Al-Rum and Muhammad

I believe Muhammad did exist and the basic bullet points of his life were mostly what the traditional narrative says.  My controversial disagreement is simply on where the events took place. 

I believe the 602-628 Byzantine-Sassanid War and the Jewish Revolt against Heraclius are way more important to understanding the historical context of Islam’s Origins than is generally understood.  However others researching this topic along those lines do so trying to argue the Proto-Muslims were always Anti-Roman even though Surah 30 titled Ar-Rum or The Romans clearly establishes Muhammad and his community as people who wanted Rome to win.

The proposed near conflict between Muhammad and Rome at Tabuk in 629-630 didn’t happen, no Byzantine source mentions it, and the earliest Arabic sources don’t mention it, it is a much later myth. The Battle of Mutah meanwhile was really just with the Gassanids who's relationship with Rome was complex.

Also there is the tradition of Muhammad's letters to world leader sent out in 628.  Heraclius is usually presented as not converting but responding very amicably.  So another witness that they were on good terms. 

I do have one disagreement with the traditional timeline of Muhammad, I think he died in the first half of 629 but then the later Muslim Chronicles wanted to weaken his death's connection to when he was poisoned by Zaynab bint Al-Harith.

Conflict between Rome under Heraclius and the Muhammad following Arabs did not begin till 634, when Muhammad had been dead for two years even in the officially timeline and within The Roman Empire who did and didn't support Heraclius was changing because of the Monoenergist/Monothelite controversies. 

This below speculation on Jewish Apocalyptic Literature is merely supplemental to the main point of this post.

When studying the history of Jewish Apocalyptic Texts, I think the assumption that Armilus is Heraclius in the texts written during his reign is a common major mistake, even though it’s also in my view an obvious one. 

Here is a link to John C. Reeves’ English Translation of the Sefer Zerubbabel. 

https://pages.charlotte.edu/john-reeves/research-projects/trajectories-in-near-eastern-apocalyptic/sefer-zerubbabel/

And now I shall copy/paste a relevant passage, it’s from near the end. 

“Ten kings from among the nations shall also arise, but they will not supply enough (rulers) to rule for a week (of years) and a half-week (of years), each one (ruling) for a year. These are the ten kings who will arise over the nations for the week of years: these are their names correlated with their cities and their places. The first king is Sīlqōm and the name of his city is Seferad, which is Aspamia, a distant country. The second king is Hartōmōs, and the name of his city is Gītanya. The third king is Flē’vas (Flavius?), and the name of his city is Flō’yas. The fourth king is Glū’as (Julius?), and the name of his city is Galya (Gaul?). The fifth king is Ramōshdīs, and the name of his city is Mōdītīka. The sixth king is Mōqlanōs, and the name of his city is Italia. The seventh king is ’Ōktīnōs, and the name of his city is Dōrmīs.  The eighth king is ’Aplōstōs from Mesopotamia. The ninth king is Šērōy, the king of Persia.

The tenth king is Armilos, the son of Satan who emerged from the sculpted stone. He will gain sovereignty over all of them. He will come along with the rulers of Qedar and the inhabitants of the East and provoke a battle in the Valley of ’Arb’el, and they will take possession of the kingdom. He will ascend with his force and subdue the entire world.”

Now things like the time scale I think we obviously can't take at face value to fit into this 7th Century Context.  The first King is tied to place names that Jews of this time already associated with Spain, so he could be Trajan, Hadrian or Theodosius I.  I’m not gonna try to break down all of them, but the 9th is Persian King, Seroy sounds like Sheroe the birthname of Kavad II but other texts have Paros likely derived from Khosrou II's epithet Parwēz.  

So I think the 8th is who’s meant to be Heraclius, Heraclius was of Armenian origin, ancient Armenia was a lot more than the tiny modern country and in fact was frequently considered a Mesopotamian nation by themselves and The Hebrew Bible.

Armilus/Armilos emerges as a ruler of the Qedarites, those called Qedarites in The Hebrew Bible and Nabateans in Greco-Roman times are the same people, both cases using one of the first two sons of Ishmael as a Synecdoche for all or most of the Ishmaelite Tribes including Tema and Dumah.

I am not making this post to Demonize Muhammad by identifying him with a villainous figure, rather I’m analyzing the Historical Context of Muhammad in a way that undermines the current trend of people who want to argue Muhammad didn’t even exist.  

Yes in some ways Armilos seems to be being described as a Christian, but I suspect the Jews originally saw Muhammad as a Christian because he acknowledge Jesus as Messiah.  In fact I'm among those who theorize Proto-Islam didn't stop seeing itself as within Christianity till Abd Al-Malik or maybe even the Abbasids.  That's also what the Apology of Al-Kindi implies, though that narrative comes off a bit Antisemitic in how much it wants to blame Jews for what's wrong with Islam.

This text never mentions Edom or directly connects Armilus to Rome, Rome is mentioned more in reference to past events.

As for this Stone that Armilus is tied to here and in other texts, this is a good time to remind people I support the theory that Petra was the original Mecca and contained the original Kaaba.  Among the evidence for which I like to cite is what Epiphanius of Salamis said about Chaabou and the argument that he mistook the word Kaaba for meaning Virgin.  As well as what John of Damascus said about the Pagan Arabs preceding Muhammad worshiping Aphrodite at the Kaaba.  Many have argued that the Black Stone of the Kaaba looks like a Vagina, which could also explain Muhammad's infamous "lick the Clitoris of Allat" comment.

There is an Islamic Tradition that says Ali ibn Abu Talib was born inside the Kaaba.  And given how late our written down sources for these traditions are, I can’t help but wonder if originally the tradition was Muhammad being bone inside it? However some Shiite offshoots like the Alawites believe Ali was an incarnation of Allah.  But there's also a weird Trinitarian aspect to the Alawite theology where Muhammad can be viewed as an Incarnation of The Divine as well.

The Sefer Zerubabel also describes this Stone as a focal point of worship and pilgrimage.

"Now this Armilos will take his mother—(the statue) from whom he was spawned—from the ‘house of filth’ of the scornful ones, and from every place and from every nation they will come and worship that stone, burn offerings to her, and pour out libations to her. No one will be able to view her face due to her beauty. Anyone who refuses to worship her will die in agony (like?) animals."

Also the Sefer Zerubable in this translation never even directly calls Armilus or his followers Roman or Eodmit eliek tohers do.  Edom is never mentioned and Rome only in ways that seem more about the past.

I recently purchased David C. Mitchell’s book Messiah ben Joseph.  It’s a good book I recommend getting, its main mistake is when talking about the 7th Century taking at face value the genealogical claims and identifications of Ben Abrahamson about Nehemiah Ben Hushiel having a brother who becomes Salmaan Farsi.  But even in this period atleast who quotes in their entirety the Apocalyptic Texts he’s discussing, some of them may not be readable online anywhere. 

In the order he lists them the first text to mention a figure by the name of Armilus is Otot ha-Mashiah “The Signs of The Messiah”.  The Sixth Sign talks about a King of The Romans or King of Edom who the Messiah Ben Joseph named Nehemiah Ben Hushiel is victorious over.  This King reigning 9 Months before Nehemiah Ben Hushiel emerges could conceivably fit well for him being Heraclius based on when you consider his Reign to have truly began (it began as part of a civil war) and when the time of Nehemiah Ben Hushiel begins.  Nehemiah reclaiming the Temple Vessels Rome had taken before did not require going to Rome itself, they were returned to Jerusalem in the time of Justinian, possibly principally in his Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos which is known to have been sacked during the Persian Conquest of 614. 

The Seventh Sign is where Armilus appears, he’s clearly separate, clearly doesn’t become a part of this drama till after the rise of Nehemiah Ben Hushiel.  And on page 169 it described some interactions between Armilus and The Jews that I feel have a lot of parallels to stories of Muhammad’s interactions with The Jews, particularly Sallam ibn Mishkam.

The conflation of Rome and Edom is Jewish Texts is a complicated subject.  I believe it's origin is largely yin Idumeans being falsely believed to be Edomites and then Septimius Severus giving the the Idumean City of Eleutheropolis ius Italicum.  Hadrian had also rebuilt Jerusalem in a Roman Style and after Christianization the biggest Church in the city was not within the Pre-Hadrian city Limits.  Nehemiah conquering Rome could refer to Conquering Jerusalem, indeed the Temple Treasure taken by Titus were already back in Jerusalem in Christian Churches possibly principally the one built by Justinian.  

When more specifically Edomite geographical locations like Cela, Teman or Bozra are mentioned, I think those are still meant to refer to southern Jordan.

Next is the Asereth Otot “Ten Signs”. And again the 5th and 6th Signs describe a Roman Ruler who Nehemiah Ben Hushiel initially rebels against followed by a Seventh Sign where Amrilus emerges. 

