shechem episode is redeemed from the stigma of her birth by eventually serving an essential role in the Divine plan. Secondly, through Asenat, Dinah's rightful inheritance is restored, as she becomes a tribal ancestress on equal footing with her brothers. Thirdly, it allays fears about Yosef's potential assimilation, marriage to a foreign woman being its ultimate element.

Not only did Yosef not marry an Egyptian, Chazal teach, on the contrary, he married a young woman provided by the Almighty Himself, a wife from the house of Yaakov to serve as a vital link to the next generation.

About the Author:

© 2013 The Jewish Press. All rights reserved.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Vern Crisler's Useful Modification of Dr Donovan Courville's Archaic Egypt



Egypt: Archaic Period



1. PARALLEL DYNASTIES


W. Budge has an interesting observation in his *History of Egypt* with respect to the Egyptian Book of the Dead:


"[I]n a medical papyrus at Berlin further information is added to the effect that after Hesepti was dead the book was taken to his Majesty Sent; now Sent was the fifth king of the II Dynasty and reigned many years after Semti [i.e., Hesepti-VC], and we must therefore understand that Sent came into possession of a medical work which had once belonged to his great predecessor Semti" (Vol. 1, pp. 199-200).


This means there may be a possible temporal correlation between first dynasty Semti (aka: Den, #5 below) and Sent (aka: #6). The correlation between the first and second dynasties of Egypt would then be something like this (as a rough approximation):


1st Dyn (South)------2nd Dyn------------3rd Dyn (North)

1.Menes

2.Athothis---------2.Hotepsekhemwy

3.Djer-------------3.Nebre

4.Merneith/Djet----4.Ninetjer

5.Den (aka:Semti)--5.Weneg,Peribsen-----5.Khasekhemwy

6.-----------------6.Sent---------------6.Djoser

7.Miebis-----------7.-------------------7.Djoser-Teti

8.-----------------8.Aka----------------8.Aches

9.Semempses,Hu-----9.Nephercheres-------9.Neferkare,Hu

10.Qaa


In other words, Egyptian chronology would need to bring 2nd dyn Sent in line so that he follows 1st dyn Den. This has the effect of causing the 2nddyn to overlap the 1st dyn, which sends Ninetjer way up next to Queen Merneith. Also, Ninetjer was the father of Khasekhemwy, the father of Djoser, so Khasekhemwy would have to be removed from the end of the 2nd dyn (as Courville argued) and placed at the beginning of the 3rd dyn.

This both falsifies and confirms part of Courville's reconstruction. He believed that the 2nd dyn was *consecutive* after the 1st, but that the 3rd was *parallel* with the first. If we follow the Berlin papyrus, however, the 2nd dyn is not consecutive but is parallel to, or at least overlaps, the 1st dyn.


Thus Courville is falsified on that front. But at the same time, if the papyrus falsifies the notion that the 2nd dyn is consecutive after the first, it also confirms

Courville's other belief that the 3rd dynasty was parallel to the 1st dynasty.


2. ANACHRONISMS


Having said that, one of Manetho's anachronisms is cleared up by this arrangement. He had said that it was in the reign of Ninetjer that women were

first given kingship. On the basis of the above chronology, he was entirely correct. It was indeed in the third 2nd dyn king's reign that women were first given the kingship. As Manetho says of Binothris (aka Ninetjer):


"In his reign it was decided that women might hold the kingly office."


We can now say that the woman he was talking about was none other than the woman who may have been Egypt's first queen, Queen Merneith.


Another anachronism is also cleared up concerning when worship of the Apis bull and Mendesian goat was first introduced. They were introduced under Nebre's reign, which is anachronistic in terms of traditional chronology, but is entirely correct if the above arrangement is accepted.


3. MERNEITH & PERIBSEN


I've argued that Courville might have been right to place the 3rd dynasty of Egypt as at least partially parallel with the 1st. I am modifying Courville's claim by arguing that the 2nd dynasty *also* partially overlaps these two dynasties.


On my little chart of dynastic overlap above, I have Queen Merneith as number 4, followed by Peribsen at number 5.


T.A.H. Wilkinson in his book *Early Dynastic Egypt* [1999] says, "Curiously, the name of Peribsen also occurs on a stone vessel fragment found by Petrie

in the First Dynasty tomb of Merneith....The only possible [sic] explanation is that it represents later contamination of the tomb contents, perhaps from Amelineau's excavations" (p. 90).


Certainly, it's *an* explanation, but what evidence does Wilkinson present to prove this? None. What seems more plausible is that Peribsen may have been

related to Merneith (a son?), or may have succeeded her as a king of Egypt.


If the contamination theory doesn't hold any water, and no evidence was presented that it does, then the above Merneith-Peribsen connection appears to be a major support for the above arrangement, but also a 0major anachronism for traditional chronology if a consecutive view of the earliest dynasties is assumed.


4. QA'A-HEDGET


Qa'a-hedget is one of the last kings of the first dynasty, (cf. Peter Clayton, *Chronicle of the Pharaohs*, p. 25.) Kings by the names of Sneferka and Ba are thought to have followed Qa'a-hedget (cf. Francesco Raffaele's essay on the Second Dynasty), illustrated as follows:


First Dynasty...last three kings:


a. Qa'a-hedget

b. Sneferka

c. Ba


Now it turns out that some believe a Qa'a-hedget is a king of the *third* dynasty. Raffaele says, "A stela of unknown provenance bought by the Louvre

Museum at the end of the '60s, bears the Horus name of this King; it is the only attestation of Qa Hedget ....The style of the relief and the skillness of its lines are the reasons for the widespread conviction that we have to do with a IIIrd dyn. datable piece, not with one of Qa'a (Ist dyn. ending) as was formerly advanced" (cf. his essay on Qa-hedget).


I have Nephercheres of the 2nd dynasty as identical to Neferkare of the 3rd dynasty. Both were numbered as 9 on my reconstruction, and Qa'a was numbered as 10. Raffaele points out:


"Lacking the evidences for a Horus name of the predecessor of Qa Hedget, Neferkara, it could be hypothezed these these names belonged to the same sovereign; the few traces they left make it possible that both these kings could have been immediate predecessors of Huni" (Essay on Qa-Hedget).


So Neferkara is considered the predecessor of Qa Hedget, just as my reconstruction had it.


The fourth dynasty starts (in my view) right after the end of the 1st and 3rd dynasties, and Snofru is the first king of the 4th dynasty. Now that name Snofru (who follows close behind Raffaele's Qa Hedget) bears a remarkable resemblance to the Sneferka who followed Qa'a, both sharing four consonants (S,n,f,r), both sharing a predecessor with the same name.


The only thing that I can see as being a possible counter-instance to dynastic overlap in the Archaic Period of Egypt is that German excavators found a seal-impression on the entrance of Qa'a's tomb, and "this has been taken as a proof of the presence of Hotepsekhemwy at the funerary ceremony of the Horus Qa'a...." (Raffaele, Essay on Hotepsekhemwy).


The possibility remains however, that Qa'a may have been the one who put the impression on his tomb entrance, thus identifying himself with a famous predecessor (for sacral or political prestige). For instance, a seal impression of Ninetjer was found in a tomb of Khasekhemwy, but this is not taken to mean that Khasekhemwy preceeded his father Ninetjer.


A lot more research and digging needs to be done to test whether more kings of the third dynasty share the names of the kings of the first or second dynasty. I think it would be a good investment of time to test out the theory of dynastic overlap for the Archaic Period.


Vern

Taken from: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/60