The Meekness of Moses

....

ESV Numbers 12:1

Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. 2 And they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it. 3 Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. 4 And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, "Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting." And the three of them came out. 5 And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward. 6 And he said, "Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" 9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and he departed. 10 When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. 11 And Aaron said to Moses, "Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. 12 Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes out of his mother's womb." 13 And Moses cried to the LORD, "O God, please heal her--please." 14 But the LORD said to Moses, "If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again." 15 So Miriam was shut outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again.

 

Aaron and Miriam had started developing the attitude that they were better than Moses, and God came down and set the record straight and basically God told them that Moses was better than them because he was meeker than all the people of the face of the earth. God wants His people to be meek today. In fact, meekness, which is also translated as gentle is one of the fruits of the Spirit found in Gal. 5:22-23.

 

While many Christians understand that we are to be meek, many have the wrong idea about what meekness is all about because of our modern definitions of this word. For instance, I want you to notice a few of these definitions.

 

 

1. humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness;

 

2. very docile, which means easily led or managed

 

3. evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant; "compliant and anxious to suit his opinions of those of others"; (Word Net)

 

Based on these definitions, when someone thinks of a meek person, they may picture a weak looking person with a weak voice who is very timid around others and who will agree with everyone out fear of standing out. This is why we have to be careful when it comes to certain words in our Bible because many times the English words used do not capture the true meaning of the word from the Greek. For instance,

 

Easton Bible dictionary says that meekness is a calm temper of mind, not easily provoked.

 

Friberg Lexicon says that meekness is as a mild and friendly disposition, gentle, kind, considerate.

 

BDAG Lexicon says meekness is when a person is not being overly impressed by a sense of one’s self-importance, gentle, humble, considerate.

 

These three definitions give us a better understanding of what the Bible actual means about being meek, which gives us completely different picture than our modern definitions do. Meekness is very similar to be being humble, and based on the real meaning of being meek, we should be able to understand why God wants all of us to have this trait. In fact, Paul teaches us that every Christians should be working at developing this trait.

Titus 3:1 Put them in mind to be in subjection to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready unto every good work, 2 to speak evil of no man, not to be contentious, to be gentle, showing all meekness toward all men.

When we treat our fellow man with meekness, we are going to have the respect of those around us and we will have many more opportunities to teach people about the love of God.

To prove further that our modern day definition of meekness is not what the Bible has in mind, consider the example of Moses, who we have already said was the meekest man on the face of the earth. If we go by our modern day definition, then this would mean that Moses was the most timid, cowardly man alive. Yet what do we find Moses doing in the Bible?

1. When Moses came back down from the mountain the first time and he saw with His what the people were doing, he became angry and threw the tablets of stone down a broke them.

2. It was Moses who took control of this situation and burned the golden calf and he rebuked the people. Then he ground the calf up and put the powder in some water and made the people drink it (Exodus 32:20).

Does this sound like the actions of someone with no backbone? No it does not. We gain a much better understanding of Moses’ meekness by looking at our example we started with in Numbers 12.

Numbers 12:1 Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. 2 And they said, "Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has he not spoken through us also?" And the LORD heard it. 3 Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth.

Moses’ brother and sister were giving him a lot a grief about marrying this Cushite woman. The openly condemned him for this and they thought since God had spoken through them in the past that they did not have to follow Moses’ lead anymore. We can see Moses’ meekness in how he dealt with this situation.

He never complained to God about their behavior and he decided to bear the burden of their grief. He wasn’t one to bother God with every little thing that happened to him. Even though Moses’ was willing to bear the burden himself, God heard them condemning Moses and making themselves look important, so God intervened and set them straight.

Aaron and Miriam’s example shows us that God is not pleased with those openly condemn the righteous or who make themselves out to better than other, while Moses’ example shows that God will be pleased with our meekness and He will even help us without our request when we learn to be meek like Moses.

Another gook example of Moses meekness and how he was willing bear the burden for his people comes from,

Exodus 18:13 And so it was, on the next day, that Moses sat to judge the people; and the people stood before Moses from morning until evening. 14 So when Moses' father-in-law saw all that he did for the people, he said, "What is this thing that you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit, and all the people stand before you from morning until evening?" 15 And Moses said to his father-in-law, "Because the people come to me to inquire of God. 16 "When they have a difficulty, they come to me, and I judge between one and another; and I make known the statutes of God and His laws." 17 So Moses' father-in-law said to him, "The thing that you do is not good. 18 "Both you and these people who are with you will surely wear yourselves out. For this thing is too much for you; you are not able to perform it by yourself. 19 "Listen now to my voice; I will give you counsel, and God will be with you: Stand before God for the people, so that you may bring the difficulties to God. 20 "And you shall teach them the statutes and the laws, and show them the way in which they must walk and the work they must do. 21 "Moreover you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. 22 "And let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. 23 "If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace."

This is just another instance where Moses put everyone else before himself. He was working night and day making these judgments for the people even though it was wearing him out. Not one time did he put himself first or complain to God that his work was too difficult. He choose to carry this heavy burden on himself.