I think much of what’s definitely not historical in these narratives are driven by a desire to conform Nehemiah Ben Hushiel to what was already expected of a Messiah Ben Joseph, like being killed specifically in Jerusalem or at her Eastern Gate.  I have concluded while studying this that Nehemiah Ben Hushiel probably didn’t die as early as often presumed but was still alive after the Persians expelled The Jews from Jerusalem in 617 and led them into the Desert. 

Same with where Nehemiah Ben Hushiel is from, Aggadat Mashiah is a pre Nehemiah text already associating Messiah Ben Joseph with Galilee.  The role Galilee plays in this history via Benjamin of Tiberias also makes it easy to imagine Nehemiah was also from there, but that's conjecture.

In the Islamic Narrative I think Nehemiah Ben Hushiel and his followers are one of the Jewish Clans Muhammad had conflicts with between 623-628.  I’ll speculate more on that later.

The third Apocalyptic text to mention the name of Armilus is Pirqeh Hekhalot Rabbati “Great Palaces”.  

In this text Armilus doesn’t emerge till after Nehemiah ben Hushiel is killed and who kills Nehemiah is the King of Persia.  This Persian King is named Shirvan the most likely origin of which is Anushirvan "The Immortal Soul" a name officially only used of Khosrow I but it was given to him Posthumously, in fact it's said to be specially given to distinguish him form Khosrow II.  So it could be dropping the Anu part was a specifically insulting way to refer to Khosrow II, of saying he's lesser then his namesake. 

This text also predates the Sefer Zerubbabel in having a Messiah Ben David named Menahem Ben Ammiel.

Speaking of which, the Sefer Zerubbabel is the 4th text mentioning the name of Armilus according to Mitchell’s book.  

His version of it seems different then the one I linked to above, it doesn’t mention Qederites but does mention Sela which at this time could have referred to Petra (Sela in The Bible is never Petra though, it’s a Edomite city further North). 

 In his version the Eight King is specifically linked to Aram Mesopotamia which makes the idea that Armenia could be meant there even more likely.  In The Hebrew Bible Aram Naharaim always means Greater Armenia not Iraq, Iraq is called Shinar.

Otot Rav Shimoon Ben Yohai is the first Apocalypse written after the Islamic Conquest of Jerusalem. In this text the King of Edom of its Seventh Sign sounds like exactly what Christian 7th Century Apocalypses like Pseudo Methodius expected their Last Roman Emperor to do. Armilus again emerges later. 

This text is the first time Armilus no longer makes sense as Muhammad.  Partly this is because Muhammad is in the past and now this name is being given to someone yet in the future or the present.  

But also from the time of Umar entering Jerusalem in April of 637 the Jews were now on good terms with the Arabs who let them return to Jerusalem and so this is when Armilus began being separated from any Anti-Arab sentiment and indeed starts being expected to be a more purely Roman/Christian oppressor. Given our actually physical texts for all these are later maybe their original versions made the Arabian context of Armilus even more apparent but were edited?

So I won’t deal with any later texts.

In speculating more on the actual history, I want to express skepticism that there was a person actually named Nehemiah Ben Hushiel.  The actual Historians talking about the events of 614-617 do not name any Jewish Leader, in fact they don’t acknowledge the Jews having any leaders.  No one thinks there was actually a person named Menehem Ben Ammiel during all this, and so many known historical figures are obviously being called by some kind of code name.  Yet no one ever questions that Nehemiah Ben Hushiel must have had that name. 

The symbolic value in the name Nehemiah for this figure is obvious, he clearly has somewhat of a parallel role to the title character of the Book of Nehemiah.  It’s Hushiel as a Patronym that is hard to see the logic of.  Of course the Patronym of Biblical Nehemiah also baffles scholars.

Now to speculate on finding Ben Hushiel’s followers in the Islamic Narrative.

Abd Allah ibn Salam born Al-Husyan ibn Salam was a later Jewish Convert to Islam from the Banu Qaynuqa who also claimed to be a descendent of Joseph.  So the claim that he’s a nephew of Nehemiah Ben Hushiel I do consider plausible, it’s the trying to Salmaan Farsi into it I think is absurd.  But it could be just as likely he’s a son of Nehemiah who simply used Salam as an Arabic name for some reason.

The name of Qaynuqa sounds Biblically like it’s the Kenites.  The Kenites according to Judges 1:16 settled in Arad, a city in the Negev south of the Judean Mountains.   The name of Yathrib could also be a connection to the Kenites since it could be derived from the name Jethro. But Arad was mostly long abandoned by the 7th Century. 

The traditional genealogy for the founder of the Banu Qaynuqa traces them to Eliezer Ben Moses and the Kenites among the Israelites may well have always been the descendants of Moses’s children by Zippora. 

Or Nehemiah Ben Hushiel could’ve been Marhab bin Al-Harith the commander at the battle of Khaybar killed in single combat with Ali.  Which would open up the possibility of Armilus being Ali rather than Muhammad per se.  Or he could be a different Khaybar leader, but Marhab is the one who’s name we know.

The problem with the Khaybar of the Islamic Narrative being geographically the Khaybar in Saudi Arabia that’s south of Tema is that their Jewish population was removed in 567 by the Ghassanids.

Al-Harith is also the name of multiple Gassanid rulers including an Al-Harith ibn Al-Harith around 583 which is also the name of Marhab's brother and Zaynab ibn Al-Harith's father.   I think Al-Harith ibn Al-Harith was made Gassanid ruler briefly at a very young age but quickly deposed but not killed and replaced with a cousin the son or Abu Kirab.  Al-Harith ibn Al-Harith's predecessor Al-Nu'man ibn al-Mundhir's harsh treatment by Maurice is considered the end of the Ghassanids being allies of Rome.

In prior Byzantine-Sassanid conflicts the Gassanids had typical been a proxy of Rome but the Gassanids preference for Miaphysitism always complicated their partnership and now at this time Khosrou the second was on very good terms with Miaphysite Christianity because of his wife while at the same time persecuting Nestorians. 

Their role in the 602-628 war isn't discussed much, Wikipedia doesn't list them as a Belligerents but I find it unlikely they weren't involved at all.

The Author of The Qurran who their massive emphasis on being "Associators" as being what's wrong with the doctrines of the other peoples of The Book would have likely considered Miaphysitism the worst form of Christianity.

There is a bit of a Question Mark on if Nehemiah Ben Hushiel’s claim to be Messiah Ben Joseph really depends on literal genealogical descent from Joseph.  Christians like to argue Jesus was Messiah Ben Joseph in his first advent even though his Ancestry is only ever depicted as Davidic, yet he does coincidentally have an adopted father named Joseph.  The Signs of The Messiah said Hushiel led the Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin and some of the Sons of Gad.  But Ten Signs said he led descendants of Zerah son of Judah.  The latter is perhaps more likely to be correct since it’s less likely to be fabricated for the Messiah Ben Joseph connection.  But the Zerahite branch of Judah has a similar mysterious history.  

Thing is Ephraim specifically contrary to popular assumption wasn't among those deported, no was all of Western Manasseh, many of moth accepted Hezekiah Passover invitation and thus became part of Judaism.  Hadrian banned all Jews form living anywhere Jerusalem was visible from which includes most of the territory allotted to Ephraim, but a lot of those Jews just settled elsewhere north or south within Israel.  I my hunch is those in the core of Ephraim (the modern Ramalia and al-Bireh Governorate) would have bene more inclined to head north thus strengthening a basis for seeing a Ben-Ephraim as coming from Galilee, but those aren't say Jericho would have went South and lived among the Bedouin and Nabatean Arabs of the Negev and became Arabized over time.  But those even more inclined to head south were those in Judah including the Idumeans.

I now think the Medina of the Islamic Narrative was actually the Nabatean Cities of the southern Negev, perhaps principally Avdat. 

The Banu Nadir are also interesting; they are said to be founded by an Al-Nadir and some think the original Hebrew of that was Ha-Nazir. Meaning possibly derived from the Hebrew word for Separated associated with Joseph in Genesis 49. Both the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza are said to be Cohanim clans descended from Aaron, but for the Banu Nadir there isn't as detailed a genealogy for that.  

And what I theorized above about Sallam ibn Mishkam makes him very likely to be Nehemiah Ben Hushiel.   He was of the Banu Nadir and also died at the battle of Khaybar in 628.  

But the leader of the Banu Nadir was Usayr ibn Zarim and the Qurran claims the Jews consider an Uzair the Son of God, other sources attribute that to Sallam specifically.  But I think Sallam was really condemning Muhammad for rejecting that Israel is a Son of God as demonstrated in Exodus 4:22-23 and Hosea 11:1.

