Sunday, August 24, 2025

Biblical Ruth was a “foreigner”, geographically, but not ethnically

by Damien F. Mackey “Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground, and said to him, ‘Why have I found favor in your eyes that you should notice me, when I am a foreigner?’.” Ruth 2:10 One of the readings at Mass last Saturday (23rd August, 2025) was on the story of Ruth, introduced by the Marist priest as: “Boaz was ruthless [Ruth-less] until he got married”. From a surface level reading of the biblical text one would gain the strong impression that Ruth was an alien to the House of Israel. She is called “Ruth the Moabite” (2:2) and “the Moabite” (2:6). These texts, coupled with 2:10, “a foreigner”, would seem to put the matter past doubt that Ruth could not ethnically have been an Israelite woman. However, there is one insurmountable problem with Ruth’s belonging to the race of Moab, and it can be neatly coupled with Achior in the Book of Judith’s supposedly being an Ammonite. It is this unequivocal statute from Deuteronomy 23:3: “No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation”. In my article: Bible critics can overstate idea of ‘enlightened pagan’ (3) Bible critics can overstate idea of 'enlightened pagan' I proposed that various biblical characters who have traditionally been regarded as being ‘enlightened pagans’ were, in fact, Israelites - and this included Ruth and Achior. Two of these supposedly ‘enlightened pagans’, Rahab and Ruth, emerge as ancestors of Jesus Christ himself (Matthew 1:5-6): Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David. But, that neither of these two may have been Gentiles, I have argued (based on the research of others) as follows: Regarding … Rahab, Ruth and Achior, to have been former Gentile pagans, Canaanite in the first case … and Moabite and Ammonite in the other two instances … then this would have meant a serious flouting of Mosaïc law and prohibitions: Deuteronomy 7 for Rahab, and Deuteronomy 23:3 for Ruth and Achior. …. 1. RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rachab (Hebrew: רָחָב), whose ‘faith’ both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised, may not have been she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught. The likely situation, as explained in the following article, is that Rachab the harlot is to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling), whose name is to be found in the Davidic genealogical list. Thus we read at: http://dancingforyeshua.blogspot.com.au/2013/03/bible-lies-part-4-ruth-and-rahab.html … the name of the harlot is NOT, after all, Rahab because no woman by the name of Rahab is in the entire Book of Scripture! In the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, Rahab is a poetic or metaphorical name applied three times to the land of Egypt, with the meaning of being 'arrogant' or 'proud' (Psalm 87:4 See, and Isaiah 89:10 51:9). But these three passages have nothing to do with Joshua, Jericho, or the prostitute who lived there. The same Hebrew word 'Rahab' is, in fact, quite correctly translated in the authorized as 'proud' in Job 9:13 and 26:12 version, but in Isaiah 30:7 which is mistranslated as ‘force.’ This verse says - in the Hebrew text - "Help from Egypt is futile and useless I have called her Rahab still" - (or 'stationary Egypt'). The name of the prostitute is' Rakhab ' … a different Hebrew word for ‘Rahab,’ with a totally different meaning to 'expand' or ‘to make wide.’ It is not written with the Hebrew letter 'He,' like in Rahab, but with the letter 'Khet' (which has a guttural sounded hard as the `ch' in 'loch' or the German 'macht).' The Greek alphabet, however, has no equivalent letters that correspond to 'he' or 'Khet.' Therefore, in the Septuagint version of the Book of Joshua, the name of the harlot is written 'Ra'ab' and all the passages where it occurs. And exactly the same spelling is used in the New Testament in the Greek text of Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 - but NOT in Matthew 1:5. Also, her name is always linked to the name 'whore,' either directly or by association with that name in the same context in which her name appears. If the wife of Salmon was indeed 'Rahab' the whore, why is it then that in the Greek text of Matthew 1:5, is written 'Raxab' and not 'Ra'ab' as in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 and in every passage of the Greek text of the Septuagint where the name of the woman prostitute is found? And why it is that the name Raxab in Matthew 1:5 is not coupled with the term 'whore'? This is the first and only appearance of this name in the New Testament. So if Rahab was really the whore of Jericho, then it is even more necessary to identify her here as the prostitute in Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25. …. [End of quote] 2. RUTH. I have long believed, too, that Ruth of the Judges era could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3), but considered especially in my extensive research on the identity of Achior, presumably an Ammonite, in the Book of Judith (see 4. next). 