This is my thirty-third monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. In the last couple of lessons, I have been trying to reconcile Biblical and Egyptian history. If you don’t have those last two lessons, you may want to get them to prepare a foundation for the present lesson. In lesson 31, we learned what Egyptian history definitely is not. It was established with substantial archaeological evidence that Israel’s stay in Egypt surely happened during the 18th Dynasty, or New Kingdom. It was proposed that Moses was named after a line of pharaohs, namely the pharaohs whose names ended with “mosis.” In lesson 32, we were able to place the contemporary time periods of Joseph, Moses and the Exodus with 18th Dynasty Egyptian history.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA

 

Beginning with this lesson, we are going to take a walk with Israel through Egyptian history, starting with Joseph and continuing through time up until and including the time of Joshua. To start with, this will require the proper placing of Joseph into this historical narrative. Almost every book reference tries to place Joseph during the Hyksos period claiming that Joseph and the Hyksos would have had much in common. It is probably true that Joseph, when he was sold by his brothers and taken to Egypt, did go there during the Hyksos era. If Joseph had been sold to the Hyksos, and his family had later come to Egypt being placed in the Delta area, when Pharaoh Amosis finally drove the Hyksos out of the Delta area, he would, in the process, have driven the Israelites out with them. If Joseph would have been a vizier to a Hyksos pharaoh, he would have been considered an enemy to Pharaoh Amosis. That scenario doesn’t fit the picture of this time-period very well. It is more likely that Joseph was taken by his captors to Amosis’ area at Thebes and sold there. Werner Keller’s The Bible As History, pages 88-90, implies that Joseph was sold to the Hyksos as follows:

“The Biblical story of Joseph and the sojourn of the children of Israel in Egypt belong to this period of turbulent conditions on the Nile under the rule of the foreign Hyksos. It is therefore not surprising that no contemporary Egyptian information has come down to us. Nevertheless, there is indirect proof of the authenticity of the Joseph story ... We know too that the Hyksos rulers were the first to use a ceremonial chariot on public occasions in Egypt. Before their day this had not been the practice on the Nile. The ceremonial chariot harnessed to thoroughbred horses was in those days the Rolls-Royce of the governors. The first chariot belonged to the ruler, the ‘second chariot’ was occupied by his chief minister.”

You have to understand that, while the Hyksos ruled the Delta area, and southern Egypt was subservient to them, Amosis at Thebes was a pharaoh there. In other words, there were two pharaohs ruling Egypt at the same time. And just because the Hyksos brought the chariot to the Delta area is no sign that the Egyptians at Thebes didn’t adopt and copy the idea of the chariot for themselves very quickly. To understand more about the Hyksos, I will quote from a Reader’s Digest book extra, Great People of the Bible, pages 30-31. While the article is informative, it also tries to place Joseph with the Hyksos:

“The idea that Joseph, a Hebrew slave, could have become the Pharaoh’s highest official, is not as fanciful as it might sound. About the time of his arrival, between 1720 and 1700 B.C., Egypt was invaded by a Syro-Canaanite alliance called the ‘Hyksos’ by the Egyptians. These invaders established their own line of Pharaohs and ruled the country for about 150 years. Hated foreigners themselves, it is likely that the Hyksos might trust someone like Joseph sooner than they would a native Egyptian, and the account of Joseph’s rise to power has an undeniably authentic flavor. Another part of the narrative, in which the Pharaoh acquired most of the country’s land during a famine, would be easy to understand if Egypt had been under the Hyksos.”

Of course, this last sentence is referring to Joseph imposing a 20% income tax on some of the land owners. It is my view that Joseph placed the 20% income tax on the Hyksos as a requirement to get food during the famine. The main point I wanted to bring with this quotation is the fact that the Hyksos were a “Syro-Canaanite alliance.”

 

SCRIPTURE ATTESTS JOSEPH NOT SOLD TO THE HYKSOS

 

The setting of this can be seen when Joseph’s brothers came to Egypt to buy food. At this time, his brothers didn’t recognize him as their brother, but as an Egyptian. While the brothers were in Egypt, they were invited to dine at a banquet with Joseph. The seating arrangement was quite unusual for the meal. In order to see the situation clearly, I am going to take the obligation of rendering this passage in a manner to make it understandable, as in most translations it’s not quite clear. The passage under consideration is Genesis 43:32:

 

“They served Joseph by himself, and his brothers by themselves, and the Egyptians attending the banquet ate by themselves, for the Egyptians would not eat bread with the Hebrews, for it was an abomination to the Egyptians.”

 

If you are wondering why the Egyptians refused to eat with the Hebrews, it was because they considered anyone who herded animals as abhorrent. As the Hyksos were also animal herders, they wouldn’t have taken this attitude. It was the Egyptians at Thebes and on toward the south of Egypt during this time-period that considered it repugnant to associate with animal herders. I believe this verse of Scripture is evidence that Joseph wasn’t sold as a slave to the Hyksos, but rather to Amosis’ realm around Thebes.

Later when Joseph brought his father and brothers to dwell in Egypt, Joseph advised his brothers that the Egyptians considered shepherds to be an abomination, saying (Genesis 46:33-34):

 

“33 And it shall come to pass, when Pharaoh shall call you, and shall say, What is your occupation? 34 That ye shall say, Thy servants’ trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.”

 

This brings up another question: Where in Egypt was the “land of Goshen”? If the Hyksos were controlling the entire Delta area at that time-period, the pharaoh at Thebes would have no authority to grant the Hebrews any land in that region, for it was out of his jurisdiction. Is it possible the so-called “land of Goshen” was somewhere else in the land of Egypt other than the Delta area? It will be necessary, therefore, to do some research in order to investigate this question. There are two different Goshens mentioned in the Bible, one in Palestine and the other in Egypt. Indeed, there is a lot of speculation where Goshen might have been in Egypt, but not a lot of proof. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology indicates that in the late Hyksos period the Theban princes sent their cattle to pasture in the Hyksos-controlled Delta [Found in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 2, page 779.]. Likely, Joseph and his family were given the so-called “land of Goshen” area before the end of the “late Hyksos period.”

ISRAELITES GIVEN BEST LAND IN EGYPT

 

Genesis 47:6 and 11 tell us that the Israelites were to be given the very best land in Egypt. Let’s read these two verses:

 

“6 The land of Egypt is before thee; in the best of the land make thy father and brethren to dwell ... 11 And Joseph placed his father and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land ...”

 

By this time, the pharaoh was aware that Joseph’s prediction of a seven-year famine was a valid prophecy. No doubt, this is what motivated him to be so generous with Joseph and his family. If the pharaoh gave Jacob and his sons the very best land in Egypt, it may have been in the Faiyûm area. For information on this particular area in Egypt, I will quote from Werner Keller’s The Bible As History, page 90:

“Joseph was thirty years of age when he ‘went out over all the land of Egypt.’ (Gen. 41:45) The Bible says no more about this, but there is a spot by the Nile which still bears his name. The town of Medinet-el-Faiyûm, lying eighty miles south of Cairo in the middle of the fertile Faiyûm, was extolled as the ‘Venice of Egypt.’ In the lush gardens of this huge flourishing oasis grew oranges, mandarins, peaches, olives, pomegranates, and grapes. Faiyûm owed these delicious fruits to the artificial canal, over 200 miles long, which conveyed the water of the Nile and turned this district, which would otherwise have been desert, into a paradise. The ancient waterway is not only to this day called ‘Bahr Yusuf’ — ‘Joseph’s Canal’ — by the fellahin, but is known by this name throughout Egypt. People say that it was the Joseph of the Bible, Pharaoh’s ‘Grand Vizier.’ as Arab legends would describe him, who planned it.”

 

 

TWO FAMOUS 7 YEAR FAMINES IN EGYPTIAN HISTORY

 

The famine during the time of Joseph was not the only seven year famine in Egyptian history. For information concerning the previous famine, I will quote from two sources referring to it. First, I will quote from The Bible And Archaeology by J. A. Thompson, page 46:

“We have a great deal of information about the famines of Egypt. Years of drought and bad harvests are well attested in Pharaoh’s domain. There is even evidence of a seven-year famine. The famous King Zoser (about 2700 B.C.) once sent a message to the governor of one region down the Nile. Here are his words:

“I am very concerned about the people in the palace. My heart is heavy over the calamitous failure of the Nile floods for the past seven years. There is little fruit; vegetables are in short supply; there is a shortage of food generally.”

The second quote concerning this seven-year famine is from The Bible As History by Werner Keller, page 91:

“In very early times, for example, at the beginning of the third millennium, there is said to have been a seven-year famine according to a rock inscription of the Ptolemies. King Zoser sent the following message to the governor of the great cataracts of the Nile at Elephantine: ‘I am very much concerned about the people in the palace. My heart is heavy over the calamitous failure of the Nile floods for the past seven years. There is little fruit; vegetables are in short supply; there is a shortage of food generally. Everybody robs his neighbor ... Children weep, young folk droop. The aged are depressed, they have no power in their legs, they sit on the ground. The court is at its wit’s end. The storehouses have been opened, but everything that was in them has been consumed’.”

As you can plainly see, this former famine is very much different from the one Joseph was associated with. Whereas with the famine of Joseph’s time the Egyptians had plenty to eat, in the famine during the time of Zoser, the people suffered terribly from hunger. Also, there was no previous warning before the Zoser famine indicating that it was coming so they could have seven years to prepare for it as in the case of Joseph. In fact, Egypt, during the famine of Joseph, had more than enough food for itself and was supplying the countries around her. This situation probably strengthened Egypt’s monetary and political position tremendously. F. David Fry, Jr. in his Hebrew Sages of Ancient Egypt (A Revised Discipline In Antiquity), in trying to shave a thousand years off of Egyptian history by refuting that Joseph’s famine could have happened during the 18th Dynasty, alludes to an earlier famine in Egypt. As matter of fact, he refers to Zoser’s famine on page 34 of this same book and highly suggests that it was actuality the famine of Zoser. But, as you can see, from the forgone evidence presented, Zoser’s seven-year famine doesn’t fit the conditions during Joseph’s time. I will now quote what F. David Fry, Jr., has to say on page 34 of his book:

“Then, another famine took place early in Dynasty 3, while Zoser reigned as king. It is recorded on what archaeologists call the ‘Famine Stela.’ A stela (or stele) is an upright stone or pillar engraved with an inscription or design, and usually used as a monument or grave marker. The Famine Stela seems to confirm the biblical report of a seven year famine which occurred at the beginning of Joseph’s service to Pharaoh [I don’t think so]:

“The name Zoser does not occur on any monument before the Twelfth Dynasty. On his contemporary monuments he is called Iry-Khet-Neter ... Zoser’s name was closely associated with the region South of Aswan known in Greek times as the Dodekaschoinos. The names of Zoser and his architect, Imhotep, are recorded on the well known ‘Famine Stela’ of the Ptolemaic period, more than 2700 years after Zoser’s death. The stela is carved on a rock on the Island of Sehel, South of Aswan. According to the inscription, there was a great famine during the reign of Zoser because for seven years the Nile had failed to rise. When Zoser asked Imhotep for advice, he replied that to stop the famine it was necessary to gain the favor of the god Khnum, the god of the First Cataract, the birth place of the Nile. It was only Khnum who could fill the granaries of Egypt. [Ahmed Fakhry, The Pyramids, P. 23]

“Scholars understand this Famine Stela was written hundreds of years after the fact, its story corrupted by religion; nonetheless, they deem its basic details as valid and true ...

“Can the seven year famine of King Zoser and his prime minister, Imhotep, possibly be the same as the seven year famine of the Genesis story? ... Chances are extremely remote there existed more than one seven year famine, especially since the Nile River is so regular ...”

Some of what F. David Fry, Jr., is saying here is true, but with the evidence we have considered in the past two lessons, Zoser’s famine cannot be the same famine as Joseph’s. With the Jericho archaeological finds and the shipwreck evidence, the time-period for Joseph, Moses and the Exodus must be contemporary with the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. I simply cannot over-stress how important this archaeological evidence is. Joshua had placed a curse on Jericho that no one was ever to occupy Jericho after the Israelites destroyed it. Therefore, there would only be archaeological evidence found at Jericho up until Joshua’s time, nothing after. So, the finding of scarabs of Queen Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis III, and Amenhotep III of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty, it highly suggests that these pharaohs were just previous to Joshua. In other words, if the Exodus took place in the 6th Dynasty, as Fry implies, they would not have found scarabs of these particular pharaohs at Jericho. The article in the National Geographic magazine of December 1987 entitled the “Oldest Known Shipwreck Reveals Splendors Of The Bronze Age” disclosed evidence serving as a double witness to corroborate the archaeological finds at Jericho. If I did not make all this clear in lesson #31, I hope it is crystal clear with this writing!

We really need to take a look at the curse which Joshua put on Jericho. It is found in Joshua 6:26 and reads:

 

“And Joshua adjured them at that time, saying, Cursed be the man before Yahweh that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho: he shall lay the foundation thereof in his firstborn, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it.”

 

I found an outstanding comment on this verse in the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible, page 172:

“THE REBUILDER OF JERICHO CURSED. Joshua adjured them at that time — i.e., imposed upon his countrymen a solemn oath, binding on themselves as well as their posterity, that they would never rebuild that city. Its destruction was designed by God (Yahweh) to be a permanent memorial of His abhorrence of idolatry and its attendant vices. Cursed be the man ... that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho — i.e., makes the daring attempt to build. he shall lay the foundation thereof in his first-born, and in his youngest son shall he set up the gates of it — shall become childless — the first beginning being marked by the death of his oldest son, and his only surviving child dying at the time of its completion. This curse was accomplished 550 years after its denunciation (See on 1 Kings 16:34.)”

There is no doubt that Jericho was an idolatrous city, if you consider 12 acres a city. A fort might possibly be a better representation of it. An even better description might be a staging area for making attacks on other places. Actually, archaeologists found that Jericho was used as a place to store food and war implements. No doubt, the Hyksos probably used Jericho as a staging area for its attacks on Egypt. By the Israelites destroying Jericho, they cut off the possibility of some foreign power using it as a jumping off place to attack them. It appears that the destruction of Jericho was a very critical move on Israel’s part to stave off attacks on them in their future. The main thing we should be interested in, for this lesson, is the fact that scarabs were found at Jericho, of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, showing its (18th Dynasty’s) dated existence was before the time of Joshua. The archaeological finds at Jericho set a very definite timeline for Israel being in Egypt.

 

FOOD COLLECTION TO BE USED FOR LEAN YEARS

 

Howard Rand in his book Primo-genesis, page 116 says: “He (Joseph) also urged him (pharaoh) to appoint officers over the land who would take up the fifth part of the produce of the land in the seven years of plenty.” (This is not the same as in Genesis 47:24 where Joseph imposes a 20% income tax.) If we do a little calculation, we can soon see that a 1/5th collection of the produce for the seven years of plenty would not be enough to hold Egypt over the seven years of lean, let alone feeding all the other nations around her. A collection of 1/5th would not even be enough to hold Egypt over in the lean years for a year and a half. What I am wondering at this point is: Did Joseph have enough time to build a 200 mile long canal to control the waters in the Faiyûm area and put it into production before the seven years of plenty? It’s the one area in Egypt that could have accounted for the tremendous yields recorded in the Bible during those years. The only thing which could account for ample production during the years of plenty would be: if the crops were almost twice the normal yield, or an increase of land was put into production. The only way a 1/5th produce collection would fit in this story is if there was a government project to increase land use. In which case 100% of this produce would have been put into storage. Faiyûm anyone?

 

LET’S GO A STEP FURTHER

 

There is another consideration we should take into account concerning the story of Joseph as it is recorded in the Bible. Sometimes little details are hidden just under the surface until we take the time to really analyze them. Joseph’s marriage to Asenath is one of these hidden cases. Let’s read the account in Genesis 41:45:

 

“And Pharaoh called Joseph’s name Zaphnathpaaneah; and he gave him to wife Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. And Joseph went out over all the land of Egypt.”

 

Did you notice what we just read about the pharaoh giving Joseph his wife? There is only one way that he would have had the authority to do such a thing. That is if the pharaoh was of the House of Shem himself. At that time period, evidently the pharaohs were Shemites. Obviously, the lower class of the Egyptians were not though, only the ruling class. If this is true, it puts our story in an entirely different light! Also, if this is true, we can be sure Joseph wasn’t sold by the Ishmaelites to the Hyksos, but to Amosis’ area at Thebes. Also, if this is true, it brings up a whole host of questions! Not only that, but it will clear up a lot of unusual situations.

 

LET’S TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT JOSEPH’S

 20% INCOME TAX AND LAND CONFISCATION

 

Under Shemitic-Hebrew Law, it is not permitted to charge usury, income tax or to confiscate one’s brother’s land. But to non-Shemitic-Hebrew peoples, it is permitted. I cannot go into the details of this in this short lesson, but only observe it from Joseph’s perspective. If all this is correct, Joseph had every right to take the Egyptian’s land and money from them and give it to the Shemitic pharaoh. Also, it explains why the priesthood, being Shemitic, was not taxed. Maybe by this time the priesthood was not all it should have been, but if they were racial brothers, it would exclude them from the tax and land confiscation. As you can start to see, this Joseph story is beginning to make a lot more sense. This should also make us aware why it was such a disaster when the pharaohs started to take the Hurrians and Hittites as wives in the 18th and 19th Dynasties. It will also explain why a racial war developed between the Shemitic pure line pharaohs and the pharaohs mixed with Hurrian blood. As a result of the seven years of famine, Egypt was brought totally under Shemite control. Being under Shemitic control, the Israelites would naturally be exempt from any income tax. All this would change when non-Shemitic pharaohs later came to power.

It would appear, with the marriage of Joseph to Asenath, there was a close family relationship between Joseph and the pharaoh. Howard B. Rand in his book Primo-genesis, page 117 seems to agree with this when he says:

“The priestly caste to which Joseph’s father-in-law, the Priest of On, belonged was undoubtedly of the line of Shem. Apparently Shem’s descendants were established in the office of the priesthood in Egypt at the time of the building of the Great Pyramid. Thus, the purity of the racial stock of the appointed seed was preserved in the birth of these boys to Joseph and Asenath.”

If what Rand is saying concerning the House of Shem going back to the building of the Great Pyramid is correct, it can’t be referring to the Hyksos, for their rule in the Delta area lasted only just a little over a hundred years.

While Dr. William J. Hale in his book Chemivision believes the Hyksos were the people Joseph was associated with, nevertheless, he has some interesting remarks on pages 15 & 16 as follows:

“Joseph found favor in the sight of the Royal House of the Eighteenth Dynasty and was soon appointed as administrator in charge of granaries. To Joseph to wife was given Asenath, — daughter of Potipherah, priest of On ... In the course of a rising surge of Egyptians from the upper (southern) Nile it was not long before the Hyksos were totally expelled from Egypt, possibly around 1583 B.C.”

 

 

MORE EVIDENCE JOSEPH COULDN’T HAVE CHARGED

 HIS KIN A 20% INCOME TAX

 

For verification on this, I will quote from Adam’s Tree by Della Stanley, page 44:

“... He (Joseph) returned and took Simeon and had him bound before their eyes. Then he commanded their sacks to be filled with corn, and to restore every man’s money into his sack. And he sent them on their way home. Joseph knew the purpose for his being in Egypt, and he could not take money from his brothers. There could be no price paid in money for the salvation of his family. Also he wanted these brothers to learn a lesson that they would never forget.

“On the road home, the sons of Jacob stopped to rest and to eat, and one found his money in his sack. When they arrived home, the others found their money restored also, and they were sorely disturbed. They told their father all that had happened; that Simeon was forced to stay in Egypt as security and that the ruler demanded they return with Benjamin, else they would never see Simeon again.”

 

TWO GROUPS IDENTIFIED AS “SHEPHERD KINGS”

 

In an article published by Destiny magazine, October 1962, entitled “Enoch’s Mission and Shem’s Responsibility” (pages 201-204 in the 1962 yearbook), Howard B. Rand quotes Manetho as saying that the “Hyksos” were “shepherd kings.” Yet, at the same time, his article places the “shepherd kings” with Pharaoh Cheops of the 4th Dynasty several hundreds of years before. I am quite surprised that Rand didn’t recognize this discrepancy before he wrote the article. As the Hyksos were only in Egypt for a little over a hundred years in the reigns of Kamose at the end of the 17th Dynasty and Amosis at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty, there is no way the Hyksos could be the same people as the “shepherd kings” at the time of Cheops. Outside of this disparity, the rest of the article is outstanding in bringing many interesting facts into perspective from which I will now quote excerpts:

“During the construction of the Great Pyramid in Egypt, the records indicate that the Egyptian government was in opposition to the idolatrous worship that had been established in the land. Cheops, the Pharaoh ruling at that time, was accused by the idolatrous worshippers of being very arrogant toward the gods, having shut up their temples and having compelled the priests to labor.

“The Shepherd Kings. Historical fragments set forth the fact that at this time there was a notable stranger in Egypt who remained at the site of the Great Pyramid. The priests whom Herodotus the historian consulted regarding the earlier history of Egypt described this stranger as a shepherd to whom, rather than to Cheops, the Egyptians attributed the building of the Great Pyramid.

“Cheops apparently furnished the site, the workmen and the materials. The record refers to this stranger as a keeper of sheep and he is called ‘Philition’ or ‘Philitis’ ...

“When the people of Israel left Egypt and were moving through the wilderness, in order to bolster their morale, they were told of a much earlier people who, in like manner, had been led out of Egypt. They were called Caphtorims who came out of Caphtor, to whom Moses referred in Deuteronomy 2:23. [See also Genesis 10:14]

“This place called Caphtor was the very region in Egypt where today the Great Pyramid stands. The Lord, through the Prophet Amos, refers to the people as Philistines whom He brought up from Caphtor (Amos 9:7). Therefore, we learn from the historian Herodotus (confirmed in the Scripture) of Philistines [Caphtorims] once living in the neighborhood of the Great Pyramid, who were the object of Divine favor and who were led out of Egypt before the Israelites left the land.

“These were not the Philistines of the time of the judges and David, but a much earlier people who feared and reverenced the true God ... Coming to Palestine from the Nile Delta, they were known in Egypt as ‘The Shepherd Kings.’

“... after the Deluge, Shem became the first of the shepherd kings who reigned in Egypt. He was held in highest honor by the people in that land for having delivered them from the Cushite yoke ... Thus, when the idolatrous priests were again in the ascendancy, everything possible was done to blacken Shem’s memory.

“The Reforms of Shem. During the reign of the Shepherd King Set, or Shem, and his immediate successors, the complete overthrow of the Egyptian gods occurred; their temples were demolished and idolatry in any form was forbidden throughout the land ... This was mainly the work of Shem, the Shepherd King was also Priest of the Most High God, in his conflict with the gross idolatry of Egypt. The heathen temples were literally smashed to pieces ...

“Manetho says that the shepherds were finally prevailed upon to leave Egypt, which they did without molestation, and went to Judea where they built the city of Jerusalem. Josephus, the Jewish (Judean) historian, calls these shepherds ‘our ancestors’, which is definitely the case if Shem was the first and most powerful Shepherd King of Egypt ...”

I doubt very much whether the Hyksos were ever really called “shepherd kings”, and I plan to go further in detail in future lessons. It appears in the Hyksos we have some shepherd kings who were not shepherd kings, and in the Caphtorims some Philistines who were not Philistines. We can now see the important fact that the pharaoh related to Asenath was a Shemite. Understanding this is to understand the Bible. We will be researching deeper into Egyptian and Biblical history in the next few lessons as we continue. While there are many enlightening things written by Howard B. Rand, in future lessons, I will be scrutinizing some of his premises.

This is my thirty-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. In this lesson, we will resume our investigation of Egypt and how it fits into Biblical history. With this research, we will be getting into areas not usually encountered in the average study of Scripture. Some of these things may seem strange and quite different than you ever dreamed they might have been. I believe that once we learn something of these seemingly bizarre circumstances it will add to our understanding of Yahweh’s Word considerably. As usual, these matters are altogether different than we were ever taught they were. In the last lesson, we found out there were two different pharaohs ruling in Egypt at the same time during the Hyksos period, and that the pharaoh at Thebes was subservient to the Hyksos. Then, too, we learned that Joseph was probably sold to the authority at Thebes rather than the Hyksos. In addition, we found out that, through Joseph saving the Egyptians from starvation, the sons of Jacob were given Egypt’s very best land. We determined, also, there were two seven-year famines in Egypt’s history. Further, we learned that Joseph placed a 20% income tax on some of the people where it was legal to do so. In our investigation, we discovered it was the Pharaoh that gave Joseph his wife; intimating he, the pharaoh, was Shemitic in stock. Then we explored the subject of Shepherd Kings, which we will continue in this lesson.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA 

As I indicated in the last lesson, we are going to take a step by step survey of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt. In this walk, we are going to try to thoroughly comprehend the true nature of the events during this era of time. Yahweh had good reason for placing Israel in Egypt, and we will try to understand the reason for such a stay. It is my own opinion that Yahweh placed Israel in Egypt so that Egypt might fight off many of the enemies Israel would be facing later on. It is now time to prepare ourselves with more facts concerning these things.

 

SHEPHERD KINGS 

In the last lesson, we touched on the topic of Shepherd Kings. Because it is a subject of such great magnitude in importance, we must prioritize our time to delve into it. It may come as a surprise to many of you, the symbol of the Shepherd Kings is the Sphinx and the first Shepherd King was Adam, and the priesthood was called the Order of Melchizedek. Howard B. Rand, in Destiny magazine, October, 1962 wrote an article “Enoch’s Mission and Shem’s Responsibility” (1962 Destiny yearbook pages 201-204) which I will now quote in part: 

“Order of Melchizedek. When Shem[’s] ... followers, came out of Egypt, they founded at Jerusalem the city destined to become the City of David and also the capital of the Kingdom of Yahweh when Yahshua, who is of the Order of Melchizedek ... (I will be using the Tetragrammaton.)

“The priestly Order of Melchizedek began with Adam and the Preachers of Righteousness from Adam to Noah were of this Order. Noah is recorded as the eighth Preacher of Righteousness in 2 Peter 2:5. The fifth chapter of Genesis begins, ‘This is the book of the generations of Adam’, and no one of the line of Cain is recorded there. As stated in Primogenesis:

“‘Noah was the tenth in generation. The reason he was but the eighth in priestly line was because Enoch was translated before his father died and did not come to the priestly office (Genesis 5:24). Methuselah, the son of Enoch, took the office directly from his grandfather Jared, the father of Enoch. Methuselah, in turn, outlived his son Lamech, so the office passed directly to his grandson, Noah, the son of Lamech (Genesis 5:27). Noah, therefore, became the eighth Preacher of Righteousness, though the tenth in generation, because these two, Enoch and Lamech, never succeeded to the priestly office.’ (Primogenesis, p. 44)

“In this line of Preachers of Righteousness, Shem, Noah’s son, became the ninth. As stated in Primogenesis: ‘The Order of Melchizedek, in its earthly representation, began with Adam as the first Preacher of Righteousness. Noah was the eighth and Shem the ninth ...

“‘So also Yahshua glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, today have I begotten thee. As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek’ (Hebrews 5:5-6).

“In His ministry, He was a Prophet; in His atonement, He was a Priest. When He returns, He is to be King. Thus, in the Order of Melchizedek, He is Prophet, Priest and King’ (Primogenesis pp. 66-67).

“Order of Master Shepherds. The Bible also records a line of master shepherds beginning with these Preachers of Righteousness, who wore the shepherd’s garb as the insignia of office. From Abraham to John the Baptist, in each generation there were those who were members of this ancient and honorable Order. Then Yahshua associated Himself with the office, becoming the Grand Master of the Order of Master Shepherds: ‘I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep’ (John 10:14-15).

“Ninth Preacher of Righteousness. It is fitting, therefore, that Shem, who was the ninth Preacher of Righteousness and also a member of the Order of Master Shepherds, was entrusted with the construction of the Great Pyramid at Gizeh in Egypt ... Only a building that is pyramidal in shape is completed by placing a capstone in position ...

“A Sign and Witness. Many generations after Enoch’s day the Prophet Isaiah was constrained to write: ‘In that day shall there be an altar to Yahweh in the midst of the Land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Yahweh. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto Yahweh of Hosts in the land of Egypt (Isaiah 19:19-20).’ Undoubtedly Isaiah was aware that this was the Pillar of Enoch; that to Enoch its design was committed and on Shem the responsibility was laid to build this remarkable structure in the land that had harbored the people of Israel for four hundred years and had later sheltered ... Yahshua.”

 

Along the same line of thought, I will now follow-up with another article appearing in Destiny magazine of October, 1955 (inside front cover), entitled “Shem The Powerful.” Actually, I will be quoting a quotation which this article cites from a book The Worship of the Dead or The Origin and Nature of Pagan Idolatry by a Colonel J. Garnier:

 

“Sphinxes were the particular form of sculpture associated with the shepherd kings, and were constructed in honor of Set [an Egyptian name given to Shem], while the Great Sphinx seems to be especially associated with the Great Pyramid built by Suphis [another name associated with Shem]. As the Tanis Sphinxes [a group of three sphinxes at Tanis, Egypt]; are unmistakably the likeness of one particular individual, it seems certain that they represent the features of the first great shepherd king. Set the Powerful [Shem] ...

“If, then, these heads are likenesses of the great Shepherd King Set, they represent the exact features of the antediluvian patriarch Shem, and we behold in them something of the type of primeval man as he first came from the hands of Yahweh ... In representing him, therefore, as a lion with a human head, there was a certain fitness, and the idea was probably borrowed from the Cherubim, the form which seems to have been generally known ...”

 

Because Howard B. Rand used Ussher’s chronology, he believed that Shem was contemporary with Abraham, and that Shem was the one to whom Abraham paid his tithes. I was also under the same illusion until I took the time to check the Masoretic text against the Septuagint. After making a chart of both chronologies, I found that the Septuagint has Shem dead for about 650 years before Abraham was born. There is a total discrepancy of 1486 years between the Masoretic and Septuagint texts. I doubt very much whether Ussher’s chronology (which is based on the Masoretic text) is correct. If the oldest living patriarch was the family priest-king, Abraham, therefore, probably paid his tithes to Nahor #2, his brother, rather than Shem. Also, it was found in the Masoretic text that Heber was born before Abraham, and died after him. This is highly unlikely as Heber was Abraham’s great, great, great, great grandfather. Genesis 11:26-27 tells us that Abraham had two brothers, Nahor and Haran. Inasmuch as Nahor #1 (Abraham’s grandfather) died, and Terah became pagan, the priest-king office was probably left to Nahor #2; Haran having died before Abram and Terah left Ur of the Chaldees (Gen. 11:28). Therefore, I believe it is possible Nahor #2 may have been Abraham’s Melchizedek. By the priest-kingship skipping the generation of Terah (breaking the lineal order) might explain why Melchizedek was without lineal descent (More later.)

It should be becoming quite clear in our studies on this subject that Joseph and his pharaoh (probably Amosis), Joseph’s wife Asenath and her father were all descendants of Shem. We should also be starting to realize that the Great Sphinx, a little up the road from the Great Pyramid of Gizeh, is emblematically a representation of Adam through Nahor #2, (less Enoch, Lamech and Arphaxad who were outlived by their fathers), and Yahshua the Redeemer-Messiah Himself. And, also, that the Great Pyramid of Gizeh is a monument and emblem of Enoch, predicting Adamic-Israel’s future along with some other amazing data and revelations. Surely, Isaiah was correct when he wrote, Isaiah 19:19-20:

 

“19 In that day shall there be an altar to Yahweh in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to Yahweh. 20 And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto Yahweh of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they [as the Israelites formerly did] shall cry unto Yahweh because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a savior, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.”

 

Today we are in the time of oppression spoken of in verse 20. It tells us here that we are to be delivered by a “savior” (singular). We are not going to be delivered by an arm of flesh, but by the Almighty Himself. There have been those courageous men who tried it and failed; it didn’t work! But, this is no reason we should neglect being in a strong defensive posture, ready for any eventuality. Yahweh will reveal to us when it is time to go on the offensive. I believe the reason the altar and pillar were placed in Egypt is because our coming deliverance will be very similar to that experienced in the Exodus, and that the wicked pharaoh of today, like then, is going to “let our people go”, and it will require the death angel to accomplish it. We have to put first things first. How are the “tares” going to be rooted up unless they are first identified? The good news is: the enemy, the “Jews”, are quickly being identified, no help from, nor thanks to, the one seedliners! There is one common ground, though, among both the one and Two Seeedliners, along with the patriots: we are all crying because of our present day oppression!

IS THERE BIBLICAL SUPPORT ?

 

If all we have read from these excerpts of Destiny magazine, and if Howard B. Rand is somewhere near being correct, there should be some Biblical evidence that there was a lapse of the Shepherd kings from Nahor #2 until Yahshua the Messiah. Hebrews 7:12 indicates that, at the first coming of Yahshua, there was a change from the priesthood of Aaron back to the priesthood of Melchizedek. Let’s take a look at it: “For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.”

From this, I believe we can be reasonably sure that Rand was correct in his premise there was a lapse of the Melchizedek priesthood during the days of the Aaronic priesthood, and that the Levitical law was changed to accommodate a return to it. For further study along this line, it might be advisable to study Hebrews chapters 5, 6 & 7 along with Genesis 14:18 and chapter 110 of the book of Psalms, especially verse 4.

 

WHO AND WHAT WAS MANETHO?

 

Because Destiny magazine and Rand quote Manetho in their postulations about the Shepherd Kings, we need to learn more about this Egyptian priest. For a brief explanation of this man, I will quote from the World Scope Encyclopedia (1951), volume 7:

 

“Manetho ..., a historian of ancient Egypt, flourished in the reign of Ptolemy Soter, at the beginning of the 3rd century B.C. He was a priest in Lower Egypt and is the author of two important works, one on the history and the other on the religion of his country. Both books have been lost, but fragments have been preserved by later historians, including Eusebius and Josephus. In the Armenian version of Eusebius is a list of the Egyptian dynasties according to Manetho, the dates of which appear to have been derived from genuine documents, including the sacred books of the Egyptian priests.”

 

For a more detailed account on Manetho, I will use the Encyclopædia Britannica, ninth edition (1894), volume 15, pages 485-486:

 

“MANETHO. Manetho Sebennyta ... ‘beloved by Thoth.’ Egyptian priest and annalist, was a native of Sebennytus ... in the Delta. His name was connected by Plutarch with the reign of Ptolemy I, and he is usually stated to have written under Ptolemy II Philadelphus, though the only authority for this is an epistle to that king of the Pseudo-Manetho, author of the forged Books of Sothis preserved by Syncellus. He was instructed in Greek — so Josephus tells us — and the three books of his Αἰγυπτιακά composed in that language opened to foreigners the history of Egypt from the mythical period downwards, as it was preserved in the records of the priests. Undoubtedly the book is now known only by lists of fragments preserved by Josephus in his treatise Against Apion, by Eusebius in his Chronica, and by Syncellus. Syncellus used the work of Eusebius (also known through Jerome and the Armenian version) and lost Pentabiblon of Africanus. Thus the little that we know of Manetho’s history has reached us through a process of transcription and retranscription very unfavorable to the correct transmission of the lists of kings and dynasties, to which Josephus alone adds any considerable narrative excerpts. It seems indeed that our authorities themselves used varying and partly corrupt recensions of the original text, and that deliberate corruptions of the Manethonic tradition were not wanting appears from the existence of the Book of Sothis cited by Syncellus, which was undoubtedly a spurious work. That Manetho himself made honest use of his Egyptian sources is generally recognized, since the Egyptian monuments have afforded confirmation of many, though by no means all, of his statements; but how the corrupt and varying data we now have should be used, or whether the Egyptian tradition can be made the basis of a rational chronology of the oldest historical period is doubtful.”

 

The above quotation should give you some idea of what to expect in Manetho’s writings. The Egyptian pharaohs were so notorious for trying to erase the history of the pharaohs before them; that, undoubtedly, Manetho may have had a lot of spurious records from which to work. Whether or not he was biased in his own writings cannot be easily ascertained, but what motive would he have had for changing the record 1000 years after the fact? But, whatever conclusion we arrive at, we must realize there are problems with the data ascribed to him.

Josephus On Manetho. The Works of Josephus has a good amount of comment concerning this Egyptian scribe. In “Against Apion”, 1:12, Josephus starts quoting Manetho. He continues quoting him until “Against Apion”, 1:16, where he says: “In the first place, that we (Israel) came out of another country into Egypt; and that withal our deliverance out of it was so ancient in time, as to have preceded the siege of Troy almost a thousand years; but then, as to those things which Manetho adds, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he confesses himself, from some stories of an uncertain original, I will disprove them hereafter particularly, and shall demonstrate that they are no better than incredible fables.” Then Josephus goes on to other subjects and picks up Manetho again in “Against Apion”, 1:26, where he says: “And now I will turn my discourse to one of their principal writers, whom I have a little before made use of as a witness to our antiquity; I mean Manetho.” Then Josephus continues with his criticism of Manetho in “Against Apion”, 2:3. If you don’t already have Josephus in your library, you may want to get a copy. If you already have Josephus, you can check these passages which I have pointed out for yourself.