The death of Nehemiah Ben Hushiel is in some texts placed on the 9th of Av.  The Battle of Khaybar happens just about a month to soon for that, but again I think these Apocalypses were fine with fudging the dates a bit for their symbolic value.

It's possible multiple of these Nehemiah Ben Hushiel candidates are true with different texts focusing on a different candidate.  Signs of The Messiah and Ten Signs have the narrative that blatantly parallel Sallam ibn Mishkam, that's gone in the other texts. 

Matthew 19 does not permit Divorce because of Adultery.

As someone who’s Politically a Leftist while being Theologically Conservative I want to clarify this discussion of what The Bible says about Divorce should have no impact on Civil Laws, Civil Marriage as a Legal Contract should have no restriction on how to enter it or leave it (besides Consent and being old enough obviously but those are restrictions only to entering it), forcing people to stay in unhappy marriages is not the way to inspire Christian Morality.

Matthew 19 is the core of why Christian Morality is traditionally Anti-Divorce and yet even the most Conservative commentators are forced to concede Adultery as a valid excuse for Divorce here because of their other Conservative agendas in how to treat a certain word.

Matthew 19:9 in the King James Version uses the word “fornication” for what the only allowable reason for Divorce is.  I’ve proven before on this Blog how that word and the Greek word Pronea are words for specifically Prostitution.  But because casual usage watered down that word to mean any perceived Sexual sin or any sex “outside of marriage” that part of the verse is often quoted as if it used the word Adultery even by people saying they are going off the KJV. 

The problem with thinking that reading is valid is the way even Jesus’s own Disciples reacts to it in verse 10.  Their reaction only makes sense if this is some utterly unprecedented restriction even though Adultery as a good enough reason for divorce is about the most precedented allowance imaginable.

According to the Talmud the Pharisees had an internal disagreement about Divorce at this time, Hillel’s school was more permissive while Shammai allowed it only for Adultery. Jesus seeming more like Shammai here is the exception to the general trend, on everything else Jesus sounds a lot more like Hillel.  But His break from Hillel here is based on very Hillelian principals, Mercy and Forgiveness.

Yes words for Prostitution are often used euphemistically to call someone a Whore for being Sexually Active at all.  But that doesn't change what the word means, the word should be Translated as what it means and let the reader interpret how literally it’s being used. And Euphemistic references to Prostitution sometimes go the other way, they are sometimes about the concept of “selling out” and not actually Sexual at all.  The core Greek Root behind Pronea means “to sell off” the sexual part is not in the actual Etymology.

Adultery is explicitly mentioned in this passage but not as a reason for Divorce, rather as a consequence of it.  This is the only passage in all of Scripture that defines Adultery as a Crime a Husband can commit against his Wife, in The Torah Adultery is always defined only as a Wife sleeping with someone other than her Husband.  Why is explained earlier in Matthew 5:32 where it’s clarified that a Husband causes his Wife to Commit Adultery when he divorces her, because women in that society usually needed a husband to survive.

A Transgender Marriage in the Genealogy of Jesus!

What if I told you there was a Marriage between a Trans Male and a Trans Woman in Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus?

The key verse is Matthew 1:5.  

First the name rendered in the KJV as Rachab to identify the spouse with whom Salmon begat Boaz, the Strong’s Concordance number for this name is G4477.  Modern commentators almost always default to assuming this is Rahab of the Book of Joshua.  

Problem is Hebrews 11:31 and James 2:25 unambiguously refer to that Rahab and how it’s transliterated into Greek is completely different, it’s simply Raab (but the KJV adds the H back in the middle even though it usually doesn’t “correct” the Greek spellings like that) it’s Strong’s Number is G4460.

Also Jewish Traditions consistently tell a different story about who Rahab later married, Megilah 14b13 says she married Joshua (Wikipedia as I write this claims the Talmud agrees Rahab married Salmon and cites this but their own link https://www.sefaria.org/Megillah.14b?lang=bi makes no reference to Salmon or Boaz).  Now as a Low Church Protestant I would agree that if The New Testament and Jewish Traditions disagree we should believe The New Testament.  But an apparent disagreement exists only because of a disputable transliteration.  Genealogies like these are supposed to be based on prior records even if only oral ones, if Rahab married Salmon there would exist some Jewish memory of that, but there isn’t. 

The website BlueLetterBible.Org confirms that Raab is how Rahab’s name is rendered in the Greek Manuscripts of The Hebrew Bible we commonly call the Septuagint.  However it does not consider Rachab to be present in the Septuagint at all.  But there is one name in the Septuagint whose similarity to Rachab is striking, certainly far more similar than any form of Rahab.

To break it down, the Greek spelling of Rachab in Matthew 1:5 is Rho-Alpha-Chi-Alpha-Beta.  In the Septuagint version of 1 Chronicles 2:55 the name we read in the KJV as Rechab is spelled Rho-Eta-Chi-Alpha-Beta.  The only difference is the second letter which is a vowel, Hebrew of course has no Vowels and the way the Masoretic Texts indicates Vowel pronunciations was developed well after the time of The New Testament.  This isn’t the only time Matthew disagrees with the Septuagint on what the first Vowel of a name should be, the way we commonly render the name of Solomon is based on how The New Testament Greek Texts render it, but the Septuagint actually prefers Salomon.  There is also precedent for specifically the interchangeability of Alpha and Eta in Hebrew to Greek Transliteration.  In Revelation how Hallelujah is spelled has an Alpha as the vowel after the Yot in Yah, but how Theophoric names that start with Yah are rendered in Greek usually has an Eta instead.  

1 Chronicles 2:55 is in the context of the Genealogy connecting Judah to David, in fact a variant of Salmon’s name and Bethlehem are in the prior verse, but how they are relevant to it isn’t clear.

There is really only one reason scholars usually don’t consider this Rechab to be a candidate for who Matthew’s Rachab is, and that’s how Rechab is technically a Masculine name and so every occurrence of that name in The Hebrew Bible is usually assumed to be to a Male individual. Technically however Rachab is just as Masculine in form. 

The name of Salmon, the generation between Nahshon and Boaz, is rendered three different ways in the Masoretic Text of The Hebrew Bible.  In Ruth 4:20 when he is begotten his name is Salmah (though the KJV renders it Salmon) a name that ends with a Heh making it whether the Strong’s admits it or not Grammatically Feminine. But then verse 21 when he begats Boas his name is rendered Salmon which is grammatically Masculine.  In The Hebrew Ruth 4:21 is the only appearance of the name Salmon, (Psalm 68:14’s Salmon begins with a different letter and should be Zalmon).  1 Chronicles 2 uses the name Salma which feels almost like it’s supposed to be a compromise between the two forms in Ruth.

Matthew and Luke both when listing this generation in their Genealogies for Jesus use Salmon, confirming that for Christians the most proper name for this person is the one used in Ruth 4:21.

So being given a Girl’s name at Birth but going by a Male name later with that male name ultimately being confirmed to be their True Name. What does that sound like to you?  It sounds to me like someone who was Assigned Female at Birth but was truly an Ish rather than Ishshah.

So I’m confident that Salmon was Trans Masculine and that Rechab was the provider of the Seed that convinced Salmon’s children. That Rechab was Trans Feminine I’m less certain of. Matthew referring to them in a way he elsewhere only refers to mothers is compelling.  But he doesn’t use a word for Wife or Mother or Pregnancy, as far as the words used go Rachab is defined only as in some way a partner in the Begetting of Boaz.

Second Kings 17:24-41 was never meant to be about the origin of the Samaritans.

The word Samaritans is used in the KJV of verse 29, but the Hebrew word used there has no T in it, it’s just Samarians.  And it clearly refers to the people who lived here before these Mesopotamians, not them or their future descendants.

I also think it’s important to note that like the entirety of 2 Kings 17 this is really principally just about the City of Samaria, it ends the Northern Kingdom because that was its Capital.  I believe in verse 24 we’ve jumped forward to the time of Sargon II and his one account of what he did here confirms it’s about that one single city.

And Samaria the City was ironically enough never a Samaritan city, it was all through Classical Antiquity the capital of Paganism in Eretz Israel right down to Herod The Great building his major Temples to the Deified Augustus and Kore there.

Ezra and Nehemiah refer more to these Pagan Gentiles living in the land, now definitely in Cities plural, seemingly referring to additional settlement there under Esar-Haddon and Asnappar popularly presumed to be Ashurbanipal.  But those books still never mention Shechem, the city that was the actual core of the Samaritan community.

I’ve recently bought an English Translation of the Samaritan Chronicles and they do not connect their history to Sanballat at all.

But what about Matthew 10?  Doesn't verse 5 in the context of verse 6 confirm that Jesus doesn't view the Samaritans as Israelites?  

