This is my sixty-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. In the last lesson #68, we surveyed the teachings of Dan Gentry, Stephen E. Jones and Dave Barley. It was observed how, while teaching the Identity Truth, they nullify any beneficial building of the Kingdom they might have accomplished by disowning that Israel has an enemy. By refusing to identify Israel’s enemy, they scatter the Israel sheep rather than gather them (Matt. 12:30; Luke 11:23). They further sabotage the Kingdom by teaching universalism. They all seem to be following the subterfuge advanced by Stephen E. Jones. Since Jones wrote his The Babylonian Connection in 1978 (an effort to wreck the truth of Genesis 3:15), several others have picked up Jones’ toxic leaven. With this lesson we shall continue to expose Jones’ prevarications. I will now present an open letter to Stephen E. Jones written by William Finck.

Before making any comment, it will be necessary to review the offending passage at the heart of his postulation (for the entire quotation, refer to lesson # 68):

“The early Church began as the legitimate tribe of Judah, for they were loyal followers of the King of Judah, Jesus Christ, the legal heir of King David’s throne.

“When the Church was scattered by persecution into other lands, many other people of different ‘trees’ were converted to Christ. These ‘branches’ of other trees were cut off from their former trees and grafted into this Judah fig tree. Soon the number of foreign converts exceeded that of the genealogical Judahites, so that this fig tree began to look like a ‘gentile church,’ bearing peaches, pears, apples, and plums, with only a few branches bearing figs. Hence, men began to think of this tree as something other than Judah. But they were mistaken ...”

This was an effort on the part of Jones to bring non-Israelites into Yahweh’s Kingdom. On the subject of figs, he starts thusly as follows:

“THE FIGS: Rev. 6:13 compares the stars of heaven to figs being cast to the ground before they are ripe. The comparison is very appropriate. In the Bible, the fig tree is the national symbol of Judah. Jeremiah 24 divides Judah into two groups of people: a basket of good figs and a basket of bad figs. The good figs are those who submit to God, even when God pronounces judgment upon the nation. The bad figs refuse to submit, thinking God wants them to fight God’s ‘enemies’ in order to retain their freedom.”

 

OPEN LETTER CHALLENGING STEPHEN E. JONES’ TIRADE ON REV. 6:13 IN HIS FOUNDATION FOR INTERCESSION, Issue #171, December, 2002

(disputed by William Finck):

 

Jones is making up an entire story extrapolated from a simple metaphor describing a fig tree in Rev. 6:13. Often people pick up a symbol in the Bible and make far too much of it, much more than the Book is actually saying. This is an example, for nowhere in Rev. 6 is Judah alone the topic being discussed.

First Jones makes the statement “the fig tree is the national symbol of Judah.” Now although it is true that fig tree or fig metaphors are used several times concerning the inhabitants of Jerusalem (a remnant of Judah and various Canaanite peoples – Ezek. 16:3) and the later 70-week nation of Judaea, the fig tree certainly is not limited to describing Judah.

At Hosea 9:10 Israel is described first as “grapes in the wilderness” but then “as the firstripe in the fig tree”, but at 14:6 Hosea says of Israel, “his beauty shall be as the olive tree”, and at 14:8, “Ephraim shall say ... I am like a green fir tree.” If we were looking for national symbols in these trees, we surely would be confused. David is an olive tree at Psalm 52:8, yet his family a cedar in Ezek. 17. Jerusalem is a useless vine at Ezek. 15. Isa. 6 compares the 70-week nation to a teil (or terebinth) tree and as an oak. Jeremiah was told he was “to build and to plant” and sees an almond tree (1:11). At 11:16 Jeremiah describes Yahweh’s calling Judah “a green olive tree.” Should we really make a big deal of any of these poetic metaphors? If we make more out of them than we should, we certainly would cause confusion!

Now at Rev. 6:13 John writes, “And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.” Does this have anything to do with Judah? Nahum at 3:12 writes: “All thy strongholds shall be like fig trees with the firstripe figs: if they be shaken, they shall even fall into the mouth of the eater.” Now Nahum wasn’t talking about Judah, but Nineveh and the Assyrians!

Isaiah 34:4 is much like Rev. 6:13. It states, “And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.” Does this have anything to do with Judah? Isaiah is writing about the indignation of Yahweh upon all the nations!

So Jones takes a poetic metaphor used in several places in the Bible, which have nothing to do with Judah, and makes up an entire story about it, and a very un-Biblical story at that! Yet some elements of Jones’ tale must be addressed.

Much more damaging a lie than Jones’ mistaking the fig tree of Rev. 6:13 for Judah, is what Jones is trying to do with this fig tree of Judah.

First though, Jones tries to say that the “stars of heaven” are the “overcomers”, although this is alluded to nowhere in the Bible. The hosts of the nations in Isa. 34:4 certainly are not “overcomers.” Abraham’s descendants were to be as numerous as stars, and the woman [the nation of Israel] of Rev. 12 wears a crown of 12 stars [tribes], yet there is no mention of “overcoming” anything. So why does Jones read “stars” and assume “overcomers”? What Scripture does he base this upon? Note Gen. 26:4 and 37:9, Exod. 32:13, Deut. 1:10, 10:22 and 28:62, Judges 5:20, 1 Chr. 27:23, Neh. 9:23, Job 38:7, Psalm 147:1-4 and 148:3, Isaiah 14:13, Daniel 8:10 and 12:1-3, Joel 2:10 and 3:15, Obadiah 4, Nahum 3:16, Matt. 24:29 (Mark 13:25), 1 Cor. 15:41, Heb. 11:12, Jude 13, Rev. 8:12, and 12:4, and the idea of “stars” being “overcomers” is absurd!

He that “overcomes” is given many promises, Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 2:26, 3:5, 12, 21 and 21:7, and certainly will not be “fell unto the earth” from heaven, as Jones so ludicrously suggests. Why does Jones make these things up?

Yahshua Christ is not the root of a fig tree, as Jones so spuriously claims. He is the True Vine (John 15), and “ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you and ordained you” and He has only chosen the 12 tribes of Israel (Matt. 15:24, 19:28, Luke 22:30, Acts 26:6-7, Rev. 21:12). He is the Tree of Life which bears twelve fruits (Rev. 22), one for each of those 12 tribes. Nothing else may be grafted into this tree, for “every plant, which my heavenly father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” The New Covenant is only for those 12 tribes (Jer. 31:31-34, Ezek. 37:26-28, Amos 3:2, Romans 8:29-30, 9:4, Gal. 3:15, 4:5, Heb. 8:8-12 et al.).

So what is all this business about grafting peaches, pears, apples and plums into a fig tree? Where did Jones get such an idea from? He may say “Paul”, but certainly not!

“Thou shalt not sow thy vineyard with diverse seeds” (Deut. 22:9). “Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed” (Lev. 19:19). Would Paul of Tarsus break the Law of Yahweh? The idea of grafting branches onto a tree is found only in Paul’s metaphoric example to the Romans in Romans chapter 11, verses 13-24. Paul is not attempting to break Yahweh’s Law. “God forbid. Yea, we establish the Law.” (Rom. 3:31).

Paul knew that the Romans were descendants of the Israelites. The Romans had come to Italy from Troy after its destruction by the Greeks (of the tribe of Dan) and were descendants of Judah by his son Zerah. Paul, apostle to the Nations of Israel (Gen. 17:4-6 and 15-16, 35:11 et al.), knew well that the Romans he was writing to (and Romans 11 is an example only for those whom Paul addressed it to) were actually descendants of Israel. Paul tells them that at Romans 1:23-25, and again at 1:31 (calling them “covenant breakers” he can only mean the Old Covenant, the word ἀσύνθετος appears as a verb, ἀσυνθετέω, often in the LXX translated by Brenton “to break covenant”, see Ezra 10:2 and 10:10, Neh. 1:8 and 13:27, and Psalms 72(73):15 and 77(78):57). Romans 2:14-15 is a reference to Isa. 51:7, Jer. 31:33 and Ezek. 36:27 (see also Psalms 33:15, 40:8 and 125:4). Compare Romans 2:26-29 to Ezek. 11:19-20 and Jer. 4:4. Paul counted the Romans as descendants of Abraham throughout Romans chapters 4, 8 & 9, and writing the verse at 16:20 knew full well that the Romans were “the people of [Messiah] the Prince” destined to destroy Jerusalem, foretold at Daniel 9:26.

So the bottom line here is that the only “grafting” going on in Romans chapter 11 is the grafting of the wild olive branches (11:17) onto a “good” (cultivated) olive tree (No fig trees here), and note that they are all olives! Paul would not break the Law! The word translated “wild olive tree” in Romans 11:17 is ἀγριέλαιος, “a wild olive” (Liddell & Scott) and the word translated “olive tree” is ἔλαιος, also a “wild olive”, in secular Greek writing (Liddell & Scott), is “olive” everywhere in the Bible, in the Septuagint and N.T. One other Greek word signifying a “wild olive”, κότινος, appears nowhere in the Bible and  ἀγριέλαιος only appears in Romans 11. Paul’s “wild olives” were long-lost Israelites who had long ago discarded the truth of Yahweh and the Law (Rom. 1:23, 25, 31). Paul’s “good olive tree” were the Judaeans (those who were genetically pure Judah) who kept the Law. Nowhere else is anything or anyone but olives (Israel) being grafted onto any tree but an olive tree!

So Jones lies about Judah and the fig tree, he lies about stars and overcomers, he lies about grafting trees of different types, and makes up all sorts of stories from his lies! These few paragraphs address less than one-fourth of the content of Jones’ 171st newsletter. How many other lies he has told, I shudder to imagine!

                                                            William Finck

 

Now wasn’t that a great open letter! It should then be obvious that Jones fabricates continuously one lie right after another. Not only that, but red Ted R. Weiland (like a parrot) picks up on Jones’ fabrications and expands on them. Have they no shame? To show you that the early Celtic church understood the physical seduction of Eve, I will repeat a notice I placed in my Supplement Teaching Aids for October and November, 2003:

 

EARLY CELTIC CHURCH TAUGHT PHYSICAL SEDUCTION OF EVE

 

Most of you are aware of the extensive research I have done on the subject of Two Seedline. I will now present solid evidence that Two Seedline is no new doctrine as some so cocksurely insinuate. I get this testimony from the book The Celtic Church In Britain by Leslie Hardinge, in a chapter entitled “The Role of the Scriptures”, page 48. Though Hardinge does not trace the Celtic Church back to the Church setup at Glastonbury by Joseph of Arimathea about five years after the Passion, he does, however, quite well after 400 A.D., and proficiently documents his material. In this chapter he demonstrates the various methods of teachings used by the Celtic clergy. One of those methods was a question and answer liturgy of which the following is an authentic specimen (answers in parentheses):

“Who died but was never born? (Adam) • Who gave but did not receive? (Eve, milk) • Who was born but did not die? (Elias and Enoch) • Who was born twice and died once? (Jonas the prophet, who for three days and three nights prayed in the belly of the whale. He neither saw the heavens nor touched the earth) • How many languages are there? (Seventy-two) • Who spoke with a dog? (St Peter) • Who spoke with an ass? (Balaam the prophet) • Who was the first woman to commit adultery? (Eve with the serpent) • How were the Apostles baptized? (The Saviour washed their feet).” (Hardinge cites R. E. McNally, The Bible in the Early Middle Ages, 38-9, a translation of Ms. 908, “The Ioca monachorum”, an 8th Century Celtic text.)

Now all of you anti-seedliners (and everyone knows who you are) who have been running all over the country making all kinds of snide remarks and asking, “If Two Seedline doctrine is true, why didn’t the early Church Fathers teach it”? My answer is: “they did teach it.” The anti-seedliners simply haven’t done their homework! And all of you who have been following and supporting these theology quacks, don’t you think it is about time to put their feet to the fire? False teachings scatter rather than gather the Israel sheep!

Hardinge finished this chapter by saying the following: “... The Celtic Church cherished a deep love of the Bible, and from the Epistles of St Paul developed their theology. The Psalms were used in worship, and were the inspiration of poets and preachers. Without the influence of the views of church fathers Celtic theologians set about discovering what the Scriptures meant. Their tenets and practices, based on this understanding, show the eclecticism and pragmatism of exegete and layman. The legislation of Moses pervaded social, economic, and legal relationships to an extent seldom seen in the history of other branches of the Church. Unlike the theologians of Roman Christianity who appealed more and more to the teachings of Church and councils, Celtic teachers stressed the Bible. The role of the Scriptures in Celtic Christianity was indeed a vital one, so much so that no thorough study of the beliefs and practices of the Christians of Celtic lands is possible without bearing this fact in mind.”

That Eve committed adultery with the serpent was one of the tenets that the Celtic clergy taught! Over the last several years, I have piled substantial evidence on top of substantial evidence on this subject. Yet hecklers on the sidelines continue to criticize my research. It will be interesting to see how they will try to gainsay this evidence, but I’m sure they will attempt some asinine tactic. While some will blow everything but their nose, others will be strangely quiet! The usual ploy of the antichrist anti-seedliners is to quote 2 Corinthians 11:3 which says: “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” By this they assert that Eve’s seduction was only mental. Would someone please explain how one might commit “mental” adultery? How absurd! And the term “adultery” is very fitting here as Eve’s adultery was a mingling of Adam-kind with serpent-kind through sexual encounter. Most everyone who has studied the history of the Celtic Church has a deep respect for and favors it far over the Roman whore system. Either the anti-seedliners are wrong or the Celtic clergy was wrong, and I would rather believe the Celtic clergy! As you can see, this evidence concerning the belief that Eve committed adultery with the serpent is very profound, and cannot be easily brushed aside. Further, it exposes the anti-seedliners for the abysmal prevaricators they are!

One must take into account that only the priests in those days had the Scriptures, and that generally by copying them for themselves. Therefore, the clerics in those days had to devise methods of teaching by litany, a ceremonial style of memorization. Once understanding this fact, one can then realize that the ritual of saying “Who was the first woman to commit adultery? (Eve with the serpent)” was repeated over a long period of time thousands upon thousands of times. It wasn’t something that was said in passing only once.

Another thing that should be taken into account is that Leslie Hardinge is not in any way promoting Israel Identity, so he is a neutral witness with no ax to grind about Two Seedline doctrine. He is only reporting the historical fact that this was one of the question and answer sessions the Irish clerics used. For anyone who might wish to purchase this book, the address I have is Teach Services, Inc., Route 1, Box 182, Brushton, NY, 12916, and there is a price of $8.95 marked on it.

This Celtic Church evidence agrees with The Protevangelion 10:1-7 where it says (Mary’s Joseph speaking); found in The Lost Books of The Bible and The Forgotten books of Eden:

“1 And when her sixth month was come, Joseph returned from his building houses abroad, which was his trade, and entering into the house, found the Virgin grown big: 2 Then smiting upon his face, he said, With what face can I look up to the Lord my God? or, what shall I say concerning this young woman? 3 For I received her a Virgin out of the temple of the Lord my God! and have not preserved her such! 4 Who has thus deceived me? Who has committed this evil in my house, and seducing the Virgin from me, hath defiled her? 5 Is not the history of Adam exactly accomplished in me? 6 For in the very instant of his glory, the serpent came and found Eve alone, and seduced her. 7 Just after the same manner it has happened to me ...” [emphasis mine]

There is no mistaking the language from this quotation! When taken together with the Celtic Church evidence, it overwhelmingly supports a physical seduction of Eve by the serpent, which in turn was spawned by a mental seduction.

In the last lesson (#68) we took up the “no devil” doctrine as taught by Dan Gentry and his backslapping cronies. We will now develop further against that un-Biblical dogma. As we proceed, it will be necessary to have a Bible in hand and follow every Scripture cited.

 

OPEN LETTER TO ALL WHO TEACH THE “NO DEVIL” HERESY

By: William Finck

 

THE FLESH IS NOT SATAN AS SOME PUT FORTH

 

The ultimate fate of Satan (the Adversary) is not discussed in Scripture, but the ultimate fate of “the devil and his angels” is at Matt. 25:41, Rev. 20:10. The devil is Satan: Rev. 12:9 and 20:2, where we see that the Serpent and Dragon are also synonyms for Satan (Gen. 3:14, Luke 10:18-19). The Serpent-Devil-Satan entity has children here in the earth: Genesis 3, Matt. 13:24-30, John 8:44, Acts 13:10, 1 Pet 5:8. The fate of these children, “the anti-christ”, “the adversary”, “Satan”, etc. is foretold at Obad. 17-18, Zech. 14:21, Matt. 13:30 and 13:40, and it is evident that this fate is the same as that of the “devil and his angels.” Once one understands that relationship, the fate of “Satan” is clear. See also 2 Thes. 1:6-9.

• That the children of the Adversary had taken over the kingdom and the temple-priesthood (being the children of Cain, Canaan, Esau, Selah): John 8:31-47, Rom. 9:1-13, 2 Thes. 2, Rev. 2:9  and 3:9, Luke 11:51, Matt. 23:35, Matt. 3:7, et al.

• That the “prince of this world” is this same entity, and totally contrary to Christ: John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11 and that they are responsible for His crucifixion: 1 Cor. 2:6-8, Matt. 27:25, John 19:15 (Luke 19:12-27), 1 Thes. 2:14-18.

• Contrary to the fate of Satan, the fate of the “flesh” is that: “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3:6), and “...yet in my flesh shall I see God.” (Job 19:26), and after His resurrection: “...a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.” (Luke 24:39). The fate of the flesh is not the fate of “Satan”!

Matt 24:22: “And except those days be shortened, there should be no flesh saved: but for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened.” Psalm 65:2: “O thou that hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.” Psalm 136:25: “Who giveth food to all flesh: for his mercy endureth for ever.” Psalm 145:21: “... and let all flesh bless his holy name for ever and ever.” Isa. 40:5: “And the glory of Yahweh shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together ...” Isa. 66:23: “And it shall come to pass ... shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith Yahweh.” Jer. 32:27: “Behold, I am Yahweh, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?”

And while the Adversary certainly walks about in fleshly bodies, as demonstrated above, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up” (Matt. 15:13, speaking of some of the Pharisees: 15:1-12 and 15:14.) Note Matt. 13:38-42. Now it should be evident that the Flesh and Satan are two entirely different things, there are some things we should know in order to distinguish between, and to understand, each individual’s struggle with the flesh and our (the Anointed as a group) primary struggle with Satan (the Adversary, the serpent seed of Gen. 3:15).

• That the flesh is inherently weak: Matt. 26:41 (Mark 14:38), Rom. 6:19, 7:13-25, 8:1-13, 13:14, 1 Cor. 1:26-29 et al. Our sin comes through the acts of fulfilling the desires of the flesh: Gal. 5:16-26, Eph. 2:3, Col. 3:5-10, 1 Tim. 6:4-10, 2 Tim. 3:1-9, James 4:1 & 1 Pet. 2:11 et al.

• Even good seed is destroyed by lust: Mark 4:22, Matt. 13:22, Luke 8:14; but also by Satan (again demonstrating that the flesh and its lust are not “Satan”, and vice-versa): Mark 4:15, Matt. 13:19, Luke 8:12, also called “the wicked one” and “the devil.”

• That it is the Adversary who tempts us into pursuing the lusts of the flesh (as did the Serpent with Eve): Matt. 4:1-11, 1 Cor. 7:5, 2 Cor. 2:11, Eph. 4:27, 1 Tim. 3:6-7 and 5:14-15 and 2 Tim 2:22-26 et al. (And in this is the reason why nearly every generation of our political and religious leaders wander from righteousness and cater to those who would destroy us.)

• That idolatry moves us to immorality: Romans 1:25-32, 2:1-16, Eph. 4:18-19, Rev. 9:20-21 et al. Immorality brings the wrath of Yahweh upon us: Rom. 4:15, 1 Cor. 3:16-17, 6:13-20, 9:27, 10:8-13, Gal. 6:8, Eph. 5 :1-8 et al. Faith and obedience alone save us from that wrath: Rom. 5:9, 8:14-39, Gal. 2:16, 6:8, 1 Thes. 4:3-4, 1 Tim. 1:12-14, 4:16 et al.

• That the real war, or struggle, is not with our incontinence but with our enemies, those enemies of Yahweh, the Adversary who are the offspring of the serpents: Eph. 6:11-12, 2 Cor. 11:14-15, 1 Thes. 2:14-18, 1 Cor. 2:8, 2 Cor. 10:1-6, Col. 2:15, et al.

• That faith and obedience cleanse us of immorality and sin: Rom. 2:12 (where the verb •B@8@Ø<J"4 is actually a form of •B@8@bT “to wash off” and not •B`88L:4 “to destroy”, this same verb correctly translated at Acts 22:16, 1 Cor. 6:11; the verb form belonging to either of the two verbs.) “For as many as have done wrong without law, without law then are they cleansed ...”, 2 Cor. 7:1, Eph. 5:26, Titus 3:3-5, Heb. 10:21-24, 2 Pet. 2:17-20, 1 John 1:9, 1 Cor. 6:9-11, Rev. 1:5 et al.

• That those who are NOT faithful and obedient are delivered to the Adversary (Satan, children of the Serpent, etc.) for either their correction, or their destruction: 1 Cor. 5:1-5 (5:13, 2 Cor. 5:1), 1 Tim. 1:20, 5:14-15, 2 Tim. 2:26, 2 Thes. 3:1-3, Rom. 1:32 and 2:1-9, Phil. 1:27-28, Luke 1:70-75 and 10:18-20 et al.

It should be evident that physical might means nothing, but that when the Anointed (who are the children of Israel) are faithful, moral and obedient, they prevail over the Adversary (who are the children of Cain, Canaan, Esau etc. – today’s “Jews”, Arabs, Turks, most Italians, Spaniards, Iranis, Iraqis etc.) and when the Anointed are faithless and disobedient, they are destroyed by the Adversary – from within and from without, on both a national and personal level – the same story told by the books of the Old Testament,  for nothing changes!

• That the Adversary (Satan etc.) is the author, the originator of wrongdoing (sin) we see at: Mat. 18:7 (Luke 17:1), 1 Cor. 1:20, 5:10, 2 Cor. 4:4, Jude 6-16, 1 John 3:8-10, 2 Thes 2:1-12, John 8:44 et al.

• That the discourse of Yahshua Christ concerning the men which are defiled by that which proceeds from their heart (Matt. 12:35, Mark 7:15, Luke 6:45) and their mouth (Matt. 15:11) and are all amidst His discourses concerning race (Matt. 12:33-34, Luke 6:43-44 and Matt. 15:13) and should not be removed from that context. See also 1 Cor. 12:3 and 1 Cor. 16:22 (where the mixed Greek/Hebrew verse may be better rendered: “If anyone does not love the Prince, Yahshua Christ, he must be accursed, a rebel to be destroyed”), I John 2:22-23, Matt. 12:31-32, Mark 3:29 and Luke 12:10.

• That although the word –((g8@l (“angel”) may often refer to an earthly messenger, there are spiritual beings, in “heaven”, unlike those of us in the flesh, who are eternal and which we are once we leave the flesh: Matt. 22:30, 24:31, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:36, Hebrews 1:7 and 1:14, Rev. 12:4 and 7, 1 Cor. 15:42-44. 2 Cor. 5:1-8, 2 Cor. 12:1-4, Rev. 4:1-2, Acts 12:14 et al. And that those who deny the existence of such are modern day Sadducees: Matt. 22:23-33 (Mark 12:18-27, Luke 20:27-38), Acts 23:6-8 and Josephus, Antiquities 18.1.4 (18.16) and Wars 2.8.14 (2.164-165). Of these are Dan Gentry, Gerda Koch, Nicholas Weins, Sheldon Emry and their ilk.

                                                                                                         William Finck

 

Again, a very great open letter by William Finck, and I will now give you some commentary on it: As stated in Matt. 25:41, there is an “everlasting “ place of “fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” How do the “no-devil” people get flesh out of that? And secondly, how is our flesh associated with angels? Absurdity personified, (meaning the embodiment of absurdity)! At Rev 20:10, it speaks of “the devil that deceived them.” If the devil is “the flesh” how could it deceive us or anyone? At Rev. 12:9, “... the great dragon ... that old serpent ... Devil ... Satan ...” are all the same related entity! At Rev. 12:3, that entity is called “a great red dragon”, and we know this is Esau who married dragon seed. At Rev. 20:2, the four synonyms for “the devil” are used again. At Luke 10:18-19, (the Genesis 3:14-15) “serpent” is used in conjunction with “Satan.” At 1 Cor. 5:5, the flesh and Satan can only be two separate entities, or it would mean that Satan must destroy himself. At 2 Cor. 12:7: “the messenger of Satan” is described as “a thorn in the flesh.” Surely this would make Satan the enemy of the flesh! At Matt. 13:24, it speaks of the “prince of devils.” Are we to believe, according to the twisted mentality of the no-devil people, that there is such a thing as the “prince of the flesh?” How do the no-devil people not see at v. 28 of this passage that the devil is the “strong man” representing the “Jew Pharisees”, and that Yahshua is going to cast them out (which happened in 70 A.D. at the siege of Jerusalem by Titus)? This was the binding of Satan at Rev. 20:2 which was to last a thousand years.

Are we to believe that the “devil” at Matt. 13:39 is the “flesh”? Are we to believe that it was the “flesh” that planted the tares?, and that the tares which the “flesh” planted will be harvested? You can see that when we start twisting Scripture around, we arrive at all kinds of strange absurdities. Are we to believe that “the synagogue of Satan” at Rev. 2:9 & 3:9 is the “synagogue of the flesh”? Are we to read “flesh” rather than “devil” at Matthew 4:11, where after the devil tempted Yahshua that His flesh “leaveth him, and behold, angels came and ministered unto him.” Well, I guess if He were skinned alive, He would have needed many angels! But this is what these turkey no-devil people claim, that Yahshua was tempted by His flesh! Are we to replace the word “flesh” for “devil” at Luke 8:12? In that case it would read: “Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the flesh, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.” How preposterous!

Are we to read “flesh” for “devil” at John 6:70? In that case it would read: “Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a flesh?” Are we to read John 8:44 thusly: “Ye are of your father the flesh, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” And John 10:21 would read: “Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a flesh. Can a flesh open the eyes of the blind?” In that case, John 13:2 would have to read: “And supper being ended, the flesh having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him.” And Acts 13:10 would have to read: “And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the flesh, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” You should now see why I call people like this, theology quacks!

I am aware that I have given you much to think over and contemplate in this lesson. You should also begin to see just how serious a problem we have. There is probably more false doctrine floating around the world today than since the dawn of history. No wonder Matthew 7:13 says: “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.” For those who really want to know the truth, it’s something that must be worked at. And the only way one is ever going to find it is “study to show yourself approved.” You cannot take anyone’s word for anything. Each individual must check every facet of evidence for himself and have the ability to discern the truth when he finds it. All truth starts with a correct premise.

 

FURTHER EVIDENCE THE OTHER RACES WERE NOT CREATED

 

The KJV translates Acts 17:26 in part: “And hath made of one blood all nations...” Ferrar Fenton renders it: “He made by One every race of men ...” There is some question whether or not the word “blood” should be in the text. W. E. Vine under the word “blood” indicates only the words “of one.” The Emphatic Diaglott renders it: “and made from One, Every Nation ...” which may be more nearly correct. Smith & Goodspeed has it: “From one forefather he has created every nation ...” Everything depends on the definition of who the “One” is and who the “Nations” are. Ferrar Fenton really goofed on this one as the Greek word is ethnos, meaning nation. Once we realize the word “One” means Adam and the word ethnos means the “nations” of the tribes of Genesis 10, all the confusion disappears. Now whether or not the word “blood” is used is superfluous, for all the Genesis 10 nations have Adam’s blood! This verse is simply saying that from Adam came all the White Genesis 10 nations. I will repeat again, Scripture does not record the so-called creation of the other races! Paul spoke these words to explain to the Athenians, who were of Javan the Japhethite, that although they were not Israel, they too were children of Adam, being one of the White Genesis 10 nations.

When are we ever going to get it through our thick heads that the Bible is about Adam’s race and Adam’s race only? Acts 17:26 is a good example of a verse, which when taken out of context, leads to fornication with the other nonwhite races!

 

This is my seventieth monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. With this issue, we are going to address a subject that is in much need of being brought to the forefront. Many of you have already noticed my continual attack on various false doctrines. This is the scatological (study in excrement) job Yahweh has placed on my shoulders. Recently, He has given me witness that I must continue, for we are now living in a day where more of this twisted theology abounds. I find all this a great responsibility, and everything I write, I write with fear and trembling! I do this because we are either gathering the sheep or scattering them, Matthew 12:30. There is no category in between. All one need do to scatter the Israel sheep, is conjure up some ambiguous, flawed premise arriving at a mistaken conclusion. Therefore, all truth starts with a correct premise, and only truth can set us free.

But it is even more serious than this, for Scripture tells us that if we continue in our arrogant ways, we will be turned over to Satan either for our correction or for our destruction. And yet this is not all, for though we put forth much effort to help build the Kingdom, our rewards at the Judgment will be taken from us and given to another. Therefore, we dare not deviate from the truth! With this in mind, I publish the ensuing:

The following is a reprint of a letter sent to Dave Barley from William Finck, September 17, 2003. Finck’s personal letter has been modified from a personal to an open letter with Finck’s permission:

Before making this challenge, it would be best to quote the offending paragraph from Barley’s newsletter on page 4:

“By the way, I received a phone call from an Arab man the other day who had watched the film and became converted to following Christ. His testimony was fantastic and upon learning that Jesus Christ has a place and purpose for all people, he had great hope. He learned that God’s law had many forms and facets to it, such as the law of aerodynamics, and gravity. All of God's creation experiences those ‘laws of nature’ and they are subject to those laws. However, as we know, there are also God’s laws to Israel, and Israelites for the most part, are to teach and administer those laws, but as God’s Word says, ‘to whom much is given, much is required,’  and ‘each man in his own order.’  This Arab learned that as he acquired truth, that there was also a responsibility that he now bore to properly use and apply that truth.”

 

AN OPEN LETTER CHALLENGING DAVE BARLEY OF AMERICA’S PROMISE

Concerning Barley’s August/September 2003 Newsletter

By: William Finck

Dear Mr. Barley,

Hello, I have never corresponded to your ‘ministry’ before, but after receiving a copy of your August/September 2003 Newsletter, I am compelled to write to you. I was of the understanding that yours is an “Israel Identity” ministry, the theme of your so-called “Heirs of the Promise” videos. Yet reading your newsletter, I became quite puzzled at your description of how you “converted” some “Arab ... to following Christ.” It seems to me, Mr. Barley, that your ministry is teaching “some other gospel” that we have not received, neither from Paul nor the other apostles, nor from Yahshua Christ Himself. You should know the consequences of that, Mr. Barley (Galatians 1:9), yet I do hope that you are not “blinded with pride” (1 Tim. 6:3-4) and have the courage to continue reading this letter.

You have misused 1 Corinthians 15:23, “But every man in his own order ...” in your newsletter, and should have finished the verse: “... Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at His coming.” Do you know that the Corinthians (Dorian Greeks) were a part of the “lost” children of Israel? Paul knew, and indicates such with certainty at 1 Corinthians 10 [At 1 Cor. 10 Paul is telling the Corinthians that their fathers were with Moses in the Exodus, the equivalent of telling them that they had descended from the 12 tribes. This is unquestionable, since the conversation would be pointless if Paul did not include the Corinthians with “our.”]  (note 10:8  [Because I mention this verse again below. Paul is admonishing the Corinthians not to engage in the same race-mixing (fornication, Jude 7) which their fathers did, described in Numbers 25. Paul admonished the Corinthians concerning fornication also at 1 Cor. 6:18]) and in the language he chose in several other statements. [Several other of Paul’s statements in 1 Corinthians reveal that Paul was speaking to Israelites, for he illuminates their fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy which only concerned Israelites. Among these are 1 Cor. 6:20, 7:23, 14:21 (spoken of Ephraim, Isa. 28:11) and 15:3. Note also 1:18 and 2:7-10.] As Yahshua Christ said, “I come but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matt. 15:24) it can well be demonstrated that Paul had never any intention to violate that commission. The New Covenant was made only with Israel and Judah (Jer. 31:31-34) and Paul wrote (in the poor A.V. rendering:) “no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto” (Gal. 3:15).

Do you not know, Mr. Barley, what an “Arab” is? The very word “Arab” means “mixed” (Strong’s #s 6154, 6151) and the root is the verb (6150) “to grow dusky” and of people it is only common sense that this only happens through fornication. Fornication, Mr. Barley, is the pursuit of strange flesh (Jude 7). Don’t try, as the Catholics do, to point to Matt. 19:5 in a quest to confuse fornication with adultery, for the two are very different things, and mentioned together at Matt. 15:19, Mark 7:12, 1 Cor. 6:9 and Hebrews 13:4 (in Greek, which I read well) they certainly are! Another word Belial (Strong’s #1100) has a connection with the idea of something “mixed” (see #1098) and Christ has no concord with Belial (2 Cor. 6)!

Do you not know that the Arabs are a “degenerate plant” and a “strange vine” (Jer. 2:21) and that “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up”? The children of Israel were punished for committing fornication with the mixed (Canaanite-Moabite) daughters of Moab (1 Cor. 10:8), and those Moabites are among the Arabs of today. Yahshua warned the church at Pergamos of this very thing (Rev. 2:12-14) and also the church at Thyatira, whose children He will kill with death (Rev. 2:20-23), surely because they are bastards (Arabs, mamzers - Strong’s #4464). We, Mr. Barley, are either sons or bastards, and there is no third alternative (Hebrews 12:8). Since the faith is only for the Sons (Romans 9:4-5, Hebrews 8:8-12, Gal. 4:5, Eph. 1:3-5) and the faith is certainly not for anyone else, as Paul attests (2 Thes. 3:2, 2 Cor. 13:5, 1 Cor 15:1-2, Col. 4:5, 1 Thes 4:12, 1 Tim. 3:7 et al.) where is there any room for an Arab? Paul speaks of Ishmael at Galatians 4:30: “Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman will not be heir with the son of the free woman.” This directive, Mr. Barley, from Yahweh Himself, HAS NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE RESCINDED!!! I adjure you now, change your unscriptural and unhealthy ways, for by opening the door to wolves, you will destroy the sheep.

“Give not that which is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you ... what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? ... or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? ... Beware of false prophets ... Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? ... A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (from Matt. 7).

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness ...” (1 Cor. 1:18).

Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit,                                                           William Finck

 

It should now be quite evident how unscriptural a position Barley and company hold. To show just how serious this kind of teaching is, I will quote The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, chapter 16:

“Do not err, my brethren. Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. And if those that corrupt mere human families are condemned to death, how much more shall those suffer everlasting punishment who endeavour to corrupt the Church of Christ, for which the Lord Jesus, the only-begotten Son of God, endured the cross, and submitted to death! Whosoever, ‘being waxen fat,’ and ‘become gross,’ sets at naught His doctrine, shall go into hell. In like manner, every one that has received from God the power of distinguishing, and yet follows an unskilful shepherd, and receives a false opinion for the truth, shall be punished. ‘What communion hath light with darkness? or Christ with Belial? Or what portion hath he that believeth with an infidel? or the temple of God with idols? And in like manner say I, what communion hath truth with falsehood? or righteousness with unrighteousness? or true doctrine with that which is false?”

When we attempt to bring or convert people of another race into our assemblies, we are inviting race-mixing which in turn “corrupts” our “families.” And, whenever miscegenation occurs, it brings death to the spirit, for race-mixing is the “sin unto death”, Matt. 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29.

 

THE UNPARDONABLE SIN

 

-317Over the years there has been a lot of speculation to just what constitutes the sin unto death. The Scripture we are referring to is Matthew 12:31-33: “31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. 32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. 33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.”

The context of this passage refers to the race-mixed Pharisees claiming that Yahshua was casting out devils by the prince of devils, Beelzebub. Because they constituted an “adulterous generation” brings the process of miscegenation into play which is our subject. One must read from verses 25 to 36 of this passage to get the gist of it.

What does it mean “make the tree good” here in verse 33? What, if anything, does that have to do with blaspheming the “Holy Ghost”? As we continue, you will begin to see that “making the tree good” has everything in the world to do with not “blaspheming the Holy Ghost.” The reason we don’t understand the sin unto death, among many other things, is because many times we inaugurate a flawed premise.

Notice the naked contradiction that “all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.” It is evident by the very nature of this statement that the sin or blasphemy against the Holy Ghost has to be something that once committed cannot be reversed – that not even Yahweh can do anything about it. Therefore, what other sin or blasphemy could it be other than the product of race-mixing? Once a bastard, always a bastard! No other sin in itself is eternal, an example of nature so far gone in depravity that repentance is impossible, and recovery hopeless. The word “blasphemy” in the Greek is Strong’s #988 blasphemia, and is sometimes used especially in a sense including the resistance against the convicting power of the Holy Spirit. When one commits miscegenation, one rebels against that convicting power. Sometimes actions speak louder than words! But the greatest blasphemy of all is to promote race-mixing by deceitful words! The Tyndale Bible Dictionary, page 226, defines blasphemy as: “... Profane or contemptuous speech or writing (or action toward) God. In a general sense, ‘blasphemy’ can refer to any slander, including any word or action that insults or devalues another being.” So it is evident that “blasphemy” can be in either the form of speech or action. The language at Mark 3:28-29 is even stronger: “28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: 29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.” [Holy Gr. #40 = physically pure]

In order to comprehend the sin unto death, we need to understand Paul’s mission. There’s a lot of Paul bashing going on today from a lot of people who simply don’t know what they are talking about. That’s an entirely different subject which needs to be addressed, but that will have to wait for another time. What is important here to consider is Paul’s stated mission at Acts 28:20: “For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.”