 

CONFUSION BREEDS CONFUSION; TWO HYKSOS GROUPS

 

Apparently, what we have in “Against Apion”, 1:14, is utter confusion as the facts do not entirely concur. In this passage, Manetho speaks of “men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force ... At length they made one of themselves king (pharaoh) ... and made both the upper and lower regions pay tribute ... he founded ... a city ... called Avaris ...” Manetho is definitely speaking of the Hyksosotext-align: justify; text-indent: .5in/uu, and Josephus is taking him as meaning the Israelites. Actually, Manetho is confusing two different peoples as being Hyksos when he says, “This whole nation was styled Hyksos, that is, Shepherd-kings; for the first syllable Hyk, according to the sacred dialect denotes a king, as is Sos, a shepherd ...” Then Howard B. Rand picks up some of this confusion in his articles, quoted herein, published in Destiny magazine. These Hyksos were definitely not Israelites as Josephus thinks, for when Jacob and company came to Egypt, they were but seventy souls, Genesis 46:26. These Israelites were not of “ignoble birth”; they didn’t subdue Egypt by force; they didn’t impose tribute on the upper and lower regions; they didn’t set over themselves a king; and they didn’t settle at Avaris.

In “Against Apion”, 1:15, a very critical Manetho is supposed to have said: “When this people or shepherds were gone out of Egypt to Jerusalem ...” Again in “Against Apion”, 1:26, Josephus speaks of Manetho, saying: “... he then ascribes certain fabulous stories to this king, as having in a manner forgotten how he had already related that the departure of the shepherds for Jerusalem had been five hundred and eighteen years before ...” It is apparent that this group of shepherd kings were not the Israelites of the Exodus, for it was not until the time of David that the city of Jerusalem was secured from the Jebusites, 1 Chronicles 11:4-7. It is my opinion that this group of Shepherd Kings were the Shemites that settled in Egypt at an earlier time and built the Great Pyramid and continued there as the ruling class and as priests. And, that some of the descendants of Shem later left Egypt for Jerusalem, and Nahor #2 was at that location when Abraham arrived there to pay his tithes to Melchizedek (Nahor #2), priest of Salem. It would appear to me, it is a necessity to separate the early Shepherd Kings of Shem in Egypt from the later Hyksos (a non-Israel group) and the Israelites themselves. You probably can now see why, while I agree with much of the material published in Destiny magazine about the Shepherd Kings, I disagree to some degree with Howard B. Rand and company.

 

 

THE LIFE OF JOSEPH

 

While Jacob had twelve sons by two wives and two concubines, Joseph was the firstborn son to Jacob by Rachel, his favorite wife. This is the reason Jacob loved Joseph more than any of the others. As you will remember, while in Paddan-aram, Jacob saw and loved Rachel, and made an arrangement to work seven years (to the seventh year) in Laban’s hire for her hand in marriage (Genesis 29:17-18).

 

“17 Leah was tender eyed; but Rachel was beautiful and well favored. 18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.”

 

There was a law in those days, and later throughout Israel, after a servitude of six years, the servant was to be set free in the seventh (Exodus 21:2-3). From this, we can see why Jacob served to the seventh year for each of his two wives. In order to take Rachel to wife, he had to serve Laban a second six years. No doubt, this extra six years of waiting for Rachel only increased Jacob’s love for her and, in turn, nurtured the great love for the first son she bore to him. Before Rachel, Laban had given Leah, her elder sister, to Jacob, insisting custom demanded the oldest daughter be married first. Therefore, Jacob worked an additional six years for Rachel. Actually, in Jacob’s mind, he worked twelve years to receive Rachel. Can you imagine a man counting down the days on a calendar for six years until the great day for the wedding and then doing it a second time?

After fourteen years of servitude to Laban for Rachel, how disappointed Jacob must have been when she didn’t conceive as Leah had done. Can you imagine how thrilled Jacob was when, finally after much difficulty, Rachel did finally give birth to Joseph? Can you imagine how overwhelmingly grief-stricken Jacob must have been when Rachel died giving birth to a second son, Benjamin? Maybe now we can begin to see Jacob’s motive for making Joseph a coat of many colors. As his grief grew, so did his partiality for Rachel’s children, Genesis 37:3:

 

“Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.”

 

This partiality caused much antagonism among Joseph’s brothers. Joseph began to be quite unpopular with his brothers after snitching to his father about the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah. The animosity only grew stronger when Joseph had a dream suggesting that they, along with his father and mother, would one day bow before him. One day, reaching the age of seventeen, his father sent him to Shechem to check on the well-being of his brothers and to report to him any misconduct on their part. In the meantime, they had gone to Dothan where Joseph finally found them. As the brothers saw him approaching, they plotted to kill the snitcher-dreamer.

But, Reuben, the oldest son of Jacob, persuaded his other brothers that killing him was not the thing to do. Maybe Reuben was already self-conscious of his own shortcoming and didn’t want to add anything more to his charge. Reuben, therefore, prevailed on his brothers to spare Joseph by casting him into a pit instead of taking his life, thinking to return and rescue him and rejoin him safely to his father. While Reuben was away, his brothers observed a caravan of Arabian merchants, who were transporting spices and aromatic gums of India to the well-known and much-frequented market of Egypt. At the suggestion of Judah, showing his natural talent of leadership, they decided to sell Joseph as a slave to the approaching Ishmaelites, who later took him into Egypt. The brothers then took the beautiful coat which his father had made for him and dipped it into some goats blood, returning to their father with the story that a wild animal had killed him. Their intention was to punish their father as well as Joseph for spying on them.

Arriving in Egypt, the Ishmaelites sold Joseph to the captain of Pharaoh’s guard, Potiphar. On being placed into Potiphar’s household, Joseph soon showed his superior upbringing by undertaking every task at hand in a very responsible way. Joseph proved to be a very trustworthy worker and was given an authoritative position to match his abilities. While in Potiphar’s household, Potiphar’s wife was drawn to Joseph’s manly attractiveness. The Hebrew race has always been eye-catching for their personal beauty, of which Joseph seems to have had more than his ordinary share. No doubt an attribute of his mother. She thus moved very slyly to seduce him. It became an obsession for her to throw herself at him daily. One day, Joseph found himself fighting her unchaste desires as she literally snatched his garment from his body as he was hastily leaving her presence. Allusion to this incident is found in the book Cleopatra’s Needles, page 18, where it says:

 

“Another Arab writer, Hasan ibn Ibrâhîm, says they were in the ‘temple of the Sun where Zulêkhâ tore Joseph’s shirt in pieces’ (quoted by Yâkût), but she is the only woman whom the Arabs associate with the building.”

 

Needless to say, Potiphar’s wife turned the tables on Joseph; accusing him to her husband of seducing her, which resulted in Joseph’s imprisonment for several years. While in prison, Joseph once more proved himself worthy of a position of trust. Joseph, in consequence, gained favor with the keeper of the prison to such a degree that most everything was put under his charge. While there, he became known for interpreting dreams. Joseph not only had the ability to interpret his own dreams, but explained the meanings of the dreams of others.

After a time, Pharaoh’s royal chief of the butlers and chief of the bakers joined Joseph in prison where he had charge over them in his ward. While there one night, each of them had a very disturbing dream, and when Joseph arrived the next morning, he found them very disheartened. Whereupon, Joseph inquired why they were so down and out. Each of them replied to Joseph they had had a very unsettling dream and had no idea the meaning thereof. Joseph then interpreted each man’s dream accordingly. In three days, the butler was to be returned to his station, but the baker was to be hanged. Upon interpreting the butler’s dream, Joseph requested of him to plead his case before Pharaoh, but being soon restored he remembered not.

After two years, the Pharaoh himself dreamed two very distressing dreams of his own. These two dreams were so troubling and upsetting to him that he called for all his magicians and wise men in all of his domain to go through their hocus-pocus and reveal the meaning of them to him, but they could not. Upon the inability of the magicians to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams, the chief butler remembered Joseph’s skill and advised him that Joseph was still in prison. The pharaoh was much impressed by the butler’s story and decided to put Joseph to the test concerning his own dreams. Pharaoh immediately called Joseph from his prison cell, whereupon, Joseph bathed, shaved himself and changed his attire. Upon being brought into Pharaoh’s presence, the pharaoh revealed to Joseph his two dreams. Joseph reminded Pharaoh it was not he who would interpret his dreams, but that Yahweh would give him the answer. Joseph informed Pharaoh his dreams were a foreboding of an approaching seven of years famine after a period of seven years of plenty. Joseph then, in order to abate the evils of starvation, recommended that Pharaoh choose some discreet and wise man, along with officers, to set in full power and administer preparations for the coming hardship. Pharaoh was so favorably impressed, he recognized Joseph as Yahweh’s man. Joseph was now 30 years old; the same age as Yahshua would be when he started his ministry.

Remembering the history of the disastrous Zoser famine, and recognizing the divine origin of his dreams and the Spirit of Yahweh in Joseph’s interpretations, the pharaoh resolved that Joseph should be second in charge throughout his land of Egypt. Pharaoh then gave Joseph a ring on his finger, a chain around his neck and the finest of clothing, along with a chariot. But, the greatest of all gifts Pharaoh presented to Joseph during the seven years of abundance was the beautiful Shemitic Asenath, who bore him Manasseh and Ephraim. This seven years of abundance afforded Joseph opportunity to carry out such plans as to secure ample provisions against the seven years of need. When the famine finally arrived, it found the people prepared. But, not so with his father Jacob and brothers in Canaan.

 

JOSEPH’S BROTHERS COME TO EGYPT

 

Among the many people arriving at Egypt, begging to buy sustenance, appeared ten brothers, sons of Jacob. It was out of necessity that they appeared before Joseph to purchase the indispensable corn. Humbled by the famine, the ten brothers arrived in Egypt hungry, tired and forlorn. Joseph, being able to interpret his own dreams, was not at all surprised to see them. Because it had been several years, though, his brothers didn’t recognize him. Accordingly, Joseph pretended not to know his brothers and accused them of being spies, threatening them with imprisonment. Joseph immediately took advantage of the situation to subtly inquire about the welfare of his father and Benjamin, his full-blooded brother. Upon being thusly accused, the brothers volunteered the status of their father and Benjamin, even declaring one brother (Joseph) to be missing.

After three days under guard, Joseph gave them leave on the condition that he would keep one of them until they returned with their younger brother to prove their truthfulness. It was then, and not before, that the brothers said to one another: We are truly guilty concerning our brother, inasmuch as we witnessed his anguish and distress and had no sympathy; therefore, is retribution come. Then, Reuben reminded them it was he who had advised them not to commit evil against the child. Whereupon, after weeping bitterly, Joseph had Simeon bound and commanded the brother’s sacks to be filled with corn and provision, returning each man his money. (I hate to break this narration off in the middle of Joseph’s story, but it will be necessary to continue it in the next lesson.

,

This is my thirty-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my third year of publication. These lessons take many hours of investigative study and are designed as research publications. Sometimes, I spend up to three hours or more on one paragraph. By digesting these short presentations, you have the advantage of having laid out before you the tools needed to expand your own study on these subjects. In the last lesson, we continued Israel’s step-by-step walk through Egyptian history. We investigated the subject of the Shepherd Kings; who they were and were not. We scrutinized the writings of Manetho, the Egyptian priest, as presented by Josephus. Then a narration of the life story of Joseph was presented up until the time Joseph sent his brothers, less Simeon, home with the provisions they had gone to Egypt to obtain. We will be picking up the story in this lesson where we left off in the last.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA

 

There are two objectives of this series of studies: to set the historical stage so we can better understand the foundation of the subject, and to place Egyptian and Biblical history side by side for comparison. I have already addressed much of this Egyptian evidence in recent letters, but I will be presenting more Egyptian confirmation in the future. You may want to get some of my past lessons to help you to better understand the present one under consideration. If you will remember, I was preparing the background for a study on Esau when I got sidetracked on Egypt. As we have no particular time schedule, we will continue on Egypt however long it may take to cover it. This study of Egypt is greater than I ever anticipated, and I am not about to pass over it lightly.

THE LIFE OF JOSEPH

(Continued from lesson 34)

 

We had just gotten into Joseph’s story when his brothers had come to Egypt to buy grain, and how he recognized his brothers, but his brothers didn’t recognize him; how he accused them of being spies; how he kept them under guard for three days; how he released them to return home with the wanted provisions; how each man’s money was placed in his sack, and how he kept Simeon as hostage until they returned again with Benjamin.

When we read the story of Joseph, without knowing that we the White peoples of the western Europe are the true Israelites, it is a very poignant and touching story which happened to some remote family who lived back in ancient times. But, once the blinders have been removed from our eyes, that, in fact, we are the true Israelites, it becomes a very enrapturing story of our own hereditary family tree. Therefore, our personal interests are increased a thousand-fold. Don’t you feel sorry for the many White Israelites who do not understand this?

While keeping Simeon as surety, Joseph permitted his brothers to return to their father, for the need was great in Canaan. Jacob had many flocks along with silver and gold, but his fields gave him no grain, and the cattle had little green pasture. The threat of starvation was very real and imposing. Joseph had no alternative but to keep one of the brothers as hostage, for, if he had not, he may have never had the opportunity to see his family again. While returning to Canaan, the brothers didn’t know that Joseph had understood what they were saying, when in his presence, they discussed their selling him into slavery. The brothers spoke in their own language, not knowing Joseph understood, that this whole thing had come upon them because of the wrong they had done to their brother Joseph approximately twenty-three years previously. The reason they didn’t recognize Joseph was because he had grown up to be a man, was dressed as an Egyptian prince and was seated on a throne. Joseph was now nearly forty years old. Joseph, upon seeing his brothers for the first time in almost twenty-three years, was curious whether or not the brothers still carried their old hatred for him. How his heart was moved to tears when he overheard the brother’s conversation lamenting their former behavior. However, Joseph resolved to be very sharp and stern with them; not because he didn’t love them, but because he remembered their former selfish, cruel and wicked ways, and he needed to see how much their attitude may have changed, if at all. How impressed Joseph must have been when he saw his brothers humbly bowed before him. Surely, Joseph must have remembered the dream he had had when still a boy wherein his brothers’ sheaves bent down toward his own. In returning to their father in Canaan, how uneasy the brothers must have been leaving Simeon behind and knowing they were being forced to return again with Benjamin, (the second son born by Jacob’s favorite wife, Rachel). They surely must have realized how grieved their father would be over the prospect of possibly losing the only remaining son born by Rachel.

Adding to the brother’s anxieties, they discovered while stopping along the way to eat, rest and feed their donkeys, one of the men’s money had been restored to his sack. Finding the money, the brothers were afraid to return to the very stern ruler they had met in Egypt, and as well face their father over the matter. To complicate the situation, upon arriving home, they found every man’s money had been returned in their sacks. Arriving at home, being fearful, the brothers had to face their father Jacob with all these things. The brothers spoke of returning again to Egypt and taking Benjamin, but Jacob replied, Genesis 42:36:

 

“... Me have ye bereaved of my children:  Joseph is  not, and Simeon is  not, and ye will take Benjamin away:  all these things are against me.”

 

Whereupon Reuben replied: “Here are my own two sons. If I do not return with Benjamin, you may kill them if you wish.” But Jacob replied to Reuben, Genesis 42:38:

 

“... My son shall not go down with you; for his brother is dead, and he is left alone: if mischief befall him by the way in which ye go, then shall ye bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave.”

 

THE FAMINE CONTINUES

 

The food which the brothers had brought from Egypt was soon used up, for Jacob had a large family. By this time each of his sons had married and, along with their wives, there were many grandchildren; making a total of sixty-six, not including the servants which waited on them plus the men who cared for the flocks. You can see there was quite a camp around Jacob’s tent. It was not long before the food supply they had gotten from Egypt became dangerously low, and Jacob had no alternative but to send the brothers back once again to purchase more.

At this point, Judah, the one who years before had urged the brothers to sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites, reminded Jacob it would be of little use in going back to Egypt without Benjamin, for the man who ruled there said that upon their return without him, they will not be able to gain his audience. On this proposal, Jacob chided Judah for even mentioning to the Egyptian ruler they had a younger brother. However, the brothers responded to Jacob that the questions were asked in such a precise way the answers couldn’t be avoided. How could they have known he would command that they return with Benjamin, their brother? Judah then told Jacob, if he would allow him to take Benjamin with them, he would bring him home safely, and if he didn’t return him as he said, to let him bear the guilt forever. Judah then reminded Jacob that it was imperative that they return to Egypt with Benjamin, or the whole family would die of starvation. In fact, Judah and his brothers told Jacob: if they were permitted take Benjamin along, they would go, but if they couldn’t take Benjamin, they would not go. Finally, with much misgiving, Jacob agreed to let Benjamin go with the brothers to Egypt to buy more food.

Reluctantly, Jacob agreed that they must go, and suggested they bring the Egyptian ruler a quantity of their choicest fruit; some honey; some spices; some myrrh, some nuts and almonds. And while they are at it, take the man double the money for the last food in case he might think we possibly may have stolen it. Then Genesis 43:15 says:

 

“And the men took that present, and they took double money in their hand, and Benjamin; and rose up, and went down to Egypt, and stood before Joseph.”

 

And when the ten brothers of Joseph went down to Egypt a second time, Benjamin going in Simeon’s place, they came to the place where Joseph was selling grain to the people; where they stood before their brother and bowed before him. When Joseph saw that Benjamin was with them, as he had required of them the trip before, he called the chief steward over his house to kill the best animal and make ready a banquet. The brothers were then ushered into Joseph’s house for the meal. Upon arriving at the entrance of Joseph’s house they became very fearful, thinking they were going to be deemed guilty of stealing, and taken into slavery. But Joseph’s chief steward, the one in charge of his house, treated the brothers very graciously, and when they spoke of the money, he would not receive it from them for he said his records showed they had paid in full for the grain, and he suggested the money must have come from the Almighty. The steward then brought them into Joseph’s house where he gave them water to wash their feet. When Joseph arrived about noon, the brothers along with Benjamin, presented the present which Jacob had sent while they bowed to the ground before him.

Joseph, in dealing with his brothers, had no idea of what might have transpired since he was last present at home with them. Had the brothers mistreated Benjamin as they had done to him? How had his father fared in twenty-three years since then? Were Joseph’s brothers still harboring their hatred toward him? Upon the arrival of Benjamin, there immediately came a natural change in Joseph’s conduct, for Jacob was safe and Benjamin was safe. At the sight of Benjamin, Joseph’s heart melted. Joseph’s heart was so overwhelmed by the presence of his family he could no longer keep back the tears. In haste he went to his private room and wept. Washing his face he reentered their presence and ordered the servants to set the table for dinner. Joseph was served at a table by himself. The Egyptian officers were seated by themselves and the eleven brothers were served separately by themselves, for Simeon had been released from prison to join his brothers. Joseph himself had arranged the order of the seating of the brothers. The brothers were astonishingly amazed, for they could not imagine how the Egyptian ruler could know the order of their age from the firstborn to the youngest. To test his brothers, Joseph sent special dishes of delicacies from his table to the others with Benjamin’s portion being five times greater than the rest. Unaffected by this, the brothers continued banqueting in joy, and Joseph could see there was no jealousy remaining among them.

 

THE SILVER CUP & JUDAH’S PLEA

 

After the banquet, Joseph commanded his chief steward to fill every man’s sack with grain, as much as they could possibly handle; again placing each man’s money in his sack. Then Joseph instructed that his silver cup be put into the sack of the youngest. In order to determine just how loyal his brothers were to their father, Joseph devised a plan which would reveal to what extent the brothers would go to restore Benjamin to the safety of his father. In the cool of the morning, the brothers took their leave to return to their father in Canaan. Before the brothers had gone very far beyond the limits of the city, Joseph instructed his steward to follow and overtake them; inquiring why they had committed an evil against their gracious host. The steward inquired why they had taken the silver cup which his master used for drinking and divining. Upon this accusation, the brothers replied that Yahweh should forbid that they would do such a dastardly thing. The brothers reminded the steward of their honesty in returning the money they had found in their sacks after their first trip, and why should they now steal gold or silver from the master’s house? The brothers were so sure no one of them had taken the cup, they pronounced death upon the person who might do such a thing, plus all the rest of them would volunteer to become his master’s bondsmen. Whereupon, the steward agreed that with whomsoever the silver cup be found, he shall become his master’s servant, and the rest shall be blameless. To this all the brothers agreed and invited the steward to search their belongings. Then each of the brothers unlashed their sacks to the ground to be opened and searched. There they found each man’s money, for the second time, as they searched from the eldest to the youngest. Having taken down the sacks from off the asses, and searching through the first ten sacks, they found only the money; but when they came to Benjamin’s sack, they found the ruler’s cup. Upon finding the cup in Benjamin’s possession, the brothers were greatly distressed and returned dejected with the steward to Joseph’s house where they again bowed to the ground before Joseph.

Being brought before Joseph, he asked them why they had committed such an evil deed, and didn’t they know he could divine such things? Then Judah spoke up, showing his natural ability to lead and taking upon himself the responsibility for all that had happened. Judah said to Joseph, “My Master, what is it that we can say to you for we are at a loss for words? How can we clear ourselves for the Almighty has found out our iniquity? For this we must now become your slaves; both that are older and the youngest in whose sack the cup was found.” Joseph replied to Judah, “Only the one that was guilty; the one who had taken the cup; he will be kept as my slave. As for the rest of you, return home to your father.” Joseph was testing the brothers to see whether they were still selfish, and were willing to let Benjamin suffer while they could escape. Would they purchase their own liberty by the surrender of Benjamin?

Then Judah came humbly forward, the very one who had conspired with his brothers to sell Joseph as a slave, and made a frantic plea while falling at Joseph’s feet. Judah said to Joseph, “Oh my master, let thy lowly servant beg of thee to speak a word in my master’s ear; let not thine anger burn against thy servant, for thou are as great as Pharaoh.” “Remember,” said Judah to Joseph, “how you asked us if we had a father or a brother? And we replied unto you, my master, We have at home a father, an old man, and a child of his old age, a young one, and the child’s brother who is dead. And the child is the only one left of his mother, and his father has a special love for him. Remember my master, you said, ‘Bring him down unto me that I may take a look at him?’ And we answered you, ‘The lad cannot leave his father, for if he should lose him as he did our deceased brother, he would surely die of grief.’ Remember, master, you said to us, ‘Unless your youngest brother come down with you, I will not give you audience.’ And when we arrived at our home, we conveyed your commands to our father. As our supplies ran low, our father told us to go again and buy more food. Then my father reminded me that Rachel had borne him two sons and one was torn in pieces by a wild animal. And then he said, ‘If you also take Benjamin and mischief befall him, ye shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave.’ Therefore, if we return to our father and upon seeing the lad is not with us, inasmuch as his entire affection is bound up in him, he will surely die of grief and all of us shall have brought our father’s sorrow down to his grave. I pledged to my father, I would become surety for the lad; I promised to bear the blame if the boy was not returned home safely. If our youngest brother does not return with us, it will likely kill our dear old father who grieved so greatly over the loss of his favorite son. Now, let my youngest brother return home to his father and I will stay in his place as a slave for you. How can I return and face my father lest he be with me? I cannot bear to see what this would do to him.”

Joseph now recognized what he was longing to know; his brothers’ old malice was gone. By seeing Judah willing to suffer so his brother might be spared, Joseph could no longer contain his innermost-conscious emotions. His spirit was so overwhelmingly exploding within himself, he could no longer hide his identity from them, for his heart longed so for his brothers; he could not restrain from weeping again with tears of love and joy. Immediately, he sent all of his Egyptian servants from the room so the brothers were there alone with him when he announced to them, without an interpreter: “I am Joseph; is my father really still alive?” Startled to hear the Egyptian ruler speaking to them in their own language, for the first time they discerned this stern man who had their lives in his hand was their very own brother whom they had wronged. Weeping joyfully aloud, even though Joseph had dismissed his servants, they and the house of Pharaoh still overheard.

Again Joseph said to his brothers: “Come near to me that I may speak with you. I am Joseph your brother whom ye sold into Egypt. Be not troubled in your heart for all that which you have done; be not angry with yourselves for selling me hither, for Yahweh sent me before you to preserve a posterity (race) in the earth and save our family (tree) alive. It was not you that sent me to this place, but Yahweh; He has made me a father to Pharaoh, an overseer of his house; and ruler throughout Egypt. Two years of the famine are past and there are five years remaining with no earing or harvest. Go now in haste and bring hither my father and all his family with him. Tell him, thus saith thy son Joseph, Yahweh hath made me master of all Egypt; come down to me and tarry not.”

Joseph then put his arms around Benjamin’s neck, kissed him and wept over him. In turn, Benjamin wept on his neck. Joseph then kissed each of his brothers in turn to show them he had fully forgiven them. Upon this, the brothers began to lose their fear of him and talked with him more freely.

After this, Joseph sent his brothers back to Canaan with all this impelling news, rich gifts and food in abundance. This time the brothers didn’t return leading or riding their asses, but Joseph also sent wagons in which Jacob, his wives and little ones of his family were to ride from Canaan back to Egypt. Above all, Joseph’s brothers returned home much happier than they had been for many years. Joseph had given instructions to his brothers to tell their father Jacob: “There are still five years of very oppressive famine left. Come to Egypt as our father Abraham did, and here will I nourish thee and all your household lest your household and all of your possessions come to poverty. And ye shall tell our father of all my glory in Egypt, and of all that ye have seen; and ye shall haste and bring down my father hither.” To all his brothers Joseph gave each man changes of raiment, but to Benjamin he gave three hundred pieces of silver and five changes of raiment.

JACOB GOES DOWN TO EGYPT

 

Each day Jacob would look out across the country to see if he could see any sign of the brothers returning from Egypt, for rations were getting low. One day he sighted a caravan of wagons and many burden-bearing animals, but it couldn’t be the brothers for they had no wagons and there were entirely too many asses for it to be them. And Jacob said to himself, “Maybe tomorrow.” Somewhat later, Jacob noticed the caravan was coming  his way, and he wondered why they were headed in his direction. Finally, as they came near, he became aware it was the brothers, but why all the array?

Upon arriving, the brothers broke the news to Jacob that Joseph was still alive. Genesis 45:26-28:

 

 

“26 And told him, saying, Joseph is yet alive, and he is governor over all the land of Egypt. And Jacob’s heart fainted, for he believed them not. 27 And they told him all the words of Joseph, which he had said unto them: and when he saw the wagons which Joseph had sent to carry him, the spirit of Jacob their father revived: 28 And Israel said, it  is enough; Joseph my son is yet alive: I will go and see him before I die.”

 

 

 

OUT OF A LAND OF FAMINE INTO A LAND OF PLENTY

 

So Joseph’s eleven brothers returned to their home in Canaan, carrying with them the good news to their father that Joseph was still alive. With this joyful message Jacob fainted, but soon after, came to his senses again. Hearing that Joseph was still in the land of the living, Jacob determined to go see him while there was still time. Seeing the wagons that Joseph had sent, Jacob gathered up all the members of his family and possessions, for he had many, and took their journey into Egypt. We can just imagine them going on their sojourn with their wives and children along with their many servants, sheep and cattle, as a very large company. Accordingly, Jacob and all his family members numbered threescore and ten souls, and by the express efforts of Joseph were allowed to settle in a district known as Goshen. Joseph met Pharaoh and told him his father and brethren, flocks, herds and all that they had were coming out of the land of Canaan and arriving in Goshen.  Joseph, meeting this large caravan of his people along with all their possessions in Goshen, spied out Jacob, his father; embraced him kissing and weeping a good long while. There in Goshen, Joseph nourished his father, brethren and all their household with bread, according to their family needs. On the way to Egypt, Jacob stopped at Beersheba, the former home of Isaac and Abraham to make offerings to Yahweh. While there, he was given a night vision that his descendants would become a nation while in Egypt, and Yahweh would cause them to return to Canaan.

And Joseph took five of his brothers and presented them before Pharaoh where he asked of their occupation. The brothers informed Pharaoh, they and their forefathers before them had always been shepherds and were come into his land because the pasturesfont-family: /span/spansans-serif/p in Canaan had failed them on account of the famine, and they were in need of an area to graze their cattle. Afterward, Joseph presented his father to Pharaoh where he told him he was 130 years old, but not nearly as old as his forefathers before him, whereupon he blessed Pharaoh. It is important to notice this blessing of Pharaoh by Jacob, for it was not permitted by our people to bless a ruler who is not of our own racial stock (Ex. 26:13; Pr. 5:10). As before stated, this particular Pharaoh must have been of the line of Shem.

The famine was not only in Egypt, but throughout Canaan and adjacent areas. The famine was simply pauperizing Egypt, and the inhabitants found their money exhausted and their cattle and substance completely depleted in order to purchase food from the public granaries, until at length, they had nothing to give in exchange for food but to sell themselves to Pharaoh as bondsmen. From all this, it appears that both Joseph and the Pharaoh were of the line of Shem while the common Egyptians were of other stock, for under Hebrew Law it would otherwise be illegal to do this. In the process, Joseph gathered up all the Egyptians’ money along with their land and purchased them as bondsmen giving all this to the Pharaoh. So did Joseph deal with all the people from other lands that came to buy food, with the exception of his own family. So Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh, and the land became Pharaoh’s. The people too, “Joseph removed to cities from one end of the borders of the land to the other.” It also appears the priesthood may have been of the line of Shem, for Joseph made them exempt. We can be sure the priests of On were Shemites. The land which previously belonged to the Egyptians, was now leased back to them as tenants at a rent of one-fifth of the produce (possibly one tenth for Pharaoh to operate his government and one tenth for the priesthood).

 

JACOB BLESSES JOSEPH’S TWO SONS

 

Jacob lived to the age of almost a hundred and fifty years. Knowing his death was near, he called Joseph and his sons to him to bless them. He said to Joseph, “When I die, don’t bury me here in this land of Egypt, but return my body to our home land of Canaan, and bury me there in the cave at Hebron, with our fathers, Abraham and Isaac.” Joseph then brought his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim to his father’s bedside. Due to his advanced age and failing eyesight, it was difficult for Jacob to see the two young lads. Upon their entering, Jacob inquiringly exclaimed, “Who are these?” Joseph then said to Jacob, “These are my two sons, whom Yahweh has given me in this land.” “Bring them to my side”, replied Jacob, “and I shall bless them here before I die.” Kissing and embracing them in his arms, Jacob declared: “The thought never occurred in my mind that I should ever see your face, my son; Yahweh has now let me see both you and your sons also.” Jacob then placed his right hand upon the younger Ephraim’s head and his left hand on Manasseh, the older. Joseph then tried to guide Jacob’s right hand from Ephraim to Manasseh, for Manasseh was his firstborn, but Jacob, his father, refused, saying, “Joseph, I know it, my son, I know it, for Manasseh thy elder son shall become a great people also, but Ephraim thy younger son shall be greater than he, for Ephraim shall become a multitude of nations.”

For those whose eyes Yahweh has opened, America is already recognized as Manasseh and Great Britain as Ephraim. There is no other nation in all of history which became a “multitude of nations” other than Great Britain. Yes, there were many great empires who ruled over other nations, but Great Britain gained its possessions mainly by colonization, not entirely by military adventure. I challenge anyone who resists the Israel message and has some knowledge of world history to name any other nation that fits this criteria; there simply isn’t any! To resist this fact is to refute the Almighty’s Word, and call Yahweh a liar.

 

DEATH OF JOSEPH 

 

For the death of Joseph, I will quote from The Popular And Critical Bible Encyclopædia And Scriptural Dictionary, volume 2, page 985:

 

“Death of Joseph. Joseph lived an hundred and ten years, kind and gentle in his affections to the last; for we are told, ‘The children of Machir, the son of Manasseh were brought up upon Joseph’s knees’ (Genesis 50:23). And so having obtained a promise from his brethren that when the time came, as he assured them it would come, that God (Yahweh) should visit them, and ‘bring them unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob’, they would carry his bones out of Egypt, Joseph at length ‘died, and they embalmed him and he was put in a coffin’ (Genesis 50:26). This promise was religiously fulfilled. His descendants, after carrying the corpse about with them in their wanderings, at length put in its final resting place in Shechem, in a parcel of ground that Jacob bought of  the sons of Hamor, which became the inheritance of the children of Joseph (Joshua 24:32).

 

“By his Egyptian (Shemitic) wife Asenath, daughter of the high priest of Heliopolis (On; Beth Shemesh, or house of Shem), Joseph had two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim (Genesis 41:50), whom Jacob adopted (Genesis 48:5), and who accordingly took their place among the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel.”

 

APARTHEID IN EGYPT FOR ISRAEL

 

We are told by many, the people of Egypt were the same white stock of people as the Israelites. This is not entirely true. This is why it was so necessary for the Israelites to settle in an area where the two peoples wouldn’t mix. Even the standard Bible commentaries are aware of this. This from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 43, commenting on Genesis 46:31-34:

 

“Before Joseph presented his family to Pharaoh, he gave them specific directions about how to reply to the ruler’s questions. When asked about their calling, they were to represent themselves as shepherds. Then Pharaoh would likely assign them the land of Goshen as their dwelling place. Goshen would provide excellent grazing for their flocks and herds. They would be together, and therefore well protected from mixing with other peoples.”

 

In the Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 79, we have further confirmation that this was indeed the reason for the Israelites settling in a place where they could be isolated to themselves:

 

“It was agreed that they would tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds. Since shepherds were despised by the Egyptians, Pharaoh would let them live in the land of Goshen, far away from the royal palace. There in Goshen they were isolated from social intercourse with the Egyptians, first because of their nationality (Gen. 43:32) and then because of their occupation. God (Yahweh) left them in this incubator until they were a strong nation, able to possess the land that He promised to their forefathers.”

 

The Hyksos had invaded Egypt from Arabia, Syria and Ethiopia and made a bad name for shepherds. The Hyksos were not at all like the former Shepherd Kings that came into Egypt some five hundred years earlier who were Shemites. These Hyksos were a horde of marauders who invaded Egypt and ruled by tyranny. To separate themselves from the Egyptians, Joseph and his brothers requested the land of Goshen to live in. Wherever the land of Goshen was, it had to be a place the Egyptians were not already occupying in order for the Israelites to be dwelling separately by themselves. The Delta area does not fit this criteria. If the Israelites were to have settled in the Delta area, there would have been all kinds of people moving in and out from time to time. Goshen had to be a place of seclusion and the Faiyûm area fits this very nicely.

This is my thirty-sixth monthly teaching letter and completes my third year of publication. In the last few lessons we have been investigating the history of Egypt in comparison to Biblical history. In lesson #31, we took a look at a good example of what Egyptian history is not; a premise that Egyptian history is 1000 years younger than secular established history. No doubt, secular history may be off somewhat, but a thousand years is somewhat extravagant. Also, in lesson #31, it was established with archaeological evidence that Israel’s sojourn in Egypt must have been contemporary with the 18th Egyptian dynasty. In that lesson, we also considered the bizarre circumstances surrounding the Akhenaten period. Then, too, in lesson #31, we considered the meaning and origin of the name of Moses. In lesson #32, we examined the implications in connection with Akhenaten’s followers returning to Thebes. Again, in lesson #32, we considered more documentation concerning Moses’ name. Then, we also explored the story of Hatshepsut, a lady pharaoh who dressed as a man. We also discussed Joseph’s era as being possibly simultaneous with that of the Hyksos. We also weighed the implications concerning Joseph’s instituting a 20% income tax in Egypt. In lesson #33, we presented Biblical evidence that Joseph couldn’t have been sold to the Hyksos; when Israel’s family came to Egypt, they were given the very best land in which to dwell; how there were two famous seven year famines in Egyptian history; took another look at Joseph’s imposed 20% income tax, and, last, how two different groups were known as shepherd kings. In lesson #34, we continued with more discussion on the true Shepherd Kings and who they were; we scrutinized Josephus’ and Manetho’s credibility on this topic. Then in the last part of lesson #34 and all of lesson #35, an outline of Joseph’s entire life was presented.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA

 

I am sure there will be some who are going to take exception to lessons #33 through #35, where the Israelites are placed in Faiyûm rather than in the Nile River Delta area. They will make reference to Psalm 78:12, 43 and point out the text of this Psalm is speaking of the Exodus from Egypt taking place at Zoan, and that Zoan was a city in the Delta area. In doing so, they are both right and wrong. Yes, Zoan was a city in the Delta area, but there is more to the story.

  

THE CITY OF ZOAN A MISNOMER

 

Zoan (later to be called Tanis) was a city in the Nile River Delta area built seven years after Hebron in Canaan (Numbers 13:22). Inasmuch as the Hyksos were the ones who built Zoan, this establishes them in Egypt before the time of Abraham at the plain of Mamre in Canaan, Genesis 13:18. So we can understand what is meant in Psalm 78:12, 43, I will now quote from Insight On The Scriptures, volume 2, pages 1238-1239:

 

“Zoan. An ancient Egyptian city, built seven years after Hebron, hence already in existence around the time of Abraham’s entry into Canaan ... (Numbers 13:22; Genesis 12:5; 13:18). The Bible name Zoan corresponds to the Egyptian name (d‘n·t) of a town located in the northeastern part of the Delta region, about 35 miles southwest of Port Said. Better known by its Greek name, Tanis (near present-day San el-Hagar), it was situated on the branch of the Nile called the Tanitic branch.

