Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac



by

Damien F. Mackey

 

Upon close examination the Book of Genesis affords us with several vital clues about the pharaoh encountered by Abram and Sarai that ought to assist us in determining just who was this enigmatic ruler in the Egyptian records. From a study of the structure of the relevant Genesis passages, from toledôt and chiasmus, as explained in our article
 

 

Abram’s“Pharaoh” Biblically Named and Archaeologically Identified

http://houseofgold.blog.com/2011/01/09/abram%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cpharaoh%E2%80%9D-biblically-named-and-archaeologically-identified/

we learned that the biblical pharaoh:

Was the same as the Abimelech of Gerar, ruler of the Philistines, contemporaneous with both Abram (Abraham) and Isaac. Which means that:

This particular pharaoh must have reigned for at least 60+ years (the span from Abram’s famine to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah).

We have also learned from archaeological analysis (see http://creation.com/the-times-of-abraham) that:

Abram was extremely close in time to pharaoh Narmer of Dynasty 0 or 1.

Dr. John Osgood has already done much of the ‘spade work’ for us here, firstly by nailing the archaeology of En-geddi at the time of Abram (in the context of Genesis 14) to the Late Chalcolithic period, corresponding to Ghassul IV in Palestine’s southern Jordan Valley; Stratum V at Arad; and the Gerzean period in Egypt (“The Times of Abraham”, Ex Nihilo TJ, Vol. 2, 1986, pp. 77-87); and secondly by showing that, immediately following this period, there was a migration out of Egypt into Philistia, bringing an entirely new culture (= Early Bronze I, Stratum IV at Arad). P. 86: “In all likelihood Egypt used northern Sinai as a springboard for forcing her way into Canaan with the result that all of southern Canaan became an Egyptian domain”.

 

This new phase would seem to correspond very nicely with the time of Narmer, since, at this very archaeological phase, according to Osgood (ibid., p. 85): “Belonging to Stratum IV [at Arad] Amiram found a sherd with the name of Narmer …”. Now Narmer was either the first pharaoh of Egypt’s First Dynasty or the last pre-dynastic ruler of what is sometimes known as Dynasty 0 (or perhaps he was both).

(Taken from our: http://amaic1.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/ten_6466.html)

 

Some consider this Narmer to have been the father of Egypt’s first pharaoh, Menes, whom some equate in turn with pharaoh Hor-Aha (“Horus the Fighter”). It is thought that Hor’s nomen, Min, might have given rise to the classical name Menes.

 

Now, I fully accept Emmet Sweeney’s strong argument for a close convergence in time of Abraham and Menes (http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/70-abraham-and-egypt.html).

 

Most importantly, according to Manetho and Africanus, Hor (Menes) ruled for more than 60 years (http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01menes.html).

 

I have also suggested in articles that Abram’s pharaoh, Abimelech (“[My] Father is King”), may have been Mizraim’s son, Lehabim. Thus, if Narmer is the father of Hor (Menes), and the latter is Abimelech, this would mean that Narmer was Mizraim himself, though I might personally favour (given the archaeological correlations) that Narmer was the same as Hor.
 

My tentative proposal, therefore, is that Abram came to Egypt at the approximate time of Narmer and right near the beginning of the long reign of Hor (Menes), who in his youthfulness had fancied Sarai. However, by the end of his long reign, at the time when Isaac had married Rebekah, the pharaoh (as Abimelech) no longer sought personal involvement with the young woman, but rather commented (Genesis 26:10):

 

“What if one of the men had taken Rebekah for himself?”

Have historians been looking for Exodus evidence in the wrong timeframe of Egyptian history?

 



The Date of the Exodus

Three thousand years ago, the date of the Exodus was cited in the Book of Kings as a reference point for the beginning of Solomon’s temple construction in Jerusalem: …in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which [is] the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD. (1 Kings 6:1 KJV)

It is well established that Solomon’s reign began in 971-970 BC (Kitchen 2001), making 967-966 BC his fourth year. Adding the 480 years gives the date of 1447-6 BC. Interestingly, the Greek Septuagint Bible gives 440 years, the difference likely being whether the counting starts from the beginning or end of the 40-year Exodus event.

The manner of the date’s mention in the Bible implies that it was revered as a keystone of Hebrew history and had been carefully preserved. The way it is written in the Hebrew implies that it is intended to be a precise figure.1 The date also correlates with the length of Israel’s period of Judges (Young and Wood 2008), with Jephthah’s argument in Judges 11:26,2 and with the Jewish Sabbatical and Jubilee calendar (Young 2003).

However, despite its seeming bedrock character, the 1446 BC date has largely been ignored or maligned by the modern theorists. One reason is the lack of evidence for the Exodus in the corresponding Egyptian timeframe, that of the 18th Dynasty (1550-1352 BC).3 The Egyptian history of this period also does not harmonize with the biblical depiction of an Egypt crippled by plagues and a destroyed army. Yet, the biblical date has not changed in three millennia, while the proposed Egyptian chronology has remained in a state of flux, with four major downward dating revisions in the last 100 years (Stewart 1999, 319).

Have historians been looking for Exodus evidence in the wrong timeframe of Egyptian history? Based on the proposition that the Exodus did not precede the 15th-century, scholars have not tended to look for clues much before the 18th Dynasty.