However, his father-in-law could see how vexing this was on Moses and he gave him some good advice to share some of this burden so that he could endure and be able to help his people even more. While being meek is wonderful attribute we should all strive for, this event shows that you can overdo meekness if you take on to heavy of a load. This is what Moses had done.

His Father-in-law’s advice was great this time because Moses needed to bring this matter before God, and he needed to learn to share his burden so that he did not get burned out or work himself to death. So, if we start over working ourselves with God’s work, we need to take this same advice and pray to God for wisdom and for helpers.

Sometimes Christians seem to think that no one else is willing to help them with what they are doing and that the world will come to an end if they don’t continue their work without taking a small break. If it is true that no one is willing to help that Christian with that work, then shame on us. But most likely, some brother or sister within the congregation is willing to help and we must learn to share our burden with them.

Again, I want to point out that Moses was not being timid in this event, he was simply dong the work of the Lord without thinking of his own well-being. He was making judgment calls based on God’s Word, which means he was leading and not following. I have feeling that not very many of us could have handled what Moses went through, which is why his meekness shows how strong he really was.

Another great example of meekness comes from who Moses prophesied about. Of course I am talking about Jesus. Notice, what Jesus says about himself in,

KJV Matthew 11:29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.

Was Jesus saying that He was timid and that He would let anyone and everyone run Him over? No, absolutely not! Instead, we find Jesus standing up for God’s truth over and over again. If you will remember that at the beginning of His ministry and at the end, He ran the moneychangers out of the temple. He rebuked the opposing Jews on numerous occasions and who can forget His speech in Mat. 23 where He called the opposing Jews hypocrites several times.

So, in our text, Jesus is not saying that He is timid or scared. Instead, He is saying that He is willing to carry our heavy load for us so that our burden will be light. This fits perfectly with the real meaning of meekness. In fact, Isaiah prophesied about this in,

Isaiah 53:4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed. 6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.

This prophecy describes the meekness of Jesus because He was willing carry the weight of our sin on His shoulders, which caused Him to sweat drops like blood, and He willing gave up His life for us and He did all this with out complaining. Again, this is confirmed by Peter.

1 Peter 2:21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 "Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth"; 23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24 who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness -- by whose stripes you were healed. 25 For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

This shows us how strong Jesus was by being meek and lowly in heart. Even though He could have called 12 legions of angels to rescue Him from dieing on the cross, He did not do it because He knew there was a work to be done for the Lord and that no one else could bear that burden. Yet, we are called to follow His example by becoming meek and by humbling ourselves before the Lord. As Paul said,

Philippians 2:4 Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Again, this is what being meek is all about. A selfish person who only thinks about themselves cannot be meek because as Paul just said, we must not just look out for ourselves, we must also look out for the interest of others. Again, notice how Paul stresses this idea in,

Colossians 3:12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. 14 But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection.

All of things Paul mention that we must put on and do as Christians can be accomplished when we learn to be meek and humble, because when we put others before ourselves and we treat others with kindness and gentleness it is going to be easier for us to be long suffering, and be willing to bear one another’s burden. Being meek will also make it easier to forgive those who sin against us and then repent. Of course, all these wonderful traits are bound together by love.

When Peter was teaching the married Christian woman how to reach her non-believing husband, he told her that she needed to have a quite and meek spirit, which is very precious in the site of God (1 Pet. 3:4). Since God considers a quite and meek spirit to be precious, we should all want to have that type of Spirit so that we will be pleasing to God.

Finally notice what Paul tells Timothy in,

1 Timothy 6:11 But you, O man of God, flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness (KJV - meekness). 12 Fight the good fight of faith, lay hold on eternal life, to which you were also called and have confessed the good confession in the presence of many witnesses.

This is the final example that I will use this morning that shows the difference between our modern definition of meekness and Bible definition of meekness. In verse 11, we are told pursue being meek or gentle, but in the very next verse we are taught to fight the good fight of faith, which proves that being meek doesn’t mean that you let people walk all over you or that you have not backbone. No, you can be meek and you can fight the good fight of faith by standing up for the principles in God’s Word. As Peter said,

1 Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; 16 having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed.

So, while the world may not understand the importance or true meaning of being meek, we should, and I hope that all of us will work hard to become meek like Moses and like Jesus so that we can be pleasing to God and be more effective workers for the Lord.

....

Taken from: http://lgchurchofchrist.com/THE%20MEEKNESS%20OF%20MOSES.htm

Sons of Jacob : DNA and the Jews

Here is a most interesting angle on Jacob and his Sons, taken from:

http://miriamhakedosha.blogspot.com/2008/03/sons-of-jacob-dna-and-jews.html

....