“As Psalm 78:12, 43, ‘the field of Zoan’ is used parallel to ‘the land of Egypt’ in recounting Jehovah’s (Yahweh’s) miraculous acts on behalf of Israel leading up to the Exodus. This has caused some scholars to hold that Moses’ meetings with Pharaoh took place at Zoan. Similarly, it has led to the effort to link Zoan (Tanis) with the city of Rameses, as well as with the city of Avaris, referred to by Manetho in his account about the so-called Hyksos kings. Thus, many modern reference works say that Zoan’s name changed to Avaris under the ‘Hyksos’, then changed to Rameses under the Ramesside dynasty, and finally reverted to Zoan (in the Greek form Tanis). It may be noted, however, that the Bible uses the name Zoan consistently as applying before the Exodus (back to Abraham’s time), at the time of the Exodus, and as late as the eighth, seventh, and sixth centuries B.C.E. (in the time of the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel).

 

“If Zoan were the site of Moses’ interviews with Pharaoh, this would certainly give some indication as to the starting point of the Exodus route. However, several factors place this view in doubt. For Zoan to refer to such a site, the expression ‘the field of Zoan’ would have to be viewed, not as simply paralleling ‘the land of Egypt’, but as a much more specific expression, designating the precise location where the miracles occurred. Such a limiting or restrictive sense would not actually fit the case, for the Ten Plagues did not occur in just one part of Egypt (such as a portion of the Delta) but throughout the entire land. This would seem to support the view that ‘the field of Zoan’ is used as a parallel of ‘the land of Egypt.’

“Those modern scholars who endeavor to present Zoan (or, according to their attempted connection, Avaris, or Rameses) as Pharaoh’s residence at the time of the Exodus also face a lack of Biblical support and agreement in several respects. The Bible shows that Moses’ first encounter took place at the edge of the Nile River (Exodus 7:14, 15). Zoan (Tanis) is not on the actual river but at the terminus of one of the ancient branches forking off from the main stream. In attempting to locate the city of Rameses at the same place as Zoan, or Tanis, they also pass over the fact that Zoan was already a city in Abraham’s time ...

“Those scholars would make Zoan (Avaris-Rameses, as they identify it) the Egyptian capital at the time of the Exodus, whereas the Bible identifies Rameses as merely a ‘storage place.’ And, in holding that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus because of the claim that he was the builder of the city of Rameses (or, more accurately, a place called Per-Rameses), they ignore the fact that the building of the Biblical Rameses began 80 years or more before the Exodus (before the birth of Moses [Exodus 1:11 - 2:10]), whereas historians credit Ramses II with a rule of only about 66 years ...

“The question remains, then, why ‘the field of Zoan’ is apparently used to parallel ‘the land of Egypt’ with regard to Jehovah’s (Yahweh’s) performance of miraculous acts. While a possible connection with Pharaoh’s court cannot be completely discounted, it is also entirely possible that the great age of the city caused the psalmist to use Zoan in such a way, it apparently being one of the earliest cities founded in Egypt. Its use, if this was the case, might be similar to the use of ‘Plymouth Rock’ as representing the early colonizing of the United States ...

“There is no doubt as to the importance of the city of Zoan (Tanis), particularly with respect to commercial trade and religious structures. There is evidence of much royal building there from the time of the early ‘dynasties’ of Egyptian kings onward ... the prophet Isaiah, in the divine pronouncement against Egypt, had referred to ‘the princes of Zoan’ and classed them with those of Noph (Memphis), thereby pointing up also the political importance of Zoan (Isaiah 19:1, 11-13) ...”

 

From this quotation, you can see the phrase “the field of Zoan” is just another way of saying “the land of Egypt.” The word “field” in the Hebrew should tip us off, as it means a plowed field which Egypt is for over a thousand miles to the south of Zoan. With this kind of a meaning, it in no way identifies the land of Goshen where the Israelites resided while they were dwelling there. From this, it is obvious, we must take into account, not the literal language, but the intent of the scribe. Unless we can resolve such matters, there is no way we can come to a full understanding of Scripture. Not only do we have to adjust for intent, but there is the matter of errors, idioms and parables. The Dictionary says an idiom is: A speech that is peculiar to itself within the usage of a given language. Inasmuch as we have taken up the matter of intent and parables, let’s deal with the problem of idioms. Here are a couple of modern-day idioms: We might say that we had a good time over the weekend; we went out and painted the town red. We really didn’t take a bucket of red paint along with a paint brush and try to paint the houses and whatever around town. It’s just a modern-day idiomatic saying, we had a good time. Then sometimes, when we know a person that seems to have prospered all of their life, we say, they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth. Surely no one ever came from the womb with a silver spoon in their mouth! Like our English language, the Bible languages of Hebrew-Chaldee and Greek have their own Idioms, parables and intent. The subject we just discussed concerning “the field of Zoan” is a good illustration of why we need to know the intent of the scribe. If you are reading your Bible literally in all cases, you are not getting the total qualified message. Is it any wonder we have so many interpretations of Scripture, and so few absolutely clear Scriptural facts?

 

THE TERM “PHARAOH” NOT USED UNTIL 18th DYNASTY

 

As this subtitle suggests, the term or title of “pharaoh” didn’t exist before the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. This, in turn, implies, that because Scripture uses this term, it was written during or after the 18th dynasty. This is more evidence the Israelite sojourn in Egypt was during this time-period. For information on this, I will quote from The World Book Encyclopedia, volume 15, page 315:

 

“PHARAOH. FAIR oh, was a title of the later kings of ancient Egypt. The Egyptians did not call their ruler pharaoh until the Eighteenth Dynasty (1570-1300 B.C.). Even then, pharaoh was not one of the king’s most important titles. Writers of the Old Testament almost always used pharaoh as a title for the king of Egypt.

“The word pharaoh comes from two Egyptian words, peraa. Per-aa means great house, and at first these words described the royal palace, not the king ...

“In theory, the pharaoh owned all the land and people in Egypt. In reality, his power was limited by strong groups, including the priests and nobles. His actions were governed by rules of conduct which the Egyptians believed the gods had set down.”

 

As this is quite an important matter into our investigation of Egypt, I will now use a second witness concerning this; the World Scope Encyclopedia, volume 9, under “Pharaoh”:

 

“Pharaoh (fa´ro), a name applied by the Scriptures and many Hebrew writers to the rulers of Egypt. It is used as if it were a proper name, but it is only an official title, as shah is a title of the Persian rulers, khan of the Tartars, and czar of the Russians. The title corresponds to the Ph-Ra found on the monuments of Egypt, which signifies the sun. It is quite difficult to determine the particular monarch to whom reference is made by the use of this title, but generally the application is to the Egyptian king under whom Joseph flourished, and the line under whom the oppression of the Israelites and the exodus took place.”

 

PHARAOHS DEPICTED AS THE SUN

 

In ancient times, rulers were depicted as the sun. If you will remember, in Joseph’s dream, the sun, moon and eleven stars bowed before him, Genesis 37:9-10. In the interpretation of the dream it was understood, the sun represented his father, the moon his mother, and the eleven stars his brothers. On the Egyptian monuments and various inscriptions, there is much depiction of the sun. It would appear there are two ways to construe this: (1) It might represent the king and vice-regent of a country along with some of the administrative officers, or (2) It might be a form of worshipping the physical heavenly bodies themselves. Maybe, in some cases, it could be both. We must be careful, therefore, not to point a finger every time we see the sun on monuments and declare it as sun worship. If we do this, we must accuse Joseph and his family of sun worship also. It is one thing to depict the sun, moon and stars as representing ruler-ship, and quite another to enter into the worship of these heavenly bodies. As we get into the study of Egyptian monuments, it would be well to remember this, and apply it accordingly.

ISRAEL BECOMES A NATION

 

In Exodus 1:7 we are simply told they “increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty.” Then in Exodus 1:12 it continues: “But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew.” This is a great passage of Scripture, but there is really more to the story. To expand on this, I will quote from three different commentaries. First, I will quote from Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, pages 90-91:

 

“7 The children of Israel were fruitful, Paru, a general term signifying that they were like healthy trees, bringing forth an abundance of fruit. And increased. ‘They increased like fishes’ as the original word implies. Abundantly. Yirbu, ‘they multiplied’; this is a separate term, and should not have been used as an adverb by our translators. And waxed exceedingly mighty. And they became strong beyond measure — ‘superlatively, superlatively’ — so that the land (Goshen) was filled with them. This astonishing increase was, under the providence of God (Yahweh), chiefly owing to two causes: (1) The Hebrew women were exceedingly fruitful, suffered very little in parturition (childbirth), and probably often brought forth twins. (2) There appear to have been no premature deaths among them. Thus in about two hundred and fifteen years they were multiplied to upwards of 600,000, independently of old men, women, and children.” [See Numbers 1:3; Exodus 12:37.]

 

Secondly, in order to amplify on this, I will quote from the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible, page 53:

 

“7 children of Israel were fruitful — They were living in a land where, according to the testimony of an ancient author (possibly Aristotle), mothers produced three and four sometimes at a birth; and a modern writer declares ‘the females in Egypt, as well among the human race as among animals, surpassing all others in fruitfulness.’ To this natural circumstance must be added the fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham.”

 

Thirdly, for further commentary on this passage, I will now quote from Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 1, page 117:

 

“Here are many words, and very emphatical, to express their incredible multiplication. they waxed exceedingly mighty; which may relate either to their numbers, which greatly added to their strength, or to their constitution, to note that their offspring was strong as well as numerous. Atheistical wits cavil at this story, and pretend it impossible that out of seventy persons should come above six hundred thousand men within two hundred and fifteen years; wherein they betray no less ignorance than impiety. For they say nothing of the extraordinary fruitfulness of the [Hebrew] women in Egypt, who oft bring forth four or five children at one birth, as Aristotle notes, Hist. Animal. 7. 4, nor of the long lives of the men of that age, nor of the plurality of wives then much in use, nor of the singular blessing of God [Yahweh] upon the Hebrews in giving them conceptions and births without abortion, all which are but very reasonable suppositions, the probability of it may plainly appear thus: Suppose there were only two hundred years reckoned, and only fifty persons who did beget children, and these begin not to beget before they be twenty years old, and then each of them beget only three children. Divide this time now into ten times twenty years. In the first time, of 50 come 150. In the second of 150 come 450. Of them in the third, come 1,350. Of them in the fourth, 4,050. Of these in the fifth, 12,150. Of these in the sixth, 36,450. Of them in the seventh, 109,350. Of them in the eighth, 328,050. Of these in the ninth, 984,150. And of them in the tenth, 2,952,450. If it be objected, that we read nothing of their great multiplication till after Joseph’s death, which some say was not above fifty years before their going out of Egypt, it may be easily replied: 1. This is a great mistake, for there were above one hundred and forty years between Joseph’s death and their going out of Egypt, as may appear thus: It is granted that the Israelites were in Egypt about two hundred and ten or two hundred and fifteen years in all. They came not thither till Joseph was near forty years old, as is evident by comparing Genesis 41:46, with Genesis 45:6. So there rests only seventy years of Joseph’s life, which are the first part of the time of Israel’s dwelling in Egypt, and there remain one hundred and forty-five years, being the other part of the two hundred and fifteen years. 2 That the Israelites did multiply much before Joseph’s death, though Scripture be silent in it, as it is of many other passages confessedly true, cannot be reasonably doubted. But if there was any defect in the numbers proposed in the first fifty-five years, it might be abundantly compensated in the one hundred and forty-five years succeeding. And so the computation remains good.”

 

? ? WHERE ON EARTH DID ALL THE ISRAELITES GO ? ?

 

In Exodus 12:37, we are told the number of the children of Israel that came out of Egypt were: “about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, besides children.” During the time of David, a decision was made to take a census. The results of that census is given in 2 Samuel 24:9:

 

“And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.”

 

By the time of Abijah (grandson of Solomon and great-grandson of David) Judah went to war against Israel. We will not go into the details of that engagement, but only notice how large the two armies were as found in 2nd Chronicles 13:3:

 

“And Abijah set the battle in array with an army of valiant men of war, even four hundred thousand chosen men: Jeroboam also set the battle in array against him with eight hundred thousand chosen men, being mighty men of valour.”

 

Here we have a situation, where between Judah and Israel, there were 1.2 to 1.3 million men in full battle array. If this was the total number of fighting men as specified by Scripture, what was the total population, including women, children and men too old for war, in all of Israel and Judah? A figure of 3.75 million would be conservative! As you can plainly see, the increase of population in Israel, from the Exodus until the time of David, Solomon, Rehoboam and Abijah, is very noticeable. To take it a step farther, what would the potential overall population have been of Judah and Israel four hundred years later during the time of Ezra and Nehemiah? I took a rough calculation of this: By dividing 1,300,000 by 600,000 I figured a gain in fighting men over a seven hundred year period of 217%. This would be a gain of 31% every hundred years. I then took the conservative figure of 3,750,000 and figured an increase of 31% each one hundred years for the next 400 years. On this basis, I came up with an estimated population for all Israel (Israel and Judah) of 11,043,747, which I feel is very conservative.

Theologians of churchianity have two suppositions today as to what happened to Israel. The one theory is that they were absorbed by their captors, never to be found again, thus annulling all of the promises and Covenants of Yahweh, making Him a liar. The other theory is that all the Israelites returned to Judea from Babylon after the Babylonian captivity, Ezra 2:64:

 

“The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand three hundred and threescore.” (42,360)

 

I have a question: Where were are all the other 11,001,387 of both Israel and Judah for this period of time? I have read different postulations trying to prove that all the Israelites returned by pointing out Anna of the tribe of Aser (Asher), Luke 2:36, and saying, “you see there, that proves all the tribes returned after the Babylonian captivity.” With one single Israelite, they try to account for millions.

 

“KNEW NOT JOSEPH”

 

In Exodus 1:8, we are told: “Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.” Does this mean that there was a pharaoh to arise who didn’t personally know Joseph?, Or is it speaking of a pharaoh who didn’t remember the good administration of Joseph over Egypt?; one who had forgotten how, through Joseph’s great leadership, he had saved the Egyptians from starvation; one who was unmindful and ungrateful. For consideration on this, let’s refer to the Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, abridged by Ralph Earle, page 90:

 

“Which knew not Joseph. The verb yada, which we translate ‘to know’, often signifies to ‘acknowledge’ or ‘approve.’ See Judges 2:10; Psalm 1:6; 31:7; Hosea 2:8; Amos 3:2. We may therefore understand by the new king’s not knowing Joseph his disapproving of that system of government which Joseph had established, as well as his haughtily refusing to acknowledge the obligations under which the whole land of Egypt was laid to this eminent prime minister of one of his predecessors.”

 

For another witness concerning the meaning of this passage, let’s consider the observations as found in Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Bible, volume 1, page 117:

 

“A new king, i.e. another king; one of another disposition, or interest, or family; for the kingdom of Egypt did oft pass from one family to another, as appears from the history of the Dynasties recorded in ancient writers. Which knew not Joseph, or, acknowledged not the vast obligations which Joseph had laid upon the kingdom of Egypt, and the king under whom Joseph lived, but upon all his successors in regard of those vast additions of wealth and power which he had made to that crown. This phrase notes his ungrateful disowning and ill requiting of Joseph’s favors ...”

 

The Interpreter’s Bible, volume 1, page 853 puts it very nicely as follows:

 

“The new king could not possibly have known Joseph personally. But what is implied is that he launched a new policy with respect to the Israelites. He chose to ignore the past services of Joseph ...”

 

“YE SHALL KILL HIM”

 

Because the new pharaoh was apprehensive about the rapid increase of the Israelites, he decided to take very drastic measures to reverse this course of events. Exodus 1:11 indicates the pharaoh decided to work the male Israelites excessively to the point where, when they went home at night, they would be too tired to procreate more children. The pharaoh was more interested in birth control than he was in productivity. It makes one wonder if the enemy today is keeping wages so low, the men have to work an excessive amount of hours just to break even, and thus, control our White population. On the other hand, the enemy, the “Jew”, is directing welfare to the nonwhites so they can stay home all day and all night long and procreate vast numbers of their own race, along with idle White women. The second course the pharaoh instituted was to kill all the newly-born Israelite male children. The pharaoh was more than willing to leave the Israelite girls live as breeding-stock for the Egyptian men though. Everything that is happening today was occurring back then; there simply isn’t anything new under the sun. Of course, too, we have to take into account who the pharaoh was for this period. As I see it, he was either a half-breed Mongol-Hurrian, or married to a Mongol-Hurrian, and under her influence (Tuthmoses I or Tuthmosis II of the 18th Dynasty). As I stated in lesson #29, these are the same satanic people Esau had married with.

For more information on this, I will now quote from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 53:

 

“Daughter. Daughters were spared since they could be taken and married to Egyptians, thus losing their national identity ...”

 

Speaking of the Hebrew girls to be left alive, Matthew Poole’s Commentary On The Holy Bible, volume 1, page 118 says:

 

“They reserved them for their lust, or for service, or for the increase of their people, and the raising of a fairer breed by them.”

 

For more on this subject, let’s go to Matthew Henry’s Commentary On The Whole Bible, volume 1, page 272:

 

“... They took care to keep them poor, by charging them with heavy taxes, which, some think, is included in the burdens with which they afflicted them ... By this means they took an effectual course to make them slaves. The Israelites, it should seem, were much more industrious laborious people than the Egyptians, and therefore Pharaoh took care to find them work, both in building ... and in husbandry even all manner of service in the field ... To ruin their health and shorten their days, and so diminish their numbers ... To discourage them from marrying, since their children would be born to slavery ... To oblige them to desert the Hebrews, and incorporate themselves with the Egyptians. Thus he hoped to cut off the name of Israel, that it might be no more in remembrance. And it is to be feared that the oppression they were under had this bad effect upon them, that it brought over many of them to join with the Egyptians in their idolatrous worship ... (Joshua 24:14: Ezekiel 20:8) ... God had threatened to destroy them for it, even while in the land of Egypt: however they were kept a distinct body, unmingled with the Egyptians ...”

 

Matthew Henry continues to comment on page 273 as follows:

 

“Pharaoh and Herod sufficiently proved themselves agents for that great red dragon, who stood to devour the man-child as soon as it was born. Revelation 12:3, 4.”

 

If we can understand that this persecuting pharaoh and Herod were of the same family line, the enslavement of the Israelites, during this period, starts to make a lot of sense. We can begin to see this was the same old “enmity” of the two seeds of Genesis 3:15 showing itself as it did when Herod killed all the little Benjamites in order to kill the Messiah. For more documentation connecting this pharaoh, Herod and the Dragon of Revelation 12, I will gather a few quotes. First, from Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible, Page 1561:

 

“So the dragon, represented by his agent Pharaoh (a name common to all the Egyptian kings, and meaning, according to some, crocodile, a reptile like the dragon, and made an Egyptian idol), was ready to devour Israel’s males at the birth of the nation. Anti-typically the true Israel, Jesus [Yahshua], when born, was sought for destruction by Herod, who slew all the males in and around Bethlehem.”

 

The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, page 1512: “There stands before this woman the great enemy of God [Yahweh], the dragon (Revelation 12:4), who hopes to destroy Christ [Yahshua]. But on this effort he will fail ... I personally believe, with Weidner, Walter Scott, and many others, that this verse is anticipatory, and points to Israel’s time of tribulation at the end of the age. It is placed here to emphasize the fact that Satan, who hates Christ [Yahshua], and hence His people, will especially persecute Israel as the age draws to a close.”

 

The International Bible Commentary by F. F. Bruce, page 1614: “The woman is no individual human being, but the celestial counterpart of an earthly community; the fact that she wears a crown of twelve stars on her head (cf. Genesis 37:9) marks her out as being true Israel, from which the Messiah was born.”

 

The Believer’s Bible Commentary by William MacDonald, page 2369: “The dragon is ready to devour the Child as soon as He is born — fulfilled in the attempt of Herod the Great, vassal of Rome, to destroy the newborn King of the Jews. [rather the good-fig Tribe of Judah], destined to rule all the nations with a rod of iron.”

 

A word of warning: While the above Bible commentary is quite excellent, it is, in every case, misapplied to the “Jews.” In all of my Bible commentaries, I can use less than 5%, and all the rest is 95% pure garbage. It is certainly a shame the people who put these reference books together didn’t know the difference between an Israelite and a “Jew.” We should start differentiating those termed “Jews” today as “bad-fig-jews” in contrast with the “good-fig-Judahites” who are of the true tribe Judah when we address this subject to people who don’t understand the difference. The good-fig-Judahites are genetically pure, whereas the “bad-fig-jews” are bastards [mamzers] of mixed race. In many cases, these commentaries are created by several contributing editors. Occasionally there are a few good Bible students among them who make some outstanding statements. Therefore, one must be able to separate the useful material from the corruption. While most of the comments are but refuse, occasionally they will come up with a real gem which is extraordinarily remarkable and strikingly meaningful. Most commentaries are in particular useful for their historical content.  [This last paragraph edited by myself, 11-8-2006, C.A.E. ]

During the time of David, a decision was made to take a census. The results of that census is given in 2 Samuel 24:9:/spannbsp;font-size: small;p class=

This is my thirty-seventh monthly teaching letter and starts my fourth year of publication. This is a research effort into areas not generally covered by the average type of Bible study. When we really take the time to explore these various things, they are usually quite different than we ever imagined. We have to approach these topics like a detective in order to dig out all the assorted details. We have been comparing Egyptian history with that of the Bible in the last few lessons. Because we have covered so many aspects of this subject, there is not enough space to review them here. So that you won’t miss out on what was covered before this lesson, you may wish to get the back lessons leading up to where we find ourselves at the present time. You will notice, if you have been following this series, we have been establishing conclusions based on documentation from both Biblical and secular history along with archaeological evidence.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA 

Because we will be discussing the Hyksos again in this lesson, I found a very good book entitled A Short History Of Ancient Egypt by T. G. H. James, who on page 95 made a very interesting observation concerning them: 

“It seems that the Hyksos tried to behave like Egyptian rulers. Their god was Egyptian; they used Egyptian titles and put their names in cartouches; they built Egyptian-style buildings and appropriated Egyptian statues for their own use; they also appear to have fostered traditional Egyptian culture. It is a strange fact that some of the most interesting surviving papyrus texts were written at this time, including a long series of stories dealing with magical happenings in the Old Kingdom, the remarkable Ebers Papyrus which contains a large number of medical recipes and treatments, and the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus which was written down in the thirty-third year of the fourth Hyksos king, Apophis I (Apepi I). The peoples who are conveniently lumped together under the designation Hyksos do not demonstrate any distinctive national identity. They were undoubtedly Asiatic in origin, and they maintained trade links with Palestine and Syria, exploiting the opportunities offered by their control of the channels of communication with the east.”

 

You will have to admit these Hyksos were a strange people. They seem to have some of the same characteristics as the descendants of Cain. Maybe they should have called them Kyksos (like in “Jew”) instead of Hyksos.

In the last lesson, it was pointed out that the pharaohs of Egypt were depicted as the sun and that this didn’t necessarily indicate they were sun worshippers. As we will remember, in Joseph’s dream, his father, mother and brothers were spoken of as the sun, moon and stars and it was not in any way associated with the worship of these heavenly bodies. With Egypt, there were both actual sun worshippers and the depiction of rulers as the sun, and it is going to be necessary to be able to separate the one from the other, as on Egyptian monuments there are many examples of this.

Also, in the last lesson, we pondered upon the rapid population expansion of the Israelites in Egypt. As this population increased other conditions developed. As all these things were happening, we will have to consider some of the various political-religious-commercial activities which were going on at that time.

At the end of the 17th Egyptian Dynasty, at the time of Kamose, Egypt was divided into three unrelated sections. From these divisions, there were kings at Avaris, Thebes and Kush who negotiated commerce and trade as coequals. At Thebes, in the temple of Amun, Kamose erected a stele expressing his agreement with this situation saying in effect:

 

“We are happy with our Black Land ... the flattest lands are plowed ... cattle graze in the marshes ... emmer is sent for our swine ... Should anyone aggress against us, we will retaliate.”

 

Nevertheless, bemoaning the economic restraints imposed upon him by the king of Avaris, the Theban king resolved to end the partition complaining:

 

“Why should I bother contemplating my gains while there is a ruler at Avaris and a Nubian, each one holding a portion of the Black Land and taking his slice of the country.”

 

Kamose thus resented not having direct access of trade routes to Palestine and being prevented access to Nubian minerals. Monuments at Buhen exist which suggest his success in regaining control of Wawat. The Karnak stele documents in great detail Kamose’s assault on Avaris and putting the population of Nefrusy under the sword. A force was then dispatched to gain control of the oasis roads of Bahariya where a letter was intercepted from Apophis, king of Avaris, addressed to the king of Kush indicating that Avaris was already under attack. The city being heavily fortified could not be razed as Nefrusy was, but, nonetheless, its estates and orchards were plundered and stripped. In all this, its chariot-teams, bronze battle-axes, incense, oil, wood from Palestine, and precious metals along with stone were all looted. Thus Kamose returned to Thebes in triumph proving his authority had been demonstrated. This campaign would set a pattern of war to come against the Hyksos until driven out of the land. In such an atmosphere Joseph was sold into Egypt. 

 

THE NEW KINGDOM

 

The “New Kingdom” of Egypt started with the 18th Dynasty and a pharaoh by the name of Amosis. As I stated before, there are various spellings for these Egyptian names. The 18th Egyptian Dynasty brought reunification in the reign of this pharaoh Amosis, son of Kamose. Amosis believed that the kings of Thebes were the legitimate successors of the Middle Kingdom whose obligation was to reunite the Black Land all the way from the Mediterranean through the Delta to and including Nubia. The war which was started by Kamose against Avaris and the occupying Hyksos was continued by Amosis. It was a long drawn-out aggression against Avaris, and the final war was launched late in Amosis’ reign. Some say perhaps in his 20th year. But it seems that Memphis, which appeared to be out of Kamose’s control, had finally fallen to Thebes. Apophis and Khemudy, the last king pharaohs of Avaris, witnessed their city being attacked repeatedly by Theban marine-style assault troops as many as five different times. Each attack was characterized by savage fighting on both sides. After Avaris fell, the Theban army crossed the Sinai to besiege a Palestinian fort called Sharuhen within Hyksos territory which helped them (the Hyksos) to maintain and control the flow of commerce. After three years of siege, the Egyptians were finally victorious, slaughtering many, if not nearly all of the Hyksos. No doubt, the Egyptians also took many of the Hyksos as slaves. Thus, the Theban government regained control over trade between Egypt and Palestine. The Egyptians under Amosis did not pursue the Hyksos on into Palestine at this time. It was some 61 years later that Thutmosis III advanced into that area.

By defeating the Hyksos, Amosis created a realm over a wide area almost as extensive as that of the Middle Kingdom. At last, the upper and lower Nile were once again united. The war that was started under Kamose was now terminated under Amosis. The main land trade routes to Palestine were now restored.

You may be wondering what we should learn from all of this particular Egyptian history during this time-period. It is simply this: If Joseph had been sold into the Delta area during the Hyksos period, and Jacob and his family were later settled there, they would have been in the middle of a war-zone. This war may have lasted up to 40 or 50 years. Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate such a thing! This should be powerful evidence that neither Joseph nor his family were affiliated with the Hyksos. If anything, Joseph may have been the instrument in Amosis’ hands to help drive them out. If Joseph would have been Grand Vizier to the Hyksos, as many Bible authorities claim, he surely could have gotten word to his family much sooner than he did. Joseph simply had to be locked into an area where he had no communication with Palestine. Have you ever wondered why Joseph didn’t try to get word to his father to inform him where he was? No doubt, he may have tried this many times. If he had been in the Delta area, he could very easily have sent word along the much traveled “Ways of Horus” into Retenu (Palestine) where his father was. On the other hand, if he was sold into the Theban area, it would have been very difficult to get word past the blockade at Avaris then being controlled by the Hyksos. By dominating Avaris, the Hyksos were able to control traffic both along land routes and also the waterways. It should be evident that Joseph was in a landlocked situation. If he were at Thebes, communication to Palestine would have been cut off for him. Not only did the Hyksos control the Delta area, but they occupied all of Palestine up beyond the Euphrates, even including the territory of the Hurrians. If Joseph were the Grand Vizier of the pharaoh at Avaris, surely he would have had the freedom to go visit his family in Palestine. It is obvious that Joseph had something blocking his way to return, or to even send a message home to his father.

 

JOSEPH WENT TO EGYPT BY A DIFFERENT WAY

 

There is evidence that when Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites, they entered Egypt by a different way than normal. This can be found in The Lost Books Of The Bible and The Forgotten Books Of Eden in the “Testament of Zebulun” 1:28-30:

 

“28 And when Reuben came and heard that while he was away Joseph had been sold, he rent his garments, and mourning, said: 29 How shall I look on the face of my father Jacob? And he took the money and ran after the merchants, but as he failed to find them he returned grieving. 30 But the merchants had left the broad road and marched through the Troglodytes by a short cut.”

 

If this evidence is correct, the Ishmaelites took Joseph to Egypt by some other route than the usual way. Evidently the “broad road” spoken of in this reference was the “Way of Horus.” This was the main route in those days from the Delta to Retenu (Palestine). Therefore, it would only be reasonable to conclude that Joseph was taken someplace in Egypt other than the Delta. Not only that, but this “short cut” was probably the same road taken when the brothers went to Egypt to buy food and later when Jacob and his family went there, at Joseph’s instructions, to live.

 

JOSEPH’S PHARAOH, AMOSIS I

 

At this juncture, it would be a good idea to review the names of the pharaohs of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. These Egyptian pharaohs are in the sequence as follows: ð Amosis ð Amenhotep I ð Tuthmosis I ð Tuthmosis II ð Hatshepsut ð Tuthmosis III ð Amenhotep II ð Tuthmosis IV ð Amenhotep III ð Amenhotep IV, (same as Akhenaten) ð Tutankhamun ð Ay ð Horemheb. In addition to these named pharaohs, it would be well to mention that Kamose was the last pharaoh of the 17th Dynasty, as we are dealing with him in this lesson also. We are now going to consider the pharaohs from Amosis to Hatshepsut in their sequential order.

Because it is important to know everything we can about the events surrounding Joseph’s life, we really need to take a better look at Joseph’s pharaoh, Amosis I. As far as can be determined there was no Amosis II. Because Frank J. Cosentino, in his book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun, uses this designation of Amosis I in the following excerpts from his book, I am mentioning this so there will not be any confusion concerning it. One of the following paragraphs was quoted in lesson #32, but I will repeat it here:

 

Page 36: “The glory of liberating Egypt fell to Amosis I (1570-1546 B.C.), the first of the Eighteenth Dynasty. His reign ushered in the New Kingdom, a period of unparalleled progress and power which was to last almost five hundred years, from 1567 B.C. to 1080 B.C. This epoch, which also is called the Empire period, encompasses the Eighteenth through the Twentieth Dynasties.”

 

Page 37: “... Unfriendly lords who opposed Amosis or who refused to support the war of liberation were dealt with forcefully and brutally by the king, who often paused in his war with the Hyksos to defeat or punish rival nomes. This is one of the reasons it took so long to expel the Syrians [Hyksos, as ‘Syrians’ might be taken as Aram], a period estimated to be more than twenty years. Finally, after years of siege upon Avaris, Delta stronghold of the Hyksos, they were dislodged and began their retreat to lower Palestine.

“Amosis I, now a great hero of Egypt, was in a position to eliminate the feudal system, and he did. He confiscated the lands and properties of the lords he defeated and stripped them of their peerage. Those who supported him during the long Hyksos war also turned their estates over to the pharaoh in return for retention of their old titles and offices. All of Egypt once again was the personal property of the pharaoh.”

 

Page 39: “Amosis I had continued his military campaigns in the north and south, but the greater part of his reign had been devoted to the expulsion of the Hyksos and reorganization of the state. The expansion of the empire was carried forward vigorously by his son, Amenophis I [Amenhotep I] (1546-1526 B.C.), and by the son’s successor, Thutmosis I (1526-1508 B.C.), who appeared to come from another line of the royal house. Through the sixteenth century B.C. the Egyptian armies completed the conquest of Nubia, between the First and Second Cataracts and of the country of Kush, between the Second and Fourth Cataracts. The armies then turned their attentions north, to Syria and Palestine, where a number of small feudal states existed. Strongest was the kingdom of Kadesh, still ruled by the Hyksos. The ethnic fabric of these small states included Semites, Hittites, Mitannis, Hapiru, and Iranians [not today’s Iranians]. After many invasions and battles over a period of half a century, Thutmosis I finally extended the empire into the valleys of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Orontes Rivers ...”

 

Page 107: “The forces of power in Egypt moved from north to south through its ancient history. Old Kingdom pharaohs (2686-2181 B.C.) were centered below the Delta near the location of contemporary Cairo. The Middle Kingdom (2040-1674 B.C.) established its seat of power 250 miles south. Thebes, located 425 miles below Cairo, gained supremacy in the New Kingdom (1567-1080 B.C.) started by the great pharaoh Amosis I. Thebes remained the capital through the subsequent periods of decadence and decline ...”

 

Of special importance on page 39 from above, is described the “ethnic fabric” of the small city-states throughout Palestine at this particular time in history. They included Semites, Hittites, Mitannis, Hapiru, and Iranians. I am sure that this is only a partial list, but at the same time, it substantiates the Bible, Genesis 15:19-21, where it includes: Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaim, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites. These were a hodgepodge mixed-race group of people. These are the same peoples the Israelites, when entering Canaan, were given the commission to kill every man, woman and child without mercy. These are the same group of people, when Israel neglected that command, were to become the thorns in their sides and pricks in their eyes, Numbers 33:55, their descendants who we know today as “Jews.” These excerpts just quoted give us a better overall picture of what was really going on in Egypt during the period in which Joseph was sold, and when later his father and brothers joined him there. All this fills in a great deal of information which cannot be found entirely in the Bible. The second paragraph, quoted on page 37, is especially significant as it substantiates the Scripture where Joseph imposed a 20% income tax on the Egyptians and confiscated all their land and gave it to the pharaoh, Genesis 47:20-26. All this resulted in more power for the pharaoh to fight against the Hyksos.

In Mummies Myth And Magic, by Christine El Mahdy, page 86, we are told: “The mummy of Amosis ... founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the New Kingdom, shows him to have been uncircumcised. He suffered from arthritis and died while relatively young ...” On page 87, it goes on to indicate that he died in his mid to late twenties. This could account for why he didn’t pursue after the Hyksos into Palestine. Evidently, with the death of this pharaoh, the Egyptians lacked direction. It also suggests that the pharaoh might have been a teenager when Joseph interpreted his dream, and maybe, because of his age, why he decided to put Joseph in charge of his realm.

 

AMENHOTEP I

 

Upon the death of Amosis, his son, Amenhotep I, took the throne. There is not as much information on Amenhotep I as there is on Amosis. It seems that with Amenhotep I, the Egyptian expansion was directed toward the south after the victory over the Hyksos. In Bill Manley’s The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt, page 61, it says this:

 

“However, during the reign of Amenhotep I (if not before), it became Egyptian policy to extend the southern boundary further than it had existed during the Middle Kingdom.”

 

The attraction to the south was gold. Again in this same book on page 68:

 

“Theban authorities recognized that the Nubian gold mines were the foundations on which Egypt could be reconstructed as a formidable commercial power. A policy of conquest directed towards the kingdom of Kush itself emerged when Amenhotep I founded a fortified Egyptian town at Shaat, beyond the Middle Kingdom border in Nubia; the king was determined ‘to extend the boundaries of the Black Land’, according to Ahmose-Saibana.”

 

Again, on page 70 we read this:

 

“There is no compelling evidence to suggest that Ahmose [Amosis I] exploited his success at Sharuhen by continuing his campaigns further into Palestine; his son and successor, Amenhotep I, appears not to have campaigned in Palestine at all.”

 

Maybe the reason it is difficult to find much on Amenhotep I is because he died in his early twenties, according to Mummies Myth And Magic by Christine El Mahdy, page 86. One other thing which should be mentioned about him was he apparently left no male heir. 

TUTHMOSIS I

 

Evidently, Tuthmosis I was the first pharaoh after Amosis to expand Egypt’s influence northward bypassing Palestine. For some insight on this, I will quote from The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt by Bill Manley, page 70:

 

“Within thirty years of Sharuhen, however, Thutmose I [Tuthmosis I] had led Egyptian armies as far as Naharin (which the Egyptians used as a synonym for Mittani [Hurrians]), and erected a stela on the banks of the Euphrates proclaiming the northern boundary of his domain. A list of place names apparently related to this campaign, inscribed on a monumental gate at Karnak, covers the area from Byblos along the coast toward Sumur, and across the mountains of Lebanon to the Orontes. The mention of Byblos is crucial: this major seaport had been the traditional point of contact between Egypt and the Levant. It is possible that Thutmose I [Tuthmosis I] avoided Palestine altogether and moved his armies to Byblos by sea, focussing his campaign (which may have been little more than a display of strength) inland on a region crossed by some of the major trade routes of the ancient Near East, linking the Levantine ports to Palestine, Anatolia, the lands of the king of Mittani, and beyond to Assyria.”