3. I discussed Achior at length in Volume Two of my university thesis (2007), A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background (accessible at: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973). Whilst Ruth, a woman, apparently gets away with it, Achior (Ahikar), a male, does not (see 4. next). The necessity of Ruth’s being an Israelite is well argued in the above-mentioned “Ruth” article: http://www.israelofgod.org/ruth.htm The Story of Ruth the Israelite!? Have you been taught that the Moabitess Ruth, the daughter-in-law of Naomi, was a Moabite? Yes, that is the question, it is neither intended as jocular nor facetious, although it may well be rhetorical. Ruth 1:4 And they took them wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other Ruth: and they dwelled there about ten years. In the first chapter of the book of Ruth it appears to be quite clear that Ruth and her sister Orpah were Moabite by descent or lineage. Ruth 1:1 ¶ Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. Further, as we can see in the above verse, Naomi, with her husband and sons, went to sojourn “in the country of Moab.” Now, if we stop here, we got about as far into this matter as the traditional scholars, theologians, biblical historians, and the vast masses of people who look to the bible as the word of God. By stopping here we are doing what so many do with the bible and in bible study, we take what appears to be “obvious” and indisputable as fact, then either ignore or find it imperative to “explain away” the contradictions within scripture created by our newly created “fact.” What contradictions are we referring to? Glad you asked. For just one (there are several): Deut. 23:3 An Ammonite or Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to their tenth generation shall they not enter into the congregation of the LORD for ever: While “forever” in the Hebrew does not mean for the rest of eternity, it does mean so far into the future as to be impossible to “see” (or foresee from that vantage point). Thus, the expression, “even to their tenth generation” is not literally specific, but an idiom meaning that they can forget it, it won’t happen. So, the difficulty in justifying the two positions- (1) that Ruth was a Moabite by lineage, and (2) Naomi’s sons, as well as Boaz, would marry a Moabite and not only bring her into the “camp,” but in turn bring her into the line of David and Jesus (Yeshua), is in stark contrast with Deut. 23:3 and what a God-fearing Israelite would possibly do, especially when we consider what God had to say about such actions, not just in this time frame, but even in the time of Ezra. It then makes God look incompetent or extremely forgetful in His old age, or maybe God is just double-minded? Not to mention that this all transpires little more than a century after God declared His stand concerning this very matter to Israel in Deut. 23 above. …. The Problems 1. How could a law abiding Israelite, whether Mahlon or Boaz, legally marry a Moabite? 2. How can we circumvent Deut 23:3 in order to accept the actions of Mahlon, Elimelech, Naomi, and later Boaz to let Ruth become a part of their family by law and bring her into Israel? 3. The women of Israel welcomed Ruth into the “family” in Ruth 4:11 … The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem: 4. If Ruth was a Moabite by race, why would there be such attention to detail concerning the law of redemption by Naomi, Boaz, and the “near-kinsman” more near than Boaz? It would all have been performed in complete opposition to the very law being invoked to settle the issue being settled! 5. Judah’s eldest two sons were slain by God, Er for his wickedness and Onan for his disrespect for the very law Boaz invokes to accomplish his goal to marry Ruth. Now Er and Onan were both from a Canaanite mother, the first wife of Judah. Point being, God slew Onan for not obeying a part of the very law that Mehlon and Boaz would likewise have been guilty of breaking had Ruth really been Moabite. …. [End of quotes] 4. ACHIOR. I argued at length in the above-mentioned university thesis that Achior was not an Ammonite at all but a Naphtalian Israelite. He was Ahikar (var. Achior, Vulgate), the nephew of Tobit (Book of Tobit 1:22). The mistaken notion that Achior was an Ammonite leader is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of the scriptural canon. I live in the hope that this, one day, can be rectified. For further clarification of this subject, see my article: Achior was an Israelite not an Ammonite (4) Achior was an Israelite not an Ammonite according to which “Ammonite” needs to be replaced by “Elamite” - Elam being the province that the Israelite Ahikar (Achior) would govern for the Assyrians. Even the famous Delilah of the Book of Judges may not have been a Gentile Philistine: Samson’s Delilah may have been an Israelite (5) Samson’s Delilah may have been an Israelite | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Ruth’s husband, Boaz, for his part, may find his alter ego in the Judge, Ibzan, as according to Hebrew tradition: Boaz and Ibzan https://www.academia.edu/117280247/Boaz_and_Ibzan

