"Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." Psalm 119:105
been there done that
posted Wednesday, November 19, 2008 :: 12:36 PM
I notice that Islamic piracy is back on the rise on the world stage. Europe was held hostage at the mercy of Islamic pirates in its Mediterranean shipping for centuries from the Crusades to the 1800s. Every European naval power paid the Islamic pirates of those days (North African corsairs from the Barbary States) an annual tribute to not harass their shipping. Like protection money to the mob, it worked, but it didn't give the criminals any incentive to forsake piracy; it just created a supply and demand cycle which ensured the survival of piracy as a thorn in one's flesh.
When America was a young nation, during the Jefferson administration, we declared war on the Barbary States because of their harassment of American shipping. In those days the pirates took crew and passengers hostage and demanded ransom for their return (sound familiar?), or, if they could not get ransom, the Americans were enslaved.
The war lasted for a few years, with a flareup again after the War of 1812, and produced many exciting episodes and courageous heroes. But the long and the short of it was, bold and decisive action - such as pointing loaded cannons at the equivalent of the presidential palace and demanding the release of every American captive or else -- and a willingness to spend millions for defense but not one cent for tribute, ended the hostilities in our favor rather quickly. When the Barbary States saw that piracy was no longer profitable, the former pirates soon found employment in other professions.
We used to know how to handle pirates, Islamic and otherwise, as well as every other sort of terrorist and thug. As my mother would say when I asked her as a new mother myself, how to enforce parental authority with my toddlers (a small type of terrorist and thug, if they are allowed to be), "You have to make the consequence of the action greater than the benefit." Simple economics. Let's hope we remember our history.
The long answer is: Ancient World has Abraham most likely sojourning in Egypt during the reign of the Hyksos, Joseph being governor of Egypt during the reign of one of the Theban pharaohs, and Moses leading the Hebrews from Egypt during the regin of one of the Ramesesan dynasty pharaohs (after Ramses the Great). Unwrapping the Pharaohs was published at the time Ancient World was being printed, so I did not use it as a source reference for that book. Our dating and chronology authority is from Ussher's Annals, and Chronology of the Old Testament by Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones. For Egyptian history harmonized with biblical history, we used primarily Rawlinson's Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World (of which one was Ancient Egypt) and Byrant's An Analysis of Ancient Mythology (which is also an analysis of the ancient history brought down to us via the Greek classics and Manetho, the Egyptian historian). Rawlinson was professor of ancient history at Oxford University in England, and Bryant was the foremost classical historian in England in his day.
The ancient Egyptian chronology which is presented in Story of the Ancient World is not based on modern Egyptian chronology - as some (even modern) historians believe it has been exaggerated at some point in the past. I have based our chronology on the Egyptian Old Chronicle, which is the oldest historical document extant for Egyptian history. It contains half the number of dynasties that modern historians use, but, more importantly, it harmonizes perfectly with biblical history. Bryant makes a logical and indisputable argument for the reliability of the Old Chronicle in his six volume masterwork mentioned above.
So what does this mean: this means my dynasty numbers do not line up with those used in Unwrapping the Pharaohs, which accepts the standard dynastic list and goes from there. Because there is dispute about the dynastic list, I did not present our Egyptian history in terms of dynasties. I was not learned enough to analyze the standard dynastic list, and do what experts have been seeking to do since Napoleon's discovery of ancient Egypt: harmonize that list with the Bible.
Instead, I have presented Egyptian history in terms of the great personalities of Egypt's royal families: the Hyksos invaders, who they were, and where they came into the picture of Egyptian history; the great Theban family of Ahmose, Thutmose, Hatshepsut, Ankhenaten, and Tutankemon; and the "new" royal family which arose over Egypt (recorded in Exodus 1) of which Rameses the Great was the greatest pharaoh.
I did not place the reign of Rameses the Great after the Exodus as Unwrapping the Pharaohs does. The reason is this: of course, at the time I did not know the argument that Unwrapping the Pharaohs would be making, as it was not published yet. But there were books out there, which I had read, which did place Rameses after the Exodus (as well as books which place him during, and also others before -- who to believe?) After wrestling with this question for months, I chose to place him before, simply because the biblical account presents God's judgment on a proud and grand Egypt, on a devastating scale. While Egypt does again enter biblical history, it is not for hundreds of years after the Exodus, and Egypt never again regains her former glory or prominence.
Examining the monumental record of Rameses, there is no doubt that Rameses' reign was the greatest in terms of magnificence, wealth, and renown that Egypt ever produced. So if you look at Egyptian history on a broad and grand scale, it builds and builds and builds in terms of might until the reign of Rameses, which is its height, then there is a mysterious period of chaos, power struggles, upheaval, unrest and a complete loss of power and influence, then there is a weak period of regrowth, however characterized by military defeats, and more power struggles, ending with foreign conquest, of one empire after another. The biblical history of the Exodus merely explains what cut short the magnificence and might of Egypt, and perfectly explains the cause of the ensuing chaos, and why it was a weaker state in world history from that time forth.
That is the history related in Story of the Ancient World. It does not line up with Unwrapping the Pharaohs in every particular. I have since learned that Dr. Ruth Beechick has published a new book: World History Made Simple: Matching History with the Bible, which has similar conclusions.
The history presented in Story of the Ancient World is not a judgment of Unwrapping the Pharaohs at all: they are experts, and I am a homeschooling mom. And Dr. Beechick is not an Egyptian authority either. But being outside the field, maybe we have not been influenced by the standard scholarship in the field, and so it is easier for us, in our simple way, to look at the Bible, look at Egypt, and come to a logical conclusion - which may or may not be a good thing.