What if the Samaritans are excluded form the "Lost Sheep of The House of Israel" classification for the opposite reason Gentiles are excluded?  What if Jesus doesn't consider Lost Per Se?  

What if the Sense of Lostness he's referring to is a product of the cultural influences of the Babylonian Activity and Greek Philosophy that all three Sect of First Century Judaism have been subject to in different ways but not the Samaritans who have neither the Proto Talmudism of the Pharisees the Epicureanism of the Sadducees or the Pythagoreanism of the Essenes/Herodians?

IDK, that's one possible answer, there could be others. 

Judeo-Christian

My use of Judeo-Christian as a term is usually when what I’m saying is applicable only to Judaism and Christianity, when it applies to all Abrahamic Religions I do say Abrahamic.  And a lot of times it's a term uses just to acknowledge the Jewish origins of Christianity.

The Three Major Abrahamic Religions form a Venn Diagram, you can make any one of them seem the most different from the other two based on what you choose to Emphasize or De Emphasize.  And all three have in common not just what it academically means to be Abrahamic but also our expectation of a future Bodily Resurrection of the Dead, that  is why I don't accuse Muslims of being Pagans.

Thing is Christianity’s common ground with either of the others is much more doctrinal, much more tied to the core definition of what being a Christian even is.  While the common ground between Judaism and Islam is much more cultural, a product of being tied to the Near East and Semitic Languages.   And indeed Middle Eastern Semitic Speaking Christians seem a lot less different from Jews and Muslims on such things. 

I’ve talked before about how the core confessional beliefs of New Testament Christianity are that Jesus is both The Christ/Messiah and The Son of God.  Muslims agree that Jesus was The Messiah or Al-Maish.  Jews don’t believe Jesus was the Only Begotten Son of God but they do believe all Israelites are Children of God.

I identify with the label Judeo-Christian not because of what that tends to mean politically to American Conservatives who I loath, or because I want to deny that Islam is Abrahamic (which I don’t), or because of my sympathies with the Hebrew Roots movement, or even the Isaac connection I focused on in the Edom post.  It’s because what we have in common with Islam over Judaism is something nominal, something with minimal impact on how Islam, as it currently is, actually functions as a Religion while Judaism does still believe in the concept that they believe Jesus was not.

Islam rejects the concept of calling God Father at all, or any people even faithful Believers God’s Children.  That’s not an accusation thrown at them by Christian Polemicists, it’s something I’ve seen Islamic Apologists explain and defend.  Within Judaism there is dispute on if the Fatherhood of God applies to all of Humanity or only Israel (which has parallels within Christianity), I’ve seen Jewish Websites taking the more exclusivist position quote Rashi as agreeing with them, but today the more Universalist approach has become more popular.

The Fatherhood of God is vital to my Theology, to my Understanding of Universal Salvation.  Jesus' status as The Messiah, as a prophesied Savior figure, only has any meaning in the context of being a means by which The Father intends to Save His Children.

Of course there are Christians who’ve functionally removed the Fatherhood of God from how they view His character.  What’s wrong with Islam is mostly what it has in common with Calvinism.

This is in my opinion also the key to how to solve the issue of the Qurran and later Islamic Sources claiming the Jews claimed an Uzair to be the Son of God.  I think Sallam ibn Mishkam really condemned Muhammad for rejecting that Israel is God's Son as demonstrated in Exodus 4:22-23 and Hosea 11:1. The Etymology of where Uzair I can't be sure of but it could Usayr ibn Zarim the leader of the Banu Nadir which was Sallam's clan and Muhammad chose to word his response like they were saying this of Usayr specifically.

Sam Aronow is a Jewish History YouTuber who I view as the Modern Josephus in that his presentation of history is better the more recent it is.  He provides an invaluable breakdown of the History of Modern Zionism for example.  But every video on Ancient History is filled with glaring issues that to someone like me who’s into the primary sources for these subjects are very frustrating to listen to.

In his video on the birth of Islam he went on a rant about how he doesn’t like “Judeo-Christian” because he feels Judaism has more in common with Islam than Christianity, he’s barely concealing that what motivates this is annoyance at American Conservatives, he’s looking at it through the lens of two religions that are both marginalized minorities in the West and is looking for common ground because of that.  But the most recent episodes of his own series have shown how quick and easy it was for Arab Christians and Muslims to find solidarity with each other when they felt threatened by Zionism.  And there are now plenty of Fundamentalist Islamic states where it’s Jews and Christians who have a shared status of being oppressed by Islam.  I 100% Blame Western Imperialism for the current state of Islam, but regardless that’s our reality. 

But what’s funny to me is how even though it's motivated by annoyance at political usage of Judeo-Christian in a mostly Protestant Country (Conservative American Jews do go along with it like Ben Shapiro), he’s clearly making his argument based on Catholicism.

Like on the “Central Authority” issue he’s definitely thinking of Catholicism.  Low Church Congregational Polity denominations are definitely way less central in their authority then either Judaism or Islam.

Judaism and Islam have a more Dogmatic Ritual Law system while Christianity was never intended to be an Organized Religion in that way.  But various strands of Christianity do have cultural practices we debate about, like the Foot Washing argument or when to observe the Eucharist.

The idea that in Christianity our Personal Relationship with God is influenced by Worldly Affairs just comes from nowhere, the Relationship with God is via The Spirit.  Christians also don’t believe we have any promise that nothing bad will happen to us.  The only Christians who believe anything close to that today are the Prosperity Theology heretics who are a unique product of 20th Century American Capitalism.

The concept of a Personal Relationship with God is one Christianity has that the other two don’t according to Aronow, but for different reasons.  For Judaism it’s a matter of where we are on the timeline, Hebrew Bible Prophecies that Christians view as more already Fulfilled then Jews do.  For Islam it’s about doubling down on the Platonist heresies of Divine Impassibility and Divine Immutability that they inherited from Christianity. 

I know when you ask Google if Judaism teaches either of those things the first answer you’ll get is yes because websites like Wikipedia can only interpret that question as asking if The Messiah can be God in The Flesh.  But The Hebrew Bible definitely teaches a God who is emotional and changes and Jewish Theologians recognize that.  

Sam Aronow also misunderstands why the Miaphysites (if he’s against calling people things they don’t like being called he should stop saying Monophysites) and Nestorians seemingly have more compatibility with early Islam then the followers of the Imperial Churches. They did not stress the Human Nature of Christ any more than the Chalcedonians did.  

A lot of it was being more culturally Semitic, but for Nestorians it was chiefly sharing the extreme view of Divine Impassibility.  It was actually only within Chalceodniasm there was ever any resistance to Divine Impassibility especially in the 6th Century when the Fifth Ecumenical Council explicitly affirmed The Theopaschite Formula.

There was no Council of Yavne or Jamnia, that’s a conjecture formed from a few vague Talmudic references to some discussion of the Canon happening there.  

Religion for Breakfast has a good video on how there was no one signal moment that Judaism and Christianity split but rather many were to some degree getting along attending Synagogue and observing Jewish Feast Days together even into the Fifth Century, in fact the Council of Orleans is evidence for Gaul into the 6th Century.  The Greco-Roman Emperors and High Church Bishops tended to not like it but for the common people it was a different matter.   And this lack of full separation I suspect lasted longer among Semitic peoples and in part explains the origins of Islam.

In a way the belief in a very early clean break between Christianity and Judaism is tied to the popular misconception of Christian persecution under Rome.   The Neronian Persecution didn't happen, the persecution under Domitian was part of his persecution of Jews and the same likely applies to what little Roman in origin Christian Persecution happened under Trajan and Hadrian. Christian Persecution happened in select outbursts, originally mostly local. Only the Diocletian Persecution was as intense as popular fiction will present the entire Pre-Milvian Bridge Era. So no Christians were not by default excluded from the legal protections granted to Jews by Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Septimius Severus and Caracalla. Tertullian talks about Severus being well disposed towards Christians so I get annoyed at him being labeled one of the 10 great Persecutors just because of things that happened during his reign, same goes for Marcus Aurelius.  Also no Caracalla did not massacre his own wedding to start a War with Parthia.

Personally I theorize that in the Revolt Against Constantius Gallus some Nicene Christians allied with the Jewish Rebels seeing the Arian Emperor as a common enemy, after all Athanasius was calling him a forerunner of The Antichrist.  Cyril of Jerusalem claims loyalty to The Emperor publicly in his surviving letters but I’m skeptical of that. Likewise during the reign of Valens I suspect some Near Eastern Jews may have allied with the Nicene Arab Queen Mawiya.  But our later Historians of these events didn’t wanna talk about that. 