Monday, August 18, 2025

God sends Moses back to Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three, when they spoke to Pharaoh”. Exodus 7:7 Forty years ago, back in Egypt, Moses had thought himself ready to lead his people to freedom, but had found them squabbling amongst themselves, and not interested. Nor was Moses himself yet an apt instrument for the gargantuan task. Was he even circumcised? He would need to be fully de-paganised, his heart taken out of Egypt, so that he could ultimately lead his people out of the heart of Egypt. Even so, for many of them, their hearts would remain in Egypt, so it is said: “You can take Israel out of the heart of Egypt, but you cannot take the hearts of Israel out of Egypt”. Providence would so arrange it that Moses would now experience forty more years living amongst a culturally more compatible, Semitic people, the Midianites. These, too, were descendants of Abraham, though not through Sarah, but Keturah. Many of their customs would have been like those of their fellow Hebrews, whilst some were different. Unlike the Israelite practice of circumcision on the eighth day after birth, as mandated by God, the Midianites may have delayed circumcision until later. But Moses never forgot that he was something of an alien amongst this desert people. Had not Jethro’s daughters referred to him initially as “an Egyptian” (Exodus 2:19)? And did he not name his first born child, “Foreigner” (Exodus 2:22): “Zipporah gave birth to a son, and Moses named him Gershom [גֵּרְשֹׁ֑ם], saying, ‘I have become a foreigner in a foreign land’.” (The couple would later have another son, Eliezer). It would not be surprising, though, if Moses, who had grown somewhat comfortable with his family in Midian, had deferred to his Midianite wife, Zipporah, regarding certain different customs - the Midianite attitude to circumcision being one of them. This would almost cost Moses his life – or would it be his firstborn son, Gershom, who would be in mortal peril? Moses would also undergo a profound metaphysical and spiritual conversion in Midian, especially the theophany experience at the Burning Bush near Mount Horeb. Despite all the work that Yahweh had put into preparing Moses for the job at hand, the Lord now found his servant reluctant, making excuses. For instance (Exodus 4:10): “Moses said to the Lord, ‘Pardon your servant, Lord. I have never been eloquent, neither in the past nor since you have spoken to your servant. I am slow of speech and tongue’.” St. John of the Cross took this as indicating that Moses was experiencing the mystical dark night of the senses, when speech can become difficult. But Moses here claims this always to have been the case with him. That was just how he naturally was. Moses was now playing with fire, and the Divine volcano was about to erupt. But, for the moment (4:11-12): “The Lord said to him, ‘Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go; I will help you speak and will teach you what to say’.” In one of a multitude of biblical appropriations by Islam, the Prophet Mohammed, interestingly at the age of forty (Moses had fled Egypt at forty) - who, note, was illiterate - is told (not to speak, but) to read. And he is similarly admonished when, Moses-like, he demurs: https://www.islamicity.org/11380/when-an-illiterate-man-was-asked-to-read/ “When Prophet Muhammad (صَلَّىٰ ٱللَّٰهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ) received his first revelation in the Cave of Hira' through the angel Jibril (Gabriel), he was asked to read (iqra'). However … he was astounded, replying both with fear and astonishment: "I am not literate (I cannot read)". He was asked two more times to read, but after each time he answered that he was not literate and so, couldn't read. After that, the angel conveyed the intended first revelation: "Read in the name of your Lord Who created; created man from a clinging substance. Read, and your Lord is the most Generous Who taught by the pen; taught man that which he knew not" (al-'Alaq, 1-5)”.” Cf. Jeremiah 1:6: “‘Alas, Sovereign Lord’, I said, ‘I do not know how to speak; I am too young’.” Also, Jeremiah refers to a “23 years” prophetic span (25:3). And Muslims believe that the Qu’rān (Koran) was verbally revealed from God to Mohammed