One of the new articles/ sidebars in the new edition of All Through the Ages concerns the Hyksos and their place in Egyptian history. This article has bearing on a recent question I received comparing Story of the Ancient World to Unwrapping the Pharaohs, so before I answer that, here is Who were the Hyksos?:
The native Egyptians, the people of Mizraim, at first did not build up the elaborate society by which history knows them, for they lived simply, their chief town being Memphis. But in the course of time the Cush-ites, descendants of Cush, rebelled against the Divine will (Nimrod was their king at the Tower of Babel rebellion), became wandering nomads, and began troubling the settled peoples in many places. In 2084 bc, or a little more than one hundred years after Mizraim first entered Egypt, a large group of Cush-ites invaded the country from the east, and overtook the land. The Egyptians recorded that event thus:
“Of a sudden there came upon this country, a large body of noble people from the east (two hundred and forty thousand!); who with great boldness invaded the land, and took it without the least opposition: not a single battle was hazarded. The chief of our people they reduced to obedience, and then in a most cruel manner, they set fire to our towns, and overturned our temples. Their behavior to the natives was very barbarous, for they killed the men, and made slaves of the wives and children.
“At length they consitituted one of their body to be their king. He resided at Memphis, holding all the Upper and Lower country tributary; and having garrisons in every place of consequence. He took particular care to secure every part to the east; as the Assyrians (i.e., the sons of Shem) were then very powerful.”
--Josephus, Against Apion, Book I, 14.75, quoting Manetho’s Egyptian History, Book II.
Josephus goes on to identify these invaders, whom Menetho calls Hyksos, with shepherds, and his own ancestors, who were shepherds in Egypt when Joseph was governor there. But this could not possibly be the case, as it grossly contradicts the Biblical account of the Hebrews. Instead, the Greek “Hyksos” was originally U-Cousos, a Chaldean and Egyptian word meaning “noble Cush-ite,” (Jacob Bryant, Observations and Inquiries upon Ancient History, p. 196, and A New System, or an Analysis of Ancient Mythology, Vol. 1, pp.94-95).
The Cush-ites established Nimrod’s religion throughout Egypt. Their chief deity was the sun, which they worshipped by the name of Amon-Ra, which means, Ham, the sun god; for who the Hebrews called Ham, the Cush-ites called Am or Amon. They were the first to deify their ancestors.
However, for all their tyranny, the Cush-ites did improve the country in many ways. They built reservoirs, and drained the marshes of the Delta using canals, which they had also employed to improve Sumer, their country of origin. They turned the Delta into the most beautiful land in Egypt, and there the Cush-ites settled.
They introduced hieroglyphics, which were from Chaldean characters. The Cush-ites were great builders, as they had shown in Sumer. It was during the reign of the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings, that the great pyramids were built; the Cush-ites likewise built towers, temples, and pyramids in many places around the world to which they migrated. They furthermore built beautiful cities, and palaces; and were learned in all the science, astronomy, and mathematics of the Chaldeans; as well as pagan rites, and the occult. It was the Shepherd Kings who established all the rites of the dead, for which Egypt became famous. It was from these kings that the rulers of the Egyptians were first called Pharaoh, for such a title meant, “voice of the sun god.” In Sumer also, the people believed that the gods gave their messages to the king, who relayed the god’s will to the people (Christine Miller, Story of the Ancient World, pp. 68-70).
I recently saw in the news that the Iraq War casualty count for US forces has now exceeded 4,000 killed. This is tragic, especially for the families of those 4,000. But the media has lost the perspective of history. In the Battle of the Bulge during World War II, when Allied forces were advancing across France, over 19,000 US soldiers were killed in the course of the battle, and the vast majority of those were within the first three days! That is from only one battle out of the entire war. While that is a huge amount of loss also, it is barely a drop in the bucket compared to the warfare of medieval or ancient times.
I think that today we have such little patience for casualties, setbacks, or changes of strategy, because most of us (including the media) know so little history and therefore have no frame of reference to compare actually how astonishingly well we are doing in Iraq.
First, I apologize to digress from the discussion of marking on the hand and the forehead in Scripture. But I saw a news article while we were on vacation that prompted this post. The marking discussion will continue, never fear.
That Nimrod was the instigator of paganism, and specifically sun worship in the ancient world, we have already shown in previous posts in The Babylon connection series. That Nimrod was worshiped himself as the sun, as well as Cush and Ham, his fathers, we have also shown. That he whom the Romans called Saturn, was in fact Nimrod, we have also shown.
Now Saturn's festival was Saturnalia, and it began as a single feast day commemorating the dedication of the temple of Saturn, and was held on December 17th annually. By Caesar Augustus' time, this popular festival had expanded to a week- long celebration, beginning on December 17th and running through the 23rd. Augustus tried in vain to shorten its duration to three days, and Caligula, to five (their decrees testify to the entrenched practice of Saturnalia during their reigns). So we know that in the time in which Jesus was born, Saturnalia was already established as a week- long festival honoring Saturn, which was Nimrod, which was the sun god, ending on the 23rd.
Now as the Empire expanded - it reached its greatest extent under Trajan - it faced the problem of incorporating different cultures and customs into allegiance to the Roman state. While Italy revered Saturn, the Hellenic Iranians revered Mithras, whom they equated with Helios, the Greek sun god. The Syrians revered Elah Gabal, their sun god, an evolution of the old Baal. It soon occurred to the Romans that even though the gods who were revered in the various countries had different names, they all represented the sun. So, the Emperor Aurelian, in 275, renamed the Saturnalia holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, "the birthday of the unconquered sun." This renaming allowed the many solar deities throughout the Empire to be worshiped in a single celebration. It was held on December 25, the date of the winter solstice in the old Julian calendar, to more mark it as an Empire- wide sun holiday, not just a local Roman Saturn holiday. The new holiday retained many of the traditions and festivities which marked Saturnalia, however, such as gift- giving, games, and revelry.
The 1967 New Catholic Encyclopedia's article on "Christmas" states that "the birth of Christ was assigned the date of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar ...) because ... the pagan devotees of Mithra celebrated the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti." The Nicene Council, in 325, assigned it this date, as it was one of their lesser duties to standardize the dates on which the various Christian holidays were celebrated. They also set the date of Easter so that it would only rarely coincide with Passover, as they were trying to discourage celebration of the festivals of the Jews, as they saw it, among the Christians. Before the Council, the birth of Jesus Christ, the nativity of the Son of God (as opposed to the sun god) was celebrated at different dates according to the traditions different communities followed.