Once we understand Paul’s primary commission, we will then understand what Paul did! Now Paul was the official Apostle to what is incorrectly termed the “Gentiles.” The word in Greek is “ethnos”, and means nations. And these are the many nations promised to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, the so-called “Gentiles” are none other than Israelites. If one has established a flawed premise that the “Gentiles”, at least in most cases, are non-Israelites, he is for the greater part mistaken. And if “Gentiles” are not Israel, or the ten northern Lost Tribes, Paul would have said “I am bound in these chains for the hope of Israel and the Gentiles.” But he didn’t say that!

What we need to do is check these Scriptures to see if our premises are Christian. For if our premises are incorrect, surely they are un-Christian! When Paul said that his mission was for Israel, was he following his Master? If Paul’s mission was for Israel, would not our Savior’s be the same at Matthew 15:24?: “But he [Yahshua] answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

Question: If Yahshua was sent only to the “lost sheep of the House of Israel”, why would Paul be sent to non-Israelites? Are we to believe that Paul would be commissioned to something that Messiah wouldn’t do Himself? This is what most people claim! Are you beginning to see just how dangerous a flawed premise can be? How do we relate to all this? How do the mainstream churches relate to this? Today we have several hundred churches teaching hundreds of thousands of flawed premises. Is it any wonder, then, we are in such deep trouble? And the Israel Identity Message is no exception.

The next thing we should consider is Paul’s confession of faith at Acts 24:14: “But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets.”

Isn’t it simply amazing how Paul believed the entire Old Testament, and that we today are supposed to deem all the Old Testament done away with? Where did that flawed premise come from? Did Paul ever tell us that the Old Testament was done away with? What did Yahshua say at Matthew 4:4?: “But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Did Yahshua say, “now that I’ve come, you can ignore 85% of the Bible”? Is there anyone so arrogant that they would say that the entire Old Testament is not the Word of Yahweh? Well, it seems there are many!

What is Paul’s hope? What is Paul’s expectation?, Acts 26:6-7: “6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers: 7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope’s sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the [false] Jews.” We see here that Paul’s hope had substance. It was a concrete promise made to our fathers under which providentially included all twelve tribes earnestly serving Yahweh day and night with a hope to come. Is this same hope which Paul had our hope too? Again what is our premise? Is it a Christian premise? Does this not show that Paul understood that all the twelve tribes were still in existence? Let’s take a look at Hebrews 6:13: “For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.”

Next let’s take a look at Hebrews 6:16-18: “16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. 17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: 18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us.”

Do we have a correct premise here or not?  What kind of premise do the present-day churches have? It is important to have a proper premise as it determines our conclusions and understanding. Let’s now go to Jeremiah 14:7-9 to see what kind of hope we should have: “7 O Yahweh, though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy name’s sake: for our backslidings are many; we have sinned against thee. 8 O the hope of Israel, the saviour thereof in time of trouble, why shouldest thou be as a stranger in the land, and as a wayfaring man that turneth aside to tarry for a night? 9 Why shouldest thou be as a man astonied, as a mighty man that cannot save? yet thou, O Yahweh, art in the midst of us, and we are called by thy name; leave us not.”

First, we should inquire just what people are “called by thy name.” This is what Yahweh charged Israel with, so let’s see where it all goes. It can go right to the ultimate sin of the flesh, the unpardonable sin. Do you ever wonder why the Almighty destroyed nearly an entire continent? What sin is so great that He said it would be better if He destroyed them? I hope we can begin to see the enormity of this type of sin, and why many don’t relate to this type of sin today. Hosea 4:1-2: “1 Hear the word of Yahweh, ye children of Israel: for Yahweh hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of Elohim in the land. 2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break out, and blood toucheth blood.”

We’re headed again for the days of Noah where “blood toucheth blood”, as also in Hosea 4:2. And looking at reality, it’s already after the fact. All kinds of loose living, killing, street violence, robbery, but the killing of the unborn goes beyond all comprehension. There’s a blood debt somewhere that is going to have to be paid! How does all this we see going on today relate to the final stage of things? Here we see the Bible defining adultery as meaning, blood touching blood. The word “touch” in the Hebrew is “to lay the hand upon, euphemistically to lie with a woman.” It’s not the “swearing” that is blood touching blood. It’s not the “lying” that causes blood to touch blood, and while “killing” is bloody, it is not blood touching blood in the context here. Again, it’s not the “stealing” that causes blood to touch blood, but the committing of adultery that causes blood to touch blood. Actually the Hebrew does not say blood touching blood, but bloods touching bloods. When it mentions “controversy” in verse 1, it is speaking as a judicial ground of complaint (Isa. 1:18; Jer. 25:31; Mic. 6:2). Inasmuch as all 12 tribes of Israel are under Yahweh’s Marriage Covenant, He can prosecute that legal claim in any manner He sees fit. And that legal claim is not restricted to any individual tribe, but any individual member of any one of those tribes. So what it all boils down to is this: if any individual member of one of those twelve tribes imagines he is an exception to the rule, he is sadly mistaken! (Heb. 12:7-9) When Abraham placed Isaac on that altar, if you are one of Isaac’s descendants, Yahweh has every legal right to chastise you by any possible means until He brings you into line. Now if you don’t like those terms, you will have to talk it over with Him! 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 sums it up nicely as follows: “19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” As for this humble servant, I‘m so happy that I’m bought and paid for, I wouldn’t have it any other way. The premise here is, Israel is Yahweh’s inheritance and we legally belong to Him, come what may.

But this brings up the subject of who are not Yahweh’s inheritance, Isaiah, 63:17-18: “17 O Yahweh, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear? Return for thy servants’ sake, the tribes of thine inheritance. 18 The people of thy holiness have possessed it but a little while: our adversaries have trodden down thy sanctuary.”

“Our adversaries”?, who are they? If one were to dissect verse 18 here, it would require an enormous amount of material from the Bible and history to analyze, and few there are who are willing to take the time and effort to do it! Then in Isaiah 63:19: “We are thine: thou never barest rule over them; they were not called by thy name.”

Where are Barley and company on this verse? Who are all those who are “not called by thy name”? Who are the “them” and “they”? Again, what is the Biblical premise here?!?! There are different kinds of people, are there not? And Yahweh has a chosen people! This Scriptural witness hardly supports the unholy doctrine of “universalism”, does it? Should not our hope be the same as Paul’s hope which is in turn the same as Yahweh’s hope?

But Israel became a stranger to the Covenant, Ephesians 2:12-14: “12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without Yahweh in the world: 13 But now in the Anointed Yahshua ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. 14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” Colossians 1:21 puts it this way: “And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled.”

Getting back to the “sin unto death”, we will take a look at Hosea 7:8-9: “8 Ephraim, he hath mixed himself among the people; Ephraim is a cake not turned. 9 Strangers have devoured his strength, and he knoweth it not: yea, gray hairs are here and there upon him, yet he knoweth not.”

In other words, burned very dark on one side and still light on the other (half & half)! So here’s the final stage. Some of Adam’s descendants started mixing with the earthy. Adam is heavenly seed. The earthy are earthy seed. What happens when you mix heaven and earth together?  Another Scripture to help clarify what we are speaking of is at Hosea 5:6: “6 They shall go with their flocks and with their herds to seek Yahweh; but they shall not find him; he hath withdrawn himself from them.” Now we’re coming to the crux of the unpardonable sin. It is when Yahweh withdraws his Spirit. And, why has Yahweh withdrawn His Spirit? Hosea 5:7: “7 They have dealt treacherously against Yahweh: for they have begotten strange children: now shall a month devour them with their portions.”

Now let’s take a look at Hosea 4:14: “I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.”

Can you now see the terrible results of the missing ingredient of knowledge? Today, the lack of Yahweh’s knowledge is tearing us apart at the seams, and for the most part hardly anyone really cares. For that I will quote Hosea 4:6: “6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.” Take a good, long, hard look around us today and tell me that Yahweh has not forgotten our children! We, as a people, should be ashamed! The sin unto death is being committed by the millions every night in beds all over America and throughout the world. And once the Israel flesh is corrupted, it never shall recover! This was the very reason for Noah’s flood. Yahweh destroyed an entire society to prevent a further spread of bastardization of race, Genesis 6:12: “And Yahweh looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.” Again, what kind of a premise do we have? One might be very sincere to the point of honesty about one’s premise, and be totally wrong! In such a case, it’s like playing a game of Russian roulette! To mix kind is the last step in Satan’s plan because there’s no recovery from it! You will notice that at Genesis 6:12, it was the flesh that was corrupted, not initially the Spirit. But as goes the flesh, so also goes the Spirit.

There is no future for a fornicator’s children, even in the case of Judah in respect of Er, Onan and Shelah. We see this at Hebrews 12:16-17: “16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. 17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.”

At 1 John 5:16 we are informed the following: “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” How shall we explain this Scripture?  Here we have a sin that we’re told not to pray for.  Why not?  Because it’s past repenting for.

Again, we are told at Jeremiah 7:16: “16 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up cry nor prayer for them, neither make intercession to me: for I will not hear thee.”

This last Scripture is explained at Jeremiah 6:15: “15 Were they ashamed when they had committed abomination? nay, they were not at all ashamed, neither could they blush: therefore they shall fall among them that fall: at the time that I visit them they shall be cast down, saith Yahweh.”

Next, let’s go to Jeremiah 2:3-4: “3 Israel was holiness unto Yahweh, and the firstfruits of his increase: all that devour him shall offend; evil shall come upon them, saith Yahweh. 4 Hear ye the word of Yahweh, O house of Jacob, and all the families of the house of Israel.”

Jeremiah 2:11-13: “11 Hath a nation changed their gods, which are yet no gods? but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit. 12 Be astonished, O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith Yahweh. 13 For my people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

Observe in the Hebrew “be astonished” means to be appalled, as this is a great sin. “O ye heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid.”  Now what is the fountain of living waters? It’s the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of Yahweh Himself! But notice these are offspring that are broken cisterns that can’t hold that water. Why are the cisterns broken? Yahweh connects with man through the Holy Spirit, but these are broken cisterns that cannot contain His Spirit! It can only be so due to the process of race-mixing! When the product of miscegenation has been completed, it can no longer contain Yahweh’s Spirit! Thus, a broken cistern! What did you think a “broken cistern” was? If it were literally a broken cistern, it could be fixed. But the cistern-children of mixed marriages can never be repaired! Thus they can never contain Yahweh’s Holy Ghost! They are ruined vessels that can’t hold the Spirit!

At Jeremiah 2:21-23 the “broken cistern” offspring are referred to as a “degenerate plant”: “21 Yet I had planted thee a noble vine, wholly a right seed: how then art thou turned into the degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me? 22 For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith Yahweh Elohim. 23 How canst thou say, I am not polluted, I have not gone after Baalim? see thy way in the valley, know what thou hast done: thou art a swift dromedary traversing her ways.”

Now we’re getting down to the “seed” showing, and it’s fleshly. We should notice the words “... how then art thou turned into a degenerate plant of a strange vine unto me?” In verse 22, it speaks of a sin that won’t wash off (For though thou wash thee with lye and take thee much soap, yet thy iniquity is marked before me saith Yahweh Elohim). It just can’t be washed off! What is the sin that won’t wash off? Let’s look at Jeremiah 11:14-16 as it even gets plainer: “14 Therefore pray not thou for this people, neither lift up a cry or prayer for them: for I will not hear them in the time that they cry unto me for their trouble. 15 What hath my beloved to do in mine house, seeing she hath wrought lewdness with many, and the holy flesh is passed from thee? when thou doest evil, then thou rejoicest. 16 Yahweh called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.”

Now some commentaries try to say that Holy Flesh is the flesh of the offerings. That could hardly be! It’s their own flesh! ‘Yahweh called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.’ The “seed” is not Holy here, and in turn the flesh is not Holy. Look at Malachi 2:10-12, the last book of the Old Testament: “10 Have we not all one father? hath not one Elohim created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers? 11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of Yahweh which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 Yahweh will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto Yahweh of hosts. 13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of Yahweh with tears, with weeping, and with crying out, insomuch that he regardeth not the offering any more, or receiveth it with good will at your hand.”

Here’s Esau crying, weeping and wailing, and Yahweh doesn’t hear him! Yahweh does not regard the offering anymore or receive it with goodwill at his hand. So all Esau’s pleading meant nothing under his mixed-race condition! Actually, becoming bastardized, it’s not Adam anymore! Let’s go on to Malachi 2:14-15: “Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because Yahweh hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant. 15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit ... [We’re talking about complex things here of a conflict of the spirit and the flesh, and we don’t have a premise to deal with it, except if we go to the Scriptures and believe exactly what it says.] ... [why the residue of the spirit?, and why one? ... That he might seek a godly seed, a Holy seed. a Holy child] ... Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.” And in verse 16, Yahweh speaks of “putting away.”

Here, with Esau, we’re dealing with the same thing that Ezra had to deal with, Ezra 9:2: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons: so that the holy seed have mingled themselves with the people of those lands: yea, the hand of the princes and rulers hath been chief in this trespass.”

If one will look at verses 3, 4, and 5 you’ll see how a Holy man of Yahweh reacted to this sin! He tore his hair, his beard and clothes, and fell to the earth in shame. What premise did Ezra have that we don’t have? The difference is, Ezra obeyed Yahweh’s Spirit (which all Adamites have), and Ezra reacted as Yahweh would have reacted!

 

;/strong

This is my seventy-first monthly teaching letter and continues my sixth year of publication. In the last lesson we discussed the “sin unto death” which is the sin of race-mixing. When a White commits miscegenation, he/she is literally shaking his/her fist in the face of the Almighty. This is also true for anyone who promotes “universalism” in any way, shape or form! We will now continue on a topic which would rank at the same level of seriousness. Most of us have the very bad habit of believing almost everything we hear or read! All the speaker or writer need to do is somehow make his ideas sound reasonable and wrap them up in an attractive package. Amazingly, some of the most intellectually inclined people seem not to be exempt from this detrimental influence. On trivial matters a misjudgment may not be so damaging, but on weighty topics an erroneous premise can cause injury beyond all comprehension. Once such incorrect concepts are set into motion, they can be as damaging as nature’s severest disasters; floods, tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes. All this simply by not checking one’s premise. When such faulty conclusions are applied to Biblical matters, one can begin to imagine the detrimental consequences that can be produced. With the next few lessons, we are going to explore some consequences of these terribly unsound premises. This issue will start with the topic of Herodotus.

While some proclaim Herodotus as the “father of history”, others label him “the father of lies.” To show you why Herodotus was originally called the “father of lies”, I will quote The Portable Greek Historians, edited by M. I. Finley in the introduction on pages 6-7: 

“... Herodotus was no philosopher, he was not even a systematic thinker; but he was no less sensitive than the sophists and the tragedians to the great moral issues, and he made a unique contribution to the discussion. He found a moral justification for Athenian dominance in the role she had played in the Persian Wars, and he sought to capture that story and fix it before its memory was lost.

“Herodotus had a most subtle mind, and the story he told was complex, full of shadings and paradoxes and qualifications. In traditional religion, for example, he stood somewhere between outright skepticism and the murky piety of Aeschylus. His political vision was Athenian and democratic, but it lacked any trace of chauvinism. He was committed, but not for one moment did that release him from the high obligation of understanding. His great [re]discovery was that one could uncover moral problems and moral truths in history, in the concrete data of experience, in a discourse which was neither freely imaginative like that of the poets nor abstract like that of the philosophers. That is what history meant to Herodotus; nothing could be more wrongheaded than the persistent and seemingly indestructible legend of Herodotus the charmingly naive storyteller.

“It did not follow as a self-evident and automatic consequence that the new discovery was at once welcomed or that histories and historians arose on all sides to advance the new discipline. The Athenians appreciated Herodotus, obviously, and yet a full generation was to elapse before anyone thought it a good idea to write a complete history of Athens, and even then the step was taken by a foreigner, Hellanicus of Lesbos, and he was an annalist, a chronicler, not a historian, and he continued to repeat the traditional myths alongside more recent, verifiable history. Other Greeks naturally resented the phil-Athenianism of Herodotus and his version of their role in the Persian Wars, but they did not rush to reply by writing their own histories. They objected and they challenged a detail here and there, and they eventually pinned the label ‘Father of Lies’ to him, a late echo of which can still be read in Plutarch’s essay On the Malice of Herodotus.”

Before Herodotus, there was what was called “the heroic age” which consisted mostly of legend which was passed on in the form of myths. It would be somewhat like the myth of Odin. Except we now know there was a real Scandinavian-Saxon Odin, and he appears in the British Royal Line. So with the Greeks we cannot be sure if the legends are true historical characters or simply religious myths. Herodotus was dubbed the “father of lies” because other Greeks naturally resented his moral justification for Athenian dominance in the role she had played in the Persian Wars. The “other Greeks” being those many who thought Sparta, or Corinth, or Thebes, should have had the hegemony of Greece. As a result of that original political accusation against Herodotus, people all down through history continue unwittingly to make that same uncalled-for incrimination against him (even in the Israel Identity Message today). And it is at this point where the charge becomes serious! (Again, I would remind the reader that I do not fully agree with all the sources I quote from, but utilize such in order to show the otherwise valuable information they contain.)

There are so very many things that we need to know about Herodotus, it can’t be told in a short space, and we will have to fill in all those things as we go along. I will now quote from the book The World Of Herodotus by Aubrey de Sélincourt under “Biographical”, page 28: “Little is known of Herodotus’ life, his birth-place was Halicarnassus, the modern Bodrum, originally a Carian town on the south-west coast of Asia Minor; it was later occupied by Dorian emigrants from Troezene, and became in time, like the other Greek settlements on the eastern coast of the Aegean ...”

For another very concise narrative on Herodotus, I will quote The Portable Greek Historians, edited by M. I. Finley, pages 27-28:

“Halicarnassus in Asia Minor, where Herodotus was born and reared, was a Greek settlement ruled by a Carian dynasty under the higher suzerainty of the Persian king ...  and the name of one of Herodotus’ kinsmen, the poet Panyassis, indicates that his family, too, though Greek in its culture and aristocratic in status, had a Carian strain. Herodotus’ partiality for the Carian queen Artemisia is familiar to every reader of the History; she is presented as the most sensible and most effective of Xerxes’ advisers in Greece. [M. I. Finley rushes to claim that Herodotus may be part Carian, due to the name of a single relative. This statement is somewhat reckless indeed!]

“Herodotus was born in the 480s B.C., too late to have any significant personal memories of the Persian Wars. When he was a young man his family was forced to leave Halicarnassus for political reasons and they settled on the island of Samos, which became his second home. By the time he was forty he had completed much of the research for the book he originally planned, a geographic and ethnographic survey of a large part of the ‘barbarian’ world. Not only had he travelled fairly widely in Asia Minor and the Aegean islands, but he had visited Egypt, the coasts of Syria and Phoenicia, Thrace, the edge of the Scythian territory north of the Black Sea, and eastern regions as far as Babylon (but not Persia proper). He travelled for information, not to explore, and therefore he concentrated on main centers such as Memphis and Babylon, and he seems to have moved quickly. His stay in Egypt, for example, can be fixed at a maximum of four months by his personal observations of the Nile flood.

“By the mid-440s Herodotus had moved to the Greek mainland, where he gave public readings from his work. In Athens, at least (and no doubt in other cities), he was acclaimed officially, though whether by some purely honorific gesture or by a more material reward is unknown. There, too, where he became acquainted with the Periclean circle and made a friend of Sophocles, he was inspired to transform his book into a history of the Persian Wars. And again he began to travel in search of material, inspecting battle sites and routes, visiting Sparta, Thebes, Delphi, and other key Greek centers, and going as far north as Macedonia. How long he was occupied in this way is not known, nor is the date when (or the reason why) he migrated to Thurii on the Gulf of Tarentum in southern Italy, a Panhellenic settlement founded in 443 under the sponsorship of Pericles.

“Presumably he spent the final years of his life in the west, writing his book and occasionally making short trips in Italy and Sicily and once to Cyrene in North Africa. The exact date of his death is also unknown, but it is demonstrable that, just as his life began in the final years of the Persian Wars, it closed early in the Peloponnesian War, which broke out in 431. There is no reference in the History to anything that occurred after 430 and there are things which he could hardly have said (or failed to say) after 424. The probability is that his death occurred nearer 430 than 424. His book was published in the 420s, soon after his death, most likely. All the details regarding the publication are unknown, and that is the final uncertainty in this short list of probabilities and possibilities which constitutes everything we know about the life of Herodotus.”

 

BACK TO THE BOOK OF DANIEL

 

Actually, Herodotus lived during a period of time when key parts of Daniel’s prophecies were in the process of being fulfilled! Not only Daniel’s prophecies, but Amos 9:9 which says: “For, lo, I will command, and I will sift the house of Israel among all nations, like as corn is sifted in a sieve, yet shall not the least grain fall upon the earth.” That word “sift” means to move. So wherever the House of Israel would be found, they would be on the move. Unlike the remnant of Judah that returned to Jerusalem, Yahweh placed a hedge in the way to prevent the House of Israel from returning to Palestine again. Though a few tried, in the end, it was aborted.

1 Kings 14:9-10 says (ASV): “9 But [the house of Israel] hast done evil above all that were before thee, and hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back: 10 Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam every man-child, him that is shut up and him that is left at large in Israel, and will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, as a man sweepeth away dung, till it be all gone.”

 While the House of Israel was taken into Assyrian captivity and was to be sifted among the nations, Hosea 2:5-7 proclaims she will be prevented from finding her way back: “5 For their mother hath played the harlot: she that conceived them hath done shamefully: for she said, I will go after my lovers, that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax, mine oil and my drink. 6 Therefore, behold, I will hedge up thy way with thorns, and make a wall, that she shall not find her paths. 7 And she shall follow after her lovers, but she shall not overtake them; and she shall seek them, but shall not find them: then shall she say, I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than now.”

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF WITNESSES

 

We are instructed at Deuteronomy 19:15 that all matters should be settled by two or three witnesses. We are also admonished that all false prophets are to be put to death. Therefore, all true prophets must be exonerated by at least two witnesses that the prophecy came, or will come to pass. Otherwise it constitutes a crime. The Gospel is witnessed by four witnesses, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John (a double set of witnesses). In the case of divine prophecy, the witnesses fall under the category of Anointed witnesses. We will now see that Herodotus became an Anointed witness that the House of Israel was indeed sifted among the nations. It was Herodotus’ witness to the location of the Scythian Israelites which becomes so important, especially in our present day.

We will now use documentation on this subject from The World Of Herodotus by Aubrey de Sélincourt, end of chapter 19 “The Accession of Darius”, pages 235-237:

“The Persian empire, as it was left by Cyrus and Cambyses, was now once again reduced to order; but the trouble about a career of conquest is, that it never knows when or where to stop. While Darius’ eastern campaigns were still going on, he had already become involved in European affairs with his intervention in Samos after the murder of Polycrates. I have already pointed out how important to Persia, as previously to Lydia, was the control of the Greek settlements on the Anatolian coast. Darius possessed this control, but there was always the risk of trouble so long as their kinsmen on the Greek mainland remained independent. It was therefore inevitable that the thoughts of Darius should turn towards Greece. Herodotus, in his usual way, finds the immediate cause of the Persian attempt to extend its power towards the west in the action of an individual. There was a Greek doctor named Democedes, a native of Crotona in southern Italy, who after a distinguished career as a state-paid practitioner in Aegina and Athens had been employed at a high salary by Polycrates in Samos. After Polycrates’ death, he had been dragged to the mainland and lived in great misery until Darius, who had heard of his skill, sent for him to treat his ankle which had been badly sprained and was being made daily worse by the attentions of his Egyptian doctors. Democedes quickly effected a cure and was richly rewarded by the King, given a large house in Susa and invited to dine regularly at the royal table. But, being a Greek, he was not satisfied: there was one thing he desired more than riches – to return to his native town. A little later Atossa, Darius’ wife, developed an abscess on her breast, and Democedes promised to cure it if she, in her turn, promised to give him whatever he asked for. The queen consented, the cure was effected, and Democedes demanded his reward: this was that Atossa should inflame Darius’ ambition for further conquest, and that the first objective should be Greece – for she had heard about Greece (so she was instructed to say) and coveted the girls of Sparta and Athens and Corinth for her attendants. He – Democedes – could obviously be of the greatest use in this new venture, because knowing the country he could act as guide to the Persian forces. The ruse succeeded, at least so far as Democedes was concerned; for two ships were fitted out, manned with a number of Persian officers, and, with Democedes as guide and pilot, sailed for the west. Having coasted the Greek mainland, the reconnaissance vessels continued westward until they reached Tarentum in Italy, where a friend of Democedes removed the ships’ steering-gear as they lay in harbour, arrested the Persians as spies and enabled the doctor to get safely away to Crotona. The Persian officers were then permitted to sail away, but there were still adventures awaiting them: they were wrecked on the coast of Iapygia and sold as slaves, but later ransomed and allowed to return to Susa, where they certainly had a story to tell the King.

“Darius did not act immediately upon the information, such as it was, which this preliminary reconnaissance – the first ever made by Persia of the Grecian coasts – afforded him. He had another plan in mind, larger in scope, but almost certainly directed to the same ultimate purpose, namely the subjugation of Greece. This was the invasion and conquest of Scythia. Herodotus represents this undertaking as a mere interlude – though on a great scale – and as something of an aberration on the part of the otherwise extremely competent Darius; actually, however, the attempt was based upon sound and far-seeing strategy, though doomed to fail by the nature of the country and of the people, about which Darius had insufficient information. The Greeks were a maritime people, and nearly all their grain was imported by sea from abroad, and they possessed no native-grown timber suitable for shipbuilding. If, therefore, Darius could take from the rear the thickly wooded Balkan countries from which Greece drew her timber, he would thereby deal her a crippling blow. Moreover, control of the Hellespont (the Dardanelles) would enable him to stop the Greek wheat convoys sailing from the Black Sea, and, finally, the subjugation of Scythia (southern Russia) would give him control of the routes by which gold passed in transit from the mines in Siberia and the Urals. And so it was that about the year 515 B.C., he bridged the Hellespont and marched his army off on this hazardous adventure.”

Again I will quote from The World Of Herodotus by Aubrey de Sélincourt, chapter 20, pages 238-245:

“Ancient Scythia was an enormous territory ... To the east it was broken by mountains – the Altai range, the Pamirs, the Tien Shan; the Urals divided the Asiatic section from the European. The whole vast area, except the actual mountains, was natural grassland, or steppe, interrupted in the east by patches of desert not extensive enough to prevent intercommunication between the various tribes. ... For a brief period in their history – twenty-eight years, according to Herodotus – in the latter part of the seventh century B.C., they looked like changing their ways, for after a victory in war over the Cimmerians they swarmed southward in pursuit of the enemy, established themselves in northern Iran, occupied Urartu, and controlled territory as far west as the river Halys, the eastern boundary of the old Lydian kingdom ...

“In spite of the fact that the Scythians were a typically nomad race, some of their tribes in the neighbourhood of the Black Sea were agricultural, and a large part of the Greek supply of grain was imported from those regions. There was also a body of trade between the Scythians and the Greek Black Sea settlements in other commodities, such as honey, milk, meat, furs, hides and salt. Slaves, too, were brought into the Greek communities from Scythia – presumably enemies whom the Scythians had captured in war. This trade, of very considerable bulk, together with Scythian prowess in war and the memory of their brief but spectacular domination of Asia – and also, no doubt, the strangeness of many Scythian customs – led Herodotus to devote nearly three quarters of the fourth book of his history to his account of the country, very nearly as much as he devoted to Egypt. To equip himself for writing of this people, he went to Olbia, a Greek settlement on the mouths of the Bug and Dniester. The town was friendly with the Scythians and depended for its survival on trade with the Scythian world, and Herodotus, from this base, made his journeys, and asked his questions. There are scattered references to the Scythians in other classical authors, but the account of Herodotus is by far the richest and most detailed, and in the absence of any native Scythian literature, it remained the chief source of our knowledge until it was amplified, and in most cases confirmed, by modern archaeology and excavation.

“Herodotus was careful, as always, to distinguish in his account between what he observed with his own eyes, what he was told by reliable witnesses, and what was purely hearsay or local legend.

“It is, as we have seen, essential to Herodotus’ method to record, amongst sober facts, any sort of odd tale that chanced to come his way, such as the belief of the Issedones that somewhere in the distant north lived the one-eyed Arimaspians and the griffins that guard the gold, or the report of the Bald Men beyond the Argippaei that the mountains which shut them in were inhabited by a goat-footed race beyond which, still further to the northward, were men who slept for six months in the year. But such tales are tales, and Herodotus never offers them to the reader as anything else. As to his account of the way of life of the Scythians themselves, there is every reason to believe that it is substantially accurate; his careful and elaborate description of Scythian burials has been confirmed in almost every point by recent excavation, and, that being so, it is difficult not to believe in the general truth of the rest. [Note:  Diodorus Siculus 2. 43. 5, lists the Arimaspi (as a Scythian tribe), better known by him and not as fantastical as Herodotus.]

“... It was the spade of the archaeologists which rediscovered them, and showed us (what Herodotus does not mention) that though they were an unlettered race and in most ways savage, they did have a not negligible art. Countless objects in bronze or gold have been recovered from Scythian tombs throughout the length of their vast territory, which are not without beauty and show an often admirable craftsmanship: plaques, belt buckles, weapons, necklets, horse-trappings, decorated shield-centres, constantly representing, in a somewhat stylised manner but with a vivid sense of life, the forms of birds and animals.

“A good deal of Herodotus’ account is concerned with the geography of the country; indeed, he devotes more space to geographical description, and speculation, here than in any other part of his history. He was fascinated by mere size – as in Egypt by the size of the temples and pyramids, as in Babylon by the mighty walls, so here in Scythia by the limitless expanse of plain, the vast unexplored mountain ranges in the east, and the great rivers, so far surpassing in majesty the Anatolian streams he had known in his boyhood. With an accuracy surprising in view of the resources at his disposal, he describes the rivers, with the courses they follow as far to the northward as his own travels or the reports of other men can trace them: the Ister (Danube) ‘mightiest river in the known world,’ which never varies, summer or winter, in the volume of its waters; the Borysthenes (Dnieper), second largest of Scythian rivers, providing the finest pasture, the best fish and the most excellent water, clear and bright, for drinking; the Hypanis (Bug) with its source in a lake about the margins of which wild white horses graze; the Tanais (Don), flowing from a lake far up-country into the Sea of Azov; all these together with their tributaries, he writes of with a delighted recognition of the wonder and richness of a world which to most of his contemporary Greeks was nothing but a darkness or a legend. Moreover it is in connection with his discussion of Scythia that Herodotus puts forward certain speculations about world geography, which are not without interest and certainly in advance of his time. He cannot help laughing, he says, about the absurdity of the map-makers, all of whom show ‘Ocean’ running like a river round a circular earth, with Asia and Europe of the same size. The idea of the ‘stream of Ocean’ he rejects outright, for the excellent reason that there is no evidence for it; Darius, by sending the Greek seaman Scylax down the Indus with orders to sail westward and explore the coast of the southern ocean as far as the Persian Gulf, had proved all Asia to be surrounded by sea with the exception of its easterly part – as to that, nothing was known. The land of the Hyperboreans in the distant north, ‘came’ according to a certain Aristeas of Marmora, ‘down to the sea.’ Similarly with Europe; never, says Herodotus, has he been able to meet anybody who could give him firsthand information of sea to the west and north of it – it might, indeed, be there, but there was no proof of it. He is also much better aware of the relative size of the continents of Asia, Europe and Libya than the map-makers apparently were; none the less he quite obviously enormously underrates the size of Libya (Africa) though his discussion of it is of great interest as it is here that he tells the story of its circumnavigation by Phoenician seamen during the reign of the Pharaoh Necho.

“As for the Scythians themselves, Herodotus admits at the outset that he has little admiration for them, as is natural in a cultivated Greek for whom the life of a nomad would be not far removed from savagery. There was, however, one thing about the Scythians which Herodotus tells us that he did indeed admire – their management of the most important problem in human affairs, their own preservation. This problem, he says, the Scythians solved better than anyone else on the face of the earth. No invader of Scythia could escape destruction; no hostile force could, unless the Scythians wished it, ever even come to grips with them. Without towns or settled dwellings, living in tents [at Hosea 12:9, “tents” = tabernacles] and waggons, dependent for food not upon agriculture but upon their cattle, these people, unless they wished to fight – and why should they? – could for ever give an invader the slip, luring him on deep into the heart of a strange country where, sooner or later, he would starve. And this, of course, was precisely what happened to Darius and his army of – reputedly – 700,000 men. No battle was fought; the Scythians, retreating before the advancing Persians, scorched the earth behind them, and Darius was compelled ignominiously to return home with nothing accomplished.

“Herodotus’ sense of history – a different thing from the collection of hstrongistorical facts by observation or report – is well illustrated in his account of the origins of Scythia. Here, as his custom was, he recorded the legends: first the native legend of Targitaus, who lived a thousand years before the coming of Darius, and of his three sons who disputed the sovereignty between them, until certain golden objects fell from heaven and blazed with fire until the youngest of the brothers stepped forward to lift them, and thus was recognised as King of the Royal Scythians, the other brothers going off to rule their separate tribes; then the Greek legend which made Scythes, son of Heracles and a viper maiden, the founder of the line of Scythian Kings; and, finally, another, and much more prosaic, account, which he declared to be the best. According to this, which is consonant with the general movement of peoples in prehistoric times, the Scythians came into the steppe as a result of the pressure of various migrating tribes (all of which Herodotus names) moving, one on the heels of another, from the east and north in search of territory. It is observations of this kind – passages in which the legends are duly quoted as matters of human interest and curiosity, and then relegated to their proper place – which perhaps as much as any others indicate the sheer historical ability and grasp of Herodotus, and incidentally invite the reader’s confidence in the details which he records of the lives and manners of strange peoples.

“Those details are, in the case of the Scythians, many and curious. The picture they compose is a barbaric and horrible one: the dedication to war, the scalping of enemies killed in battle, the drinking from cups made from their skulls, the sacrifice of prisoners to the War God, represented by an ancient iron sword set upon the top of an immense pile of brushwood and faggots a mile in circumference, the punishments by burning alive, the sealing of oaths by a draught of blood and wine, the hatred and suspicion of all foreigners, the savage self-mutilation of the mourners at the funeral of the King. Most gruesome of all is Herodotus’ description of the ceremony which used to take place a year after a royal burial: fifty of the dead king’s servants were strangled and their bodies gutted and stuffed, and fifty horses served in the same manner; the horses were then set up around the tomb on half-wheels fixed by stakes to the ground, bitted and bridled as in life, and the men by means of a stake driven upward through the neck were mounted upon the horses, and there the grisly circus was left until it crumbled away into dust. There is good reason to believe that this description is a true one, for everything else which Herodotus records about the royal burials (in which, too, other members of the King's household, concubines, butlers, cooks, grooms and so on, were strangled and buried with their master) is amply confirmed by recent excavation. There was, however, one kind of Scythian burial, and that not the least fruitful for modern archaeology, of which Herodotus does not seem to have heard: this was the ice-tomb, as found in recent years in considerable numbers in the Altai. The tomb was dug deep, the ground above it froze iron-hard, and a layer of boulders placed on the top prevented the earth from thawing out.

“Darius’ broad strategy in undertaking the invasion of Scythia was, as I have suggested, far-seeing and imaginative, but we can hardly suppose that he would have risked the venture had he been better informed of the nature of the country and of the Scythians themselves. The attempt was frustrated from the very beginning, as soon as he had crossed the Danube on the bridge of boats which had been constructed for him by his Ionian mercenaries. The Scythian horsemen led him on and on in an interminable and fruitless chase, until once, in desperation, Darius sent a message to the Scythian King. ‘Why on earth, my good sir,’ he said, ‘do you keep on running away? If you are strong enough, fight; if not, submit.’ ‘My lord of Persia,’ the King replied, ‘what I have been doing is precisely the kind of life I always lead, in peace as in war. Why should I fight, having nothing to defend – neither towns nor crops? But we acknowledge no master, so be damned to you.’ A few days later he sent Darius a present, not the gift of earth and water, sign of submission, which Darius had hoped for, but a bird, a mouse, a frog and five arrows. Darius, the wish being father to the thought, tried to interpret this puzzling present in a sense favourable to himself, but Gobryas, one of the seven lords who had conspired to kill the usurping Magus, was wiser. ‘My friends,’ he said, ‘unless you turn into birds and fly, or into mice and burrow in holes, or into frogs and jump into the lakes, you will never get home again and escape the Scythian arrows.’ So the weary march back to the Danube began.