Studies in DNA have demonstrated that the Jewish people are of very diverse direct male line ancestry. The question thus arises what is the Y-DNA of Abraham’s descendants. Due to studies regarding the Cohanim many now suppose that the Y-DNA of the Israelites is from the J haplogroup due to the large percentages of the J Haplogroup found in the DNA of both Ashkenazi and Sephardi claimants to Cohen status. Some claimants to Davidic ancestry also belong to the J and G haplogroups. However I (through genealogical research into the Davidic Ancestry) believe that on the direct male line some of these Davidic families descend from Merwan ha Levi (J y-dna) and only on the female line from the Davidic lineage. Those claiming Davidic ancestry from G Y-haplogroup descend from a Hunza Valley Prince that married into the Davidic families in Sicily in the 11th century. Other claimants to Davidic ancestry belong to R1b haplotype. Some propose that the R1b Jewish ancestors are converts to Judaism. However I propose that it is in fact the J ancestors that are the converts to Judaism in the 2-3rd century BC.

J haplogroup is what I call the Assyrian-Samaritan-Saducee group. DNA studies on the Samaritans demonstrate that they are of the J haplogroup with the Cohen Modal Haplotype except for their Levite clan which is E3b. A group of Samaritans at the time of the Maccabees embraced Rabbinic Judaism and introduced the J and E haplogroups into the Jewish genetic pool. Among these Samaritans were those who claimed Cohen and Levite status. Their claims to Zadok priestly status were denied by the Essenes and many others. Zadok the priestly leader of these Tzadokim was called by the Essenes the Wicked Priest. The descendants of these priestly Tzadokim (Saducees) where influencial in Jerusalem in the first century, however the people would not allow one of them to be High Priest so they formed a priestly party around the family of Annas and Caiaphas who were of true Aaronite descent. Later one of their group in the 40’s of the first century became High Priest.
These priestly Tzadokim were connected to the Pharisee 'House of Shammai'. Shammai was also descended from these Samaritan converts who practiced a more stringent form of Judaism. The Samaritans call themselves the Shamerim (Observant Ones). It would seem that these Samaritan converts split into two groups at the time of the great Pharisee Rabbi Antigonus of Soco, one group of these Shamerim remained with the Pharisees while Zadok a Shamerim Cohen distorted Antonigus' teaching and founded the break away group of the Tzadokim. After the destruction of the Second Jewish Temple the descendants of these J and E priests and Levites continued in the diaspora to claim Cohen and Levite status. Of course this does not mean that Jews of the J and E haplogroups are not descendants of the Patriarchs – no doubt they are - through many lines of their maternal ancestries.

I believe that the Sons of Jacob-Israel belong to the R1b Y-haplogroup and that the Atlantic Modal haplotype (AMH) may include the Davidic one. R1a are the sons of Esau- Edom and this haplogroup entered the Jewish people through the Khazars who were of varied Y-haplogroups. R2 may be a group descended from the sons of Esau. I do not accept the rather fanciful datings of the evolutionists which distorts the DNA mutation rates. The mitochondrial Eve is more correctly dated to 6000-6500 years ago and the Y- Adam to 4000 years ago according to some researchers. Of course those entrenched in an evolutionist mindset will find any explanation to prop up the crumbling edifice of the philosophy called Evolution.

Being Jewish is more than paternal genetic ancestry. One is no more or less a Jew no matter what ones Y-DNA proves to be. There are many male line descendants of the Patriarch’s who are not Jewish. However one is a Hebrew if it is on one’s direct maternal line and I believe all those who have mt-DNA of mt-haplogroups H and V are direct maternal descendants of the Davidic Matriarchs. I also believe that mt-haplotypes J and T are Hebrew maternal haplogroups from among the female descendants of the matriarch’s Bilhah and Zilpah. Mt –haplogroup U and K are the descendants of the Matriarchs Leah, Dinah and Asenath (mt-haplogroup N) via Asenath's daughter called Asterope or Hesperia by the Greeks and her seven daughters called the Hesperides. Mt-haplogroup I may be from Ruth the Moabitess via Queen Esther. Ruth was also a maternal descendant of Dinah. Asenath had seven daughters who each had 7 daughters - this maternal line clan were called the Daughters of Dinah (Dana/Don/Danaan/Diana/Dione). Through these maternal clans of Dinah a large portion of the world's population is descended from the matriarch's of Israel.

Looking at the DNA evidence has revealed that some of my previous ideas about the identities of the Lost Tribes (R1b) to be mistaken and the genetic evidence seems to confirm an Edomite identity (R1a)in Europe more widespread than I thought especially in Eastern Europe. The evidence seems to confirm much of the ideas of the Jewish organisation called Brit-am except that Spain and Portugal are basically genetically Israelite nations which confirms my own ideas and not those of Brit-am. It is possible that R1b1c9 (U106) is a group of Ephraimite or Zebulonite ancestry. R1b1c7 (M222) may be a Davidic clan as my genealogical research demonstrates that Niall of the Nine hostages is of Davidic ancestry through Joseph of Arimathea. R1b1c10 (U152) may be a Levite or Judaite clan. R1b1c6 (M167/SYR2627) possibly a Benjaminite or Simeonite or Judahite clan. Y-Haplogroup I is closely related to J and is an Assyrian haplogroup originating in the North of ancient Assyria. According to Velikovsky the Assyrians went into Europe. Hopefully further research and testing will led to a future identification of all the tribes of Israel. When the ridiculously long datings of the haplogroups are corrected and the groups are placed in historical times many interesting discoveries may abound.