through the angel Gabriel gradually over a period of approximately 23 years. Moses, for his part, was now begging the Lord (Exodus 4:13): ‘Pardon your servant, Lord. Please send someone else’. Vv. 14-16: Then the Lord’s anger burned against Moses and he said, ‘What about your brother, Aaron the Levite? I know he can speak well. He is already on his way to meet you, and he will be glad to see you. You shall speak to him and put words in his mouth; I will help both of you speak and will teach you what to do. He will speak to the people for you, and it will be as if he were your mouth and as if you were God to him. But take this staff in your hand so you can perform the signs with it’. How did Aaron know to where Moses had fled? Perhaps Moses had told him just before his rude departure from Egypt, or, maybe, had sent a message to Aaron later, say, via Midianite caravans. (Cf. Genesis 37:28) Finally, Moses was ready to return to Egypt. Or, was he? For, what about that critical matter of circumcision? Exodus 4:18: Then Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, ‘Let me return to my own people in Egypt to see if any of them are still alive’. Jethro said, ‘Go, and I wish you well’. Moses ‘a bridegroom of blood’ ‘Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me’, she said. So the Lord let him alone. Moses, ever a type of Jesus Christ, was called by his wife Zipporah ‘a bridegroom of blood’. Exodus 4:19-23: Now the Lord had said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to Egypt, for all those who wanted to kill you are dead’. So Moses took his wife and sons, put them on a donkey and started back to Egypt. And he took the staff of God in his hand. The Lord said to Moses, ‘When you return to Egypt, see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders I have given you the power to do. But I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go. Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son, and I told you, “Let my son go, so he may worship me”. But you refused to let him go; so I will kill your firstborn son’.” Will the Lord now go after Moses’s own firstborn son? Clement Harrold has written well on this: https://stpaulcenter.com/posts/why-does-god-try-to-kill-moses-in-exodus-4?srsltid=AfmBOooi3-yMqddlAM1l-M0jUDFlyV3vjagk8jDpN8ogb9RMMNdJ3BaM Chapter 4 of the Book of Exodus contains one of the strangest passages in all of Sacred Scripture. Verses 18-26 describe how Moses, living in exile in the land of Midian, goes to his father-in-law Jethro to request permission to return to his own people back in Egypt. Jethro consents, and so Moses sets off together with his wife, Zipporah, and their sons. Then comes the weird part. We are told that, "At a lodging place on the way the Lord met him and sought to kill him" (v. 24). In a bizarre display of quick thinking, Zipporah responds by hastily circumcising her son, and holding the foreskin to his feet. Stranger still is the fact that this unorthodox tactic actually works! God allows the family to continue on their way. How are we supposed to understand this perplexing episode? We must acknowledge from the outset that the passage in question is one of the most obscure texts in the whole Bible. Modern commentators and ancient rabbis alike have wrestled with its meaning, and various different theories have been proposed over the centuries. Here we shall offer just one such theory - not with an eye to solving all of the difficulties, but simply to offer a few pointers that might render it a little more intelligible. The emphasis on circumcision in the passage suggests that Moses was guilty of failing to circumcise his son. The implication is that the family had lapsed into the Midianite custom of delaying circumcision until shortly before marriage. This was in direct contravention of the Abrahamic covenant, in which God commanded that all male newborns be circumcised on the eighth day after birth (see Gen 17:9-13). Moses, it seems, had become overly acquainted with the cultural customs of his in-laws, even to the point of disobeying the edicts of the God of Israel. This is a risky business because, as the passage reveals, the divine patience may be considerable, but it doesn't last forever. Having appointed Moses as His chosen deputy to lead His people out of Egypt (see Ex 4:1-17), God now calls him to account for failing to keep his own house in order. It's at this juncture that we confront the first of several major ambiguities in the text. When verse 24 recalls that "the Lord met him and sought to kill him," it actually isn't clear whether the "him" in the passage refers to Moses or, alternatively, to his son Gershom. In a number of respects, assuming that the target of the attack is Gershom makes the whole passage easier to understand, and so that is the interpretation we will adopt here. …. [End of