“The Scythians seeing that the Persians had decided to abandon the enterprise, ordered a section of their forces to ride with all speed to the bridge on the Danube and to persuade the Greeks who were guarding it against Darius’ return to break it up, and so trap the Persian army in enemy country. In this way, it was urged, Ionia could regain its freedom. With the party at the bridge were a number of the leading men of the Asiatic Ionian towns, amongst them Miltiades the Athenian, then ruler of the Chersonese, and Histiaeus, the tyrant of Miletus. Miltiades urged his companions to fall in with the Scythian plan, but Histiaeus violently opposed him, pointing out that all of them owed their position of authority to the Persian control of Ionia. If the Greek cities of the coast should regain their independence from Persia, they – the ‘tyrants’ – would assuredly be thrown out and democratic regimes established. ‘And what,’ he said, ‘would be the good of that?’ It is a comment on Greek personal and political attitudes that Histiaeus carried the others with him, and the chance, obviously a good one, of destroying a large Persian army, and probably Darius himself, was deliberately given up. Darius and his forces, though not without difficulty, succeeded in evading the pursuit of the Scythians, and reached the bridge in safety. They then crossed into Thrace, marched to Sestos in the Chersonese and were ferried over the straits into Asia. ‘The Scythians,’ Herodotus remarks, ‘have a low opinion of the men of Ionia in consequence of all this: to consider them as a free people, they are, they say, the most despicable and craven in the world; and, considered as slaves, the most subservient to their masters and the least likely to run away.’ In human judgements quite a lot depends, it seems, upon the point of view.

“Herodotus greatly magnifies the importance of the failure of Darius’ Scythian adventure, for, all things considered, it was only a minor setback in the expansion and consolidation of the Persian empire. Possibly it was not even a setback, for the actual conquest of Scythia may never have been in Darius’ mind at all. It was the control of Thrace that he really needed, and of the Aegean coastline as much further westward as he could reach. In this object he was successful, for Megabazus, the officer he left in charge of his forces in Europe after his own return to Susa, completed the conquest of Thrace and extended Persian dominion as far as Macedonia and the river Strymon. If this is the true interpretation of Darius’ policy, then his crossing of the Danube may have been merely a diversion with the object of laying hands on the gold mines of Dacia ...”

Note: The Scythia which Herodotus discusses in his story of Darius’ conquest here is only that European portion north of Thrace and west of the Black Sea. Not even Herodotus could imagine that conquering this portion of Scythia would deliver the many other tribes of Scythian kin into Persian hands. The important object here is the reality that Herodotus witnessed to a people known as “Scythians.”  But without understanding the Scythians are Israel, it’s only another story.

 

This is my seventy-second monthly teaching letter and completes my sixth year of publication. As this teaching letter is a continuation of lesson #71, you may not fully comprehend the subject matter presented herein until you do read it. The object of these lessons is to show Herodotus was an Anointed witness to the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy concerning the whereabouts of the Lost Tribes at his time. Thus, Herodotus’ witness becomes a vital factor to the awakening of the true Israelites of today. Without his witness, we might never have come to a realization of who we are, being Yahweh’s Covenant people. I then quoted quite a lengthy passage from The World Of Herodotus by Aubrey de Sélincourt, chapters 19 & 20. For other references, check The Post-Captivity Names Of Israel by Wm. Pascoe Goard, chapter 7, pages 76-80;A History Of Greece by J. B. Bury pages 228-229 and, A History of the Greek City States by Raphael Sealey page 173. (Also see the Smithsonian, March 2000, pages 88-93.)

Later in this series on Herodotus, I will show how the archaeologist’s spade is vindicating his writings! Once we have observed Herodotus’ writings and compare them with what they have found on the Scythians in archaeology, it will build our confidence to a high level of regard for them. The whole idea is to present Herodotus’ writings on the Scythians from an Israel Identity perspective rather than secular history.

 

REVIEW OF HERODOTUS’ WRITINGS ON THE SCYTHIANS

 

We might start our story about Herodotus’ writings concerning the Scythians with Cyrus II (the Great), first king of Persia. The Persians were predominately Elamites of the house of Shem. The Medes, on the other hand, were descendants of Japheth, and they eventually allied themselves with the Elamite Persians, forming the great Medo-Persian Empire. It was a Shemitic-Japhetic partnership. While Cyrus II was considered “my (Yahweh’s) shepherd” at Isaiah 44:28, nevertheless Cyrus was an empire builder. In building his empire, he had to conquer many peoples and ethnic groups. And while the Persians and Medes were both White people, the rest of the conquered peoples were not necessarily so. Cyrus was busy organizing his newly won territories into satraps. One of the peoples he tangled with were the Massagetae. In that encounter Cyrus II was killed by the Massagetae, and Cambyses, his son, recovered his body. Cyrus II, in his effort to expand his empire too far, made the fatal mistake of combating with Yahweh’s “battle ax and weapons of war” (Jeremiah 51:20). Collier’s Encyclopedia has Cyrus’ death at 530 B.C. In fact, Herodotus testifies of the Persian campaign against the Massagetae and Cyrus’ death at 1. 201-214. If you have a copy of Herodotus’ The Histories, read it for yourself. And while you are reading it, be sure to read 1. 215 also as it speaks of the “battle-axes” of the Massagetae! This is just one more significant reason that every serious Bible student should have and study his writings!

At Herodotus 1. 201 it describes Cyrus’ endeavor to conquer the Massagetae, “by many ... regarded as a Scythian race.” 1. 202 describes the Araxes River, which Rawlinson notes: “The geographical knowledge of Herodotus seems to be nowhere so much at fault as in his account of this river. He appears to have confused together the information which had reached him concerning two or three distinct streams. (Note that Herodotus is writing of events 100 years before his time in a place he never visited.) 1. 203-204: Herodotus describes the Caspian Sea, the Araxes River which empties into it from the west, and the Caucasus Mountains which bind the Caspian there. This is the land Herodotus places the Massagetae in. 1. 215: Herodotus describes the Massagetae: “In their dress and mode of living [they] resemble the Scythians” and, as he says later that the Scythians carry: “their favorite weapon is the battle-axe.”

This Araxes River, circa 530 B.C., where Cyrus II invades the Scythians, is the ancient boundary between Armenia (but this section lies in Azerbaijan today) and Media (currently Northwest Iran). Diodorus Siculus says of the Scythians at 2. 43: “But now, in turn, we shall discuss the Scythians who inhabit the country bordering upon India. This people originally possessed little territory, but later, as they gradually increased in power, they seized much territory by reason of their deeds of might and their bravery and advanced their nation to great leadership and renown. At first, then, they dwelt on the Araxes River, altogether few in number and despised because of their lack of renown; but since one of their early kings was warlike and of unusual skill as a general they acquired territory, in the mountains as far as the Caucasus, and in the steppes along the ocean and Lake Maeotis (the sea of Azov today) and the rest of that country as far as the Tanaïs River ... But some time later the descendants of these kings ... subdued much of the territory beyond the Tanaïs River as far as Thrace ... for this people increased to great strength and had notable kings; one of whom gave his name to the Sacae, another to the Massagetae, another to the Arimaspi, and several other tribes received their names in like manner ...”

So while Diodorus describes the naming of the various related Scythian tribes fancifully, he surely is accurate in the description of the origins and growth of these people, and corroborates Herodotus concerning their relationship and locations. Strabo the geographer, writing of these peoples a short time (maybe 75 years) after Diodorus, corroborates the statements of Herodotus and Diodorus with the following:

At Strabo 7. 3. 9 the Sacae are of Scythian stock. Herodotus says at 7. 64 that of the Scythians “the Persians called them Sacae, since that is the name which they give to all Scythians.”

11. 3. 3 The Iberians (of the Caucasus) are “both neighbors and kinsmen” of the Scythians and Sarmatians, with whom they assemble “whenever anything alarming occurs.” (Note that anciently there were two lands named Iberia: the one the peninsula later known as Spain, settled by Hebrew (Eber) Israelite-Phoenicians, the other adjacent to the Caucasus Mountains, settled by Hebrew Israelite-Scythians.)

11. 6. 2 Sarmatians, Scythians dwell between the Tanaïs and Caspian Sea. “... all the people towards the north were by ancient Greek historians given the general name “Scythians” or “Celtoscythians.” (Note that to Strabo, Herodotus would surely be a most ancient Greek historian.)

11. 8. 2 The Däae, Massagetae and Sacae are Scythians, and the inhabitants of Bactriana and Sogdiana, if not Scythians themselves, are ruled over by Scythians. The Asii, Tocharians and Sacarauli appear to be Scythians.

11. 8. 4 Sacasene, a district in Armenia, was so named for the Sacae who dwelt there.

So with these statements of Strabo, those of Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus all fully corroborating each other, the later historians are only clarifying and more fully expounding the earlier. Where Herodotus tells us that the Scythians conquered all of Asia, (1. 104), Strabo relates that “In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia”, (11. 13. 5), yet both men are correct, for Diodorus Siculus tells us of the Scythians’ origins, in Armenia itself (2. 43). [Note that while Strabo calls the Sarmatians and Däae both “Scythian”, and while surely they are of the same Adamic stock and have similar customs, Diodorous Siculus (2. 43. 6) tells us that the Sarmatians originated as a colony of Medes along the Tanaïs, while Herodotus (1: 125) lists Daans as a nomadic Persian tribe. Speaking in strictly geographic terms, Strabo should be forgiven.]

To understand Herodotus and the Scythian connection, one must know that the first four kings of Persia were Cyrus II, Cambyses (son of Cyrus II), Smerdis (the impostor), and Darius Hystaspes. Now when Darius Hystaspes came to the Persian throne, he made the same mistake of trying to conquer the Scythians as Cyrus II had ill-conceived. While the Medes and Persians were ferocious fighters, they were no match for the Scythian-Israelites. To give a good example, at the time Cyrus II was campaigning against the Massagetae, the Massagetae had a female leader by the name of Queen Tomyris whose husband had previously died (Her. 1. 205-206). So Cyrus II (the Great) was outwitted by an Israelite-Scythian woman.

Most of Herodotus’ fourth book concerns the Scythians, and this invasion by Darius against them. This invasion was against the Scythians north of Thrace, for Darius is described as invading that land and bridging the Ister (Danube) to cross into Scythia. Herodotus actually visited and stayed among the Scythians in this region for quite some time, during which he compiled the material for his fourth book.

At Herodotus 4. 5: “According to the account which the Scythians themselves give, they are the youngest of all nations.” And while he goes on here to report a fantastic tale of their origins, this account is not in disagreement with that of Diodorus’, cited above.

4. 11: Herodotus describes these as having “warred with the Massagetae” (as Saxon tribes fought each other even throughout modern history) and “therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria, for the land which is now inhabited by the Scyths was formerly the country of the Cimmerians.” Here Rawlinson conjectures that this Araxes, surely not the former river in Armenia, may be the Volga. Either the Volga or the Don (called the Tanaïs by the Greeks) must be the river meant here, since the “country of the Cimmerians” is likely the Crimea, west of the Don and the sea of Azov which it empties into. The location of the Scythians here is corroborated by Diodorus Siculus, mentioned above, as is the Scythian presence to the north of Thrace.

4. 48: Herodotus describes the Ister (Danube) and calls all of the rivers which feed the Ister from the north “genuine Scythian rivers.”

4. 49: Herodotus surely knew the extent of the Danube, where he says “For the Ister flows through the whole extent of Europe, rising in the country of the Celts” by which he must mean the Rhineland, and calls that country “the most westerly of all the nations of Europe, excepting the Cynetians” (of the Cynetians, or Cynesians at Herodotus 2. 33, Rawlinson states: “ ... are a nation of whom nothing is known but their abode from very ancient times at the extreme S.W. of Europe”, for there Herodotus states: “The Celts live beyond the Pillars of Hercules, and border on the Cynesians, who dwell at the extreme west of Europe.”) While Herodotus calls the rest of Europe north of the Ister an “interminable wilderness” (5. 9) we must turn later to Strabo in order to find that the Germans who inhabit this area, unsettled in Herodotus’ time, are truly Celts and Scythians, that all are kinsmen, and all crossed west from Asia. While Strabo does not contradict Herodotus, he surely does expand upon the early testimony of Herodotus, and corroborates him fully. To Strabo, Celtica is all the land from the Pyrenees to the Rhine (4. 5. 1).

4. 97: Here Darius is said to have crossed the Ister from Thrace, after subduing the Getae and other inhabitants of the land, embarking upon his failed attempt to conquer the Scythians. Throughout these chapters Herodotus discusses many circumstances of the Scythians which illuminate the words of the Hebrew prophets and the destiny of the children of Israel, all of which will be discussed later.

7. 64: Herodotus discusses the Scythians who, much later under Xerxes, were part of the Persian army that invaded Greece. While it is evident from Strabo and Diodorus that these Scythians are indeed related to those of Europe and the area around the Caucasus, as can be determined from some of the passages already mentioned, among others, it is apparent that certain tribes or divisions of these eastern Scythians were under the yoke of the Persian Empire.

The Scythians listed here by Herodotus, also called Sacae and more specifically, Amyrgian Scythians (a geographical designation, as Rawlinson explains), are listed in company with the Bactrians. The Caspians are mentioned at 7. 67, and then at 7. 86 both Bactrians and Caspians are mentioned together. We have seen in Strabo (11. 8. 2) a relationship between the Scythian and Bactrian, and Caspiana is a region bordering the north bank of the Araxes River where it empties into the Caspian Sea. The north and west of Caspiana are bordered by Armenia, Iberia and Albania, all occupied by people related as told by Strabo (at his time) to the Scythians. Caspiana must be, as Dr. George Moore agrees in his The Lost Tribes And The Saxons Of The East And The Saxons Of The West, that district mentioned at Ezra 8:17, Casiphia, to which Ezra sent for Levites to come to Jerusalem after the rebuilding of the Temple. All of this, as we will see later, is instrumental in the understanding of a great portion of the Hebrew prophets!

From the sources I cited, we learn that the Scythians were a very adaptable people. While some indicate they were always on the move, living entirely off of their animals and wild life, at other times, we are told they were an “agricultural” people. We find the Scythians were both exporters and importers of great quantities of commodities. It is obvious that our people have the intuitive ability to adjust to almost any adverse situation; a built-in self-sufficient skill to survive under conditions that the other races would fail. And to survive, our people had to be the greatest fighters the world has ever known in every age. And while our people are naturally vicious fighters, on the other hand, we have the ability to be highly refined and cultured in manners and protocol. So we shouldn’t be surprised when Herodotus gives us instances which might seem to be in conflict.

We are told that Herodotus didn’t admire the Scythians, but at the same time he highly respected them for their ability of self preservation. Herodotus was fascinated at how the Scythians could defend themselves against almost any destructive or hostile force; that the Scythians were the masters of almost any situation. We should highly respect Herodotus for these observations of our people, and for his writing them down for our posterity. Herodotus himself had a more cultured environment and would have had a natural repulsiveness for the unrefined. Sélincourt notices that the Scythians had a “hatred and suspicion of foreigners.” We need some of that very same kind of thing today!

We can be thankful to Herodotus for recording the outcome of the conflict between Darius and the Scythian-Israelites for our benefit. All the while, Yahweh had his man in Herodotus writing it all down for our knowledge today. There are sundry publications quoting Herodotus on many historical subjects, but there is no other more important than the Israel Identity Message to have his records. If you don’t have a copy of Herodotus’ Histories in your library, you need to do so as soon as possible. There is no other period in history when Herodotus’ writings are more valuable and needed than at our present time!

Inasmuch as Herodotus has borne witness concerning the Scythians-Israelites, we really need to know more about him. So we then ask the question:

 

JUST WHO WAS HERODOTUS?

 

At the beginning of lesson #71, I gave an abbreviated concise description of his life. We know he was a Greek, but was he a Macedonian Greek?, an Athenian Greek?, or a Dorian Greek? It is insufficient just to call him a “Greek.” I will repeat a quote from lesson #71 from the book The World Of Herodotus by Aubrey de Sélincourt under “Biographical”, page 28: “Little is known of Herodotus’ life, his birth-place was Halicarnassus, the modern Bodrum, originally a Carian town on the south-west coast of Asia Minor; it was later occupied by Dorian emigrants from Troezene, and became in time, like the other Greek settlements on the eastern coast of the Aegean ...” This is evidence that Herodotus was a Dorian Greek. We can be quite sure of this as the Greeks lived closely with their kin. On pages 76-77 Sélincourt says:

“But their power was destined to be broken by another Greek-speaking people, the Dorians, who about the year 1100 B.C., nearly a century after the traditional date of the siege of Troy, came with their iron weapons ... in hordes and carried all before them. This was not a peaceful infiltration like that of their predecessors, but an invasion and a conquest. Unlike the Achaeans who adopted as their own much of what they found in their new home, the Dorians were destroyers. Their coming brought a period of great confusion; as they poured ... over central Greece and into the Peloponnese, tribes and communities were reduced to serfdom, or swept away. Over a course of two centuries and more there was a continuous movement of peoples before the pressure of the invaders. The Dorians were a barbarous and virile race, and it took them a long time to learn civilised ways: some of them, one is tempted to think, never did; for in the years to come the greatest of the Dorian towns was Sparta, and it is not easy to associate the idea of civilised ways with that profoundly interesting but hateful place.

“An important result of the Dorian invasion and the spreading of the Dorian tribes over a large part of the mainland of Greece, and of the shifting of peoples consequent upon it, was the colonisation by Greeks of the coast of Asia Minor and of Cyprus and the Aegean islands. The movement of colonisation had begun before the Dorian invasion, but it was now greatly accelerated. The Achaeans, with their kinsmen the Aeolian Greeks, were the first to seek new homes in the kindlier land of Asia, and in the off-shore island of Lesbos; their settlements were mainly on the Mysian coast, extending as far south as Old Smyrna, and they were followed by Ionian venturers, who settled to the southward, as far as Miletus. Lastly the Dorians themselves joined in the search for new lands, built settlements in the islands of Cos, Cnidus and Rhodes, and continued the line of Greek coastal towns to the borders of Lycia ...”

On pages 117-118 Sélincourt continues: “The Spartans were a Dorian people, and the Dorians, far back at the beginning of things, had fought their way ... into the Peloponnese, where they had wrested the land from the original inhabitants. Probably they had fighting in their blood more than the other branches of the Greek peoples, and certainly the Spartans, once they were settled as masters of the greater part of the Peloponnese, were compelled to maintain their position amongst the conquered population by force, and the threat of force. Sparta itself was a small community, little more, indeed, than a collection of villages; in it lived the true-born Spartan nobility, perhaps eight or nine thousand of them, while everyone else on the scattered farms of the fertile plain of Lacedaemon had lost even their names: they were the ‘perioeci’ – the ‘dwellers-around’; or else the helots, the Spartans’ slaves.”

Again on page 132 Sélincourt says: “Sicyon, neighbour to Corinth, was a Dorian state of great antiquity, originally founded by Dorians from Argos. After following the pattern of development common to most Greek communities she fell, about the middle of the seventh century, under the ‘tyranny’ of a certain Orthagoras, whose dynasty lasted for nearly a hundred years.”

On page 259 Sélincourt comments: “For a long time the Aeginetans, a Dorian people, had been a prosperous mercantile community; they were amongst the first of the Greeks to issue a coinage, early in the seventh century B.C. and the Aeginetan silver ‘turtles’ remained the standard coinage of the Peloponnese for two hundred years. The island traded freely with Egypt, and in the reign of Amasis (569-526) built its own shrine at Naucratis, the trading-post at the mouth of the Nile.”

You may be wondering why all of this history of the Dorian Greeks is so important. It is significant as the Dorian Greeks were the people Paul addressed in 1st & 2nd Corinthians. How many times have you read 1st & 2nd Corinthians and were never aware of that fact? I’m sure, after learning this Dorian history, you will never look at 1st & 2nd Corinthians in the same light again! Add to that, that Herodotus was very likely a Dorian Greek, and we’ll have to take an entirely fresh look at Herodotus.

 

LACEDAIMONIANS OF POST-DORIAN CONQUEST WERE CALLED DORIAN GREEKS

 

From Josephus 12:4:10-11 we read: “10. At this time, Seleucus, who was called Soter, reigned over Asia, being the son of Antiochus the Great. And [now] Hyrcanus’s father, Joseph, died. He was a good man, and of great magnanimity; and brought the Jews out of a state of poverty and meanness, to one that was more splendid. He retained the farm of the taxes of Syria, and Phœnicia, and Samaria, twenty-two years. His uncle also, Onias, died [about this time,] and left the high priesthood to his son Simon. And when he was dead, Onias his son succeeded him in that dignity. To him it was that Areus, king of the Lacedemonians, sent an embassage, with an epistle; the copy whereof here follows:

 

“AREUS, KING OF THE LACEDEMONIANS, TO ONIAS, SENDETH GREETING

 

“We have met with a certain writing, whereby we have discovered that both the Jews and the Lacedemonians are of one stock, and are derived from the kindred of Abraham.* It is but just, therefore, that you, who are our brethren, should send to us about any of your concerns as you please. We will also do the same thing, and esteem your concerns as our own, and will look upon our concerns as in common with yours. Demotoles, who brings you this letter, will bring your answer back to us. This letter is four-square; and the seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws. 11. And these were the contents of the epistle which was sent from the king of the Lacedemonians.”

You will notice the “seal is an eagle, with a dragon in his claws” which is the seal of Israel’s seed against the dragon’s seed. A lot of people see the “eagle” but cannot observe “the dragon in his claws.” The Lacedemonians spoken of here are Dorian Greeks of which Herodotus was akin. We don’t have to guess at this for we know that the Corinthians were Dorian Greeks, and were a part of the “lost” children of Israel! Paul indicates such with certainty at 1 Corinthians 10 ... that their fathers were with Moses in the Exodus, the equivaA History of the Greek City States class=MsoNormallent of telling them that they had descended from the 12 tribes.

*[There is a footnote here based upon the suppositions of Grotius, Clement and others, all of whom are writing in blindness as to the identification of the Israelites, imagining some other connection between the Dorians and Judaeans, rather than seeing that the Dorians themselves are sprung from an early colony of Israelites.]

From Josephus 13:5:8: “... He enjoined the same ambassadors, that, as they came back, they should go to the Spartans, and put them in mind of their friendship and kindred. So when the ambassadors came to Rome, they went in to their senate, and said what they were commanded by Jonathan their high priest to say, how he had sent them to confirm their friendship. The senate then confirmed what had been formerly decreed concerning their friendship with the Jews, and gave them letters to carry to all the kings of Asia and Europe, and to the governors of the cities, that they might safely conduct them to their own country. Accordingly, as they returned, they came to Sparta, and delivered the epistle which they had received of Jonathan to them; a copy of which here follows:– ‘Jonathan the high priest of the Jewish nation, and the senate, and body of the people of the Jews, to the ephori and senate, and body of the people of the Lacedemonians, send greeting. If you be well, and both your public and private affairs be agreeable to your mind, it is according to our wishes. We are well also. When in former times an epistle was brought to Onias, who was then our high-priest, from Areus, who at that time was your king, by Demoteles, concerning the kindred that was between us and you, a copy of which is here subjoined, we both joyfully received the epistle, and were well pleased with Demoteles and Areus, although we did not need such a demonstration, because we were well satisfied about it from the sacred writings,* yet did not we think fit first to begin the claim of this relation to you, lest we should seem too early in taking to ourselves the glory which is now given us by you. It is a long time since this relation of ours to you hath been renewed; and when we, upon holy and festival days, offer sacrifices to God, we pray to him for your preservation and victory. As to ourselves, although we have had many wars that have compassed us around, by reason of the covetousness of our neighbours, yet did not we determine to be troublesome either to you or to others that were related to us ...”

[Footnote at page 274: *“This clause is otherwise rendered in the first book of Maccabees xii. 9 : ‘For that we have the holy books of Scriptures in our hands to comfort us.’ The Hebrew [Aramaic maybe] original being lost, we cannot certainly judge which was the truest version, only the coherence favours Josephus”]

We will now put the icing on the cake concerning the Dorian Greeks by quoting from 1st Maccabees 12:17-23: “17 We commanded them also to go unto you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning the renewing of our brotherhood. 18 Wherefore now ye shall do well to give us an answer thereto. 19 And this is the copy of the letters which Oniares sent. 20 Areus king of the Lacedemonians to Onias the high priest, greeting: 21 It is found in writing, that the Lacedemonians and Jews are brethren, and that they are of the stock of Abraham: 22 Now therefore, since this is come to our knowledge, ye shall do well to write unto us of your prosperity. 23 We do write back again to you, that your cattle and goods are our’s, and our’s are your’s. We do command therefore our ambassadors to make report unto you on this wise.”

If there was any question who Herodotus was and who the Dorian Greeks were, there should be little question now. I will continue my quest on this subject until I can present it in a proper manner. The word Lacedemonians (a district named before the Dorian conquest) can also be found at 1st Maccabees 12:2, 5, 21; 14:20, 23; 15:23 & 2nd Maccabees 5:9. All these refer to Sparta and the Dorian Greeks!

The following is from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume. 3. page 850: “LACEDAEMONIAN ... Inhabitants of Lacedaemon, more commonly called Sparta, in southern Greece. Friendly relations between Sparta and the Jews [sic. Judeans] began early in the third cent. B.C. when Arius (309-265) was king and Onias I was high priest (320-290) in Jerusalem. In 168 B.C. Jason, the high priest, after his unsuccessful attempt to seize Jerusalem, was forced to flee, and went to Sparta ‘with the idea of finding shelter there among kinsfolk’ (2 Macc 5: 9). This implies the existence of a Jewish colony in Sparta during the 2nd cent. In about 146 B.C. Jonathan wrote to the Spartans requesting renewal of the ancient friendship (1 Macc 12:6-18) and reminding them of the earlier relations between Arius and Onias, even suggesting that the Spartans and Jews were both of the stock of Abraham and hence kinsmen. After the death of Jonathan his brother and successor, Simon, received a reply to this letter (1 Macc 14:20-22). In 1 Maccabees 15:16-22 there is a declaration of friendship between Rome and the Jews, written by the consul Lucius to Ptolemy, king of Egypt, requesting that kings and nations refrain from fighting against the Jews. The same letter was also sent to many other neighboring countries, including Sparta (v. 23). While some have doubted the authenticity of these letters in 1 Maccabees, there are many scholars who regard them as genuine. There is no doubt that during the second cent. B.C., such declarations of friendship with the Jews were made by both Rome and Sparta.”

 

BISHOP  DIONYSIUS  ADDRESSED  DORIAN  GREEKS  AT  LAKEDAIMON

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, and the Epistles Which He Wrote.

 

“1 And first we must speak of Dionysius, who was appointed bishop of the church in Corinth, and communicated freely of his inspired labors not only to his own people, but also to those in foreign lands, and rendered the greatest service to all in the catholic epistles which he wrote to the churches.

“2 Among these is the one addressed to the Lacedaemonians, containing instruction in the orthodox faith and an admonition to peace and unity; the one also addressed to the Athenians, exciting them to faith and to the life prescribed by the Gospel, which he accuses them of esteeming lightly, as if they had almost apostatized from the faith since the martyrdom of their ruler Publius, which had taken place during the persecutions of those days.

“3 He mentions Quadratus also, stating that he was appointed their bishop after the martyrdom of Publius, and testifying that through his zeal they were brought together again and their faith revived. He records, moreover, that Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted to the faith by the apostle Paul, according to the statement in the Acts of the Apostles, first obtained the episcopate of the church at Athens.” [The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series vol. I., chapter 23, Eusebius]

As a double witness to this, I will quote from Eusebius, The Church History (a new translation) by Paul L. Maier, pages 158-159:

 

Bishop Dionysius of Corinth

 

“As Bishop of Corinth, Dionysius gave inspired service not only to those under him, but also those distant, especially through the general epistles he wrote for the churches. Among these, the letter to the Spartans is orthodox instruction in peace and unity, while the one to the Athenians is a call to faith and to life in accord with the Gospel – for disdaining which he censures them as all but apostates from the Word, since Publius, their bishop, was martyred in the persecution of the time. He relates that after this martyrdom Quadratus was appointed their bishop and that through his fervor they were reunited and their faith revived. He also states that Dionysius the Areopagite, who was converted by the apostle Paul, as reported in Acts [17:34], was the first to be appointed Bishop of Athens. Another extant epistle of his to the Nicomedians contests Marcion’s heresy, in defense of the truth. He also wrote to the church at Gortyna and elsewhere on Crete, congratulating Philip, their bishop, on the courage of the church there but warning him to guard against the heretics.”

You will notice how Maier translates them “Spartans” while the former writer labeled them “Lacedaemonians.” Whether they are called Dorian Greeks, Lacedaemonians or Spartans, this branch of the Greeks are all the same people. These last two lessons should give you a new and refreshing appreciation on Biblical comprehension. It should also inspire a new admiration for the Anointed of Yahweh, the historian Herodotus. Over and above that, one should begin to realize how important some of the books of the Apocrypha are! It’s simply amazing how people condemn books and people they have never studied.

 

This is my seventy-third monthly teaching letter and starts my seventh year of publication. In the last two lessons, we started a study with the purpose of defending Herodotus’ historical writings. It’s not a subject that can be passed over lightly. It is especially important in the Israel Identity Message, for without his Anointed witness, we as Yahweh’s kindred people would have far less evidence demonstrating the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy. While it is important to have true prophets of the Almighty, it is likewise just as imperative to have witnesses to the fulfillment of their Yahweh-enlightened future foretelling. There are many Anointed witnesses, but Herodotus and Josephus are among the principal ones which, given time, we will cover. Without these two principal historians, much of our Bible would remain a mystery.

The following article on Herodotus is about as comprehensive and well done as one might find. It comes from an era when men were still reputable in their desires to print the truth to the best of their ability:

 

HERODOTUS

From The 1894 Ninth Edition Of The Encyclopedia Britannica

 

HERODOTUS, according to the best authorities, was, born in or about the year 484 B.C. He was a native of Halicarnassus, a city which belonged originally to the Doric Hexapolis, situated towards the south-western corner of Asia Minor, but which from a date considerably anterior to the birth of Herodotus had been excluded from the confederacy, and was an isolated Greek town, dependent upon the Persians. Herodotus was thus born a Persian subject, and as such he continued until he was thirty or five and-thirty years of age. At the time of his birth, Halicarnassus was under the rule of a queen called Artemisia, who had been allowed by the Persians to succeed to the sovereignty of her husband, and was mistress, not only of Halicarnassus, but also of Cos, Nisyrus, and Calydna. The year of her death is unknown; but she left her crown to her son Pisindelis (born about 498 B.C.), who was succeeded upon the throne by his son Lygdamis about the time that Herodotus grew to manhood. The family of Herodotus belonged to the upper rank of the citizens.  His father was named Lyxes, and his mother Rhæo, or Dryo. He had a brother Theodore, and an uncle or cousin called Panyasis, who was an epic poet, and a personage of so much importance that the tyrant Lygdamis, suspecting him of treasonable projects, put him to death. It is likely that Herodotus derived from this near relative that love of letters which led him at an early age to the careful study of the existing Greek literature, and determined him ultimately to engage in the composition of his great work. It is probable also that he shared his relative’s political opinions, and was either exiled from Halicarnassus, or quitted it voluntarily, at the time of his execution.

Of the education of Herodotus no more can be said than that it was thoroughly Greek, and embraced no doubt the three subjects essential to a Greek liberal education – grammar, gymnastic training, and music. There is no reason to suppose that he went beyond the walls of his native city for instruction in this, the ordinary curriculum, or that he enjoyed any special advantages in respect of these early studies. They would be regarded as completed when he attained the age of eighteen, and took rank among the “ephebi” or “eirenes” of his native city. Under ordinary circumstances a Greek of this age began at once his duties  as a citizen, and found in the excitement of political life sufficient employment for his growing energies. But when a city was ruled by a despot or tyrant, this outlet was wanting; no political life worthy of the name existed; and youths of spirit, more especially those of superior abilities, had to cast about for some other field in which to distinguish themselves. Herodotus may thus have had his thoughts turned to literature as furnishing a not unsatisfactory career, and may well have been encouraged in his choice by the example of Panyasis, who, whether his cousin or his uncle, was certainly his elder, and had already gained a reputation by his writings when Herodotus was still an infant. At any rate it is clear from the extant work of Herodotus that he must have devoted himself early to the literary life, and commenced that extensive course of reading which renders him one of the most instructive as well as one of the most charming of ancient writers. The poetical literature of Greece was in his time already large; the prose_, literature was more extensive than is generally supposed: yet Herodotus shows an intimate acquaintance with the whole of it. He has drunk at the Homeric cistern till his entire being is impregnated with the influence thence derived. The Iliad and the Odyssey are as familiar to him as Shakespeare to the most highly educated of modern Englishmen. He is acquainted with the poems of the epic cycle, the Cypria, the Epigoni, etc. He quotes or otherwise shows familiarity with the writings of Hesoid, Olen, Musæus, Bacis, Lysistratus, Archilochus of Paros, Alcæus, Sappho, Solon,  Æsop, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Simonides of Ceos, Phrynichus, Æschylus, and Pindar. He quotes and criticises Hecatæus, the best of the prose writers who had preceded him, and makes numerous allusions to other authors of the same class. It may be questioned whether there was any single work of importance in the whole range of extant Greek literature with the contents of which Herodotus had not made himself acquainted by the time that he undertook the composition of his “History.”

It must not, however, be supposed that the great Halicarnassian was at any time a mere recluse student. There can be no reasonable doubt that from a very early age his inquiring disposition led him to engage in travels, both in Greece and in foreign countries, which must have been continued year after year for a considerable period, and which made him as familiar with men as with books. He traversed Asia Minor and European Greece in all directions, probably more than once; he visited all the most important islands of the Archipelago, – Rhodes, Cyprus, Delos. Paros, Thasos, Samothrace, Crete, Samos, Cythera, and Ægina. He undertook the long and perilous journey from Sardis to the Persian capital Susa, passed some considerable time at Babylon, and went on a voyage to Colchis, and another along the western shores of the Black Sea as far as the estuary of the Dnieper; he travelled in Scythia and in Thrace, visited Zaute and Magna Græcia, explored the antiquities of Tyre, coasted along the shores of Palestine, saw Gaza, and made a long stay in Egypt. At the most moderate estimate, his travels covered a space of thirty-one degrees of longitude, or 1700 miles, and twenty-four of latitude, or nearly the same distance. Nor was he content, like the modern tourist, with hasty glimpses of the countries which he visited. At all the more interesting sites he took up his abode for a time; he examined, he inquired, he made measurements, he accumulated materials. Having in his mind the scheme of his great work, he gave ample time to the elaboration of all its parts, and took care to obtain by personal observation a full knowledge of all the various countries which were to form the scene of his narrative.

The travels of Herodotus seem to have been chiefly accomplished between his twentieth and his thirty-seventh year (464-447 B.C.). It was probably in his early manhood that as a Persian subject he visited Susa and Babylon, taking advantage of the Persian system of posts which he describes in his fifth book. His residence in Egypt must, on the other hand, have been subsequent to 460 B.C., since he saw the skulls of the Persians slain by Inarus in that year. Skulls are rarely visible on a battlefield for more than two or three seasons after the fight, and we may therefore presume that it was during the reign of Inarus (460-454 B.C.), when the Athenians had great authority in Egypt, that he visited the country, making himself known as a learned Greek, and therefore receiving favor and attention on the part of the Egyptians, who were so much beholden to his countrymen. On his return from Egypt, as he proceeded along the Syrian shore, he seems to have landed at Tyre, and from thence to have gone to Thasos, which lay off the coast of Thrace. His Scythian travels are thought to have taken place prior to 450 B.C.

It is a question of some interest from what centre or centres these various expeditions were made. Up to the time of the execution of Panyasis, which is placed by chronologists in or about the year 457 B.C., there is every reason to believe that Halicarnassus was the historian’s home; and thus we may assume that, for some seven or eight years, that city was the point from which he started and to which he returned. His travels in Asia Minor, in European Greece, and among the islands of_. the Ægean probably belong to this period, as does also his journey to Susa and Babylon. We are told that when he quitted Halicarnassus on account of the tyranny of Lygdamis, in or about the year 457 B.C., he took up his abode in Samos. That island was an important member of the Athenian confederacy, and in making it his home Herodotus would have put himself under the protection of Athens. The fact that Egypt was then largely under Athenian influence may have induced him to proceed, in 457 or 456 B.C., to that country. The complete knowledge that he has of the whole of Egypt indicates a stay there of some years, and it was perhaps, not till 454 B.C. that he returned to his Samian home. The stories that he had heard in Egypt of Sesostris may then have stimulated him to make voyages from Samos to Colchis, Scythia, and Thrace. When he had seen these countries, he had made acquaintance with almost all the regions which were to be the scene of his projected history, and could apply himself to the task of its composition with the comfortable feeling that he possessed all the local knowledge requisite for graphic and telling description.

After Herodotus had resided for some seven or eight years in Samos, events occurred in his native city which induced him to return thither. The tyranny of Lygdamis had gone on from bad to worse, and at last the citizens rose in rebellion against him, and he was expelled. According to Suidas, Herodotus was himself an actor, and indeed the chief actor, in the enterprise; but no other author confirms this statement, which is intrinsically improbable. It is certain, however, that a revolt broke out, that Lygdamis was dethroned, and that Halicarnassus became a voluntary member of the Athenian confederacy, to which it continued thenceforth attached. Herodotus would now naturally return to his native city, and enter upon the enjoyment of those rights of free citizenship on which every Greek set a high value. He would also, if he had by this time composed his history, or any considerable portion of it, begin to make it known by recitation among his friends and acquaintance. There is reason to believe that these first attempts to push himself into notice were not received with much favor, – the prophet did not obtain honor in his own country, – his countrymen ridiculed the work which they had been expected to admire; and the disappointed author, chagrined at his failure, precipitately withdrew from his native town, and sought a refuge in Greece proper (about 447 B.C.).