Aronow’s discussion of Constantine takes at face value too much of what Eusbeius says, Eusibius liked to make his fictionalized Constantine a mouthpiece for his own views.  The real reason for the desire to stop using the Jewish Calendar for determining the date of Pascha was because of the same issues going on within Judaism, people didn’t like it falling too far from the Spring Equinox.  The Kariates came to a similar conclusion.

And Aelia Eudocia wasn’t a Pagan, she was a Christian who even got involved in an internal Christian dispute siding with the Miaphysites in their 452-3 revolt.  Another revolt that I speculate might have gotten Jewish support that the chroniclers ignored given Eudocia friendly relations with the Jews.

I’m not making this post to tell anyone who they should and shouldn’t feel solidarity with.  I’m simply showing why it’s not nonsense to see Christianity and Judaism as more like each other than either is to Islam. 

Euphrates in The Bible

There is possibly no type of thing that shares its name with others of the same type of thing more commonly than rivers.  People who study the geography of Britain love to make fun of how most of its many rivers have one of only three different names.  This is partly caused by a lot of communities just calling whatever river is important to their way of life simply what their word for river is.

Biblically that’s why the Nile is never mentioned by name, The Israelites spent so much time in Egypt that an Egyptian word from River simply became a loan word in Hebrew that gets translated River because it’s used synonymously with Nahar.

However there is one River name in The Bible people continue to insist can only ever refer to one very specific river, The Euphrates.

In Speculation on where Eden and it’s Garden was, the most respectable theories are considered the ones built on assuming there is only one Euphrates, but assuming that Euphrates is the River that runs through Iraq, Syria and Turkey forces so many other place names in this passage to be somewhere other then what they usually mean in Scripture. Frankly I think after The Flood (and I think this even when entertaining a local Flood view) the naming of all places were essentially rebooted, there is no real point in trying to identify them.

However, the appearances of the name Eurphates in The Bible that really bug me are when it’s used to define the boundaries of The Promised Land, Genesis 15:18, Deuteronomy 1:7, Deuteronomy 11:24 and Joshua 1:4. 

Because the most truly detailed descriptions of the boundary of what is promised to The Twelve Tribes of Israel in Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47-48 clearly make The Jordan the eastern border.  The three Trans-Jordan Tribes are depicted as departing from God’s intention when they ask to settle in those Trans-Jordan regions, God allows it but it’s still not his ideal. In Deuteronomy 1-2 God even talks about Edom, Moab and Ammon also having their lands because God gave it to them.

If it was just the Promise to Abraham we could argue the other side of Jordan is what's for the other Abrahamic Peoples.  The other three verses are the real concern.

Maybe the Euphrates is somehow a Northern Border rather than Eastern, especially given its pairing with the Al-Arish (River in Egypt) in the South?

Well the Northern border of Israel is more complicated to explain but the mounting evidence is that it too doesn't extend further north then Sidon at the absolute most but probably no further north than the northern extent of modern Israel pre taking the Golan Heights.

The Tribe of Dan in Judges 18 leaves their intended allotment and I suspect the intended allotment of Israel altogether just like the Trans-Jordan tribes did except without even asking permission first.  So even if Laish is much further North then Tel-Dan the use of Dan as an idiom for Israel’s northern extent is still in my view a matter of the Southern Border of Dan being the Northern Border of Israel.

Hamath as the name of a specific City is not even in Lebanon but Syria north of Lebanon.  But I think many Biblical uses of it are of a wider territory and that specifically the “Entering in of Hamath” is that space between the southern Litani River and the northern Jordan. 

Obadiah 1:20 is difficult to Translate it seems, but many versions make Zarephath the northern extent of Israel and that is most likely a reference to Sarepta, a city located south of Sidon.  When defining  Asher’s northern extent Joshua 19:28 identifies it with places approaching Sidon. 

Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 27-28 use names for the Northern Borders not found anywhere else and thus seemingly impossible to identify on their own now.  But I'm compelled by Joseph Schwars’s argument that this northern Mount Hor is the southern tip of the Lebanon Mountain Range. 

The name Lebanon in The Bible refers to a Mountain Range not a nation state, but it is pretty much all in modern Lebanon. And that’s the thing about the Deuteronomy and Joshua Euphrates references, if you read them carefully they are clearly placing their Euphrates in or right next to  the Lebanon Mountains. Which makes the most viable river to match that description the Litani River.

When you google “Is the Litani River mentioned in The Bible” you’ll find that it’s not by that name but people see in the references to Misrephothmain in Joshua 11:8 and 13:6 which clearly associates it with being unto Sidon like the northern border of Asher, but that name I think refers specifically to where it meets the Mediterranean.

I think the Euphrates in early Israelite History was always the Litani and in The Bible doesn’t refer to the river in Mesopotamia till the Babylonian Captivity or maybe at the soonest the references to Necho King of Egypt fighting Assyria there.

So that’s my take, the northern border of Israel is the East-West flowing part of the Litani River. 

David and Solomon and other Kings wound up ruler a larger territory, that's as Tributaries, they never tried to annex anything beyond what the Twelve Tribes were allotted.

As far as the small piece of Lebanon that is Biblical Israel in the argument I just made.   God tolerated Tyre being Sidonian in Antiquity. I'm sure he’s fine with it now too. 

I am skeptical that the Idumeans were ever Edomites

As far as the role Idumea and Idumeans played in my Edom and Christianity post, the belief in that connection is what matters there, it was never about arguing for a literal Genealogical link between Edom and Christian.

You know how Bible Skeptics say that the 1 Kings 17:24-41 narrative for the origins of the Samaritans is just Judean propaganda to deny their Israelite Heritage?  Well whether that’s true or not the same idea is what I think happened to the Idumeans, they were a group of fellow Israelites who became too culturally distinct for some conservatives to tolerate admitting their full kinship.

The first problem is that Ezra-Nehemiah spends some time talking about Gentiles in the region who are posing a problem for the returning Israelites, but the Edomites aren’t among them. Yet the standard understanding of Edomite-Idumean history is that the Edomites settled in the Hebron-Maresha region during the Captivity. 

I’m skeptical of Edom becoming Idum or Idoum in Greek, and for why I will focus on just the first letter.  Maybe there is another precedent for names that begin with an Aleph becoming an Iota in Greek, but it’s uncommon, usually the Iota replaces the Yot while Aleph becomes either Alpha or one of the Es.

Joshua 15:52 lists a place called Dumah in the allotment of Judah.  Lots of Hebrew names that begin with a Yot have variants without the Yot and it seems the non Yot version often came first.  So if a Y’dumah version of this place name existed at some point it could have become Idumea in Greek.  The only appearance of this name in the New Testament is Mark:38 where it’s a name of a region not of a people group.

The Greek Texts commonly called the Septuagint or LXX are, I believe, much later then they are traditionally claimed to be, and that the use of forms of Idumea for Edom and Edomite in it are derived from the false Idumean-Edomites identification not an argument for it. Yet it is still not always used. Genesis 25:30 uses a spelling that begins with Epsilon and has an Omega in it as does 32:3. Genesis 36:16 is the only appearance of an Iota form in the entire LXX Pentateuch.  The Pentateuch is the oldest part of the LXX, both the letter of Aristeas and Josephus refer to it as only being The Pentateuch.  Yet even the LXX Pentateuch as we know it likely had some later tampering since our oldest copies for much of it are 4th Century Christian Bibles.  (And strangely enough Dumah is missing from the LXX of Joshua 15.)

Every place where the KJV Translation of the Apocryphal 1 Esdras says Edomites is Idumeans in the Greek.  1 Maccabees 5 refers to Children of Esau in Idumea but only there it doesn't repeat in other references to people in Idumea nor does the topic of Esau come up in 2 Maccabees.

The main pillar of alleged Archaeological evidence for this connection is that Qos was worshiped at pre-Hasmonean Marshea, but it’s mostly only because of this that Qos is viewed as a distinctly Edomite National Deity.  The only evidence for original Edomites having anything to do with Qos is that two for their Kings known from Assyrian Inscriptions had what look like Qos theophoric names, but Qos is also just a Semitic Root meaning Bow and the only seemingly Qos Theophoric in The Bible is Barkos a Levites in Ezra 2:53 and Nehemiah 7:55 not an Edomite.

Both The Hebrew Bible and Egyptian Records heavily imply the Edomites also worshiped YHWH, just possibly in an Idolatrous fashion like the Northern Kingdom.

Qos the Pagan deity is probably Nabatena in origin, a variant of the Arabian Quzzah.  When Strabo said the Idumeans were of Nabatean origin he was partly right culturally more so than genealogically. Even the mainstream view of the Iudmeans admits Nabatean cultural influence in Maresha.  (And it may or may not be relevant to note that the descendants of Dumah son of Ishmael were associated with Seir in Isaiah 21:11 and were probably counted among the Nabateans in Greco-Roman times.) 