 

The next reference we are going to use is very important as it spells out the relationship of the pharaoh’s family for the next few generations. It is paramount that we understand this interrelation, or we will not completely understand the whole story. You may have to read the following quotation several times to fully comprehend it. It is from The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 40:

 

“... Thutmosis I gave special impetus to the temple building program. He instructed his brilliant architect Ineni to erect massive pylons (towered gateways) at the entrance to the Amun [Amen] temple at Karnak and two giant granite obelisks before the pylons.

 

“Thutmosis I had four children with his chief queen, only one of which lived beyond childhood, a girl named Hatshepsut. Among other children with lesser queens was a son named Thutmosis II who married his half-sister, Hatshepsut. The two could produce no immediate heirs but Thutmosis II fathered a son, Thutmosis III, with a concubine from his harem. The father, now king, named his son as co-regent. Thutmosis II died soon after and Thutmosis III, still a child, ascended to the throne. Hatshepsut, however, had great ambitions. At first she ruled in the name of the young king; but with guile[?] and skill she gained support from the chief viziers, nobles, commanders, and priests, thrust Thutmosis III into the background, and claimed co-regency by right of her birth.”

 

Let’s investigate Tuthmosis I from another source, as we will now be getting into some of the essential and basic elements of our story. There is a lot more to this Egyptian saga than we may have ever imagined, and we are about to find out some unusual and interesting matters of concern. For this I will quote from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, pages 91-92:

 

“The Obelisk Of Thotmes I [Thutmosis I], King Of Egypt About 1546 B.C., At Karnak. Thothmes I, the son of Amenhetep I [Amenhotep I] by his Queen Senseneb, began to reign about 1546 B,C., and reigned about 30 years. On the day of his coronation, i.e. the 21st day of the 3rd month of the season Pert, he sent the copy of a decree to the Egyptian viceroy of Nubia, who dwelt at Elephantine, announcing his coronation and giving a list of titles that he had adopted. Soon after he ascended the throne he made a raid into Nubia; the general of his army was Aahmes, the son of Abana, a warrior who had fought against the Hyksos. The king was present at one engagement, and speared the leader of the enemy, and sailed down-stream with the dead body tied to the bow of his boat. The authority of Egypt in Nubia at that time seems to have been effective so far as the Island of Tombos, near the head of the Third Cataract [boundary differs from Cosentino]. Thotmes next devoted himself to consolidating the power of Egypt in Syria, and his victorious troops conquered the Shasu, a confederation of nomad tribes, and took possession of the country of Naharina. He set up a stele at a place called Ni, near the Euphrates, to mark the limit of his kingdom in the north, and this stele was standing in the reign of his grandson, Thothmes III [Tuthmosis III]. His raids in Nubia and in Syria brought him in much wealth, and a large portion of it he spent in building and repairing the temples of the great gods of Thebes and Abydos, i.e., Amen-Ra and Osiris.

“... He had two obelisks quarried at Aswan, and built a lighter nearly 200 feet long and 60 feet wide on which to transport them to Thebes, and they were set up under the direction of the official Anni in front of another pylon; the two pylons which Thothmes [Tuthmosis] built were united by a colonnade ... Thothmes I was the first king who set up obelisks in Thebes, and in view of the later religious history of the 18th Dynasty his action seems to show that he was favourably disposed to the doctrines of the priesthood of Heliopolis [Beth-shemish, or house of Shem], and that he wished to link the cult of Ra with that of the Theban god Amen. As Usertsen I had set up a pair of obelisks before the house of Ra at Heliopolis, so Thothmes I set up a pair before a pylon of the temple of Amen.” [Amen, Hebrew for truth.]

 

I don’t know whether or not you understand the significance of what you have just read, but this makes a connection of the god Amen-Ra of Egypt with the Priest of On (Joseph’s in-laws) at Heliopolis (Beth-shemish). If this is true, the god Amen represents the same deity as that of the Hebrews. I doubt very much whether the writer of this book had any idea that he was making such a connection. Also, I am sure many of us have been under the impression that an obelisk is a phallic symbol. If what Budge writes on page 19 is correct, it was the Arabs who came up with that idea. In the process of explaining the meaning of “Cleopatra’s Needles” it says in part: “... they [the Arabs] assigned them to her [Cleopatra], with perhaps an obscene suggestion that they resembled phalli lurking in their minds.” If it were the Arabs who gave the obelisks the meaning of phalli, that couldn’t have been the meaning to the Egyptians from the beginning. No doubt, obelisks have become known generally for, and adopted as phallic symbols as a secondary meaning at various times in history. On the Internet there was information on “Phallic Representations” under the title Women And Gender In Ancient Egypt by The Kelsey Museum of Archaeology which exhibits various Egyptian phallic figures and amulets, and there are no obelisks among them. It would seem, if an obelisk were a phallic symbol, they would have placed one at the top of the list. In the book Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, page 14 it says: “... it is probable that many of them were set up as funerary monuments, and were intended to indicate regeneration, new life, stability, and perhaps resurrection.” On page 6 of this same book it explains how obelisks were generally set up in pairs. Very seldom was one placed alone. It would be understandable, if one was placed alone, how one might imagine a phallic meaning, but how can one conceive such a meaning where they are placed in pairs?

TUTHMOSIS II

 

There is not a lot of information to pass along on Tuthmosis II except he was the husband of Queen Hatshepsut. Tuthmosis II and his queen were half brother-sisters. While Hatshepsut was of royal blood, Tuthmosis II was not. For more details on this, I will quote from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, page 98:

 

“Hatshepsut was probably associated with her father, Thotmes I [Tuthmosis I], in the rule of the kingdom during the last few years of his life, and her power became greatly increased when she married her brother, Thothmes II, either before or immediately after her father’s death. Her husband died after a short, ineffective reign, and as her nephew, who later was known as Thothmes III, was then a child, she undertook to administer the kingdom.”

 

PHARAOH HATSHEPSUT

 

Because there is more material on Hatshepsut than can be presented in the rest of this lesson, it will be necessary to save it for later. Actually we did cover Hatshepsut somewhat previously, but there is more we should consider. To start with, in a quote from the book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 120, we read this:

 

“It will be recalled that Hatshepsut was the first great queen of Egypt. She married Thutmosis II and after his death seized the throne from Thutmosis III, who after Hatshepsut’s demise was to become one of Egypt’s greatest warrior-kings. To secure her name in history and to prove herself equal to all the male pharaohs before her, she embarked on ambitious building programs during her twenty-year rule (1489-1469 B.C.).”

 

Princess Hatshepsut was the only surviving child of Tuthmosis I and his queen. As there is no word in the ancient Egyptian language for “queen”, the meaning was simply “king’s great wife.” Had Tuthmosis I had a son, he would have been in line to inherit the throne from his father. With Hatshepsut being a female, and no others contending for the throne, it could pass through her to whomever she might marry. There was a major flaw in this arrangement, as it left an opening for non-royal blood to gain the throne. In the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty this happened several times. In fact, Tuthmosis II, the half-brother who Hatshepsut married, is a case in point. The exact system of choosing a new king is not precisely known, but, in the 18th Dynasty, it seems that if there was no son to receive the honor, it was passed on through the oldest female, and in turn to her husband. The difference in the case with Hatshepsut, she took the throne herself after her husband died. It was probably a matter of guardianship at first until Tuthmosis III became of age, but Hatshepsut evidently decided to remain on the throne, denying Tuthmosis III his seat. In the end, this precipitated a bitter battle between Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III.

In Egypt, the pharaoh often had many wives, and in some cases, married a half-sister. All this made the process of passing on the throne rather complex. Upon the death of Tuthmosis I, his son Tuthmosis II, by a minor wife, was married to his half-sister, Hatshepsut. By marrying Hatshepsut, it established Tuthmosis II’s right to the throne which lasted for twenty-two unexceptional years. When Tuthmosis II died, he left a daughter by Hatshepsut and a son, Tuthmosis III, by a minor wife. Hatshepsut then ruled seven years as regent for the young boy. After this time, Hatshepsut took it upon herself to change her title from “Queen” to “King.”

  

TUTHMOSIS III

 

There has been a question in the past whether Tuthmosis III was a son of Tuthmosis I or II. The book Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, page 126 says this: “Each has shown that we must hold Thothmes III to be the son of Thothmes II and not Thotmes I.”

For information on Tuthmosis III, I will again quote from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, pages 125-126:

 

“The Reign Of Thothmes III, 1500-1447 B.C. The parentage of Thothmes III [Tuthmosis III], the greatest of the kings of the 18th Dynasty, and probably the greatest of all the kings of Egypt, has been the subject of animated discussion for many years past, and even now Egyptologists are not agreed about the matter. There is no doubt that he was associated with the great Queen Hatshepsut in the rule of the kingdom, but what was his relationship to her? Some say that he was her half-brother ...”

 

We have much more to cover on this subject, and in the next few lessons, we will continue investigating the many interesting events which took place during Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.

This is my thirty-eighth monthly teaching letter, and I am now in my fourth year of publication. Since the time I completed my thirty-seventh letter for May, there has been a series on television entitled Secrets Of The Pharaohs. As I am usually working on my teaching letters a couple of months ahead of time, I recorded this series of television programs in February of this year. The first of the three showings was on the 18th Dynasty of Egypt which we have been considering as being contemporary with the Israelite captivity in Egypt. The second in this series was about the building of the Great Pyramid of Giza. Recently they have found a buried city near there which they believe was used to house the workers that built it. The third in the series did not relate to our study. There was also a program on TLC entitled Egypt's Lost City which was about Akhenaten’s city known today as Tell el-Amarna. About a year ago, I caught a four-part series entitled Egyptian Mummies. Part four of that series was about Tutankhamen. This is simply amazing as I no more than got a good start on the subject of Egypt and all this information is being addressed on television. Also, since lesson #37, I found a book entitled The Bible Is History by Ian Wilson. This 1999 book is simply outstanding and filled with useful and fantastic information. Also, I was advised by a person on my mailing list there was a good article in the January, 2001 National Geographic entitled “Ancient Ashkelon.” As you may see, with all this new information, in addition to my previous research, I have been quite busy.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA 

Since preparing lesson #37, with the addition of all this new information to contemplate, I am beginning to realize the Hyksos probably were descendants of Cain. This may come as a surprise to you. If so, we are right back to the subject of Two Seedline, and there is no other subject in all Scripture more important. The following is what I had to say about the Hyksos in lesson #32:

 

“At their height, the Hyksos occupied the land of the Hurrians, Carchemish, Syria, Palestine and much of the northern part of Egypt. By inhabiting the Delta area of Egypt, they were in control of all commerce on the Nile. This cutoff the remainder of Egypt almost entirely, from commercial trade and the rest of the then known world. The Hyksos could sit in their fortress at Avaris and call all the shots up and down the Nile. These Hyksos were a very strange people, desiring to set up a government like that of the Egyptians. It makes one wonder why they didn’t set up a government like they had wherever they came from, wherever that was. They seem to be a kind of chameleon type of people, adapting themselves to their surroundings. We have a chameleon type of people today living in the United States, pretending to be of the white race, and passing themselves off as such; changing their names to fit the territory. Some students believe the Hyksos came from the Caucasus or even Central Asia. At least, as far as the Egyptians were concerned, the Hyksos were an Asiatic people. The Hyksos seem to have been active merchants. They introduced into Egypt a new system of weights and balances. Does this seem to ring a bell of any kind? It kind of makes one wonder who the Hyksos people were. We can, though, be quite sure they were not Egyptian or Israelite.”

 

We are now going to consider some evidence which powerfully suggests the Hyksos were indeed descendants of Cain. I will start by quoting from the article in National Geographic of January, 2001 entitled “Ashkelon Ancient City Of The Sea”, page 78:

 

“As Canaanite Ashkelon prospered, its army grew strong. Historians have long known that around 1650 B.C. a mysterious group of warriors called the Hyksos invaded the Nile Delta and ruled it for a century. No one knew where the Hyksos, which means ‘foreign rulers’ in ancient Egyptian, came from. Recent excavations at Avaris, the Hyksos capital in Egypt, have produced artifacts identical to those found in Ashkelon, leading Stager to propose that the Hyksos were actually Canaanites and that many came from around Ashkelon.

“Even before the Hyksos conquered the delta, the Egyptians were having trouble with the Canaanites. Pharaohs of the 12th dynasty (1938-1755 B.C.) cursed three kings of Ashkelon in so-called execration tests. Scribes would write the names of the kings on ceramic bowls or human figurines, and the pharaoh would smash them to magically destroy their power.”

 

Such an execration was performed by Jeremiah, (Jeremiah 19:10-11), where he took a baked clay bottle, smashed it, and pronounced that Judah and Jerusalem will be broken, never to be whole again. Now the clergy of today claim this broken bottle will be put back together again when they claim the “Jews” returning to Jerusalem is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. That’s a little off the topic, but I thought I would inject that one in here as long as we are speaking of “execrations”. To follow-up on this last quotation concerning the Hyksos, I will quote from The Bible Is History by Ian Wilson, page 39:

 

“As pictorial evidence of how such peoples could and did make tolerated infiltrations, an 8-foot-long tomb painting from this period, found at Beni Hasan, south of Cairo, depicts the arrival at Egypt’s eastern frontier of eight Asiatic men, four women, three children, two donkeys, an ibex and a gazelle. They were apparently part of a group of thirty-seven Hyksos coming to trade in eye make-up. The men’s hair-styles are strongly reminiscent of that of mysterious Ankhu statue. One of the weapons they are carrying is unmistakably a Canaanite duck-bill-shaped axe of the kind that Bietak found in the Tell el-Dab’a graves ...”

 

Little did I know when I was researching about four to five years ago on Satan’s seduction of Eve which I finally put together as Research Papers Proving Two Seedline Seduction Of Eve that the material I found at that time was actually connected with the Hyksos. Had I not run across the book The Bible Is History by Ian Wilson and the article in the January, 2001 issue of National Geographic entitled “Ancient Ashkelon”, I may never have perceived the connection. The following is what I cited in my Research Papers from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, page 782:

 

“KENITES ... meaning (metalworkers, smiths). Clan or tribal name of semi-nomadic peoples of South Palestine and Sinai. The Aramaic and Arabic etymologies of the root gyn show that it has to do with metal and metal work (thus the Hebrew word from this root, ‘lance’). This probably indicates that the Kenites were metal workers, especially since Sinai and Wadi ‘Arabah were rich in highgrade copper ore. W. F. Albright has pointed to the Beni Hassan mural in Egypt (19th century B.C.) as an illustration of such a wandering group of smiths. This mural depicts thirty-six men, women and children in characteristic Semitic dress leading, along with other animals, donkeys laden with musical instruments, weapons and an item which Albright has identified as a bellows. He has further noted that Lemech’s three children (Genesis 4:19-22) were responsible for herds (Jabal), musical instruments (Jubal), and metal work (Tubal-Cain, or Tubal, the smith), the three occupations which seem most evident in the mural.”

 

I underlined the various marks of Cain in the above quote. If you will remember, Cain and his descendants were to become famous as wanderers and vagabonds (tent dwellers). They were to become famous as workers in metal. They were to become famous as musicians. They were to become somewhat involved in cattle. All these traits of Cain can be found in Genesis 4:20-24. These various characteristics have followed Cain (the “Jews”) down to this very day. Neither the National Geographic nor Ian Wilson see the Cain connection with the Hyksos, but W. F. Albright (an accomplished archaeologist and Bible scholar) comprehends the connection very effectively, and is right on the money.

THE HYKSOS’ DUCK-BILLED AXE

 

Being metal workers, the Hyksos developed a very vicious battle weapon called a duck-billed axe. Pharaoh Seqenenre Tao of the 17th Egyptian Dynasty fell victim to such a weapon. In the book Mummies Myth And Magic, pages 84-85 there is a gruesome looking picture of his mummy. There are five nasty gashes in his skull. On pages 84-85 there are these comments:

 

“Seqenenre Tao was a ruler of Upper Egypt, in the south. He rebelled against the foreign Hyksos kings who ruled Egypt from their capital in the delta. That Seqenenre died a violent death is all too apparent from his mummy. Looking at the damage to his skull, one can imagine the ferocity of the blows he must have endured that resulted in his death ... Among the cache of royal mummies found in 1881 at Deir elBahri was the damaged and poorly embalmed body of Seqenenre Tao, a ruler in Luxor during the troubled Seventeenth Dynasty. One of his sons, Kamose, is credited with the final expulsion of the foreign Hyksos rulers; another, called Ahmose, founded the Eighteenth Dynasty and became the first pharaoh of the New Kingdom.”

Ian Wilson in his The Bible Is History, page 41 comments:

 

“As generally agreed by those who have examined his mummy, he died in terrible agony from having been hacked about the head by the very Hyksos, duck-billed type of axe that Bietak and his helpers found in the grave at Tell elDab’a, a type also carried by the seemingly peaceful traders depicted in the Beni Hasan wall-painting.”

 

Again, Ian Wilson speaks of the duck-billed Hyksos type of axe on page 68:

 

“It was this same weapon that is believed to have enabled the Hyksos/Canaanites to gain control so easily of Lower Egypt, until the Egyptians developed their own equivalents and turned the tables on them.”

 

What I like about Ian Wilson’s book is that he equates the Hyksos with the Canaanites. He terms them as “Hyksos/ Canaanites.” He makes it clear what he means when he says on page 38: “... many of the very same texts make clear that these were not any specific ethnic group but instead trouble-making mercenaries of mixed origin.” Here we have a very good example of the description of the Bible passage found in Genesis 15:19-21. Listed among this mixed group are the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perrizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites. The Kenites among these were the descendants of Cain. Canaanite is a general term for many peoples. All these peoples had mixed until the blood of Cain flowed in all their veins. Now in Genesis 15:19-21 are listed ten nations and they race-mixed so much that in Deuteronomy 7:1-2 there are only seven. The Kenites, Kenizzites and Rephaims were completely absorbed by the other nations of this group from which the “Jews” are extracted. The Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible, Abridged by Ralph Earle, page 38, has this to say:

 

“The Kenites. Here are ten nations mentioned, though afterwards reckoned but seven; see Deut. vii. 1; Acts xiii. 19. Probably some of them which existed in Abram’s time had been blended with others before the time of Moses, so that seven only out of the ten, then remained.”

 

In the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 116 we find this about this mixed group of nations spoken of in Genesis 15:19-21:

 

“When the Israelites entered Canaan they found there a very mixed population generally designated by the term Amorite or Canaanite.”

 

The next mention of the descendants of Cain is found in 1st Chronicles 2:55:

 

 “And the families of the scribes which dwelt at Jabez; the Tirathites, the Shimeathites, and Suchathites. These are the Kenites that came of Hemath, the father of the house of Rechab.”

 

Now the whole 2nd chapter of 1st Chronicles, from verse 3 on, is the lineage of Judah. Then tacked on at the end of the chapter (verse 55) is this group of people who were actually descendants of Cain known as Kenites and having no blood connection at all with Judah. A footnote in The Complete Word Study King James Bible, by Spiros Zodhiates, page 1055 says: “They became incorporated into the tribe of Judah.” The word Kenite here is 7017 in the Strong’s Concordance. Actually the numbers for Cain are both 7014 and 7017. You will notice here in 1st Chronicles 2:55, they are called, “the families of the scribes.” They were scribes at this time and they were scribes in Yahshua’s time — they are the same people.

At this time I am going to quote from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume 3, pages 783-784. As I quoted from this same article on the “Kenites” above, this will be the second quote from the same article:

 

“The early monarchy. During this period a significant concentration of Kenites was located in the southern Judean territory. This is clear from 1 Samuel 15:6 cited above and also from David’s relations with them.”

 

Again, a third quote from the same article:

 

“Postexilic references. In 1 Chronicles 2:55 the families of the scribes living at Jabaz are said to be Kenites. Apparently, during the kingdom and exile periods, certain Kenites had given up nomadic smithing and had taken on a more sedentary, but equally honorable profession of scribe.”

 

Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 114, has this to say about the name of the Kenites:

 

“The etymology of the name suggest that they were smiths or artificers, a theory which is supported by their association with the Wadi ‘Arabah, where there were copper deposits which had been worked by the Egyptians since the middle of the 3rd millennium.”

 

Again in the Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, page 181, we have more on the name of the Kenites:

 

“The name Cain is generally taken by Semitic philologists to mean ‘smith’, and regarded as the patronymic of the Kenite clan of smiths.”

 

The Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary On The Whole Bible has this to say on Kenite, page 293:

 

“The families of the scribes — either civil or ecclesiastical officers of the Kenite origin, who are here classified with the tribe of Judah, not as being descended from it, but as dwellers within its territory, and in a measure incorporated with its people.”

 

The Matthew Pool’s Commentary On The Holy Bible has this to say on the Kenites, volume 1, page 778:

 

“The Scribes; either civil, who were public notaries, who wrote and signed legal instruments; or ecclesiastical ... and are here mentioned not as if they were of the tribe of Judah, but because they dwelt among them, and probably were allied to them by marriages, and so in a manner incorporated with them. Which dwelt, or rather, dwelt; Hebrew, were dwellers. For the other translation, which dwelt, may seem to insinuate that these were descendaArialnts of Judah, which they were not; but this translation only signifies cohabitation with them, for which cause they are here named with them.”

 

 

 

HYKSOS RETURN TO CANAAN

 

I do not agree with Ian Wilson when he makes the following comment in his book The Bible Is History, on page 71:

 

“Yet if it was not the Egyptians, Kenyon’s favored candidates — the land-hungry Hyksos/Canaanite invaders returning from their settlement in Egypt — are hardly more plausible. After all, the last thing a group of this kind would do, would be to destroy and abandon a city they had fought for in order to make it a new home. This would be particularly the case with Jericho, which has one of the best water supplies anywhere in Israel, including a natural spring pumping out water at the rate of 173/4 gallons per second.”

 

After the Hyksos were successfully driven out of Egypt, they apparently returned to Canaan. Evidently, one of the places they returned to was Jericho. I believe I would rather favor the view of Kenyon than Wilson, that it was the Hyksos returning to their former position at Jericho. From all the evidence I have seen the Hyksos occupied a very wide area at the zenith of their expansion. If you will remember, I stated at the start of this lesson: “At their height, the Hyksos occupied the land of the Hurrians, Carchemish, Syria, Palestine and much of the northern part of Egypt.” At this point, in their retreat, the Hyksos were probably simply returning to an area they had formerly occupied. I would rather believe the Hyksos knew they needed a strong position and that they rebuilt Jericho to defend themselves from the threat of advancing Egyptians. No doubt, they were still there when the Israelites under Joshua’s leadership finally destroyed the city. Future archaeological evidence may force me to change my position on this, but for lack of better evidence, I tend to believe a scenario of the Hyksos retreating to Jericho fits the overall picture quite well. I will address this issue again later in this lesson. As I said in lesson #37, Pharaoh Amosis did not pursue the Hyksos any great distance after he initially defeated them and drove them out of Egypt. This is what I said in that lesson :

 

“After three years of siege, the Egyptians were finally victorious, slaughtering many, if not nearly all of the Hyksos. No doubt, the Egyptians also took many of the Hyksos as slaves. Thus, the Theban government regained control over trade between Egypt and Palestine. The Egyptians under Amosis did not pursue the Hyksos on into Palestine at this time. It was some 61 years later that Thutmosis III advanced into that area.”

WHERE DID THE HYKSOS COME FROM?

 

For this we will get back to the article “Ashkelon, Ancient City Of The Sea” in the National Geographic of January, 2001, page 74:

 

“The Canaanites, a people who probably originated in eastern Syria, had begun migrating down the Mediterranean coast about seven centuries earlier. ‘They came by the boatload’, says Stager, ‘They had master craftsmen and a clear idea of what they wanted to build — big fortified cities.’

“The Canaanites made Ashkelon a major center of trade, exporting wine and olive oil through the eastern Mediterranean. Stager’s team recently found evidence of the cosmopolitan nature of the Canaanite Ashkelon — part of the 13th-century tablet used to teach scribes languages. The tablet had one column of Canaanite words, which would have matched up with two or three adjacent columns containing equivalent words in different languages. Based on complete tablets found in Syria, linguists suspect that one column would have been a Semitic language called Akkadian, another an unrelated tongue, possibly Hurrian or Hittite.”

 

From the description of Ashkelon above, we can clearly see it was a commercial center. One might describe it as the New York of its day. Essential to trade would be the necessity of understanding and conversing in all the various languages with whom one might be doing the trading. No doubt, these Hyksos/Canaanites were related to the people we know today as “Jews.” For another two references on how the Hyksos invaded Egypt and Pharaoh Amosis 1 finally drove them back out are found and described in the book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun on pages 35-36:

 

“During the Thirteenth Dynasty a force from the area of Palestine and Syria attacked and conquered nothern Egypt. These people, probably Syrians who ruled the eastern Mediterranean, were called Hyksos. It is not known how long the Hyksos ruled nothern and middle Egypt. Some historians estimate as long as sixty-six years ... from the Fourteenth through the Seventeenth Dynasties ... There are varied assessments as to the extent of the destruction and exploitation practiced by the conquerers. Building inscriptions show that the foreigners enjoyed being Egyptianized and even adopted the pharaonic style and titles. No doubt conventional progress remained inert, but the civilization seems to have held together. In fact, the regime at Thebes in the south retained a large measure of independence as the Hyksos were able to extend their rule only to the point about midway between Memphis and Thebes ...

“The glory of liberating Egypt fell to Amosis 1 ... first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty. His reign ushered in the New Kingdom, a period of unparalleled progress and power which was to last almost five hundred years ... This epoch, which also is called the Empire period, encompassed the Eighteenth through the Twentieth Dynasties.”

 

On the same page, probably unknown by the author, he describes very realistically, in the Hyksos, one of the marks of Cain. While Cain was not alone in the talent of music, it was one evidence of his identification:

 

“... Cultural characteristics of the Hyksos which appealed to the Egyptians were adopted by them. In particular they [the Egyptians] were attracted to their musical instruments, the tamborine, oboe, and lyre.”

 

Again, I will quote from The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun on page 37. I partially quoted this one in lesson #32. In that lesson, I wanted to show you how it was probably the Hyksos that Joseph charged the 20% income tax and gave it to the pharaoh at Thebes. I am quoting it here again to give you an overview of the history during the time when Egypt drove the Hyksos back north into Canaan.

 

“Unfriendly lords who opposed Amosis or who refused to support the war of liberation were dealt with forcefully and brutally by the king, who often paused in his war with the Hyksos to defeat or punish rival nomes. This is one of the reasons it took so long to expel the Syrians [Hyksos], a period estimated to be more than twenty years. Finally, after years of siege upon Avaris, Delta stronghold of the Hyksos, they were dislodged and began their retreat to lower Palestine.

“Amosis I, now a great hero of Egypt, was in a position to eliminate the feudal system, and he did. He confiscated the lands and properties of the lords he defeated and stripped them of their peerage. Those who supported him during the long Hyksos war also turned their estates over to the pharaoh in return for retention of their old titles and offices. All of Egypt once again was the personal property of the pharaoh.”

 

Once we begin to understand the Hyksos were the descendants of Cain, these quotations which I have been presenting in this and former lessons come to life and are immensely intriguing. Also, understanding who the Hyksos are makes the Bible story of Genesis 3:15 more compre-hendible. Seeing the animosity develop between pharaohs Seqenenre Tao, Kamose and Amosis I against the Hyksos reminds us of the predicted war that was put in motion between the children of the Serpent and the children of the woman. The next quotation will be from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, page 47:

 

“Although Egyptian inscriptions picture the Hyksos as arrogant and impious, this was no barbarian horde. The Hyksos adjusted to Egyptian ways and commissioned good Egyptian works of art. In particular, they seem to have been active merchants. They introduced in Egypt a new system of weights, a recently discovered stele tells of ‘hundreds’ of Hyksos ships laden with rich cargo at an Egyptian port, and objects bearing the names of Hyksos kings have been found all over the Near East.

“The Hyksos kings at Avaris tolerated the existence of weakened Theban rulers and were content with the firm possession of the Delta and tribute from Thebes. In the course of time the Egyptians at Thebes themselves acquired the new weapons of warfare ..., a Theban king named Kamose found the situation intolerable. His counselors urged him not to provoke a war. He stood in peaceful relations with the Asiatics to the north and the Nubians to the south; although the Egyptians could not claim sway north of Hermopolis in Middle Egypt, they were permitted to pasture their cattle in the Delta; war might endanger the advantages they held. Kamose brushed aside the counsel of his nobles and started a war of liberation ...

“Early New Kingdom ... Kamose succeeded in pushing the Hyksos back into the Delta, but it was reserved for the following king, Ahmose I [Amosis I], to expel the Hyksos, reunite Egypt, and thus start the Eighteenth Dynasty ... After three campaigns, Ahmose captured Avaris. The war then shifted to Palestine, where the town of Sharuhen was besieged for three years before it fell. The clear implication is that the Hyksos fell back upon their homeland in Asia. For a few generations the new dynasty was too busy with the political reorganization of Egypt to undertake more than occasional raids into Palestine-Syria.”

 

THE HYKSOS-JERICHO CONNECTION

 

Next, I will show you some more evidence that when the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt by Amosis I, they evidently returned to Jericho. I will now quote from Wonders Of The Past, volume 2, page 1218:

 

“The expansion and elaborate fortification of the city [Jericho] at this time indicates a period of relative prosperity, and the suggestion is borne out by numerous ‘finds’ both in the city and in the necropolis. The art is that of the Hyksos period, during which Egypt itself was overrun and governed by foreign people of that name; and it is evident that Jericho profited from the success of the Hyksos in their wars. Names of Hyksos leaders are found upon seals both in the tombs and the palace area of the city, suggesting that some of these personages both resided and died there. On the slopes below the palace, which occupied a dominating position in the middle of the city, overlooking the spring, a vast complex of store-rooms came into being at the same time, stocked with grain-bins in which charred remains of barley, oats, millet and sesame seem to be recognizable. Sixty-eight such storerooms were examined layer after layer down to their foundations. Not all were stacked with grain jars, but all formed part of a vast emporium far surpassing the resources and requirements of the local ‘king’ of Jericho — indeed, quite a number of jars had been sealed after the fashion of the age in the name of Hyksos chieftains. It seems clear that Jericho served as a base for the Hyksos invasion of Egypt as well as for the administration of the area, and that the storerooms uncovered in this excavation were used for military stores as well as for the royal treasury of the period.”

 

If the above is true, we can begin to see the importance of the Israelites under Joshua destroying Jericho. For more, showing Cain’s marks on the Hyksos, I would like to now take some excerpts from a book entitled A Short History Of Ancient Egypt by T. G. H. James, pages 93-96:

 

“Immigrants trickled steadily into the Delta and into Upper Egypt. Many were craftsmen, in particular metal workers, and their skills were welcomed. In addition to individuals and families, large groups seem to have seized the opportunity of entering Egypt, and over the years powerful tribal communities were built up, especially in the Eastern Delta. Their leaders were called in Egyptian hikau-khasut, ‘chieftains of foreign desert countries’, and this designation became debased into the name Hyksos, used by Manetho.

“According to later tradition, the Hyksos rulers were ruthless destroyers who led hordes of invading foreigners throughout Egypt, looting temples, massacring the inhabitants, overthrowing native culture, and imposing an alien regime ... the assumption of control seems to have been gradual and not the result of simple invasion. By about 1720 BC the Asiatics in the Eastern Delta were sufficiently organized to set up a capital at Avaris ... it is unlikely the Hyksos ever exercised more than a tacit sovereignty over the south ... It seems that the Hyksos tried to behave like Egyptian rulers. Their god was Egyptian; they used Egyptian titles and put their names in cartouches; they built Egyptian-style buildings and appropriated Egyptian statues for their own use; they also appear to have fostered traditional Egyptian culture.”

 

You now have the best of my documentation that the Hyksos were the descendants of Cain. You will have to critique this information for yourself and decide its validity. If you have any information on this subject, please share it with me.

 

/pspan style=span style=/pcenter/span

This is my thirty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourth year of publication. Since the time I completed my thirty-eighth letter for June, there continues to be more information in the way of archaeology being found concerning Egypt. The latest production on television was entitled Egypt Beyond The Pyramids on the History Channel. I found it very interesting when they portrayed Ramesses II The Great with an oversized Hittite hooked nose. This background relationship has been substantiated by information I have presented in past letters. If you have a copy of Howard B. Rand’s Primo-genesis, you can turn to plate 11 at the end of the book, and it will show that both Ramesses I and Ramesses II (The Great) of the Nineteenth Dynasty were related to Esau through Duke Amalek whose mother was Timna (a wife) to Eliphaz from Adah, one of the Horite-Hittite wives of Esau. I don’t know where Rand got his documentation on this, but it sure fits the overall picture. With Ramesses II having that big oversized hooked nose, we don’t have to guess as to what Esau’s non-Semitic wives looked like. This is what was said concerning Ramesses II The Great by one of the narrators on the recent television program Egypt Beyond The Pyramids: “Anybody who has seen a photograph of the mummy of Ramesses [meaning Ramesses II, The Great], or even in fact a representation of him in Egyptian art, recognizes the fact that he was shown with a very prominent nose. And that might be one of the anatomical features we could look for in trying to determine relationships.” While Rand believes that Merenptah, son Ramesses II, was the Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus, he was probably much too late in history to fit that role. Also, because there was approximately four hundred years between Esau and Ramesses II, there would have to have been several generations in-between. If you have a copy of the book Mummies Myth And Magic, by Christine El Mahdy, turn to page 89 and see an X-ray of Ramesses II (The Great) mummy’s huge, conspicuous, oversized and unmistakable hooked nose.

 

NOTE ABOUT SOME OF THE QUOTATIONS I USE 

It has come to my attention that there are some delusory (misleading) premises concerning some of the materials I quote from time to time. I would like to make it clear, I do not agree entirely 100% with every quote I use. Usually there are one or more points in the quotation which I want to zero in upon. If you have been taking every quotation I use as being infallible truth, this is not the impression I wanted to foster. I am sure, if I could somehow comprehend how my readers are taking each individual thing I am writing, I could adjust for it and make my composing much clearer. I believe the following very helpful letter from one of my proofreaders will serve as an inspiration to everyone concerning this:

 

“29 May 01, Dear Mr. Emahiser, Hello! I probably should have had a letter concerning the Philistines off to you last week. I did spend quite a bit of time reading what little I could about them then, but still haven’t accomplished all that I would like to on the subject. However the need for me to do this presently is not an urgent one, since several key passages from the Bible, along with one of your recent newsletters, should be all that is needed in order for me to convey the message that I’d like to.

“I am somewhat disadvantaged, not being able to save copies of any of the material that I proofread for you, but I’m certain that I made a short note concerning the Philistines when I saw a quote from a source which used the term ‘Canaanite-Philistines’, on at least one occasion. I felt that this term was quite misleading since, although Canaanites lived among the Philistines, the Philistines surely were not Canaanites.

“In your January Newsletter, #33, on the last page you presented information concerning the Philistines and Caphtor, much of it is from H. Rand and new to me, which I found to be quite enlightening and certainly not disagreeable even though the actual evidence is quite meager. Not much is said in the Bible concerning the origin of the Philistines outside of Gen. 10 (I Chr. 1:12), but this is also true of the other tribes which descended from Adam, although those which we know better in secular history we tend not to question, such as the Medes, the Assyrians, or the Ionians.

“Abraham ‘sojourned in the Philistine’s land many days’, and was treated justly by Abimelech (Gen. 21:22-34), who also treated Isaac fairly (Gen. 26:1-18). Samson married a Philistine, whose family was living in Timnath, a city in either Judah (Josh. 15:57) or Dan (Josh. 19:43), there were two cities of this name and I haven’t tried to determine which. The marriage was ‘of YHWH’ (Jdgs. 14:4) who is not the author of error and wouldn’t have Samson marry a kike! Would he? Was Abimelech a kike? [But parents disapproved.]

“Although David in his Psalms expresses fear of the Philistines, he refers to them as both Adam (i.e. 56:11) and Enosh, and seems to have been treated fairly by the King of Gath (1 Sam. 22 through 29) and was even given a city by him (1 Sam. 27:1-11). Goliath was probably called a ‘Philistine’ because he was in their army, but Goliath was actually a Rephaim-giant! See not I Sam. 17, where the famous account is given, but II Samuel 21:18-20 and 23:13, which discuss the ‘valley of Rephaim’ and the ‘sons of the giant (Repha.)’ These and other ‘Canaanites’ living among the Philistines are probably the ‘enosh’ of David’s Psalms (Philistines are mentioned in 56: Title, 60:8, 83:7, 87:4. and 108:9). I Chron. 20 confirms II Samuel 21.