Now why set the date of Christmas for the same date as the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti? Catholic scholars today believe it was part of a broader effort to link pagan practices with Christian celebrations in an effort to save or sanctify that which was formerly pagan, redeeming it for the sake of Christ, just as Christ redeemed His followers, they also being formerly pagan.
Now Italian archaeologists believe they have discovered the first church which Constantine built, in which Christmas was celebrated on December 25th. It is the Basilica of St. Anastasia, and it was built as soon as a year following the conclusion of the Nicene Council. Its location was particularly important. A few feet away was the grotto the ancient Romans revered as the place where the she wolf was said to have nursed the twins, Romulus and Remus. The Christian Basilica was the first to be built within Rome itself, right on the Palatine hill, and not on the outskirts of the city. Constantine was making a political statement by building it next to the grotto marking the founding of Rome. He was saying, in effect, that Rome would not be founded any longer on pagan myth but on the foundation of Jesus Christ.
We were learning that polytheism in all nations, arose from a single source, and the worship of a single false god of the ancients, which was the sun. Byrant in Ancient Mythology, in the final essay of volume one, reveals the connection in detail:
"I have mentioned that the nations of the east acknowledged originally but one deity, the sun: but when they came to give the titles of Orus [Light], Osiris [Nimrod], and Cham [Ham], to some of the heads of their family; they too in time were looked up to as gods, and severally worshipped as the sun. This was practiced by the Egyptians: but this nation being much addicted to refinement in their worship, made many subtle distinctions: and supposing that there were certain emanations of divinity, they affected to particularize each by some title; and to worship the deity by his attributes. This gave rise to a multiplicity of gods: for the more curious they were in their disquisitions, the greater was the number of these substitutes. Many of them at first were designed for mere titles: others as I before mentioned, were derivatives, and emanations: all which in time were esteemed distinct beings, and gave rise to a most inconsistent system of polytheism. The Grecians, who received their religion from Egypt and the east, misconstrued everything which was imported; and added to these absurdities largely. They adopted deities, to whose pretended attributes they were totally strangers; whose names they could not articulate, or spell. They did not know how to arrange the elements, of which the words were composed.
...
"This blindness in regard to their [the Greeks'] own theology, and to that of the countries, whence they borrowed, led them to misapply the terms which they had received, and to make a god out of every title. But however they may have separated, and distinguished under different personages, they are all plainly resolvable into one deity, the sun."
Bryant goes on to show, to the end of volume 1, from the words of the Greek writers themselves in excruciating exactness, how Apollo, Bacchus, Ceres, Dionysus, Pan, Zeus (Jupiter), Poseidon (Neptune), Hercules, Chronos (Saturn), Aphrodite (Venus), Vesta, Rhea, Themis, Priapus, Proserpina, Attis, Adonis, Silenus, and the Satyrs were all originally Osiris, and Amon, or Ham, the Egyptian sun god. Anyone who is interested in this topic can read Bryant's fascinating investigation for themselves.
I trust I have shown beyond a shadow, through diverse authorities, that the original corruption of the true worship of the Creator, was turned to pagan nature worship centered in the sun; and that the corruption originated at Babel, and that the originators of it were the family of Ham, in Cush, and Nimrod; and that from Babel pagan worship spread throughout the ancient world.
We have received some questions this summer about some of the information in Story of the Ancient World, espeically about the details recorded in Ancient World that are not found in the Bible. One such question was in regard to Cain, after he was banished to Nod. In chapter 5 of Ancient World, it is recorded:
"Even after committing so awful a crime as murder, Cain did not show remorse for his sins, but only bitterness at the punishment he was to suffer. In this pattern Cain continued, for when he arrived in Nod, and saw that the earth would no longer bring forth fruit for his support, he did not learn to correct his ways from his punishment, but instead increased in wickedness.
He ceased to earn his living as a farmer, and began to work in trade. He invented the system of measures and weights by which men learned to buy and sell; and was also the author of dishonest measures and weights, and greatly increased his wealth by robbery. He was the first to set boundaries about land, and to move those boundaries for his own increase. He gained all that would satisfy base desires through injury to his neighbors, and became the leader of wickedness among men."
This detail comes from Josephus, and here is the full passage of his description of Cain:
"And when Cain had traveled over many countries, he, with his wife, built a city, named Nod, which is a place so called, and there he settled his abode; where also he had children. However, he did not accept of his punishment in order to amendment, but to increase his wickedness; for he only aimed to procure every thing that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbors.He augmented his household substance with much wealth, by rapine and violence; he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasures and spoils by robbery, and became a great leader of men into wicked courses. He also introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before; and was the author of measures and weights. And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness. He first of all set boundaries about lands: he built a city, and fortified it with walls, and he compelled his family to come together to it; and called that city Enoch, after the name of his eldest son Enoch. Now Jared was the son of Enoch; whose son was Malaliel; whose son was Mathusela; whose son was Lamech; who had seventy-seven children by two wives, Silla and Ada. Of those children by Ada, one was Jabal: he erected tents, and loved the life of a shepherd. But Jubal, who was born of the same mother with him, exercised himself in music; and invented the psaltery and the harp. But Tubal, one of his children by the other wife, exceeded all men in strength, and was very expert and famous in martial performances. He procured what tended to the pleasures of the body by that method; and first of all invented the art of making brass. Lamech was also the father of a daughter, whose name was Naamah. And because he was so skillful in matters of divine revelation, that he knew he was to be punished for Cain's murder of his brother, he made that known to his wives. Nay, even while Adam was alive, it came to pass that the posterity of Cain became exceeding wicked, every one successively dying, one after another, more wicked than the former. They were intolerable in war, and vehement in robberies; and if any one were slow to murder people, yet was he bold in his profligate behavior, in acting unjustly, and doing injuries for gain." Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book I, chapter 2
Josephus also records that Seth was the first astronomer, that Nimrod built the Tower of Babel and all the history behind it, and that Abraham was a wise man in astronomy among the Chaldeans, who tried to return his moon- worshiping neighbors to the true God who created the moon. All these details are also mentioned in Story of the Ancient World in the appropriate places in the narrative, to illuminate for children the history the Bible gives us.