A Marriage Contract considered Idumean found at Maresha dated to 176 BC (before the Maccabees) closely resembles Ketubah Jewish marriage contracts. I think these Idumeans were just highly Hellenized Judeans, possibly to the point of leaving Judaism altogether but at least to the point of tolerating Polytheism/Idolatry and neglecting Circumcision.  Josephus includes Cappethra among Idumean towns but it's own Wikipedia Page says the archelogy shows it's population to have always been Hellenized Jews during the Hellenistic era.

But maybe some degree of cultural divergence begins with the Babylonian Captivity.  Just like the Assyrian it probably wasn't as complete as a casual face value reading of the account makes it seem.  Specifically there is no Biblical or Archeological evidence for Hebron or these other later Idumean cities having their populations deported.  Tekoa/Teqoa is the furthest north of Josephus's Idumean cities and is the only one mentioned in the context of the Babylonian conquest at all in Jeremiah 6:1, or during the return form the Captivity via the Tekoites in Nehemiah 3.

The forced Conversion of the Idumeans isn’t in either book of Maccabees since it happens after their narrative ends.  Josephus refers to the Forced Conversion which he says happened under Hyrcanus I, but Josephus says Hyrcanus tried this on more than just Idumeans but it only seems to have stuck with them. 

There are also historians who question the narrative of a conquest and forced conversion of the Idumeans in the first place, but do so in the context of thinking they converted more willingly over time. I think the “conversion” of the Idumeans was really just rolling back their extreme Hellenization and that they were always Israelites of the Tribe of Judah.  

Their leading families probably descended from Caleb and/or Cadet Branches of the House of David.  Adoraim was built or rebuilt by Rehoboam according to 2 Chronicles 11:9, actually the same chapter says the same for a number of these but for Adoraim this is the first time it shows up. Rehoboam also had a lot of spare sons and daughters.

The Idumeans disappear from history after AD 70.  I think in the captivity the quasi distinction between them and other Judeans simply faded away.  But I suspect some did become Christians and maybe particularly contributed to the Palestinian population both in the Hebron region and the Liturgical Greek Palestinian Christians of Jerusalem & Bethlehem and nearby villages which emerged after the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

How does this recontextualize my argument for Herod not being an Idumean?  It could go either way really. 

What happened to the Edomites?  Well like The Hebrew Bible says I think their history simply ended when they were conquered by Babylon, in Jeremiah’s prophecies of various nations being similarly conquered Edom stands out in being the only one without a promised restoration. Any people of Edomite ancestry who did survive were simply absorbed into other peoples, that was the end of Edom as a distinct identity. 

Even what was still there for Babylon to conquer was already a greatly diminished remnant, they’d previously been nearly wiped out by Amaziah (2 Kings 14:7-10 and 2 Chronicles 25:14-20) and then by Simeonites in the time of Hezekiah (1 Chronicles 4:39-43) and then possibly by Assyria, the last recorded King of Edom was a contemporary of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal.  

Maybe there is a small chance that a small number of Edomites wound up living in Southern Judah and mingling with the most Judahites who lived there and brought a few cultural influences with them.  But some Edomites winding up among the Israelites was happening all the way back in the days of Saul.

Betar is mentioned in the Masoretic Text

[Update Feburary 5th 2025: This theory is defunct since I now know the name of Betharabah points to the Arabah plain in the east.  Also the Archeology for Betar only goes back to the 700s BC so indeed probably isn't in Joshua 15.  Rather it could be one of the cities built in the Mountains of Judah by King Jotham in 2 Chronicles 27:4, or perhaps have it's roots in Uzziah's projects from 26:10.  Based on what The Talmud says it seems Betar was a name given to this city because of The Bar-Kochba Revolt.]

Shiloh and Bethel

Shiloh as a name of a location does not appear in the Pentateuch, the name only appears in a Prophecy in Genesis 49, that can be interpreted as about the later Shiloh but we Christians like to see it is ultimately about Jesus.

If I used the Pentateuch alone to deduce where God intended the final resting place of The Tabernacle to be, I would assume it was Bethel based on Genesis 28. Genesis 12 and 13 use the name Bethel retroactively, it was because of the events of Genesis 28 that Israelites called where Jacob rested Bethel and in time that also applied that name to the nearby town of Luz.

Bethel is one of the more indisputable locations in Biblical Archeology, I do not dispute that modern Beitin is where the city of Luz/Bethel was.  In Joshua 16 and 18 Bethel is laced on the border of the Ephraim and Benjamin as a place that in some sense belongs to both.

Shiloh as a place name is introduced in the Book of Joshua but not during the accounts of the conquest or the allotment of lands to the Tribes, it first appears as the place where Joshua set up The Tabernacle that housed The Ark of The Covenant.   1 Samuel seems to imply The Ark remained consistently in Shiloh all through The Judges period until they lost it to The Philistines. And yet Judges 20:26-27 places The Ark at Bethel in the only reference to The Ark in the Book of Judges.

Really the only Bible passage that gives us any clue where Shiloh is located in Judges 21:19.

It’s first described as “on the Northside of Bethel” but that does not read to me as “North of Bethel” per se, certainly not closer to Shechem then Bethel where it’s traditionally placed. Rather it sounds more like it’s identifying it as Northern Bethel, in the context of how Bethel is allotted in Joshua you could say Ephraim’s side of Bethel.

But the verse also then places Shiloh to the East, towards the rising sun, on the road going up to Shechem.

Back in Genesis 12-13 Abraham’s Bethel Altar wasn’t in the city proper but east of it, between Bethel and Hai/Ai on the road as he traveled to and from Shechem. The place where Jacob rested is assumed to be the same. 

This Biblical Archaeology YouTube channel talks about the ruins of a Church built East of Bethel and West of Hai/Ai that is presumed to have commemorated that very location.

https://youtu.be/8cqBePFD9S4

I used Google Maps to get a better sense of this geography than the very primitive maps provided in the video.  And these ruins are indeed east of modern Beitin, but specifically of Northern Beitin, very far north.

So I believe that was the true location of Shiloh, where the name was principally used of The Tabernacle.  I don’t think it was ever much of its own distinct city but may have been at times synonymous with northern Bethel or Ephraimite Bethel.

The Daughters of Shiloh from Judged 21:21 I think refers to the Women by the Gate of the Tabernacle.

The Prophet Ahaijah was called a Shilonite I think because he liked to live a Hermit like lifestyle nearby the former Tabernacle location rather than as an indication of citizenship to a specific City.

I think the Shilonites of 1 Chronicles 9:5 are really a variation of Shelanites (Numbers 26:20) given how it appears between Pheraz and Zerah discussing the Tribe of Judah.

When you make a Map of the layout of The Holy Land in Ezekiel 40-48 you will notice that the Temple/Tabernacle isn’t in The City YHWHW-Shamah but significantly to the north of if.  If YHWH-Shamah is Jerusalem then perhaps this Mishkan is Shiloh east of Bethel once again, but even that assumption could be wrong.

I think the city most commonly traditionally identified with Shiloh is actually the Taanathshiloh located in northern Ephraim in Joshua 16:6.

Kadesh and Sinai were not in Jordan or Arabia

I stopped supporting the Jebel El Lawz theory a long time ago, but I”m no longer inclined to believe in the Jebel Baghir theory for Sinai either.  But most importantly I can’t even support Identifying Kadesh with Petra any longer.

This Link lays out the arguments for a Sinai Peninsula location for Mount Sinai.  

https://armstronginstitute.org/1059-where-is-mount-sinai-part-1-not-in-saudi-arabia

I still haven’t made up my mind 100% on where exactly I think Sinai was, the most official mainstream identification could be legit, but I”m equally open to Mount Catherine and Mount Sherbal and am willing to consider Hashem El Tarif.  But I can’t consider Mount Helal a plausible Sinai because God in Exodus 13:17 stressed taking them to Sinai partly to keep them far away from the Philistines, saying He’s going well out of the way to do so.  

The claim that Sinai is the tallest mountain in its region comes from quotes in Philo and Josephus, The Bible never says that.  If anything some translations of Psalm 68:16 suggest the Mountain God chooses doesn’t look impressive by secular standards.  The immediate context as a Davidic Psalm is probably about The Temple Mount or Zion, but it’s still worth noting.

Kadesh is the same, I’m not entirely convinced the current official site is correct, but I do now believe Kadesh-Barnea and Meirbah are the same location and must be west of the Arabah.

Now some anti Jebel El Lawz articles I’ve read other than what I linked to are arguing strongly for a more Northern Sinai Location based on the Southern Sinai being more than 11 days from Kadesh since they are not disputing Kadesh’s location.  Thing is I don’t think we can know for certain what distance that implies, moderners could easily be overestimating or underestimating how fan Ancient Peoples could travel.  We don't know what differences between how this region was then and now could make a difference in estimating that.  And as far as the Israelites Journey from Sinai to Kadesh goes there was various supernatural Assistance from God that could have sped things up.