A writer of late date (125-200 A.D.) and low credit, Lucian of Samosata, in one of his rhetorical pieces, declares that on quitting Halicarnassus Herodotus proceeded straight to Olympia, and finding the quadriennial festival in progress recited his work to the assembled multitudes, who were highly delighted with it, and freely expressed their admiration. The statement, however, is improbable, and is rejected by most critics, who point out with reason the unsuitability of the work for recitation before an assemblage of persons from all parts of Greece, and call attention to the suspicious circumstance that the story is first told 600 years after the time of its supposed occurrence. From earlier and better writers we learn that Athens was the place to which the disappointed author betook himself, and that he appealed from the verdict of his countrymen to Athenian taste and judgment. By recitations held in that city he made his work known to the best Grecian intellects, and won such approval that in the year 445 B.C., on the proposition of a certain Anytus, he was voted a sum of ten talents (£2400) by decree of the people. At one of the recitations Thucydides was present with his father, Olorus, and was so moved that he burst into tears, whereupon Herodotus remarked to the father – “Olorus, your son has a natural enthusiasm for letters.”

Athens was at this time the centre of intellectual life, and could boast a galaxy of talent such as has rarely been gathered together either before or since. The stately Pericles, his clever rival Thucydides the son of Melesias, the fascinating Aspasia, the eloquent Antiphon, the scientific musician Damon, the divine Phidias, Protagoras the subtle disputant, Zeno the inventor of logic, the jovial yet bitter Cratinus, the gay Crates, Euripides the master of pathos, Sophocles the most classic even of the ancients, formed a combination of which even Athens might be proud, and which must have charmed the literary aspirant. Accepted into this brilliant society, on familiar terms with all probably, as he certainly was with Olorus, Thucydides, and Sophocles, he cannot but have found his Attic sojourn delightful, and have been tempted, like many another foreigner, to make Athens his permanent home. It is to his credit that he did not yield to this temptation. At Athens he must have been a dilettante, an idler, without political rights or duties, a mere literary man. As such he would have soon ceased to be respected in a society where literature was not recognized as a separate profession, where a Socrates served in the infantry, and a Sophocles commanded fleets, and a Thucydides was general of an army, and an Antiphon was for a time at the head of the state. Men were not men according to Greek notions unless they were citizens; and Herodotus, aware of this, probably sharing in the feeling, was anxious, having lost his political status at Halicarnassus, to obtain such status elsewhere. At Athens the franchise, jealously guarded at this period, was not to be attained without great expense and difficulty. Accordingly, in the year 444 B.C., on the scheme of sending a colony to Thurii in Italy being broached by Pericles, Herodotus was among those who gave in their names; and in the spring of the following year he sailed from Athens to Italy with the other colonists, and became a citizen of the new town.

From this point of his career, when he had reached the age of forty, we lose sight of Herodotus almost wholly. He seems to have made but few journeys, one to Crotona, one to Metapontum, and one to Athens (about 430 B.C.) being all that his work indicates. No doubt he was employed mainly, as Pliny testifies, in retouching and elaborating his general history. He may also have composed at Thurii that special work on the history of Assyria to which he twice refers in his first book, and which is quoted by Aristotle. It has been supposed by many that he lived to a great age, and argued that “the never-to-be-mistaken fundamental tone of his performance is the quiet talkativeness of a highly cultivated, tolerant, intelligent, old man” (Dahlmann). But the indications derived from the later touches added to his work, which form the sole evidence on the subject, would rather lead to the conclusion that his life was not very prolonged. There is nothing in the nine books which may not have been written as early as 430 B.C.; there is no touch which, even probably, points to a later date than 424 B.C. As the author was evidently engaged in polishing up his work to the last, and even promises touches which he does not give, we may assume that he did not much outlive the date last mentioned, or, in other words, that he died at about the age of sixty. The predominant voice of antiquity tells us that he died at Thurii, where his tomb was shown in later ages.

In estimating the great work of Herodotus, and his genius as its author, it is above all things necessary to conceive aright what that work was intended to be. It has been called “a universal history,” “a history of the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians,” and “a history of the struggle between Greece and Persia.” But these titles are all of them too comprehensive. Herodotus, who omits wholly the histories of Phoenicia, Carthage, and Etruria, three of the most important among the states existing in his day, cannot have intended to compose a “universal history,” the very idea of which belongs to a later age. He speaks in places as if his object was to record the wars between the Greeks and the barbarians; but as he omits the Trojan war, in which he fully believes, the expedition of the Teucrians and Mysians against Thrace and Thessaly, the wars connected with the Ionian colonization of Asia Minor, and others, it is evident that he does not really aim at embracing in his narrative all the wars between Greeks and barbarians with which he was acquainted. Nor does it even seem to have been his object to give an account of the entire struggle between Greece and Persia. That struggle was not terminated by the battle of Mycale and the capture of Sestos in 479 B.C. It continued for thirty years longer, to the peace of Callias. The fact that Herodotus ends his history where he does show distinctly that his intention was, not to give an account of the entire long contest between the two countries, but to write the history of a particular war – the great Persian war of invasion. His aim was as definite as that of Thucydides, or Schiller, or Napier, or any other writer who has made his subject a particular war; only he determined to treat it in a certain way. Every partial history requires an “introduction;” Herodotus, untrammelled by examples, resolved to give his history a magnificent introduction. Thucydides is content with a single introductory book, forming little more than one-eighth of his work; Herodotus has six such books, forming two-thirds of the entire composition.

By this arrangement he is enabled to treat his subject in the grand way, which is so characteristic of him. Making it his main object in his “introduction” to set before his readers the previous history of the two nations who were the actors in the great war, he is able in tracing their history to bring into his narrative some account of almost all the nations of the known world, and has room to expatiate freely upon their geography, antiquities, manners and customs, and the like, thus giving his work the “universal” character which has been detected in it, and securing for it, without trenching upon unity, that variety, richness, and fulness which are a principal charm of the best histories, and of none more than his. In tracing the growth of Persia from a petty subject kingdom to a vast dominant empire, he has occasion to set out the histories of Lydia,Media, Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Scythia, Thrace, and to describe the countries and the peoples inhabiting them, their natural productions, climate, geographical position, monuments, etc.; while, in noting the contemporaneous changes in Greece, he is led to tell of the various migrations of the Greek race, their colonies, commerce, progress in the arts, revolutions, internal struggles, wars with one another, legislation, religious tenets, and the like. The greatest variety of episodical matter is thus introduced; but the propriety of the occasion and the mode of introduction are such that no complaint can be made – the episodes never entangle, encumber, or even unpleasantly interrupt the main narrative.

The most important quality of an historian is trustworthiness; for a professed history is of no value unless we can place reliance upon its truth. It has been questioned, both in ancient and in modern times, whether the history of Herodotus possesses this essential requisite. Several ancient writers call his veracity in question, accusing him of the crime of conscious and intentional untruthfulness. Moderns generally acquit him of this charge; but his severer critics still urge that, from the inherent defects of his character, his credulity, his love of effect, and his loose and inaccurate habits of thought, he was unfitted for the historian’s office, and has produced a work of but small historical value. It is impossible, within the limits of an article such as the present, to enter fully upon this controversy. Perhaps it may be sufficient to remark that the defects in question certainly exist, and detract to some extent from the authority of the work, more especially of those parts of it which deal with remoter periods, and were taken by Herodotus on trust from his informants, but that they only slightly affect the portions which treat of later times and form the special subject of his history. In confirmation of this view, it may be noted that the authority of Herodotus for the circumstances of the great Persian war, and for all local and other details which come under his immediate notice, is accepted by even the most sceptical of modern historians, and forms the basis of their narratives.

Among the merits of Herodotus as an historian, the most prominent are the diligence with which he has collected the materials for his history, the candor and impartiality with which he has placed his facts before the reader, the political dispassionateness which he displays in the judgments that he passes upon party leaders, the absence of undue national vanity, and the breadth of his conception of the historian’s office, which makes his work a storehouse of diversified knowledge for which the student of antiquity can never be sufficiently grateful. On the other hand, he has no claim to rank as a critical historian; he has no conception of the philosophy of history, no insight into the real causes that underlie political changes, no power of penetrating below the surface, or even of grasping the real interconnection of the events which he describes. He belongs distinctly to the romantic school; his forte is vivid and picturesque description, the lively presentation to the reader of scenes and actions. characters and states of society, not the subtle analysis of motives, or the power of detecting the undercurrents which sway events, or the generalizing faculty which draws lessons from history and makes the past illumine the darkness of the future.

But it is as a writer that the merits of Herodotus are most conspicuous and most unquestioned. “O that I were in a condition,” says Lucian, “to resemble Herodotus, if only in some measure! I by no means say in all his gifts, but only in some single point; as, for instance, the beauty of his language, or its harmony, or the natural and peculiar grace of the Ionic dialect, or his fulness of thought, or by whatever name those thousand beauties are called which to the despair of his imitator are united in him.” Cicero calls his style “copious and polished;” Quintilian, “sweet, pure, and flowing;” Longinus says he was “the most Homeric of historians;” Dionysius, his countryman, prefers him to Thucydides, and regards him as combining in an extraordinary degree the excellencies of sublimity, beauty, and the true historical method of composition. Moderns arealmost equally complimentary. “The style of Herodotus,” says one, “is universally allowed to be remarkable for its harmony and sweetness.” “The charm of his style,” argues another, “has so dazzled men as to make them blind to his defects.” Various attempts have been made to analyze the nature of the charm which is so universally felt; but it may be doubted whether any of them are very successful, whether the aroma of the flower does not evaporate in the critic’s alembic. All, however, seem to agree that among the qualities for which the style of Herodotus is to be admired are simplicity, freshness, naturalness, and harmony of rhythm. Master of a form of language peculiarly sweet and euphonical, and possessed of a delicate ear which instinctively suggested the most musical arrangement possible, he gives his sentences, without art or effort, the most agreeable flow, is never abrupt, never too diffuse, much less prolix or wearisome, and being himself simple, fresh, naïf (if we may use the word), honest, and somewhat quaint, he delights us by combining with this melody of sound simple, clear, and fresh thoughts, perspicuously expressed, often accompanied by happy turns of phrase, and always manifestly the spontaneous growth of his own fresh and unsophisticated mind. Reminding us in some respects of the quaint mediæval writers, Froissart and Philippe de Comines, he greatly excels them, at once in the beauty of his language and the art with which he has combined his heterogeneous materials into a single perfect harmonious whole.

---------------------------------------------

As might have been expected from its excellence, the history of Herodotus has been translated by many persons and into many languages. About 1450, at the time of the revival of learning, a Latin version was made and published by Laurentius Valla. This was revised in 1537 by Heusbach, and accompanies the Greek text of Herodotus in many editions. The first complete translation into a modern language was the English one of Littlebury, published in 1737. This was followed in 1786 by the French translation of Larcher, a valuable work, accompanied by copious notes and essays. Beloe, the second English translator, based his work on that of Larcher. His first edition, in 1791, was confessedly very defective; the second, in 1806, still left much to be desired. A good German translation, but without note or comment, was brought out by Friedrich Lange at Berlin in 1811. Andrea Mustoxidi, a native of Corfu, published an Italian version in 1820. In 1822 Auguste Miot endeavored to improve on Larcher; and in 1828-32 Dr. Adolf Schöll brought out a German translation with copious notes (new ed., 1855), which has to some extent superseded the work of Lange. About the same time a new English version was made by Mr. Isaac Taylor (London, 1829). Finally, in 1858-60, the history of Herodotus was translated byCanon Rawlinson, assisted in the copious notes and appendices accompanying the work by Sir Gardner Wilkinson and Sir Henry Rawlinson. More recently we have translations in German by Bähr (Stuttgart, 1867) and Stein (Oldenburg, 1875): in French by Giguet (1857) and Talbot (1864); and in Italian by Ricci (Turin, 1871-76), Grandi (Asti, 1872), and Bertini (Naples, 1871-2). A Swedish translation by F. Carlstadt was published at Stockholm in 1871.

The best recent [1894] editions of the Greek text of Herodotus are the following:– Herodoti Historiæ, ed. Schweighäuser, 5 vols. 8vo, Strasburg, 1816; Herodoti Halicarnassei Historiarum libri IX., ed. Gaisford, Oxford, 1840; Herodotus, with a Commentary by J. W. Blakesley, B. D., 2 vols. 8vo, London, 1854: Herodoti Musæ, ed. Bähr, 4 vols. 8vo, Leipsic, 1856-61, 2d ed.; Herodoti Historiæ, ed. Abicht, 2 vols. 8vo, Leipsic, 1869; and Herodoti Historiæ, ed. H. Stein, 2 vols., 1869-71. Among works of value illustrative of Herodotus may be mentioned Bouhier, Recherches sur Hérodote, Dijon, 1746; Rennell, Geography of Herodotus, London, 1800; Niebuhr, Geography of Herodotus and Scythia, Eng. trans., Oxford, 1830; Dahlmann, Herodot, aus seinem Buche sein Leben, Altona, 1823; E1tz, Quæstiones Herodoteæ, Leipsic, 1841; Kenrick, Egypt of Herodotus, London, 1841 ; Mure, Literature of Greece, vol. iv., London, 1852; Abicht, Uebersicht  über den Herodoteischen Dialect (Leipsic, 1869, 3d ed. 1874), and De codicum Herodoti fide ac auctoritate (Naumburg, 1869); Melander, De anacoluthis Herodoteis (Lund, 1869); Matzat, “Ueber die Glaubenswürdigkeit der geograph. Angaben Herodots über Asien”, in Hermes, vi.; Büdinger, Zur egyptischen Forschung Herodots (Vienna, 1873, reprinted from the Sitzungsber of the Vienna Acad.); Merzdorf, Quæstiones grammaticæ de dialecto Herodotea (Leipsic, 1875); A. Kirchhoff, Ueber die Entstchungszeit des Herodotischen Geschichtswerk (Berlin, 1878); and Adolf Bauer, Herodots Biographie (Vienna, 1878) ... [End of the Herodotus article from the 1894 Ninth Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica]

 

HERODOTUS’ METHOD OF REPORTING

 

We have been asking the question from the very beginning of this series: “Just who was Herodotus?” After this great composition we should have a better idea. As to his honest method of reporting, I will quote an excerpt from The Histories Of Herodotus, 7. 152:

“... For myself, my duty is to report all that is said; but I am not obliged to believe it all alike – a remark which may be understood to apply to my whole History. Some even go so far as to say that the Argives first invited the Persians to invade Greece, because of their ill success in the war with Lacedæmon, since they preferred anything to the smart of their actual sufferings. Thus much concerning the Argives.”

For just a little different translation on this passage, I will quote from The History: Herodotus by David Grene:

“I must tell what is said, but I am not at all bound to believe it, and this comment of mine holds about my whole History. For there is another tale, too, to the effect that it was the Argives who summoned the Persian into Greece because, after the failure of their conflict with the Lacedaemonians, they wanted to have anything rather than a continuation of the trouble in which they lived.”

For the life of me, I don’t know how anyone could be more honest than this. Here Herodotus is faced with two different stories, and not entirely sure which is the more accurate. So Herodotus writes the story even though he doesn’t believe it. In other words, Herodotus wrote both sides of the story and leaves the reader to make up his mind. Sure, there are a lot of people who don’t want to hear both sides of a story and are quick to label Herodotus “the father of lies.”

One may ask, “why do we need Herodotus today?” The answer to that one is, we need Herodotus more today than we ever did! We need Herodotus because he was an Anointed Witness with his writings to some of the major prophecies in the Bible. We need him especially with the Israel Identity Message. Now there are a lot of people who would rather call it “Christian Identity.” Any old church can claim “Christian Identity”, but only we who are in the Israel Identity movement can call it by its proper name. That puts we who believe in Israel Identity into a mighty small group! I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, either get 100% into Israel Identity, or get entirely out of it!

What is of greater importance to Herodotus’ history is the fact that the archaeologists’ spade is vindicating his writings. And we will delve into that subject as we continue this research and study. The archaeologists’ spade has also vindicated some of Homer’s writings recently. It’s beginning to appear to be on the safe side, that one should reserve his personal opinions until all the data is in.

This is my seventy-fourth monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. With this lesson we will continue our series on the importance of Yahweh’s Anointed witness, Herodotus. 

ARCHAEOLOGY VINDICATES HERODOTUS 

During the past six or seven years The Learning Channel (TLC), on television has been showing an archaeological special entitled The Frozen Tombs Of Siberia. My video copy actually shows the graves of the Scythian people, or the Lost Tribes of Israel in their migrations. Not only that, but these Scythian burials fit Herodotus’ description of the Scythian customs in his Book IV very well.  To show you how the archaeologists’ spade is vindicating the writings of Herodotus, I will now quote a passage from the book The Celts by Gerhard Herm, pages 105-107. While some of the statements may seem strange, I will make some explanations during and after the quotation:

“Of yet others Herodotus says that they regularly scalped their victims and made towels or garments from the skins. What is more, members of the nearby tribe were said to be magicians, every year changing themselves for a few days into wolves; and the tribe itself was said to be composed of cannibals.

“What we have since learnt of the Scythians is sufficient to absolve Herodotus of the charge of telling horror-stories: there was an element of truth in at least two of his reports. The steppe nomads really did believe that their ancestors had been animals. They therefore carried images of them as totems or coats of arms and crowned their rulers with head-pieces shaped like bears, bulls or other animal heads. A man who thought he was descended from wolves may well have worn the open jaws of the proto-dog on his head and imagined himself to be a kind of werewolf. Besides, as regards Herodotus’s other story, the Scythians and their neighbours were indeed led by shamans (shamana, the Sanskrit word for such priests, means ‘magician’). The third detail he mentions, head-hunting, can be written off as a curiosity only if we ignore that the Scythians are among the progenitors of Celtic culture.” [Note: Hebrew lexicons lack completeness of language, but “shaman” seems to fit the sense of Strong’s #5567, and also #s 8064, 8065, or the group from #s 8080 through 8095.]

“What is certain is that towards 1100 BC the steppe people must have come from the Caspian basin – some even say from Iran – towards the Dnieper. Between 800 and 700 BC they drove the neighbouring Cimmerians along the east bank of the Black Sea into Asia Minor. Then the Scythians took the old road into western Europe. Their vanguards reached Silesia, Lower Lusatia, Hungary and perhaps even Bavaria. In all these regions they must have encountered the Urnfield people, whether peaceably or not we do not know. They seem to have influenced and impressed the indigenous peoples, possibly forcing some of their own chiefs on to them as sovereigns. At least the contact did have positive consequences.” [Note: We must remember the Japhethite (Thracian, Ionian, Mede Tubal & Mesheck), and even some Shemites, surely preceded the true Israelites into the Russian Steppe and parts of Europe accounting for some of the archaeological finds of dates earlier than the deportations of the Israelites. Herm’s dates of 800 and 700 BC are a bit early for the deported Israelites.]

“The Scythians were by no means savages. Archaeologists have shown that they produced highly developed arts and crafts, a firm political structure, accomplished horsemanship and the capacity to build vast kurgans. One of these ‘ancient’ or ‘thick graves’, as Soviet archaeologists call them, was opened at Ordzhonikidze on the lower Dnieper in 1971. It was neither the first found in the Ukraine nor the largest, but it was sufficient to impress its finders.

“An enormous quantity of earth had to be removed to get at the principal grave and an adjacent lesser one. Six horses and three grooms were buried around the former. In the stone chamber itself lay a chief or prince. His subjects had provided him with a golden necklace consisting of two dozen tiny cast animal figures, each one perfectly shaped. In the lesser chamber lay the skeletons of a woman and a boy. The boy held a large bracelet, his clothing covered all over with plaques of gold, the largest of them again in animal shapes. The woman had, among other items, a little lacquered box, a bronze mirror with a silver handle and – which impressed the archaeologists most – a glass receptacle dyed a delicate pink. Of course only splinters remained, but the question as to its origin obviously arose – Iran, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia? Even in classical Greece, glassware was a luxury.

“The Ordzhonikidze find confirmed what had already been known for some time: that the Scythians were inclined to making exquisite ornaments in animal form, decorating weaponry and clothing with golden or bronze deer, ibexes, lions, bulls, that they were horse-lovers and cattle-raisers and that they wore sleeved smocks and trousers. A carpet that has survived, intact, two millennia in the ice of the Altai mountains shows, moreover, that they threw multi-coloured plaids over their shoulders, grew moustaches and combed their hair up straight.

“There are three main conclusions to be drawn: first, that this steppe people had customs similar to those of the original Indo-Europeans, and were thus perhaps related to them; second, that much that seems Celtic in the old Europeans was in reality taken over from the Scythians – as for instance head-hunting and moustaches; finally, that the invaders from the east brought back customs that the descendants of the earlier nomads had gradually forgotten – thus reviving the old inheritance.”

Herm is caught in the mainstream “Indo-European” trap, not realizing that the people of Genesis 10 ARE the one and only original ‘Indo-Europeans.’ I believe that the animals and birds described here were the emblems of the tribes. Sure, the Tribe of Benjamin would dress up like a wolf. And one must remember that our people did carry things to the extreme. While you may take exception to some of this narrative, you will have to admit that Herodotus described the Scythians quite well. So for all of you who are pooh-poohing Herodotus and other Yahweh Anointed witnesses, you’d better do your homework.

I will now quote the involved passage from The History: Herodotus translated by David Grene 4:71-73:

“71. The burial places of their kings are in the country of the Gerrhi, the place up to which the Borysthenes is navigable. At this place, when their king dies, they dig a great fourcornered pit, and, having made it ready, they take up the dead man – having coated his body with wax and cut open his belly and cleaned it and filled it with chopped marsh plants and incense and parsley seed and anise, and sewn it together again – and put him on a wagon, in which they carry him to another nation. These in their turn receive the corpse when it is brought them and do what the Royal Scythians do: they cut off a piece of ear, shave their hair, cut their forearms, tear forehead and nose, and drive arrows through their left hand. Then they convey the corpse of the king on the wagon to another nation of those they rule. Those to whom they have already come follow along. When they have conveyed the corpse around to all the subject nations, they are in the country of the Gerrhi, who live furthest of all whom they rule, and at the place of burial. Afterwards, when they put the dead man in his grave on a bed, they fix spears on either side of the corpse and stretch above them planks of wood and roof these in with plaited rushes; and in the open space that is left in the burial place they bury one of his concubines, after strangling her, and his wine-bearer, cook, groom, valet, and message-bearer. Also his horses, and the firstfruits of everything else, and his golden cups (the Scythians use neither silver nor bronze). Having done this, they rear a huge barrow of earth, showing the greatest zeal and rivalry with one another to make it as big as possible.

“72. When the year has come round in its course, they do something else. Of the king’s remaining servants they take those most suitable for their purposes (and these are native-born Scythians, for the servants of the king are those he bids to serve him; he has no purchased slaves), and they strangle fifty of them and fifty of his most beautiful horses; and they remove their bellies, and clean them out, and fill them with chaff, and stitch them up. Then the half of a wheel is fixed, upside down, on two pieces of wood, and the other half of the wheel on two other posts, and they fix many more in this fashion. They then drive long stakes lengthwise through the horses’ bodies, up to the necks, and mount the horses upon the half-wheels. The half-wheels in front support the horses’ shoulders; those behind, the belly, by the hindquarters. The legs on both sides hang loose. They put bits and reins in the horses’ mouths and stretch these to the front and fasten them from pegs. Each one of the fifty young men who were strangled they mount on a horse. They contrive the mounting of the horsemen by driving an upright stake along the spine, up to the neck; but a part of the stake projects below, so that they can fit it into a hole they make in the stake that goes through the horse lengthwise. They set these, horses and riders, in a circle around the tomb, and, having done so, they ride off themselves.

“73. That is how they bury their kings. But as to the rest of the Scythians, when they die, their nearest relatives carry them around among their friends on wagons. Each friend receives and entertains those who follow the procession and offers a share of all the food to the dead man, the same as to everyone else. For forty days all these people who are not kings are carried round in this way, and then they are buried. When they have buried the dead, the relatives purify themselves as follows: they anoint and wash their heads; as to their bodies, they set up three sticks, leaning them against one another, and stretch, over these, woollen mats; and, having barricaded off this place as best they can, they make a pit in the center of the sticks and the mats and into it throw red-hot stones.”

 

ANALYSIS OF HERODOTUS’ REMARKS

 

We must remember that Herodotus relied heavily upon information passed on by word of mouth for many generations. As a result, because of what I call the “communication barrier” (the inability to repeat a story exactly as first told), the account becomes deteriorated by a process of multiple error. It’s somewhat like measuring a distance of fifty feet, but instead of using a fifty foot steel tape measure, one would measure one inch at a time. Each time an inch would be marked off, there would be a slight error, and after doing that 600 times one might be off plus or minus maybe up to three or four inches. Not only that, but people as a whole tend to be natural braggarts to some degree (like the fish that got away). All one need do is observe young children for a while, and how they have a bigger and better widget than anyone else on the block. Therefore, I’m quite certain that a good portion of Herodutus’ personal interviews with various sources were highly exaggerated. So with that in mind, let’s do a little detective work. I reviewed the VCR video tape The Frozen Tombs Of Siberia to see what consistencies and inconsistencies I could find with Herodotus’ report.

Herodotus says, “when their king dies, they dig a great fourcornered pit.” This is exactly what the video shows. The excavations are ten feet or deeper and maybe measure twelve feet wide, and maybe up to 20 feet long. Then a wooden hut with a flat roof is built nearly to the dimensions of this space, all below the surface of the ground. Then within the wooden hut they place a sturdy wooden coffin secured with large bronze nails, although sometimes the coffin was a hollowed out tree trunk.

Then, Herodotus continues, “having coated his body with wax and cut open his belly and cleaned it and filled it with chopped marsh plants and incense and parsley seed and anise, and sewn it together again.” Here again, Herodotus agrees substantially with the video! Moreover, Herodotus speaks of the regalia of the burial of the “Royal Scythian.” Herodotus then says, “they bury one of his concubines, after strangling her, and his wine-bearer, cook, groom, valet, and message-bearer.” Now they did usually kill the king’s horses by hitting them in the head with a pickax, for the video shows the holes in the horses’ heads where that was done. Now there might have been cases where the king and his household, along with his servants, died from some kind of epidemic. Even today in the cemeteries in northwestern Ohio there are whole families who died of cholera, with maybe up to nearly a dozen tombstones in a row. I believe that the story started with the horses, which we have evidence of; but the concubines, wine-bearers, cooks, grooms and valets were likely added by exaggerating storytellers later.

Herodotus then infers to us that the Royal Scythians used only golden cups from which to drink. Most of their ornaments were wooden objects covered with gold leaf. Could that mean the king’s cups also? Herodotus makes the statement “(the Scythians use neither silver nor bronze).” It should be noted that many objects were found in the tombs made of bronze and iron.

Then Herodotus writes, according to his word-of-mouth interviewee, “When the year has come round in its course, they do something else. Of the king’s remaining servants they take those most suitable for their purposes (and these are native-born Scythians, for the servants of the king are those he bids to serve him; he has no purchased slaves), and they strangle fifty of them and fifty of his most beautiful horses ...”  I am sure that had such evidence ever been found to this kind of thing of strangling servants, much comment would have been made by the archaeologists conducting these digs. It is my belief that this is just another tall story by someone unable to control his unrealistic imagination. I also have doubts concerning carrying a corpse around for forty days, even in that cold climate. Then it says, “they make a pit in the center of the sticks and the mats and into it throw red-hot stones.” To me this would be a gesture to keep the tomb enclosure comfortably warm for the interred as long as possible. Anyway, for what it’s worth, this is some of my observations concerning Herodotus’ writings. It is obvious to me that Herodotus did a commendable job for what he had to work with!

In the book The World Of The Past (a two volume set) edited by Jacquetta Hawks, in the “Introduction” (just before the chapter ‘About Archaeology’), page 9, substantiates my position concerning Herodotus’ writings as follows:

“While it is true that Herodotus is at his most unreliable when recording what people told him about their past history, the sights which he himself saw have now become for us the material of archaeology. His account of a royal Scythic burial, for example, has been accurately confirmed by modern excavations – providing the best ‘double-take’ of this kind that is ever likely to occur. No wonder, then, that Herodotus is the earliest author to be extensively represented in this anthology. His younger contemporary, Thucydides, deserves a place because in the introduction to his History of the Peloponnesian War he gives a brief prehistory of the Greeks which includes the very first recorded instance of archaeological method being used to reconstruct history ... Yet in general, of course, he wrote history as the heroic exemplar – the kind of history which was to prevail for so long and which lies at the opposite extreme from that arrived at through ‘the common touch’ of archaeology.”

 

BUT THERE IS MORE

 

Also for a long time skeptics believed that King Minos of Crete was only a legend. The archaeologists’ spade again made them liars. I will now quote the passage from my The History: Herodotus, translated by David Grene at (I. 173):

“1.173. Those, then, are the customs they practice. The Lycians did come from Crete in ancient times (for all of Crete in those days was possessed by barbarians). There was a rivalry in Crete about the throne between Sarpedon and Minos, Europa’s sons. Minos won out in the struggle; he drove out Sarpedon and his party, and, when these latter were expelled, they came to the land of Milyas in Asia. This was in those days Milyas, which now the Lycians live in; at that time the Milyans were called Solymi ...”

From the book The World Of Herodotus by Aubrey De Sélincourt, pages 38-39:

“Apart from the value and interest of popular tradition for its own sake, it is worth remembering that for the Greek world, at any rate, modern research has in many instances confirmed it. A hundred years ago no scholar believed in the historical reality of the Trojan war, an incident of primary importance in the Greek oral tradition of later times. Schliemann’s work on the site at Hissarlik proved beyond a doubt that the old tale was based solidly upon fact. It was the same with the legendary Minos, and the brilliant civilisation in Crete, revealed to modern eyes so spectacularly by Sir Arthur Evans’ excavations at Cnossos. It may well be that future archaeological research will prove many a statement of Herodotus, which scholars have hitherto taken as guess-work or fairy-tale, to be substantially true: for instance, his statement that the mysterious Etruscans came originally from Lydia.” [Note: Strabo and Tacitus both fully accepted the origin of the Etruscans as being in Lydia.]

For more on this subject, we will go to the book The Greeks by H. D. F. Kitto (a Penguin book) pages 16-17:

“But is there any reason to believe these traditions? A hundred years ago historians said no. Grote wrote, for example, that the legends were invented by the Greeks, out of their inexhaustible fancy, to fill in the blank space of their unknown past. To believe that a King Minos had ever ruled in Crete, or that a Trojan War had ever been fought, would be foolish: equally foolish to deny the possibility. An earlier historian of Greece, Thucydides, treated the traditions quite differently, as historical records – of a certain kind – to be criticized and used in the appropriate way.

“His account of the Trojan War, given in the early chapters of his history, is a fine example of the proper handling of historical material – for it never occurred to Thucydides that he was not dealing with historical material. On Minos the legendary King of Crete he writes:

“Minos is the earliest ruler we know of who possessed a fleet, and controlled most of what are now Greek waters. He ruled the Cyclades, and was the first colonizer of most of them, installing his own sons as governors. In all probability he cleared the sea of pirates, so far as he could, to secure his own revenues.

“Thucydides, like most Greeks, believed in the general truth of the traditions: modern writers disbelieved. But Grote’s admirable history had not passed through mDefaultText1/spanany editions before Schliemann went to Mycenae and Troy and dug up something uncommonly like Homer’s two cities: and subsequently Sir Arthur Evans went to Crete and practically dug up King Minos and his island-empire. It is at least abundantly clear that from early in the third millennium to about 1400 B.C. – a period as long as from the Fall of Rome to the present day – Crete, especially the city of Cnossos, was the centre of a brilliant civilization which gradually spread in all directions over the Aegean world. Since Cnossos was unfortified, its masters must have controlled the seas, just as Thucydides said.”

So it turns out that Herodotus’ and Thucydides’ “guess-work” and “fairy-tales” are more truthful than anticipated! For another version of this story about King Minos we will go to The Life Of Greece by Will Durant, pages 5-6:

 

“THE REDISCOVERY OF CRETE

 

“‘There is a land called Crete, in the midst of the wine-dark sea, a fair, rich land, begirt with water; and therein are many men past counting, and ninety cities.’ When Homer sang these lines, perhaps in the ninth century before our era, Greece had almost forgotten, though the poet had not, that the island whose wealth seemed to him even then so great had once been wealthier still; that it had held sway with a powerful fleet over most of the Aegean and part of mainland Greece; and that it had developed, a thousand years before the siege of Troy, one of the most artistic civilizations in history. Probably it was this Aegean culture – as ancient to him as he is to us – that Homer recalled when he spoke of a Golden Age in which men had been more civilized, and life more refined, than in his own disordered time.

“The rediscovery of that lost civilization is one of the major achievements of modern archeology. Here was an island twenty times larger than the largest of the Cyclades, pleasant in climate, varied in the products of its fields and once richly wooded hills, and strategically placed, for trade or war, midway between Phoenicia and Italy, between Egypt and Greece. Aristotle had pointed out how excellent this situation was, and how ‘it had enabled Minos to acquire the empire of the Aegean.’ But the story of Minos, accepted as fact by all classical writers, was rejected as legend by modern scholars; and until sixty years ago (© 1939) it was the custom to suppose, with Grote, that the history of civilization in the Aegean had begun with the Dorian invasion, or the Olympic games. Then in A.D. 1878 a Cretan merchant, appropriately named Minos Kalokairinos, unearthed some strange antiquities on a hillside south of Candia. The great Schliemann, who had but lately resurrected Mycenae and Troy, visited the site in 1886, announced his conviction that it covered the remains of the ancient Cnossus, and opened negotiations with the owner of the land so that excavations might begin at once. But the owner haggled and tried to cheat; and Schliemann, who had been a merchant before becoming an archeologist, withdrew in anger, losing a golden chance to add another civilization to history. A few years later he died.

“In 1893 a British archeologist, Dr. Arthur Evans, bought in Athens a number of milkstones from Greek women who had worn them as amulets. He was curious about the hieroglyphics engraved upon them, which no scholar could read. Tracing the stones to Crete, he secured passage thither, and wandered about the island picking up examples of what he believed to be ancient Cretan writing. In 1895 he purchased a part, and in 1900 the remainder, of the site that Schliemann and the French School at Athens had identified with Cnossus; and in nine weeks of that spring, digging feverishly with one hundred and fifty men, he exhumed the richest treasure of modern historical research – the palace of Minos. Nothing yet known from antiquity could equal the vastness of this complicated structure, to all appearances identical with the almost endless Labyrinth so famous in old Greek tales of Minos, Daedalus, Theseus, Ariadne, and the Minotaur. In these and other ruins, as if to confirm Evans’ intuition, thousands of seals and clay tablets were found, bearing characters like those that had set him upon the trail. The fires that had destroyed the palaces of Cnossus had preserved these tablets, whose undeciphered pictographs and scripts still conceal the early story of the Aegean.

“Students from many countries now hurried to Crete. While Evans was working at Cnossus, a group of resolute Italians – Halbherr, Pernier, Savignoni, Paribeni – unearthed at Hagia Triada (Holy Trinity) a sarcophagus painted with illuminating scenes from Cretan life, and uncovered at Phaestus a palace only less extensive than that of the Cnossus kings. Meanwhile two Americans, Seager and Mrs. Hawes, made discoveries at Vasiliki, Mochlos, and Gournia; the British – Hogarth, Bosanquet, Dawkins, Myres – explored Palaikastro, Psychro, and Zakro; the Cretans themselves became interested, and Xanthoudidis and Hatzidakis dug up ancient residences, grottoes, and tombs at Arkalochori, Tylissus, Koumasa, and Chamaizi. Half the nations of Europe united under the flag of science in the very generation in which their statesmen were preparing for war.” [All dates in this quotation are A.D. unless otherwise stated or obviously B.C.]

 

HERODOTUS & SCRIPTURE CONNECT AT 2 KINGS 23:29, 34

 

To explain this we will go to Archæology And The Bible by George A. Barton (©1916), pages 31-32:

“... The Lower Empire is the name given by scholars to the period of the twenty-sixth dynasty, 663-525 B.C. This dynasty was founded by Psammetik I, who became the viceroy of Egypt under Assurbanipal, of Assyria, in 663 B.C. Psammetik was descended from a native Egyptian family of the city of Sais in the western Delta, and a number of his ancestors had been prominent in the history of Egypt during the preceding century. At first he was a vassal of Assyria, but soon troubles in the eastern part of the Assyrian dominions enabled him to make Egypt independent. The Egyptians, finding themselves once more free under a native dynasty, experienced a great revival of national feeling. Everything Egyptian interested them. They looked with particular affection upon the age of the pyramid builders, who lived more than two thousand years before them. They revived old names and old titles, and emulated the art of the olden days. They manifested such vigor and originality withal, that the art of the lower empire rivals that of the best periods of Egyptian history.