On the reliability of Josephus as a historian, for nearly 2000 years he has stood -- among conservative theologians -- as the preeminent historian outside of the Bible for events which the Bible records. Concerning him, the Catholic Encyclopeda writes:
"The fact that the "Antiquities" testifies to the truth of Divine Revelation among the Jews as among the Christians, and confirms the historical facts related in the Bible by the incontrovertible testimony of pagan authors, renders this work of Josephus of extreme value for the history of the chosen people."
One factor in his favor, out of many, is that in Antiquities, he does not only tell that which reflects glory to the Jews, but like the Bible, tells the good and the bad of his people. This tends to lend credence to the fact that he, as a Jew in good standing, of the tribe of Levi, and thus of the priests, was to the best of his ability trying to obey the command to "not bear false witness."
There are more answers to questions about Story of the Ancient World that we have received on the Ancient World FAQ page.
The final chapter in volume 1 of Bryant's Ancient Mythology is titled, An account of the gods of Greece, to show that they were all originally one god, the sun. That Greek mythology was not original to the Greeks, but a borrowed system, Bryant takes notice, in that the Greeks little understood the origin or history of their mythology, as attested by Plato:
"There is at the head of the Egyptian Delta, where the river Nile divides, a city and district called Sais; the city was the birthplace of King Amasis, and is under the protection of the goddess Neith or Athene. The citizens have a friendly feeling towards the Athenians, believing themselves to be related to them. Hither came Solon, and was received with honour; and here he first learnt, by conversing with the Egyptian priests, how ignorant he and his countrymen were of antiquity." -- Timaeus of Plato
... and Herodotus:
"The Egyptians, they went on to affirm, first brought into use the names of the twelve gods, which the Greeks adopted from them; and first erected altars, images, and temples to the gods; and also first engraved upon stone the figures of animals." ...
"... at the end of which time you reach a great city called Meroe, which is said to be the capital of the other Ethiopians. The only gods worshipped by the inhabitants are Jupiter and Bacchus, to whom great honours are paid." ...
"Therefore the Egyptians give their statues of Jupiter the face of a ram: and from them the practice has passed to the Ammonians, who are a joint colony of Egyptians and Ethiopians, speaking a language between the two; hence also, in my opinion, the latter people took their name of Ammonians, since the Egyptian name for Jupiter is Amun." [We have already seen that the Egyptian god Amon is the deified Ham, the son of Noah, worshiped as the sun.] ...
"Almost all the names of the gods came into Greece from Egypt. My inquiries prove that they were all derived from a foreign source, and my opinion is that Egypt furnished the greater number." ...
"Whence the gods severally sprang, whether or no they had all existed from eternity, what forms they bore- these are questions of which the Greeks knew nothing until the other day, so to speak. For Homer and Hesiod were the first to compose Theogonies, and give the gods their epithets, to allot them their several offices and occupations, and describe their forms; and they lived but four hundred years before my time, as I believe." -- Herodotus book II, translated by George Rawlinson
"It is said ... that Osiris was by some thought to be Jupiter, and by others to be Pluto. But Pluto, among the best theologists, was esteemed the same as Jupiter; and indeed the same as Proserpine, Ceres, Hermes, Apollo, and every other deity."
Osiris was an Egyptian deity, and Jupiter the supreme deity of the Greek gods. Here the British scholars concur with Herodotus that Greek mythology originated in Egypt; and that all the various Greek gods were just different personas, and titles, for the same deity.
Last time we saw that the pagan worship, which Nimrod instituted, venerated the sun and fire, as the earthly element of which the sun was supposed to be composed. The pagans also sacrificed to their gods on the high places, as the Scriptures constantly record. A high place is the closest an inhabitant of the earth can get to the sun. Bryant shows that this practice was not limited to the Canaanites, but in the classical writings we read of its practice among the heroes of the Greeks, the Persians, in Cappadocia and Pontus, "and, of all sacrifices, wherever exhibited upon the high places, none, perhaps, ever equalled in magnificence that which was offered by Mithridates upon his war with the Romans. ... upon the top [of which mountain] he reared an immense pile, equal in size to the summit on which it stood ... the fire is said to have been percieved at the distance of near a thousand stadia." The heroes of the Romans are said by their poets to do the same, and as far away as Japan, "most of their temples at this day are constructed upon eminences; and often upon the ascent of high mountains."
"This practice in early times was almost universal; and every mountain was esteemed holy." Now perhaps we understand why in Greek mythology the gods were said to dwell on the summit of Mount Olympus; why the cartoons depict an arduous mountain climb for he who seeks the wisdom of the sage hermit, and why the Scripture says that on the day of the Lord's judgment, every mountain will be brought low.
"The eminences to which [the pagans] retired were lonely, and silent; and seemed to be happily circumstanced for contemplation and prayer. They, who frequented them, were raised above the lower world; and fancied that they were brought into the vicinity of the powers of the air, and of the deity who resided in the higher regions."
Upon the high places were supposed to be the omphi, as the Greeks called it, but vox divina according to the Romans, meaning the voice or oracle of god. Plutarch reveals the name as Egyptian in origin, where it was called amphi, or the oracle of Ham. We have already seen that he whom the Semites called Ham, the Hamites called Am, who they worshipped as the sun god: Am-On, or Amon. "In consequence of this, the mountains where [the oracles] were supposed to be delivered, came to be denominated Har-al-ompi; which al-ompi by the Greeks was changed to Olympus."
We have been discussing the evidence brought out by Bryant in Ancient Mythology, for the origin of paganism at Babel by Nimrod, as Josephus asserts. In the first volume, in the first two- thirds of the book Bryant discusses the syllables which form the most ancient names of places and deities, and their meanings. We have touched on some of this already: that On, for example, was a Hamite term for the sun; and that the Hamites worshipped their ancestor Ham as Am-On, or Amon (the principal Egyptian deity), meaning Ham the Sun.
By this study, Bryant was able to trace place names (and deity names) from all over the Middle East and Europe to their original meanings as sacred places for the worship of the religion which Nimrod founded. All this is supported by evidence from the ancient Greek writers on those places and their customs as brought out in their poetry, mythology, and philosophy. The detail Bryant employs in proving this case is incredible and varied. The depth of his inquiry is impossible to relate simply; but anyone interested can read Byrant's study into etymology for themselves. His first volume has been posted on the Internet.