However, the scene has been changing more recently due to the growing realization that there are deep-seated problems with the conventional Egyptian chronology. A number of investigators (e.g., Courville 1971, Aling 1981, James 1991, Rohl 1995, Stewart 1999, Ashton and Down 2006) have challenged the “orthodox” view, pointing out that portions of the chronology are unrealistically expanded, which has pushed the preceding Egyptian history further back in time than is justified.

The most glaring problems lie in, and just prior to, the Third Intermediate Period (TIP), which consists of Dynasties 21-25, classically dated 1069-664 BC. In this regard, the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, which does not propose a revised chronology, notes that

No pharaonic king-lists include the 21st-25th Dynasties…. A sound historical framework for these centuries has proved more difficult to establish than for any other major period of Egyptian history. (Taylor 2002, 330)

Rectification of the problems associated with the TIP deletes more than 300 years from the Egyptian timeline, causing the prior dynasties to shift forward. Such a change brings the 12th Dynasty into alignment with the 215-year Israelite sojourn4 in Egypt. Using this frame of reference, parallels with the biblical account can be seen in the historical and archaeological data of the 12th Dynasty. In particular, the hitherto inexplicable demise of the powerful 12th Dynasty, and the ruinous hiatus in Egyptian history that followed, are explained by the plagues, the loss of the slave workforce, and the destruction of the army.

Explaining the Biblical Exodus Date

The 480-year date of 1 Kings 6:1 requires some computation to translate it into our calendar system. The reign of King Solomon can be calculated from the biblical king lists and their correlations with the contemporary Assyrian chronology. The Assyrian chronology is fixed by several astronomical events, the earliest being an eclipse of the sun in 763 BC (Thiele 1983, 69).

Solomon was the third king of Israel, following Saul and David. The years of Solomon’s reign were 971-931 BC (Kitchen 2001). The fourth year, second month of Solomon’s reign mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 would coincide with the spring of 967 BC (Young 2003, 601). Adding 479 years (480 years inclusive) to 967 BC yields 1446 BC as the year of the Exodus.

The Exodus was preceded by a 215 year Israelite sojourn in Egypt, with about the latter half being spent in slavery. Figure 1 compares the biblical timeline with the pertinent dynasties of the conventional Egyptian chronology. In this scenario, part of the Israelite sojourn and the Exodus would align with the 18th Dynasty. However, the biblical and Egyptian histories for this period are not complimentary. For example, Moses traveled to the Egyptian capital5 to confront pharaoh on almost a daily basis. The 18th dynasty capital at Thebes was much too distant, lying about 350 air miles south of the Israelite land of Goshen in the Nile Delta.

Revised Egyptian Chronology

Modern Egyptian chronology is based on three main approaches: 1) relative archaeological dating methods such as stratigraphic excavation and artifact identification, 2) “absolute” chronologies based on calendar and astronomical records, and 3) carbon 14 radiometric dating. Each of these categories needs to be considered in any discussion of chronology revision.

1. Relative Dating

As mentioned above, there is evidence that the dating of the 20th -25th dynasties has been artificially expanded. This situation was set in motion when 19th-century Egyptologists set up arbitrary dynastic dates based on several faulty assumptions. Key among them were: 1) that Ramesses II of the 19th Dynasty was the Pharaoh of the Israelite oppression, and 2) that Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty was the biblical King Shishak that invaded Jerusalem (1 Kings 14:25) about 925 BC (Rohl 1995, 138). Rohl (1995, chap. 7), for instance, makes a good case that Ramesses II was actually Shoshenk, meaning that Ramesses II (traditionally ca 1279-1213) has been dated about 300 years too early under the conventional chronology.

As a result of the arbitrary dynastic dates, Egyptologists placed a 400-year gap, called the Third Intermediate Period (TIP), between 1069 and 664 BC. The TIP then became a repository for a number of lesser known rulers and dynasties, whose tenures were capriciously stretched to fill the available time. Egyptologist Redford (1986, 316), for instance, observed that the 23rd Dynasty “has served as a ‘catch-all’ for otherwise difficult to place kings.”6

However, much archaeological data has now accumulated, both inside and outside of Egypt (e.g., James 1991, chap. 10), that indicates that the 405-year TIP should be reduced by some 250 years (James 1991, 257). In support of this proposition, David Rohl (1995, 137) cited three anomalies that call the conventional TIP chronology into question:

1) The sequences of Apis bull burials at Serapeum do not account for the lengthy TIP.

2) Mummies taken from the Royal Cache show that Dynasties 21 and 22 were partly

contemporary.

3) The royal burials at Tanis demonstrate that two different lines of pharaohs from two

different dynasties, 21 and 22, overlap by at least 141 years.

Using estimates based on the Genealogy of the Royal Architects found at Wadi Hammamat, Rohl (1995, 141) advocated a new chronology, lowering the 1270 BC reign of Ramesses II to 936 BC, a reduction of 334 years. This adjustment compresses sections of the 20th Dynasty and the 21st-25th Dynasties of the TIP, which exhibit various overlapping chronologies. The removal of this unaccounted time causes all prior dynasties to shift ahead about 330 years. As a result, the conventional 1773 BC ending of the 12th Dynasty is brought into rough alignment with the 1446 BC biblical date for the Exodus. This process is diagramed in Figure 2. [Not reproduced here].