quote] This particular interpretation of a difficult passage makes perfect sense, I believe. Surely, Moses himself would have been attended to in this regard (circumcised) when, as a child, he was weaned by his Hebrew mother, Jochebed (Exodus 2:8-9; cf. 6:20). There is a tradition that she was the influential midwife, Shiphrah, whom Pharaoh had commanded to slay the male Hebrew babies (1:15-16). (We learned that the name Shiphrah also appears in the famous Brooklyn Papyrus for this approximate era of Egyptian history: Twelfth/Thirteenth dynasties). The likely scenario is that Zipporah had in this, what we would call a ‘mixed marriage’, influenced Moses towards Midianite custom. She would have learned from Moses that the Hebrews circumcised babies much earlier. And that would explain why it is she who acts quickly and circumcises Gershom, thereby saving the firstborn child’s life. Egyptian (Moses) names While Moses was safely tucked away in Midian, the oppressive Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt would fade out, and, now, a Thirteenth Dynasty ruler was seated upon the throne of Egypt. He was NEFERHOTEP KHASEKHEMRE. It should be noted, though, that so-called Thirteenth Dynasty high officials had already been serving the two mighty (Book of Exodus) Oppressor Pharaohs, and even that these latter two figures also emerge historically in the Thirteenth Dynasty lists. Such are the complexities of Egyptology! Now, not so unexpectedly, linguistic scholars have determined that some of the major Book of Exodus characters had Egyptian names: https://academic.oup.com/book/36060/chapter-abstract/313145992?redirectedFrom=fulltext “A surprising number of personal names of the exodus-wilderness generation bore Egyptian etymology, including Aaron (possibly), Ahira, Assir, Hur, Merari, Miriam, Moses, and Phineas”. An important Sixth Dynasty governor, exactly contemporary with Moses, bore the name Harkhuf, which may possibly suggest, again, Hur. The Egyptian names given to the two stand-out biblical heroes, Joseph and Moses, have proven most difficult for commentators to unravel. Joseph was given the grand name of Zaphenath paneah by Pharaoh (Genesis 41:45), while it was a later Pharaoh’s daughter who devised the name, Moses (Exodus 2:10): “She named him Moses, saying, ‘I drew him out of the water’.” The historical Moses, I have multi-identified across supposedly three dynasties of the Old Kingdom and one of the so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom. Do any of these manifestations of Moses have a Moses-like name? Let us try to determine if such be the case. Moses was, as we have recently found, an actual Pharaoh, though of short reign length due to his having abdicated - a fact which appears to harmonise with the Scriptures (e.g. Hebrews 11:24). As Pharaoh He was Djedefre (var. Djedefhor, Djedefptah) (Fourth Dynasty); and Userkare (Sixth Dynasty). As Userkare, his name/reputation was later trashed by the oppressive and jealous pharaoh Pepi, so we found, who relegated Userkare’s kingship to “the desert” (Midian?): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userkare “Egyptologists thus suspect a possible Damnatio memoriae on Pepi I's behalf against Userkare”. As Vizier and Chief Judge He was Kagemni (Fourth and Sixth dynasties); Ptahhotep (Fifth Dynasty); Weni (Uni) (Sixth Dynasty); Mentuhotep and (the semi-fictitious) Sinuhe (Twelfth Dynasty). As an intellectual and writer Under the famous guises of Kagemni and Ptahhotep, again, Moses was an intellectual and a sage, a writer of Maxims and Instructions. As Weni, he produced a brilliant Autobiography. The versatile Hebrew, Moses, was also the travelling trader and warrior (like Weni), Iny (Sixth Dynasty), and was General Nysumontu (Twelfth Dynasty). No wonder the ancients considered this Moses to have been a genius! Some of the above names connect, e.g. Djedefre (var. Djedefhor, Djedefptah); also Djedefptah and Ptahhotep; Mentuhotep and Nysumontu. And so do all of the Weni-type names. For these, just remember: Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses (2) Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses And I have added another recently-discovered guise for Moses, again as a Pharaoh: Niuserre Ini (Fifth Dynasty). I consider it to be most encouraging for my rather complex revision of the Era of Moses - in Egypt’s Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties - that the Egyptian name for the historical Moses, Weni (Uni), looking like a diminutive name, or hypocoristicon, is common, in its variant forms, Ini, Iny, for my Moses through the Old Kingdom: Niuserre Ini (Fifth); Weni (Uni) (Sixth); Iny (Sixth). Niuserre Ini (var. Iny) Regarding pharaoh Niuserre Ini, I wrote in my recent article: Moses in Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (2) Moses in Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty This re-working of my article under the same title, “Moses in Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty”, has become necessary due to my brand new recognition of Moses as the Fifth Dynasty pharaoh, Niuserre Ini, to accompany his pharaonic alter egos of Djedefre-Djedefhor (Fourth Dynasty) and Userkare (Sixth Dynasty). …. As we found with the pharaonic Moses in his Fourth Dynasty guise (as Djedefre-Djedefhor), and in his Sixth Dynasty guise (as Userkare), so might we expect that he, in his Fifth Dynasty guise - if as Niuserre Ini - to be compatible, should reveal himself to have been a ruler of short duration, highly competent, having a profound influence upon Egypt, and much revered down through time as a saint and a thaumaturgist. Excitingly, as a very good start, in the name Ini, we appear to get an immediate clue. For I have already identified Moses, as a high official of Pharaoh, as Weni (Uni) of the Sixth Dynasty, and as Iny of the Sixth Dynasty – whatever that name may mean. So, the name (Niuserre) Ini fits beautifully here alongside these names. Thus: INI; WENI; UNI; INY …. The king's power slowly weakened as the bureaucracy expanded … although he remained a living god in the eyes of his subjects. My comment: He was virtually deified, “a living god in the eyes of his subjects”, like Imhotep (Joseph). …. This cult was most active until the end of the Old Kingdom but lasted at least until the Twelfth Dynasty during the Middle Kingdom … at which point is the latest known mention of a priest serving in Nyuserre's funerary complex. …. But, getting back to our question: Do any of these manifestations of Moses have a Moses-like name? - it appears that the majority of names listed above have no appreciable likeness to Moses. Before investigating any further, it needs to be noted that Moses was something of a secret name. Amongst the Egyptians only Pharaoh’s daughter, Meresankh (“Merris”), knew who Moses really was. Pharaoh presumed that he was a royal child. Thus the scribes, not being cognizant of the secret, and who had difficulty with unusual and foreign names, would not have been able to form the name into properly etymological hieroglyphs. They would simply have to represent the name phonetically. Most tentatively, I take the name Moses, Hebrew Moshe to have been derived from the Egyptian words for water, mw (mu) 𓈖 and son s3 Thus: Mw-sa, ‘Son (Child) of the Water’ (Water Baby). And I suspect that this name has been captured in the name of the semi-fictitious ‘Moses’, Sinuhe (or Sanehat), with the first element (si, sa) representing “son”, as according to Sir Flinders Petrie, and the second element (nu, like mu) representing “water”. The only two possible Moses name from above, then, would be Niuserre, again perhaps intending those two elements: Nu (Niu) and sa (se) elements, and very like Sinuhe: Si nu he Se niu Re and Nysumontu, structured just like Niuserre: Ni (Ny) Se (Su) and god name (theophoric) Re (Montu). Before Pharaoh Neferhotep “Moses was eighty years old and Aaron eighty-three, when they spoke to Pharaoh”. Exodus 7:7 Joseph, by contrast, had been only thirty when he had entered the service of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:46): “Joseph was 30 years old when he stood before Pharaoh king of Egypt”. That seemingly benign ruler was Horus Netjerikhet of Egypt’s Third Dynasty, Old Kingdom, whom I have equated with Horus Netjerihedjet (Mentuhotep) of Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom. More recently, I have added a further dimension to this ruler, as Djet (presumably an abbreviation of Netjerihedjet) of the First Dynasty, during whose reign, wrote Manetho, ‘a great famine seized Egypt’. Far less benign than Horus Netjerikhet of old would prove to be this Neferhotep of Egypt’s Thirteenth Dynasty. He obviously had no particular historical grudge against Moses (cf. Exodus 4:19). Approximately half a century would have elapsed since Moses himself had ruled Egypt. Was Neferhotep even alive, then? Did he know that an earlier Pharaoh has proscribed this man standing before him, who, with his brother, had already succeeded in unifying “all the elders of the Israelites” (Exodus 4:29-31). And now this intruding pair was demanding that Pharaoh release the Israelite slaves (Exodus 5:1-2): Afterward Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh and said, ‘This is what the Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘Let my people go, so that they may hold a festival to me in the wilderness’. Pharaoh said, ‘Who is the Lord, that I should obey him and let Israel go? I do not know the Lord and I will not let Israel go’. The Lord was about to declare war, to “bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12), including Pharaoh, the presumed divine Son of Ra (the Sun God).