“Necho, the son and successor of Psammetichus, endeavored, as Assyria was declining to her fall, to regain an Asiatic empire. Josiah, of Judah, who sought to thwart him, was defeated by Necho and killed at the battle of Megiddo in 608 B.C. (2 Kings 23:29). Necho afterward deposed Jehoahaz and took him captive to Egypt (2 Kings 23:34). Four years later, when Necho made a second campaign into Asia, he was defeated by Nebuchadrezzar at Charchemish on the Euphrates, and compelled to hastily retreat to Egypt, hotly pursued by the Babylonians. Jeremiah, who perhaps caught sight of the rapidly moving armies from the Judæan hills, has given a vivid account of the flight in Jeremiah 46. Jeremiah considered this event so important that he began then to commit his prophecies to writing. (See Jeremiah 36.) After this Necho devoted himself to the internal government of Egypt, though he became the patron of an enterprise for the circumnavigation of Africa, which was carried out by some Phœnicians. (See Herodotus, IV, 42.) Hophra, a later king of this dynasty (588-569 B.C.), in order to gain influence in Asia, tempted King Zedekiah to rebel against Babylon, and thus lured the little state of Judah to its destruction. During the reign of Hophra’s successor, Amosis II, Cyrus the Great founded the Persian empire, and in 525 B.C. Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, overthrew the twenty-sixth dynasty, and made Egypt a Persian province.” [Note: It is quite arrogant of Barton to suppose, and also contrary to Jeremiah’s writing, that the prophet only “began then to commit his prophecies to writing” when he “perhaps caught sight of” the flight of Egyptians from  Charchemish with Nebuchadnezzar in pursuit. Barton has no solid ground for such a lame postulation!]

Now let’s read Herodotus 4. 42 from David Grene’s translation The History: Herodotus:

“42. I am surprised, then, at those who have drawn the boundaries and made the divisions of Libya, Asia, and Europe. For the differences between them are great. In length Europe stretches parallel to both of them, and in breadth it seems to me incomparably broader. For Libya is clearly surrounded by the sea except for its boundary with Asia; it was King Necos of Egypt who, first of the men we know, proved this. When he had stopped digging the channel from the Nile into the Arabian Gulf, he sent off Phoenicians in merchantmen, bidding them, on their return journey, sail through the Pillars of Heracles till they came to the northern sea and so come back to Egypt. The Phoenicians set out from the Red Sea and sailed the southern sea. When it came to be autumn, they would put in and sow the land wherever they happened to be in Libya in the course of their sailing and wait the harvest there. Having gathered in their crop, they sailed on again. After two years of sailing, in the third year they rounded the Pillars of Heracles and came back to Egypt. And they declared (what some may believe, though I myself do not) that as they sailed round Libya they had the sun on their right.”

A footnote at the bottom of the page says the following:

[“This is one of the very striking pieces of information left us by Herodotus. There is now little doubt that these Phoenicians, sent by Necos, circumnavigated Africa, rounding the Cape of Good Hope.”]

Herodotus’ connection with Scripture in this era is even stronger than these sources indicate. The war between Necôs (or Necho) and the “Syrians” at “Magdolus” described by him at 2. 159 is actually a confused account of events described at 2 Chron. 35:20-27 (see also Josephus’ Antiquities 10:5:2), where the “Syrians” are Judahites and “Magdolus” is Megiddo. Rawlinson notes this, and also cites 2 Kings 23:29, 24:7, and Jeremiah 46:2 in connection with this chapter.

These examples of Herodotus should demonstrate the significance of his writings. It is a shame that there are so many (even in the Israel Identity Movement) who really don’t comprehend the weightiness of understanding history as well as Scripture. This last instance should really prove just how imperative it is to research both. This subject will be continued in the next lesson.

This is my seventy-fifth monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. With this lesson, we are going to continue to show more evidence concerning Herodotus’ report as regards to the burial of the Scythians and their kings. The idea is to show the account by Herodotus pertaining to this and compare it to the report of the archaeologists. Not only that, but to compare this new evidence against what was offered in the last lesson. The following three articles are from the book The World Of The Past, edited by Jacquetta Hawkes (a set of two volumes) under chapter 5, “Europe”, pages 454-456:

 

HERODOTUS: The Burial of Scythian Kings

 

“THE Scythians formed the main clan of an enormously widespread group of nomads, whose territories may at times have stretched as far east as the Yenisei. Although there was no political unity among them, these nomadic tribes shared much in common in their way of life and in their art. The Scyths proper occupied the more westerly part of the range. By the seventh century B.C. they were established in southern Russia, the Kuban and the Crimea, and in time they pushed further into eastern Europe – into Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Prussia. At various points, and particularly along the Black Sea, they came into contact with the Greek colonists. Nomadic chiefs employed Greek craftsmen to work for them, and some Scythic art shows a blending of Hellenic with Persian and other oriental elements.

“The Scyths were so powerful in the fifth century B.C. that Herodotus devoted an entire Book to them. To collect material he went to Olbia, a Greek commercial outpost on the Black Sea by the mouth of the Bug. Some of the information he recorded was fanciful, but much has been proved correct. In particular his description of the burial of Scythic kings has been supported even in detail by graves excavated in south Russia and elsewhere.

“The burial-place of the Scythian kings is in the country of the Gerrhi, near the spot where the Borysthenes first becomes navigable. When a king dies, they dig a great square pit, and, when it is ready, they take up the corpse, which has been previously prepared in the following way: the belly is slit open, cleaned out, and filled with various aromatic substances, crushed galingale, parsley-seed, and anise; it is then sewn up again and the whole body coated over with wax. In this condition it is carried in a wagon to a neighbouring tribe within the Scythian dominions, and then on to another, taking the various tribes in turn; and in the course of its progress, the people who successively receive it, follow the custom of the Royal Scythians and cut a piece from their ears, shave their hair, make circular incisions on their arms, gash their foreheads and noses, and thrust arrows through their left hands. On each stage of the journey those who have already been visited join the procession, until at last the funeral cortege, after passing through every part of the Scythian dominions, finds itself at the place of burial amongst the Gerrhi, the most northerly and remote of Scythian tribes. Here the corpse is laid in the tomb on a mattress, with spears fixed in the ground on either side to support a roof of withies laid on wooden poles, while in other parts of the great square pit various members of the king’s household are buried beside him: one of his concubines, his butler, his cook, his groom, his steward, and his chamberlain – all of them strangled. Horses are buried too, and gold cups (the Scythians do not use silver or bronze), and a selection of his other treasures. This ceremony over, everybody with great enthusiasm sets about raising a mound of earth, each competing with his neighbour to make it as big as possible. At the end of a year another ceremony takes place: they take fifty of the best of the king’s remaining servants, strangle and gut them, stuff the bodies with chaff, and sew them up again – these servants are native Scythians, for the king has no bought slaves, but chooses people to serve him from amongst his subjects. Fifty of the finest horses are then subjected to the same treatment. The next step is to cut a number of wheels in half and to fix them in pairs, rim-down-wards, to stakes driven into the ground, two stakes to each half-wheel; then stout poles are driven lengthwise through the horses from tail to neck, and by means of these the horses are mounted on the wheels, in such a way that the front pairs support the shoulders and the rear pairs the belly between the thighs. All four legs are left dangling clear of the ground. Each horse is bitted and bridled, the bridle being led forward and pegged down. The bodies of the men are dealt with in a similar way; straight poles are driven up through the neck, parallel with the spine, and the lower protruding ends fitted into sockets in the stakes which run through the horses; thus each horse is provided with one of the young servants to ride him. When horses and riders are all in place around the tomb, they are left there, and the mourners go away.”

The object here is to scrutinize and compare what you have just read under the topic “The Burial Of The Scythian Kings” with the “Royal Scythian Tomb Excavated.” Once you do this, you will observe that some of Herodotus’ informants exaggerated some of the facts. The blame is on the misinformed informants rather than Herodotus!

 

Royal Scythian Tomb ExcavateD, Pages 457-460

 

“CHERTOMLYK is near Nikopol in the southern Ukraine. The burial dates from the fourth century B.C.

“The Scythians, as we learn from their own proud and defiant retort to the taunts of Darius, valued their burial grounds above all their possessions, venerating them with a passion that was perhaps increased by their lack of temples and holy sites. To them the burial ceremony was an intensely mystical and august ritual, but it was also a singularly costly affair, not only in labour, material and worldly goods, but also in life. The loss in horses was especially high. Recent discoveries show that orthopaedically faulty animals were sometimes killed off in Hungary and a proportion of those buried in Altaian graves suffered from similar defects, but many of the horses found at Pazirik were in excellent condition at the time of their death. Information on this point is lacking with regard to the Kuban and south Russian burials, but the numbers of horses killed at important funerals in the Kuban was tremendous. There the figures varied from a score to several hundred, the highest to be recorded being at Ulski, where some four hundred had been buried.

“The most important and impressive of the Scythian burials are the royal tombs of southern Russia, and of them all Chertomlyk is perhaps the richest, both in the variety and artistic quality of the objects found in it and also in the well-nigh fabulous intrinsic value of the gold-work. Like so many other burials, Chertomlyk had attracted the attention of thieves, but in this instance a fall of earth in the entrance shaft they had dug trapped and killed at any rate one of the gang, leaving the objects he had amassed piled up in a corner of the tomb. Since this robber was unlikely to have dug the trench single-handed, it is probable that his companions escaped with some of the booty. Nevertheless, the archaeologists who opened the tomb some two thousand years later still found in it much that was of considerable monetary value and a great deal more that was of absorbing interest.

“The barrow was unusually elaborate in plan, for it contained a central burial chamber with four minor ones radiating from it. The first chamber to be entered by the excavators contained a small Scythian cauldron, a magnificent gorytus [bow-case] complete with arrows, and five knives with bone handles and iron blades. In the main chamber they found fragments of a carpet, but these were too decayed to give any idea of its pattern. Hooks for clothes to hang on were still in place on the walls and ceilings, but the garments which had once hung there had perished, and only the stamped golden plaques with which they had been trimmed lay in heaps where they had fallen to the ground. Placed in niches set at floor level in the walls were further personal belongings and some gold vases. In the north-eastern chamber stood six amphorae still holding the dregs of the wine and oil that had once filled them and also a bronze mirror mounted on an ivory handle.

“The dead man lay on his back, facing east. The setting in which he took leave of this world was of extraordinary opulence. A fine bronze torque encircled his neck, a gold ear-ring had been placed in one ear and there were gold rings on all his fingers. According to custom, an ivory-handled knife lay within easy reach of his left hand, together with a gorytus containing sixty-seven bronze arrowheads and an ivory-handled riding whip laced with gold. Fragments of an ivory casket, a silver spoon, numerous gold plaques from his clothes, pendants, gold tubes, beads and buttons were also found here. In the third small chamber lay two bodies, each adorned with a gold torque, gold bracelets and rings, and a belt decorated with gold plaques, together with the gold plaques which had trimmed the clothing strewn about their bare bones. Beside them stood a bronze cup, a silver ewer, a gorytus containing arrows, and a whip. In the fourth chamber were fragments of a bronze bier that had once been decorated with an elaborate design carried out in dark and light blue, green and yellow paint. A woman’s body lay on it, still wreathed in gold bracelets, finger-rings and ear-rings. Twenty-nine stamped gold plaques, twenty gold roundels and seven gold buttons lay intermingled with her bones. On her head were the remnants of a purple veil with the fifty-seven gold plaques which had formed its trimming still in place. Within her reach was a bronze mirror set in blue paste. Nearby lay a man’s body, probably an attendant’s, with a bronze bracelet on his arm, his knife and arrow-heads within grasp of his left hand. Between the bodies stood an elaborately ornamented silver dish, and it was there that the famous Chertomlyk vessel itself was found. A large bronze cauldron, measuring three feet in height, with six splendidly modelled goats ranged round its rim to serve as handles, was also found in the tomb, as well as a smaller bronze cauldron, numerous minor objects in gold, a great ornamented sheet of gold which had been ripped off the king’s gorytus, five splendid swords, and numerous fragments of delicate Greek pottery. Ten horses lay fully caparisoned outside the burial chamber, but in the same compound. The trappings of five were embellished with gold decorations, those of the rest with silver.”

Before I make any critical comments on this article, I will now quote this same passage from The History: Herodotus translated by David Grene, 3. 115-116:

“115. These, then, are the countries that are at the uttermost ends of the earth in Asia and Libya. But about the limits of the world toward the west, in Europe, I cannot speak with certainty. For my own part, I do not accept that there is a river, called Eridanus by the barbarians, that issues into a sea toward the north, from which it is that amber comes; nor do I know of the actual existence of the Tin Islands, from which our tin comes. The very name Eridanus speaks against their story, for it is a Greek, not a barbarian, word, made up by some poet or other. Nor have I been able, for all my efforts that way, to hear from anyone who was an eyewitness that there is a sea beyond Europe. But certainly our tin and our amber come from the edges of the world.

“116. It is clear that there is far the greatest supply of gold to the north of Europe, but how it is got is again something I cannot tell exactly; it is said that the Arimaspi – men with one eye – steal the gold from the griffins. I cannot be persuaded about this either – that there exist in nature men who are just like everyone else except that they have only one eye. Certainly, however, it seems likely that the ends of the earth, which enclose and entirely shut in all the rest, should have in themselves what we think most beautiful and rarest.”

Of all the writings in Herodotus that display his honesty, this passage is an outstanding, shining example for several reasons! His humble, unpretentious statement: “But about the limits of the world toward the west, in Europe, I cannot speak with certainty” shows his humility. It radiates to the observer like a precious gem. Anyone with the slightest bit of discernment can see it immediately. While Herodotus traveled extensively to many lands, evidently he never made it to the “Tin Islands”, or as we know them today, Britain. That Herodotus was speaking of Britain is supported by The Drama of the Lost Disciples by George F. Jowett, page 37.

Then he very conscientiously explains that the river called “Eridanus” is Greek in nature. By this he shows he is suspicious of the report and rightly informs us of his misgivings. What more need he do to show his fidelity? But still he has his scoffers! Then he continues: “... nor do I know of the actual existence of the Tin Islands, from which our tin comes.” The tin required to make bronze in Herodotus’ day was very critical especially for a country’s defense. The source of tin was so guarded that the sailing men would crash their vessels against the rocks rather than reveal its secret. It is somewhat like how the Hittites guarded the secret of producing iron. If the source of tin was guarded to that extent, we surely cannot condemn Herodotus for not knowing its location.

Then Herodotus speaks of an abundant supply of gold in northern Europe. We cannot know how far north Herodotus meant as his known world didn’t compare to what we know today. About the location of the gold Herodotus relates an anecdote of his day: “I cannot tell exactly; it is said that the Arimaspi – men with one eye – steal the gold from the griffins.” This sounds like a ploy by the people of Herodotus’ day to guard the location of their source of gold. If such is true, then we can comprehend the reason for Herodotus doubting the existence of “one-eyed” people. And though Herodotus is mostly critical of this entire account, nevertheless many elements of the story are true. The major outstanding disclosure in this passage of Herodotus is the mention of the “Tin Islands.” I’m also like Herodotus inasmuch as I have never seen any natural “one-eyed” people, and until some archaeologist digs one up, I choose to disbelieve!

But the whole object of using this segment of Herodotus’ writing was to demonstrate his honesty and integrity considering what he had to work with in his day!

 

BUT AGAIN WE MUST ASK: “WHO WAS HERODOTUS”?

 

For more documentation concerning Herodotus’ background we will go to Cyclopædia Of Universal History by John Clark Ridpath, LL. D. (©1885). I like reading old books, how about you? The following quotation from volume 1, page 396 gives us our most important clue yet. Because it is so significant, I’ll put it in bold type:

“Then came the great Herodotus, justly styled the father of History. He was born in Halicarnassus, in the year B.C. 484. He was a Dorian by descent and an Ionian by education. His merit consists in this, that he, first of the great minds of the Aryan race, perceived that history should be stripped of poetic disguises, and yet given an artistic and philosophic form in the language of common life. Herodotus had the genius of the traveler, the curiosity of an antiquarian, the industry of an artisan. He sought companionship with the literati of foreign cities. He stored his mind with records of the East. He reflected not a little upon the nature and causes of events, and thus fitted himself for historical authorship to a degree not to be expected of his age. He selected for a theme the great struggle between his country and Persia. As his narrative proceeds and he finds himself in contact with other nations, he pauses with a natural grace to recount their annals, their customs, their traditions, their laws. Garrulous? Granted; but such garrulity! Would that the primitive world had produced more such charming gossips! To spare the one were to lose the quaintest monument of ancient literature.”

In the above paragraph, I underlined the item of greatest interest, at least if you believe in the Israel Identity Message. It is of the greatest weightiness, for the Dorian Greeks were Israelites. Therefore, Herodotus was an Israelite! Once we understand this connection of the Dorian Greeks, 1st & 2nd Corinthians become of greater interest.

We must question, though, Ridpath’s calling Herodotus “first of the great minds of the Aryan race.” Surely, there were many great Aryan minds in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Persia, the Levant and elsewhere before him. Herodotus just happened to be among the first of those Aryan minds who applied himself to history.

 

TRANSITION OF POWERS TRIGGERED DORIAN EXPANSION

 

For this we will refer to the book The Wycliffe Historical Geography Of Bible Lands by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Howard F. Vos, page 299:

“Economic and political decline set in on Cyprus at the end of the thirteenth century and continued for some centuries thereafter. The Hittite Empire came to an end about 1200 B.C. Troy was destroyed about the same time or a little earlier. The Egyptian Empire disintegrated about 1100, and the Mycenaean power was brought to an end by Dorian invasions about the same time. International turbulence is never conducive to economic prosperity. The end of the period saw Cyprus rather isolated.

“According to Homer’s Odyssey and other Greek writers, some of the Greek heroes returning from the Battle of Troy settled on Cyprus and established towns there – including such sites as Salamis, Curium, and Nea Paphos. New archaeological evidence from Enkomi (near Salamis) and at Nea Paphos confirms the arrival of Greeks on the island and their building activities there around 1230 B.C. At Enkomi the Mycenaeans apparently built a new town on the site about 1230 B.C.; this was destroyed by the Sea Peoples (Philistines) some thirty years later.”

The object here is not to get that involved with Hittite history, but only show how the Dorian expansion fits time-wise with the decline and fall of the Hittite Empire.

 

SOME CONFUSION ABOUT DORIAN GREEK HISTORY

 

Since we understand that Herodotus was a Dorian Greek, it would be appropriate to consider some Dorian Greek History. Inasmuch as a lot of confusion exists, we will first present what historians generally say, and then give a reply in brackets. For this, we will use excerpts of the book The World Of Herodotus by Aubery de Sélincourt:

Page 73: “Greek Mycenaean civilisation was to last for four hundred years, spreading over much of the mainland, to the coasts and islands of the Ionian Sea, and as far east in the Aegean as Rhodes. It perished with the coming of iron and the invasion of the Dorians, when all the great cities were destroyed and a new Dark Age descended upon Greece, about which little is known until the curtain rises again with the Greek migrations to Asia Minor and the beginning of the period when the city-states first came into being.”

[“Greek Mycenean civilization” was that of Homer’s Danaans, the tribe of Dan which left the main body in Egypt before the Exodus to come to Greece. Mycenae, Thebes and Argos were among the famous Achaian (Danaan) cities. Early indication has it that the Danaans resided with their Japhethic predecessors (Ionians, Thracians, etc.)]

Pages 76-77: “But their power was destined to be broken by another Greek-speaking people, the Dorians, who about the year 1100 B.C., nearly a century after the traditional date of the siege of Troy, came with their iron weapons down from the north in hordes and carried all before them. This was not a peaceful infiltration like that of their predecessors, but an invasion and a conquest. Unlike the Achaeans who adopted as their own much of what they found in their new home, the Dorians were destroyers. Their coming brought a period of great confusion; as they poured southward over central Greece and into the Peloponnese, tribes and communities were reduced to serfdom, or swept away. Over a course of two centuries and more there was a continuous movement of peoples before the pressure of the invaders. The Dorians were a barbarous and virile race, and it took them a long time to learn civilised ways: some of them, one is tempted to think, never did; for in the years to come the greatest of the Dorian towns was Sparta, and it is not easy to associate the idea of civilised ways with that profoundly interesting but hateful place.

“An important result of the Dorian invasion and the spreading of the Dorian tribes over a large part of the mainland of Greece, and of the shifting of peoples consequent upon it, was the colonisation by Greeks of the coast of Asia Minor and of Cyprus and the Aegean islands. The movement of colonisation had begun before the Dorian invasion, but it was now greatly accelerated. The Achaeans, with their kinsmen the Aeolian Greeks, were the first to seek new homes in the kindlier land of Asia, and in the off-shore island of Lesbos; their settlements were mainly on the Mysian coast, extending as far south as Old Smyrna, and they were followed by Ionian venturers, who settled to the southward, as far as Miletus. Lastly the Dorians themselves joined in the search for new lands, built settlements in the islands of Cos, Cnidus and Rhodes, and continued the line of Greek coastal towns to the borders of Lycia.”

Pages 117-118: “The Spartans were a Dorian people, and the Dorians, far back at the beginning of things, had fought their way down from somewhere in the north-western regions of Greece into the Peloponnese, where they had wrested the land from the original inhabitants. Probably they had fighting in their blood more than the other branches of the Greek peoples, and certainly the Spartans, once they were settled as masters of the greater part of the Peloponnese, were compelled to maintain their position amongst the conquered population by force, and the threat of force. Sparta itself was a small community, little more, indeed, than a collection of villages; in it lived the true-born Spartan nobility, perhaps eight or nine thousand of them, while everyone else on the scattered farms of the fertile plain of Lacedaemon had lost even their names: they were the ‘perioeci’ – the ‘dwellers-around’; or else the helots, the Spartans’ slaves.”

[Sélincourt’s remarks here that the Dorians “came ... down from the north”, ... “poured southward over central Greece and into the Peloponnese”, ... “Lastly ... built settlements in the islands ...”, ... “fought their way down from somewhere(?) in the north-western regions of Greece into the Peloponnese” are all unsubstantiated, and can be proven wrong, and are in direct conflict with the Dorian conquest as it is explained by J. B. Bury who is much closer to the truth (although Bury is also confused and blind to the Dorian origins).]

Sélincourt page 132: “Sicyon, neighbour to Corinth, was a Dorian state of great antiquity, originally founded by Dorians from Argos. After following the pattern of development common to most Greek communities she fell, about the middle of the seventh century, under the ‘tyranny’ of a certain Orthagoras, whose dynasty lasted for nearly a hundred years.”

Page 259: “For a long time the Aeginetans, a Dorian people, had been a prosperous mercantile community; they were amongst the first of the Greeks to issue a coinage, early in the seventh century B.C. and the Aeginetan silver ‘turtles’ remained the standard coinage of the Peloponnese for two hundred years. The island traded freely with Egypt, and in the reign of Amasis (569-526) built its own shrine at Naucratis, the trading-post at the mouth of the Nile.”

Next, we will observe that many of the Greeks were family and race conscious, at least among their own local tribes. For this, I will use excerpts from A History Of Greece by J. B. Bury, page 53:

“The departure of the Dorians from the regions of Parnassus was probably gradual, and it was accomplished by sea. They built ships – perhaps the name of Naupactus, ‘the place of the ship-building,’ is a record of their ventures; and they sailed round the Peloponnesus to the south-eastern parts of Greece. One band of adventurers brought a new element to Crete, the island of many races; others settled in Thera and in Melos. Others sailed away eastward, beyond the limits of the Aegean, and found a home on the southern coast of Asia Minor, where, surrounded by barbarians and forgotten by the Greek world, they lived a life apart, taking no share in the history of Hellas.”

Again from A History Of Greece by J. B. Bury, page 54: “The next conquests of the Dorians were in the Peloponnesus. They had found it impossible to attack on the north and west; they now essayed it on the south and east. There were three distinct conquests – the conquest of Laconia, the conquest of Argolis, the conquest of Corinth. The Dorians took possession of the rich vale of the Eurotas, and, keeping their own Dorian stock pure from the mixture of alien blood, reduced all the inhabitants to the condition of subjects. It seems probable that the Dorian invaders who subdued Laconia were more numerous than the Dorian invaders elsewhere. The eminent quality which distinguished the Dorians from other branches of the Greek race was that which we call ‘character’; and it was in Laconia that this quality most fully displayed and developed itself, for here the Dorian seems to have remained more purely Dorian.

“In Argolis the course of things ran otherwise. The invaders, who landed under a king named Temenos, had doubtless a hard fight; but their conquest took the shape not of subjection but of amalgamation. The Argive state was indeed organised on the Dorian system, with the three Dorian tribes – the Hylleis, Pamphyli, and Dymanes; but otherwise few traces of the conquest remained. It is to the time of this conquest that the overthrow of Mycenae is probably to be referred. Certain it is that both Mycenae and Tiryns were destroyed suddenly and set on fire. Henceforward Argos under her lofty citadel was to be undisputed queen of the Argive plain. Greater, indeed, was the feat which the Dorians wrought in their southern conquest, the feat of making lowly Sparta, without citadel or wall, the queen of the Laconian vale.” [The “amalgamation” spoken of above was surely Dorian Greeks with Danaan-Israelite-Greeks, Phoenician-Israelite-Greeks and Japhethite-Ionian-Greeks.]

From the book The World Of Ancient Times by Carl Roebuck we read the following:

The Dark Age (1100-750 B.C.) “The settlement of the Dorian Greeks, which followed upon the invasions of the twelfth century, was concentrated mainly in the Peloponnesus and made it the most important Dorian area in Greece. The Dorians settled at Corinth and Sicyon near the Gulf of Corinth, at Argos near the old Mycenaean citadel at Mycenae, and in the southeast at Sparta in Laconia. Achaea, on the south shore of the Gulf of Corinth, Arcadia, in the heart of the Peloponnesus, and Messenia, in the southwest, were left undisturbed for the time being. From the eastern Peloponnesus, however, Dorians crossed the Aegean to Crete, Rhodes, and the adjacent coast of Asia Minor, where they spread as far north as Halicarnassus. The native populations were in some cases reduced to the status of serfs, and the Doric institutions and dialect were imposed. Cyprus remained untouched by the Dorians, so that its Mycenaean colonial settlements long preserved their old style of writing, artistic traditions, and some sporadic trade into the Aegean. But Cyprus was too far from the Aegean to seriously affect its new growth or to share in it. The island’s own culture was soon strongly influenced by Phoenician traders and settlers from the nearby coast of Syria.”

From the above, we can plainly see that the Dorian Greeks settled at Halicarnassus, the place of Herodotus’ birth! And we can be quite sure that a “serf” would not receive an education such as Herodotus was able to attain. As for Herodotus’ honesty, we will again refer to pages 151-152 of the book The World Of Ancient Times by Carl Roebuck where it speaks of Herodotus’ role model, Hecataeus:

“Herodotus had an example of historical writing in the work of Hecataeus (p. 233 [who stated]: ‘I have found the myths of the Greeks many and ridiculous’), who had insisted that history be truthful and critical. Hecataeus, however, had lacked a meaningful theme, one in which the experience of a whole generation of men was involved or on which the creative imagination of its interpreter could work. Herodotus conceived his history on a broad scale, designed to show the contrasting character and civilization of the peoples who fought, as well as to give an account of the events of the wars.

“Herodotus’ conception of historiography is an interesting example of the transitional period of thought in which he lived: ‘What Herodotus the Halicarnassian has learned by inquiry [historie] is here set forth: in order that the memory of the past may not be blotted out from among men by time, and that great and marvelous deeds done by Greeks and foreigners and especially the reason why they warred against each other may not lack renown.’ The ‘inquiry’ is thoroughly in the spirit of Ionian natural science. Herodotus carried it out by personal observation of the lands and peoples in whom he was interested, by talking with them, by asking questions and drawing inferences. The material was sifted with a keen and honest mind and a very considerable amount of common sense. If he could not reconcile various stories, the several versions were set down, often with a quietly ironic comment to indicate his own opinion. Part of the ‘inquiry,’ however, was to preserve the great deeds of the men who fought the wars. The spirit is that of Homer and of aristocratic Greece, which held that the proper end of human activity was excellence and glory ... He gives a fresh and sympathetic account of the lands and peoples of the Persian Empire and finds as much to criticize in Greece as he does among the ‘barbarians.’ Yet the Greeks did win the war, and Herodotus found in them certain qualities beyond the common courage and humanity found in all men.”

Other comments which should be mentioned here are: Mycenae is assigned prominence by scholars probably because in the Iliad it was the home of Agamemnon, chief of chiefs among the Danaans. Argos was certainly prominent in the earliest literature, and gave its name to the famous ship of the Argo-nauts.

The “Phoenicians traders and settlers from the nearby coast of Syria” are primarily Israelites from the northern tribes sailing from Tyre and Sidon: Asher (Ezek. 27:6), Zebulon and Naphtali (Isaiah 9:1 “... in the region of the nations”).

Thus we have in Herodotus a true Israelite and an honest man of integrity doing his very best under difficult circumstances!

This is my seventy-sixth monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. I have been running a series of lessons in defense of Herodotus, and it will be continued here. It is my desire that you are beginning to have a healthy appreciation for his writings. He was far from perfect, and didn’t have the tools to work with as we have today. Most of his informants had the bad habit of exaggerating many things highly out of proportion, and it’s a miracle he was able to sort out facts as well as he did. He must have had the mind of a detective, and a way of asking questions to get the response he needed. Herodotus is important to us because he serves as a valuable witness to important fulfilled Biblical prophecies.

No prophet is any better than the witnesses who vouch for the fulfillment of the prophecy that the prophet foretold. Prophecy without witnesses is not Sacred prophecy, for without witnesses the prophet prophesies in vain! Therefore, if the prophet is a true prophet, he is anointed by Yahweh for that purpose. Additionally, if the prophecy comes to pass and is verified by witnesses, the witnesses are anointed to give evidence of its fulfillment. Prophets and witnesses simply cannot be separated! From this we must conclude there are both anointed prophets and anointed witnesses! Herodotus’ writings are a witness of the fulfillment to a substantial portion of Daniel’s prophecies! Herodotus’ main subject is the war of invasion by the Persians into Greece. His Histories are divided into nine books: the first three deal with the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses and the accession of Darius and his expansion of the Persian Empire. This “Cyrus” is mentioned in Scripture at 2 Chr. 36:22 , 23; Ezr. 1:1, 2, 7, 8; 3:7; 4:3, 5; 5:13, 14, 17; 6:3, 14; Isa. 44:28; 45:1; Dan 1:21; 6:28 & 10:1. There are two prophets concerned in these passages, Isaiah and Daniel. Herodotus speaks of “Cyrus” at 1. 75-92, 107-130, 141, 188-191, 201-214; 3. 34, 36, 159 & 9. 122. It would seem, then, that it would be advisable to compare Herodotus with Scripture. It should be noted that all of these references are to Cyrus II (the Great), for there was a Cyrus I, his grandfather.

“Darius” is mentioned in Scripture at Ezr. 4:5, 24; 5:5, 6, 7; 6:1, 12, 13, 14, 15; Neh. 12:22; Dan. 5:31; 6:1, 6, 9, 25, 28; 9:1; Hag. 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zech 1:1, 7; 7:1. In Herodotus we find “Darius” at 1. 209; 2. 158; 3. 38, 73-87, 89, 118-119, 127-132, 134-135, 139-149, 150-160; 4.1, 83-98, 118-143, 200-204; 5.12-15, 24, 105-107; 6.24, 30, 48-49, 70, 94, 98, 119; 7. 1-4 & 194. If one is not aware of Darius’ campaign against the Scythians, much is lost, as Scripture is mute on that subject. In the Israel Identity Message, we need every bit of evidence about the Scythian-Israelites we can obtain. Herodotus’ coverage of the Scythians is invaluable to us who understand who true Israel is. It’s simply astonishing to me that anyone in Israel Identity would want to throw the writings of Herodotus out of the window! Yet this is exactly what many in Identity want to do with the writings of Paul! But that’s a different subject for another time.

While it was Cyrus II (the Great) who initially established the Persian Empire, it was Darius who expanded the empire to its greatest extent. A note of interest, though, it was Cyrus II who demanded the unconditional surrender of all the Ionian cities except the seaport of Miletus. Caria, Lycia, and the rest of Asia Minor were overrun by Cyrus’ generals and brought under Persian rule, (Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 7, page 613). That is why Caria was under Persian rule at the time of Herodotus’ birth. Though Collier’s states “Ionian cities”, Halicarnassus of Caria in Asia Minor was a Dorian settlement.

While there were historians other than Herodotus who wrote on Cyrus, like Ctesias and later Xenophon, Herodotus’ accounts seem to be more accurate according to the 1894 Encyclopædia Britannica, vol. 18, page 574 on “Persia.” An example speaking of a king list says: “... But the names of the kings in Herodotus are now all authenticated, directly or indirectly, by inscriptions lately discovered.” That was observed 110 years ago! The 1894 Encyclopædia Britannica shows that Ctesias had a problem getting his facts straight and used the words “mixed up” to describe them. But nevertheless, we need all the witnesses we can get, for many times they are all in agreement on certain items.

 

HERODOTUS GIVES PARTIAL WITNESS TO DANIEL 7:17

 

At Daniel 7:3-7, he prophecies of four kingdoms thusly:

“3 And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another. 4 The first was like a lion, and had eagle’s wings: I beheld till the wings thereof were plucked, and it was lifted up from the earth, and made stand upon the feet as a man, and a man’s heart was given to it. 5 And behold another beast, a second, like to a bear, and it raised up itself on one side, and it had three ribs in the mouth of it between the teeth of it: and they said thus unto it, Arise, devour much flesh. 6 After this I beheld, and lo another, like a leopard, which had upon the back of it four wings of a fowl; the beast had also four heads; and dominion was given to it. 7 After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns.”

If you followed my series on Daniel, then you know these four kingdoms were, (1) Babylon, (2) Medo-Persia, (3) Greece and, (4) Rome. Of these four kingdoms, Herodotus gave substantial witness to Babylon and Medo-Persia. Later, Josephus would witness much concerning Greece and Rome. With both Herodotus and Josephus, some of the witnessing was secondhand, but both also witnessed oftentimes with their own eyes. Without these two great anointed witnesses to history, much would be lost, and we would be left somewhat in the dark stumbling along without anything to guide our path.

It is important we comprehend these four kingdoms, as it points the way to the coming in of the fullness of Yahshua’s Kingdom at Daniel 7:27:

“And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all dominions shall serve and obey him.” While we are on our way, we certainly are not there yet!

 

THE FOUR KINGS AT DANIEL 11:1-4

 

Before we look into this passage, let’s first read Daniel 11:1-2:

“1 Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him. 2 And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.”

Now Darius the Mede at verse 1 is not the Darius that later ruled Persia. In fact, to understand the timing of this passage, we must go back to Daniel 10:1 where it speaks of “Cyrus king of Persia.” In Daniel 10:7, Daniel had received a vision and didn’t understand it. It seems, then, that Michael the chief prince was sent to Daniel to help him comprehend what it was about, but the “prince of the kingdom of Persia” delayed him twenty-one days. This shows there are higher powers over the activities of men than most imagine. Then Michael announces to Daniel that his reason for coming was to ”fight with the prince of Persia.” Michael is the archangel over Israel, so Persia had a different prince than the Israelites have. Anyway, Daniel 11:1-2 is a prelude to that fight. So the first king of the four is Cyrus II of Persia.

The “fourth” king of Persia, according to 11:2 is described as being very rich, and that he would use his riches to “stir up ... the realm of Grecia.” There is only one king of Persia who fits that description and that is Xerxes I, the “fourth” from Cyrus (actually making 5 kings in all). Notice that it says “stir up” and not “conquer.” But then Daniel at 11:3-4, is prophesying of Alexander the Great where he says:

“3 And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will. 4 And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those.”

So the “fourth” king of verse 2 is a different king than the one at verse 4. The one at verse 2 is Xerxes I, while the one at verse 4 is Alexander the Great!  The one at verse 2 is to “stir up ... Grecia” while the one at verse 4 is “to be broken ... and divided toward the four winds.” Verse 4 fits Alexander the Great as he left no “posterity.” So to sum up the four kings after Cyrus at Daniel 11:1-3, they would be, (1) Cambyses, (2) Smerdis, an impostor, (3) Darius Hystaspes, and (4) Xerxes I. What this passage all boils down to is a prophesied conflict between the Japhethic Medes and their allied Elamite Persians against the Greeks, (who were Israelites and Japhethic Ionians and related tribes). Xerxes I was the last Persian king to invade Greece, and the prophecy therefore passes over nine successors of Xerxes before introducing Alexander the Great at Daniel 11:4. There are two confusing elements in this passage that must be overcome: (1) the mention of Darius the Mede, and, (2) the skipping of nine successors of Xerxes between verses 3 and 4. It was necessary to skip the nine successors in order to remain on the subject of Greece.

Since I started this teaching letter, I found out that the Septuagint didn’t read the same as the KJV at Daniel 11:1. The LXX reads: “As for me. I in the first year of Cyrus was his strength and power.” As a result, I’m going to have to add the following three reasons why the Septuagint version must be correct: (1) Because Daniel chapter 10 is a precursor for Daniel chapter 11 where the subject is Michael the archangel for Israel contending with the “prince (angel) of Persia” twenty-one days (v. 13). This shows the Persians didn’t have Michael as their prince. (2)  Because Daniel chapter 10 is a precursor for Daniel chapter 11, Cyrus is named at 10:1. And there is no question that it was Cyrus who was in charge when Persia defeated Babylon! (3) Because Xerxes I was very rich and the last king of Persia to invade Greece, counting backwards from him, one must arrive at Cyrus!