The last third of the first volume is a description of Nimrod's religion as practiced almost universally in ancient times in these places. Evidence of the same religious rites, sacred and temple sites, customs and practices are found throughout Europe, Egypt, Syria, and Persia.
Characteristics of Nimrod's religion include the worship of fire, as a representation here on earth of the property thought to emanate from the sun, their chief deity. This worship was especially undertaken in caves and caverns, for a cave was supposed to model the earth or universe at night. The "night" of the cavern is then enlightened by the fire, as the sun enlightens the world. Temples and oracles (such as the famous one at Delphi) were situated at caves or caverns because of their association with fire and sun worship. Mountains which contained numerous caves were considered especially sacred (such as Parnassus), as were volcanoes, or any fissure, stream, lake, river, or fountain which emanated heat, steam, noxious fumes, minerals or any unusual quality.
Bryant relates a history of some of the Mohammedans of Khandahar (Afghanistan) in which they enter caverns for extended times with fasting and bodily afflictions to gain spiritual enlightenment. This shows that even among the Muslims in his day the original pagan practices were still in use. Jupiter, or Zeus, was said by the Greeks to have been nursed in a cave. Mithras, a Persian deity much regarded among the Romans, was said to be born in a cave, which were sacred to him.
I had promised to post more about Canaan, from Bryant's Ancient Mythology. Canaan is found in the writings of the ancient Egyptians, Syrians, and Greeks, as Cnaan, Cnas, and Cna. Stephanus Byzantinus and Sanchoniathon relate that the ancient name of Phoenicia was Cna (I noted last time that the Phoenicians were Canaanites). Sanchoniathon also tells us that Osiris was the brother of Cna. Now Osiris was a principal god of the Egyptians, and if by this the Phoenician historian is telling us that Egypt and Canaan were brothers, we find that Scripture agrees.
About Mizraim, the father of the Egyptians, much that the ancients, and the Egyptians themselves, have written is so veiled under allegory that it is very difficult, Bryant writes, to divest truth from fable. If "Mizraim" is a plural noun, meaning, "people of Misor, or Metzor" in Hebrew, then this much can be gleaned from ancient sources: that Mizraim is called Mestra by Josephus (Antiquities1.1.c.6.p.2); Stephanus Byzantinus calls Egypt Musar or Mysar; and Eusebius "Mestraia."
"Sanchoniathon alludes to this person under the name of Misor; and joins him with Sydic, both which he makes the sons of Amunus and Magus. Amunus, I make no doubt, is Amon, or Ham, the real father of Misor, from whom the Mizraim are supposed to be descended. By Magus, probably, is meant Chus, the father of those worshippers of fire, the Magi ... The Canaanites, likewise, were [Ham's] offspring: and among these, none were more distinguished than those of Sidon; which, I imagine, is alluded to under the name of Sydic."
Bryant, Ancient Mythology vol. 1., Radicals, p. 9.
Cush, Mizraim, and Canaan (who was the father of Sidon), were all brothers, and sons of Ham, according to the Scriptures. But as we noted, Cush, being the eldest, and his line had the ascendancy among the Hamites, and this might explain why he is made equal with Ham over his brothers in the Phoenician history. We can see that the historian is in error in some details, making Sidon the brother of Egypt when Canaan is instead; and Cush equal with Ham. But that the Phoenicians, without benefit of Scripture and the exact history of the ancient world told within it, rightly identified Egypt with Misor, and Sidon, or Canaan, as related to him, and both of them descended from Amon, or Ham, is a remarkable confirmation that these people were historical people, were fathers of nations, were related, and were involved somehow in Egyptian and Babylonian paganism, for "Amon" and "Magi" are names archaeologists have confirmed in both those ancient cultures having to do with pagan worship.
We last time looked at the evidence that Bryant brought out that Ham was worshipped as the sun god by his posterity. Now let us look at the evidence concering Cush, the son of Ham. He was the father of Nimrod, who instigated the Tower of Babel rebellion. The Greeks called him Chusus, or Chus-Or, which was a favorite epithet among the Greek poets for Apollo, the Greek sun diety (see notes to Iamblichus by Gale, p. 301). The Grecian temples dedicated to him were called Chrusaoria after this title.
"Chus, in the Babylonish dialect, seems to have been called Cuth; and many places, where his posterity settled, were styled Cutha, Cuthaia, Cutaia, Ceuta, Cotha, and compounded Cothon [Cuth-On, or Cush the Sun, just as Am-On was Ham the Sun). Chusistan, to the east of the Tigris, was the land of Chus: it was likewise called Cutha, and Cissia, by different writers. A river and region, styled Cutha, mentioned by Josephus (Antiquities 1.9. c.14. n.3) the same which by others has been called Cushan, and Chusistan. The harbor at Carthage was named Cothon according to Strabo (1.17.p.1189). Also, an island in that harbor (Diodorus Sic. 1.3.p.168). He was sometimes expressed Casus, Cessus, Casius; and was still futher diversified. Chus was the father of all those nations styled Ethiopians (Josephus Antiquities 1.1.c.6), who were more truly called Cuthites, and Cuseans. They were more in number, and far more widely extended, than has been imagined. The history of this family will be the principal part of my inquiry."
Bryant, Ancient Mythology vol. 1., Radicals, p. 6-7.
Why would a harbor in Carthage be named after Cush? The Carthaginians were Phoenicians, as Carthage was a Phoenician colony. The Phoenicians were named thus by the Greeks; it means "purple men," because in the principal cities of the Phoenicians on the coast of the Mediterranean -- Sidon, and Tyre -- they were famous for a purple dye which they extracted from the murex seashell. But this people called themselves the Kenaani, or Canaanites (The Phoenicians, Pamela Odijk, 1989). Scripture confirms that the Phoenicians were indeed Canaanites (and here). Canaan and Cush were brothers, both the sons of Ham, but Cush, and Nimrod, appears to have had the ascendency in the Hamite family.