Sunday, August 17, 2025

Moses as Twelfth Dynasty general Nysumontu

by Damien F. Mackey “On the Sinai front, General Nysumontu reported a victory over the Bedouins in the 24th year of Amenemhat’s reign – this would have safeguarded the turquoise mining operations at El-Kadim in Sinai”. Egyptopia The historical Moses, I have by now multi-identified across supposedly three dynasties of the Old Kingdom and one of the so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom. Thus Moses is no longer lacking in historical identification. Strangely, though, almost none of these alter egos has a name that one could construe as being Moses-like. I would be expecting something along the lines of a Sinuhe combination of the elements Si/Sa (son) and Mu/Nu (water). On this, see my article: The Sinuhe connection (3) The Sinuhe Connection It needs to be noted, though, that “Moses” was something of a secret name. Amongst the Egyptians only Pharaoh’s daughter, Meresankh (“Merris”), knew who Moses really was. Pharaoh presumed that he was a royal child. Thus the scribes, not being cognizant of the secret, and who had difficulty with unusual and foreign names, would not have been able to form the name into properly etymological hieroglyphs. They would simply have had to represent the name phonetically. Apart from Sinuhe, who is semi-mythical anyway, we do find our hopeful combination in the name of the revered (divinised) Fifth Dynasty pharaoh, Niuserre (Nyuserre) Ini (or Iny), one of my more recent historical identifications of Moses: Moses in Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (3) Moses in Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty And there is a double bonus here because that pharaoh’s presumably hypocoristic other name, given variously as Ini and Iny, works in perfectly well with that set of Moses like names related to his Sixth Dynasty alter ego, Weni (Uni). On this, see my article: Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses (3) Ini, Weni, Iny, Moses Finally, we may find this combination again (Ny/Nu, Su/Sa), apparently, in the name of the genius Twelfth Dynasty general, perfectly contemporaneous with Moses: NYSUMONTU. There may be a double bonus here as well, in that this name also connects with the Montu element in the name of Mentuhotep, who was, like Moses (like Weni), a Vizier and Chief Judge over Egypt (cf. Exodus 2:14). Unfortunately, like much in ancient history, there is not yet a lot that can be told about general Nysumontu. I did glean at least this for him in my Sinuhe article (above): …. A likely further Twelfth Dynasty link is general Nysumontu, described, like Weni, as a “genius”, and perhaps combining Sinuhe elements, Ni-su, or Su-ni, with Mentuhotep (through Montu). Margaret Bunson mentions Nysumontu in connection with pharaoh Amenemes (Amenemhet) I in Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (p. 26): Amenemhet) I proved an efficient administrator and militarily astute ruler. He established his new capital between the boundaries of Upper and Lower Egypt in order to have increased control of the DELTA. He also erected the WALL OF THE PRINCE, a series of forts that safeguarded Egypt’s eastern and western borders. He founded SEMNA fort in Nubia and routed the Bedouins on the SINAI peninsula, using the genius of General Nysumontu. We know that Weni had battled a Bedouin people known as the “Sand-dwellers” at least five times. And Dr. Breasted mentioned in relation to the inscriptions of Sesostris I, who was Sinuhe’s pharaoh, a “General Mentuhotep”. http://egyptopia.com/the-twelfth-dynasty/ “On the Sinai front, General Nysumontu reported a victory over the Bedouins in the 24th year of Amenemhat’s reign – this would have safeguarded the turquoise mining operations at El-Kadim in Sinai. At the same time, diplomatic relations were resumed with Byblos and the Aegean world”.

Friday, August 1, 2025

No basis identified for treating Buddha as an historical figure

by Damien F. Mackey “… in 1937, various expeditions were dispatched … to seek out the holy child according to the heavenly omens … each group included wise and worthy lamas of highly distinguished status in the theocracy. In addition … each group took costly gifts with them …”. Holger Kersten The Buddha is, like the Prophet Mohammed, a fictitious, non-historical composite, with roots in the Old Testament. In the case of the Buddha, Moses appears to have been the original (though not the only) matrix: Buddha partly based on Moses (4) Buddha partly based on Moses In the same article, I gave a list of Buddha borrowings from the life of Jesus Christ. Scholars frequently point to Buddha and Moses (and Jesus) comparisons. Here are just a few examples (of Buddha and Moses comparisons): https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/jm214p573 “Telling birth stories: a comparative analysis of the birth stories of Moses and the Buddha”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369948217_Gautama_Buddha_an_incarnation_of_Biblical_Moses Milorad Ivankovic (2023): “Gautama Buddha an incarnation of Biblical Moses”. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4061&context=etd Upananda Thero Dedunupitiye (2009): “Buddha and Moses as primordial saints: a new typology of parallel sainthoods derived from Pali Buddhism and Judaism”. https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/the-buddha-the-book-of-exodus/10340 “The Buddha and The Book of Exodus”. https://cdnc.