Commensurate with this alignment, Stewart (1999) surmised that Amenemhat IV was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Amenemhat IV (conventionally dated 1786-1777) was the last male ruler of the 12th Dynasty. His 9 year rule ended obscurely. Queen Sobekneferu, his likely wife, or sister according to Manetho (Callender 2002, 170), was the final ruler of the 12th Dynasty. Her reign lasted less than four years. The tombs of Sobekneferu and Amenemhat IV have never been found.

Rohl (1998, 16) names Dudimose, the obscure final ruler of the 13th Dynasty, as the pharaoh of the Exodus. In the conventional chronology, the 13th Dynasty is listed as ending after 1650 BC, at least 123 years after the close of the 12th Dynasty. A similar proposition was originally made by Velikovsky (1952).

2. Absolute Dating

Before any shifting can be considered, the absolute dating that is purported to “anchor” the conventional Egyptian chronology needs to be addressed. There are three main dates:

1) 664 BC: the sacking of Thebes by Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, marking the close of the

25th Dynasty and the TIP.

2) 1541 BC: the 18th Dynasty Papyrus Ebers Sothic rising in the 9th year of Amenhotep I.

3) 1872 BC: the 12th Dynasty Illahun papyrus Sothic rising in the 7th year of Senusret III.

The 664 BC date for the sacking of Thebes is well documented (Rohl 1995, 119). It forms a secure late point on the Egyptian timeline (see Figure 2).

According to the Oxford Ancient History of Egypt, the Sothic dates are “the lynchpin of the reconstruction of the Egyptian calendar…” (Shaw 2002, 10). “Two Egyptian textual records of Sothic risings (dating from the reigns of Senusret III and Amenhotep I) form the basis of the conventional chronology of Egypt, which, in turn, influences that of the whole Mediterranean region” (ibid. 11).

The Sothic dates refer to the rare coincident rising of the star Sirius with the sun (termed a heliacal rising) on the first day of the Egyptian year, which marked the start of the Nile flooding. Because the Egyptian civil calendar did not use a leap year, the Sothic date fell behind the stellar (sidereal) year at a rate of about one day each four years. Theoretically, therefore, this heliacal rising event only occurred once every 1460 years (365 x 4).

Looking more closely, however, the accepted Sothic dates are based on a variety of tenuous assumptions. Moreover, the dates have been changed a number of times in the last century, and they are still disputed (e.g., Ward 1992, 60). Mackey (2003, 73) reviewed the checkered history of the Sothic dates and observed that “Sothic theory has absolutely bedeviled efforts to establish proper synchronisms throughout antiquity, especially when it is considered that the chronology of the other nations is usually assessed with reference to Egypt.” He concluded that a more acceptable alternative was needed.

O’mara (2003, 26, n20) suggested that Sirius may have been “schematic rather than astronomical/observational…that the matter is controversial and replete with uncertainty.” Given the lack of Egyptian astronomy sophistication mentioned by Ward (1992, 288), the “belief that the ancient Egyptians had actually used this Sothic period of 1,460 years as a kind of long-range calendar is pure supposition” (Mackey 2003, 70). Luft (2003, 203) called “everyone’s attention to the fact that the Egyptians of the 2nd Millennium BC did not create a period of any kind that could help in our searching for the absolute chronology.”

The inherent Sothic difficulties noted by Ward (1992, 63), led him to conclude that “a dependable, accurate, and acceptable absolute chronology for Egypt during the Bronze Age cannot be achieved with the evidence currently available.” Similarly, Rohl (1995, 135) listed a number of respected Egyptologists who have questioned the reliability of the Ebers Sothic date. In particular, Egyptologist Manfred Bietak noted that the “Sothis-date of the Year 9 of Amenhotep…is insecure and should not be used anymore.” Thus, it seems that the Sothic dates are anything but absolute.

3. Radiometric Dating

A 1989 review in Radiocarbon noted that incompatibility between carbon 14 dates and the archaeological and historical dates of Egypt and Mesopotamia was a significant problem (Weinstein 1989). In Egypt, carbon 14 dates are too early by one to three centuries, especially prior to the mid second millennium BC (Keenan 2002).

Even if the carbon 14 date appears to be in the “correct” range, the date is given as a band of years that is usually too broad to apply meaningfully to narrow chronology questions, such as the construction date of a building.

Another matter is that of “calibration,” whereby dendrochronology (tree ring dating) is applied to the carbon 14 data to give a “corrected” date. This process adds another set of variables, especially if the tree ring data are tied to climate factors and atmospherics that differed from the environment of the material being tested.

In light of these problems, Rohl (1995, 388) advocated using “uncalibrated dates in support of a relative, but not an absolute chronology.” Stewart (1999) found that non-calibrated Egyptian radiocarbon dates, which were about 300 years younger than the calibrated dates, agreed well with his revised (lower) Egyptian chronology for dynasties 11-19.7

This pattern is also seen in the Amarna radiocarbon dates, where the non-calibrated dates are about 250 years younger than the calibrated (Rocchi 1998). The mean of the non-calibrated Amarna dates is 1100 BC, which is close to Rohl’s (1995, 199) estimation that the Amarna period was contemporary with the rise of the Israelite monarchy ca 1000 BC.

Regarding the troubling correlation between calendar and radiometric dates in Egypt, the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt dryly observed that the relationship “has been relatively ambivalent over the years” (Shaw 2002, 2).