The Miraculous DNA Double Helix-like St Joseph Staircase of Santa Fe
The mystery of the DNA is connected to the mystery of St Joseph and the Teli and the Payot (taltalim). This is also connected to the concept of Jacob's ladder and the genealogical tree of the Messiah (see Blessed Anne Catharine Emmerich). The original all wood staircase in Santa Fe that reminds one of the double helix DNA did not have the railing which was added later for safety. The Teli is also spiral and the Jewish sidecurls represent this. The 'lightning flash' of the Sefirot also represent this spiral Jacob's ladder. Rabbi Abraham Abulafia speaks of the 3 reliable witnesses as the Teli, the Galgal and the Heart which are linked to the King of the Universe/Space, the Sovereign of the Year/Time and the King of the Soul (as does the "Bahir"). The evangelist St John the Beloved calls these three witnesses the spirit, water and blood. The spirit represents the soul or heart, the water the sphere (galgal)and the blood the teli. The blood here refers to the mystery of the Jacob's ladder we call DNA.
William Blake's Jacob's Ladder
Blessed Anne Catharine Emmerich writes in regards to Jacob's Ladder: ...I saw Jacob, on his journey to Mesopotamia, lying asleep on the spot where Bethel afterward stood. The sun had set. Jacob lay stretched on his back, a stone under his head, his staff resting on his arm. Then I saw the ladder that Jacob beheld in his dream, and which in the Bible is described as "standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching heaven." I saw this ladder rising up to heaven from Jacob where he lay upon the earth. It was like a living genealogical tree of his posterity. I saw below on the earth, just as those genealogical trees are represented, a green trunk as if growing out of the sleeping Jacob. It divided into three branches which arose in the form of a triangular pyramid whose apex reached the heavens. The three branches were connected by other smaller ones that formed a three-sided pyramidal ladder. I saw this ladder surrounded by numerous apparitions. I saw on it Jacobs descendants, one above another; they formed the ancestry of Jesus according to the flesh. They often crossed over from side to side, stepping past and even before one another. Some stood back and others from the opposite side stepped before them, according as the germ of the Sacred Humanity was clouded by sin and then again purified by continence until at last the pure flower, the Holy Virgin in whom God willed to become Man appeared on the highest point of the ladder touching the heavens. I saw Heaven open above her and disclose the splendor of God. God spoke thence to Jacob..."
The Zohar also connects Jacob's Ladder to the mystery of the human body. "Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 150b - Jacob then said: THIS IS NONE OTHER THAN THE HOUSE OF GOD , implying: This is not to remain idle; its covenant is not meant to exist in isolation. It is in sooth a godly abode, to be used for the promotion of fecundity and for receiving blessing from all the bodily organs. For indeed this is THE GATE OF HEAVEN , or, in other words, the gate of the Body, the gate assuredly through which pass the blessings downwards, so that it is attached both on high and below: on high, as being the gate of heaven, and below, as being none other than the house of God."

The lightning flash of the Sefirot is also seen as the Nehushtan (bronze Serpent) which looks like a spiral staircase ascending through the spiritual worlds.

There were also spiral staircases in the Temple. One of them is mentioned in 1 Kings 6:8. Jacob's Ladder was seen as a spiral staircase for bringing Torah from Heaven to earth as the Hebrew words for ladder, spiral and Sinai are all 130 in gematria. The High Priest used to ascend one such spiral staircase from the Parvah Chamber to a mikveh where he immersed as part of his preparation for Yom Kippor. As the Temple was built in the form of the Divine Man (Adam Kadmon)on the north and south sides there were spiral staircases representing the payots (Taltalim) of the Divine Man. The braided Challah bread loaf also represents this spiral (lullim) staircase or ladder (sulam)and the Challot for Shavout is decorated on top with a ladder. Challot on Rosh haShanah are also often made in the shape of a ladder.

Added 11th May 2008: Last night while in Eucharistic Adoration I came upon this passage in the Revelations to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich, which confirmed what I had written about Zadok (or Sadoch)being a Samaritan. This is from The Volume 2 of the Life of Jesus Christ.
"The Jews of Giskala were on that day celebrating a feast commemorative of their deliverance from the yoke of a tyrant, the first founder of the Sadducees. He lived over two hundred years before Christ, but I have forgotten his name. He was one of the officers of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem, and was charged to watch over the points of faith not found set down in the written Law. He had tormented the people horribly with his rigorous ideas, one of which was that no reward could be hoped from God, but that He was to be served by them as slaves serve their master. Giskala was his birthplace, but his townsmen held his memory in horror. Today's festival was a memorial rejoicing at his death. One of his disciples was from Samaria. Sadoch, who denied the dogma of the resurrection of the body, continued to promulgate the founder's doctrine. He was a pupil of Antigonus. Sadoch also had a Samaritan accomplice helping to propagate his errors." The first Sadducee that Blessed Anne Emmerich mentions but has forgotten his name is Boethus. This Zadoch is the source of the Cohen J2 y-na found among Jews and his accomplice was a Samaritan Levite the source of E y-dna among Jews. J1 among the Jewish cohanim comes from the Ishmaeli Cohanim of Second Temple Times possibly from the ancestor of the Joshua-Marhiv clan of the Samaritans or more likely from the Samaritan High priestly clan that died out in the 17th century who claimed descent from the Samaritan High Priest Ishmael (c.8th century BC).