In the first part of Bryant's first volume, he traces the pagan worship of the sun god to Ham, Cush, and Nimrod. The son of Noah, who the Hebrews knew as Ham, was named Amon by the Egyptians, a contraction of Am-On, or Ham the Sun. We know that "On" means the sun, because the Scriptures tell us:
"And Pharaoh called Joseph's name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt." Genesis 41:45
And if you look in the footnotes of your Bible, you will see that the city of On was called by the Greeks, Heliopolis, which means, the city of the sun. Encyclopedia Britannica tells us that:
"Amon was the Egyptian deity revered as king of the gods. At Thebes ... he became patron of the pharaohs by Mentuhotep I's reign (2008 – 1957 BC) and was identified with the sun god Re."
You will remember that Ra was the Hamites' name for the Creator, which degenerated to the sun god in the pagan system. This is why there were two gods, each identified with the sun. Amon who was Ham the Sun, and Ra. The sun god eventually became known by the single name, Amon-Ra.
In the Greek writings of these matters, the sun god was known as Cham. The priests of the sun god were called the Chamin or Chamerim after his name. The Scriptures say:
"And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence; and the images, that were on high above them, he cut down; and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images, he brake in pieces, and made dust of them, and strowed it upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto them." 2 Chronicles 34:4
That word translated "images" in "and the images, that were on high above them" is in the Greek "Chaminim" or "images of Cham."
And also:
"I will also stretch out mine hand upon Judah, and upon all the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and I will cut off the remnant of Baal from this place, and the name of the Chemarims with the priests;" Zephaniah 1:4
The Chemarim being the images of Cham, or Ham, worshipped as the sun.
According to Plutarch, the title of the hereditary priestess of Diana was Chamma. Herodotus goes so far as to say that "Almost all the names of the gods in Greece were adventitious, having been brought thither from Egypt." Zeus was the Greek counterpart of Amon in their mythology.
Now why all this attention to ancient paganism? The Scriptures tell us a great revolution occured at Babylon, and Babylon is reserved for ultimate judgment according to Revelation, where it is called the mother of abominations in the earth. I would prefer not to dwell on it, but there is the claim out there that any identification with Babylon to Nimrod, and Nimrod to paganism, is ignorance and fables, based on no historical reality at all. And paganism is on the rise again in the West, and is an enemy of the Gospel just as darwinism is. So it is necessary to see what facts history bears out.
Now comes the most interesting part of this inquiry. We know what Scripture has said on the topic of the Great Flood, and the rebellion at the Tower of Babel. We know the details which support the Scriptural account, which Josephus brought to light. But is there any other evidence which confirms the rebellion at Babel, and the rise of paganism from that event, and the distortions which Nimrod introduced to the true worship of our Creator and ultimately our Savior, which may still linger in our culture today?
This was Bryant's great contribution. He reconstructed the history of the ancient world, beginning with Scripture as the starting point, and showed how the writings of the ancient world itself not only confirms the history told in Scipture, but supplies details which Scripture hints at, which make the narrative so much more clear to us who are 4000 years removed from the events. Now when Byrant wrote his book, like Ussher, he did not have the benefit of cuneiform, monuments, and inscriptions that we have today. The archaeological discoveries in Egypt and at Nineveh were yet to be made. But I was struck that the descriptions made by Rawlinson of the cuneiform and monuments uncovered by his day confirmed in every point what Bryant had unraveled, using nothing but the ancient world's own writings. I would love to reproduce Bryant's whole work, it is fascinating from beginning to end. But it is six volumes, each one nearly 400 pages in length. And it is rare and hard to find, even in university libraries. So I will summarize the best I can, and quote for confirmation the particularly relevant portions.
The family of Ham were the great adventurers and discoverers of the ancient world. They began an extensive commerce in very early times; made footholds in very many places in the earth, where they founded cities which were famous in their day. They raised pillars for sea-marks on headlands and promontories to guide the voyages of their clan. Everywhere they went they established the false religion which Nimrod taught them, often erecting towers and temples as instrumental in that worship. We can see how wide their original influence spread by the extent to which we find the exact same false religion practiced in many different places by many different people (Bryant, vol. 1, Preface and Radicals). Remember that Noah "cursed" the family of Canaan in Genesis, and this curse was mistakenly used by Europeans (descended from Japheth) to justify the enslavement of the Africans (descended from Ham, as was Canaan) for many centuries? One theory among Bible believers, as the true history of the ancient world comes once more to light, is that the "service" which the family of Ham rendered to the families of Japheth and Shem was the voyaging, mapping, discovering, trading, and inventing for which the Hamites where primarily responsible in ancient times (Defenders Study Bible, footnote to the above passage in Genesis).
In order to continue with our research into the Babylonian connection and Nimrod, now we must turn to the seminal work of Jacob Bryant. It is called, A New System, or an Analysis of Ancient Mythology, the final edition of which was published in England in 1807. It is an account of every ancient text from the Greeks, and their quotes of still more ancient texts of the Babylonians, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and others, as they bear upon the history of the ancient world. But it is also an analysis of that account, beginning with the starting place of Scripture as true history.
From the preface:
It is my purpose, in the ensuing work, to give an account of the first ages, and of the great events which happened in the infancy of the world. In consequence of this I shall lay before the reader what the Gentile writers have said upon this subject, collaterally with the accounts given by Moses, as long as I find him engaged in the general history of mankind. By these means I shall be able to bring surprising proofs of those great occurrences, which the sacred penman has recorded. And when his history becomes more limited, and is confined to a peculiar people, and a private dispensation, I shall proceed to shew what was subsequent to his account after the migration of families, and the dispersion from the plains of Shinar.
When mankind were multiplied upon the earth, each great family had, by divine appointment, a particular place of destination, to which they retired. In this manner the first nations were constituted, and kingdoms founded. But great changes were soon effected, and colonies went abroad without any regard to their original place of allotment. New establishments were soon made, from whence ensued a mixture of people and languages. These are events of the highest consequence; of which we can receive no intelligence, but through the hands of the Gentile writers.