Conclusions

The biblical Exodus date given in 1 Kings 6:1 has not changed since it was recorded three millennia ago. The 1446 BC rendering of this date is substantiated by links between Israelite history and the astronomically-based Assyrian chronology.

Conversely, the conventional Egyptian chronology has been evolving since its inception. The supposed pillars of this framework, particularly the astronomical, are based on many tenuous assumptions that are far from absolute. For the second millennium BC, the calibrated Egyptian radiometric data seem to have generated as many questions as answers. Meanwhile, there is growing evidence of serious systemic chronology problems that demand some reconstruction of the conventional Egyptian framework.

The conundrum is that all of the ancient cultures of the Mediterranean and Near East are dependent on the Egyptian chronology and there is a great deal of scholarly inertia to be overcome. Nevertheless, Egyptologists may need to consider a new building instead of continuing to merely move furniture within it.

References

Aling, Charles. 1981. Egypt and Bible History. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker.

Ashton, John, and David Down. 2006. Unwrapping the Pharaohs. USA: Master Books.

Callender, Gae. 2002. The Middle Kingdom. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed.

Ian Shaw, 148-183. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cassuto, Umberto. 1961. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch.

Jerusalem: Magnes.

Courville, Donovan A. 1971. The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications. Loma Linda, CA:

Challenge Books.

James, Peter. 1991. Centuries of Darkness. United Kingdom: Jonathan Cape, Ltd.

Keenan, Douglas J. 2002. Why Early-Historical Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the

Mediterranean are too Early. Radiocarbon 44(1):225-237.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. 2001. How We Know When Solomon Ruled. Biblical Archaeology Review

27(05) Sept/Oct. Biblical Archaeological Society Archive CD.

Luft, Ulrich. 2003. Priorities in Absolute Chronology. In The Synchronisation of Civilisations in

the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, ed. Manfred Bietak, 199-204.Wien: Verlag der Osterreichischein Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Mackey, Damien F. 2003. Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited.

Theological Journal 17(3):70-73.

O’Mara, Patrick F. 2003. Censorinus, the Sothic Cycle, and Calendar Year One in Ancient

Egypt: The Epistemological Problem. Journal of Near Eastern Study 62(1):17-26

Redford, D. B. 1986. Pharaonic King-lists, Annals and Day-books. Mississauga, Ontario:

Benben/Soc. for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities.

Rocchi, Federico. 1998. IntCal98 Calibration for Radiocarbon Ages of Samples from Amarna.

From

Rohl, David M. 1996. A Test of Time. London: Arrow Books.

Rohl, David M. 1998. Legend: The Genesis of Civilization. UK: Random House.

Shaw, Ian. 2002. Introduction: Chronologies and Cultural Change in Egypt. In The Oxford

History of Ancient Egypt, 1-16. New York: Oxford University Press.

Stewart, Ted T. 1999. Solving the Exodus Mystery. Lubbock, TX: Biblemart.

Taylor, John. 2002. The Third Intermediate Period. In The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, ed.

Ian Shaw, 330-368. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thiele, Edwin R. 1983. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids, MI:

Zondervan.

Velikovsky, Immanuel. 1952. Ages in Chaos. Garden City, NY: Doubleday

Ward, William A. 1992. The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology. Bulletin of the American

Schools of Oriental Research 288:53-66.

Weinstein, J. 1989. Review: Chronologies in the Near East. Radiocarbon 33(1):15-21.

Wood, Bryant G. 2005a. The Rise and Fall of the 13th Century Exodus-Conquest Theory. The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48(3): 475-489.

Wood, Bryant G. 2005b. Extra-biblical Evidence for the Conquest. Bible and Spade 18(4): 98-

99.

Young, Roger C. 2003. When Did Solomon Die? Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society

46:4, 589-603.

Young, Roger C., and Bryant Wood. 2008. A Critical Analysis of a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest.

Journal of the Evangelical Theology Society 51:2, 225-243.

....

Taken from: http://www.ancientexodus.com/topics/index/new-york-times-book-review/

Japanese "Omikoshi" Resembles the Ark of the Covenant





Carrying Ark of the Covenant

....


In the Bible, in First Chronicles, chapter 15, it is written that David brought up the ark of the covenant of the Lord into Jerusalem.

"David and the elders of Israel and the commanders of units of a thousand went to bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD from the house of Obed-Edom, with rejoicing. ...Now David was clothed in a robe of fine linen, as were all the Levites who were carrying the ark, and as were the singers, and Kenaniah, who was in charge of the singing of the choirs. David also wore a linen ephod. So all Israelbrought up the ark of the covenant of the LORD with shouts, with the sounding of rams' horns and trumpets, and of cymbals, and the playing of lyres and harps." (15:25-28)

Illustration of Israeli people carrying the Ark of the Covenant

When I read these passages, I think; "How well does this look like the scene of Japanese people carrying our 'omikoshi' during festivals? The shape of the Japanese 'Omikoshi' appears similar to the ark of the covenant. Japanese sing and dance in front of it with shouts, and to the sounds of musical instruments. These are quite similar to the customs of ancient Israel."