Posted by Athol at 7:09 AM

Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms Far Closer in Time than Conventionally Thought

The following samples are taken entirely from Nicolas Grimal’s
A History of Ancient Egypt,
Blackwell 1994.

P. 67:

“Like his Third Dynasty predecessors, Djoser and Nebka, Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king whom later Egyptian rulers such as Ammenemes I sought to emulate when they were attempting to legtimize their power”.

P. 71:

“… texts that describe the Fourth Dynasty kings …. It was … quite logical for the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom and later to link those past rulers represented primarily by their buildings with the greatest tendencies towards immoderation, thus distorting the real situation (Posener 1969a: 13). However, it is difficult to accommodate within this theory the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors”.

P. 73

“A Twelfth Dynasty graffito found in the Wadi Hammamat includes Djedefhor and his half-brother Baefre in the succession of Cheops after Chephren”.

P. 79

“The attribution of the Maxims to Ptahhotep does not necessarily mean that he was the actual author: the oldest versions date to the Middle Kingdom, and there is no proof that they were originally composed in the Old Kingdom, or, more specifically, at the end of the Fifth Dynasty. The question, moreover, is of no great importance”.

Pp. 80-81

{Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. Now, Pepi I and Chephren were married to an Ankhesenmerire/ Meresankh – I have taken Chephren to have been the foster father-in-law of Moses, with his wife Meresankh being Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, traditionally, Merris. Both Pepi I and Chephren had substantial reigns}.

Grimal notes the likenesses:

“[Teti’s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (‘He who pacifies the Two Lands’) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”.

“Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”.

P. 84:

“[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (‘The devotee of Ra’)”.

P. 146:

“The words of Khety III are in fact simply the transposal into the king’s mouth of the Old Kingdom Maxims”.

P. 159:

[Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”.

P. 164:

“[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”.

P. 165:

“There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”.

P. 171:

“Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”.

P. 173:

“… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”.

P. 177:

“… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty”.

…. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s ‘co-regency’ with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”.

P. 178:

“The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”.

Pp. 178-179:

“[Ammenemes III’s ‘black pyramid’ and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”.

“[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”.

“The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”.

P. 180:

“The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”.

P. 181:

“A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …".

Professor John Walton's Interesting Take on Genesis One

It is my belief that when we read Genesis 1 as the ancient piece of literature that it is, we will find new understanding of the passage that will result in a clearer understanding of how the initial audience would have heard it. In the process, we will also find that many of the perceived conflicts with modern science will be able to be resolved. I have explored this in a recent book titled The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate (IVP) and the technical aspects of ancient Near Eastern literature and the Hebrew text will be explored in greater depth in a forthcoming monograph, Genesis One As Ancient Cosmology (Eisenbrauns).

By John H. Walton

Professor of Old Testament
Wheaton College
March 2010

Genesis 1 is Ancient Cosmology

The Bible was written for everyone, but specifically to Israel. As a result we have to read all biblical texts, including (and maybe especially) Genesis 1 in its cultural context—as a text that is likely to have a lot more in common with ancient literature than with modern science. This does not result in claims of borrowing or suggestions that Genesis should also be read as “mythology” (however defined), but that ancient perspectives on the world and its origins need to be understood.

Ancient Cosmology is Function-oriented

In the ancient world and in the Bible, something existed not when it had physical properties, but when it had been separated from other things, given a name and a role within an ordered system. This is a functional ontology rather than a material ontology. In this view, when something does not exist, it is lacking role, not lacking matter. Consequently, to create something (cause it to exist) means to give it a function, not material properties.

“Create” (Hebrew Bara’ ) Concerns Functions

The Hebrew word translated “create” should be understood within a functional ontology—i.e., it means to assign a role or function. This is evident through a word study of the usage of the biblical term itself where the direct object of the verb is always a functional entity not a material object. Theologians of the past have concluded that since materials were never mentioned that it must mean manufacture of objects out of nothing. Alternatively, and preferably, it does not mention materials because it does not refer to manufacturing. Bara’ deals with functional origins, not material origins.

Beginning State in Genesis 1 is Non-functional

In Genesis 1:2 the “before” picture, as throughout the ancient Near East, is portrayed in non-functional, non-productive terms (tohu andbohu) in which matter already exists. If this were an account of material origins, it would start with no matter. As an account of functional origins, it starts with no functions.