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/jewishweekly?a=d&d=JW20010202.2.122.25&e= Ronnie Caplane (2001): “What Buddha and Moses share”. And, as considered in my article: Magi incident absorbed into Buddhism? https://www.academia.edu/113301736/Magi_incident_absorbed_into_Buddhism the Magi incident in the Gospel of Matthew’s famous Infancy narrative (2:1-11) appears to have set off a long-standing Buddhist tradition of seeking out a holy child. “At last, in 1937, various expeditions were dispatched from Lhasa to seek out the holy child according to the heavenly omens, in the direction indicated. Each group included wise and worthy lamas of highly distinguished status in the theocracy. In addition to their servants, each group took costly gifts with them …”. Holger Kersten David Drewes has written tellingly on the likelihood that the Buddha is un-historical. I refer to his 2017 article: The Idea of the Historical Buddha [JIABS 2017] https://www.academia.edu/36121418/The_Idea_of_the_Historical_Buddha_JIABS_2017_ much of which could be applied, too, to the Prophet Mohammed. Here is the beginning of this must-read article: The idea of the historical Buddha is one of the most basic and familiar in the field of Buddhist studies, but also one of the most confusing and problematic. On one hand, the Buddha is universally agreed to have lived; but, on the other, more than two centuries of scholarship have failed to establish anything about him. We are thus left with the rather strange proposition that Buddhism was founded by a historical figure who has not been linked to any historical facts, an idea that would seem decidedly unempirical, and only dubiously coherent. Stuck in this awkward situation, scholars have rarely been able to avoid the temptation to offer some suggestion as to what was likely, or ‘must’ have been, true about him. By the time they get done, we end up with a flesh and blood person – widely considered to be one of the greatest human beings ever to have lived – conjured up from little more than fancy. here I would like to try to shed some light on this problem by reviewing the scholarship that introduced and sustained the idea of the historical Buddha. Though several valuable studies of this work have already appeared, they generally depict the process as one of progressive, ultimately successful, discovery. What I will try to suggest is that, if we pay close attention, it turns out that no discovery was actually made, and that no basis for treating the Buddha as a historical figure has yet been identified. Although the western encounter with Buddhism goes back centuries, in the first decades of the nineteenth century, hardly anything was actually known, and the question of Buddhism’s origin remained completely open. Many authors felt comfortable treating the Buddha as historical, but opinions varied widely. The idea that the Buddha was from Africa, proposed by Engelbert Kaempfer in the early eighteenth century, retained sufficient currency that Jean-Pierre Abel-rémusat, the leading French authority, devoted an article to refuting it in 1819. In 1823, Julius Klaproth argued against the still popular identification of the Buddha and the Norse god Odin, which had been proposed by William Jones in 1788. In 1825, Horace Hayman Wilson, arguably the leading British authority, proposed a version of the so-called two-Buddha theory, according to which there was an elder Buddha who lived between the tenth and twelfth centuries B.C.E., and a younger one who lived in the sixth or seventh. He also suggested that Buddhism may have been brought to India from central Asia. At the highest level of scholarship, the Buddha’s historicity was regarded as something that remained to be established. Rémusat, though sympathetic to the idea that the Buddha was historical, suggested in his 1819 article that it was necessary to avoid “prejudging the question one could raise on the reality of the historical existence of the figure called Buddha.” In his 1819 Sanskrit dictionary, Wilson defined Śākyamuni as “the real or supposed founder of the Baud’dha [i.e., Buddhist] religion” (s.v.). In 1827 Henry Colebrooke, the other leading British authority, similarly referred to the Buddha noncommittally as the “reputed author of the sútras” (558). The development that began to focus scholarly inquiry was Brian Houghton Hodgson’s discovery of Sanskrit Buddhist manuscripts in Nepal in 1822, which he first discussed in print in 1828. Recent scholarship has focused mainly on the fact that Hodgson sent shipments of these manuscripts to Eugène Burnouf, who used them as the basis for his Introduction à l’histoire du bouddhisme indien, published in 1844, which some have considered the main publication that established the Buddha as a historical figure. As we shall see, however, the actual argument Burnouf makes is not based on anything he found in Hodgson’s texts, but on two facts that Hodgson himself reported in 1828, which occupied scholarly discussion through the 1830s: first, that Nepalese texts report that Buddhism was revealed consecutively, over a period of aeons, by seven Buddhas: Vipaśyin, Śikhin, Viśvabhū, Krakucchanda, Kanakamuni, Kāśyapa, and Śākyamuni; and, second, that these texts claim to preserve the teachings of Śākyamuni, but not those of any of the earlier Buddhas. ….