Japanese "Omikoshi" ark

Japanese carry the "omikoshi" on their shoulders with poles - usually two poles. So did the ancient Israelites:
"The Levites carried the ark of God with poles on their shoulders, as Moses had commanded in accordance with the word of the LORD." (1 Chronicles 15:15)

The Israeli ark of the covenant had two poles (Exodus 25:10-15).
Some restored models of the ark as it was imagined to be have used two poles on the upper parts of the ark. But the Bible says those poles were to be fastened to the ark by the four rings "on its four feet" (Exodus 25:12). Hence, the poles must have been attached on the bottom of the ark. This is similar to the Japanese "omikoshi."

The Israeli ark had two statues of gold cherubim on its top. Cherubim are a type of angel, heavenly being having wings like birds. Japanese "omikoshi" also have on its top the gold bird called "Ho-oh" which is an imaginary bird and a mysterious heavenly being.
The entire Israeli ark was overlaid with gold. Japanese "omikoshi" are also overlaid partly and sometimes entirely with gold. The size of an "omikoshi" is almost the same as the Israeli ark. Japanese "omikoshi" could be a remnant of the ark of ancient Israel.

Many Things Concerning the Ark Resemble Japanese Customs.

King David and people of Israelsang and danced to the sounds of musical instruments in front of the ark. We Japanese sing and dance to the sounds of musical instruments in front of "omikoshi" as well.

Several years ago, I saw an American-made movie titled "King David" which was a faithful story of the life of King David. In the movie, David was seen dancing in front of the ark while it was being carried into Jerusalem. I thought: "If the scenery of Jerusalemwere replaced by Japanese scenery, this scene would be just the same as what can be observed in Japanese festivals." The atmosphere of the music also resembles the Japanese style. David's dancing appears similar to Japanese traditional dancing.

At the Shinto shrine festival of "Gion-jinja" in Kyoto, men carry "omikoshi," then enter a river, and cross it. I can't help but think this originates from the memory of the Ancient Israelites carrying the ark as they crossed the Jordan river after their exodus from Egypt.

In a Japanese island of the Inland Sea of Seto, the men selected as the carriers of the "omikoshi" stay together at a house for one week before they would carry the "omikoshi." This is to prevent profaning themselves. Furthermore on the day before they carry "omikoshi," the men bathe in seawater to sanctify themselves. This is similar to an ancient Israelite custom:
"So the priests and the Levites sanctified themselves to bring up the ark of the Lord God of Israel." (1 Chronicles 15:14)

The Bible says that after the ark entered Jerusalem and the march was finished, "David distributed to everyone of Israel, both man and woman, to everyone a loaf of bread, a piece of meat, and a cake of raisins" (1 Chronicles 16:3). This is similar to a Japanese custom. Sweets are distributed to everyone after a Japanese festival. It was a delight during my childhood.

The Robe of Japanese Priests Resembles the Robe of Israeli Priests.

The Bible says that when David brought up the ark into Jerusalem, "David was clothed in a robe of fine linen" (1 Chronicles 15:27). The same was true for the priests and choirs. In the Japanese Bible, this verse is translated into "robe of white linen."

In ancient Israel, although the high priest wore a colorful robe, ordinary priests wore simple white linen. Priests wore white clothes at holy events. Japanese priests also wear white robes at holy events.

In Ise-jingu, one of the oldest Japanese shrines, all of the priests wear white robes. And in many Japanese Shinto shrines, especially traditional ones, the people wear white robes when they carry the "omikoshi" just like the Israelites did.
Buddhist priests wear luxurious colorful robes. However, in the Japanese Shinto religion, white is regarded as the holiest color.

The Emperor of Japan, just after he finishes the ceremony of his accession to the throne, appears alone in front of the Shinto god. When he arrives there, he wears a pure white robe covering his entire body except that his feet are naked. This is similar to the action of Moses and Joshua who removed their sandals in front of God to be in bare feet (Exodus 3:5, Joshua 5:15).
Marvin Tokayer, a rabbi who lived in Japan for 10 years, wrote in his book:
"The linen robes which Japanese Shinto priests wear have the same figure as the white linen robes of the ancient priests of Israel. "

Japanese Shinto priest in white robe with fringes

The Japanese Shinto priest robe has cords of 20-30 centimeters long (about 10 inches) hung from the corners of the robe. These fringes are similar to those of the ancient Israelites. Deuteronomy 22:12 says:
"make them fringes in the... corners of their garments throughout their generations."

Fringes (tassels) were a token that a person was an Israelite. In the gospels of the New Testament, it is also written that the Pharisees "make their tassels on their garments long" (Matthew 23:5). A woman who had been suffering from a hemorrhage came to Jesus (Yeshua) and touched the "tassel on His coat" (Matthew 9:20, The New Testament: A Translation in the Language of the People, translated by Charles B. Williams).

Imagined pictures of ancient Israeli clothing sometimes do not have fringes. But their robes actually had fringes. The Jewish Tallit (prayer shawl), which the Jews put on when they pray, has fringes in the corners according to tradition.

Japanese Shinto priests wear on their robe a rectangle of cloth from their shoulders to thighs. This is the same as the ephod worn by David:
"David also wore a linen ephod." (1 Chronicles 15:27)

Although the ephod of the high priest was colorful with jewels, the ordinary priests under him wore the ephods of simple white linen cloth (1 Samuel 22:18). Rabbi Tokayer states that the rectangle of cloth on the robe of Japanese Shinto priest looks very similar to the ephod of the Kohen, the Jewish priest.