“In Isaiah 11:11-13 we see that YHVH, in recovering a remnant of His people, certain of them will ‘fly upon the shoulders (LXX: ‘ships’) of the Philistines toward the west.’ Often in the prophets the Philistines are described as ‘the remnant of.’ One of the most telling verses to me is Zechariah 9:6, which states ‘And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.’ Which surely indicates to me that there were Philistines around in Zechariah’s time, over four centuries after David, who were not ‘bastards’! Yes, this is the same word ‘mamzer’ used in Deut. 23:2.

“Twice in the LXX ‘Caphtor’ was translated ‘Cappadocia’ (Deut. 2:23, Amos 9:7) and once ‘Caphtorim’ is ‘Cappadocians’ (Deut. 2:23). In Gen. 10:14 ‘Caphtorim’ reads ‘Gaphtoreim’ and I Chr. 1:12 ‘Chaphoreim’ in the Alexandrine MS. (the passage is wanting in the Vaticanus MS.) In Jer. 47:4 where the A.V. has ‘of Caphtor’, the LXX has ‘of the isles’! I only write this here to show you the confusion caused by the LXX on this topic. In many cases which mention the Philistines, the LXX often simply has ‘ᾀλλόφυλος’ or ‘other tribes’, rather than ‘φυλιστιείμ’ or Philistines.

“This leads me to discuss the connection between the words ‘Philistine’ and ‘Palestine’ which I see mentioned quite often. There is none! Anyone who purports that the Greek word ‘παλαιστινη’ (our ‘Palestine’) could be derived from ‘Philistine’, a strictly English word for the Hebrew ‘Peleshet’ (6429, 30) is a fool! Yes, the Greek παλαιστινη and Latin Palaestina existed long before the apparent invention of ‘Philistine’ by English Bible translators. I will not go into all of the supposed sources of the Greek word. It was clearly applied by the Greeks to an area much wider than ‘Philistia.’ I will say this, I believe that it came from two Greek words, ‘παλαι’ meaning ‘old’ and ‘στεῖνος’ meaning ‘confined space.’ The ‘strait’ in Isa. 49:20 is ‘στενός’ in the LXX, ‘στεῖνος’ being Ionic Greek.

“The mainstream think that the Philistines came from the Aegean, or maybe were Greeks. Of course they have it confused, as they do everything else, but this indicates to me that racially the Philistines would be just what I would expect them to be, ‘European’! This further buttresses [supports] the true Biblical account.

“As you know, the Phoenicians are often also called ‘Canaanites.’ In the ‘Persian-Phoenician’ period many of them surely were, and we have discussed this at length. In the National Geographic article that you sent me about Ashkelon, there is one very telling statement on page 79. They say ‘we have an idea what the Canaanites looked like ... They had Semitic features ...’ Ha! They know not what they admit to! To them ‘Semitic’ and ‘Jew’ are synonymous! Surely the Phoenicians of Carthage, Spain, etc. and the Philistines, along with the Greeks, had not Semitic, but Aryan features.

“I can consume much paper picking on statements in the National Geographic article that you sent me. I would hope that there is no need to. I will say only that the ‘Philistine’ period at Ashkelon (1175 B.C.), according to the article, is not far in time from the presence of the Hebrew Israelites in the area, i.e. Judges 1:18 (was the ‘valley’ in 1:19 that same ‘valley of Rephaim’?) The Canaanites certainly did not have an alphabet before the Hebrew-Israelites came into the area, only cuneiform was found there up to that time, to the best of my knowledge, and we also discussed this last year during our Phoenician discourse.

“Note further that Philistines were not mentioned in either Exod. 34:11-16 or Deut. 7:1-3! And with that, I have probably said all that I can on the subject at this time. I will offer only one more thought: We may never know for certain, but the Philistines were probably merely governed by, or possibly only paid homage to, the Kenites during the Hyksos period. Certainly they were in Palestine before it began, and then survived it without too much damage. Possibly with none!

“So in closing, I only recommend that your readers not be led to believe that the term ‘Canaanite-Philistines’ appearing in certain quotes in any way implies an endorsement of the idea that somehow the Philistines may have been Canaanites. YHVH Bless ...”

 

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this person, we don’t want to get various peoples mixed-up with one another, for there is already too much confusion along these lines as it is. The only point I would take issue with in this letter was the use of the word “Semitic.” We really must qualify this word when we use it. Many use the term to mean “Jew.” Others use it to designate true Israelites as being descendants of Shem. In my mind, pure Semitic and Aryan would be the same thing, and my proofreader informed me this is what he meant. I have to admit this letter has changed some of my thinking and cleared up some things for me. I also hope that it has helped you.

My main point in quoting the Ashkelon article from National Geographic was to pull together the Hyksos with the Kenites as the descendants of Cain. I might point out that Eustace Mullins made a very clear distinction between the Phoenicians and the Canaanites in his book The Curse Of Canaan page 25 where he writes:

 

“Another contributing factor is the sudden disappearance of the names ‘Canaan’ and ‘Canaanites’ from all historical records after 1200 B.C. How did this come about? It was very simple. They merely changed their name... Chambers Encyclopedia notes that ‘After 1200 B.C. the name of Canaanites vanished from history. They changed their name to Phoenician.’ Thus the most notorious and most hated people on earth received a new lease on life. The barbaric Canaanites had disappeared. The more civilized Phoenicians, seemingly harmless merchant folk, took their place. Having obtained a monopoly on purple dye, which was highly prized throughout the ancient world, the Canaanites advertised their control over this product by calling themselves Phoenicians, from phoenicia (phoenikiea), the Greek word for purple.”

 

As we can see from this, apparently the Canaanites assumed the good name of the Phoenicians, which is typical of their hiding under a false appearance, which they are still doing today. Eustace Mullins further describes the confusion of not being able to recognize the difference between a Canaanite and a true member of the Tribe of Judah, page 27:

 

“There are many people who can agree that the kings and leaders of the Western nations are descended from the tribe of Judah, but they fail to recognize an important fact, which is entirely omitted in the King James version of the Bible, that there were three branches of the tribe of Judah. Those who lump all the descendants of the tribe of Judah together do not realize that there was a tainted branch. There were the families of Pharez and Zarah, Judah’s pure bred sons out of Tamar, and there was a third branch, Judah’s descendants from a Canaanite mother, Shuah, who were known ever afterwards as ‘the cursed Shelanites.’ Tamar was the daughter of Aram, the youngest son of Shem. Shuah called Tamar’s sons bastards because they had been born out of wedlock, while the twins claimed to be the rightful heirs of Judah because they were of pure-blooded stock, the Adamite strain. From the Shelanites descended thirty-one cursed tribes of Canaanites of Judea and Samaria, including the Sepharvaims, a name which the Canaanites had adopted for deceptive purposes.”

 

It’s simply amazing, we have people even in Israel Identity today who try to claim the Canaanites as “God’s chosen people.” They are the ones who attempt to repudiate the Two Seedline doctrine. Pin them down, and they will proclaim the scribes and Pharisees were true descendants of Jacob-Israel. Ted R. Weiland makes this claim in his book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? page 94 where he says: “The seedliners teach that the Pharisees were Cainites of the seedline of Satan, whereas Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37, Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and 7:2-52 declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of seed line of Jacob/Israel.”

 

Evidently, Ted R. Weiland never read Josephus Wars, 2:8:2 where it says: “For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.”

 

From this, it would appear that essentially of these three sects mentioned, only the Essenes could claim to be pureblooded Israelites. Why didn’t Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Jews by birth? By making such a statement, Ted R. Weiland is also claiming the half-breed sons of Shuah and Judah, the Shelanites are true-blooded Israelites, and charges a fee for his misinformation.

This is not the only erroneously information Ted R. Weiland advances. Weiland has very little to say of the Sephardic Jews, and what he does say is mostly in error. In his book “God’s Covenant People, Yesterday, Today And Forever”, Weiland quotes (page 68) a Jewish source, James Gaffe from his book “The American Jews” which says this:

 

“... the early Sephardic settlers for example, left practically no descendants who are still Jewish.... they disappeared not because they intermarried but because they refused to intermarry - and so, without sufficient choice among their own, they remained unmarried and died out. ...choosing extinction rather than assim by Christine El Mahdy, turn to page 89 and see an X-ray of Ramesses II (The Great) mummfont-family: used in Deut. 23:2.ilation.”

 

Now, I will back up to a note by Weiland: “Note that he (Gaffe) considers the Sephardic Jew extinct.” At this point, one must understand Weiland’s motive for quoting this “Jew.” Weiland is attempting to prove that the “Jews” of today are only “Jews” by religion. By doing this, he tries to avoid any connection whatsoever with a genetic Satanic seedline. But, in so-doing, he backs himself into a corner. Weiland also tries to trace the “Jew’s” lineage back to Esau in order to discredit any idea that they are descendants of Cain. By Weiland’s endeavor to prove the Sephardic extinct, he is also implying the Esau-Edomite-Jews are extinct. If the Sephardic-Esau-Edomite-Jews are extinct, why does Ted R. Weiland even make an issue out of it? I will now present evidence that the Sephardic “Jews” still exist. The following is a review of what I have written before concerning this:

 

THE SEPHARDIM ARE STILL AROUND! In the book OUR CROWD, ‘The Great Jewish Families of New York’, pages 29-30, and I will have to paraphrase the story: Sometime in the 1650s a ship (“bark”, 3 masted sailing ship, St. Charles) dubbed the “Jewish Mayflower” brought twenty-three Sephardic Jews from the culture of medieval Spain and some of the great Sephardic families of New York descended from the “St. Charles” arrivals which included the Hendrickses, Cardozos, Baruchs, Lazaruses, Nathans, Solises, Gomezes, Lopezes, Lindos, Lombrosos & Seixases. Check these names and you can know, without any reservations, the Sephardic “Jews” are still around. On page 31, it tells how the Sephardic and German (Ashkenazi) Jews of New York began to “intermarry.” It was the Sephardic that were the old Canaanite-Jews that came from Palestine, as Eustace Mullins in his book The Curse Of Canaan so ably describes. They had the blood of Cain, Esau and the race of Rephaim (fallen angels). If the Sephardic Jews are extinct, as Ted R. Weiland implies, there is no longer an Esau-Edom! Why, then, even make an issue of Esau-Edom if this is the case? This is just one example of the many spurious statements people such as Weiland, Jones, Bruggeman and Weisman make in their presentations to mislead and confuse the issues. Anything but anything to destroy the ministries of Bertrand L. Comparet and Wesley A. Swift! I further said the following:

 

I could make long quotes from the 7 volume History of the Jews by Graetz; The Story of the Jew by Levinger; the 2 volume History of the Jews by Henry H. Milman; History and Destiny of the Jews by Josef Kastein and A History of the Jews by Abram Leon Sachar that the Sephardic “Jews” still exist. As I have now quoted from the book Our Crowd by Stephen Birmingham, let’s review what we need to know about the Khazar kingdom that accepted the religion of Judaism under king Bulan in 740 A.D. Upon doing so, they brought in Sephardic Rabbis from Babylon and the race-mixing began between the Cain-Satanic-Jews and the Khazars infusing them with the Satanic bloodline, which they probably already previously had. In 960 A.D. the Khazar Jews made contact with the Sephardic Jews in Spain and more race-mixing between the two branches of Jewry ensued, further spreading the Satanic bloodline. From 720 A.D. until today has given the “Jews” of Ashkenazim and Sephardim 1,278 years to completely mix the Cain Satanic blood among them.

 

TED R. WEILAND GOOFS IN HIS BOOK. Ted R. Weiland, Stephen E. Jones, James Bruggeman and Charles Weisman are doing their best (or maybe their worst) to make Esau-Edom the only enemy of Israel, and prove that the Ashkenazim-Jews are just converts to the Jewish religion, and therefore not of the Satanic race of Cain. They, in doing this, make our present day problems seem like a quarrel between two brothers, Jacob and Esau. Weiland does this when he speaks of Esau-Edom on pages 309-311 in his book God’s Covenant People, Yesterday, Today And Forever, as I said before. Weiland speaks of the Ashkenazi Khazar Jews on pages 59-74; 93-94; 126; 140 and 327 making it appear like a race of people who just happened to accept the Jewish religion. By doing this, Weiland and others attempt to completely avoid the “Satanic Seedline” doctrine.

 

By this time, it should be becoming obvious why I quoted my proofreader’s letter to you. I would highly suggest that each one of you find the National Geographic for January, 2001, and read and appraise the article on “Ancient Ashkelon” for your self. The origin of the city seems to antedate the time of Abraham, so my feeling is that the city may have been built by a descendant of Shem, and later occupied by the Canaanite-Hyksos. With the evidence I presented in letters #37 and #38, I believe we are safe by using such a term.

There is one more thing which should be addressed here. In ancient times the main mode of transportation was by water. It doesn’t take a lot of reckoning to understand that from northern Egypt and lower Palestine all the east-west trade had to use this geographic area as a land-bridge between India and the western Mediterranean. There were land routes, but water was much easier and less costly. There is evidence in Egypt of huge cedar trees being transported from the Lebanon area. You simply do not ship such cargo with camels overland. But, smaller cargo could make its way to this land-bridge by water and then be taken overland to a port on the other side and then continue on its way by water again. Once one can put all of this together in one’s mind, one can begin to realize that this geographic area was one of the most valuable pieces of real-estate in the entire ancient world at that period. Once we begin to see this, we can understand why the Hyksos and other groups wanted so badly to control this particular critical land area. To such a world environment was born our Patriarchs and their descendants. No doubt, in this vitally important area, there were caravans containing camels by the hundreds. Not only that, but there must have been watering, food and rest stations every few miles along the way. In such surroundings, Joseph was sold into Egypt. It should also be pointed out, people in those days didn’t usually venture out and travel by themselves. For safety, they stayed on the established routes and traveled with the caravans. It was either do it this way or take a small army along for protection. With this in mind, we can see it was no small venture for Joseph’s brothers to go to Egypt to buy grain during the seven years of famine.

LANGUAGES USED AT THAT TIME

 

Not only do we have to understand the commercial interaction between the ancient peoples of that time, but we must comprehend the various languages spoken by them. For instance, we know that Moses was raised in the House of Pharaoh and trained as a scribe. From this knowledge, we can see it would have been necessary for Moses to not only write and speak in Egyptian, but also all the other languages the Egyptians had commercial intercourse with during his time. You can see then, becoming a scribe during that period was no small task. Moses, Being trained as a scribe would have required Moses to both write and speak in several of the ancient languages. Once we understand this, we can begin to comprehend that Moses, because of these skills, was a very important person to become Yahweh’s man to lead Israel. We can also see why Moses was highly qualified to write the first five books of what we know today as the Bible. To give you some idea of what was demanded of a scribe in Moses’ day, I will now quote some excerpts from the book Civilization Before Greece And Rome by H. W. F. Saggs, chapter five, pages 98-104:

 

“... In both Babylonia and Egypt literacy was held in honour, and from both regions the scribes have left us self-admiring descriptions of the importance and dignity of the scribal office. Literary proficiency was so highly regarded that even kings claimed it, or had it attributed to them. Shulgi, for example, a notable Sumerian king of just after 2100 BC, spoke proudly of his literacy: ‘As a youth, I studied the scribal art in the Tablet-House, from the tablets of Sumer and Akkad; No one of noble birth could write a tablet as I could ...’

“Literacy was a claim equally made in Egypt, both for high officials and for kings, even before the middle of the third millennium. The chief executive of the Third Dynasty king Zoser, the man responsible for building the Step Pyramid, called himself ‘Chief of the King’s Scribes.’ Sneferu, the first king of the Fourth Dynasty soon after 2600 BC, was also literate, for a text speaks of him writing on papyrus ... From over a millennium latter, a temple scene at Abydos shows a prince holding a papyrus scroll, and describes him as ‘reading out praises’; the prince in question later became the great pharaoh Ramesses II (1290-1224 [BC]). Scribal equipment figured among the contents of the tomb of Tutankhamun (c. 1340 BC), and Ramesses IV made a special boast of having studied all the texts of the House of Life (pir-ankh, academy of the scribes).

“To be a scribe in Egypt was to hold a position of respect. High officials, such as a chief magistrate, might be content simply to use the title ‘scribe.’ A Nineteenth Dynasty text recommends the profession of the scribe, and tells how a man of that kind goes out looking sleek, dressed in white, and finds himself greeted by men of standing.

“The original creative impulses of the civilizations of Egypt and Mesopotamia did not depend upon writing, but writing quickly followed as one of the consequences of those impulses, and the consolidation and extension of those emerging civilizations rested heavily upon scribal activity. This was not only a matter of recording literature and historical records for posterity; many aspects of those societies could not have operated at all without the services of scribes. Public works and taxation required census lists and other records; the army could not function efficiently without trained personal to work out its ration requirements; building operations needed scribes to calculate such things as the quantity of earth to be removed, or the amount of stone required and the sizes and shapes to which it was to be cut, or the manpower necessary to move an obelisk: these necessitated instruction in arithmetic and geometry. Communication between the king and his officials, upon which the administration of the state depended, was mainly by letters dictated to scribes; business contracts and court decisions had to be recorded in writing; and international diplomacy required written treaties. An Egyptian scribe might find himself sent on a mission to Syria, and to cope with this he would require a detailed knowledge of the geography of the country ...

“In Egypt the scribal craft was predominately a profession for men, but there are occasional references to female scribes. We also know that princesses learnt to write. We have no precise information about the age at which scribal education began but boys were already attending ‘the teaching room’ (i.e. school) while they were still heavily dependent upon their mothers. We deduce this from a text called The Maxims of Ani, which exhorts a man to be good to his mother because, after suckling him as a baby for three years and clearing up his messes, she then put him to ‘the teaching room’ where he was taught to write. This suggests an age of perhaps as young as four and certainly not more than six ... The elementary scribal training lasted for four years, after which the trainee scribe went on to more advanced work. Teachers kept their pupils to their tasks by the sanction of corporal punishment; it was said that ‘a lad’s ear is on his back and he listens when he is beaten.’

“Once settled in their schools, students had to cope with two main tasks: one was to learn certain ancient literary works by heart, and the other was to become competent in writing to a degree at which they could compose letters and official documents. Learning by heart was achieved by the class members reciting aloud in chorus ... The other type of practice material consisted of passages from literary works which had their origin in the Middle Kingdom (beginning of the second millennium), and were in a form of Egyptian which by the time of the New Kingdom was no longer the living tongue. To help the trainee scribe master these, there was instruction in ancient grammar, of which relics remain on hieratic ostraca bearing lists of verbal paradigms. Some of these literary texts were manifestly designed to heighten the motivation and increase the self-esteem and group solidarity of the trainee scribes ...

“Major states needed communication with other countries, and this required interpreters. Some Egyptian scribes must certainly have been trained for this; there is little direct evidence from earlier periods, but for the first millennium we know that Egyptian king Psammetichus sent boys to live with Greek settlers in the Delta to train them as interpreters. We also find mention of the teaching of Egyptian to Nubians, Syrians, and other foreigners. Interpreters accompanied the army, and from the Eighteenth Dynasty, there were Greek interpreters at the Pharaoh’s court.

“In the second millennium, the language of international communication was Akkadian cuneiform, used far beyond the region in which it was a language of everyday speech. It was, for example, used in correspondence between Egypt and the Hittites. Either both countries had scribes highly competent in Akkadian cuneiform, or (less probably) both courts employed bilingual Babylonian scribes. One letter to the Pharaoh, exceptionally written in Hittite, addressed the recipient scribe directly and requests a reply in the same language, indicating that some Egyptian scribes could both read and write Hittite. A literary composition of the thirteenth century attests the knowledge of foreign languages amongst Egyptian scribes ...”

This is my fortieth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourth year of publication. At the time I am preparing this teaching letter, various people have been inquiring of me what my opinion is of the curious new calendar which Pete Peters is promoting. I would advise anyone not to be gullible, but prove all things as we are instructed to do in Scripture. I believe it would be prudent to exercise some caution on so drastic a proposition. I will tell you this: I have to question anything that might come out of the Pete Peters camp, as we are admonished not to appoint any of the “mixed multitude” to give us guidance. It was the “mixed multitude” which followed us out of Egypt that gave us all kinds of problems, and we still have a “mixed multitude” with us today. As for Israel’s calendar, it is spelled out quite clearly in the Bible. There was no problem with it in the time of Yahshua, for He was the Passover Lamb, and was sacrificed exactly at the proper time. If I ever find the time, I intend to put together a study and address this matter, but for now, the subject of Two Seedline is paramount. According to the proponents of this new, strange calendar, “God will kill you if you don’t keep it” (shades of the Babylonian priesthood). It is my considered opinion that Pete Peters has lost most of his credibility by criticizing the Two Seedline doctrine, and now he is desperately trying to gain it back by this spectacular, new revelation.

In my last teaching letter (#39), I discussed at some length the requirements of the ancient scribes. We found it was a vocation where one had to be able to write and speak in several languages. It was discovered that a scribe was usually trained from his mother’s arms, sometimes as early as four to six years old. From this, we can see in the case of Moses, he was practically assigned to be a scribe for the Pharaoh’s household as soon as he was out of diapers. Not only this, but Moses was probably in line to become a pharaoh himself. This may seem like a brash statement, but I believe the Bible bears this out. Hebrews 11:23-27 says: 

“23 By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment. 24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; 25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of Yahweh, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 26 Esteeming the reproach of the anointed [his brethren] greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 27 By faith he forsook Egypt, not fearing the wrath of the king: for he endured, as seeing him who is invisible.”

 

It should be noted the translators used the word “Christ” in verse 26. In this particular verse, it should have been his Israelite brethren as in I Chronicles 16:22 and Psalm 105:15. Acts 7:20 helps fill in some of the account of Moses’ scribal training:

 

“20 In which time Moses was born, and was exceeding fair, and nourished up in his father’s house three months: 21 And when he was cast out, Pharaoh’s daughter took him up, and nourished him for her own son. 22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.”

 

It should be pointed out that the only reason for such extensive training in Egypt, which would include scribal training, would be for the purpose of placing him on Egypt’s throne. When we begin to understand this, we then begin to comprehend what it was that Moses gave up in order to protect his afflicted brethren. And, did his brethren understand? No, just like today, they were ready to turn him over to the Egyptian authorities (v. 25). But a further question must be asked: what Egyptian pharaoh’s daughter would have had the incentive to rescue and adopt Moses as her own son? And, what was her reason for doing this?

 

It’s simply amazing; we read these various passages in the Bible, but don’t seem to be able to recognize what is being said. For instance, we read in Acts 7:20, (quoted above), that Moses “was exceeding fair” and never consider the implications. This is saying that Moses was a WHITE child. And, yet, the television evangelists and mainstream churchianity proclaim Moses was a swarthy complexioned “Jew.” All you hear them say is: “Abraham the Jew”; “Isaac the Jew”; “Jacob the Jew”; “Joseph the Jew”; “Moses the Jew”; “Joshua the Jew”; “Samuel the Jew”; “Jeremiah the Jew”; “Isaiah the Jew”; “Ezekiel the Jew”; “Daniel the Jew”; “Hosea the Jew”; “John the Baptist, the Jew”; “Paul the Jew” and “Jesus the Jew.”

 

While we are on the topic of the “Jews”, let’s see what the Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament has to say about the term “Jew”; the Greek word #2453 on page 306:

 

“... The apostle John, inasmuch as agreeably to the state of things in his day he looked upon the Jews as a body of men hostile to Christianity, with whom he had come to see that both he and all true Christians had nothing in common as respects religious matters, even in his record of the life of Jesus not only himself makes a distinction between the Jews and Jesus, but ascribes to Jesus and his apostles language in which they distinguish themselves from the Jews, as though the latter sprang from an alien race: John 11:8; 13:33. And those who (not only at Jerusalem, but also in Galilee, cf. 6:41, 52) opposed his divine Master and his Master’s cause,— esp. the rulers, priests, members of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees,— he does not hesitate to style οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι, since the hatred of these leaders exhibits the hatred of the whole nation towards Jesus: [John] 1:19; 2:18,20; 5:10, 15 sq. 18; 6:41, 52; 7:1, 11, 13; 9:18, 22; 10:24, 31, 33 ...”

 

A word of caution: While The Complete Word Study Dictionary of the New Testament by Spiros Zodhiates is quite accurate on most Greek words, he doesn’t do a very good job on #2453, “Jew.” Another word of caution: Just because a person purports to be Israel Identity is no indication that he understands what I have just quoted from the Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament concerning the “Jews”, #2453. Ted R. Weiland is a case in point. Ted R. Weiland in his booklet Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? erroneously tries to prove the scribes and Pharisees were true Israelites on page 68 where he makes the following statement:

 

“Seedliners claim that because the Pharisees and their progenitors were charged with the murders of all the righteous from Abel to Zacharias, they cannot be Israelites but instead must be Cainites of the seed of Satan. The truth is that because the Pharisees and their forefathers were indicted for the murder of the righteous martyrs, they cannot be Cainites but instead must be Israelites.”

 

On page 94, Ted R. Weiland continues to try to establish his false premise when he says:

 

“The seedliners teach that the Pharisees were Cainites of the seed line of Satan, whereas Matthew 3:7-8, 27:6-10, John 7:19, 8:28-37, Acts 4:5-10, 24-35 and 7:2-52 declare that the Pharisees were Judahites of the seed line of Jacob/ Israel.”

 

Evidently, Ted R. Weiland never read Josephus, Wars 2:8: 2. Josephus makes it quite clear the Pharisees and Sadducees, for the most part, were not necessarily Israelites of the Tribe of Judah by birth. Let’s now read Josephus, Wars 2:8:2:

 

“For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of whom are the Pharisees; of the second the Sadducees; and the third sect, who pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essens. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.” [Essenes spelled Essens here.]

 

It would appear from this that of these three mentioned, only the Essenes could essentially claim to be pure blooded Israelites. Why didn’t Josephus mention the Pharisees and Sadducees as being Jews [Judah] by birth? Although there were a couple of true Israelites on the Sanhedrin who were of the Pharisee sect, as a whole, the Pharisees were not Israelites by birth. I made a copy of Josephus’ Wars 2:8:2 and sent it to Weiland, but he is being strangely quiet about it.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA

 

We left off with our step by step walk with Israel’s sojourn in Egypt at the end of letter #37 with Tuthmosis III. With this pharaoh, we are getting a little ahead of our story, as we really need to elaborate more on his predecessor, the female Pharaoh, Hatshepsut. This is the lady that would have had all the incentive for adopting Moses into the Pharaoh’s household. I covered the lady Pharaoh Hatshepsut to a great extent in both lessons #32 and #37. In lessons #31 and 32, I explained how Moses’ name was derived from the line of pharaohs whose names ended in “mosis”, like in Kamose, Amosis, Tuthmosis I, Tuthmosis II, Tuthmosis III etc. Surely this is not just a coincidence, for several historians have observed this similarity of names. As Moses was adopted by pharaoh’s daughter, surely he would receive the pharaoh’s family name. Hatshepsut’s unique position in Egyptian history makes her a very good candidate for being the one rescuing Moses from a watery grave.

If you will remember, Hatshepsut was the last of a line having purely royal blood in the House of Pharaoh. We can also be pretty sure that she was of the line of Shem. If you will also remember, the Bible narrative relates that the Egyptian pharaoh gave Joseph his wife. We also know that Joseph’s wife was of the House of Shem, for her father was a priest of On. On was called “Beth Shemesh”, meaning House of Shem. Unless the pharaoh that gave Joseph his wife was also of the House of Shem, he wouldn’t have had the authority to do so. At this point, I will relate to you what one of my proofreaders pointed out in one of his letters to me on this subject:

 

“Concerning Beth-Shemesh, and we may have discussed this, and from your letters certainly you see it, but I am compelled to discuss it again here. ‘Shemesh’, I am convinced is surely a double-entendre. For the word means ‘sun’ in Hebrew, obvious from the Greek translation ‘Heliopolis’ which means ‘city (polis) of the sun (helios)’, but also, and just as well in palaeo Hebrew, means ‘people of Shem.’ For the people of Shem are the ‘light of the world’ (Matt. 5:14), and just like the ancient Pharaohs, Yahshua is represented as the source of light, Rev. 21:23; John 1:4-9; 8:12; Rev. 22:16.

“About this Greek word ἥλιος, helios, Strong’s 2246 ‘hay-lee-os’ which means ‘the sun’, I am certain it is simply a version of the following Hebrew words: 1966 heylel ‘hay-lale’ from 1984 ... the morning star:— lucifer. 1984 halal ‘haw-lal’ a primitive root ‘... to shine ...’ which of course gives us ‘halo’, ‘halogen’, etc.”

 

From this explanation, we can see that the city of On, later called “Heliopolis” by the Greeks actually means the “the city of the sun.” We can also see, although it was called this, it was in no way the worship of the “sun” as was the case in some pagan religions. Later, Pharaoh Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) would usurp this symbol of the “sun” to proclaim himself as the Almighty. From this we can also see why Satan himself has usurped the symbol of the “sun” making out he is the “shining one” or “the bright and morning star.” We can see, too, why the enemy (the genetic seed of Satan through Cain) have adopted the term “holders of the light” when they formed the “Jewish” Illuminati in 1776. We can also see why, when the translators translated the Greek text to Latin, they used the Latin term, Lucifer, meaning the “shining one.” Therefore, today, we have the true “shining One” and the counterfeit “shining one”, or “light-bearing ... morning-star” (Junior Classic Latin Dictionary, page 67). II Corinthians 11:14 says this: “And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.” Our problem today is: there are a whole bunch of people who are convinced the false, Satanic “Jewish light” is the “true light”, and this is exactly what churchianity is teaching. Not only that, but the anti-seedliners are aiding and abetting the false “Jewish light.” The anti-seedliners are actually giving aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, and you can’t get any more traitorous than that. I believe it is high-time that people in Israel Identity get out of bed with, and stop supporting these Judas traitors. It is only when we begin to demand truth that they are going to start telling the truth. I have one prisoner on my mailing list who wrote me he had torn up Ted R. Weiland’s book Eve, Did She Or Didn’t She? and thrown it in the trash. He indicated, if he would had had the money, he would have sent it back to Weiland and let him know what he thought of it. Oh, yes, the fence-straddlers on Two Seedline sit on the sidelines and proclaim we must all get along with each other: that there is strength in numbers. Why didn’t Yahweh explain that to Gideon? When do we begin to compromise with traitors?

 

TWO SEEDLINE IN EGYPT

 

In lesson #29, we got onto the subject of a people called Hurrians. These peoples were the same as the Bible Horites from whom Esau took at least one wife. In lesson #37, we covered the exploits of Tuthmosis I, and how he made an incursion into Mittani, the land of the Hurrians. The usual practice in those days was to bring back some women as booty. It wasn’t really until Tuthmosis III that the Egyptians brought Hurrian women back to Egypt in quantity. Anyway, bad blood got into the bloodline of the Egyptian pharaohs, and Hatshepsut was the last of a royal line from Shem. If this is true, we can see why Hatshepsut, as the daughter of Tuthmosis I, would take Moses to raise, for she would have known he was of pure Shemitic blood. No doubt, she could see in Moses a possible husband for one of her daughters. This is probably what she was doing when she took the throne herself in order to prevent her half-blood nephew, Tuthmosis III, a child by a non-royal mother, from taking the throne. It would appear she was simply buying time until this could happen. If this scenario is correct, we have the enmity of the seed of the serpent trying to destroy the seed of the woman in Egypt at that time.

AN UNUSUAL BIBLE PROPHECY FULFILLED

 

While we are considering Queen Hatshepsut, we really should contemplate some of the things that resulted from her administration. During her rule, there were many building projects in Egypt. While these building projects were secondary in magnitude to those of Ramesses II, The Great, Queen Hatshepsut’s were by far of greater importance. Let’s now take a look at a Bible prophecy which addresses some of her achievements. It is found in Jeremiah 43:13:

 

“He [Nebuchadrezzar, (Nebuchadnezzar) the king of Babylon] shall break also the images of Beth-shemesh, that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire.”

 

In order to understand the context of this verse it is necessary to study the entire chapter. Even then, unless we check each individual Hebrew word, we can be led into error. From what we read in this verse, it might appear that somehow Nebuchadnezzar is going to take a sledgehammer and break all the Egyptian obelisks into small pieces. But when we consult the Hebrew, an entirely different picture of this verse presents itself. This is one Hebrew word which is not covered in Gesenius’ so we will have to rely on Strong’s. If you will go to Strong’s, #7665 in the Hebrew, it will tell you something like this:

 

“... shabar ... a primitive root; to burst (literally or figuratively):— (down, off, in pieces, up) broken ([-hearted]), bring to birth, crush, destroy, hurt, quench, X quite, tear, view [by mistake for 7663].”

 

If you will check the LXX on this verse, you will find it is translated in the same vein of thought. It is quite apparent the Hebrew word is a mistake here, for historically, this is not at all what happened to the obelisks at Bethshemesh. The only other Hebrew word which might fit it here is #7666. Don’t let anyone ever tell you the Masoretic text Hebrew we have today doesn’t have any mistakes in it. This is a perfect example that it does. Let’s now take a look at #7666:

 

“... shabar ... the same as 7667; denominative from 7768; to deal in grain:— buy, sell.” [to distribute]

 

#7666 describes perfectly what happened historically to the obelisks which were at Bethshemesh in Egypt. Here is a model example which demonstrates that we must sometimes rely on context rather than the letter. Not that the original Hebrew was in error, but the Hebrew we have today has been undoubtedly corrupted through the ages. Now let’s examine the history of this thing. To start this, I will quote from The Destiny Of The British Empire And The U.S.A. by the pseudonym of “The Roadbuilder”, page 51:

 

“Well, what about a waymark for the younger brother, Ephraim (England)? Has he a totem pole showing where he came from? He surely has. In 1819 Mehemet Ali of Egypt presented Cleopatra’s Needle to the British Government. Why, I wonder? Why didn’t he give it to Italy, Germany, France, Russia or Spain? Apparently, when given, it was a white elephant; not the kind with a capacity ‘for eating hay all night and all day’, that de Wolf Hopper used to sing about, but still ‘some elephant.’ I can imagine the consternation among British officialdom on how to get the ‘beastly thing home’, because the wooden ships in those days were not built to carry elongated pebbles of its size on the open sea. Apparently it laid on the Egyptian sands for fifty-eight years after it was gifted unto the English, as the records show that in 1877 it was loaded into the special cylindrical ship built for it, and started for England, but was lost and supposed to have foundered in the Bay of Biscay. I had heard the Rev. Dr. Wild stating, from his pulpit, ‘that it would not be lost forever, but would yet be found and taken to England as a witness of God’s care and oversight for His chosen people Israel, located in the British or Covenant Isles.’

“Evidently the Creator and Governor of this world had a different plan for this waymark than dropping it to the bottom of the sea in Biscay Bay, for, after floating around for some weeks, wrecked and apparently lost, it was sighted, taken in tow, and finally landed at its destination, and to-day stands in the heart of the greatest city of the world, on the Thames Embankment, London, not only as a mark of the place of origin of Ephraim-Israel, but also of the brotherhood between the United States of America and Great Britain, offspring peoples of Joseph’s two sons, born in Egypt before the Exodus ... As children, the two lads played around these monuments, likely claimed one each, and to-day they have them in reality, one in London and the other in New York.

“For fear that the U.S.A. may kick at having only one waymark for so great a people, may I be permitted to point out that Great Britain and the U.S.A. have all Israel’s heraldry between them. In 1879 Rev. Joseph Wild, preaching in Brooklyn Church, N. Y., gave the marks of Manasseh possessed by the United States, and more recently the Rev. J. H. Allen, of California, has published a very readable small book The National Number and Heraldry of the United States of America ...

“Well, I started in on waymarks, and I’ve drifted away from them in these numerous sidelines, that to me are so interesting that I set them down, hoping they may help formulate your opinion as to who you are, where you come from, and what your job is.”

 

What “The Roadbuilder” is referring to here are the obelisks which were set up at Bethshemesh, the city of On, or Heliopolis in Egypt. To show you this is true, I will quote a short excerpt from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume M-P, page 535:

 

“... Jeremiah 43:13 predicts that Nebuchadrezzar will break the obelisks of Heliopolis (ביח שמש; KJV ‘Beth Shemesh’). Obelisks originally at Heliopolis have been taken to Rome and Istanbul and two to Alexandria, and then one of these two to London and one to New York. Only one remains at On.”

 

As you can plainly see, then, the way in which the obelisks of Bethshemesh were “broken” up is not at all like we are led to believe. You might check again and compare #7665 against #7666 in the Strong’s. Once we understand the true history of these “images”, we can realize how incorrect the Masoretic Hebrew text is in this case. If the Masoretic is wrong here, how many other places has it been corrupted? Sometimes the context must override the letter, and this is one of those places. On the matter of Joseph’s children playing around these obelisks, it is not clear how many of these obelisks might have been around during their time. These obelisks were not broken up in thousands of tiny pieces, but broken up as a group and dispersed throughout the world. Therefore, only #7666 can fit this description.