 

? WHO WAS XERXES I ?

 

It will be necessary, if we want to understand Daniel’s prophecy, to explain how Xerxes fits into the Persian picture. Herodotus wrote extensively on Xerxes, and if I were to quote him on this subject, it would require the better part of three hundred pages from books 5 through 9. You can check your copy of Herodotus to see if what I’m telling you is correct. Therefore, I’ll quote a concise article on him from the World Scope Encyclopedia, vol. 12 under the heading “Xerxes.” (This encyclopedia doesn’t use pagination.)

“Xerxes I ... King of Persia. He was the eldest son of Darius by Atossa, his second wife, the daughter of Cyrus, although he had older half-brothers. His birth and early history are unknown, but it is reasonably certain that he reigned from 485 to 465 B.C. He is mentioned as Ahasuerus in the Book of Esther, and is famous in history in connection with several noted Greek campaigns. His father died in 485 B.C., while making preparations to invade Greece for the *third time. Xerxes spent the first years of his reign putting down revolts in Egypt and Babylonia and then began to make elaborate plans for carrying his father’s designs into execution. Provisions were collected to support a vast army for three years, a great transport fleet was constructed, and the most skilled engineers obtainable were engaged to plan the removal of natural obstructions. Some historians, accepting Herodotus’s figures, believe that the army and navy represented a combined force of more than 2,000,000 men, but this is generally believed to be a considerable exaggeration. To secure the passage of his army across the Hellespont, Xerxes ordered the construction of a bridge of boats a mile long. Herodotus states that it required seven days and nights for the forces to cross over the Hellespont. [* Note: After Thrace and Marathon under Darius.]

“Xerxes, having landed on European soil, marched unobstructed until he reached Thermopylae, where he was brought to a stand by the Spartan leader, Leonidas, who was at the head of a small but determined band of Greek warriors. They guarded the narrow passage with remarkable persistence until they were defeated through treachery (480), but when Xerxes reached Athens he found the city deserted. Though successful on land, Xerxes found his fleet driven to desperation and finally it was defeated. The Greeks were successful in several engagements at Artemisium and a storm did much damage to the Persian fleet, destroying 400ships of war. In 480 B.C. the final naval battle was fought at Salamis, where the Persians were defeated with great loss, and Xerxes fled to the Hellespont. A storm had destroyed the bridge of boats in the meantime, but he crossed over in a vessel and left Mardonius with a Persian army of 300,000 men to subdue Greece. Mardonius was defeated by the Greeks the following year in the Battle of Plataea, and in 478 B.C. the last possession of the Persians in Europe was taken from them by the victorious Greeks. Xerxes spent his later years in obscurity and was finally murdered by the commander of his bodyguard, Artabanus, who, it is generally believed, wished to usurp the Persian throne. Artaxerxes, Xerxes’s son, ascended the throne in 465 B.C. and killed Artabanus. Herodotus represents Xerxes as cruel and cowardly, but credits him with highly attractive personal qualities, and asserts that he was skillful in furthering the interests of his government.”

You should be beginning to see how important it is that we understand secular history as well as the Bible. And it’s simply amazing how many people there are who have never cracked open a secular history book going around trying to tell everyone else what the Bible says! Xerxes I had enough riches to wage many campaigns against Greece, and wars are expensive! – just ask George Bush!

To show you an example of Herodotus’ writing about Xerxes I’s siege and the burning of Athens, I will quote from The History: Herodotus translated by David Grene, 8. 52-53:

“52. The Persians established themselves on the hill opposite the Acropolis that is called by the Athenians the Areopagus, and they besieged the Acropolis in this way: they wrapped tow around their arrows and set them alight and shot them into the barrier. There the Athenians who were besieged still defended themselves, all the same, although they were reduced to the extremity of ill, and their barrier had betrayed them. They refused to receive any propositions of the Pisistratids about surrender, but they staunchly defended themselves by various means and especially by launching down great stones on the barbarians as they approached the gates, so that for a great time Xerxes was at a loss, being unable to beat them.

“53. But at last the barbarians found a way out of their difficulties. For according to the prophecy, all of Attica on the mainland must be overcome by the Persians. In front of the Acropolis, but behind the gates and the road up, there was a place where no one was on guard, for no one had thought that any man could ascend there; it was near the shrine of Aglaurus, the daughter of Cecrops, and at it, though it was a very precipitous place, some men managed to climb up. When the Athenians saw that these had got to the top, to the Acropolis itself, some of them threw themselves down headlong from the wall and so found their deaths, but others fled to the inner chamber. Those of the Persians who had climbed up turned to the gates and opened these up and butchered the suppliants there. When these had all been laid low, the barbarians plundered the shrine and set the whole Acropolis afire.”

What, then, is the bottom line about the passage at Daniel 11:1-2? The answer is, if we don’t understand some of the secular history surrounding it, we can have little idea what it’s talking about. And without Herodotus’ writings, we would be almost totally lost.

While I was putting this lesson together, I was not aware of it, but William Finck was writing up a similar paper. He is my best critic and one of my proofreaders. I get to speak with Bill once or twice a month, and it is limited to 15 minutes. On one call we were discussing how Herodotus fits the Book of Daniel. Bill casually mentioned the three kings of Daniel as an example. From this one sentence of Bill’s conversation with me, I fed the words “three kings” into my Franklin electronic Bible. In Daniel it took me to 7:24 and 11:2. As I had already written on Daniel 7:24, I knew that Bill meant 11:2. From that one tip by Bill, I wrote up the previous portion of this lesson. After I got Bill’s paper, I was amazed as we both had a similar thesis. Once I saw Bill’s explanation that the LXX has “Cyrus” at Daniel 1:11 instead of “Darius the Mede”, I realized that it would be necessary for me to rewrite that portion of my lesson, though I had already surmised that 11:1 should be Cyrus as Daniel 11:1-4 is only a continuation of Daniel chapter 10, where at Daniel 10:1 the subject is Cyrus. The following is the paper that William Finck wrote up for me:

 

HERODOTUS, SCYTHIANS, PERSIANS AND PROPHECY

By: William Finck

 

Except for his long description of Egypt in Book 2, and his other forays into the past, Herodotus gave the history of Persia covering the reign of five kings: Cyrus (1. 46), Cambyses (2. 1), Pseudo-Smerdis (3. 67), Darius (3. 88), and Xerxes (7. 5). These kings are the exact kings which Daniel our prophet speaks of in Daniel 11:1-2.

Where at Daniel 11:1 in the A.V. reads “Darius the Mede” (a satrap at Babylon), the LXX has 11:1 thusly: “And I in the first year of Cyrus stood to strengthen and confirm him.” But regardless, the record is clear that Cyrus was king of Persia as Daniel wrote these last chapters. 11:2 continues: “... there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia ...” (So we have Cambyses, Pseudo-Smerdis, and Darius who actually began the war with the Greeks, defeated at the battle of Marathon), “... and the fourth shall be far richer than all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.” And Xerxes, Daniel’s fourth king, not only invaded Greece, leveling Athens itself, but also incited the Phoenicians of Carthage (with their Iberian brethren and others – Herodotus 7. 165) to attack the Greeks of Sicily at the same time. Where Xerxes is defeated, Herodotus – having fulfilled his testimony of this war – ends his Histories.

On the fate of the “ten” tribes: II Esdras 13:39-45, and Josephus’  Antiquities 8:11:1, 10:9:7 and 11:5:2, not only do the Arians and Parthians beyond Babylon meet the description of being “beyond the Euphrates”, but so do the Armenians, Iberians, Sacae, Massagetae, and all the Scythians who ventured up through the Black and Caspian coasts and the Caucasus, looking at the river’s course.

Hosea at 12:9 says of the Israelites being deported by the Assyrians: “And I Yahweh thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles (tents), as in the days of the solemn feasts.” And not only do we have descriptions of the Scythians living in such a fashion by Herodotus (4. 46), but their very name, “Scythian”, may certainly be derived from the Hebrew word for “tabernacle” or “tent”, succoth. Strabo tells us that over 400 years later, the Scythians and Scythian Germans were still living in this fashion (7. 1. 3, 11. 2. 1)! It makes no sense, that the people who rapidly became – and still are – the world’s greatest engineers, would for so long dwell without house nor city: except the prophet said that they would.

Herodotus at 4. 61 describes the Scythians’ use of animal bones for firewood, where Rawlinson compares Ezekiel 24:5. More strikingly, Herodotus says that the Scythians “never use swine for any purpose”, nor do they breed them (4. 63), although it is evident that this had changed by Strabo’s time (4. 4. 3), and Herodotus describes a Scythian mode of divination from bundles of rods, or sticks, to which may be compared (as Rawlinson again noticed) Hosea 4:12. (& Tacitus, “Germania”, 10).

Strabo (11. 3. 6, 11. 4. 7) discusses some customs among the Iberians and Albanians of the Caucasus which we find much like many in our Old Testament, and Herodotus even describes sacrifice procedures among the Magi and Persians much like the Levitical (1. 132). In many instances from Gaul to India, the priesthoods are said to belong to a particular tribe, such as the Magi (Herodotus 1. 101, 140), a practice also to be found at times among the Greeks (i.e., the Arcadians at Strabo 8. 3. 25). As the Persians would not sacrifice without a Magus (Herodotus 1. 132), the Kelts would not without a Druid (Strabo 8. 3. 25). Also found among the Greeks, swine were considered impure (Strabo 12. 8. 9) and were only accepted for sacrifice at certain temples of Aphrodite (Strabo 9. 5. 17).

From a map drawn from the accounts of Diodorus Siculus, found in volume 2 of Harvard’s Loeb Library edition of his Library of History we see several branches of the Scythians, notably the Sakae and Massgetae, the Sogdians and the Tocharians, dwelling about the Iaxartes river, north of the sources of the Indus. Their location here is evident also from the accounts of Herodotus and Strabo. The Massagetae and the Sakae were among the last of the Scythian tribes to have entered into Europe, as traced across the continent by Sharon Turner in his Anglo-Saxon history.

When this early home of these Scythian tribes is noticed, and we realize that the “rivers of Ethiopia” in the Bible are in Hebrew the “rivers of Kush”, and that the eastern, or Hindu-Kush, only then Zephaniah may be understood, at 3:10 where he writes “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed, shall bring my offering” and he can only be talking about the Massagetae, Sakae, and their Kin! – the dispersed of Israel! It was to these tribes that the Kingdom of Yahweh would come (Micah 4:8, Dan, 2:44, Matt. 21:43), and the further from Mesopotamia the dispersed traveled, the stronger and more lasting a nation they became (Micah 4:7, Isaiah 41).

Herodotus’ description of a barren northern Europe (5. 9-10, et al.) and the evidence of Scythian, or German and Keltic migration westward to inhabit it, calls to mind Deut. 32:8. “When the most High divided to the (Genesis 10) nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of Adam, He set the bounds of the (Adamic) people according to the number of the children of Israel.” Yet the Thracians claimed that “the country beyond the Ister (the Lower Danube) is possessed  by bees (Rawlinson footnotes ‘mosquitoes’), on account of which it is impossible to penetrate farther.” (Herodotus 5. 10). Yet I suspect there are reasons, besides mosquitoes, that the Thracians were so prevented. [Note: Exodus 23:28, and Wisdom of Sal. 12:8 in the Apocrypha.]

Isaiah 10:5-16 foretells the destruction of Assyria. 10:17-18, 10:20-27 and 11:16 fully assure that Israelites will be actively involved in that destruction. Isaiah 14:24-27  mentions this destruction again. Herodotus relates that the Medes were already at war with the Assyrians, when the Scythians invaded Media during the reign of the Median King Cyaxares (625-585 B.C., according to Herodotus’ chronology). The Scythians prevented the Medes from destroying Nineveh, and themselves “became masters of Asia”, a position they held for 28 years. While Herodotus states that Cyaxares conquered Nineveh himself, after becoming free of the Scythians, this is impossible since Nineveh was destroyed before 612 B.C., and Herodotus is likely repeating later Median propaganda. Strabo tells us rather that “In ancient times Greater Armenia ruled the whole of Asia, after it broke up the empire of the Syrians”, where he is obviously confusing Syrians with Assyrians (and he mentions “Greater Media” later in the paragraph). Greater Armenia, that first Scythian land, according to Diodorus Siculus (refer to Watchman’s Letter #72, p. 1, Diodorus Siculus 2. 43), with the witness of Herodotus, albeit indirectly, show that Isaiah was correct, the Israelites – and surely with Medes alongside them – destroyed Nineveh, and the Assyrian Empire. (Herodotus 1. 102-106, Strabo 11. 13. 5).

Isaiah 13 foretells the destruction of Babylon. 13:4 states that “the kingdoms of the nations” will perform such destruction. 13:17 indicates that the Medes are one of these nations. 13:3 indicates that the children of Israel are also. 13:12 is surely an allusion to Cyrus, king of Persia, who led the takeover of Babylon (see Isa. 44:28). Isaiah 14:3-23 is a parable foretelling Babylon’s destruction. Note Isaiah’s statement concerning Cyrus at 45:1: “Thus saith Yahweh to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden. to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loin of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut.” And Herodotus said of the Babylonians: “A battle was fought at a short distance from the city, in which the Babylonians were defeated by the Persian king, whereupon they withdrew within their defences. Here they shut themselves up, and made light of his siege, having laid a store of provisions for many years in preparation against this attack; for when they saw Cyrus conquering nation after nation, they were convinced that he would never stop, and that their turn would come at last.” (1. 190). After a short time as Herodotus describes (1. 191) the Persians easily gained access to the city, by redirecting the Euphrates river which ran under its walls, dividing the city in two; something the Babylonians did not foresee, and a project they took notice of too late.

Isaiah 21 is a parable involving Elam (Persia) and Media in the destruction of Babylon. Jeremiah 50 and 51 also prophesy the fall of Babylon. Jeremiah 50:3-4 surely indicate that the Israelites will participate with the Persian conquest of Babylon, as do 50:9, 50:20-28, 33-34 and 41-42. Jeremiah also indicates this at 51:27, where from history we know that people related to the Scythians (Israelites) inhabit the mountains of Ararat, Armenia. Ashkenaz is a Japhethite tribe (Gen. 10:3). Jeremiah 51:31 describes the Persian system of post discussed by Herodotus at 8. 98, a sort of Persian “pony express.” While we can’t tell from Herodotus whether the Sakae, Scythians, or other Israelites were with the Persians when they took Babylon, surely Persian records themselves indicate such. Herodotus does describe the Persian forces in great detail as they were less than 60 years later under Xerxes, during his great invasion of Greece. At 7. 64 he mentions the “The Sacae, or Scyths” along with the Bactrians. At 7. 66 he mentions the Arians, Parthians, Sogdians, the Caspians at 7. 67, and several times relates some custom or implement of these people to the Medes. At 7. 62 he says “These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians” yet Herodotus is certainly again confusing the Medes with Israelites who were settled in Media by the Assyrians. For the word “Arya” is certainly Hebrew for “Mountain of Yahweh” (note Daniel 2:44-45). The Scythians were said by Herodotus three times (1. 215, 4. 5, 7. 64) to have the FV("D4l as a favorite weapon, and only the Scyths are mentioned by him with this weapon (once as Massagetae), which Rawlinson translates “battle axe” (compare Jeremiah 51:20). Sharon Turner is his History of the Anglo-Saxons states that the battle axe was the preferred weapon of the Saxon at least until the Norman Conquest (vol. 1, page 82; vol. 2, pages 58, 75 & 76).

At 7. 64, Herodotus also states that the Sacae, the Scyths, were “clad in trousers, and had on their heads tall stiff caps rising to a point.” A similar pointed cap, not so stiff, may be seen on the head of a Germanic chieftain, pictured on a cup and shown paying homage to Augustus, on page 43 of the May-June 2001 issue of Archaeology Odyssey. The same type of hat worn by the Germanic chieftain can be seen on page 52 of the November-December 2002 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review on the head of a figure excavated at Dor in Israel. On page 49 of the same issue, this same hat is seen in the famous inscription of the Israelite King Jehu on the Black Obelisk of Assyria. A Scythian head dress indeed!

By now I would hope it is evident that Herodotus, supported to a greater extent by later historians, was an excellent and most valuable witness to the dispersion of the Israelites and then their fulfillment of so many prophecies concerning them as we have here seen from Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, Micah and Zephaniah, and even evidenced in Daniel, another story entirely.

                                                                                          William Finck

This is my seventy-seventh monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. At this point in time, I am compelled to write additional lessons on Herodotus that I didn’t originally plan to write. As a result, I’m going to have to advance the numbers and dates on my next four lessons. All of this happened when I visited a used book store and found a book entitled  History Of Assyria by A. T. Olmstead. This is the same Olmstead who wrote a very informative book the History Of The Persian Empire. On the book History Of Assyria, the title page was missing, but gave the name of the author on page xvi of the preface, along with a date of 1923. The reason I’m compelled to address this subject one additional time is because a very dear friend of mine tried to dissuade my effort in publishing William Finck’s presentation on the Genesis 10 nations. Upon checking out Finck’s postulations, most of my sources vindicated his thesis.

My friend tried to convince me that the Medes and Persians were Israelites and that Herodotus and Josephus were bad guys, and that their histories couldn’t be trusted. Now, as much as I value this person’s friendship, I absolutely will not digress from what I comprehend to be the truth. I have since resolved that if the truth costs me a dear friendship, that’ll be the price I’ll have to pay, for the Kingdom comes first and foremost above everything else! I have reason to believe, though, it’s a third party’s bad influence that’s causing all the trouble! Anyway, it now becomes my responsibility to expose such false premises in order to protect others from these dangerous pitfalls.

While it is true that most of the Israelites taken captive by Assyria were settled in Media (II Kings 17:6), it is not true, however, that the Medes, as a people, were of any of the tribes of Israel! Rather, the Medes were White descendants from Japheth rather than Shem. On the other hand, a good share of the Persians were made up of Elamites, though surely there were a few pockets of Israelites who settled in both Media and Persia.

The land of Elam was called elamtu by the Assyrians and Babylonians and Elymais by the classical Greek writers, who also at times referred to it as “Susiana” after the city of Susa, or Shushan, at one time evidently the capital of Elam. Under the Persian Empire, Susa (Shushan) was a royal city, Neh. 1:1; Est. 1:2. (Insight On The Scriptures, vol. 1, pages 701-702). The Collier’s Encyclopedia, vol. 15, page 628, though some editing is needed, says the following:

“MEDIA, the name given in antiquity to the kingdom in northwest Persia ruled by the Medes, or Madai. At the height of their power, for about a century, they ruled the whole area from Susiana in southern Persia to the Halys River in the central plateau of Asia Minor. The Medes were the largest of a number of Indo-European-speaking tribes which emigrated ... into the highlands of Armenia and Persia, probably between 1000 and 900 B.C. They appear as a seminomadic people in the Assyrian annals of the ninth and eighth centuries B.C.; successive kings of Assyria campaigned against them and their kinsmen, the Mannai, south of Lake Urmia in Persia, and carried back, among the booty, sturdy war horses bred on the grassy steppes.

“Herodotus (Book I, 95 ff.) preserved the legend that the Medes originally lived in scattered villages and were united by Deioces, who was made king over the six Median tribes and built Ecbatana (modern Hamadan, in western Iran) as the new capital of his kingdom; Deioces may be the historical chieftain Daiaukku, whom the Assyrian king Sargon II deported in 715 B.C. In Esarhaddon’s reign (681-669 B.C.) a number of Median chieftains, or ‘city rulers,’ were vassals of Assyria; tablets bearing treaties with nine of these were found in 1956 at Nimrud, the site of a former Assyrian capital in northern Iraq.

“The unification of the kingdom and perhaps the building of Ecbatana must have taken place later, perhaps in the time of Phraortes (died c. 625 B.C.), whom the Assyrians called Kashtariti. Early in the reign of his son, Cyaxares (Persian Uvakhshatra), Scythian hordes overran Iran; according to Herodotus they were expelled after twenty-eight years by Cyaxares, who reorganized the Median army and extended his rule over the Persians in the south of Iran, and perhaps also eastwards. Forming an alliance with Nabopolassar, the king of Babylon, Cyaxares turned to attack the enfeebled Assyrians. The pact between Cyaxares and Nabopolassar was sealed near Nineveh by the marriage in 613 B.C. of Nabopolassar’s son Nebuchadnezzar to Cyaxares’ granddaughter. In the following year the combined armies took and sacked Nineveh; the great Assyrian Empire tottered and fell, and the victors divided the spoils, the Medes taking the northern and eastern parts. After five years of indecisive war in Cappadocia, the frontier between the Median Empire and the kingdom of Lydia was set at the Halys River (modern Kizil Irmak).

“Babylonia meanwhile had secured Syria, Palestine, and Arabia, and Elam in southern Persia. For nearly half a century the two powers confronted each other across a strong line of frontier forts. Then Nabonidus, king of Babylon, entered into an alliance with Cyrus, the ambitious young king of Persia and Anshan, who in 553 B.C. rose in revolt against his Median overlord. The war lasted three years. According to Herodotus, Astyages, the Median king, was afterwards betrayed by his general, Harpagus; Ecbatana was sacked, and Cyrus, ‘the Persian, the Achaemenid,’ became master of the Median Empire. Ecbatana was rebuilt as a capital city of the new realm; and the Medes retained a privileged position in the Persian Empire, though they were brought to rebellion by heavy taxation on several occasions.

“The Median epoch has been called the darkest in Iranian history. No records of the Median kings have survived, and we know almost nothing of Median society; no Median city has been excavated, and the capital, Ecbatana, lies unexplored beneath the modern city of Hamadan. Herodotus’ description of the seven concentric walls of different colors is not that of an eyewitness and may be based on his impression of a Babylonian temple-tower. Assyrian reliefs show the Medes as heavily bearded, wearing high laced boots and fleece cloaks. On the bas-reliefs of the ancient Persian city of Persepolis, Median archers are shown alternating with Persians in the royal bodyguard.”

As can plainly be seen, Herodotus, among many other significant subjects, testifies to the origin of the Medes. It is found at Book 1. 95, and I will quote through Book 1. 109 from David Grene’s translation:

“95. Our story must now go on to inquire who this Cyrus was who took the empire from Croesus and how it came about that the Persians became the leaders of all Asia. I will write my account according to the evidence of those Persians whose desire is not to make solemn miracles of all that concerns Cyrus but to tell the very truth. But I know three other ways to tell the story of Cyrus.

“When the Assyrians had held sway over upper Asia for five hundred and twenty years, the first to begin the revolt against them were the Medes: these, in fighting the Assyrians, proved themselves right good men, cast their slavery from them, and were free again. After them, other of the nations did the same as the Medes.

“96. Now all of them on the mainland were free, but they relapsed into one-man rule, as I shall show. There was a man among the Medes, a clever man, whose name was Deioces, and he was the son of Phraortes. This Deioces had fallen in love with royal power, and this is what he did. At this time, the Medes lived in villages, and in the particular village of Deioces he had always been a man of note, and now he set himself to practice justice ever more and more keenly. There was at the time great lawlessness throughout Media, and Deioces did what he did because he knew that injustice is the great enemy of justice. The Medes in his own village, seeing the manner of the man’s life, chose him to be a judge among them. And he, since it was power that he was courting, was always straight and just and, for being so, won no small praise from his fellow citizens – so much so, indeed, that the people in other villages learned that Deioces was the one man for judging according to the rule of right; these people had before met with unjust sentences, and when they heard the good news about Deioces they flocked to him to have their own cases decided by him; and at last they would entrust their suits to none but him.

“97. As those who had recourse to him grew ever more in number (for they all heard that the cases he tried came out according to the truth of the facts), Deioces came to realize that now everything hung upon himself. Whereupon he refused to sit as judge any more and said that he would serve no longer. It did not profit him at all, he said, to decide cases for his neighbors all day long to the manifest neglect of his own affairs. So robbery and lawlessness grew even more in the villages than before. The Medes all came to a meeting place and conferred with one another on what they should do now. I suppose that those who spoke most were Deioces’ friends. What they said was, ‘If we go on as we are going now, we will not be able to live in this country at all. Let us therefore set up a king over us. The country will then be well governed, and we shall betake ourselves to our own business and shall not be undone by lawlessness.’ These were the arguments with which they persuaded one another to be ruled by a king.

“98. Then at once the question was proposed as to whom to make king. Deioces was so much in everyone’s mouth, people both putting him forward and praising him, that all ended by agreeing that he should be their king. For his part, he bade them build him houses worthy of royalty and to strengthen him with a bodyguard. The Medes did all this. They built him great secure houses wheresoever in the country he indicated, and they gave him the privilege of selecting bodyguards for himself from all the people of Media. When he got the power, then, he compelled the Medes to make one fortress and, attending to this, to neglect the rest. Again, the Medes did as he told them; he had built for him those great strong walls that are now called Ecbatana, one circle of them inside the other. The building was so contrived that each circle of walls is higher than the next by the battlements only. The fact that the place chosen was itself a hill helps the design, but it was also much strengthened by contrivance. The circles of walls were, in all, seven, and within the final circle are the royal palace and the treasuries. The longest wall is about the length of the wall that surrounds the city of Athens. The battlements of the first circle are white, the second black, the third scarlet, the fourth blue, the fifth orange. Thus the battlements of these five circles are painted with colors; but of the last two circles, the one had its battlements coated with silver, the other with gold.

“99. These walls, then, Deioces built for himself and about his own palace, but the rest of the people he ordered to build houses outside the walls. When all was built, Deioces was the first who established this ceremony: that no one whatsoever should have admittance to the king, but that all should be transacted through messengers and that the king should be seen by none; moreover, to laugh or to spit in the royal presence was shameful for all alike. These solemnities he contrived about his own person so that those who were his equals and of the same age, brought up with him, and of descent as good, and as brave as he, might not, seeing him, be vexed and take to plotting against him but would judge him to be someone grown quite different – and all because they did not see him.

“100. When he had ordered these matters and had strengthened himself in the royal power, he was very exact in his observance of justice. Men would write down their suits and send them in to him, and he would judge what was brought in and send the decisions out. Such were his arrangements with the lawsuits; but he had other matters of discipline in hand, too. As often as he heard of someone as a man of insolent violence, he would have him apprehended and do justice on him according to the merit of each offense; and his spies and eavesdroppers were everywhere throughout the land.

“1O1. Deioces, then, united the Median nation, but this one only, and this he ruled.* The Median tribes are as follows: Busae, Parataceni, Struchates, Arizanti, Budii, Magi. That is all there is of them.

“[* Footnote: By this remark Herodotus is differentiating Deioces not only from his immediate successors but from the rest of the Eastern despots: Astyages, who extended the power of Media to conquer Persia but then fell victim to his Persian grandson, Cyrus; Cyrus, who, after a successful career of conquest, died trying to annex the Massagetae; Darius, in the same position with respect to the Scythians; and finally Xerxes, in the expedition to Greece. All exemplify the pattern of the monarch who cannot refrain from pushing his domains beyond their natural or inherited boundaries and finally, in his last and usually most frivolous annexation, meets disaster. Many of these cases are marked by Herodotus by a conversation between the monarch and a ‘wise adviser’ who points up, especially, the irrationality of the last deadly moment of expansion of the monarch’s empire.]

“102. The son of Deioces was Phraortes, who took over the rule on Deioces’ death, which happened after he had ruled for fifty-three years.  When Phraortes succeeded, it did not content him to rule the Medes only. He attacked the Persians. These were the first he set upon, and they were the first people whom he made subject to the Medes. Once he had these two peoples – and both of them strong – he began to subdue all Asia, going from people to people, until, in his campaigning, he came against the Assyrians, and especially those of the Assyrians who held Nineveh. These Assyrians had formerly ruled all of Asia but were now quite isolated, all their allies having dropped away from them. But in themselves they were as strong as ever, and when Phraortes fought them, he himself was killed, after a reign of twenty-two years, and also much of his army.

“103. On the death of Phraortes, Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, the son of Deioces, succeeded. He is said to have been a far better military man than his forebears. He was the first to organize the Asian army into regiments and the first to establish separately each unit of arms – as spear-bearers, archers, and cavalry. Before this they were all mixed up, pell-mell, together. It was Cyaxares who fought the Lydians when day turned into night upon their fighting, and it was Cyaxares who drew together under his own rule all Asia beyond the river Halys. Then, collecting all his subject peoples, he attacked Nineveh, and in vengeance for his father’s defeat he wanted to destroy the city utterly. He had defeated the Assyrians in battle; but then, when he was beleaguering Nineveh, there came upon him a great host of Scythians, whose leader was their king, Madyes, the son of Protothyes. They had first expelled the Cimmerians from Europe, and it was in pursuit of the fleeing Cimmerians that the Scythians came into Median territory.

“104. From the Maeotic lake to the river Phasis and the territory of the Colchians is a thirty days’ journey for an active traveler. From Colchis it is no great distance to cross over into Media; in between there is only one nation, the Saspires; pass them, and you are in Media. But the Scythians did not invade by this way but turned off onto the upper road, which is far longer, keeping the Caucasus Mountains on their right. There the Medes met the Scythians and were worsted in the battle and deprived of their rule, and the Scythians took possession of all Asia.

“105. From there the Scythians marched on Egypt; and when they got to Syrian Palestine, the king of Egypt, Psammetichus, met them and with entreaties and bribes turned aside their forward march. They then retreated; and when in their retreat they came in Syria to the city of Ascalon, the majority of the Scythians marched by, doing no harm to anyone, but a few, left behind, plundered the temple of Aphrodite Urania. This temple, as I learned from my inquiries, was the oldest of all those belonging to this goddess; for the shrine in Cyprus was founded from it, according to the Cyprians themselves, and the one on Cythera was founded by Phoenicians who came from this land of Syria. Now, on these Syrians who plundered the temple at Ascalon and on their descendants forever the goddess has sent the ‘female sickness.’ As to this, the Scythians say that this is why these people have fallen sick; and they also say that those who come to their country of Scythia can see the condition of those whom the Scythians call ‘Enareis.’

“106. For twenty-eight years, then, the Scythians were masters of Asia, and all was wasted by their violence and pride; for apart from their exacting of tribute, which they laid upon each man, apart from the tribute they rode around and plundered whatsoever it was that anyone possessed. Cyaxares and his Medes massacred most of these Scythians after first entertaining them and making them drunk, and so the Medes recovered their empire and were again lords of those they ruled before; and the Medes also took Nineveh (but how they took it I will show in another part of my book), and they made the Assyrians their subjects, except for the province of Babylon. [C. E. Note: In your own research, you may find some sources disagree with the placement of the above mentioned 28 year period.]

“107^. After all this, Cyaxares died, having been king for forty years (if you include those years when the Scythians held sway), and Astyages, his son, succeeded him.

“Now Astyages had a daughter whose name was Mandane, and Astyages saw her in a dream making water so greatly that she filled all his city and flooded, besides, all of Asia. He confided this dream to those of the Magi who were dream interpreters, and, when he learned the particulars of their exposition, he feared greatly. When Mandane was ripe for a man, Astyages, since he dreaded his dream, gave her to no one of the Medes who were worthy to marry into his house but to a Persian called Cambyses, whom he found to be a man of good house and peaceable temper; and he thought this Persian was much below a Mede of even middle class.

“108. When Mandane was living with her husband in their first year, Astyages saw another vision; it seemed to him that out of his daughter’s privy parts there grew a vine, and the vine shaded all Asia. This, then, he saw; and again he entrusted the matter to the dream interpreters and sent to recall his daughter from where she lived among the Persians, she then being big with child. When she came, he kept her under ward, because he wished to destroy whatever should be born of her. For from his vision the interpreters among the Magi had read the signs to mean that the child of his daughter would become king in his place. It was against this that Astyages guarded, and so when Cyrus was born he summoned Harpagus, his kinsman, the faithfullest of the Medes and the steward of all that he had. ‘Harpagus,’ he said, ‘here is a matter I am entrusting to you; by no means mishandle it, nor yet deceive me and choose others: should you do so, you shall thereafter bring upon yourself a fall into ruin. Take this child that Mandane bore and bring it to your own house and kill it, and afterwards bury it in whatever way you please.’ Harpagus answered, ‘My lord, never yet have you seen even a hint of what is untoward in me, and I shall give heed that in the time to come, too, I shall not offend against you. If it is your pleasure that this be so, then it shall be mine to serve you duly.’

“109. So Harpagus answered him. When the baby was given him, all decked out for his death, Harpagus went weeping to his house, and on coming there he told his wife all the story that Astyages had told him. ‘And now what is in your mind to do?’ she asked. ‘Certainly not what Astyages has ordered me,’ was his answer; ‘not though he shall be even more frantic and mad than now he is will I fall in with his judgment and be his servant in such a murder. There are many reasons why I will not murder the child: because he is akin to me and because Astyages is an old man and childless in male issue. If it should happen that after his death the crown should devolve upon his daughter, whose son Astyages has killed by my hands, what is left for me, from then on, but the greatest peril? Yet for my own safety the child must die; but it must be one of Astyages’ folk that will be its murderer and none of min’.”

As can be observed here, Herodotus has just supplied us with substantial background of both the emergence of the Medes and the birth of the Persian Empire. Not only that, but he furnishes us with evidence of the Scythians and Massagetae, who were Israelites among the lost tribes in dispersion! We should also be starting to comprehend how important Herodotus’ testimony is to Biblical history and prophecy, especially Daniel. Therefore, it is the utmost folly to brush Herodotus’ witnessing aside! If you are a serious Bible student, I would highly recommend you get your own copy of Herodotus’ Histories. Otherwise, guard your unlearned opinions until you do! Sometimes it only takes one faulty premise to wreck one’s entire theology; for an unending number of flawed premises must be adopted to prop-up the original! This is dangerous, as then pride steps in, and many lack the humility to admit they were wrong!

Is it any wonder then, that at Proverbs 3:5 we are admonished: “Trust in Yahweh with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.” And is further impressed upon us at Proverbs 21:16: “The man that wandereth out of the way of understanding shall remain in the congregation of the dead.” The only way to avoid being among “the congregation of the dead” is to prove every man’s words whether they be true or false! Otherwise, put it on the back-burner until the correct answer is found! Remember, there wouldn’t be so many liars around if there weren’t so many willing listeners! Therefore, the willing listener of lies is the more guilty!

The object of my next citation is to show that Media existed before the first of the ten northern tribes were taken captive to Assyria by Tiglath Pileser, 745-727 B.C. Therefore, there is absolutely no way the Medes were Israelites. You will now be prepared to rebuff any such assertion when you hear or read it. From the book History Of Assyria by A. T. Olmstead, pages 161-162 we read:

“Punitive expeditions were directed by Adad-nirari against the Medes in three groups of two years, beginning with 801, 795, and 790, and in 787 [B.C.] as well; Namri was invaded in 798, and about the same time Elli, Harhar, Arziash, and Mesu were attacked. The collapse of Assyrian influence in the barren mountains of Media seemed for the moment more than offset by successes obtained in the south and west. A more or less valid claim to Babylonia might be put forward by Adadnirari on the basis of his mother’s Babylonian birth, but no attempt was made to render it effective until after Semiramis was deposed. Already in 796 and 795 we have expeditions to Der, but no serious attack was made until 786 ...

“Progress of the Assyrians west of the Euphrates was checked by the pestilence, and it was not until 797 that Mansuate, now the dominant city in north central Syria, was in danger. The whole Hittite land, Amurru, Tyre, Sidon, Israel, Edom, and Palastu, the first instance of the use of the Philistine name in the sense of the later Palestine, recognised the Assyrians as their masters. The willingness with which Israel and Edom made submission was further increased by their desire to see their revenge on their enemies Judah and Damascus.

“So low had Hazael brought Israel in the last days of Jehu that his son Jehoahaz (814-800) possessed but fifty horsemen and ten chariots out of the two thousand Ahab had led into battle at Qarqara. Passing without fighting through a thoroughly cowed Israel, Hazael won for himself the whole of the Philistine land from the western sea to Aphek. The equally Philistine Gath was taken from Judah, and Jehoash (836-799) saved himself from complete ruin only by sending to Hazael all the treasures of temple and palace. Hazael’s son, Bar Hadad III, was a man of lesser caliber, and Jehoahaz resumed his independence. Bar Hadad made another attempt to restore Aramæan control when the young Jehoash became king in Israel (800-785). Samaria was besieged, and for a time the famine was severe, but there came to the camp of the invader a rumour that Hittite and Egyptian kings had been hired against them, a great panic befell, and they fled in dismay. In three pitched battles, the greatest at Aphek, all the cities taken by Hazael were recovered.”

It is simply amazing how anyone with a sense of responsibility could make the claim that the Medes were Israelites! A. T. Olmstead in his History Of Assyria, page 110, mentions “the Median tribes just appearing on the eastern sky-line” near 860 B.C.! Again, on page 117, Olmstead speaking of a period from 845-828 B.C. says, “This at least is worthy of our most careful notice, for it is the first appearance of the Medes in history.” Under a chapter heading “Sargon And The Syrian Settlement” we read on pages 208-209:

“Twenty-seven thousand of the leading citizens were deported to Mesopotamia and settled in Guzana, Halah, and the country along the Habur River. Thus was formed the nucleus for that community of Jews [sic. Israelites] which long made Mesopotamia the real focus of Jewish [sic. Israelite] thought. Not long after, Tab-sil-esharra, governor of Ashur, reports a field in Halah whose revenues were given to the Nabu temple of Dur Sharrukin. The serfs who paid these dues were probably Hebrews.