The Japanese Shinto priest puts a cap on his head just like Israeli priest did (Exodus 29:40). The Japanese priest also puts a sash on his waist. So did the Israeli priest. The clothing of Japanese Shinto priests appears to be similar to the clothing used by ancient Israelites.

Waving the Sheaf of Harvest Is Also the Custom of Japan.

The Jews wave a sheaf of their first fruits of grain seven weeks before Shavuot (Pentecost, Leviticus 23:10-11), They also wave a sheaf of plants at Sukkot (the Feast of Booths, Leviticus 23:40). This has been a tradition since the time of Moses. Ancient Israeli priests also waved a plant branch when he sanctifies someone. David said, "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean" [Psalm 51:7(9)]. This is also a traditional Japanese custom.

Shinto priest waving for sanctification

When a Japanese priest sanctifies someone or something, he waves a tree branch. Or he waves a "harainusa," which is made of a stick and white papers and looks like a plant. Today's "harainusa" is simplified and made of white papers that are folded in a zigzag pattern like small lightning bolts, but in old days it was a plant branch or cereals.

A Japanese Christian woman acquaintance of mine used to think of this "harainusa" as merely a pagan custom. But she later went to the U.S.A.and had an opportunity to attend a Sukkot ceremony. When she saw the Jewish waving of the sheaf of the harvest, she shouted in her heart, "Oh, this is the same as a Japanese priest does! Here lies the home for the Japanese."

The Structure of the Japanese Shinto Shrine is Similar to God's Tabernacle of Ancient Israel.

The inside of God's tabernacle in ancient Israelwas divided into two parts. The first was the Holy Place, and the second was the Holy of Holies. The Japanese Shinto shrine is also divided into two parts.

The functions performed in the Japanese shrine are similar to those of the Israeli tabernacle. Japanese pray in front of its Holy Place. They cannot enter inside. Only Shinto priests and special ones can enter. Shinto priest enters the Holy of Holies of the Japanese shrine only at special times. This is similar to the Israeli tabernacle.

The Japanese Holy of Holies is located usually in far west or far north of the shrine. The Israeli Holy of Holies was located in far west of the temple. Shinto's Holy of Holies is also located on a higher level than the Holy Place, and between them are steps. Scholars state that, in the Israeli temple built by Solomon, the Holy of Holies was on an elevated level as well, and between them there were steps of about 2.7 meters (9 feet) in width.

Typical Japanese Shinto shrine

In front of a Japanese shrine, there are two statues of lions known as "komainu" that sit on both sides of the approach. They are not idols but guards for the shrine. This was also a custom of ancient Israel. In God's temple in Israel and in the palace of Solomon, there were statues or relieves of lions (1 Kings 7:36, 10:19).

"Komainu" guards for shrine

In the early history of Japan, there were absolutely no lions. But the statues of lions have been placed in Japanese shrines since ancient times. It has been proven by scholars that statues of lions located in front of Japanese shrines originated from the Middle East.

Located near the entrance of a Japanese shrine is a "temizuya" - a place for worshipers to wash their hands and mouth. They used to wash their feet, too, in old days. This is a similar custom as is found in Jewish synagogues. The ancient tabernacle and temple of Israelalso had a laver for washing hands and feet near the entrances.

In front of a Japanese shrine, there is a gate called the "torii." The type gate does not exist in China or in Korea, it is peculiar to Japan. The "torii" gate consists of two vertical pillars and a bar connecting the upper parts. But the oldest form consists of only two vertical pillars and a rope connecting the upper parts. When a Shinto priest bows to the gate, he bows to the two pillars separately. It is assumed that the "torii" gate was originally constructed of only two pillars.



In the Israeli temple, there were two pillars used as a gate (1 Kings 7:21). And according to Joseph Eidelberg, in Aramaic language which ancient Israelites used, the word for gate was "tar'a." This word might have changed slightly and become the Japanese "torii".
Some "toriis," especially of old shrines, are painted red. I can't help but think this is a picture of the two door posts and the lintel on which the blood of the lamb was put the night before the exodus from Egypt.

In the Japanese Shinto religion, there is a custom to surround a holy place with a rope called the "shimenawa," which has slips of white papers inserted along the bottom edge of the rope. The "shimenawa" rope is set as the boundary. The Bible says that when Moses was given God's Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, he "set bounds" (Exodus 19:12) around it for the Israelites not to approach. Although the nature of these "bounds" is not known, ropes might have been used. The Japanese "shimenawa" rope might then be a custom that originates from the time of Moses. The zigzag pattern of white papers inserted along the rope reminds me of the thunders at Mt. Sinai.

The major difference between a Japanese Shinto shrine and the ancient Israeli temple is that the shrine does not have the burning altar for animal sacrifices. I used to wonder why Shinto religion does not have the custom of animal sacrifices if Shinto originated from the religion of ancient Israel. But then I found the answer in Deuteronomy, chapter 12. Moses commanded the people not to offer any animal sacrifices at any other locations except at specific places in Canaan (12:10-14). Hence, if the Israelites came to ancient Japan, they would not be permitted to offer animal sacrifices.