My belief that the Petra as Kadesh theory could be Biblically supported was mainly that I had for some dumb reason misread Ezekiel 47:19, 48:28 and Number 34:4 as making Kadesh the Easternmost point of Israel’s Southern Border.  In fact Ezekiel makes Tamar the eastern end of the southern border and its Akrabbim in Numbers.  

The reason some think even Kadesh is on the Eastern Border is because they think Numbers 34:4 says “south of” Kadesh thus Kadesh can only be outside the Holy Land if it’s east of the border..  The KJV and YLT readings of Numbers 34:4 are arguably ambiguous but can be taken as saying to keep Kadesh-Barnea south of the borderline you are drawing. And Brenton’s Speutigant says “and the going forth of it shall be southward to Cades Barne”.  The Geneva Bible also agrees with the KJV and YLT on this.  The “south of” readings are entirely the fault of corrupt modern translations.

Why are these verses defined as the Southern Border if it’s actually still just an Eastern Border till we reach the reference to Kadesh?  That’s a question they don’t answer.

People also use Numbers 20:17 to argue Kadesh was on the King’s Highway.  In that verse they are promising to stay on that road as they travel through Edom, something they were denied precision to do, it doesn’t say anything about where Kadesh was located.

The Petra as Kadesh argument begins with Josephuss.  

Josephus’s first reference to Petra during the Wandering in Book III Chapter 2 of Antiquities is not as a place the Israleites were at but as a City of The Amalekites  That frankly seems mutually exclusive with being any place the Israleites camped at much less where they were the longest.  In Genesis 14:7 I believe Moses is anachronistically using geographical terms that weren't used at the time, but either way it’s not making Kadesh and the “country of the Amalekites” exactly the same location, rather it was from Einmishphat these kings carried out their campaign against those who lived where the Amalekites will live in the future.

In Antiquities Book VI Chapter 4 near the end Petra is associated with where Aaron died after leaving Meribah-Kadesh not Meribah-Kadesh itself, the place where Miriam Died is a different location.  And Josephus is arguably describing them as coming near Petra but not in the city proper.  The proposed Petra identification for Mount Hor, Jebel Harun, isn’t in Petra proper but to its North-West. I’m skeptical of even that location for Mount Hor since Numbers 21:4 and Deuteronomy 2:8 heavily imply to me that Mount Hor was west of the Arabah.  

But even if Petra's Mount Hor is correct, that actually works against Meirbah being in Petra proper because the narrative of Numbers 20-21 has Israel travel in the opposite direction when they reach Hor.  The context is that the King of Edom just refused to let Israel pass through his land so now Israel is heading away from Edom and from the Canaanite king Arad to go around Edom to Moab.  Meaning Israel should be heading East and/or South not North-West.

Josephus also doesn't mention Petra when he mentioned Paran in Book III Chapter 14.

If the Israelites were in or just south of Petra at any point it could be where the Brazen Serpent Narrative took place in Numbers 21:5-10, which is either Zalmonah or Punon of Numbers 31:41-43.

Josephus’s third reference to Petra is again in Book IV but this time Chapter 7 where it seems to be a Midanite city built or rebuilt by King Rekem (Numbers 31:8 and Joshua 13:21).   But at this point we've moved from early in the 40 year period to near the end, so any number of things could have changed which tribe controlled Petra.  Again this is a capital of a people the Israelites were at war with, can’t be the same as Kadesh.

Sometimes I wonder if the three Petra’s Josephus referred to aren’t even the same place, he treats each one like an introduction, and the Greeks may have called various Nabetian Rock Carved cities Petra.  The city we today call Petra has been archaeologically verified to have also been called Rigmu/Reken so it would have to be the Midianite one.

Those still fanatically devoted to Petra being Kadesh also confuse Petra and Sela/Cela which are separate cities.Sela is a core Edomite city, the Israelites were explicitly never in Edomite territory, or traveled through only its southernmost outskirts. Petra was also under Edomite dominion at some time periods when Edom ruled well beyond its main homeland, but Cela is presented as the heart of Edom, a place that is Edomite even when Edom was at its smallest.

Kadesh was not an Oasis, Genesis 14:7 gives us some reason to suspect a Spring/Fountain may have been nearby, but there was no local vegetation, God fed the Israelites supernaturally using the Manna and whatever local natural water there was became insufficient by Numbers 20 near the end of Israel’s time there hence the second Meribah incident.

Of the more mainstream scholarly choices for Kadesh I prefer Ain Qedeis over Ain Qudariet, the later became more favored because it’s Spring was larger but I don’t expect a large Spring and I do expect God to keep Israel far from the Philistines and closer to Edom.  Also both Petra and Ain Qudariet proponents spent most of their refuting of Ain Qedeis on just how barren it is, because again they are wrongly looking for an Oasis or some other place that could be naturally self-sustaining.

I do not think Kadesh was at the time a normal stopping point for traveling in this region, God is taking the Israelites through a route off the beaten path and He’s feeding them supernaturally.

One hunch I sometimes entertain for a Kadesh location is where the later Nabatean City of Avdat was built, or the nearby Ein Avdat.  But that’s pretty random and not based on much.

There are two places some have proposed for Sinai that I think could maybe be more likely as Kadesh locations since there was a Mountain at Kadesh in Numbers 14:40 and Deuteronomy 33:2.  Those are Hashem El Tarif and Har Karkom.

Let’s speculate on the history of the name Kadesh itself.  

The way Numbers 10-12 don’t use that name right away when Israel started heading there or arrived there but introduced it in 13:26 has me thinking this place wasn’t called Kadehs before then and only was a Holy location to the Israelites because it housed The Mishkan longer than any other single location during the 40 years in the Wilderness.

If that is correct I’m of two minds about the three uses of the name in Genesis (14:9, 16:14 and 20:1).  They could be another example of Moses editorially using a later place name anachronistically.  Or it could be a different Kadesh that has nothing to do with any place the Israelites camped at in Numbers. Genesis never uses the names Barnea, Meirbah or Zin. Paran is mentioned in Genesis once, maybe twice.  Genesis 21:21 identifies Paran as where Hagar and Ishmael settled which is why Islam needs to pretend Paran is where Mecca is. Genesis 14:6’s El-Paran, if it's the same place, is in context clearly distinct from Eimpishphat/Kadesh. Kadesh in Genesis is never a place Abraham or the Patriarchs visit, rather they visit some place between Kadesh and somewhere else. I’m starting to think the Genesis Kadesh could be Ein Qedeis and Numbers Kadesh someplace further east in the Negev.

The added Barnea is only ever used after the fact, not while Israel is still there.  While Israel was there it was The Kadesh but after leaving it needed to be distinguished from the various places the Pagans called Kadesh.  Kadesh-Meribah isn’t used in the Biblical Text but rather Meribah-Kadesh, there it’s Kadesh that is distinguishing that Meirbah from the earlier Meirbah of Exodus 17 at Rephidim.

Even the location of Mount Seir is a bit of an Enigma.

The Wikipedia page for Seir says The Bible refers to two mountains named Seir, one in Judah and one in Edom East of the Arabah.  But the Judean Seir of Joshua 15:10 is identified with a modern Palestinian VIllage far more likely to be Zior of Joshuah 15:54.  Joshua 15:10 is associating Seir with Judah’s border in a way that could imply being on the other side of it.

Deuteronomy 1:2 and 33:2 seem to place Seir between Sinai and Kadeshbarnea. But Deuteronomy 1:44 (in referencing back to the end of Numbers 14) and Deuteronomy  2 helps clarify that 1:2 is better read as saying Kadeshbarnea was on the way from Sinai to Seir, and that Seir is north of Kadehsbarnea. And chapter 33 is being Poetic, perhaps like the Seir reference in the Song of Deborah alludes to Seir as a place where YHWH had been worshiped.

I think the Joshua 15:10 Seir and the other references to Seir are the same being Edomite territory South-East of Judah’s allotment.

In all that context obviously the Easternmost candidate for either Ezion-Geber or Elath I find plausible is Tell el-Kheleifeh.

The more I think about my initial point of where Kadesh should be relative to Mount Hor, I think it’s either Har Karkom or some spot due east of Har Karkom but still west of the Arabah.

What implications does all this have for Petra as the original Mecca theory?  

I actually still support that one, because Biblically Accurate or not the misidentification of Kadesh and Paran with Petra predates the Birth of Islam being fully formed already in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Onomasticon and Jerome in Hebrew Questions on Genesis and to this day the local traditions still claim to be where the Meribah incident happened. 