Days 1-3 in Genesis 1 Establish Functions

In the ancient world, light was not an object, and day 1 does not recount the manufacture of an object. Verses 4-5 do not make sense unless we understand “light” as referring to “a period of light.” If that is what it means in vv. 4-5, then it logically must mean the same in v.3. Thus on day 1 God created a period of light to alternate with a period of darkness, i.e., God created time—a function. On day two, God created weather (described in accordance with their cosmic geography) and on day three he created fecundity/fertility/agriculture. These three functions are referred to again in Gen. 8:22 and are the principle functions that figure in ancient Near Eastern cosmological texts.

Days 4-6 in Genesis 1 Install Functionaries

Days 4-6 involve installing the functionaries that will operate within the spheres of the three functions described in days 1-3. The description continues to be functional (notice on day 4: signs, festivals, days and years—all functional in relation to people). This incidentally solves the age old problem regarding how “light” can be created on day 1 and the sun not until day four. The contradiction only exists if this is an account of material origins. In a functional perspective, time is much more significant than the sun; the former is a function, the latter simply a functionary. Everything is designated “good” indicating that it functions properly in the system (notice later, it is NOT good for man to be alone: functional). The description of people is also in functional terms from the image of God through the blessing. And God created (bara’ ) them MALE AND FEMALE—functional categories.

Divine Rest is in a Temple

In the ancient world, as soon as “rest” is mentioned everyone would have known exactly what sort of text this was: gods rest in temples and temples are built so that gods can rest in them. Rest is not a term of disengagement but a term of engagement, i.e., everything is in place now so the deity can take up his place at the helm in the control room of the cosmos and begin operations. Rest throughout the Bible indicates that everything is stable and secure and life and the cosmos may proceed as they were intended.

The Cosmos Is a Temple

In the ancient world and in the Bible, the cosmos was understood to be a gigantic temple (Isa. 66:1), and temples were designed to be a micro-cosmos (see description of the Garden of Eden and the Temple vision of Ezekiel; there is symbolism in the tabernacle/temple furniture and décor). Genesis 1 is portraying cosmic origins in terms that would be recognized as a temple building account.

The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple Inauguration

If cosmic origins are described here in functional terms and follow the pattern of temple building texts, then the point is made that the cosmic temple is here being made functional. When a temple was built, it became functional not when all of the physical work had been done (building, furniture, priests’ garments) but in an inauguration ceremony that in a variety of texts throughout the ancient world lasted seven days. During those seven days, the functions of the temple were identified, the functionaries installed, the priests commissioned and most importantly that which represented the deity was brought into the center of the sacred space where he took up his rest. Then the temple was functional—it existed. If this is the paradigm in Genesis 1, then the seven days can easily be understood as regular days and the account can be understood as an inauguration of the cosmic temple that initiates the functions by which it operates.

The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Do Not Concern Material Origins

If the seven days refer to the seven days of cosmic temple inauguration, days that concern origins of functions not material, then the seven days and Genesis 1 as a whole have nothing to contribute to the discussion of the age of the earth. This is not to say that God was uninvolved in material origins—it only contends that Genesis 1 is not the story of material origins.

“Functional Cosmic Temple” Offers Face Value Exegesis

The hermeneutical commitment to read the text at face value elevates this interpretation since it makes an attempt to understand the text as the author and audience would have understood it. It does not reduce the text to a symbolic, figurative, theological or literary reading, as is often done in the attempt to correlate the text to modern science. Concordism applies scientific meanings to words and phrases in the text that are modern—that the ancient readers would never have had. Day-age seeks to make room for an old earth. Both of these approaches struggle because they are still trying to get Genesis to operate as an account of material origins for an audience that has a material ontology and cannot think in any other way.

....

Taken from: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/genesis1357910.shtml

Wiseman hypothesis explained

 

The Wiseman hypothesis, sometimes called the Tablet Theory, is an alternative view of the authorship of Genesis and is opposed to the far more popular JEDP documentary hypothesis as well as the traditional view of authorship by Moses. It suggests that the book was written before the time of Moses by various authors.

History

The Wiseman hypothesis was originally presented by Percy J. Wiseman (1888-1948), an air commodore for the Royal Air Force and neither a professional archaeologist nor a Middle East scholar. While on tour in the Middle East, Wiseman found it of interest to visit archaeological sites and learn of the ancient histories of the region. He visited such places as Ur and Kish, and along the way collected cuneiform tablets and inscriptions and familiarized himself with ancient Mesopotamian composition. Upon studying the tablets, Wiseman found that ancient convention was for the writer of a particular tablet to write his name at the end of the document, as opposed to modern practices of an author presenting his name at the beginning of many kinds of articles. Coupling this with the recent discovery that writing had existed at least as early as 3000 BC, he formulated a hypothesis that the authors of Genesis had actually signed their names within the text. He published his idea in the book New Discoveries in Babylonia about Genesis 1936. His son, Donald J. Wiseman, an Assyriologist at the University of London, presented a revised edition titled Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis in 1985.