Shinto shrine is usually built on a mountain or a hill. Almost every mountain in Japan has a shrine, even you find a shrine on top of Mt. Fuji. In ancient Israel, on mountains were usually located worship places called "the high places". The temple of Jerusalem was built on a mountain (Mt. Moriah). Moses was given the Ten Commandments from God on Mt. Sinai. It was thought in Israel that mountain is a place close to God.

Many Shinto shrines are built with the gates in the east and the Holy of Holies in the west as we see in Matsuo grand shrine (Matsuo-taisya) in Kyoto and others. While, others are built with the gates in the south and the Holy of Holies in the north. The reason of building with the gates in the east (and the Holy of Holies in the west) is that the sun comes from the east. The ancient Israeli tabernacle or temple was built with the gate in the east and the Holy of Holies in the west, based on the belief that the glory of God comes from the east.

All Shinto shrines are made of wood. Many parts of the ancient Israeli temple were also made of wood. The Israelites used stones in some places, but walls, floors, ceilings and all of the insides were overlaid with wood (1 Kings 6:9, 15-18), which was cedars from Lebanon (1 Kings 5:6). In Japanthey do not have cedars from Lebanon, so in Shinto shrines they use Hinoki cypress which is hardly eaten by bugs like cedars from Lebanon. The wood of the ancient Israeli temple was all overlaid with gold (1 Kings 6:20-30). In Japan the important parts of the main shrine of Ise-jingu, for instance, are overlaid with gold.

....

Taken from: http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm

Jesus Christ as the "New Moses"



Synopsis of Pope's Book

"Jesus of Nazareth"

• 
  
• Send

April 15, 2007  ....

ROME, APRIL 15, 2007 (Zenit.org).- Here is the synopsis of Benedict XVI's book "Jesus of Nazareth," released by the Italian publisher Rizzoli, which has handled worldwide sale of the rights to the work.


....

* * *

The Pope's Path to Jesus
A personal meditation, not an exercise of the magisterium

This book is the first part of a work, the writing of which, as its author states, was preceded by a "long gestation" (Page xi). It reflects Joseph Ratzinger's personal search for the "face of the Lord" and is not intended to be a document forming part of the magisterium (Page xxiii).

"Everyone is free, then, to contradict me," the Pontiff stresses in the foreword (Page xxiv). The main purpose of the work is "to help foster [in the reader] the growth of a living relationship" with Jesus Christ (Page xxiv). In an expected second volume the Pope hopes "also to be able to include the chapter on the [infancy] narratives" concerning the birth of Jesus and to consider the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection.

It is primarily, therefore, a pastoral book. But it is also the work of a rigorous theologian, who justifies his assertions based on exhaustive knowledge of sacred texts and critical literature. He underlines the indispen¬sability of a historical-critical method for serious exegesis, but also highlights its limits: "Admittedly, to believe that, as man, he [Jesus] truly was God exceeds the scope of the historical method" (Page xxiii).

And yet, "Without anchoring in God, the person of Jesus remains shadowy, unreal, and unexplainable" (Schnackenburg, "Freundschaft mit Jesus," Page 322). In confirming this conclusion of a notable Roman Catholic representative of historical-critical exegesis, the Pope states that his book "sees Jesus in light of his communion with the Father" (Page xiv).

In addition, based on "reading the individual texts of the Bible in the context of the whole" -- a reading that "does not contradict historical-critical interpretation, but carries it forward in an organic way toward becoming theology in the proper sense" (Page xix) -- the author presents "the Jesus of the Gospels as the real, 'historical' Jesus," underlining "that this figure is much more logical and, historically speaking, much more intelligible than the reconstructions we have been presented with in the last decades" (Page xxii).

For Benedict XVI, one finds in the Scriptures the compelling elements to be able to assert that the historical personage, Jesus Christ, is also the Son of God who came to Earth to save humanity. In page after page, he examines these one by one, guiding and challenging the reader -- the believer but also the nonbeliever -- by way of an enthralling intellectual adventure.

Grounding his core premise on the fact of the intimate unity between the Old and the New Testament, and drawing on the Christological hermeneutics that see in Jesus Christ the key to the entire Bible, Benedict XVI presents the Jesus of the Gospels as the "new Moses" who fulfills Israel's ancient expectations (Page 1). This new Moses must lead the people of God to true and definitive freedom. He does so in a sequence of actions that, however, always allow God's plan to be anticipated in its entirety.

The Baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan is "an acceptance of death for the sins of humanity, and the voice that calls out, 'This is my beloved Son,' over the baptismal waters is an anticipatory reference to the Resurrection" (Page 18). Jesus' immersion in the waters of the River Jordan is a symbol of his death and of his descent into hell -- a reality present, however, throughout his life.

To save humanity "He must recapitulate the whole of history from its beginnings" (Page 26), he must conquer the principal temptations that, in various forms, threaten men in all ages and, transforming them into obedience, reopen the road toward God (Chapter 2), toward the true Promised Land, which is the "Kingdom of God" (Page 44). This term, which can be interpreted in its Christological, mystical or even ecclesiastical dimension, ultimately means "the divine lordship, God's dominion over the world and over history, [which] transcends the moment, indeed transcends and reaches beyond the whole of history. And yet it is at the same time something belonging absolutely to the present" (Page 57). Indeed, through Jesus' presence and activity "God has here and now entered actively into history in a wholly new way." In Jesus "God ... draws near to us ... rules in a divine way, without worldly power, rules through the love that reaches 'to the end'" (Pages 60-61; John 13:1).