 

HOW LONG HAD SHEM BEEN IN EGYPT?

 

Eustace Mullins’ reputation and prestige as a thorough and painstaking, fact-finding researcher is beyond question. There are not many men of his calibre. While I agree with him for the most part, there are a few particulars where I don’t. I find his comments on Shem and Egypt very interesting, and I find his reasoning nearly in parallel with mine. I will reserve my observations for after his comments on this subject as found in his book The Curse Of Canaan, page 13:

 

“In the Greek language, Shem appears as Ehu; in Egyptian mythology, he is Shu, the son of Ra, the Sun God. It was through claimed descent from Shem that Louis, King of France, called himself the ‘Sun King.’ However, a much more important point, and one that has again been obscured or hidden by the priests who controlled the educational system throughout the last three thousand years, is the fact that it was Shem who founded and built the great civilization of Egypt.

“The rulers of Egypt were called Pharaohs, from the Hebrew word pira, meaning ‘long hair.’ The native Egyptians were short-haired. Not only was Shem long-haired, he was also fair-haired. In their records, the priests call Shem ‘Shufu’ or ‘Khufu’, which means long hair. Being a great warrior, Shem easily led his people in the conquest of the native Egyptians. He immediately set about to commemorate his reign by building the Great Pyramid at Gizeh. Babylon was then overcome by the son of Shem, Elam; a later descendant, Cyrus of Persia, an Elamite, completed the final conquest of Babylon and built the great Persian Empire. It was to signify his great military successes that Shem adopted as his symbol the lion, which is still the symbol of rulers today. The Great Pyramid was later called Khiut, the Horizon, in which Khufu had been swallowed up, as the western horizon swallowed up the sun each evening.”

 

If you will remember, in lesson #34, we covered Howard B. Rand, and how the Sphinxes in Egypt represented Shem and the Shepherd kings; having the head of a man and the body of a lion? Surely the ensign of the lion was an insignia of ruler-ship long before it was assigned to Judah by Jacob. We should also refrain from getting the Shepherd kings of Shem mixed up with the Hyksos which also falsely assumed the name of shepherd kings. The Shepherd kings of Shem were in Egypt many hundreds of years before the Hyksos.

The one point where I don’t agree with Mullins is the inference that the Shemites had long hair. It is true that the term pharaoh is similar to pira in Hebrew. Strong’s lists #6547, par-o, for this pharaoh. The term for hair is #6544, pera, and according to both Strong’s and Gesenius’ is from the idea of shaving or to make naked rather than long hair. In other words, uncover, dismiss, perish or set at nought the long hair. According to the Standard Textbook Of Barbering, page 5:

 

“‘The History Of Barbering.’ The barber profession is one of the oldest professions in the history of the world. Some of the earliest written records of Egypt and China refer to the practice of barbering, and several passages of the Bible allude to barbers and their craft.”

 

According to the book The Archives of Ebla, page 173, as far back as 2350 B.C., long before the time of Abraham, they had a formula for bronze razors. Also, I would suggest that maybe Mullins may have the term “pira” confused with a Greek term “pyr.” In the book Pyramidology by Adam Rutherford, volume 4, page 1178-1179, he describes six different explanations for the origin of the word “pyramid.” His number two explanation reads:

 

“From the Greek, πῦρ (pyr) meaning ‘fire’, from the conception that a pyramid rises up to a tip as does a flame of fire and that it was so named because of this resemblance.”

 

On pages 1180-1181 of this same book, Rutherford shows that the word “pyramid” is essentially the same in forty different languages. Egyptian is not one of the languages listed, but we probably can be pretty sure it would include that language too.

RELATIONSHIP OF A PYRAMID TO AN OBELISK

 

To understand the relationship between a pyramid and an obelisk, I will now, again, quote some excerpts from Adam Rutherford’s book Pyramidology, volume 4, pages 1170 to 1177. Actually every true obelisk had a small pyramid on its top. We must understand this, for Queen Hatshepsut had many obelisks erected during her reign along with the great building programs she initiated. We must also grasp this in order to comprehend the significance of the obelisks at Bethshemesh and their ultimate delivery to London and New York:

 

“They [the plans] were given to Imhotep, the architect and visier of King Zoser, the second King of the IIIrd Dynasty of Egyptian monarchs and were stated to have been ‘let down from Heaven’ ... or, in present-day language ‘divinely inspired’, which modern research has proved to be true, as elucidated and demonstrated ... The building of at least seven practice Pyramids — the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, the Bent Pyramid and the Northern Stone Pyramid both at Dahshur — and the Pyramidization of the Mastaba at Meidum all took place between the delivery of the plans for the Great Pyramid and its actual erection on Giza Plateau ... No trace of the plans for the World’s premier monument, the Great Pyramid, has ever been found however. The Hieroglyphic dating, with Khufu’s cartouche, the walls of the relieving compartments (sometimes called the Chambers of Construction) above the roof of the King’s Chamber, identifies the time of the erection of the Great Pyramid with the reign of King Khufu (Cheops), of the IVth Dynasty of Egypt ... Khufu was called Suphis I in the famous King-lists of the Egyptian priest-historian, Manetho ... Khufu had three wives and many sons and daughters. Redjedef, Khufu’s son by his wife Queen Hetepheres II was Khufu’s immediate successor to the throne. He reigned 8 years and built a pyramid at Abu Roash, 5 miles north-west of the Great Pyramid. This was the most northern Pyramid in Egypt. Redjedef was succeeded by his brother Khafre (Chephren), a younger son of Khufu, and he built the Second Pyramid of Giza immediately to the south-west of the Great Pyramid which was erected in his father’s reign ... Viewed from the Nile Valley, what is now called Giza Plateau formed the horizon. As Khufu was the first to build a Pyramid on that eminence, the whole Plateau was originally named after him and called Khufu’s Horizon or the Horizon of Khufu, which name became applied to his Pyramid also, now known as the Great Pyramid ... When the figure of a Pyramid was used as a hieroglyphic sign on the painted walls of the mastabas in the period of the Great Pyramid (the IVth Dynasty of Egyptian Kings) it was portrayed in white with a yellow (golden) capstone and a temenos (enclosure) wall ... wherein it is shown that the top-stone represents the sun, both literal and symbolic (the latter symbolising Christ ‘the Sun of righteousness’ — Malachi 4:2) ... Whilst ancient Egyptians, Mystics (ancient and modern) and Christians have widely different views on some matters, they all agreed on the basic idea with regard to the symbolism of the top-stone or headstone in that it represents the Sun, literal or symbolic (Psalm 118:22-24; Zechariah 4:6-7; Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11 ... On this Pyramid top-stone the winged Sun-disc is depicted ... Egyptian obelisks were invariably capped with a small Pyramid, which is called a Pyramidion. In effect, an obelisk was a Pyramid capstone on a high plinth, and is so described by the American Egyptologist, Professor J. H. Breasted. Sometimes the Pyramidions of obelisks were also inscribed with a form of the Sun-God. The Introductory Guide to the Egyptian Collection in the British Museum, 1930, p. 157 states ‘The obelisk seems to have been of Heliopolitan origin, from On the great Sanctuary of the Sun.’ ... The basic idea behind the accepted symbolism of the Pyramid’s capstone or Pyramidion, and later that of the obelisks, is correct in its application to the Sun, for in actuality it pertains to the literal Sun in the scientific revelation of the Great Pyramid and to the symbolic Sun, ‘the Sun of righteousness’, Jesus Christ, in its spiritual application. This Pyramidal crowning stone known as the benben, embodying the root bu, wbn meaning ‘to shine’, referring to the shining of the Sun ... How true this is from the view of spiritual symbolism also, for when Christ the ‘Sun of Righteousness’ is exalted on high the great antitypical Top-Stone, He will radiate His great power and love down upon the Earth until the whole World is filled with His glory and brought into complete alignment with Him ... The Top-Stone, symbolic of the Divine Christ, is the model with which the whole mighty structure beneath must be in alignment and conformity as will ultimately be the case both literally and symbolically in God’s appointed time, when His will is done on Earth as it is in Heaven.”

 

We can now see the connection between the Great Pyramid and the later obelisks which were usually set up in pairs on each side of the entrances to the temples. I used to be under the impression that obelisks were phallic, but no more.

; letter-spacing: 2.5pt;

This is my forty-first monthly teaching letter and continues my fourth year of publication. At the time I’m preparing this lesson, I have been getting all kinds of reports of various teachings being introduced into Identity circles. For the life of me, I can only wonder where all this garbage is coming from. Furthermore, the enemy is really blasting away on television employing every possible avenue to promote his multicultural program. The tide of interracial relationships and marriages is rising steadily. It is evident that we are under attack from without and within. I must warn you, everyone who is spouting Israel Identity is not necessarily a friend. Have you ever wondered what “Jewry’s” Luciferian priesthood means in protocol No. 14 which says: 

“Our philosophers will discuss all the shortcomings of the various beliefs of the non-Jews. But no one will bring under discussion our faith from its true point of view since this will be learned by none save ours, who will never dare betray its secret?” 

If there were ever a belief system the enemy would want to infiltrate and destroy, it would be the Israel Identity message. There are some now who are ashamed of this name designation. If it was good enough for John Wilson and Edward Hine, it’s good enough for me, and I shall continue to use it. 

The so-called “Christian” television has joined the enemy in their agenda of promoting race-mixing. I caught one of John Hagee’s programs which I later tried to record when it was rebroadcast. In my attempt to record him, I missed his pro-interracial remarks. I did get his last few words where he said this: 

“We’re [meaning all races] one in the spirit, and if that’s too liberal for your red-neck theology, hit the door, we need your seat.” 

I also managed to get his remarks on the “Jews” when he stated:

 

“... The third kind of hatred or enmity, mentioned in Scriptures, is anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is the hatred of the Jewish people. The Romans called the Jewish religion barbaric superstition. Why? Because the Jewish people circumcise their sons on the eighth day, according to the Commandment of God to enter into the Covenant. The Romans looked at what God told the Jewish people to do, and called it barbaric superstition. God called it a Covenant relationship. The Jews considered the Gentiles as unclean because they were polytheists; they had hundreds of gods, as did the Romans. They believed that --- they ate swine’s flesh which made them unclean. And, they were in general, and I’m talking about the Gentiles, and this word Gentile, was the word goyim, which in the King James is translated heathen. So when you read the word heathen in the King James version, your picture is right beside it, cause that’s us. The heathen were sexual --- were sexually immoral. All you have to do is read Acts 15 and 1st Corinthians to understand what Paul was trying to get the Gentiles to do. Anti-Semitism is alive and well in America. Let me tell you this: Genesis 12:1 and 3 says: ‘I will bless those that bless you, and I will curse those who curse you.’ If something within you resents the Jewish people, that something is a demon spirit. The Jewish people, according to the Word of God, are the apple of God’s eye. The nation of Israel is the object of God’s affection, for David said: ‘He that keepeth Israel (and the phrase ‘keep’ was a military term), he that defends Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.’ Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and Jesus Christ were all Jews. How can Christians praise the dead Jews of the past and hate the Jews living across the street? You cannot do that. It is not possible to say: ‘I’m a Christian’ and be an anti-Semite. Anti-Semitism is sin, and as sin, it damns the soul. If anti-Semitism is in your thought, is in your speech, is in your nature, get it out, because the judgment of God will come to you ...”

 

I don’t have to tell you, there is no doubt about it, that Hagee is in bed with the enemy! He is aiding and abetting them in a time of WAR! Folks, we are living in dangerous times.

Today (August 7, 2001), there was a professed “teacher” on “Christian television.” He started talking about the Abrahamic Covenant, and how the whole human race is offered salvation through it. He repeated this “whole human race” doctrine three times. Each time he quoted a Scripture he used it out of context. When he quoted Genesis 3:15, the only subject he discussed was that “Christ” was the seed of the woman. However, he never so much as mentioned the seed of the serpent. He went through the usual routine of nominal “churchianity”, trying to prove the Law was done away with. Here was a man trying to present himself as an authority on the Word of Yahweh, and does not have the slightest iota of what it is all about. When we consider characters of this man’s nature, and the perilous danger our race is in today, we can begin to realize our dilemma. People like this have nothing to offer in our time of need. They are only working against us; against the Almighty and His Kingdom. They are no good to themselves nor anyone else, and at judgment they will stand empty-handed before Yahweh.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA

 

In the last lesson, we left off with the subject of the Egyptian obelisks and how they were related to the pyramids. It was also shown how the passage in Jeremiah 43:13 was not referring to the “images” at Bethshemesh (the Biblical On) as being broken up into many small pieces, but that history has proved they would eventually be broken up as a group. We learn more about this from the book Civilization Before Greece And Rome by H.W.F. Saggs, pages 59-60:

 

“There are other prominent Egyptian monuments which have seized the imagination of non-Egyptians since ancient times. There are the great obelisks popularly known as Cleopatra’s Needles. They go back ultimately to Egyptian Creation mythology. Different Egyptian cities had different Creation myths, but the dominant mythology was that of Heliopolis. This held that at the Creation a primeval hill arose from the waters, and the Sun-god, Re-Atum, the Creator, sat on that hill. A symbolic representation of this primordial hill stood inside the main sanctuary at Heliopolis, and on it was a sacred stone, perhaps of meteoric origin, called the benben; the derivation of that term is obscure. Out of the benben stone, on its substructure representing the primeval hill, developed the religious symbol which we know as the obelisk. There were already small examples of this in some third millennium tombs, and by the first century of the second millennium very large ones were being carved out of granite. With one exception they were always made in pairs. The first two major ones which we know, 66 feet high, were erected at Heliopolis by Sesostris I (twentieth century BC). The largest of all were two pairs set up by Hatshepsut, the royal lady who made herself ruler (c 1490-1470 BC) when regent for young Tuthmosis III. We have texts in which her treasurer refers to the work on one of the pairs. It was a formidable task. Huge blocks of granite ninety-seven feet long and weighing over three hundred and twenty tons had to be cut out in the granite quarries in Aswan in south Egypt, extracted, moved to the river, put on barges, taken downstream, moved to their final site, erected and carved. Reliefs in Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple commemorate this feat, and one of Hatshepsut’s obelisks still stands.

“The first foreigner to take a fancy to removing Egyptian obelisks as souvenirs was Ashurbanipal, when he invaded Egypt for the second time in 663 BC. He stated that he took away ‘two great obelisks cast in electrum [an alloy of gold and silver]’. He does not state the height, but he gives the weight as 2500 talents, which is about 74 tons: transporting them a thousand miles overland to Assyria must have presented his engineers with a considerable task. Either the word we translate as ‘cast’ (Akkadian pitiq) has a less precise sense than we give it, or Ashurbanipal’s scribes were mistaken, for we know that these great obelisks were always carved from solid stone, usually granite. However, some of them were, as Egyptian texts tell us, overlaid with electrum, and this must have been the basis for Ashurbanipal’s description.

“The Romans in their turn were very much taken with Egyptian obelisks. Caesar Augustus moved a pair of them from Heliopolis and set them up in Alexandria, and later emperors took some to Rome and Constantinople (Byzantium, now Istanbul). Altogether forty-eight are recorded as having been transported to Rome, of which six giant ones and seven smaller still stand there, mainly in public squares. Of those taken to Constantinople, one remains standing in front of a mosque, and there are fragments of another. The two obelisks which Caesar Augustus removed to Alexandria had further journeys in the nineteenth century, when one of them came to London, to stand on the Embankment [of the Thames] as Cleopatra’s Needle, and the other went to New York. A number of other obelisks, or fragments of them, are scattered across cities of Europe, Great Britain and America.”

 

With this quotation it is interesting to observe the so-called “Egyptian myth of the creation.” You will notice that the Egyptians believed there was some land standing out of the waters. Isn’t this similar to what we read in Genesis 1? Before we are through we will see some other beliefs the Egyptians had which correlate with the Bible story. Also, I need to mention again that I used to be under the impression that obelisks were something immoral. I no longer hold that opinion. In some of my former writings, I might have made statements concerning the obelisks being phallic in nature, so if you read anything I have said in the past along this line, please be advised I no longer hold that premise.

THE HELIOP0LIS CONNECTION

 

This is an important topic, for Joseph obtained his wife from Heliopolis (the Biblical On). Futhermore, she was the daughter of the priest of On. The first thing we should observe is that the Bible mentions no conflict from such a union. Many Bible commentaries imply Joseph married a non-Shemetic wife of a heathen religion. As I have documented before, neither of these charges are true. This is important, for the two dominant tribes of Israel (Ephraim and Manasseh) were mothered by her. We can be sure that if Asenath had not been of pure Shemetic blood, Jacob would never have put his blessings upon her children. The unfortunate problem is that references to Heliopolis and its priesthood are very scarce. I will now try to cover this subject with what few references I can find.

 

In order to understand the term “Heliopolis”, there are other words connected with it. They are “Anu”, “Aven”, “Beth Shemesh”, and “On.” The Egyptian term “benben” may also have a close association. To show the relationship of Heliopolis and the term “benben”, I will now quote excerpts from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, pages 8-11:

 

“THE SUN STONE AND THE OBELISK. At a period which is so remote that no date can be assigned to it, the people of Anu (the On of the Hebrews and the Heliopolis of the Greeks) had as the object of their cult a stone, which was thick at the base and tapered to a point at the top, and much resembled in shape the funerary stelae found in the tombs of Tcha, or Tchat, and other early kings at Abydos. This stone was called Ben, and in the texts of the VIth Dynasty its determinative resembles a small obelisk ... i.e. a short, thick shaft surrounded by a little pyramid ... Why this Ben Stone was sacred, or how it acquired its sanctity, is not known ... In early dynastic times they thought that it was the abode of the spirit of the sun, which made itself visible at the Creation by emerging from the top of the stone in the form of a bird ... This bird was called the ‘Benu’, and in the texts of the later period ... It was regarded as the incarnation of the soul of Ra and the heart of Osiris. It was self-produced and, according to some texts, appeared each morning at dawn on the sacred Persea tree of Anu. A temple called He-t Benu ... was dedicated to it in very early times. The Greeks identified the Benu with the Phoenix, a bird which resembled an eagle and had parti-coloured feathers, red and golden. The home of this bird was someplace in Arabia, and a phoenix visited Heliopolis at the close of every period of 500 years. Towards the end of his life he built a nest in Arabia to which he imparted the power of generation, so when he died another phoenix arose out of it. When the new phoenix had grown up he went to Heliopolis and burned his father, whose ashes he burned in the temple of the Sun-god there (see Herodotus ii. 73; Tacitus, Annals vi. 23 [sic. 24-28]) ... the Ben Stone was far older than the belief in the Benu bird ... It is nowhere in the texts so stated, but it is clear that the pyramidal part of the obelisk was believed to be the abode of the spirit of the Sun-god, and therefore the most important part of the monument. It was called ‘Ben Ben’ ... ‘the Ben of the Ben’, and the shrine in which the Sun Stone was kept was called ‘Benben-t’ ... The Ben Ben, which may be regarded as a small pyramid, was probably intended to represent the heaven, wherein the gods dwelt, above the sky, which, as Maspero pointed out long ago, was supposed to be formed of a rectangular layer of some indeterminate material supported on four columns, one at each angle. If this be so it is easy to understand why tombs were made in the form of pyramids. The substructure of the pyramid represented the shaft of the Ben Stone, and the superstructure the pyramid, or, as it is commonly called, pyramidion, on top of it.” [Note: Herodotus may have a corrupted version of the phoenix bird story. I will comment further on that in the next lesson.]

 

Is it possible the “form of a bird” regarded by the Heliopolis priests may be similar to Matthew 3:16 where it is said: “... and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.”? Is it also possible the “Benu” or “phoenix” could represent to the priest at On the idea of death and resurrection as it does to Christians today? On pages 83-84 of this same book we continue:

 

“We may reasonably assume that there was a great Temple of Ra at Heliopolis during the rule of the last three Dynasties (IV-VI) of the Old Kingdom, but of it no remains have been found. It is probable that all the temples at Heliopolis, Memphis, Tanis, etc., were plundered and demolished during the period of anarchy that immediately followed the downfall of the VI Dynasty, and that the status of the gods were broken and destroyed, and the stones of the sanctuaries used for building purposes. Amenemhat I (XII Dynasty) built a large and magnificent temple at Heliopolis, and his son Usertsen (Sen-Usrit) I set up two large granite obelisks in front of it ... [Later] The Hyksos kings did nothing for the priesthood of Ra, and it is not until about 1200 B.C. that we hear again of the temple, no doubt an entirely new one of Heliopolis.”

 

Inasmuch as the Hyksos didn’t associate with the priesthood at Heliopolis, is very substantial evidence that Joseph was not sold to the Hyksos in the Delta area as many Bible commentaries try to claim. Also, if the above is true, the temple at Heliopolis and its priesthood must have been in a decline at Joseph’s time. From Josephus’ Against Apion 1:14, it would appear that the Hyksos may have destroyed the temple at Heliopolis and the priesthood had to flee the area. I suggest this possibility because Heliopolis was situated very near the area in the Delta where the Hyksos established their stronghold at Avaris. If the Hyksos were hostile to the priests of Heliopolis, as indicated here, they may have moved further south up the Nile into Egypt. As I have documented before, the Hyksos were the descendants of Cain, and what else would you expect of such people? Let’s now take a look at what Manetho states as recorded in this passage of Josephus:

 

“There was a king of ours, whose name was Timaus. Under him it came to pass, I know not how, that god was averse to us, and there came, after a surprising manner, men of ignoble birth out of the eastern parts, and had boldness enough to make an expedition into our country, and with ease subdued it by force, yet without our hazarding a battle with them. So when they had gotten those that governed us under their power, they afterwards burnt down our cities, and demolished the temples of the gods, and used all the inhabitants after a most barbarous manner; nay, some they slew, and led their children and their wives into slavery ...”

 

If this scenario is correct, with the descendants of Cain as the Hyksos, and the priests of On as the descendants of Shem, we have the enmity of the seed of the serpent against the seed of the woman as in Genesis 3:15.

 

HELIOPOLIS AND “AVEN”

 

What we are going to consider next may seem like a contradiction to what has been expressed before here, but once we have taken all things into account, we will see it is not contrary at all. The word “Aven” is used at various places in Scripture. So that we can get an idea of what the term means, I will now quote from Insight On The Bible, volume 1, page 221:

 

“AVEN. 1. Aven appears in the Hebrew Masoretic text at Ezekiel 30:17 and is rendered in the King James Version. Many modern translations here read ‘On’, the city in Egypt called Heliopolis by the Greeks. The Hebrew consonants for Aven are the same as for On, but the vowel pointing differs. Some commentaries suggest that the change in the vowel pointing was a deliberate play on words in order to express contempt for the idolatrous city of On, the center of Egyptian sun worship. — (See On No. 2.) [2, 3: Hurtfulness; Something Hurtful] 2. At Hosea 10:8 Aven appears in the Hebrew text evidently as an abbreviation for Beth-aven. — Compare Ho. 4:15; 5:8; 10:5 (see Beth-aven No 2.) 3. Amos 1:5 refers to the ‘valley plain of Aven’, and this expression from the Hebrew is rendered ‘Bikath-aven’ in The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text and The Jerusalem Bible — See Bikath-aven.”

 

Because Insight On the Bible refers us to “On” and “Bethaven”, let’s take a look at them next. The expression “On” is found in volume 2, pages 554-555:

 

“ON. ... 2. An ancient and renowned city in Egypt, located a short distance NE of Cairo, on the E bank of the Nile and near the point where the river’s waters divide to begin the formation of the Delta region. In Egyptian records the city’s name was written as Junu, while Assyro-Babylonian records mention it as Ana or Unu. The Egyptian name is thought to mean ‘City of the Pillar’, perhaps referring to the obelisks (tall, tapering columns topped by a pyramid-shaped point) for which the city was famous; or the name may relate to the sacred stone (called the benben) connected with the worship of the sun-god Ra (Re). The Greeks called the city Heliopolis, meaning ‘City of the Sun’, because it was the chief center of Egyptian sun worship.

“On first appears in the Bible record as the city of the priest Potiphera whose daughter Asenath was given to Joseph as his wife. (Ge. 41:45, 50) The name Potiphera itself includes the name of Ra the sun-god.

“In course of time the priesthood of On became very wealthy, rivaling the priesthood of Memphis in this respect and being surpassed only by the priesthood of Thebes (Biblical No-amon). Connected with its temple to the sun, a school was operated for training priests and for the teaching of medicine. Greek philosophers and scholars were drawn there to learn the priestly theology, and On became celebrated as a center of Egyptian wisdom.

“The prophet Jeremiah was inspired to foretell that King Nebuchadnezzar would overrun Egypt and ‘break to pieces the pillars of Beth-shemesh, which is in the land of Egypt’ (Jer. 43:10-13). Beth-shemesh corresponds somewhat to the Greek name Heliopolis and means ‘House of the Sun.’ Hence the reference here is likely to the city of On, and ‘the pillars’ that were to be broken may well refer to the many obelisks around the temple of the sun.

“Ezekiel’s prophecy contains a similar warning (Eze. 30:10, 17) Here the Hebrew vowel pointing of the name varies from that of Genesis so that the name literally is Aven (Heb., ‘a’wen’). Some scholars suggest that this was done as a play on words, since Aven means ‘Hurtfulness, Something Hurtful’, and On was a center of idolatry.

“This may also be the case at Isaiah 19:18, where the Masoretic text refers to one of the ‘five cities in the land of Egypt speaking the language of Canaan and swearing to Jehovah’ as ‘The City of Tearing Down [Heb., Ir ha-Heres]’ The Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah has Ir ha-Cheres, meaning ‘City of the Sun’, thus pointing to On (Heliopolis). Here again there may be an intentional play on words, Heres (tearing down) being substantiated for Cheres (another Hebrew word for ‘sun’, less common than shemesh) in view of Jehovah’s intention to destroy the idolatrous city of On. The paraphrase of this portion of the verse found in the Aramaic Targums reads: ‘(City of) the House of the Sun, which is to be destroyed.’

“Besides the foretold destructive invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, On (Heliopolis) evidently suffered a further blow when Cambyses II conquered Egypt (according to Strabo, Greek geographer who lived near the start of the common Era) ... By Strabo’s time Heliopolis had lost its position of importance and was partially deserted. Today, the village called Al-Matariya occupies part of the ancient site, and all that remains there of the earlier splendor is a single obelisk of red granite dating from the reign of Sesostris I. Other obelisks from Heliopolis are now to be found in New York, London and Rome.”

 

Let’s now check out the term “Beth-aven.” This is found in Insight On The Scriptures, volume 1, page 293:

 

“BETH-AVEN. (Beth-a’ven) [House of Hurtfulness (Something Hurtful)] ... 2. In lamenting the idolatrous conditions to which Israel had turned in his time, the prophet Hosea mentions Beth-aven together with Gibeah and Ramah, other prominent cities of Benjamin. (Ho. 4:15; 5:8; 10:5, 8) It appears that the prophet applies the name in a derogatory sense to the city of Bethel, which at one time had been the ‘house of God’ but had now become a ‘house of what is hurtful’ because of the calf worship instituted there. — 1 Ki. 12:28-30.”

 

While Insight On The Scriptures is informative, I do not agree with all of its conclusions. For instance, the writer doesn’t seem to grasp the significance that the obelisks of On were not physically broken up in small pieces, but were broken up as a group, even considering that he shows where some of these obelisks are located today. Furthermore, I do not agree with the writer that “Bethshemesh” means the worship of the sun. I would rather believe that the sun became Shem’s symbol, meaning the sons of light. In the Hebrew, the term “beth” means house; shem would mean “Shem”; and, no doubt “esh” would be the Hebrew “ish”, meaning “man.” The reason for examining the word “Aven” is to see that in the Hebrew, it is used in a negative manner. In other words, when Jeremiah made reference to On (Heliopolis), he was not speaking of it in a becoming way. The problem is that Jeremiah is speaking of On 1113 years after the time of Joseph, which is like comparing America today with what it was a millennium ago.

To get a better idea of what the term “Aven” implies, we will consult John Lightfoot in his A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, vol. 2, page 203:

 

“Among the Jews it was held, in a manner, for a matter of religion, to reproach idols, and to give them odious names. ‘R. Akibah saith, Idolatry pollutes, as a menstruous woman pollutes: as it is said, ‘Thou shalt cast away the [idol] as something that is menstruous, and thou shalt say to it, Get thee hence’ (Isa. 30:22). R. Lazar saith, Thou shall say to it, Get thee hence: that which they call the face of God, let them call the face of a dog: that which they call ... the fountain of a cup, let them call ... the fountain of toil [or of flails]: that which they call ... fortune, let them call ... a stink &c. That town which sometimes was called Beth-el, was afterward called Beth-aven’ ... Take your idol, and put it under your buttocks.” [This is interesting, for the term “God”, as it is used today means “fortune.”]

 

Now let’s consider the story in its chronological order. Shem was evidently in Egypt as early as the 4th Dynasty bringing it to a high civilization. Centuries later, about the time of the 17th Dynasty, the Hyksos (some descendants of Cain) moved into the area raping and destroying the temple at On and killing many of the temple priests along with their families. Evidently, at the time of Joseph, the Temple of On and its operation was in very steep decline. It was not until later in the 18th dynasty before another temple to the sun was built at On by the heretic Pharaoh Akhenaten. I had covered this somewhat in lesson #31, but it bears repeating here:

A good place to start our story of Egypt would be a city called “On.” We are told by most reference books that On represented the heathen worship of the sun god. I hope to set the record straight concerning this city. Originally, On was called “Beth Shemesh” (House of Shem). It was not until the time of Akhenaten that a temple was built to Aten the sun god. I find the documentation for this in the book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 48:

 

“... Akhenaten had to have a circle of loyal adherents who converted to his new religion. Friendly foreign princes were not particularly concerned with the change and accepted it as long as their relationships with the royal house were maintained. The king steadfastly forged ahead, trying to impose his new philosophies on Egyptian life. He succeeded in building temples to Aten in Thebes, Gem-Aton in Nubia, Heliopolis, Memphis, Hermopolis, Hermothis, and in some smaller cities.”

 

As you can see from this, we have to keep things in context which so many people are unwilling to do. You can also see, the situation at On (Heliopolis) at the time of Jeremiah and the 18th Dynasty of Egypt were quite different. No doubt, after the time of Pharaoh Akhenaten, there may have been an effort to bring the priesthood at On back to what it originally was. However, after the Israelites left that area, it was continually downhill for Egypt thereafter. Later, according to Biblical and Infancy Gospel narratives, we are told of a further important engagement with Egypt; the exile of our Messiah into that land as a baby. It is interesting to note that inasmuch as Joseph and Mary had left Bethlehem of Judea with the Child, because of Herod, it was from fear on their later return they settled in Nazareth of Galilee. That story will have to wait for a later time.

OBELISK INSCRIPTIONS

 

Now that we have considered the background of the obelisks of Egypt, especially the ones which were erected at On, let’s look into what was inscribed upon them. One of the things we have to take into account is that some of the obelisks were quarried and inscribed during the reign of one pharaoh and erected by a later pharaoh. Some pharaohs even usurped credit for obelisks made and erected by predecessors. Here are some excerpts from the book Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, pages 116-122, on one of Queen Hatshepsut’s obelisks the following inscription is found in part:

 

“The king (i.e. the queen herself) saith: ... I have set [these obelisks] before the henmemt (i.e. people) who shall come into being two hen periods (i.e. 120 years) hence, whose minds shall enquire about this monument which I have made for my father ... who shall speak with awe-struck (?) voices and shall seek to gaze into what is to come later. I took my seat in the Great House (i.e. palace), I remembered him that created me. My heart urged me to make for him two obelisks with tcham coverings, the pyramidions (i.e. pointed tops) of which should pierce the sky in the august colonnade between ... Behold my heart (or mind) took possession (or overcame) me, leading me to utter words. O ye men of understanding ... who shall look upon my monument after years (i.e. in future days), who shall discuss together what I have done, take good heed that ye say not ‘I know not, I know not ... [why] these were made, and [why] a mountain [probably pointed top] was made throughout in gold, as if it (i.e. gold) was of the commonest things that exists’ ... I shall have my being for ever and ever like an An-sek-f star (i.e. one of the circumpolar stars that never set), I shall sink to rest ... in [the land of] life like Atem (i.e. the setting sun), so these two great obelisks (which my Majesty hath worked with tcham for my father Amen, in order that ... my name may abide and flourish shall stand in this temple for ever and for ever ... I kept in mind [what] the people would say — that my mouth was true because of what came forth from it, for I never went back on anything that I had once said ... Now hearken ye to me. I gave to them (i.e. the obelisks) the best refined tcham, which I measured by the heket (bushel?) as if it had been ordinary grain in sacks ... Let no man who shall hear these things say that what I have said is false, but rather let him say, ‘It is even as she hath [said] it (or, it is exactly so) — true before her father.’”

 

What are the meanings of Queen Hatshepsut’s prophetic words on these obelisks? Are we Israelites the people she was talking about in the matter of “enquiring” about them? Are we the ones to have “awe-struck voices” about them? What does she mean by the “two hen periods, or 120 years?” What does she mean by “and shall seek to gaze into what is to come later?” These are impelling questions, for if they are referring to our day, we should take an interest in what is being said! In the next lesson, we will be looking into more of the inscriptions on the Egyptian obelisks. Maybe you would like to get this book. As far as I know, it can still be ordered from most book stores.

span style=span style=, ,;

This is my forty-second monthly teaching letter and continues my fourth year of publication. It has come to my attention there is a very important transcription error in our present Bibles which I should point out again as I did in lesson #23. The reason for repeating this is because there are new people on my mailing list who may not have gotten lesson #23. At the end of each fiscal year ending in April, I put my back lessons into yearbooks, and each of my last three yearbooks can be purchased for $20 plus 10% shipping. This is what I said in that particular lesson:

As I promised you in my last teaching letter #22, I am going to clear up and document the problem with Deuteronomy 23:7. As I told you before, there are approximately 27,000 translational errors in our present Bibles. Some various translations by various translators have attempted to clean up many of these discrepancies, but the errors are very numerous and overwhelming. The translation in Deuteronomy 23:7 is one them. I will start by quoting this passage:

“Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”

From this verse it would appear that we should welcome all Edomites into our congregations with open arms, and with no questions asked, and that we are somehow guilty of some dire contemptible sin for even thinking an evil thought against them. I ask you: Is this not the impression which seized upon you when you read this passage for the first time? Remember the guilty, dirty, condemning feeling which overcame you for even giving the Edomites the slightest hint of disparaging thought, that possibly Yahweh might suddenly kill you in your very tracks for even blinking an eye? If this has been your reaction when reading this passage in the past, forget it, for that is not what this verse is saying — not even remotely. I happened upon this verse many years ago when I listened to a presentation by an Identity speaker who was making reference to the Edomites by using this verse as one of his points. At the time, I decided to look into the Hebrew meaning of the word “Edomite” for myself. I found the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible assigned the term “Edomite” the Hebrew word #130 which says:

“#130 ... Edômîy, ... Edôwmîy, ed-o-mee’; patronymic [derived from father’s name] from 123; an Edomite, or descendant from (or inhabitant of) Edom:— Edomite. See 726.”

Inasmuch as I didn’t want to overlook anything important, and I felt there was something desperately wrong with this passage, I decided to check on the word #726 which had the following to say:

“#726 ... Arôwmîy, ar-o-mee’; a clerical error for 130; an Edomite (as in the margin):— Syrian.”

At once this truth struck me (and this was about 15 years ago), for if the proper rendering was “Syrian” instead of “Edomite”, it would make all the difference in the world. Over the years, since that time, I have pointed this clerical error out to many people of our persuasion. At the time, I knew this made more sense if Deuteronomy 23:7 were to correctly read “Syrian” rather than “Edomite” for the Syrians were Abraham’s relatives, in which case this verse would read:

“Thou shalt not abhor a Syrian; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land.”

Over the years, I have been satisfied that the word should have been Syrian instead of Edomite. I remember one party who challenged me, indicating that it was only a clerical error, and really didn’t mean anything. I finally came to the conclusion that it would be a hard proposition to prove and decided not to push the point openly any further. That is, however, until recently, when I was preparing for this lesson, I accidentally discovered what the clerical error was. I will now reveal to you how I made this discovery. As I had decided to take up the topic of Esau, I was in the process of reading anything and everything I could find on the subject. I was reading along in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, page 24, under the subtitle Edom, when I read this:

 

“ ... there are places where, because of the similarity between letters ד (d) and ר  (r),  the text has wrongly read ארמ, ‘Aram’ (i.e., Syria), and ארומי, ‘Arameans’ (i.e., Syrians), for אדמ, ‘Edom’, and אדומי, ‘Edomites’, such as II Kings 16:6; II Chr. 20:2, where the KJV has followed the MT, but the RSV has followed an emended text.”