The hypothesis

The Wiseman hypothesis bears resemblance to the documentary hypothesis in that it proposes multiple authors for Genesis. What is radically different is that the hypothesis places these authors before the time of Moses rather than after. Also very different is that the authors would have been directly involved in the events described in the book and not temporally isolated, as would be the post-Moses scribes. Because the Wiseman hypothesis would, if true, imply that the events described in the book of Genesis are not mythical, its main adherents are evangelical Christians.

Authors

Instead of invoking unnamed individuals, the hypothesis takes the stance that colophon statements at the end of an account provide the identity of the author of a particular history segment. The first such claimed colophon by a human author is at Genesis 5:1-2, where Adam supposedly gives his name and a final summary of the account. The very first appearance of what may be interpreted as a colophon, however, is Genesis 2:4. Proponents of the hypothesis assert that God may have written the first chapter of Genesis himself.

The following lists the authors and account transitions as proposed by Curt Sewell:^[1]

Tablet No.	Starting Verse	Ending Verse	Owner or Writer
1	1:1	2:4a	God Himself (?)
2	2:4	5:1a	Adam
3	5:1b	6:9a	Noah
4	6:9b	10:1a	Shem, Ham, and Japheth
5	10:1b	11:10a	Shem
6	11:10b	11:27a	Terah
7	11:27b	25:19a	Isaac
8	25:12	25:18	Ishmael, through Isaac
9	25:19b	37:2a	Jacob
10	36:1	36:43	Esau, through Jacob
11	37:2b	1:6	Jacob’s 12 sons

Redacting

After the accounts were written and handed down through the generations, the hypothesis proposes that Moses compiled them together and edited portions of the text. In the case of the biblical dispersion of languages, Moses may have had to translate the accounts into Hebrew, though some Christians assert the possibility that the original language before Babel had been Hebrew.^[2] Those who hold lower criticism views believe that the edits made by Moses were likely of such minor nature as adding updated place names as minor notes so that contemporary readers would understand geographical locations. An example is Genesis 23:19, where the place name Mamre is followed by “that is, Hebron.”

Material

The material that the accounts would have been written on is unknown. As suggested by the name Tablet Theory, the original writing could have been on clay tablets. The tablets would have been handed down from generation to generation, and eventually copied to another medium such as papyrus or parchment. In the compilation, as well as with the passage of time, certain colophon markers would have lost their meaning, and thus may have been dropped from the text.

Hypothesis compared to other views

Advantages

An advantage over the documentary hypothesis is that the Wiseman hypothesis presents a list of falsifiable authors rather than a number of unnamed scribes. It also incorporates known conventions of ancient writing. Unlike the hypothesis of authorship by Moses, it does not involve the necessity of God revealing past events directly to Moses. The Wiseman hypothesis also deals with some apparent breaks in flow, such as the recap of the creation at the beginning of Genesis chapter 2.^[3] Additionally, certain redactions make sense if it was a compilation by Moses of a much older source, such as place name notes. Furthermore, the Old Testament never explicitly states that Moses wrote the book of Genesis.

Disadvantages

Critics have claimed that not all of the colophons appear where one would expect were the hypothesis correct. Also, while it apparently takes into account various evidences from within the text as well as from archeology, the Wiseman hypothesis requires that a written record was preserved and handed down not only for the thousands of years from Adam until Moses, but also from Moses until the modern era. Supporters respond that, given the long lifespans recorded in Genesis, the early transmission of the text need only have required a few hand-offs, e.g., from Adam to Seth, Seth to Noah's family, Noah's son Shem to Abraham's family, and from Joseph through an intermediary to Moses. Finally, critics claim the accounts of Genesis, particularly in chapters 1-11, when taken literally do not line up with scientific and historical research into the ancient past.

References

1. ©1998-2001, by Curt Sewell. All rights reserved. Used by permission; Originally published by the archaeological magazine Bible and Spade, Winter 1994, Vol. 7, No. 1
2. The Origin of Speeches: Intelligent Design in Language by Isaac E. Mozeson, Lightcatcher Books, 2006.
3. http://www.creationism.org/lang/Lang2DecadesCrtn/Lang2DecadesCrtn_8.htm Two Decades of Creationism CHAPTER VIII

• Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis: A Case for Literary Unity by Wiseman, P. J., Wiseman, D. J., Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1985.
• Who Wrote Genesis? A Third Theory by Paul A. Hughes
• THE FIRST BOOK OF MOSES AND THE 'TOLEDOTH' OF GENESIS by Damien F. Mackey
• Genesis contradictions? by Don Batten
• How was Moses able to read pre-Tower of Babel texts?

See also

• Documentary hypothesis
• Lower criticism
• Biblical criticism
• Dating the Bible

Taken from: http://everything.explained.at/Wiseman_hypothesis/

Moses the Toledot Compiler

 

• ....Funny I was just studing the Toledot of Genesis today. I was reading a brilliant paper by Damien F. Mackey called, 'The "Toledoths" of Genesis'. It made the case that the phrase, "These are the generations of..." is a signifier of the original work on clay tablets which most likely belonged to each family and which Moses and the elders of Israel eventually complied.
 