The theme of the "Kingdom of God" (Chapter 3), which pervades the whole of Jesus' preaching, is developed in further depth in the reflection on the "Sermon on the Mount" (Chapter 4). In the Sermon Jesus clearly appears as the "new Moses" who brings the new Torah or, rather, returns to Moses' Torah and, activating the intrinsic rhythms of its structure, fulfills it (Page 65).

The Sermon on the Mount, in which the beatitudes are the cardinal points of the law and, at one and the same time, a self-portrait of Jesus, demonstrates that this law is not just the result of a "face-to-face" talk with God but embodies the plenitude that comes from the intimate union of Jesus with the Father (Page 66). Jesus is the Son of God, the Word of God in person. "Jesus understands himself as the Torah" (Page 110). "This is the point that demands a decision [...] and consequently this is the point that leads to the Cross and the Resurrection" (Page 63).

The exodus toward the true "Promised Land," toward true freedom, requires the sequel of Christ. The believer has to enter the same communion of the Son with the Father. Only in this way can Man "fulfill" himself, because his innermost nature is oriented toward the relationship with God. This means that a fundamental element of his life is talking to God and listening to God. Because of this, Benedict XVI dedicates an entire chapter to prayer, explaining the Lord's Prayer, which Jesus himself taught us (Chapter 5).

Man's profound contact with God the Father through Jesus in the Holy Spirit gathers them together in the "we and us" of a new family that, via the choice of the Twelve Disciples, recalls the origins of Israel (the twelve Patriarchs) and, at the same time, opens the vision toward the new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:9-14) -- the ultimate destination of the whole story -- of the new Exodus under the guidance of the "new Moses."

With Jesus, the Twelve Disciples "have to pass from outward to inward communion with Jesus," so as then to be able to testify to his oneness with the Father and "become Jesus' envoys -- 'apostles,' no less -- who bring his message to the world" (Page 172). Albeit in its extremely variegated composition, the new family of Jesus, the Church of all ages, finds in him its unifying core and the will to live the universal character of his teaching (Chapter 6).

To make his message easier to understand and indeed to incorporate that message into daily living, Jesus uses the form of the parable. He comports the substance of what he intends to communicate -- ultimately he is always talking about his mystery -- attuned to the listener's comprehension using the bridge of imagery grounded in realities very familiar and accessible to that listener. Alongside this human aspect, however, there is an exquisitely theological explanation of the parables' sense, which Joseph Ratzinger highlights in an analysis of rare depth. He then comments more specifically on three parables, via which he illustrates the endless resources of Jesus' message and its perennial actuality (Chapter 7).

The next chapter also centers round the images used by Jesus to explain his mystery: They are the great images of John's Gospel. Before analyzing them, the Pope presents a very interesting summary of the various results of scientific research into who the apostle John was. With this, as also in his explanation of the images, he opens up new horizons for the reader that reveal Jesus with ever-increasing clarity as the "Word of God" (Page 317), who became man for our salvation as the "Son of God" (Page 304), coming to redirect humanity toward unity with the Father -- the reality personified by Moses (Chapter 8).

This vision is further expanded in the last two chapters. "The account of the Transfiguration of Jesus [...] interprets Peter's confession and takes it deeper, while at the same time connecting it with the mystery of Jesus' death and resurrection" (Pages 287-288). Both events -- the transfiguration and the confession -- are decisive moments for the earthly Jesus as they are for his disciples.

The true mission of the Messiah of God and the destiny of those who want to follow him are now definitively established. Both events become comprehensible to their full extent only if based on an organic view of the Old and New Testament. Jesus, the living Son of God, is the Messiah awaited by Israel who, through the scandal of the Cross, leads humanity into the "Kingdom of God" (Page 317) and to ultimate freedom (Chapter 9).

The Pope's book ends with an in-depth analysis of the titles that, according to the Gospels, Jesus used for himself (Chapter 10). Once again it becomes evident that only through reading the Scriptures as a united whole is one able to reveal the meaning of the three terms "Son of Man," "Son," and "I Am." This latter term is the mysterious name with which God revealed himself to Moses in the burning bush. This name now allows it to be seen that Jesus is that same God. In all three titles "Jesus at once conceals and reveals the mystery of his person. [...] All three of these terms demonstrate how deeply rooted he is in the Word of God, Israel's Bible, the Old Testament. And yet all these terms receive their full meaning only in him -- it is as if they had been waiting for him" (Page 354).

Together with the man of faith, who seeks to explain the divine mystery above all to himself; together with the extremely refined theologian, who ranges effortlessly from the results of modern doctrinal analyses to those of their ancient precursors, the book also reveals the pastor, who truly succeeds in his attempt "to help foster [in the reader] the growth of a living relationship" with Jesus Christ (Page xxiv), almost irresistibly drawing him into his own personal friendship with the Lord.

In this perspective the Pontiff is not afraid to denounce a world that, by excluding God and clinging only to visible and tangible realities, risks destroying itself in a self-centered quest for purely material well-being -- becoming deaf to the real call to the human being to become, through the Son, a son of God, and thereby to reach true freedom in the "Promised Land" of the "Kingdom of God."

* * *

....



Taken from: http://www.zenit.org/en/articles/synopsis-of-pope-s-book