 

Note: I have followed the Hebrew characters as faithfully as I know how to do on my computer — I may have made a mistake. In my original lesson, I enclosed my documentation on page 8 of that issue so the reader could check it against my references. The main thing to notice here is the “similarity between the letters ד (d) and ר (r).” You can see very readily, that a very small slip of the pen can change the word from Edomite to Syrian, or Syrian to Edomite. I will enlarge these two Hebrew letters and place them side by side so you can observe the difference in them: 

 

 

With just this very small change in the Hebrew writing, and the word can be changed from Syrian to Edomite!!! Think of it this way, syRian or eDomite. By this above slight change, the Hebrew “r” sound is changed to a “d” sound.

 

Since I originally wrote this, I now realize that the small remnant of Judah from Jerusalem who went into Babylonian captivity spoke Hebrew when they went in and spoke Chaldee when they came out seventy years later. Also, when they went in they were using a rounded style of Hebrew to write in, and when they came out they were using a square style of Hebrew. Is it possible that the changing from a rounded style to a square style produced such an error? Well, if it did, how many other mistakes are there because of this? After all, it is absurd to believe we should not “abhor an Edomite” when the Almighty hates them Himself, Malachi 1:3!

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA

 

There always seems to be someone writing on a subject for which they really haven’t done their research. In preparing this lesson, I ran into a good example of such a person. Actually another person got the following from the Internet. No doubt, there may be a vast amount of information on the Internet, but it would appear we need to be very careful with some of the things being promoted from such a source. Generally, if we will examine what is being advanced, we can see through the subterfuge. While many times it’s just a matter of ignorance, there are other times when the writer has an agenda. This article has the title The Chronology Of Egypt And Israel and was downloaded from

http://biblicalstudies.qldwide.net.au/chronol gy_of_egypt_and_israel.html.

On page 12, the writer seems to be a David K. Down, P.O. Box 341, Hornsby, NSW.

On page 1, the writer lays his premise. He points to I Kings 6:1 to establish the Exodus at 1445 B.C. He then refers to a Dr. Immanual Velikovsky who supposedly makes the claim that Egyptian history is 600 years too old. This is what is said on page 1:

“... Dr. Immanual Velikovsky’s claims that the fault lies, not with the Biblical information, but with the generally accepted chronology of Egypt, and that the Egyptian dates need to be reduced by some 600 years at the time of the Exodus. This would mean that the ruling dynasty of Egypt at the time Exodus would be the 13th dynasty, rather than the 18th or 19th dynasty as is now generally believed, and the Pharaohs who ruled at the time of Joseph and Moses were the Kings of the 12th dynasty. When this system is adopted there is found to be remarkable agreement between the histories of Egypt and Israel.”

If you will remember, this is similar to the position which F. David Fry took in his book Hebrew Sages of Ancient Egypt (A Revised Discipline In Antiquity), which I spoke about in lesson #31. I must point out again, people like Fry and David K. Down quoted above fail to check out the archaeological finds which have been made at Jericho. The following is what I said concerning this in that lesson:

“Finds at Jericho prove beyond all doubt that Fry cannot be correct. If you know your Bible story of Jericho, it will be remembered that after the Israelites destroyed it, Joshua placed a curse on it that it would never again be occupied. With this in mind, let’s read The Thompson Chain-Reference Bible, ‘Archaeological Supplement’, page 1802, ©1990:

“On the outskirts of the old city mound Garstang discovered a cemetery where he opened scores of graves that yielded quantities of pottery vessels, considerable jewelry, and about 170 scarab beetles. In these tombs he found pottery from the Early, Middle, and Late Bronze periods, but only a few sherds of Mycenian ware ... The Egyptian scarabs can be dated with certainty since they mention various pharaohs by name and represent each of them from Thutmose III ... One scarab bears the name of Queen Hat-shep-sut and Thutmose III, another that of Amenhotep II, who was depicted as an archer, corresponding well with his tomb records in Egypt. The series of dated scarabs end with the two royal seals of Amenhotep III ... Nothing else in the tombs suggests later dates.”

As Joshua had placed a curse on anyone who might try to rebuild and occupy Jericho (Joshua 6:26), this is very good evidence that these 18th Egyptian pharaohs lived before Jericho was destroyed by the Israelites under Joshua’s command. This evidence alone blows Fry and Down clean out of the water. I have documented here, and to a greater extent in lesson #31, all of this. Sometimes I wonder how much more confirmation is needed to convince people.

On page 2, Down tries to associate the Beni Hassan mural with the Israelites. I went to great lengths in lesson #38 to show evidence that the people depicted in that mural were actually the Hyksos who had all the marks of being descendants of Cain.

On pages 7-9 Down postulates that the Egyptian Queen Hatshepsut was the Queen of Sheba; that somehow Queen Hatshepsut was contemporary with Solomon. It makes one wonder how any of Queen Hatshepsut’s scarabs ended up 450 years previous to Solomon’s time in the ruins of Jericho, doesn’t it? I thought maybe the next thing that Down might contend was that Pharaoh Ramesses II, the Great, was contemporary with Alexander the Great, or maybe even the same person. Who knows how such a mind reasons! Then, on page 9, Down tries to identify Shishak of Egypt (1 Kings 11:40; 14:25-26) as “Thutmosis.” Although he didn’t say which Thutmosis, he could only mean Thutmosis III. Here is a good example of starting with a false premise, and then trying to build on it. I hope you are beginning to see how important it is that we be careful in our research in order to get things in their proper sequence. So much for that.

 

GOD OF THE DAY vs. GOD OF THE NIGHT

 

It seems that Egypt may have had their version of Genesis 3:15. There have been and are two classes of people in the world in an all-out opposing WAR with each other; namely, the children of light and the children of darkness. There seems to be evidence of this in Egypt. To show you this, I will now quote from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, pages 80-83:

“One of the most important temples rebuilt, or more probably founded by Amenemhat I, was the great temple that he dedicated to the Sun-god of Heliopolis, in his forms of Her-em-aakhu ... i.e. Horus on the eastern or morning horizon, and Atem ... i.e. the Sun-god on the western or evening horizon. The city of Heliopolis, called in Egyptian Anu Meht ... i.e. the ‘Northern Anu’ to distinguish it from Anu rest ... the ‘Southern Anu’ or Hermonthis, which lies a few miles to the south of Thebes, was one of the oldest cities in Egypt. From time immemorial Helioplois formed the terminus of the caravan roads from the north, west and south, and was in consequence a flourishing trade centre. [No wonder the Hyksos wanted it.] It is probable that it was the capital of the ‘kings of the North’, i.e. Lower Egypt, in predynastic times. It was home of many cults [belief systems], first and foremost among which was the cult of the Sun-god, whose various forms were, in early times, called Khepera, Atem, etc.

“The Hebrews called the city ‘On’ or ‘Aven’ (Gen. 41:45, 50; Ezek. 30:17) and ‘Beth Shemesh’, (Jer. 43:13), or ‘House of the Sun’, and it will be remembered that Joseph married a daughter of Potipherah (in Egyptian ... Pa-ta-pa-Ra, ‘The gift of Ra’), a priest of On (Gen. 41:45, 50; 46:20). There was a famous well or fountain at Heliopolis in which, according to tradition, the Sun-god Ra bathed his face when he rose for the first time on the world. This well is still to be seen at Matariyah, which the Arabs call ‘Ain ash-Shems’, i.e. ‘Fountain of the Sun.’ It is stated in the Apocryphal Books that the Virgin Mary rested by this well, and drew from it the water with which she washed the clothes of her Child, and that wherever the water fell balsam-bearing plants sprang up; drops of oil made from them were always mixed with the water used in baptizing Christians ... The priests of Heliopolis were famed for their learning, and they were a very powerful body at all times. Little is known of them or of their god Ra ... under Dynasties I-III, but the name of their god forms part of the prenomen of Neb-ka-Ra, a king of the IIIrd Dynasty, and it also appears in the names Khaf-Ra and Men-kau-Ra, kings of the IV Dynasty. The first three kings of the Vth Dynasty were sons of a high priest of Ra, and from this time onwards each Pharaoh bore a special name as the ‘son of Ra.’

“Several of the kings of the Vth Dynasty built great ‘sun-temples’ on the west bank of the Nile at Abu Gurab and Abusir, and the object of the cult was a monolith, probably of sandstone, in the form of a short obelisk resting on a plinth of pedestal in the form of a truncated pyramid. That the priests of Ra were able to seize the throne of Egypt and to set, first, members of their corporation and, next, their nominees upon it in succession makes it clear that they were predominant among the priesthood of that country ... Ra was the god of the day and of this world, and his power was believed to be supreme and absolute; all the other great gods were regarded as forms of him. But when his priesthood attempted to force his cult upon all the Egyptians in the South as well as upon those in the North, they found it most difficult to accomplish, because the people generally worshipped the ancient, and perhaps indigenous, God Osiris ... Asar, or Asari, the god of the night, the Underworld and death. A great struggle took place between the priesthood of Ra and the priesthood of Osiris, and in the end the supposed powers of Ra and the extent of his dominion were curtailed ...”

It appears that the early Egyptian dynasty kings, their names being “sons of Ra”, was symbolic for “sons of light.” On page 92 of this same book we are told that Thothmes I looked favorably on the priesthood at Heliopolis. Thothmes I (Tuthmosis I) was still of unmixed royal blood. This is what this passage says:

“... Thothmes I was the first king who set up obelisks in Thebes, and in view of the later religious history of the XVIIIth Dynasty his actions seem to show that he was favourably disposed to the doctrines of the priesthood of Heliopolis, and that he wished to link the cult of Ra with that of the Theban god Amen. As Usertsen I had set up a pair of obelisks before the house of Ra at Heliopolis, so Thothmes I set up a pair before a pylon of the temple of Amen.

“The obelisk that is still standing is about 90 feet high, and is in a good state of preservation ... A single column of inscription originally occupied the middle of each of the four faces, and from these texts we learn that Thothmes I dedicated ‘two great obelisks’ ... to his father Amen-Ra. On the pieces of the fallen obelisk the cartouches of Thothmes III are found, and because of this some have argued that this obelisk was made by Thothmes III and not by Thothmes I, but the inscription of the latter on the standing obelisk speaks distinctly of two obelisks, and the official Anni states in his biography that he superintended the erection of two obelisks. It is probable that Thothmes I died before his inscriptions were cut on the second obelisk and that it was usurped by Thothmes III ...”

Page 169: “Horus of the Double Crown, Beloved of Ra, King of the South and the North, Men-kheper-Ra. The monuments of the gods the lover, supplying with meat and drink the altar of the Souls of Heliopolis making to be satisfied their Majesties at the two seasons (i.e. morning and evening). His [is] with them with life [and] serenity for hundreds of thousands of the Set Festival, many, great, sons of Ra, Thotmes, governor of the god, of Ra-Harakhthes beloved, living for ever.”

We should not be surprised that Thothmes I looked favorably on the priesthood of Heliopolis, for the Bible tells us that a pharaoh gave Joseph his wife, Genesis 41:45. But, if you will remember, Thothmes III (Tuthmosis III) was not of pure royal blood. This is the same Tuthmosis III that Queen Hatshepsut prevented from gaining the throne for a number of years, after which he tried to destroy all memory of her. Here again, we see Genesis 3:15 at work between the true royal blood of the pharaohs of Egypt and the corrupted blood of the enemy gaining the throne. It is obvious, that if we can’t understand the Satanic seedline, we can understand neither Bible nor history. In other words, there are a lot of people walking around in a lopsided dream-world of universal religion.

 

“BEN OF THE BEN”

 

In the last lesson (#41), we discussed the subject of the “Ben Stone”, many times referred to as the “benben.” I will now repeat part of a quote I used in that lesson from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge,  page 8:

“At a period which is so remote that no date can be assigned to it, the people of Anu (the On of the Hebrews and the Heliopolis of the Greeks) had as the object of their cult a stone, which was thick at the base and tapered to a point at the top, and much resembled in shape the funerary stelae found in the tombs of Tcha, or Tchat, and other early kings at Abydos. This stone was called Ben, and in the texts of the VIth Dynasty its determinative resembles a small obelisk ... i.e. a short, thick shaft surrounded by a little pyramid ... Why this Ben Stone was sacred, or how it acquired its sanctity, is not known ...”

If the priesthood at Heliopolis were Shemites, which we can be fairly assured they were, we really shouldn’t be surprised at such a stone called the “benben.” In the Hebrew the term “ben” means “son.” The Hebrew term “ben” is #1121 in the Strong’s Concordance. It is used in Genesis 3:16, “thou shalt bring forth children”; Genesis 4:25, “and she bare a son”; Genesis 30:1, “Give me children or else I die”; Exodus 34:7, “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children”; Proverbs 13:22, “leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children”; Ecclesiastes  2:3, “sons of men (Adam)” and 1 Kings 20:35, “sons of the prophets.” What is interesting is that the Egyptian hieroglyphic sign for “ben” is a man’s foot up to just below the knee. Therefore, I believe we can be sure that it has something to do with a man or mankind. It would seem that a man’s footsteps could surely represent a man’s life, (or a woman’s for that matter). When there are two feet in the hieroglyphics, it is then “benben.” It appears that it might be saying “sons of sons”, or possibly “children of children.” This sounds to me like the genealogy of a family. Is it possible the “Ben Stone” is sacred, as it represents the Almighty’s family or posterity?

The Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies explains the term “ben”, in its various forms, as follows on page 404:

“SON. 1 ... a son by whom parents are built up and families increased; also a son by adoption, Exod. 2:10; by creation and preservation, as the angels, Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; by regeneration, as the faithful, Ps. 73:15, Prov. 14:26; who are loved, sanctified, and blessed of God as their Father, Exod 4:22; Deut. 14:1; Isa. 1:2; Jer. 3:19, Hos. 11:1. The young of any creature. Metaph., the branch is a son with respect of the tree, Ps. 80:15; the scholar with respect to his master (sons of the prophets), an arrow with respect to the bow or quiver, Job 41:28; corn with respect to the threshing-floor, Isa. 21:10; a hill is the son of oil with respect to fertility, Isa. 5:1; a wicked person is a son of Belial or wickedness; a person guilty of a capital crime is a son of death, 1 Sam 20:31. Any man is said to be a son in respect to the years of his age, a son of two, &c. 2 ... a son, from the idea of begetting, being born; the common word for son in Chaldee, but in Hebrew only poetic ... 3 ... to make affinity by marriage ... to be son-in-law ... 4 ... to beget; to bear ... a child ... 5 ... progeny, offspring ... condition of a son. 6 ... posterity, son’s son.” [i.e., benben, my observation]

 

THE “ASHET TREE”

 

Of particular interest are the inscriptions found on the obelisks of Queen Hatshepsut where affectionate mention is made to an “Ashet tree.” Wallis Budge makes reference to the “Ashet tree” three times in his book Cleopatra’s Needles on the following pages:

Page 95: “Marked out for him the lord of the gods of the Set festival on the Ashet tree; the son of Ra, Thothmes diademed like Ra, beloved of Amen-Ra Ka-mut-f, endowed with life for ever.”

Page 105: “Her father, Amen, hath stablished her great name, Maat-ka-Ra, on the holy Ashet tree, The records of her are for hundreds of thousands of years, being united to life, stability and serenity. The son of Ra, the counterpart of Amen, Hatshepsut, beloved of Amen-Ra, the king of the gods ... this beautiful [and enduring] monument ... which she made (i.e. dedicated) to him on the first day of the Set Festival, she doing this that life might be given to her for ever.”

Pages 170-171: “Horus of the Double Crown, Bull mighty of Ra beloved, King of the South and the North, Men-Kheper-Ra. Stablished Father Tem his name great of cartouches with enduring sovereignty in the Great House of Anu, when he gave to him the throne of God [and] the rank of Khepera, the son of Ra, Thothmes, righteous governor, of the Souls of Heliopolis beloved, given life forever ... Horus of the Double Crown, Bull mighty crowned by Truth, King of the south and the North, Men-Kheper-Ra. Multiplied for him the Lord of the gods ... Set Festivals of the Ashet tree holy within the House of the Soul, knowing that his son was I, flesh producing from Neb-er-tcher, the son of Ra Thothmes, governor of Heliopolis, of Ra-Harakhthes beloved, living for ever.”

Undoubtedly, if the priesthood at Heliopolis was of the House of Shem, it would be safe to conclude that the “Set Festivals” were the celebration of Seth as their patriarch, and the “holy Ashet tree” could possibly represent the Seth family tree. For some confirmation that this might be true, I will now quote from a book entitled The World of the Past, edited by Jacquetta Hawks, chapter 2, “Greece and Crete”, “The Bronze Age of Hesiod”:

“The Greek poet Hesiod wrote his Works and Days in the eighth century B.C. In it he divides human history into five Ages. His pre-archaeological idea of a Bronze Age preceding an Iron Age probably owes something to genuine folk memory.

 

“Then Zeus the father again made humankind,

A breed of bronze, far differently designed,

A breed from the Ash-tree sprung, huge-limbed and dread,

Lovers of battle and horror, no eaters of bread,

Their hearts were hard, their adamant hearts: none stood,

To meet their power of limbs and their hardihood,

And the swing of the terrible arms their shoulders bore.

Bronze were their arms, bronze the armour they wore,

And their tools; for no dark iron supplied their needs ...”

 

Often we wonder where some of our family names came from; the name “Ash” being one of them. Checking my phone book there are several, including Ashburn and Ashcraft. Are these names more ancient than we imagine? Could the Tribe of Asher, for instance, be named after the “Ash-tree” family of Seth? Out of many varieties of ash, there is one named Oleaceæ, which is related to the olive tree, producing a single winged seed; a most useful tree as regards to rapid growth and production of lumber, and being distinguished for its height, shape, and graceful foliage. Ash wood is hard, stiff and especially strong, and mainly used for shovel, hoe, and rake handles. It is also used for spears, boat oars and baseball bats. No doubt, a great wood for “battle-ax” handles. How fitting a tree to represent our people. Does all this seem to exemplify the Adam-man?

Another point worth mentioning which the poet Hesiod puts forth is: not all peoples were created at the same time; that there was a separate creation of a special kind of man. Do you notice how this “differently designed” man is described similar to Jeremiah 51:20 as: “my battle axe and weapons of war ...”? [I have found more information concerning the “Ash Tree”, but I will have to present it in the next lesson.]

 

HERODOTUS ON THE “PHOENIX”

 

As I promised in lesson #41, I shall address Herodotus’ version of the “phoenix bird” story. Before I do, however, I would like to show some of Herodotus’ other deductions. Once we observe some of his conclusions, caution might be advisable. Let’s go back to Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge,  page 9, for his reported version:

“The home of this bird was someplace in Arabia, and a phoenix visited Heliopolis at the close of every period of 500 years. Towards the end of his life he built a nest in Arabia to which he imparted the power of generation, so when he died another phoenix arose out of it. When the new phoenix had grown up he went to Heliopolis and burned his father, whose ashes he burned in the temple of the Sun-god there.”

On February 21, Educational channel 30, WGTE, Toledo, Ohio, ran a program entitled Lost City of the Pyramids. It was about a city some archaeologists had found where the workers were housed during the construction of the Great Pyramid at Giza. As the story developed, with archaeological evidence, they established with little doubt that Herodotus’ account of the building of the pyramids lacked creditability. The following are excerpts of the narration of that program:

 

“The most common myth about the pyramid builders is that they were slaves. This view made popular by Hollywood actually dates back to the Greek historian Herodotus. He visited Egypt 2700 years after the pyramids had been finished, and was told by his guide that slaves had provided the labor. With no contradictory evidence this view has persisted, and it is still offered in modern-day guidebooks ... Egyptologist Mark Lehner believed evidence of large scale food production was an important clue ... Hundreds of bread molds and numerous baking pits indicated food preparation on a vast scale. Archaeologists had the first sign that this site was the base for a large undertaking ... Elsewhere on the site, other bones were found that indicted a healthy and diverse diet ... our animal bone specialist tells us there is an awful lot of cattle, and cattle is very expensive meat — came from the provinces. And a lot of the cattle we are finding here is prime cut and under two years of age. So, everything about our site suggests it’s expensive. Far from the image of starving laborers surviving on rations, this site has revealed a work force who drank beer, and ate baked bread, fresh fish, and expensive cuts of prime beef. From the tombs in the town a picture was emerging of a construction project manned by a large number of workers who were well fed and highly organized ... The equal numbers of men and women, and the proportion of children, including babies as young as two months, suggested to the scientists that they were examining whole families ... As hoped, the DNA proved conclusively that there were complete families living in the city of the pyramid builders. This was no work camp, but a thriving social community ... The high standard of medical care the laborers of the plateau enjoyed makes it quite unlikely that they were slaves ... Why, for instance, spend time and effort looking after slaves? If this was simply slave labor, then another slave can be brought in ... The evidence continued to build: their tombs; the food the workers ate; and the medical care they received all suggest a community that was treated as something of an elite... In his account, the Greek historian Herodotus was clear; he had recorded that it had taken 100,000 slaves 30 years to build the great Pyramid of Khufu, but the picture that was emerging from the excavation was a vastly different one. The discoveries had already proved Herodotus wrong once. The pyramid builders had clearly not been slaves. Would the findings now reveal that he was also wrong about the number of workers and the methods they had used?”

 

As the story turned out, at least according to this program, Herodotus was wrong on that score too. It was estimated by a Dr. Craig Smith, a modern engineering consultant, that it would have been more like 20,000 men working 20 years to build the Great Pyramid. What does this have to do with the phoenix? It shows that if Herodotus was wrong about the building of the Great Pyramid, he could be wrong about the phoenix bird story also. In researching this topic, I can see where Herodotus might have been relying too much on his contemporary Egyptian folk tale. When we realize that Herodotus was investigating the story 2700 years after the fact, it’s hard to imagine how much the story might have been corrupted by his time. Again this is something I will have to take up in the next lesson. I will tell you this, though: there seems to be a connection between the “phoenix bird” of Heliopolis and the Phoenicians, and we’ve only gotten a good start on this thing.

This is my forty-third monthly teaching letter and continues my fourth year of publication. Because we have so much subject matter to consider in this lesson, I will get right into the substance of the things we need to cover.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA 

In the last lesson we learned two new Egyptian terms which were inscribed on various obelisks. These terms were “benben” and the “Ashet tree.” If you will recall, I promised I would cover these terms in more detail in this lesson. What is interesting is that the term “ben” is common in Egyptian, Hebrew and Old English. In The American Heritage Dictionary there are three meanings as follows:

“ben¹ ... n. Scottish. The inner room or parlor of a house. — adv. Scottish. Inside; within. — prep. Scottish. Within. [Middle English ben, binne(n), Old English binnan: be, By + innan, within (see en in Appendix).]

“ben² ... n. Scottish. A mountain peak. Used in names of mountains: Ben Nevis. [Scottish Gaelic beann, peak, height. See bend- in appendix.]

“ben³ ... n. Any of several Asiatic trees of the genus Moringa, bearing winged seeds that yield an oil used in perfumes and cosmetics. [Dialectal Arabic ben, from Arabic ban.]”

The last definition, #3, seems to fit the description of an “ash tree”, for an “ash tree” produces “winged seeds.” If this is true, there may be a direct connection between the words “ben” and “ash.” You can see from all three definitions that the term “ben” seems to be universal in Egyptian, Hebrew and Old English, giving evidence of a common source. In other words, there must be a link between Egyptian and Old English. As the above definitions for “ben” are covered quite well, it will not be necessary to consult the Appendix.

 

THE ASH TREE

 

In the last lesson, we discovered the term “Ashet Tree” was used on several Egyptian obelisks. We learned, too, how the “Ash-tree” was described by the Greek poet Hesiod about the eighth century B.C. You will need the last lesson in order to understand where we are on this topic. Anyway, the “Ash Tree” is also discussed in Norse Mythology. Therefore, the category of the “Ash Tree” must  be quite important to our subject. While it is indeed important, we must remember that when our forefathers were exiled into Assyria they were involved in paganism. Hence we find in these mythologies a mixture of truth and pagan thought. We must, therefore, be able to separate the one from the other. To get started, I will now quote from the Collier’s Encyclopedia, (1985) volume 17, page 587:

“NORSE MYTHOLOGY pertains not only to the ancient Norse inhabitants of Scandinavia before the year A.D. 1000; it is also the mythology of the related Swedes and Danes. During the ninth and tenth centuries the Viking expansion carried this mythology to Russia, the British Isles, Iceland, and Greenland. From three of these areas it vanished, leaving little trace; but the comparative isolation of Iceland and its late acceptance of Christianity (A.D. 1000) preserved the myths first brought there by Norse colonists.

“Originally, the main features of the mythology were shared by a group of related peoples who, from about the birth of Christ to the fifth century, migrated south and west from Scandinavia, the Danish peninsula, and the lower Rhine region. These peoples were the forebears of, among others, the Dutch, German, and Anglo-Saxon races [sic. race]. It is not too much to say that Norse mythology stands as a ground plan of a mythology once shared by Norsemen, Swedes, Danes, Icelanders, Dutch, Germans, and Englishmen. The body of myth fostered by these northwest Europeans of Indo-European descent was never entirely homogeneous, for the mythology of the related tribes was never static.”

Next on page 588 of this same Collier’s article on Norse Mythology it speaks of the Creation of mankind:

“Creation of Mankind. The Prose Edda says: As the sons of Bor [Odin, Vili, and Ve] strolled along the deep sea strand they stumbled across two logs of driftwood and picked them up and whittled them into humankind. The first son gave them soul and life; the second, understanding and the power to feel; the third, form and the faculties of speech, hearing and sight. They gave them clothing and called them by their names, the man Askr (‘Ash’) and the woman Emble (‘Elm’). These two brought to birth all mankind, which was given a dwelling place in Midgard.”

We should really take notice here of this account of the Creation, for this is the third time we have encountered the term “Ash Tree.” If what is being said here is true, then Adam and his race would represent the “Ash Tree.” When we take the time to consider all the qualities of an ash tree, there isn’t a better tree to represent our race.

Again the Collier’s Encyclopedia, (1985) volume 17, pages 588-589:

“Yggdrasill. The branches of the ash tree. Yggdrasill overhung all the worlds and extend over the heavens. Of its three roots, one is with the gods, another with the Frost Giants, and the third stands over Niflheim. Under this last root is the source of all rivers. Hvergelmir, with the dragon Nidhoggr (‘Dread Biter’) gnawing the root from below.

“Beneath the root which twists towards the Frost Giants bubbles Mimir’s Well, called after its guardian, the supernatural being Mimir — the archetype of wisdom.

“Under the root of the Ash which ends in heaven there is another extremely sacred spring, the Well of Urdr. Here live the three sister Norns, or Fates.

“A squirrel called Ratatoskr (‘Travel Tusk’) darts up and down the tree bearing spiteful tales between an eagle at the top and the dragon Nidhoggr below. Four stags (Dainn, Dvalinn, Duneyrr, and Durathror browse over the branches of the Ash and nibble at the bark. The damage done to the branches by the stags as well as that done to the roots by Nidhoggr and other serpents is restored by the Norns, who take water mixed with clay from the Well of Urdu and paste the Ash to prevent its limbs from withering or rotting.”

I wish I could reproduce the depiction of the “Ash Tree” as found on page 591 of the Collier’s Encyclopedia under the topic “Norse Mythology”, but if you have this particular encyclopedia, you can look it up for yourself. It is very interesting, for contained in this portrayal are many of Israel’s symbols as found in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33. This picture is divided into three sections; heaven, earth and the underworld. Vertically, in the center, the Ash Tree reaches from the top (heaven) down to the bottom, or the underworld. At the top of the Ash Tree are its branches. Among the branches are an eagle and four stags or reindeer. On each side of the heaven section, with the branches of the Ash Tree, are two wolves. One on the right and one on the left seemingly suspended in midair. With the wolf on the right is a crescent moon, and the wolf on the left the sun. Evidently, this depicts the morning and the evening. While the Collier’s article does not point out what the Biblical significance might be, let’s take a look at Genesis 49:27:

“Benjamin shall ravin as a wolf; in the morning he shall devour the prey, and at night he shall divide the spoil.”

The next time you see a crescent moon, think of Benjamin. Also, at the base of the trunk of the Ash Tree, at the lower part of heaven, is the depiction of a castle along with a well. This is interesting, for Simeon’s symbol is a castle. Not only this, but the eagle is the Brigade of Dan which includes Naphtali and Asher. For a further description of the Ash Tree, let’s see how Collier’s describes it on the bottom of this same page.

“Yggdrasill, the World Ash Tree supports the universe of Old Norse mythology. Three roots reach down ... — one through Urd’s Well, to Asgard, the home of the gods, one to Midgard, or Earth, and one ... to Niflheim, the underworld; [where] four stags browse on the tree’s branches; an all-wise eagle roosts at its top; and the dragon Nidhoggr ... gnaws the root in Niflheim. The gods ride over the rainbow, Bifrost Bridge, to their palaces in Asgard. Two wolves, Skoll and Hati, pursue the sun and the moon across the heavens, which are supported by four dwarfs. In the south is Muspellheim, a flaming wilderness, shown to the left of Yggdrasill, and opposite is freezing Jotunheim. The ocean which is fed by springs in Niflheim, girdles the earth. In the ocean wallows the World Serpent Jormungandr, gripping his tail in his jaws. Fettered in Hell, with a serpent dripping venom on his face, lies the evil Loki ...; his son, the wolf Fenrir ..., is also chained there. When the dragon Nidhoggr has finished gnawing through the root of the World Ash Tree in Niflheim, the destruction of the world, Ragnarok, will be at hand.”

While we have to remember there is some paganism mixed in with all of this, you can begin to see this matter of the Ash Tree is quite important to our understanding. As we read these things, let’s try to see the parallel between what is being said and the story of the Bible. Continuing now on page 590 of Collier’s:

“Midgard. Midgard is the ‘Middle Enclosure’, the world of men, situated between Asgard and hel [hell], and in the middle of the ocean in which wallows the Great Serpent entirely surrounding the earth, its tail held in its mouth. The way from Midgard to Asgard lies over Bifrost, the Rainbow Bridge.

 

“ÆSIR AND VANIR

 

“The Northmen of the Migration Age called their race of gods Æsir, from a singular form áss, meaning ‘god.’ In the rationalizing ‘Prologue’ to his Prose Edda, Snorri Sturluson seeks to derive the word Æsir from ‘Asia.’ This etymology is a popular and unscientific one, although, apart from the superficial similarity of the words, Snorri’s derivation may have been founded on a tradition according to which the cult of certain gods migrated to Scandinavia from the south and ultimately from Asia Minor.

“It seems extremely likely that gods did come from the direction of Asia Minor, although they were not Æsir, but members of another race of gods called in both Eddas by the name ‘Vanir.’ The advent of the new gods is represented in the mythology by a war between Æsir and Vanir in which neither party gains a decisive victory ...

“Odin. Odin is chief of the gods and father of the Æsir. His name developed from a primitive northwest European form, Wodenaz, which became Wuotan in Old High German, Wodan in Old Saxon, Wodan in Old English, and first Voden, then Odinn, in Old Norse ... As god of self-sacrifice and wisdom who suffered that man might benefit, he is depicted in the myths as pledging one of his eyes to Mimir in return for a draught of wisdom from Mimir’s Well, and as hanging himself from Yggdrasill for nine nights, wounded and without food or drink, as ‘an offering to himself’ in order to obtain the runes of wisdom.

“The Odin of the two Eddas also assimilated the characteristics of the old Indo-European Sky Father Djevs. Snorri says, ‘Odin is supreme as well as being the oldest of the gods ... Odin is called Allfather’ ... for he becomes first and foremost a god of the dead, killed in battle. It is his old character of leader of the souls with a new twist: the souls he leads are those of warriors for whom he has prepared a special heaven, Valhalla. In fact, Valhalla has become exclusive, for it is necessary to have died a brave death in order to get past Valgrind its gate ... The food which stands on Odin’s table he gives to two wolves of his, called Geri (‘Greedy’) and Freki (‘Gobbler’). Wine is to him both meat and drink ... Odin’s wife in Asgard is Frigg. They are parents of the Æsir ...

“Balder. It may appear strange at first that the Vikings whom the early Christian monks gave such a reputation for bestiality and cruelty, should have regarded the loving and beautiful god Balder so highly. Snorri says, ‘Balder is Odin’s second son and a personage of very good report indeed. He stands out from the rest. He loves all things great and small. He is so blond and fair of face that a power of light beams from him. He is the wisest of the gods, the fairest spoken and most glorious and physically the most shapely. He lives in the mansion called Breidablik (‘Broad Gleaming’), a place where nothing impure may come ... Then because nothing could hurt him, it became a pastime for the gods to throw weapons and shoot arrows at Balder. Loki, the evil one, saw all this and, having disguised himself as an old woman paid a visit to Frigg and wormed out of her the secret that the mistletoe had omitted to take the oath never to harm Balder. Quickly, Loki prepared a shaft made of mistletoe wood which he inveigled the blind god Hoder into casting at Balder. Balder dropped dead from a bloody wound and his ghost went down to hel. After the gods had recovered from the shock, Frigg asked who would earn the love and undying gratitude of all by riding down the road to hel to ransom Balder ... Mimir is the guardian of the well under the Ash Tree (Yggdrasill) roots. The Vanir cut off his head and returned it to Odin who ‘sang spells over it and in this way gave it the power to speak to him, whereby it discovered many secrets to him.’ This severed head is consulted by Odin for words of wisdom before the Ragnarok ...  ‘Idunn guards within her ashwood casket the apples which the gods have to nibble at as they age and fail — then all at once they are young again.’

 

“LOKI AND HIS OFFSPRING

 

“Both men and the gods were at a loss to know whether to call Loki god or devil. He began in heaven and finished in hel, only to escape at the Ragnarok and wreak his vengeance on the Æsir. Loki’s father was a giant named Farbauti (‘Dangerous Smiter’), his mother, Laufey (‘Leaf Island’ i.e., ‘Tree’). Such parentage suggests that Loki was originally the dangerous fire resulting from a lightening flash striking a forest tree. He is described as ‘handsome, easy on the eyes, but inside, the soul of spite and completely fickle. He has talent and skill in slyness which leaves everybody else far behind, knowing a trick for every occasion.’ Although Loki is accepted in Asgard, he is not one of the Æsir, nor of the Vanir, nor is he a true friend either; on the contrary, his sole aim is the annihilation of the gods and the universe ... By some unreported stratagem Loki is made to prevail on Odin to accept him as a blood brother and so to gain his protection and hospitality in Asgard ... When, after causing Balder’s death, Loki was captured and bound down in hel by the gods ...”

With all this, you can see that Norse Mythology has its own version of Genesis 3:15, or Two Seedline. It has the dragon with its tail in its mouth which amazingly is the symbol of the Zionist “Jews” today. Also in the Ash Tree story is the “rainbow” which can be read in Revelation 4:3. In the Collier’s depiction of the Ash Tree, there are four dwarfs holding up a sea of glass. Read Revelation 4:6. Also, at the base of the Ash Tree is a river of water. Read Revelation 22:1. Pictured is a well of water. Read John 4:11-14.

Quoted in the last lesson from a book entitled The World of the Past, edited by Jacquetta Hawks, chapter 2, “Greece and Crete”, “The Bronze Age of Hesiod”:

“The Greek poet Hesiod wrote his Works and Days in the eighth century B.C. In it he divides human history into five Ages. His pre-archaeological idea of a Bronze Age preceding an Iron Age probably owes something to genuine folk memory.

 

“Then Zeus the father again made humankind,

A breed of bronze, far differently designed,

A breed from the Ash-tree sprung, huge-limed and dread, Lovers of battle and horror, no eaters of bread,

Their hearts were hard, their adamant hearts: none stood, To meet their power of limbs and their hardihood,

And the swing of the terrible arms their shoulders bore. Bronze were their arms, bronze the armour they wore, And their tools; for no dark iron supplied their needs ...”

Another version of Works and Days by Hesiod says this concerning this same passage:

“Zeus the Father made a third generation of mortal men, a brazen race, sprung from ash-trees; and it was in no way equal to the silver age, but was terrible and strong. They loved the lamentable works of Ares and deeds of violence: they ate no bread, but were hard of heart like adamant fearful men. Great was their strength and unconquerable the arms which grew from their shoulders on their strong limbs. Their armour was of bronze, and their houses of bronze, and of bronze were their implements: there was no black iron.”

 

BEOWULF

 

A subject which parallels the Ash Tree is Beowulf. Inasmuch as the depiction of the Ash Tree involved the symbols of the wolf, we need to consider this legend also. No doubt the legend of Beowulf is about the Tribe of Benjamin, although it is credited to the Danes. Actually, the name Beowulf suggests the symbol of Benjamin. Symbols Of Our Celto-Saxon Heritage says this on page 62 concerning Benjamin:

“However, there is some evidence which suggests that among the Northmen or Norsemen, the people who formed the northern wing of the Saxon migration across Europe, there were some who used the Wolf as an emblem. Many of these settled in Scandinavia, giving their name to Norway and later to Normandy in France.”