It has been observed, by many of the learned, that some particular family betook themselves very early to different parts of the world, in all which they introduced their rites and religion, together with the customs of their country. They represent them as very knowing and enterprising; and with good reason. They were the first who ventured upon the seas, and undertook long voyages. They shewed their superiority and address in the numberless expeditions which they made, and the difficulties which they surmounted. Many have thought that they were colonies from Egypt, or from Phenicia, having a regard only to the settlements which they made in the west. But I shall shew hereafter, that colonies of the same people are to be found in the most extreme parts of the east; where we may observe the same rites and ceremonies, and the same traditional histories, as are to be met with in their other settlements. The country called Phenicia could not have sufficed for the effecting all that is attributed to these mighty adventurers.
It is necessary for me to acquaint the Reader, that the wonderful people to whom I allude were the descendants of Chus [Cush], and called Cuthites and Cuseans. They stood their ground at the general migration of families; but were at last scattered over the face of the earth. They were the first apostates from the truth, yet great in worldly wisdom. They introduced, wherever they came, many useful arts, and were looked up to as a superior order of beings: hence they were styled Heroes, Dæmons, Heliadæ , Macarians. They were joined in their expeditions by other nations, especially by the collateral branches of their family, the Mizraim, Caphtorim, and the sons of Canaan. These were all of the line of Ham, who was held by his posterity in the highest veneration. They called him Amon: and having in process of time raised him to a divinity, they worshipped him as the Sun; and from this worship they were styled Amonians.
This is an appellation which will continually occur in the course of this work; and I am authorised in the use of it from Plutarch, from whom we may infer, that it was not uncommon among the sons of Ham. He specifies particularly, in respect to the Egyptians, that when any two of that nation met, they used it as a term of honour in their salutations, and called one another Amonians. This therefore will be the title by which I shall choose to distinguish the people of whom I treat, when I speak of them collectively; for under this denomination are included all of this family, whether they were Egyptians or Syrians, of Phenicia or of Canaan.
They were a people who carefully preserved memorials of their ancestors, and of those great events which had preceded their dispersion. These were described in hieroglyphics upon pillars and obelisks: and when they arrived at the knowledge of letters, the same accounts were religiously maintained, both in their sacred archives, and popular records. It is mentioned of Sanchoniathon, the most antient of Gentile writers, that he obtained all his knowledge from some writings of the Amonians. It was the good fortune of Sanchoniathon, says Philo Biblius, to light upon some antient Amonian records, which had been preserved in the innermost part of a temple, and known to very few. Upon this discovery he applied himself with great diligence to make himself master of the contents: and having, by divesting them of the fable and allegory with which they were obscured, obtained his purpose, he brought the whole to a conclusion.
So, what is that ancient history, and those great events, which these writers recorded? To be continued ...
I received a question recently about a detail in the timeline for Story of the Ancient World. It concerns Exodus 12:40, which says something like this in most modern versions:
"The time that the people of Israel lived in Egypt was 430 years." (English Standard Version)
But in the Ancient World timeline, the number of years from Jacob's arrival in Egypt until the Exodus is 215 years. Why is that?
The short answer is, Ancient World follows Archbishop Ussher's chronology in all dating matters, and that is how he had it in Annals of the World. The long answer, however, is interesting. Let's look at Exodus 12:40 again, only in the Authorized (King James) Version:
"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."
This translation, which more closely resembles the Hebrew, contains subtle differences. "Who dwelt in Egypt" is an adjectival phrase describing "children," and for the purposes of finding the basic grammatical meaning of the sentence contained in the subject - verb - direct object, we can set it aside for now.
Given that, we read: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel was four hundred and thirty years."
This sojourning is mentioned elsewhere in Scripture:
"And He said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years;" Genesis 15:13
"And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Galatians 3:17
Paul said that the Law, which was given just months after the Exodus, was given 430 years AFTER the covenant. What covenant? There was no covenant when Jacob went down to Egypt. The covenant was made with Abraham. It was 430 years from the time that the Lord made a covenant with Abraham until the giving of the Law, according to Paul. So how to reconcile the apparent contradictions in Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40?
Exodus 12:40 is easier; the basic sense of the sentence reads: "Now the sojourning of the children of Israel was four hundred and thirty years." As Abram was a sojourner in a land that was not his from the day he entered the Promised Land, this makes sense. The sojourning began with Abram and ended with his descendants, the children of Israel, at the Exodus, 430 years later. The phrase, "who dwelt in Egypt" is telling where the children of Israel were at the time of the Exodus. In the Hebrew, the chronology information in the sentence is not intended to go with the side phrase about the dwelling, but with the main idea of the whole time of sojourning. Sloppy modern translations have made this subtle distinction in Hebrew unclear.
Now Genesis 15:13. The Hebrew poetical construction of the sentence looks something like this:
1 thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs
2 and shall serve them
2 and they shall afflict them
1 four hundred years
In other words, the four hundred years part of the sentence goes with the thy seed part of the sentence, just as in Exodus 12, thus:
"thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs four hundred years;"
The service and affliction are again descriptions unrelated to the chronology detail.
Why 400 years here and not 430 as elsewhere in Scripture? Was God just being imprecise? No. It was 430 years from the time Abram entered into the covenant with the Lord in the Promised Land, but 400 years from the time that Isaac became “thy seed” at his weaning, which transpired 30 years later.
None of this analysis is original with me; Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones, author of Chronology of the Old Testament, explains this chronological "thorn" in Scripture with much more detail than I have. I would suggest anyone really interested in this topic to study Dr. Jones’ extensive research on it, which should settle all questions.
Concerning the second god of the Chaldean trinity, Rawlinson writes:
Bel [the Phoenician Baal] ... is the second god of the first triad. ... His name, which seems to mean merely, "lord," is usually followed by a qualitative adjunct, possessing great interest. [This god's name is usually found as Bil-Nipru in the cuneiform.] It is proposed to read this term as Nipru ... a word which cannot fail to recall the Scriptural Nimrod, who is in the Septuagint Nebroth. The term nipru seems to be formed from the root napar, which is in Syriac to pursue, to make to flee, and which has in Assyrian nearly the same meaning. Thus Bil-Nipru would be aptly translated as the Hunter Lord, or the god presiding over the chase, while, at the same time, it might combine the meaning of the Conquering Lord, or the Great Conqueror.