• TruthCeeker333 1 year ago
• Excellent Job... this is going to be great

  21crosscheck21 1 year ago
• @21crosscheck21 Thanks and God bless.

  labarum312 1 year ago
• Great video.

  smartwarlord 1 year ago
• @smartwarlord Thanks and God bless.

  labarum312 1 year ago

Introduction to Genesis

....

In a very real sense, the book of Genesis is the most important book in the world, for it is the foundation upon which all the other sixty-five books of God’s written Word have been based. When Jesus Christ, after His resurrection, gave a key Bible study to His disciples on the way to Emmaus, He began with Genesis!

“Beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27). We would do well to follow His example. If we want to understand the New Testament, we first need to understand Genesis; the New Testament contains at least two hundred direct quotations or clear allusions to events described in Genesis–more than from any other book in the Old Testament.

All the great doctrines of Christianity–sin, atonement, grace, redemption, faith, justification, salvation, and many others–are first encountered in Genesis. The greatest doctrine of all–the special creation of all things by the eternal, self-existent God–is revealed in the very first chapter of Genesis, the foundation of all foundations.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that the greatest attacks on the Bible have been directed against the integrity and authority of Genesis. Since the only alternative to creation is evolution, these attacks are all ultimately based on evolutionism, the assumption that this complex universe can somehow be explained apart from the infinite creative power of God.

The creation account in Genesis is supported by numerous other references throughout the Bible, and this is true for all the later events recorded in Genesis as well. To some degree, archaeological discoveries, as well as other ancient writings and traditions, also support these events, but the only infallibly correct record of creation and primeval history is the book of Genesis. Its importance cannot be over-estimated.

Authorship

Until about 200 years ago, practically all authorities accepted the fact that Moses wrote Genesis and all the rest of the Pentateuch as well. The first writer to question this seems to have been a French infidel physician, Jean Astruc, about the time of the French revolution. Astruc argued that two writers wrote the two creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2, on the basis of the different names for God used in the two chapters. Later writers during the 19^th century, notably the German higher critic Julius Wellhausen, developed this idea into the elaborate documentary hypothesis of the origin of the Pentateuch.

According to this notion, the Pentateuch was written much later than the time of Moses, by at least four different writers or groups of writers, commonly identified now by J, E, D and P (standing for the Jehovist, Elohist, Deuteronomist and Priestly documents, respectively). Although some form of this theory is still being taught in most liberal seminaries and college departments of religion, it has been thoroughly discredited by conservative scholars. This is discussed further in the Introductions to Exodus and other books of the Pentateuch. In any case, there is no valid reason to question the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, except for Genesis itself.

For Genesis, however, there is real substance to the documentary idea, though certainly not in the Astruc/Wellhausen form. In fact, it seems very likely that Moses was the compiler and editor of a number of earlier documents, written by Adam and other ancient patriarchs, rather than being the actual writer himself. After all, the events of Genesis took place long before Moses was born, whereas he was a direct participant in the events recorded in the other four books of the Pentateuch.

It is reasonable that Adam and his descendants all knew how to write and, therefore, kept records of their own times (note the mention of “the book of the generations of Adam” in Genesis 5:1). These records (probably kept on stone or clay tablets) were possibly handed down from father to son in the line of the God-fearing patriarchs until they finally were acquired by Moses when he led the children of Israel out of Egypt. During the wilderness wanderings, Moses compiled them into the book of Genesis, adding his own explanatory editorial comments where needed. Genesis is still properly considered as one of the books of Moses, since its present form is due to him, but it really records the eye-witness records of these primeval histories, as written originally by Adam, Noah, Shem, Isaac, Jacob and other ancient patriarchs.

The respective divisions of Genesis can be recognized by the recurring phrase: “These are the generations of�.” The archaeologist P. J. Wiseman has shown that these statements probably represent the “signatures,” so to speak, of the respective writers as they concluded their accounts of the events during their lifetimes.

The Hebrew word for “generations” (toledoth) was translated in the Septuagint Greek by the Greek word genesis (used in the New Testament only in Matthew 1:1, there translated “generation”). Thus these divisional notations have indirectly provided the very name for the book of Genesis, which means “beginnings.”

It is interesting to note, as an indirect confirmation of this concept of Genesis authorship, that while Genesis is cited at least 200 times in the New Testament, Moses himself is never noted as the author of any of these citations. On the other hand, he is listed at least 40 times in reference to citations from the other four books of the Pentateuch. There are also frequent references to Moses in the later books of the Old Testament, but never in relation to the book of Genesis.

In sum, we can be absolutely confident that the events described in Genesis are not merely ancient legends or religious allegories, but the actual eyewitness accounts of the places, events and people of those early days of earth history, written by men who were there, then transmitted down to Moses, who finally compiled and edited them into a permanent record of those ancient times.