“Samaria was too important a site to be abandoned. The survivors were treated as Assyrians and ordered to pay the usual tribute to their governor. The system of deportation was in full swing and no less than four instances occur in this reign.       Immediately after the uprising of 720, two Aramæan tribes from Der were settled.          Three years later, two Hittite tribes were placed in Damascus, two Arab tribes were assigned to Samaria, and Deioces of Media and Itti of Allabria were interned in Hamath.

“Again the Hebrew scriptures illustrate the process. The men of Hamath who were settled in Samaria were doubtless participants in the revolt of 720, and perhaps the same is true of the men from Sepharvaim in north Syria and the unknown Avva. The men of Cutha and Babylon must have been forced to emigrate at a later period. At the first, so the naïve account runs, they feared not Yahweh; for this, Yahweh sent lions among them, and some of them were killed. So they sent to the Assyrian king, saying: ‘The nations which thou hast carried away and placed in the cities of Samaria know not the law of the god of the land; therefore hath he sent lions among them, and behold they slay them, because they know not the law of the land.’

“Sargon recognised the reasonableness of this request and ordered one of the exiled Hebrew priests sent back to teach them this very necessary religious system. At Bethel, where the eponymous ancestor of Israel had seen the ladder and where Israel’s first king had set up the golden bull of Yahweh, the cult was reorganised. One of his sacred sites was thus preserved for Yahweh, the remainder of the high places were handed over to the gods brought in by the new settlers ...”

It should be noted that among the deportees from Assyria was “Deioces of Media”, the same mentioned by Herototus or perhaps a relative (but maybe only someone of a similar name) who was interned at Hamath in the old Canaanite capital of Syria north of Aram. It is ridiculous to assert that the Medes were Israelites, for why would Sargon take Israel captive, only to send them back to their homeland again? In other words, some of the Medes made up the collection of tribes later to be referred to as “Samaritans.”

No doubt, some with a universalist view may argue that the Medes were Israelites based upon Acts 2:9, which says: “9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” Yet they forget to consider Acts 2:5!

Once again, we come face to face with the reality of how important the testimony of Herodotus continues to be. Without this invaluable evidence, the Israel Identity Message would be floundering hopelessly without a sense of direction. But with the confirmation of various classical historians and evidence from archaeology we can present our message with confidence and entirely without shame. We find ourselves with everything working in our favor; having a message that no one can gainsay. To disqualify such great historians, such as Herodotus and Josephus, ties both of our hands behind us. Further, to take such an incompetent position aids and abets our enemy!

This is my seventy-eighth monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. As I stated in lesson #77, at this point in time, I am compelled to write an additional lesson on Herodotus that I didn’t originally plan to write. With this lesson, it will be two lessons I had not planned on. Because of this, I will have to advance the numbers and dates on four already prepared lessons. All of this came about when I visited a used book store and found a book entitled History Of Assyria by A. T. Olmstead. Olmstead was a prolific historian and also wrote the History Of The Persian Empire. Again I would remind the reader, the reason I’m compelled to address this subject two additional times is because a very dear friend of mine tried to dissuade my effort in publishing William Finck’s presentation on the Genesis 10 nations. In my opinion, Finck’s outline on this subject is the best I have ever witnessed from an Israel Identity perspective.

My dear friend was very vehement and hostile, insisting that the Medes and Persians were Israelites and that any data from Herodotus and Josephus couldn’t be trusted. Though I highly value this person’s friendship very much, I absolutely refuse to deviate from the truth. I’m quite certain that a fast-talking third person has caused all this bad influence; which I now find it my Biblical duty to address so others will not stumble into this same dangerous pitfall.

Inasmuch as he was so impressed with Herodotus’ work, A. T. Olmstead, in his book History Of The Persian Empire, made reference to him 44 times. In his History Of Assyria, A. T. Olmstead speaks very flatteringly of Herodotus on pages 243-249 under the chapter heading “Deioces And The Median Foundations.” The following will be the entire chapter:

“DEIOCES AND THE MEDIAN FOUNDATIONS: The veracious ‘Father of History’ sponsors an entertaining tale about the origins of the Median power. After the Assyrians had ruled Upper Asia for five hundred and twenty years, he says, the Medes first of all their subjects revolted and in a single battle completely freed themselves. The other dependent peoples followed their example, and thereafter all enjoyed what the Greek believed the greatest of all blessings, complete autonomy.

“Such happiness was too great to last. In due course tyranny arose and in the following manner: Once upon a time there was a man named Deioces, the son of Phraortes, and he was a very wise man and a village chief. The Medes lived scattered here and there in villages, and if one wronged another, there was none to do justice.         So Deioces set up as a wise man, rendering righteous judgments till his fame grew nation-wide and all came to him to right their wrongs. Now Deioces found that this was wasting all his time, so he craftily refused to act longer as judge. He might be retained as judge in one only manner, and the Medes, perceiving this, called an assembly and offered Deioces the kingship. Like a good Greek tyrant, he refused to accept unless he were permitted to enroll a body-guard and was given a palace. Once in power, he forced the Medes to abandon their villages, and with them founded the great city of Ecbatana. After a reign of full fifty-three years, Deioces was followed by his son Phraortes, but not until he had laid the foundations of the Median empire that was to be. (Herod., I, 95 ff.)

“Reality was in almost every respect different. The original home of the Medes had been that Iranian plateau whose importance as a centre of racial and cultural diffusion we are only beginning to appreciate. They seem to have been akin to the later Persians ethnologically, and their language may be considered a Persian dialect. Their culture was still essentially nomadic, though they had been settled long enough in the mountains to have taken on some of the characteristics of a sedentary people. Their cities were regularly on a hill commanding a stream. On the highest point was a citadel, and two or even three walls were not uncommon. Towers and battlements had been borrowed from their neighbours, and the gates were frequently arched. In dress and arms they had learned less from the Assyrians. Their hair was short and held by a red fillet, their short beard was curled. Over a tunic they wore a sheepskin coat which the Assyrian artist considered so curious that he repeated it times without number. High laced boots formed another conspicuous part of their costume, and occasionally we detect those same upturned shoes that we have come to consider Hittite. Unlike the desert nomad, they carried no bow or sword; their regular weapon of offence was a long spear, of defence a rectangular wicker shield.

“Not the slightest sense of unity can be detected. Some leaders appear a little more important than others; in the typical list of Median names, no village chief appears superior to his companions. These names are perfectly good Iranian, and in meaning agree with the quasi-nomadic culture still the background of the earlier hymns of the Avesta. Mazda worship is already in existence, but the more developed deity, Ahura Mazda, is never invoked in their names, and this seems to prove that the prophet Zoroaster, the sacred books of the Avesta, and Ahura Mazda himself are yet in the future.

“There was too much nomadism in the Median blood to permit them to be content in mountains more conspicuous for picturesqueness than for fertility. As early as 835, Shalmaneser had discovered them ousting the earlier tribes on the eastern frontier, and succeeding monarchs filled their annals with unmeaning lists of village chiefs and of the hamlets or tribes they ruled. Often they sent gifts which the Assyrians called tribute, sometimes the presence of an Assyrian general produced a temporary acceptance of the Assyrian yoke; if the Medes were never effectually controlled by the Assyrians, no more did they revolt and defeat them in one great battle.

“A Deioces there was in truth and he was a village chief, but he did not end his days as the revered founder of a new Median empire in his splendid metropolis of Ecbatana; Daiaukku was a ‘governor of the Mannai’ who had given his son as hostage to Rusash, fell into the hands of the irate Assyrians, and was deported to Hamath in Syria (715). Name, time, place nevertheless prove that this petty princeling is the historical Deioces. His ‘house’ survived to a later date, and he may after all have been an ancestor of the dynasty which ultimately made Media the greatest power in the world.”

[C. E. Note: Among the deportees from Assyria was “Deioces of Media”, the same mentioned by Herodotus or perhaps a relative (but maybe only someone of a similar name) who was interned at Hamath in the old Canaanite capital of Syria north of Aram.]

“Thanks to the exertions of Tiglath Pileser III, Sargon was well situated on this frontier. Northwest and beyond the Mannai lay Andia, whose king sent tribute. An unknown correspondent tells how his son Iala has arrived with this tribute of fifty-one horses, and with him Abit-shar-usur, a Mannai official, who later writes that Nabu-eresh, the Chaldæan who had been sent in honourable exile to this far border with orders that he be watched secretly, has suddenly left with the statement that he was going to bear his greetings to the palace.

“Between Arbela and Musasir was Kirruri, a province since the ninth century, whose governor was Shamash-upahhir. South of it was Parsua, and again to the south of this last, between the Zab and Diyala Rivers, on the first outliers of the eastern mountains, lay Arrapha under Ishtar-duri. East of this was Lulume, the later representative of Mazamua, an ill-defined district in the Median highland, whose governor, Sharru-emuranni, bore the brunt of the conflict.

“Shamash-upahhir writes of the village chiefs who are under his feet, and the chiefs themselves complain of the king’s order to work in the mountain ravines; they are obeying his commands, but the work is heavy upon them, heavy exceedingly,and they cannot perform their task. May they receive their ration of oil and food as they enter the land.

“The governor of Parsua, under the protection of the wicker shield held by his squire, sent his shower of arrows against the city of Kishesim, the postern gate was fired, and on the relief the flames appear as huge stag’s horns. The city’s name was changed to ‘Fort of Nabu.’ Harhar had entered into close relations with Dalta of Elli, who had not yet earned the fame of a ‘vassal who loved my yoke.’ This was sufficiently serious to bring out the king in person. The triple-walled city was commanded by an isolated rock citadel, and around it flowed a good-sized stream. The sheepskin cavalry was driven into the city, a frieze of fourteen impaled citizens was lined along its unbroken lower wall, the city was taken by escalade. In honour of the royal visit, the name was changed to Kar Sharrukin, the ‘Wall of Sargon.’

“Instructions were given Mannu-ki Ninua, the new governor, to go against the Medes. He reports that the royal officers established peace and returned in safety. He is building a great house in Kar Sharrukin and bringing the land under cultivation. The walls will be extended according to the written recommendations. The Medes round about are quiet and he is carrying on his work. The king has ordered him to go to the aid of Sharru-emuranni, governor of Lulume. The son of Ludu is to direct him, but no one is to be permitted to see him, since he is one of the supposed enemy. This manœuvre has been successfully executed, and he is now back at the capital. His royal master has demanded what he meant by not sending the grain; his reply is that the rains fall continually and the grain in consequence is cut off from the granary.

“There is news of Dalta. The people of Zabgaga have left his house and are now with their brethren.        Mannu-ki Ninua, therefore, went to their town and imposed the oath upon them. The governorship has been restored and they are at peace, but they have besought him about the city of Zabgaga. Nabubel-ukin has been placed over them, and the governor has advised them: ‘As Nabu-bel-ukin has poured out the libation at the time of the oath-taking, I will watch over you and your words, I shall summon the men before the king. Whatever news they hear of these people, they will send to me.’ The men are to attend to the welfare of the messengers and are to receive clothing and silver rings in return. They say: ‘The king has given us command, before the governor we stand.’ The city of Sanir has likewise taken the oath, and he spoke kind words to them, such as the king his lord loves. As for those who would not come down to take oath, their brethren have promised that they should be forced to descend.

“Fifteen of the fifty soldiers who went to Nikur before him are dead, but they went from the houses of the enemy and took cattle and sheep. When raiders started out from the Median country, he learned of it, and sent for aid to the Mannai and Mazamua, yet the king has chided him: ‘Seize the foragers.’ The king should know whether he is careless or whether he has executed his tasks.

“Details of the campaign of 716 are shown in the reliefs. A eunuch led the attack, aided by a body of most peculiar auxiliaries. Here they have a shirt of fringed cloth with stepped pyramid ornament on the lower portion. Under a cap their hair is short and so is their beard, their girdle is broad, they wear sandals.         Elsewhere, they have only a strip around their hips which is adorned with serrated lozenges. Their bows and arrows are red, the iron tip is blue, the long quivers are intricately decorated. An unknown city shows a royal stele inserted in the wall.

“In 714 we begin to hear of Sharru-emuranni of Lulume. He insists most strenuously that he is not the son of a village chief, but a high official; the king has assigned him his position, and whatever he hears and whatever he sees he will report to the king his lord. He has in part stationed his troops as ordered, but the son of Bel-iddina has refused to take the road with him, the nobles hold back, only the baser sort went with him; if the king will only send an official of the mule’s stable to go with him, then will they desert and revolt. As to what the king has written, ‘If the horses of which a rumour has arrived fall into your hands, come and bring them,’ the merchants of Kumesa are upright, he is awaiting them. When the sheep did not arrive, he sent the servants of the king to Kibatki, the people were terrified and laid down their weapons. When they send to him, he will put them in a net and bring them to the king. The king has demanded: ‘Why have you delayed and not awaited the governor of Arrapha?’ Ishtar-duri has left Zaban and has taken the road to Parsua. They went up to Mount Nipur together. He agrees that the son of Bel-iddina should go with him. Let Nabu-hamatua do the king’s task in repairing the breaches of the royal forts.

“Nabu-hamatua has himself received a personal letter from the governor of the Median country requesting that his messenger bring the people to the palace. He has spoken kindly words to them and set their minds at rest. But as for the son of Bel-iddina, he is a scoundrel and a liar, who will not hearken. In reality, Nabu-hamatua has made the natives abandon their six forts and has said to them: ‘Go to, let each man build his house upon his field, and let him dwell there; let each of you do his work in his field. Let your hearts make you joyful, for you are the servants of the king.’ They are at peace and do their work, while the king’s servants have entered the forts and have made the watch strong. He has tabulated according to their flesh the five horses Ullusunu handed over to Asharidu. Three times a year the official of Asharidu of whom the king inquired has fled from Nabu-hamatua, let them bring down his land as a district. The king has also inquired about Bel-ahe the trader, the writer has sent secretly and will bring him.

“Nabu-ahi-iddina is in trouble. The king gave him orders to transmit to various officials, but there has been little result. When he informed Nabu-hamatua, and he in turn the chieftains, they refused, since their land had been assigned to the second officer of Hamban. The king had ordered that fifty-two riding horses should be given to certain chiefs and the remainder sent on to the king, but they say: ‘He has asked an evil thing, they shall all go with us.’

“Dalta had now changed his policy with the loss of five border towns to the Elamites; Assyria recovered them for him, and the letters of Nergal-etir, the chief hostler, show him sending his horses to the palace, though once he is reported for failure to pay his dues. He had departed this life by 708, and his sons Nibe and Ishpabare contested the throne. Nibe called in the Elamite Shutruk Nahhunte, his brother summoned Assyrian aid. Ishtar-duri of Arrapha regretted that the Assyrian troops were few in numbers and scattered in Media, but they will obey orders. He has observed the heavenly bodies, and has sent word for troops to take their position with Marduk-shar-usur. This Marduk-shar-usur has been asked by the king for news from Nagiu. The king of Elli on his own initiative declared that Sangibutu has been given to Marduk-shar-usur. The Assyrian has assured Kibaba: ‘Your cities will be cared for, they have been taken away; if you attempt to attack them or try to overthrow them, I shall fall upon you.’ These men have a hundred horsemen and they are continually opposing the king. Twenty horsemen of Iptu and the remainder of the horsemen of Ishpabare who go with them, they cannot have.

“Four thousand five hundred bowmen were sent from Elam to garrison Elli, but the seven generals of Sargon won the day, stormed the capital Marubishta on a high mountain, made Nibe a prisoner, and placed Ishpabare on the throne. His revolt a bare six years later is only one indication among many of the untenable position of the Assyrians in Media. The attempt to dam back the Median tribes was an impossible one, but Sargon did what he could, and at least postponed the evil day.”

For further information about the Medes and the reality that it would be virtually impossible for them to be Israelites, I will now take excerpts from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. M-P, page 148, which does somewhat better than most references on this subject:

“MEDIA ... The only sources of knowledge about their geographical distribution in antiquity is found in the annals of the Assyrian rulers who campaigned against them ... They seem to have settled in the plateau of Iran below the Caspian Sea and considerably northeast of the Tigris River. They were shielded somewhat from the Scyths by their related culture and the Cimmerians with whom they appear to have been allied. They are mentioned together as Madai and Gomer, the sons of Japheth, in Genesis 10:2. Ultimately Scythia fell upon the Cimmerians and the nearby kingdom of Urartu and the Medes were left alone to fend off further aggression. The origins of Media are obscure; however, the annals of the Assyrian, Shalmaneser III, mention them. He ruled from 858-824 B.C. and probably discovered them in the region of Ecbatana (Hamadan) around 836 B.C. The annals of Shamshi-Adad V (823-811) mention a ruler of Iran who had 1,200 cities north of Lake Urmia. Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B.C.), one of the most methodical of Assyrian strategists, carried out a number of campaigns in Iran penetrating to the foot of mount Demavend. It appears that during the 8th century Media provided horses for the Assyrian army, but the alliance of the Iranian tribes were a constant threat to the settled villages and towns of Mesopotamia. Sargon II (721-705 B.C.) overcame Hoshea, the ephemeral king of Samaria, and placed the subject peoples in ‘the cities of the Medes’ (2 Kings 17:5, 6; 18:11) which he controlled. He is known to have taken a certain Dayaukku as prisoner of war and deported him with his family to Hama [Hamath] in Syria. It has been suspected that this is, in fact, the Deioces mentioned by Herodotus as the founder of the Median royal line (I:96), the son of an unknown chieftain ... [C. E.: See the note at page 1, column b, paragraph 5] ... Herodotus adds that during this period Cyaxares learned the warfare and military organization of the Scythians and used it with success against Alyattes, king of Sardis, in a long campaign. During this war an eclipse of the sun occurred which greatly terrified the troops of both armies. This astronomical event had been forecast by the Milesian Greek sage, Thales, and is one of the few dates in Median history which may be pinpointed with accuracy as 28 May 585 B.C. ... Cyaxares overcame his Scythian overlords and annexed the regions of the Persians and the Mannai to his kingdom ...” [Herodotus 1. 170 has it, “... Thales of Miletus (a man of remote Phoenician descent )...”]

It is interesting to note here that the Medes learned the art of warfare from the Scythian Israelites!

 

STRIFE BETWEEN THE SCYTHIANS AND MEDES

 

For documentation on this phase of Media, I will quote excerpts from Cyclopædia Of Universal History by John Clark Ridpath, vol. 1, pages 222-223:

“... In favor of this hypothesis of great antiquity may be mentioned the fact that elsewhere in the Old Testament the word Madai always signifies the Medes, and also the additional fact that Berosus succinctly declares that one of the earliest Chaldæan dynasties, long before the rise of the Assyrian Empire, was Median ...

“The references by Berosus and the author of Genesis seem to point to the Medes as one of the primitive races of mankind, appearing on the horizon at a date as remote as two thousand years before the common era ...

“The actual annals of Media, then, begin with the latter half of the ninth century before the Christian era. At this time Shalmaneser II was king of Assyria. This monarch, according to the records of his reign, made war into the country beyond the Zagros mountains, and while on one of his campaigns came in contact with the Medes ...

“After the death of Shalmaneser and the accession of his son, Shamas-Vul, a second Assyrian invasion of Media occurred. The offense of the Medes seems to have been merely the manifestation of a belligerent spirit ...

“Assyria was now in the heyday of her power. To save themselves and their country from further depredation the Medes adopted the expedient of tribute. As the price of peace they agreed to pay an annual stipend. This policy was adopted in the reign of Vul-Lush Ill., about the close of the ninth cetext-align: center; line-height: 18.0ptDefaultText2DefaultText1,ntury B.C.. During the following one hundred years the Medes became more compact and populous. They lay like a cloud along the eastern horizon of Assyria. Doubtless the tribute had been paid only by those western tribes who had felt more than once the vengeance of the Ninevite kings. The tribes to the east had remained comparatively free from foreign domination ...

“... So Sargon the Great, in the year B.C. 710, determined to subdue the country and annex it to his dominions. Armies were marched through the mountain passes. Military posts were established and filled with soldiers. Whole colonies of Medes were deported into Assyria, and their places were supplied either with Assyrians or with captive bands of Samaritans [Israelites of Samaria], whom the monarch had recently brought home from his Western campaigns. Media was reorganized as a province of the Empire, and the tribute was systematically enforced, a part of the annual tax being a levy of horses for the stables of the king and for the captains of his armies.

“The date of this subjugation of Media by Sargon corresponds almost exactly with the reign of the half-fabulous king Deïoces, who, according to Herodotus, became monarch of the Medes in B.C. 708 ...

“About the middle of the seventh century B.C., we reach the solid ground in Median history. From the year 875 to 660 B.C., is the epoch of myth and fable [so-called]. Soon after the latter date the great Cyaxares appeared on the scene, and his coming heralded a complete change in the condition of the countries beyond the Zagros. The beginning of this change was precipitated by the incursion of new Aryan tribes ... The incursionists were welcomed by their kinsmen, the Medes, who at heart detested the Assyrian power, and were but too glad to find in an augmented and fresh population both the occasion and the material of revolt ...

“As soon as his mixed [allied] host of Medes and Scythians was brought into proper subordination, the king again set his face towards Assyria. There was now an orderly invasion. Asshur-Bani-Pal took the field as before. The two armies met a short distance from Nineveh. The Assyrians were borne down before the new foe from the mountains, and were driven, after a decisive battle, behind the ramparts of the capital. Hard after them came the avenging Medes. A siege was begun, but before it had progressed to the extent of endangering the city, the attention of Cyaxares was suddenly recalled by a crisis in the affairs of his own country.

“It was the Scythians. As already said the southernmost tribes of this barbaric race had been easily subdued by the Medes. The two peoples south of the Caucasus had to some extent mingled [lived in close proximity] together. A part of the army of Cyaxares was Scythic. But the great body of trans-Caucasian Scyths had felt only so much of this Median ascendency as to excite resentment. The hostile feelings of the north gathered head. While Cyaxares was still engaged with the Assyrians beyond the Zagros the Scythic host poured down into Azerbijan and headed for Ecbatana. But Cyaxares hastily returning from Nineveh confronted them and prepared for battle. A savage conflict ensued, in which the reckless audacity of the Scythians proved more than a match for the disciplined forces of the Medes. Cyaxares was defeated, and he and his subjects were compelled to seek refuge in the walled towns and to sue for peace. Madys, the Scythic leader, dictated terms, which were less severe than might have been expected from a barbaric chieftain victorious in battle. An annual stipend was imposed after the manner of civilized states, and Cyaxares was allowed to retain his crown, tributary to his conqueror...

“The condition was now that of foreign domination and terrorism. The Scythians after their manner pitched their tents here and there over the country. Their flocks and herds were pastured on the lands of the subject Medes, who with mixed feelings of hatred and fear found themselves unable to thwart or stay the fierce wills of the barbaric leeches that had fastened on the veins of their country. In such a situation energy and industry were at a discount. The more a district was cultivated the more it was ravaged. The less cultivated parts fared better. The roving habits of the oppressors carried them from one region to another. The walled town was about the only refuge for the galled and desperate Medes, who were afraid to offer resistance either by stratagem or open revolt.

“For some years the reign of terror continued until the Scyths by dispersion into various provinces became less of a scourge – less imminently dangerous to the subject people. By and by the invaders filed off in large numbers into Assyria, Babylonia, and Palestine, renewing their ravages everywhere to the very gates of Egypt. Many bands remained under their chiefs in Media, but the native subjects of Cyaxares began to breathe more easily, and their long smothered wrath rose in proportion as the danger disappeared. In this juncture of affairs the king himself determined to set the example of revenge and destruction.

“Cyaxares made a feast. Treachery was mixed in the cups. The appetite of the Scythians became the means of their ruin and overthrow. The invited chiefs were plied with drink until they lay stupid, whereupon the hidden bands of armed Medes broke into the banquet hall, and slew them all [rather, many] without mercy. The sound of the murderous work was heard beyond the palace, and a popular fury broke out against the savage oppressors of the land. The incensed people took up what weapons soever they could, and hewed right and left in a war of extermination. No records have been preserved of the struggle. It is known only that the [some of the] Scythians were completely overwhelmed. Those who escaped the avenger’s hand were driven through the passes of the Caucasus into their native haunts [rather new habitations]. So complete was the [local] overthrow that scarcely a trace of the foreign domination remained in the country which the barbarians had held and ravaged for a period of years.

“As soon as the Scythians had ceased to be a terror, the Medes renewed their project of invading Assyria. That great Empire had fallen into decrepitude. Saracus, the reigning monarch, was an unworthy successor of those mighty kings who for centuries had dominated the better parts of Western Asia. The outskirts of the kingdom lay open and invited attack. The resources at the command of Saracus were as little adequate to supply the means of resistance as was the king capable of hurling back an invader. As soon as Cyaxares could muster and discipline his forces, he entered with renewed energy upon the cherished plan of Assyrian subjugation.

“At this time the viceroyalty of Chaldæa, which had been a dependency of Assyria for more than a half century, had recovered in some measure the influence and renown of her pristine era. The Assyrian yoke, though not especially galling, was nevertheless a–yoke. No insurrections had occurred; but with the decadence of Assyria the elements centering at Babylon were rife for mischief. In this condition of affairs the Median invasion, led by Cyaxares in person, was precipitated. Before beginning his campaign, however, the king of the Medes took the precaution to test the loyalty of the Babylonian viceroy. That notable was in no mood to be virtuous, and readily yielded to the overtures of the Median king. It was arranged that an army of revolting Babylonians should march up the Tigris simultaneously with the approach of Cyaxares from the east. The Assyrians would thus be struck in flank and front, and the capital would stagger under the blow.”

Dates for the Median kings according to Herodotus: Deioces 700-647 B.C. (Her. 1:102); Phraortes 647-625 B.C. (Her. 1.103); Cyaxares 625-585 B.C. (Her. 1.103-107); Astyages 585-550 B.C. (Her. 1-107, 130); Cyrus begins at 550 B.C.

Such is the history of the Medes! The history of the Medes is not the history of the Israelites, and the history of the Israelites is distinct from that of the Medes, except for short periods of duration where they were reluctantly allied under duress. Actually, the Medes were White descendants from Madai, son of Japheth (Genesis 10:2). Once again we are indebted to historians such as Herodotus et al. and archaeology to fit together the puzzling pieces of history. We have to conclude, then, that the only time the terms “Medes” and “Persians” can apply to Israelites is when they are used to describe those few Israelites scattered in small isolated pockets throughout the region who chose to stay behind the main group migrating into Europe, keeping the knowledge of their roots rather than passing through the Caucasus and eventually forgetting their identity. So regardless of how much wishful thinking one does, it will not change the Medes and Persians into Israelites. For the Medes are Medes – the Persians are Persians – and the Israelites are Israelites!

This is my seventy-ninth monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. Since we have completed a series of lessons in defense of Herodotus, we will now continue by defending Josephus; that he was also Anointed of Yahweh for the work he accomplished. In the August, 2004 lesson, #76, it was demonstrated that Herodotus’ writings go hand-in-glove with the prophecy of Daniel 11:1-3. It was shown that the “Darius the Mede” at verse 1 should be Cyrus. How very many have been confused trying to figure out the “three kings” spoken of in verse 2, and come up with all kinds of opinions without any meaningful success reading their KJV or other Bibles rendering that error. No doubt, you were amazed at how easy that passage is to understand once one understands that 11:1 should read “Cyrus.” Once we have established the reality that Josephus was also an Anointed witness to divine prophecy, many other passages of Scripture will be opened to us. 

IN DEFENSE OF JOSEPHUS 

After a long presentation of several lessons justifying the writings of Herodotus, we will now start our case in the defense of Josephus. The following is a portion of the “Introductory Essay” by the Rev. Henry Stebbing, D.D., from the book Josephus by William Whiston, printed by Kregel, Introduction pages XVI-XVII:

“‘Now as to myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them. But if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me.’ But the personal character of a writer must not be passed over-in the estimate taken of the honesty of his narrative. In this respect Josephus may claim honourable attention. The predominant sentiment of his writings is veneration for God and his providence, nor does he omit any opportunity of showing the value of integrity, or the supreme beauty of holiness. His faults may, therefore, fairly be ascribed to somewhat of timidity on the one side, and of literary vanity on the other. Most of the errors with which he has been charged are clearly referable to these sources. Of the others, which cannot be so accounted for, there are some that appear to have originated in the different opinions which prevailed among the Jews of his time, and threw no small obscurity over portions of the Scripture narrative; while the remainder, whether omissions, or statements plainly opposed to the inspired history, must be left without conjecture, and are better disposed of by the acknowledgment that such discrepancies cannot be accounted for, unless by suppositions which involve us in new difficulties.

“It is somewhat curious that the two severest critics of Josephus should be the Romanist historian Baronius, and the sceptic Bayle; the one little attentive to the rules of historical evidence, and readily admitting into his work whatever the flood of common tradition cast up; the other anxious only to discover differences in the language of those who acknowledged the divinity of revelation, that he might, by attacking them separately, destroy the treasure equally dear to both. The latter, in a pretended fit of zeal, observes, ‘I have been long indignant against Josephus, and those who spare him on this subject. A man who made open profession of Judaism, the law of which was founded on the divinity of Scripture, dares to recount things otherwise than he read of them in the book of Genesis. He changes, he adds, he suppresses circumstances; in a word, he puts himself in opposition to Moses in such a manner that one of them must be a false historian.’ This statement involves a gross injustice, and is as illogical as it is unjust. Two writers may assuredly disagree in some points, without exposing themselves to the sweeping charge of falsehood as their general character. If disagreement in a few instances should oblige us to consider, that of the writers so differing only one can be worthy of credit, and that, consequently, the rest ought to be regarded as undeserving of any attention, the number of historical references would soon be diminished to such a degree, that the next step would be the annihilation of history altogether. The fact is, that wherever human inquiry begins, human error will be introduced, in greater or less proportion. There will, accordingly, be discrepancies in the statement of witnesses; but, except in the points where they precisely differ, they may be in such general harmony, that each may strengthen the cause of each, and neither the one nor the other, notwithstanding their occasional contradictions, merit the charge of injustice or dishonesty. A very slight comparison of the most esteemed historians will afford ample illustrations of this fact. The experience gathered in the collection of evidence of any kind tends to the same purpose, and plainly shows that several witnesses to a narrative may differ in many minor points, yet be highly deserving of credit as to the main and more important facts.”

I quoted this passage to show you that, like Herodotus, Josephus has had his critics from the very beginning and they have followed him down through history. And criticism for Josephus exists in the Israel Identity Message today by a few who think he was a bad-fig “Jew.” But we must remember that in Antiquities 11:5:2, Josephus testifies to where some of the “ten tribes” were during his time. This is what that passage says:

“When Esdras had received this epistle, he was very joyful, and began to worship God, and confessed that he had been the cause of the king’s great favor to him, and that for the same reason he gave all the thanks to God. So he read the epistle at Babylon to those Jews that were there; but he kept the epistle itself, and sent a copy of it to all those of his own nation that were in Media; and when these Jews had understood what piety the king had towards God, and what kindness he had for Esdras, they were all greatly pleased; nay, many of them took their effects with them, and came to Babylon, as very desirous of going down to Jerusalem; but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers. Now there came a great number of priests, and Levites, and porters, and sacred singers, and sacred servants, to Esdras. So he gathered those that were in the captivity together beyond Euphrates, and staid there three days, and ordained a fast for them, that they might make their prayers to God for their preservation, that they might suffer no misfortunes by the way, either from their enemies, or from any other ill accident ...”

This establishes our first case in favor for Josephus – that he confirmed the location of at least some of the Ten Lost Tribes during his time. If we toss out the witness of Josephus, we help destroy the Israel Identity Kingdom Message. Surely, this doesn’t help gather the sheep! How could Josephus, with this kind of witness, be an evil person? Testimony such as this makes Josephus not just an ordinary witness, but a Yahweh Anointed witness! Now a lot of people today are calling the Israel Identity Message “Christian Identity.” Any old church could claim “Christian Identity”, but the designation “Israel Identity” separates the true believers of “Israel’s Identity” from the others. Some will abbreviate “Christian Identity” to simply “CI.” If anyone is so ashamed of the Israel Identity label, let them get entirely out of the movement! And for anyone who censures Josephus’ Anointed witness, let them go with them.

The following is taken from the preface of Josephus’ Wars on the Libronix Library System. Because the translators fail to differentiate between the terms “Jew”, Judean or Israelite, toleration is necessary:

 

THE WARS OF THE JEWS OR THE HISTORY

OF THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM PREFACE

 

“1. Whereas the war which the Jews made with the Romans hath been the greatest of all those, not only that have been in our times, but, in a manner, of those that ever were heard of; both of those wherein cities have fought against cities, or nations against nations; while some men who were not concerned in the affairs themselves, have gotten together vain and contradictory stories by hearsay, and have written them down after a sophistical manner; and while those that were there present have given false accounts of things, and this either out of a humor of flattery to the Romans, or of hatred towards the Jews; and while their writings contain sometimes accusations, and sometimes encomiums, but nowhere, the accurate truth of the facts, I [Josephus] have proposed to myself, for the sake of such as live under the government of the Romans, to translate those books into the Greek tongue, which I formerly composed in the language of our country, and sent to the Upper Barbarians; I Joseph, the son of Matthias, by birth an Hebrew, a priest also, and one who at first fought against the Romans myself, and was forced to be present at what was done afterwards, [am the author of this work.]

“2. Now at the time when this great concussion of affairs happened, the affairs of the Romans themselves were in great disorder. Those Jews also, who were for innovations, then arose when the times were disturbed; they were also in a flourishing condition for strength and riches, insomuch that the affairs of the east were then exceeding tumultuous, while some hoped for gain, and others were afraid of loss in such troubles; for the Jews hoped that all of their nation which were beyond Euphrates would have raised an insurrection together with them. The Gauls also, in the neighborhood of the Romans, were in motion, and the Celtae were not quiet; but all was in disorder after the death of Nero. And the opportunity now offered induced many to aim at the royal power; and the soldiery affected change, out of the hopes of getting money. I thought it therefore an absurd thing to see the truth falsified in affairs of such great consequence, and to take no notice of it; but to suffer those Greeks and Romans that were not in the wars to be ignorant of these things, and to read either flatteries or fictions, while the Parthians, and the Babylonians, and the remotest Arabians, and those of our nation beyond Euphrates, with the Adiabeni, by my means, knew accurately both whence the war begun, what miseries it brought upon us, and after what manner it ended.”

[Note on “Upper Barbarians”: “Who these Upper Barbarians, remote from the sea, were, Josephus himself will inform us, sect. 2, viz., the Parthians and Babylonians, and remotest Arabians [or the Jews <sic. Israelites> among them]; besides the Jews <sic. Israelites> beyond Euphrates, and the Adiabeni, or Assyrians. Whence we also learn, that these Parthians, Babylonians, the remotest Arabians [or at least the Jews <sic. Israelites> among them], as also the Jews <sic. Israelites> beyond Euphrates, and Adiabeni, or Assyrians, understood Josephus’s Hebrew, or rather Chaldaic, books of the Jewish War, before they were put into the Greek language.]” (<> mine.)

While this last note is not very well worded, it comes tantalizingly close to the truth. Everything else aside, it is clear that Josephus wrote his Wars in Aramaic (here called “Chaldaic”) so that the “Upper Barbarians” (lost tribes) could understand that portion of his writings. No doubt it was Josephus’ intention of trying to reunite the Tribes of Israel to fight against the Romans. Too bad he didn’t understand that most of the Romans, Gauls, Greeks etc. were also Israelites. Secondly, from what is said here, Josephus understood the location of at least some of the lost tribes of Israel in his day. Possibly Josephus may have also had the knowledge that some of the lost tribes were of Judah, the fighting tribe. If we are to listen to some of today’s Josephus critics, we would have to discard this valuable data and trash it. This is invaluable knowledge for the furtherance of the Israel Kingdom Identity Message! This is the kind of intelligence that helps gather the Israel sheep rather than scatter them! (Matthew 12:30)

This note is interesting because it mentions the “Parthians.” There are 77 references in Josephus on the Parthians, so it might be well to do a thorough research on that subject. What I’m about to present to you may well be correct, Steven B. Collins in his book The “Lost” Ten Tribes Of Israel ... Found! states on page 228: “... the Israelite nature of the Parthian Empire was apparent from its inception. It needs to be stressed, however, that although the ruling dynasty of the Parthians were descendants of Judah’s King David, the Parthians themselves were descendants of the ten tribes of Israel.”

Collins goes much further than I would with the information that I have concerning the Parthians, yet I would uphold that many of the Parthians surely were Israelites, albeit their empire included Persians (Elamites), Medes and others, including non-Adamites also we can be certain. We must remember that at Acts 2:9-11, the visiting Israelites at the Feast of Pentecost were identified as: “9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians ...” These were not Medes and Elamites et al., but rather Israelites from those geographic areas. Surely the term “Arabians” here wouldn’t include Arabs, but only pockets of Israelites from their dwelling places in Arabia!

I had misgivings when reading chapter 7 of Collins’ book because he kept speaking of Parthian kings. I was somewhat uneasy because I remembered Hosea 3:4-5 which says:

“4 For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim. 5 Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek Yahweh their Elohim, and David their king; and shall fear Yahweh and his goodness in the latter days.”