On these grounds it is reasonable to conclude that we have, in this instance, an admixture of hero worship in the Chaldean religion. Bil-Nipru is probably the Biblical Nimrod, the original founder of the monarchy, the mighty hunter and conqueror. He is [called], "the supreme," "the father of the gods,""the procreator," "the lord, par excellence," "the king of all the spirits," "the lord of the world," and again, "the lord of all the countries."
... At the same time he is a god almost universally acknowledged in the invocations of the Babylonian and Assyrian kings, in which he has a most conspicuous place. In Assyria he seems to be inferior only to Asshur; in Chaldea to Ra and Ana. Of Beltis, the wife of Bel-Nimrod, a full account will be given presently. Nin or Ninip -- the Assyrian Hercules -- was universally regarded as their son; and he is frequently joined with Bel-Nimrod in the invocations. Another famous deity, the moon god [Ur] is also declared to be Bel-Nimrod's son in some inscriptions. Indeed, as "the father of the gods," Bel-Nimrod might evidently claim an almost infinite paternity.
The worship of Bel-Nimrod in Chaldea extends through the whole time of the monarchy.
- George Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, vol. 1, pp. 117-9
(emphasis added).
Please note that the deified Nimrod is called, in the inscriptions, by the same title as An, who is Satan deified: "the father of the gods." He who is the father and the procreator is he who is the originator of what progeny follows. It is interesting that, besides, Ra (or Elohim) and An, all the other gods in the Chaldean pantheon are universally acknowledged as belonging to Nimrod: Beltis, his wife, is merely Ishtar, the so- called queen of heaven, and the most famous mood god Ur, his son, and all the other gods and goddesses, his progeny.
This is evidence enough that Nimrod invented Babylonian polytheism, under the influence, most certainly, of Satan. That An is the most ancient of the Babylonian gods, excepting Il or Ra, who is Elohim, or God the Creator, shows us that the worship of Satan under the guise of An most probably prompted Chaldean polytheism, or Babylonian paganism.
But how do we know that all paganism worldwide has its root in Babylonian paganism?
"The religion of the Chaldeans, from the very earliest times to which the monuments carry us back, was, in outward aspect, a polytheism of a very elaborate character."
- George Rawlinson, The Five Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, vol. 1, p.110.
Chaldea is the general term for the country of Mesopotamia, which is Shinar, or Sumer and Babylon, among Victorians. George Rawlinson was Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford when the exciting discoveries at Nineveh and elsewhere were being made by the first generation of Assyriologists and cuneiform scholars. His brother, Sir Henry Rawlinson, was the discoverer of the Behistun inscription and the decipherer of Assyrian cuneiform. George Rawlinson well knew all the major scholars of ancient history in England at the time when England was the foremost country in the world in archaeological discoveries and research.
You don't hear much about George Rawlinson today in archeological circles, or his more famous brother, for that matter. Perhaps their conviction of the historical accuracy of Scripture has something to do with it. At one point in the above volume, in refuting a fellow scholar who had claimed a point in Genesis in error, Mr. Rawlinson remarks, "Of course, if we are at liberty to regard the "compiler" of Genesis as "mistaken" whenever his statements conflict with our theories, while at the same time we ignore linguistic facts, we may speculate upon ancient history and ethnography much at our pleasure." (footnote 5, p. 51, That the Ancient Chaldean Language was Cush-ite, not Semite).
His quite long chapter on the nature of the Chaldean religion would be too detailed to quote at length, so I will summarize. There was one supreme God, not much mentioned, remote and distant, named Il in Semitic, or Ra in Cush-ite. He corresponds to the Hebrew Elohim, or God the Creator. That the Babylonians did not really consider Him the Creator we know from their creation myth, where other gods play the prominent part. But that this God exists in Babylonian cuneiform at all is testimony to the fact that a newer religion at some point overtook an older one. That there was no time in which the Chaldean religion was not polytheistic, from the earliest monuments, tells us that the onset of the newer religion was very early indeed in the history of Chaldea, or coinciding with its beginning.
Then there was a trinity of gods and goddesses, six in all. The most ancient of these was An, who is called in the cuneiform "the father of the gods;" "the lord of spirits and demons;" "the king of the lower world;" "lord of darkness;" "lord of death" and the like. It is clear from his description who is really meant by An. It is to this god that Nimrod turned the hearts of the people, from Elohim the Creator.
"The worship of Ana by the kings of the Chaldean series is certain. Not only did Shamus-vul, the son of Ismi-dagon, raise a temple to the honor of Ana and his son Vul at Kileh-Shergat (or Asshur) about bc 1830 -- whence that city appears in later times to have borne the name of Telane, or "the mound of Ana" -- but Urukh himself [the first king who built monuments] mentions him as a god in an inscription quoted above; and there is reason to believe that from at least as early a date he was recognized as the presiding deity at Erech or Warka. This is evident from the fact, that though the worship of Beltis superseded that of Ana in the great temple at that place from a very remote epoch, yet the temple itself always retained the title of Bit-Ana (or Beth-Ana), "the house of Ana;" ..."
- Rawlinson, ibid., vol. 1, p. 116.
How do we know that it was Nimrod who was involved? To be continued ...
Visit with Christine Miller awhile and let's share our thoughts on homeschooling, education, and life.
:: home :: rss site feed
:: archives :: email me
"The Story of the Romans provides an introductory context for the culture and ideas so foundational to the development of Western thought.�
Anne Weiland :: The Old Schoolhouse Magazine
:: read a chapter from this book
:: more books
"For new and veteran homeschool families alike, this extensive new release from the editors of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine serves as a homeschool convention in a book. It details today's most viable education models, helping parents formulate an educational game plan and choose teaching methodologies. There are more than twenty contributors." Including Christine Miller, who wrote a chapter on Classical Education.
christine's reading
I am researching the holy days which were instituted by God as a celebration of the Messiah, instead of celebrating the holy days which were instituted by man to honor nature in place of nature's God.
:: Israel's Feast - Wooten
:: Annals - Ussher