"Kadesh Barnea (or Cades Barnea): "Kadea Barne. The desert which extends to (the city of) Petra a city of Arabia. There Mariam went up and died, and there the doubting Moses struck the rock to give water to the thirsty people. The tomb of Mariam herself is pointed out there even now. There also Chodollagomor beat the chiefs of the Amalakites." Eusebius, Onomasticon

"Gen 14:7: And they returned and came to the fountain of judgement, that is, to Cades. Because Cades was so named later on, it is specified by way of anticipation; and it refers to a place near Petra, which is called 'The Fountain of Judgement', because God judged the people there" (Saint Jerome's Hebrew Questions on Genesis, translated by C. T. R. Hayward, p 46, Gen 14:7, 1995 AD)

The origins of the Petra view even in antiquity probably came from misunderstanding Josephus.  And from that came the misidentifying of Paran as being in Arabia Deserta.

I dislike Extra Credits videos relevant to the Oriental Orthodox more every year

First of all the fact that in the final Episode of the Early Church Schisms series and the entire Justinian Saga they keep saying “Monophysite” in the videos proper to then in the Liars videos acknowledge the Miaphysite distinction but stills defend their Academic use of Monophysite really bugs me.

No one Self Identified as principally a Monophysite even the few niche Heretics who didn’t prefer Miaphysite.  But those people are never talked about in any of these videos, it’s all about the 5th and 6th Century Christians who became what we now know as the Oriental Orthodox Church.  They are ONLY ever talking about the Miaphysites who find the Monophysite label offensive.  

Monophysite is a term that shouldn't exist.

But I’ve grown to be annoyed even by how they initially defined the distinction between Chalcedonian and Miaphysite Christology. 

Yes I agree that ultimately the difference between both of them and Nestorianism is semantical, all three view Jesus as Fully Divine and Fully Human and the nuanced issues of how the two natures interact I can’t really as a Low Church Protestant find a definitive Sola Scriptura answer to, it’s a Mystery that maybe God didn’t want us overthinking this much.  Unfortunately I am a Nerdy overthinker by nature.

Years ago I had a thing for mildly preferring the Nestorian Formula, but the more I’ve learned about how Divine Impassibility is uniquely vital to their Logic the more I’ve drifted away from that.  But let’s return to the topic at hand.

Extra Credits chooses to define Chalcedonian Christology as “Two natures that are Mixed” and Miaphysite Christology as “One Nature that is both Divine and Human”.  This is mistaken however, there is nothing about Mixing or Mixture in the Chalcedonian Definition.

Rather the clause in the Chalcedonian Definition that the Oriental Orthodox object to “in Two Natures” because they prefer “Out of Two Natures”.

When I define how I personally view the Incarnation without trying to fit into one of  the boxes of Late Antiquity Greeks arguing over nuanced distinctions of Hellenic Verbiage, I like to say it like this.

In The Incarnation Christ Unified both the Divine and Human Natures, and that Unification is not ultimately just in Christ but at the future Consumption of all things, when all the Dead are Bodily Raised and All Things are Made New the separation between Divine and Human will fade away.  That of course also needs to be understood in the Context of my Materialist (maybe a little Stoic) understanding of Divinity in contrast to the Platonism more popular in modern Mainstream Christianity.

One can see how at face value the way Extra Credits had defined them made Chalcedonianism seem more compatible with my perspective, while the real distinction makes the Miaphysite model seem more compatible.  However I also suspect many Christians in both camps would say my way of looking at it can fit theirs.

I’ve been wanting to write this post for a while now but keep putting it off because it feels like every time I look into the “In Two natures” vs “Out of Two natures” distinction I change my mind on which one I prefer.  Sometimes I get a little too paranoid that the “Out of Two Natures” phrasing could be taken out of context to imply Jesus is a New Third Nature neither Human or Divine.

Honestly I feel like I’m sometimes biased against the Oriental Orthodox because of my personal distaste for Cyril of Alexandria.  Yes the Chalcedonians also consider him a Saint but the Miaphysites often seem like they are basing their entire self identity on being the “True Cyrilians”.  But it’s important to remember that people are complicated, Cyril could be right on Christology and a Bad Tyrannical Leader at the same time.  

The Branch of Oriental Orthodoxy most directly connected to Cyril, the Copts, are now the religious Minority in Egypt.  They have more in common with those Cryil persecuted than Cyril however much they may be in denial of Cyril’s villainy. 

Regardless of which Christology I prefer, I'm not eligible to join any Denomination that adheres to the Second Ecumenical Council because of my Congregationalist views on Church Governance and opposition to Infant Baptism.

Census Before Cyrenius was Governor

So I have become aware of another solution to the Luke 2 Census issue thanks to this PDF.

https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1072&context=sor_fac_pubs

THE CENSUS AND QUIRINIUS: LUKE 2:2 by Wayne Brinale

This answer is Section for starting on Page 7 of the PDF saying page 48 at the top. 

I shall now Copy/Paste some form it.

Feldman, in his edition of Josephus, states that "Luke 2:2 can be vindicated only if we translate ... , This census was the first before that under the prefectureship of Quirinius in Syria.'  The adjective prötos may mean "first" or "earlier," "former,".

"First census" must be taken in its Hellenistic connotation as the first of two, and then we must expand the clause a little. "This census was before the census which Quirinius, governor of Syria, made."

I am personally annoyed on why so many think the well known Census of the Empire taken in 8 BC can't fit this even when they are not identifying it with AD 6. Is it just lack of a formal "Decree"?

Again Tertulian says Saturninus was Governor of Syria when Jesus was born without any acknowledgment of how Luke seemingly says someone else was Governor.

Sunday is not Pagan

 First I want to state clearly that I disagree with the notion that Sunday replaces the Sabbath or that any weekly observance on the “first Day of the Week” is Biblically ordained.  

And that I strongly believe Biblically The Lord’s Day is The Sabbath.  I believe Paulian Christians kept keeping the Sabbath into the 2nd Century and that even in the Fourth Century many Seventh Day Sabbath keeping Christians still saw themselves as Paulian like the Nazarenes.

But this idea that Sunday was chosen because Pagan at Heart Emperors wanted to worship Jesus on a day for Sun Worship is absurd.

Christians well before Nicaea did start doing First day of the Week Observances because they misunderstood certain “first day of the week” references in 1 Corinthians 16:2 and Acts 20:7.

There was no Seven Day Week among Pre-Christian Greco-Romans, the idea of a Seven Day Week with one day in particular as more Holy than the others is inherently Abrahamic no matter which day you choose.

I'm going to copy and paste a Quote from Tacitus at this link, skim down to [4].

https://www.livius.org/sources/content/tacitus/tacitus-on-the-jews/

“We are told that the seventh day was set aside for rest because this marked the end of their toils. In course of time the seductions of idleness made them devote every seventh year to indolence as well. Others say that this is a mark of respect to Saturn, either because they owe the basic principles of their religion to the Idaei, who, we are told, were expelled in the company of Saturn and became the founders of the Jewish race, or because, among the seven stars that rule mankind, the one that describes the highest orbit and exerts the greatest influence is Saturn. A further argument is that most of the heavenly bodies complete their path and revolutions in multiples of seven.”

First of all we see a hint that the very idea of a day of rest was revolting to Roman Pagans, this is all the more reason why I believe Capitalist “Work Ethic” Values are Roman in Origin not Protestant.

When at some point Christianized Greco-Romans started identifying the days of the weeks with the visible wandering heavenly bodies since there were seven of them, Saturday was named for Saturn probably because of the influence of what Tacitus said here, or the older sources he got these ideas from.  

Now Biblically we know from Amos 5:26 and Acts 7:43 that the Israelites were departing from the proper worship of YHWH when they worshiped the planet we now call Saturn.  But there would have been a pagan affiliation no matter which Planet was assigned to the Seventh Day, Saturn’s Harvesting and Agriculture characteristics do fit some of the Sabbath associations.  And Tacitus’s observation that Saturn is the farthest from us of the visible Planets is worthy of note.  It appearing to move through the night sky the slowest could be a good reason to associate it with rest.

The day on which Jesus Rose from the Dead was associated with The Sun because of the Biblical reasons for viewing The Sun as a symbol of Jesus (Malachi 4:2) and Sunrise as a Symbol of Resurrection (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:2, Luke 1:78-79, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 5:45, 2 Peter 1:19, 2 Samuel 23:4, Psalm 110:3).

And the SDA belief that it's specifically about attacking the Sabbath is also silly.  The fact is none of the earliest Christian Sunday observance based laws even post Nicaea forbid also resting on the Sabbath.  If you wanted to make another day the day of rest with the intention of making Sabbath observance more difficult, what would make sense is making the Sixth Day, the Biblical Preparation Day, the legally enforced day of rest.