 

Before we gather our evidence about Beowulf, let’s read an interesting passage found in it. This translation is by Burton Raffel between stanzas 100 to 110:

 

“Grendel, who haunted the moors, the wild Ÿ Marshes, and made his home in a hell Ÿ Not hell but earth. He was spawned in that slime, Ÿ Conceived by a pair of those monsters born Ÿ Of Cain, murderous creatures banished Ÿ By God, punished forever for the crime Ÿ Of Abel’s death. The Almighty drove Ÿ Those demons out, and their exile was bitter, Ÿ Shut away from men; they split Ÿ Into a thousand forms of evil — spirits Ÿ  And fiends, goblins, and monsters, Ÿ A brood forever opposing the Lord’s Ÿ Will, and again and again defeated.”

Here are some excerpts from Cliff’s Notes on Beowulf, page 5:

“Beowulf is the oldest known English epic, but it appears not to be about the English people. Rather, it is a story about Danes and Geats mainly, with material also about Swedes, Frisians, Franks, and Heathobards. Ritchie Girvan maintains, however, that the story may tell about the Danes, the Geats [Getae], the Heathobards, etc., but in reality ‘the chief participants reflect Anglo-Saxon England as well.’ (Beowulf and the Seventh Century, p. 60)

“The Beowulf manuscript (known as Cotton Vitellius A xv) dates probably from about 1000 A.D., when two scribes wrote it down for posterity. Before that, the poem most likely circulated from royal court to royal court by means of the scops, storytellers and general entertainers at court gatherings, who recited stories and poems like Beowulf in the mead halls of early England ... This kind of ‘history’ in Beowulf, rooted in fact possibly, but transformed into fiction, focuses upon people and events purportedly of the late fifth and early sixth centuries, A.D., but the epic itself was probably not composed by the Anglo-Saxon author in its present poetic form until the seventh or eighth centuries, A.D. ... Beowulf’s experience with the Grendels, for example, is reminiscent of folk tales in many languages, and, of course, dragon fight stories, which gained ascendancy through the oral tradition, appear everywhere in medieval literature ... Beowulf is a long, serious narrative poem about aristocratic persons — the kings and heroes of Denmark and Geatland — involved in a series of actions, significant in the development of nations and unified by the Geatish hero, Beowulf. The Anglo-Saxon epic is told in the grand manner by means of alliterative verse, which the early English apparently considered their highest form of stylistic creation. It is a complex story of character, like the Odyssey, with an omniscient author who does not impress himself upon his material ... The language of the original manuscript of Beowulf is Anglo-Saxon (also referred to as Old English), which roughly speaking, extends from the invasion of England by the Anglo-Saxons in 449 A.D. through the Norman Conquest in 1066 ...

“Annoyed by the joys of the mead hall, a powerful demon lurks in the darkness and endures the happy noise impatiently. There is harp music and singing, and a scop tells the story of God and creation. Thus Hrothgar and his warriors pass their time happily in the hall, until a fiend in hell, the fierce demon called Grendel begins his series of crimes. Grendel, condemned by God to the race of Cain, is a monster who wanders the moors and fens. The poet interrupts his story line here to moralize about Cain’s murder of Abel and God’s punishment of Cain, from whom descended the evil progeny of the monster world.”

According to Cliff’s Notes Incorporated, a company involved in publishing small booklets to aid college students in studying various subjects including classical writings, in their booklet on Beowulf, pages 53-54, mention five versions of Beowulf in paperback; five versions in hardback; and two versions for children. The following are listed: “1. (Paperback) Barron’s Educational Series, 1962. Transcription and translation by Benjamin Thorpe. (Anglo-Saxon text with Modern English on facing page). 2. Edwin Morgan, verse translation. Berkley: University of California Press, 1964. 3. Lucien Dean Pearson, prose translation. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1965. 4. Burton Raffel, verse translation. New York: Mentor Books, 1963. 5. David Wright, prose translation. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1957. (Reprinted 1959, 1960, 1963, 1964). (Hardback) 1. R. K. Gordon, prose, 1954. 2. A. Wigfall Green, verse (literal), 1935. 3. John R. Clark Hall — very literal prose. Sound scholarship. 1911. Completely revised, 1940. Revised again, 1950, by C. L. Wrenn. Hall verse translation, 1914. 4. Charles W. Kennedy, good alliterative verse translation, 1940. Also preserves kennings. 5. Mary E. Waterhouse, verse, 1949. (Children’s Versions) 1. Dorothy Hosford, By His Own Might: The Battles of Beowulf. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1947, 1955, 1957. Illustrated by Laszlo Matulay. 2. The Golden Treasury of Myths and Legends. New York: Golden Press, 1962. (Fourth Printing). Adapted by Anne Terry White and illustrated by Alice and Martin Provensen. pp. 68-81.” (Note: Beware of later watered-down versions.)

The book History Of The Norwegian People by Knut Gjerset Ph.D., page 60, has an interesting footnote:

“The author of Beowulf must have been singularly well informed regarding the early history of Denmark and southern Scandinavia. He gives a detailed account of the royal houses, of family relationship, and of political and military affairs, such as we can find in the sagas several centuries later. The author of the poem Widsith shows a similar knowledge of the peoples and countries of the North ...”

Again a footnote on page 61: “The reason why the Vikings were called Northmen in France, and Danes in England, seems to have been the fact that the first Viking hosts which invaded western France were Norwegians, while the first invasion of England was made by the Danes. The names have then come into use as a general designation for all strangers of the same type. In a similar way the name of the Alemanni, a tribe in southern Germany, has become in French Allemands (Germans), Franks has become French, and Angles, English. This is the view of the Norwegian historian Gustav Storm. The Danish historian Steenstrup holds that the people on the Continent called them Northmen because they came from the North. He also cites parallels: The Norwegians were called Eastmen (Austmenn) by the Icelanders, and the Norwegians called the Irish Westmen (Vestmenn), the Germans Southmen (Suormenn).”

From English Literature and Its Backgrounds, pages 8-9: “... Organizational and ritual differences that had sprung up between those who had been taught by the Irish and those who had been converted by the Italians were resolved in 664 at the Synod of Whitby when the King of Northumbria decided in favor of Rome. England was at last united under one church ... Monasteries throughout England developed into famous centers of learning. The great European scholar Aldhelm studied at Canterbury. The ‘Venerable’ Bede (673-735) ‘Father of English learning’, wrote his Ecclesiastical History of the English People in Latin at the monastery of Jarrow. In it he told of Cædmon, the first Old English poet, who wrote at Whitby. The fame of Alcuin of York (735-804) was so great that Charlemagne invited him to his court to superintend education in his empire. These enthusiastic ‘clerks’ (clerics) and others of less fame not only composed works of their own in both Latin and Old English but also assiduously copied out theological texts, Latin classics, and vernacular poetry. To them we owe the preservation of whatever remains to us of our earliest literature ... In 787 the relative peace of England was shattered by new invaders. The savage Danes (Norsemen or Vikings) came across the North Sea in their high-prowed Viking ships to make their first raid on the English coast. Occasional forays swelled into relentless conquest. Bringing with them the gods whom their kinsmen, the English, had forsaken, the Danes blasted the literary flowering of Northumbria by destroying the monasteries of Whitby and Jarrow. In half a century they were masters of all northern England ... The threat of the Danes continued the process of unification that Christianity had begun. Egbert, King of Wessex, united the central nations into an ‘English kingdom’ in 828. In 871, when the marauding Danes struck at the heart of Wessex, they were repulsed by Egbert’s grandson, Alfred, who in that year began his heroic reign. After seven years of desperate fighting, Alfred negotiated the Peace of Wedmore, by which the invaders agreed to remain in the North, in territory called the ‘Danelaw.’ This agreement left the King of Wessex free to begin an extensive program of reform that made his reign (871-901) the greatest in Old English history ... Confirmed at Rome by Pope Leo IV and acquainted in his boyhood with the more brilliant culture of the court of France, Alfred was a scholar as well as a king. He invited all clerics who would come to live under his protection. He founded a school in which noblemen’s sons were taught English and Latin. He preserved whatever he could collect of Northumbriam literature, which hence survives to us in the Wessex dialect; he authorized the translation of Latin works, among them Bede’s Ecclesiastical History. He also directed the writing of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, a valuable document of annals of English history, which was continued after his death by the monasteries of Peterborough, Winchester, and Ely. What may be his last piece of writing is a plea for scholarship: ‘He seems to me a very foolish man, and very wretched, who will not increase his understanding while he is yet alive’.”

The following is the same passage of Beowulf as rendered by a Professor Spaeth, and printed in English Literature and Its Backgrounds by permission of the Princeton University Press, from his Old English Poetry page 20:

 

“Each in its kind, that moves upon earth.

So happy in hall, the heroes lived,

Wanting naught, till one began

To work them woe, a wicked fiend.

The demon grim was Grendel called,

March-stalker huge, the moors he roamed.

The joyless creature had kept long time

The lonely fen, the lairs of monsters,

Cast out from men, and exile accurst.

On offspring of Cain, the killing of Abel

Was justly avenged by the Judge Eternal.

Nought gained by the feud the faithless murderer;

He was banished unblest from abode of men.

And hence arose the host of miscreants [criminals],

Monsters and elves and eldritch sprites [elf; fairy; goblin],

Warlocks and giants that warred against God;

Jotuns and goblins; He gave them their due.”

 

You can see we have covered a considerable amount of material in this lesson. It should be apparent the ancients understood the tenets of Two Seedline even in its pagan form. It was understood by the Egyptians; it was understood at the time of Hesiod; and it was understood at the time of Norse Mythology. It seems the Norse had knowledge of the Great Serpent whom they called “Loki.” The account may have been corrupted to some extent, but the basic story was known. It was also very well understood in the early Church period. And, if we ever wake up to the full extent of the story of Two seedline in our day, we will begin to realize the movers behind the scenes.

By this time we should start having a better idea of some of the Egyptian terms like “benben.” We will be getting into more Egyptian terms in future lessons. I believe I have presented enough evidence on the term “Ash Tree” to demonstrate it has some significance to the family tree of Adam. We have to ask the question, though, why would Eve be considered as an “Elm”? Is it possible that she was considered an “Elm” because an elm is a softer wood than an ash? I read in one place that the Germans called the Vikings ash-men because they used ash wood as oars for their ships. In another place the term “ash” may refer to the ash-wood spears which our people probably used. How fitting this would be, for we are “YHWH’s battle-ax and weapons of war.”

It would appear, from the evidence we have uncovered, that when Queen Hatshepsut had her scribes inscribe the “Ashet Tree” on her obelisks, she was speaking of her Adamic family tree. I believe I have also presented enough evidence to show that Beowulf was probably an authentic historic character. In fact, in the next lesson, I will be presenting more evidence that much of Norse Mythology is actually based on authentic historic fact. You can also observe that Two Seedline is woven throughout all this in every period of time.

This is my forty-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my fourth year of publication. In the last several lessons we have been on the subject of Egypt. In lesson #42 we got on the subject of the “Ashet Tree” which is inscribed several times on Egyptian obelisks. After writing that lesson, I have found much more information concerning the “Ash Tree.” Then I wrote about the “Ash Tree” again in lesson #43. This has led to an extended research into Norse Mythology. Norse Legend would be a better designation, for there is little myth about Norse Mythology. Since writing lesson #43 an avalanche of information has come my way on that subject too. There is so much material to present on this, I hardly know where to start. For the moment, it is imperative we drop the subject of Egypt to cover, in some degree, the beliefs of the Norse. Evidence is coming forth that the so-called gods of the Norse like Odin, Balder and Frea are actually real people and not myth. Also, for those who are interested in Odinism, I would warn you, there are twisted half-truths and downright lies on the Internet concerning him. After we have covered this interrelated subject, we will get back to “Walking Step By Step Through Israel’s Sojourn In Egypt From Joseph Until Joshua.” If you don’t have lessons #42 and #43, you might want to get copies in order to see how we arrived on this topic and what it is all about. The best place I know to start this is with The Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition (1894), vol. 2, page 594 under the topic “Asgard”:

“The historical explanation of Asgard, as given by the early northern authorities, is that, in the country called Asaheim to the east of Tanagvise (the Tanais or Don) in Asia, there was a city, Asgard, in which ruled a great chief, known as Odin or Woden, who presided over religious sacrifices which were held there. At that time the Roman generals were marching over the world, and reducing nations to subjection, and Odin, foreknowing that he and his posterity would occupy the northern lands, and unwilling to encounter the Romans, left Asaheim with a vast multitude of followers, and wandered first westward to Garderike (Russia), and afterwards to Saxland (North and East Germany). After some time he proceeded northward, till at length he came to the Malar Lake in Sweden, where they settled at a place known as Sigtuna, the present Upsala. His twelve diar, or chief priests, in the course of time founded states for themselves, and everywhere set up the laws and usages which they had followed in Asaheim. Here we have an historical link with the Mythic story of Odin’s halls in Asgard, and his twelve attendants Æsir; but we have no means of fixing the date of the events referred to. It has been conjectured that Odin may have lived at the time when Mithridates Eupator was defying the armies of Rome, 120-80 B.C.; and that, to avoid subjection to either power, he and other Sarmatians or Caucasian chiefs left their settlement on the Black Sea, and wandered forth in search of new and independent homes, to the north and west to the primary Asiatic seat of their tribes. It is not improbable that traditionary records of such earlier migrations had lingered among the people dwelling on the shores of the Euxine, for it is certain that, whatever may be the age of Odin’s appearance in Scandinavia, previous waves of population had passed from the Black Sea to the Baltic, and cleared the way for the reception of that highest phase of Aryan civilization brought to Northern Europe by Odin and his followers.”

We can see from this that Odin is not a “myth”, but a real historical person. What we have just read from this quotation from The Encyclopedia Britannica is of the utmost importance. This documentation on Odin makes a direct link between 2 Esdras 13:39-45 about the lost Israelites in the Apocrypha and the Anglo-Saxons, as there is also a complete Biblical-historical link between the Zarah branch of Judah in Egypt and the Britons. There is one problem with this quotation, for it speaks of the Sarmatians as though they were part of Odin’s group. Actually the Sarmatians were an entirely different people. In his book Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets, E. Raymond Capt deals with the subjects of Odin and the Sarmatians. While Capt gives many references, he usually doesn’t quote directly from them. If he had quoted the passage which I just used from The Encyclopedia Britannica, it would have had a great impact on his readers. Capt seems to take the posture: “here are the facts, trust me.” Notwithstanding though, Capt did a phenomenal job. Capt says this on pages 175-176:

“A new empire had been established in the northern half of Sweden, founded by the historical Odin. The account of Odin, as narrated by Snorre in the Ynglinga Saga, states that Odin came from Asaland or Asaheim. (Central Scythia) Odin assembled, at Asgard, (modern Kiev) once the capital of Asaland, a huge army which marched up the valley of the Dnieper, then westward to the shore of the Baltic (Pelagus Scythicum) and finally to Scandinavia. It was from Odin’s army, known as the ‘Svear’, that Sweden takes its name. In their own language, the Swedes call their country ‘Sverige’ — the ‘land of the Svear.’ The date of Odin is given variously as between A.D. 200 and 300. In the Herald’s College, London, there is a very ancient manuscript deducing the Saxon Kings from Adam and from David. Odin is listed in the genealogy (as is also his wife, Frea) tracing the Royal House of Britian back to David ...” [Capt then produces a chart from David to King George V and Queen Mary which includes Anna, the Cousin of the Virgin Mary; Penardim marrying Leah, of Judah through Troy; Bran; Caradoc; Coilus; Lucius; Cadwallader to Frea on one side. Then showing Odin descended through Troy from Judah marrying Frea. From these two came the Tudors, Stuarts, Plantagenets, Hanoverians, Saxe-Coburgs, Danes to King George V and Queen Mary.]

“Odin introduced among the people a new religion, the tenets of which Faith included the Fatherhood of God, the immortality of the soul, future rewards and punishments, the consecration of valor, ‘seeking ever to die in battle rather than peace’, — this being the ultimate goal by which they might attain to ‘Valhalla’ (The Hall of Heroes) or Heaven. After the death of Odin, his authority was transmitted to his five sons, whom he had placed on neighboring thrones. In time Odin came to be regarded by the early Scandinavians as a mythical ‘god.’

“From Odin’s son, Skiold, descended the ‘Skiolduns’ — a race of Kings, which long held the scepter of Denmark. Yngue, another son, reigned in Sweden, and from him sprung the ‘Ynglings’ — a name by which the ancient sovereigns of that country were distinguished in history. Yet another son, Balder, became viceroy over the Angles, and from him the Anglo-Saxon Princes all traced their origin. Horsa and Hengist, the two Saxon Chiefs who fought the English [sic. British] in the fifth century, reckoned Odin (or ‘Wodin’ in their dialect) as their ancestor.”

Now that we have substantial evidence that Odin was more than a mythological character, being in fact an historical living person, let’s now consider a false assumption that was made concerning him. It is found in the book The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop. While this book has a lot of valuable information, and I am not about to throw my copy in the trash, some of its contents demand scrutiny; the subject of Odin being one of them. However, putting aside this erroneous conclusion, it is apparent that Hislop was a diligent researcher and acquainted with Norse Mythology. Let’s pick up his observations about Odin on pages 57-58:

“... In Iceland, and throughout Scandinavia, there were similar lamentations for the loss of the god Balder. Balder, through the treachery of the god Loki, the spirit of evil, according as had been written in the book of destiny ‘was slain although the empire of heaven depended on his life.’ His father Odin had ‘learned the terrible secret from the book of destiny, having conjured one of the Volar from her infernal abode. All the gods trembled at the knowledge of this event. Then Frigga [the wife of Odin] called on every object animate and inanimate to take an oath not to destroy or furnish arms against Balder. Fire, water, rocks and vegetables were bound by this solemn obligation. One plant only, the mistletoe, was overlooked. Loki discovered the omission, and made that contemptible shrub the fatal weapon. Among the warlike pastimes of Valhalla [the assembly of the gods] one was to throw darts at the invulnerable deity, who felt a pleasure in presenting this charmed breast to their weapons. At a tournament of this kind, the evil genius, putting a sprig of the misletoe into the hands of the blind Hoder and directing his aim, the dreaded prediction was accomplished by an unintentional fratricide. The spectators were struck with speechless wonder; and their misfortune was the greater, that no one, out of respect to the sacredness of the place, dared to avenge it. With tears of lamentation they carried the lifeless body to the shore, and laid it upon a ship, as a funeral pile [sic. pyre], with that of Nanna his lovely bride, who had died of a broken heart. His horse and arms were burnt at the same time, as was customary at the obsequies of the ancient heroes of the north.’ ...”

On pages 133-134, Hislop goes amiss with his reasoning. Let’s take a look at it: “From the researches of Humboldt we find that the Mexicans celebrated Woden as the founder of their race, just as our own ancestors did. The Wodan or Odin of Scandinavia can be proved to be the Adon of Babylon. The Wodan of Mexico, from the following quotation, will be seen to be the very same: ‘According to the ancient traditions collected by the Bishop Francis Nunez de la Vega’, says Humboldt, ‘the Wodan of the Chiapanese [of Mexico] was grandson of that illustrious old man, who at the time of the great deluge, in which the greater part of the human race perished, was saved on a raft, together with his family. Wodan co-operated in the construction of the great edifice which had been undertaken by men to reach the skies; the execution of this rash project was interrupted; each family received from that time a different language ...’”

Then in the appendix on page 312 Hislop says: “... Now, Baal and Adon both alike signify ‘Lord’; and therefore, if Balder be admitted to be the seed or son of Baal, that is as much as to say that he is the son of Adon; and, consequently, Adon and Odin must be the same.”

Here the question must be asked: How did the living historical Odin of 200 A.D. (excluding other Odins) go to Mexico shortly after Noah’s flood? The only way for Norse Mythology to have gotten to Mexico would be if the Vikings took it there, or possibly the Catholic priests accompanying the Spanish with Cortes. It is my opinion that the name Odin has absolutely nothing to do with “Baal” Can you now see why, just because it might be on the written page, it is not necessarily so?

Now that we have covered the fact that Odin was a true historic person, let’s go back to the article I quoted from The Encyclopedia Britannica about Odin under the title “Asgard.” As this article mentioned the “Sarmatians”, thus we really need to understand they were a non-Israelite tribe. For this I will again quote from E. Raymond Capt’s Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets:

Page 141: “All historical accounts agree that the Cimmerians were in the southern areas west of the Black Sea before the Scythians. It was the Scythians, pushed by the Sarmatians that caused the Cimmerians to move westward as ‘Celts’ and ‘Gauls.’”

Pages 167-169: “The Sarmatians were first mentioned by ancient historians in the 5th century B.C. under the name ‘Sauromatae.’ Herodotus says that their land lay ‘three days journey’ east of the Don River, and three days journey northwards from the Sea of Azov. Archaeological research has shown they extended over the wide grassland of the Eurasiatic border east of the Don River nearly up to the Ural River, and northwards along the Volga up to the Saratov. They were of mixed Iranian stock, combining features of various Late Bronze Age cultures, particularly of the Maeotians and later some Greek and Scythian people — with whom they were in close contact. Herodotus mentioned that the Sarmatians ‘use the Scythian language, speaking it corruptly.’

“The Sarmatians had no permanent settlements. They lived for the most part on horses and their dwellings were wagons drawn by oxen. In dress, culture and customs, they were similar to the Scythians. They wore trousers and pointed caps. Their wives retained the ‘ancient Amazon’ mode of living, joining their husbands in the hunt and in war, and wearing the same dress as the men. No virgin was permitted to marry until she had killed an enemy.”

From what we are compiling, we can begin to see these lost Israelite tribes, making their way into Europe had both Rome, with her armies and a continued ongoing friction with the Mithridates kings, to avoid, along with the Sarmatians to their backs. When we consider this, it is no wonder they made Odin their hero in legend after getting them safely through that predicament. It isn’t all that much different from our day when we make hero-idols of men like General Douglas MacArthur and General George Patton. In the so-called Norse Mythology, they loved their war heroes so much, and not wanting their children to forget them, they assigned their names to the days of the week: Wednesday = Odin’s Day; Thursday = Thor’s Day; Friday = Frea’s Day (all real people). It’s no different than naming city streets after our presidents. Look at the legend we have made out of David (Davy) Crockett. The Encyclopedia Britannica 1894, volume 1, says this about Tuesday: “... His name [Æsir], which signifies honor, is found in the names of the days of the week in Old Norse, Danish, Anglo-Saxon, and in our own ‘Tuesday’; and shows that, like Thor and Frey or Freyia, whose memory is perpetuated in our Thursday and Friday, the worship of this bravest of the Æsir was widely spread among the peoples of Northern origin.” If this is true, it’s about time that we teach our children that these days of the week are named after our great Israelite heroes so they, too, can be proud of them. Why don’t we start calling them “Odin’s Day”; “Thor’s Day” and “Frea’s Day”? It would sure make a good conversation piece, and I am certain it would get someone’s attention.

To further our knowledge of these Norse terms and how they fit into our study of the Bible, I will now quote from a book The Heritage Of The Anglo-Saxon Race by M. H. Gayer, O.B.E. While this is a tremendous book, like most of the information coming from British Israel, the author identifies the Germans as Assyrians. Actually, the true Germans are of the Pharez branch of Judah. Also, the author makes the claim that some of the Japanese are descended from Israelites. I rather believe some of the Japanese are descended from the Ammonites, the children by Lot’s incest with his daughters. Otherwise, the information from this source is excellent. It should also be mentioned there is a beautiful color chart by the same name that goes along with this book. We are interested in pages 46 through 53 (some references to the chart will be omitted):

 

“ZARAH AND PHAREZ (Twin Sons of Judah):

“At the birth of these twins, the midwife tied a scarlet thread round the wrist of Zarah, to distinguish him as the first-born (Gen. 38:27-30).

“The Birthright passed, however, to Pharez, from whom later sprang the House of David.

“Nothing is recorded in the Bible of the early life of these boys, their names are simply mentioned as amongst the seventy souls who accompanied Jacob on his journey into Egypt (Gen. 46:12)

“It is probable, however, that jealous rivalry would exist between them in connection with the Birthright, which each lad would naturally covet.

“Be that as it may, it is certain that it was the descendants of Pharez who entered into Palestine with Israel, and that it was this branch which, with part of the descendants of Shelah (Judah’s third son), formed the Tribe of Judah in the Promised Land.

“Zarah appears to have broken away from his people while the Israel nation was still in its infancy down in Egypt, and like his cousins, the Pioneers of Dan, set out in search of adventure along the southern lands of Europe ...

“Though deprived of the actual birthright, ZARAH NEVERTHELESS STILL COMPRISED ONE-THIRD OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH, WITH AN EQUAL RIGHT TO ALL THAT HAD BEEN PROMISED TO THE SONS OF JACOB, THOUGH HE SETTLED IN A FOREIGN LAND ...

“ZARAH:

“(The four genealogical lines originating in Zarah are reproduced, by kind permission, from the chart entitled, The Illustrious Lineage of the Royal House of Britain, by the Rev. W. M. H. Milner, M.A., F.R.G.S., a wonderful work which, together with his book, The Royal House of Britain, every Anglo-Israel student should possess.)

“From chapter 41 onwards, the Book of Isaiah is written to that Section of Israel called ‘ISRAEL IN THE ISLES.’

“While the bulk of Israel migrated, or was carried captive EASTWARDS to Assyria, and during some seventeen subsequent centuries was slowly struggling across Europe to its final home in the West (INVOLVED IN ALL THE GREAT MILITARY MOVEMENTS OF THE AGES), the Israel branch, which settled in ‘the Isles’, and constituted the WESTERN MIGRATION, played a very different part.

“In the earliest stage of this Western Migration, the descendants of Zarah-Judah and Dan were the principal actors. It is also certain, however, that the other tribes of their old homeland were also amply represented, by colonists who emigrated during the troublous years preceding the captivity.

“Zarah had five sons, two of whom, Darda and Calcol, are important in history.

“Darda, mentioned in 1 Chron. 2:6 and 1 Kings 4:31 (also by Josephus the historian, as ‘Dardanus’), is believed to have been the Dardanus who founded Ilion or Troy; while Calcol, or Cecrops, founded Athens in Greece (circa 1556 B.C.).

“These emigrants of Zarah’s branch, continuing to spread further along southern Europe, also started large colonies in Spain, the ‘Iberian’ (or ‘Hebrew’) Peninsula.  Here their capital was named Zarah-gaza (to-day Saragossa) in memory of their ancestor Zarah.

“A glance at the migration map reveals a number of familiar names in ancient Spain derived from the ‘Hebrew’ root, e.g. ‘R. Ebro-Ebrus-Eburo Britium, Iberia, Celtiberia.’ etc.

“From these people in Spain are traced the Clan Milly, or Scots-Gaels, who, according to the latest MS., came into Britain about 1000 B.C., and from this section of Judah are descended the old Scottish Kings of Ireland, and our present Royal House.

“In the book accompanying his chart, Mr. Milner gives much interesting information connected with these genealogies originating in Zarah.

“Pedigree I. – This pedigree, tracing through the House of Troy (Priam, Hector, etc.), passes down through the Sicambrian kings to the Franks; then to the French, where Hildegarde, daughter of Charlemagne, married Eberhard, Lord of Beutelsbach.  From here thirty-one generations bring us to Francis, Duke of Teck, who, marrying Princess Mary of Cambridge, became the father of Her Majesty, our beloved Queen Mary, and so on to Prince David her son.

“Pedigree II. – Again starts through Priam, King of Troy, whose daughter it is said married Memnon the Greek, ‘The son Tror, whom we call Thor, was father of Hloritha, ancestor of Odin.’

“Odin led our forefathers across Europe, from Asgard to the shores of the Baltic. ‘His victorious march traversed Russia, Germany, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. To him a crown was given by the great Over-ruler of all things, which he multiplied, crowning his sons kings of the countries he conquered, thereby securing his own position as the Royal Ancestor of all the dynasties of Europe.’  ‘THEY CONVERGE, AS BY ONE CONSENT, IN THE ROYAL HOUSE OF BRITAIN.’ ...  WITHOUT A SINGLE LINK WANTING, WE CAN TRACE OUR KING AND QUEEN BACK TO FIVE OF ODIN’S SONS (Royal House of Britain, P.27).

“The date of Odin is given variously as between A.D. 200 and 300.

“‘In the Herald’s College, London, there is a very ancient and valuable MS. deducing our Saxon Kings from Adam and from David.’ Odin is there ... so also is his wife Frea, who figures apparently as the daughter of Cadwalladr, son of our British King Lucius.

“It is a fact recorded by several early church historians, that Lucius left his kingly throne in Britain and became the Evangelist of Switzerland and Bavaria.

“FREA MIGHT WELL THEN HAVE BEEN HIS GRAND-DAUGHTER, SETTLED IN CENTRAL EUROPE, AT THE EPOCH OF ODIN’S HISTORIC MARCH INTO THE WEST (circa A.D. 250).

“From their marriage the following genealogy results:

ODIN, descended through                      m                       FREA, descended through Troy from Judah                                    Lucius, again through Anna,  ð------------------ò-------------------ï (Tudors, Stuarts, Plantagenets, Hanoverians, Sax-Coburgs, Danes) King George V.         m               Queen Mary É----------------ó-----------------Ê  Edward VIII abdicated                        George VI

                             

“Pedigree III. – ‘The tale of Troy brings Judah into touch with every period of our Royal history.’

“This pedigree again opening with Zarah, Mahol, Darda, brings the line through early British kings to Æneas and his grandson, Brutus.

“‘There seems no reason to doubt the traditional story that Brutus, having accidentally killed his father in the chase, and being ordered by his grandfather Æneas to quit Italy, assembled 3,000 of the bravest youths of Umbria, and putting himself at their head, sailed to his countrymen in Greece ...’

“From here, after various adventures, Brutus emigrated with all his people to the mainstock of his race — The ‘White Island’ (Britain).

“Twelve miles inland from Torbay, in South Devon, at Totnes on the Dart, there can be seen a granite boulder embedded in the pavement of Fore Street, and over this relic a sign inscribed, ‘This is Brutus’ Stone,’ the tradition being that on this stone the Trojan prince set foot when he landed in Britain some years after the Fall of Troy (Prehistoric London, E. O. Gordon).

“Many old historians state THAT THIS BRUTUS WAS THE FOUNDER OF LONDON, to which city he gave the name Caer Troia, Troynovant, or New Troy (circa 1100 B.C.).  This name, however, never became popular with the people, who preferred the old name of Llandin, or Londin, meaning ‘Sacred eminence’ (Prehistoric London).

“What is more specially interesting to our race, however, is THAT IT WAS JUST AT THE TIME WHEN BRUTUS WAS FOUNDING OUR GREAT CITY LONDON, THAT THE PROMISE WAS GIVEN BY GOD TO KING DAVID IN PALESTINE. ‘MOREOVER I WILL APPOINT A PLACE FOR MY PEOPLE ISRAEL, AND WILL PLANT THEM, THAT THEY MAY DWELL IN A PLACE OF THEIR OWN AND MOVE NO MORE, NEITHER SHALL THE CHILDREN OF WICKEDNESS AFFLICT THEM ANY MORE, AS BEFORETIME’ (2 Sam. 7:10).  DATE OF BRUTUS, 1100 B.C.; DATE OF DAVID, 1056 B.C.

“According to the Pantliwydd MSS. Of Llansannor, this pedigree, continuing, carries us down to King Lear, who married Penardim, daughter of Anna, of the House of David.  Thence later to Frea who married Odin, and also, through another son, carries the line on TO THE TUDORS.  [Penardim also appears as a male name, Missing Links by Capt, page 176]

“The Tudor Ancestors of our present Royal Family are, by two lines, descended from this Davidic princess Anna, who, according to very ancient Welsh MSS., ‘was cousin to the Virgin Mary’ (B. M. Harl, MSS. 3859, f. 1936).

“Anna was apparently the daughter of Joseph of Arimathea (the rich ruler who buried the body of Christ), who, by Eastern tradition is said to have been ‘the uncle of the Virgin Mary.’  This Joseph of Arimathea, with a band of fellow Evangelists, brought the Gospel to Britain WITHIN FIVE YEARS OF OUR LORD’S ASCENSION, and was permitted, by the courtesy of the British King Arviragus, to establish in Avalon (Glastonbury) THE FIRST NATIONAL CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF THE WORLD (see St. Paul in Britain, Morgan).

“‘Reckoning thirty years for a generation, the pedigree carries us back 1,080 years, that is, 330 years before the foundation of Rome’ (St. Paul in Britain).

“Passing on further, we come down, ‘to the three blessed Sovereigns of the Isle of Britain.’ Brán, the blessed, who, in A.D. 36, resigned the Silurian crown, and became Arch-Druid of the College of Silurian, (S.W. Wales).

“‘Carádoc, his son, whom every Briton, from the King to the peasant, followed when he lifted his spear to battle.’ First Christian in Britain.

“His three children – Cyllinus, who later became King, Linus who became first Bishop of Rome, and Gladys, adopted and renamed Claudia, by the Emperor Claudius in Rome.

“Claudia in her seventeenth year married Rufus Pudens, a Roman officer whom she had met in Britain. Their home in Rome became the headquarters of St. Paul in his visits to that city. Pudens, Linus and Claudia are affectionately greeted by name in St. Paul’s letter to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:21).

“The four children of Pudens and Claudia were instructed in the faith by St. Paul himself, and together with their father and Linus, were the first Britons to suffer martyrdom for the faith of Christ.  They were all interred by the side of St. Paul in the Via Ostiensis.

“‘Lucius, King and Missionary, grandson of Cyllinus,’ changed the established religion of Britain from Druidism to Christianity. ‘Cadwalladr, the blessed,’ his son, ‘who gave protection within all his land to the Christians who fled from the Pagan Saxons.’  Frea, daughter of Cadwalladr, who, as we have seen, married Odin (St. Paul in Britain).

“This ancient Irish genealogy, unlike the others, is traced from Zarah through CALCOL or Cecrops.

“From the latest MS. we learn that the Clan Milly or Scots-Gaels, are traced into Britain from the Zarah-Judah colony in Spain, and from that time (about 1000 B.C.) continue their history in Ireland.

“In the Milesian records we find these people called ‘Curaithe na Cruabh ruabh,’ i.e. ‘The Knights of the Red Branch.’ Now when we remember that all through their history the emblem of Northern Ireland (Ulster) has been ‘THE RED HAND’, and then recall the story of the birth of the twins Zarah and Pharez, how a ‘scarlet thread’ was tied round Zarah’s wrist to distinguish him, this fact is certainly remarkable, for it was from THIS branch of the Zarah [Judah] family that Eochaidh the Heremon descended, who, in 580 B.C., married Tamar Tephi, daughter of Zedekiah, last King of Judah.

“To Judah – about 1700 B.C., was promised, ‘The Scepter till Shiloh come’ (i.e. Christ) (Gen. 49:10).

“To David – about 1050 B.C., was promised, ‘THE THRONE OF ISRAEL FOREVER’ (Jer. 33:17).

“BY THE UNION IN 580 B.C. OF EOCHAIDH, PRINCE OF IRELAND (ZARAH-JUDAH STOCK) WITH TAMAR TEPHI, OF THE ROYAL HOUSE OF DAVID (PHAREZ-JUDAH STOCK), THESE TWO BRANCHES WERE WELDED INTO ONE ROYAL HOUSE, WHICH HAS NOW CONTINUED FOR 2,500 YEARS ITS RULE OVER ISRAEL-BRITAIN, IN UNBROKEN SUCCESSION (FIRST IN IRELAND, THEN IN SCOTLAND, THEN IN ENGLAND), AND MUST SO CONTINUE TILL THE RETURN OF CHRIST TO TAKE HIS THRONE ...

“In connection with the ‘Scarlet Thread’, it is interesting to note that ‘Scarlet’ has never lost its significance in Israel-British history:

“Rahab used ‘a line of scarlet thread’ when helping the Israel spies to escape from Jericho (Josh. 2:18).

“The ‘Official’ British uniform is SCARLET. See Ferrar Fenton’s translation of the Bible, Nahum 2:3, WRITING OF THE ARMIES OF ISRAEL AND JUDAH:

‘The shields of his heroes are red.’

‘His Mighty Commanders in scarlet.’

‘British official documents and parcels are tied with scarlet ribbon or tape – hence the term ‘Red Tape.’

‘The British ‘Thin Red Line’ is famous the world over’ ...

“PHAREZ:

“Nothing of special interest is recorded of Pharez, twin brother of Zarah, beyond the fact that to him descended the tribal Birthright, and that he was the Ancestor of the Royal House of David.

“The descendants of Pharez and of Shelah, the third son of Judah, appear to have composed most of the Tribe of Judah [in Palestine], as Zarah left his people while they were down in the land of Egypt ...”

 

The main thrust of this last lengthy quotation is to show you the close connection between the so-called Norse Mythology and the Bible. I used bold type in this passage in order to indicate terms like “Asgard”, “Odin”, “Thor”, and “Frea” etc. If you are not familiar with the story of Judah, this last segment should help you to grasp his part in the Biblical scheme of things. In the next lesson we will continue this topic in greater detail. Remember, we got on this subject when we discovered inscriptions on an Egyptian obelisks concerning an “Ashet Tree.” Our goal for getting into all this is to learn more about true “Odinism” as opposed to false “Odinism.”