Diodorus Siculus’ account of the rise of the Scythians (2:43:2) seems to conflict with Hosea 3:4-5 cited here, but not necessarily. How many days is “many”, and what is it that for us constitutes a true king? When it speaks of “days” in this passage, it means years. Up to the time period Collins is talking about, surely Israel in their migrations had no established Davidic king.

Therefore, we should not necessarily be uneasy concerning the identification of at least some of the Parthians with Israel. The Parthian Empire rose in the 3rd century B.C., over 300 years after the destruction of the Temple. We should have no more distress accepting the Israelites from these 16 locations than we would accepting the Israelites from Scythia, whose queen Tomyris lived in the days of Cyrus, and inherited the throne from her husband, a Scythian king 300 years before the world ever heard of Parthia! Whether or not the Parthians had a Davidic king, we do not know for sure, but from the time of Jeroboam until long after their captivity by Assyria, they didn’t.

You can see that Josephus, like Herodotus, is a wealth of information. A most unusual event happened in Josephus’ life. After returning from Rome where he successfully pleaded the case of some fellow countrymen he reluctantly joined a party advocating revolt, hoping the governor of Syria, Cestius Gullus, would crush the rebellion, but Cestius failed. After some time, hiding with some companions in a cave, he finally gave himself up to the Romans. He was brought before Vespasian as a prisoner. He then predicted to Vespasian that he, Vespasian, would shortly become emperor. When this prediction was fulfilled in A.D. 69, Vespasian made Josephus a free man.

The question must be asked, was Josephus momentarily inspired by the Holy Spirit to make such a prediction? I, myself, do not believe this incident was mere happenstance. The Almighty had a job for Josephus to do, and by the Providence of Yahweh he was going to live to accomplish it. Now this didn’t make Josephus a major prophet, but his words were very timely!

I will now present several cases in point showing that Josephus was a messenger and witness of the Almighty. I will also present documentation I have for this so that you might reconsider your position on the matter; that is, if you are a Josephus critic. If you do not necessarily criticize Josephus’ works this series may serve to let you appreciate his writings to a greater degree.

In the book The “Lost” Ten Tribes of Israel ... Found by Steven M. Collins, page 220, he shows that at Josephus’ Antiquities, XI, V, 2 that he witnesses to where at least some of the Lost Tribes were at the time of his writing where he states: “... the ten tribes are beyond [the] Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.” How could Josephus, with this kind of witness, be an evil man? Here Josephus gives us a tool we can use today to gather the sheep. Only an anointed of Yahweh could have given us such evidence. How can anyone discredit the importance of this evidence?

Again from the same book, page 257, where he explains how Josephus wrote his Wars in Aramaic so that some of the Lost Tribes would understand what was going on during Josephus’ time. Collins says: “Josepus observed that he originally wrote his Wars of the Jews in his native tongue [Aramaic] so that the people of Parthia could understand what happened in the Roman-Jewish war of the first century A.D.” (Josephus’ Wars, Preface, 1-2) Though Collins mentions only “Parthia”, no doubt Josephus aimed his Wars with an eye to other Aramaic speaking Lost Israelites.

Here again is strong evidence that Josephus was anointed for a special work. If you are among those who have been condemning this man, I plead with you, don’t be too proud to admit that you are wrong about Josephus! From Josephus’ evidence here, we can be sure that some of the Lost Tribes were speaking Aramaic, at least at Josephus’ time. Inasmuch as Josephus was directing his writings of Wars toward some of the Lost Tribes, how can anyone claim his works were not Anointed?

While Collins cites a couple of good passages from Josephus, obviously Josephus was surely blind to who and where the greater part of them were; the Kelts, Gauls, Scythians, Sakae, Massagetae, and of course, the Romans and many Greeks.

Once the Israelites were deported and resettled in the new lands which the Assyrians assigned them, the Israelites never traveled anywhere en masse. Rather, a large portion remained behind and groups – both large and small – broke off from the main tribes and moved away, themselves waxing stronger than those left behind (Micah 4:7), examples being the Sakae and Massagetae. The ones who stayed the closest naturally retained more of their former identity, examples being the Armenians (yes, many of them were Israel), the Iberians of the Caucasus, the Caspians (part of Iberia, see Ezra 8:17 in the A.V. “Casiphia”), the Albanians and those who were brought to Babylon by Nebuchadnezzar and never left there (and surely because they were mostly bad figs), many of which eventually migrated into Afghanistan and elsewhere, like eastern Arabia. Josephus was able to identify many of those who stayed close, but was blind concerning those who broke off into Europe and northern Asia.

Many references refer to Josephus as a “Jew” or “Jewish writer.” If one will only think, it would be overwhelmingly evident he was not. Put on your thinking cap for a moment, and you will realize that no way could Josephus have been a Cain-Satanic-Canaanite-Edomite variety of a “Jew”! Josephus, in his Life, makes it clear that he is a Levite, related to the Maccabees, and before he joined the Pharisees he spent some time as an Essene, where we can be pretty sure he was a “Judaean by birth.” I will again use the passage at Josephus’ Wars 2:8:2, which I have used many times before:

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

What kind of a chance would Josephus have had joining the Essenes had he not been a Judaean of pure Levitical birth? The same as that famous snowball in hell!

 

JOSEPHUS’ WITNESS TO THE EDOMITE ABSORPTION

 

We are indebted and owe much gratitude to Josephus for informing us that many of the Judeans, at the time of Hyrcanus, mixed among the Edomites. We see this at Josephus’ Antiquities 13:9:1:

“Hyrcanus took also Dora and Marissa, cities of Idumea, and subdued all the Idumeans; and permitted them to stay in that country, if they would circumcise their genitals, and make use of the laws of the Jews; and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews.”

We have to excuse the translators for confusing the expressions “Jew/Jewish” with the term “Judean.” Without this testimony by Josephus, concerning the incorporation of the Edomites within the nation of the Judeans, we would have no idea today who the true Israelites were or who the impostor Judeans calling themselves “Jews” are. I don’t know whether or not you’re aware of it, but Josephus, illuminating Romans chapter 9, is the main source for this very important information! How, then, can we condemn Josephus and discredit his writings? For anyone who is a critic of Josephus’ works, I would adjure them to reconsider their position. This evidence concerning the absorption of the Edomites within the nation of the Judeans establishes strongly that Josephus was anointed by Yahweh and was His messenger! Without this evidence by Josephus, today we Israelites would be completely in the dark! I’m very concerned about this, and I know truly that the last thing many would want to do is to scatter the sheep rather than gather them (Matt. 12:30).

The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia Of The Bible, volume H-L, pages 41-42 says this concerning the forced conversion of the Edomites to Judaism:

“In 128 B.C., Antiochus was killed during a Parthian campaign. From this time on Judea enjoyed de facto independence. John Hyrcanus began a policy of territorial expansion, including the reconquest of the coastal cities ceded to Syria during the early years of his reign: Hyrcanus [then] turned southward and conquered the province known as Idumea. The ancient Edomites had been pushed out of their territory south and east of the Dead Sea by the Nabatean Arabs, with the result that they moved into southern Palestine, including the area south of Hebron. This area came to be known as Idumea, and [it] was forcibly annexed to the Jewish state of John Hyrcanus.

“The coastal cities linked the commercial highway through Palestine. From earliest times merchants and warriors passed north from Egypt along the coastal road leading to Syria and Mesopotamia. Without control of commercial routes, Hyrcanus could not hope to build a major state. As soon as Syrian internal affairs made interference from the north unlikely, Hyrcanus took the coastal cities as a guarantee of the future of his state’s freedom of movement.

“Another ancient trade route passed south of Judea, through Idumea, to Egypt. As Hyrcanus captured this territory, he compelled the Idumeans to accept Judaism and become circumcised ...”

The Interpreter’s Dictionary Of The Bible, volume E-J, page 530, says this about Hyrcanus’ forced conversion of the Edomites:

“... However, there was soon a turn in the tide of fortune, and John Hyrcanus quickly ended his temporary humiliation. He seized the opportunity afforded by the death of Antiochus in 128 [B.C.] and the disputes about the succession which followed, to cease paying the indemnity and to extend the borders of Jewish territory: east of the Jordan, and northward to include Shechem and the Samaritans, whose rival temple on Mount Gerizim he destroyed ... ca. 109, and southward to include IDUMEA (the old Edom). He [then] compelled the Idumeans to become Jews and observe the whole law ...”

The Dictionary Of The New Testament, “Christ and the Gospels” by James Hastings, volume 1, page 776:

“IDUMÆA (NT z3*@L:"Ê", which is also used in the LXX for the Heb. ’Edom). — This land is mentioned once only in the NT (Mk 3:8), but it is also notable as the native land of Herod and his family. The Edom of the OT lay between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Akabah. In the early part of the Jewish exile many of the Edomites overran the south of Judæa, and when the Nabatæans, at some time during the Persian period, conquered their own land, many more joined the earlier settlers in South Judæa and that district became known as Idumæa. Thus Idumæa at the time of Christ was ‘practically the Southern Shephelah with the Negeb’ (G. A. Smith, HGHL p. 239), i.e. roughly, all south of a line from Beth-sur to Gaza. Judas Maccabæus fought against the Idumæans with much success (1 Mac 5:3) in 164 [B.C.]. Fifty-five years later, John Hyrcanus conquered the country, and compelled the people to become circumcised (Jos. Ant. 13:9:1; BJ 1:2:6). By the law of Dt 23:7,8 they thus became full Jews in the third generation, though Herod himself was sometimes reproached as a ‘half Jew’ (Jos. Ant. 14:15:2). Although the Idumæans were ‘sons of Esau’, their interests from this time were entirely merged with those of the Jews, and their country was reckoned to Judæa, Idumæa being counted one of the eleven toparchies of Judæa in Roman times (Jos. BJ 3:3:5).

A footnote on the same page of Josephus’ Antiquities 13:9:1 makes the following comment on that passage:

“This account of the Idumeans admitting circumcision, and the entire Jewish law, from this time, or from the days of Hyrcanus, is confirmed by their entire history afterwards. See Antiq. 14.8.1; 15.7.9. War 2.3.1; 4.4.5. This, in the opinion of Josephus, made them proselytes of justice, or entire Jews, as here and elsewhere, Antiq. 14.8.1. However, Antigonus, the enemy of Herod, though Herod were derived from such a proselyte of justice for several generations, will allow him to be no more than a half Jew, 15.15.2. But still, taken out of Dean Prideaux, at the year 129, the words of Ammonius, a grammarian, which fully confirm this account of the Idumeans in Josephus: ‘The Jews,’ says he, ‘are such by nature and from the beginning, but Phoenicians and Syrians; but being afterwards subdued by the Jews and compelled to be circumcised, and to unite into one nation, and be subject to the same laws, they were called Jews.’ Dio also says, as the Dean there quotes him, from book 36.37:– ‘That country is also called Judea, and the people Jews; and this name is given also to as many others as embrace their religion, though of other nations ...’”

This is my question at this point: Where would we be in the Israel Identity Message today without this piece of invaluable information? You may throw your copy of Josephus in the trash, but I will keep mine within the easy reach of my hand! Ditto, Herodotus!

 

JOSEPHUS WITNESSES THE FULFILLMENT OF MATTHEW 24

 

Of all the various things to which Josephus witnessed, the fulfillment of Matthew 24:3 is by far the more important. Matthew 24:3 is probably one of the most misunderstood passages in the Bible, and most of our wrongfully indoctrinated clergy place it in the future. Thus, Josephus was the most important witness of the predictions of Yahshua on how Jerusalem would be destroyed by the Romans in Matthew 24! In this discourse, Yahshua is answering the questions put to Him by His disciples in 24:3. They asked, “When shall these things [the destruction of the temple, verse 2] take place?” He told them, yet Luke’s account is more clearly applicable to 70 A.D. for us than Matthew’s (see Luke 21:20–24). It took place in A.D. 70 when Titus finally conquered Jerusalem and destroyed the city along with the Temple. Without Josephus’ testimony on this episode in history, we would be even more confused over Matthew 24:2-3 than we already are! Let’s now take a look at Luke 21:20-24 for the answer:

“20 And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. 21 Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22 For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. 23 But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! for there shall be great distress in the land, and wrath upon this people. 24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

With this last verse, the Latin term “Gentile” for the Greek word “ethnos”, is one of the few times the context means non-Israelite nations or heathen. I am sure there are many reading this lesson who were never able before to link Matthew 24:3 and Luke 21:20-24 together. Matthew chapter 24 is a very complicated and difficult chapter, and very few understand it. Now Josephus was the primary witness to the fulfillment of Luke 21:20-24. Being a fullblooded Israelite of the Tribe of Levi, there could be no better man at hand during that era to do the job, and he did it very well. No, he wasn’t perfect, but where it counted he came through with shining colors.

This subject of Josephus will be continued in a series, as was Herodotus. Before we are through you will see we have only touched the tip of the iceberg.

This is my eightieth monthly teaching letter and continues my seventh year of publication. We are going to continue in this lesson where we left off in the last, that being the defense of the writings of Josephus. Down through history until today, Josephus has had his share of critics in spite of the fact that other historians cover very little of the events in Judaea during that period. Yet there is a greater need today for his witness than ever before in the Israel Identity Message! But instead of getting more teachings which inspire the Israel sheep to a higher understanding, we instead have many purveyors of confusion! Unless we can start establishing a pattern of instruction that is constructive, the Israel sheep will continue to be scattered, aimlessly adrift.

To demonstrate the honesty of Josephus, we will read the footnote to the preface of Josephus’ Wars, translated by William Whiston, published by Kregel Publications. (I also have Josephus on my Libronix Digital Library System by Whiston, published by Hendrickson Publishers, but the footnotes are slightly different):

“I have already observed that this history of the Jewish War was Josephus’s first work, and published about A.D. 75, when he was but thirty-eight years of age; and that when he wrote it, he was not thoroughly acquainted with several circumstances of history from the days of Antiochus Epiphanes, with which it begins, till near his own times, contained in the first and former part of the second book, and so committed many involuntary errors therein: that he published his Antiquities eighteen years afterward, in the 13th year of Domitian, A.D. 93, when he was much more completely acquainted with those ancient times, and after he had perused those most [authentic] ancient histories, the first book of Maccabees, and the Chronicles of the Priesthood of John Hyrcanus, &c.: that accordingly he then reviewed those parts of this work, and gave the public a more faithful, complete, and accurate account of the facts therein related; and honestly corrected the errors he had before run into.”

As you can see here, Josephus was careful to correct any errors he could find in his previous writings. Evidently, Josephus was not too proud to admit his mistakes. Thus, Josephus displayed his honesty by revising his former writings. How much more should we expect of this man?

I will now quote two articles written on Josephus from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible and The Zondervan Pictorial Dictionary of the Bible respectively. While both of these presentations speak of Josephus’ life, each delve into different areas and give details missed by the other. After comparing one story against the other, a fully developed picture should emerge in one’s mind pertaining to his activities.

First from The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume E-J, pages 987-988 we read the following (and again, I must warn that the authors of these analyses use the terms “Jew/Jewish”, Judean and Israelite indiscriminately, so we need to anticipate the correct designation):

“JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS. A historian (Hebrew name, Joseph ben Mattathias), and a commanding officer of the Galilean Jewish forces in the war against Rome, A.D. 66-70. He was born A.D. 37/38 and died sometime after 100.

“Despite certain inconsistencies between the account in his Vita, written toward the end of his life, and various autobiographical statements scattered through his earlier History of the Jewish War Against Rome, the general outline of his life is more or less clear. He was of a priestly family and, on his mother’s side, a descendant of the Hasmoneans. He reports that already, by the age of sixteen he began a study of the chief Jewish sects: Pharisees; Sadducees; and Essenes. He then attached himself as disciple to a hermit, Bannus, with whom he lived in the wilderness for ca. three years. At the age of nineteen he joined the Pharisees. His writings later reflect an admiration for the Essenes and their way of life; on the other hand, though he reports on the popularity enjoyed by the Pharisees, his language at times reveals a critical, unfavorable estimate of them.

“In 64 he journeyed to Rome to plead for the liberation of some priests whom the procurator Felix had sent to be tried by Nero. As it turned out, this visit to the great city was important, not so much because Josephus succeeded in his mission (with the help of Poppea, Nero’s wife, whom Josephus met through one of her favorites, a Jewish actor), but because the splendor and might of Rome impressed him profoundly. On his return to Judea, he found his countrymen dominated by those who pressed for revolt against Rome. Unable to restrain the war party, he reluctantly joined it, hoping that in short time the governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, would crush the rebellion. But Cestius failed, and his army was thoroughly routed.

“Josephus contradicts himself on a number of details regarding his commission and conduct at this point; as a result, his motives and his behavior as commander of the Galilean forces are not clear. Apparently, however, he spent the half year between Cestius’ defeat and Vespasian’s arrival in reorganizing and administration of Galilee, fortifying a number of cities, storing up provisions, and training his army – though it is unknown where he learned military discipline and tactics.

“Before long his enemies began to accuse him of various treacheries, and on several occasions both his commission and his life were in danger. His bitterest enemy was John of Gischala, whom Josephus always speaks of in most abusive terms.

“By the spring of 67 Josephus, deserted by most of his army, was driven to the fortified town of Jotapata. The town fell after a siege of forty-seven days. He hid for some time in a cave with a number of survivors, who vowed that they would take their own lives rather than surrender. Either through trickery or by coincidence, Josephus and one companion were the last to remain after the others had killed themselves. With his companion, Josephus emerged from the cave and gave himself up. He was brought before Vespasian as a prisoner. He now predicted to Vespasian that he, Vespasian, would shortly become emperor. When this prediction was fulfilled in 69, Vespasian made Josephus a free man.

“From the time of his surrender to the end of his life Josephus remained a client of the Flavian emperors (hence the adoption of the name Flavius). So long as the Great War lasted, he served the Roman forces as interpreter and mediator. After the war he not only received gifts from Titus ... but also accompanied the Roman commander to Rome, settled there on an imperial pension with the rights of a Roman citizen in a former palace of Vespasian, and devoted himself to a literary career.

“His domestic life was not a happy one. He was married four times; his second wife deserted him; his third wife he divorced. By his third wife he had three sons and by his last wife, two.

“Josephus’ words have survived because of the church’s interest in them, most likely because of a debatable passage on the Founder of Christianity in the Antiquities. These works are the principal source for the history of the Jews from Hasmonean times to the fall of Masada in 73. They are also an apologia, at times in behalf of Rome, at times in behalf of the Jews and Judaism, always in his own behalf.

“His earliest work was the War – i.e., the history of the Jewish war against Rome – which he wrote shortly after the fall of the Jewish state. It is a revision or new edition in Greek of a work he originally composed in Aramaic. The work is divided into seven books, the first of which is a rapid survey of Jewish <sic. Judean> history in the Hellenistic-Roman period; a primary source for him was the life of Herod written by Nicholas of Damascus. In the remaining books Josephus takes up the story of the revolt against Rome and its aftermath. Here he had not only his own limited experience to draw on, but also the records kept by the Roman commanders which were at his disposal, as well as information from those who fled Jerusalem and took refuge with the Roman forces. The history is written with dramatic effect. Thucydidean speeches in the mouths of leading persons, echoes of the idiom of Sophocles, descriptive passages (of geographical locations, of particular scenes of suffering or heroism, of fighting stratagems), give the work rhetorical vigor. As in the composition of all his subsequent works, Josephus had the assistance of Greek collaborators, since his own knowledge of Greek was probably never more than mediocre, especially when he was preparing his first work. What stands out above all in the War is its pro-Roman tone: the work was not only produced under Flavian auspices but was also supposed to impress all readers with the futility of rising against the Empire.

“There is a Slavonic version of the War, but it is doubtful if this version was based directly on the Aramaic original. Most scholars are still of the opinion that the Slavonic is a secondary translation of the Greek.

“Ca. twenty years after the publication of the War, ca. 93-94, during the reign of Domitian, Josephus put out his second great work, the Jewish Antiquities. It is a history of the Jews, in twenty books, modeled after the Roman Antiquities by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, from patriarchal times up to the outbreak of the war with Rome. The first ten books, which bring the story down to the Babylonian captivity, are essentially a paraphrase of the LXX version supplemented by homiletic and haggadic material. The latter ten volumes take up the story from the return to Judea under Cyrus. In these books Josephus drew on biblical and apocryphal sources, haggadic traditions, handbooks of Greek historians, and the writings of Nicholas of Damascus, Strabo, and other Roman historians. The work was designed to portray to the cultivated Greco-Roman world the high antiquity and splendid achievements of the Jews.

“It is instructive to compare what Josephus says in the Antiquities with what he says in the War, where subject matter overlaps. In the Antiquities the account is often more ample, the tone less decidedly pro-Roman, and altogether the mood less enthusiastic toward his earlier political attitude and appraisals. Careful analysis of the Greek idiom reveals also where Josephus turned from one of his Greek assistants to another, a slavish imitator of Thucydidean mannerisms. Of special interest also are the documents and edicts incorporated by Josephus in this work.

“It was to the Antiquities that Josephus attached his Vita as an appendix. This little work was written as a self-defense against the accusations of a rival historian, Justus of Tiberias, who charged that Josephus was responsible for the outbreak of the war, at least for the revolt of Tiberias against Rome. The autobiography is chiefly an account of Josephus’ life during the six months when he ‘commanded’ the forces in Galilee before the arrival of Vespasian.

“Finally, he wrote an eloquent apology for Judaism in two books, Against Apion. The work is more than a defense of Judaism against the slanders of Apion; it is a defense against all sorts of Egyptian and Greek calumnies of Jewish morality and culture. In making this defense Josephus also takes an aggressive position, criticizing Gentile morality and teachings as he compares them with ‘Mosaic law.’ Against Apion remains one of the classic and most vigorous apologies for Judaism.

“In his writings Josephus refers to other works which he planned: a treatise on Jerusalem and the temple, a work on the Mosaic code and the nature of God; but apparently he never produced these. Several works were at one time ascribed to Josephus by the church fathers, of which he is not the author.

“Bibliography. The principal edition of the Greek text of Josephus’ works is that by B. Niesen (Berlin, 1885-95). Other editions are: N. Bentwich, Josephus (1914); H. St. John Thackeray and R. Marcus, eds., Josephus, Loeb Classical Library, vols. I-VIII (1926); H. St. John Thackeray, Josephus, the Man and the Historian (1929); W. R. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots, and, Josephus (1956).

Next, from The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, volume H-L, pages 696-697 we find the following:

“JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS ... (born Joseph ben Matthias). Jewish historian.

“1. Life. Josephus was born in Jerusalem, A.D. 37 or 38. His father was a priest, his mother a descendant of the royal house of the Asmoneans. When he grew up he became a Pharisee, which sect he likened to the Stoics among the Greeks. In A.D. 64 at age twenty-six he went to Rome and secured the release of certain priests who were being held there on rather nebulous charges. Upon his return he found the people smarting under the highhanded administration of the procurator Florus and ready for revolt. From this he attempted to dissuade them, having seen at firsthand something of Roman power. Because of his attitude he was sent to Galilee to keep the peace there. The accounts of his activity in this region are conflicting and confused. The Jewish War seems to indicate that he was sent up as a general to take command of the situation; while the Life says he went up as a priest to pacify the disaffected. At any rate, because he was afraid that his pacification efforts would bring him under suspicion of favoring Rome, he finally pretended to concur with the views of the war party, going so far as to get them paid as mercenaries, but at the same time trying to persuade them to act on the defensive: not to attack the Romans, but let them make the first move. Thus he played a kind of double game, waiting to see the direction in which events would develop, accused by some of pro-Roman sentiment, by others of aiming at tyranny. Finally the extremists forced him to a decision; either he would lose his post, or take over the active leadership of the war party. At this juncture the Roman general Vespasian arrived on the scene (A.D. 67), and Josephus was captured, after almost being killed by his companions. When Vespasian was summoned to Rome in 69, and his son Titus was left to conduct the seige of Jerusalem, Josephus was used by the Roman commander as a mediator, going around the walls counseling the Jews to submit, hated by the zealots and suspected by the Romans. After the capture of Jerusalem he went to Rome with Titus, and was shown great favor by Vespasian, by now emperor, by Titus, and later by Domitian. He received Roman citizenship and took the name Flavius in deference to his patrons. He was married three times; one wife deserted him, and a second marriage ended in divorce. He died at about the beginning of the second cent.

“2. Works. Three major works have come from the pen of Josephus. (a) The Jewish War, written between 75 and 79, in seven books. This account of the struggle between the Jews and Romans was written under Roman auspices, Titus having urged Josephus to undertake the work. King Agrippa vouched for its accuracy. It was produced first in an Aramaic version, now lost, and this was followed by the Greek edition. One purpose for the writing of the book was certainly to deter others from revolting against the Romans as the Jews had done. The work is in the main a trustworthy account, for Josephus had firsthand materials: his own experience, and the commentaries of Vespasian and Titus, the commanders involved in the struggle. (b) Antiquities of the Jews, written in 93 or 94. This is a long work of twenty books, beginning with creation and extending to the outbreak of the war with the Romans ... The first part of the work, to the end of the exile, follows closely the Biblical narrative; the second part, postexilic, is compiled from miscellaneous sources. To the Antiquities is appended a biographical sketch (Life) written by Josephus as a defense against the accusations of a rival historian named Justus. (c) Against Apion, a defense of the Jewish <sic. Israelitish> religion.

“3. Importance of Josephus. He is the principal source for Jewish history between 100 B.C. and A.D. 100, and is invaluable for a knowledge of the geography of Bible lands. Recent archeological discoveries at Qumran and Masada have indicated that the account of Josephus is remarkably accurate and ranks him high as a topographer. The student of the New Testament has in Josephus a wealth of material on agriculture, industry, religion, politics, and the outstanding personalities of Gospel history: Herod, Pilate, the two Agrippas, Felix, and others. As a historian many have distrusted him, mostly because they disapprove of him as a traitor. He is no more affected by human error (of memory, faulty sources, bias, and the like) than others of his time. The passage concerning Jesus (Antiquities, XVIII, 63ff.) has been regarded by some as a Christian interpolation; but the bulk of evidence, both external and internal, marks it as genuine. Josephus must have known the main facts about the life and death of Jesus, and his historian’s curiosity certainly would lead him to investigate the movement which was gaining adherents even in high circles. Arnold Toynbee rates him among the five greatest Hellenic historians, along with Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, and Polybius.

“Josephus was doubtless an egoist, motivated by self-interest, and a flatterer of the Romans. He was hated by his countrymen as a turncoat. Yet he possessed a high degree of patriotism, for instead of disowning his nation he wrote an elaborate history of it, and composed a brilliant apology for his native religion.”

Was Josephus a Traitor? Or rather did he know that “the city was all over polluted with such abominations, from which it was reasonable to expect such vengeance ...” and really wanted no part with the abominable, being a just man? See Wars 2:17:10 & 4:3:10.

 

EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE FULFILLMENT OF MATTHEW 24:2

 

The greatest of all of Josephus’ writings has to be his Jewish Wars. The reason for this is because the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple fulfilled the prophecy by Messiah Himself at Matthew 24:2. But if we want to be serious Bible students, we must also understand the events leading up to, during, and after that destruction. Actually, that destruction was one of the critical high points in the great struggle between the “seed” of the serpent and the “seed” of the woman of Genesis 3:15. We cannot cover all that in this short space, so we shall start at about 52 A.D., about the time of Antonius Felix. We find at Acts 23:24-24:27 that at Paul’s last visit to Jerusalem, Felix was procurator of Judea. But upon Felix being recalled to Rome by Nero, Paul was turned over to Festus.

The decades leading up to this time saw the rise of “Zealots” in Judea, fanatically opposed to Roman occupation. Josephus alludes to them as “bandits”, and indicates that Felix crucified vast numbers of them in order to rid the country of them (JW 2:13:2):

“This Felix took Eleazar the arch robber, and many that were with him, alive, when they had ravaged the country for twenty years together, and sent them to Rome; but as to the number of robbers whom he caused to be crucified, and of whom who were caught among them, and those he brought to punishment, they were a multitude not to be enumerated.”

Similar to the Zealots there arose also the “Sicarii” (nationalists armed with short daggers, sicae, and devoted to the eradication of their political adversaries by quiet assassination, frequently at communal functions). Murders of a political nature happened almost daily; Jonathan the high priest, whom Felix was happy to see gone, was one of their first victims. Yet another innocent-cloaked group arose with far greater wicked objectives who stirred the populus to a wild fervor against Rome, and alleged theirs’ a divine mission (JW 2:13:4):

“There was also another body of wicked men gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, who laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government, and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty; but Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen, both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.”

During the midst of Felix’s term the Emperor Claudius died (October 13, 54 A.D.), and Nero followed him. Nero then replaced Felix with Festus who showed favor to the Judeans, but the tinderbox condition that had developed under Felix was blazing out of control. No sooner had Festus arrived than a controversy arose between the Judean and Syrian inhabitants of Caesarea and was resolved by an imperial rescript (Roman petition) in favor of the Syrians, which further embittered the Judeans. It was near this time that Festus sent Paul, a Roman citizen, for his right of appeal to Rome (Acts 25:11 ff.). Then following Festus in the procuratorship was Albinus (62-64) whose corruption was rampant, “There was no form of crime that he failed to perform” (JW 2:14:1) ... “and at this time were those seeds sown which brought the city [Jerusalem] to destruction.”

This, then, led up to the first revolt of A.D. 66-70. The last of the procurators to rule Judaea was Gessius Florus (A.D. 64-66) who by comparison made his predecessor appear as paragon of virtue (JW 2:14:2):

“2. And although such was the character of Albinus, yet did Gessius Florus, who succeeded him, demonstrate him to have been a most excellent person, upon the comparison: for the former did the greatest part of his rogueries in private, and with a sort of dissimulation; but Gessius did his unjust actions to the harm of the nation after a pompous manner; and as though he had been sent as an executioner to punish condemned malefactors, he omitted no sort of rapine, or of vexation: where the case was really pitiable, he was most barbarous; and in things of the greatest turpitude, he was most impudent; nor could anyone outdo him in disguising the truth; nor could anyone contrive more subtle ways of deceit than he did. He indeed thought it but a petty offense to get money out of single persons; so he spoiled whole cities, and ruined entire bodies of men at once, and did almost publicly proclaim it all the country over, that they had liberty given them to turn robbers, upon this condition, that he might go shares with them in the spoils. Accordingly, this his greediness of gain was the occasion that entire toparchies were brought to desolation; and a great many of the people left their own country, and fled into foreign provinces.”

We can see from this that Gessius Florus was a much more evil administrator than Albinus before him. Gessius Florus openly plundered the land, robbed individuals, sacked towns, and took bribes from bandits. Those termed “Jews” were greatly humiliated in Caesarea when Nero decided to grant the non-Judeans superior civic rights and the “Hellens” obstructed access to the synagogue by building shops before its entrance. Upon this they strongly appealed to Gessius Florus, but he did nothing to correct the situation. Later Gessius Florus took 17 talents from the Temple treasury whereupon those termed “Jews” could no longer contain themselves. With utmost contempt they sarcastically passed around a basket throughout their community to take up a collection for the “indigent” Florus, (JW 2:14:6):

“6. Moreover, as to the citizens of Jerusalem, although they took this matter very ill, yet did they restrain their passion; but Florus acted herein as if he had been hired, and blew up the war into a flame, and sent some to take seventeen talents out of the sacred treasure, and pretended that Caesar wanted them. At this the people were in confusion immediately, and ran together to the temple, with prodigious clamors, and called upon Caesar by name, and besought him to free them from the tyranny of Florus. Some also of the seditious cried out upon Florus, and cast the greatest reproaches upon him, and carried a basket about, and begged some spells of money for him, as for one that was destitute of possessions, and in a miserable condition. Yet was not he made ashamed hereby of his love of money, but was more enraged, and provoked to get still more; and instead of coming to Caesarea, as he ought to have done, and quenching the flame of war, which was beginning thence, and so taking away the occasion of any disturbances, on which account it was that he had received a reward [of eight talents], he marched hastily with an army of horsemen and footmen against Jerusalem, that he might gain his will by the arms of the Romans, and might, by his terror, and by his threatenings, bring the city into subjection.”

Florus then took bloody revenge on them for this insult and turned part of the city over to his soldiers for plunder. Inasmuch as the priests attempted to control those called “Jews” during these incidents by counseling them to patience, those among the people who were meek and did not react against the soldiers were scorned by them. Slaughter then ensued. Those dubbed “Jews” then withdrew to the Temple precincts and closed off the portico passageway between the Temple and the Fortress Antonia. Momentarily, not being strong enough against the rebels, Florus was forced to withdraw to Caesarea. As a result of all this, the revolt against Rome became formal. Josephus records this at 2:14:9:

“9. Florus was more provoked at this, and called out aloud to the soldiers to plunder that which was called the Upper Market Place, and to slay such as they met with. So the soldiers, taking this exhortation of their commander in a sense agreeable to their desire of gain, did not only plunder the place they were sent to, but forcing themselves into every house, they slew its inhabitants; so the citizens fled along the narrow lanes, and the soldiers slew those that they caught, and no method of plunder was omitted; they also caught many of the quiet people, and brought them before Florus, whom he first chastised with stripes, and then crucified. Accordingly, the whole number of those that were destroyed that day, with their wives and children (for they did not spare even the infants themselves), was about three thousand and six hundred; and what made this calamity the heavier, was this new method of Roman barbarity; for Florus ventured then to what no one had done before, that is, to have men of the equestrian order whipped, and nailed to the cross before his tribunal; who, although they were by birth Jews, yet were they of Roman dignity notwithstanding.”

The leader of the so-called “Jews” was Eleazar, who was assisted by Menahem, a son of the Zealot leader, Judas of Galilee. Judaea was organized for battle. The Sanhedrin entrusted Galilee to the priest and Pharisee, Joseph son of Matthias. The priesthood, at this time, had fallen to an all-time low, and a footnote at Josephus’ Wars 4:3:6 says this:

“Here we may discover the utter disgrace and ruin of the high priesthood among the Jews, when undeserving, ignoble, and vile persons were advanced to that office by the seditious; which sort of high priests, as Josephus well remarks here, were thereupon obliged to comply with and assist those that advanced them in their impious practices. The names of these high priests, or rather ridiculous and profane persons, were Jesus the son of Damneus, Jesus the son of Gamaliel, Matthias the son of Theophilus, and that prodigious ignoramus Phannias, the son of Samuel; all whom we shall meet with in Josephus’s future history of this war; nor do we meet with any other so much as pretended high priests after Phannias, till Jerusalem was taken and destroyed.”

Thus the battle lines had been drawn while Judaea prepared itself. To counteract this action, Nero eventually sent out an experienced commander in the person of Vespasian, who began operations at Antioch in the winter of A.D. 66-67. Within a year the last of the Galilean posts fell with the surrender of Josephus to Vespasian at Jotapata. This placed Northern Palestine once again in the hands of Rome. The Fifth and Fifteenth legions wintered at Caesarea while the Tenth Legion was quartered at Scythopolis (Beth-shan). At that time Judaea sought aid from Idumaea, but once the Idumeans surveyed the dangerous situation and realized it was hopeless, they soon withdrew. It also appears that it was at this same time that the Jerusalem Christians fled to Perea, settling mostly at Pella. (See Wars 2:19.) Cestius first besieged, and almost took Jerusalem, but for some unknown reason turned coward and fled, although so very near victory. By this alone was Luke 21:20-21 fulfilled!

It was in the spring of A.D. 68 that Vespasian advanced toward Jerusalem via the Jordan Valley, with his soldiers seizing and burning the headquarters of the rebels en route (Samaria, Jericho, Perea, Machaerus, Qumran, etc.). Delaying his immediate assault on Jerusalem was Nero’s death, June 9, A.D. 68. Upon this, Vespasian halted his activities and took account of the developments at Rome. In the meantime civil war broke out in Jerusalem in the spring of A.D. 69. Simon bar Giora had been traveling through the land with his bands, scavenging what the Romans had left behind. Finally Simon turned toward Jerusalem where the people, tired of the tyranny of John of Gischala, welcomed him as their new leader. Entering Jerusalem, John and his party withdrew to the Temple and shut themselves in, and from there, Simon ruled the city itself.

In the same year as the siege began (A.D. 69-70), it was known as the Year of the Four Emperors. In Rome, Galba succeeded Nero but was murdered A.D. January 69; Otho then became emperor, but was replaced soon by Vitellius. After a short reign, Vitellius was then assassinated. Since Vespasian had advanced against Jerusalem A.D. June 69, and his Roman troops hailed him imperator A.D. July 1, 69, he quickly returned to Rome leaving his son, Titus, to resume the attack on Jerusalem.

With this lesson, you have just observed the events leading up to the siege of Jerusalem by Rome in 70 A.D. Aware of these facts, you will now be able to read the Book of Acts with an entirely new perspective. Not only will the Book of Acts come to life, but many of the writings of Paul.

These things should now start to show how important it is to study history as well as Scripture, and without Josephus, we would know very little about this period. All this demands that we become more than just surface readers of our Bibles. When we can begin to correlate Scripture with history, we can start to obtain a comprehensive view of the Scripture we are reading! Not only that, when one voices their opinion without knowing these things, they expose their ignorance to no end, especially on Matthew chapter 24. Yet it seems that those making the most noise are those who have investigated these things the least. Pray for understanding!