Hebrew biblical persons re-presented as Gentiles



 

by

by
Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“Thus Achior is indeed a genuine conversion, moreover he moves from the simple

“God fearer,” sort of Gentile and now into full proselytism, and hence has

“bound himself,” the laws which accompany that”.

  

 

At least some of those biblical characters commonly designated by commentators as being “enlightened pagans (or Gentiles)” cannot possibly have been so, without throwing into turmoil Mosaïc Law.

 

Some examples of this common designation would be: 1. Melchizedek (Genesis); 2. Rachab (in the genealogy of David and Jesus); 3. Ruth of Moab; 4. Achior (Book of Judith); 5. Job; and, perhaps 6. The Magi of the New Testament.

 

In this article, I shall be focussing very much upon 4. Achior, a supposed Ammonite, with just brief notes on the rest of 1-6.

 

Achior could not have been an Ammonite!

 

If we are to take seriously the Book of Judith, and not just relegate it (as do most commentators) to merely some ‘pious fiction’ genre, then it is impossible that Achior was an Ammonite. And the same would apply (unless there were a different law for females) to 3. Ruth, a supposed Moabite (“a prototypical Gentile who must be inspired by the teachings of our Torah”: http://www.thejewishweek.com/jewish-life/sabbath-week/conversion-ruth). For, according to Deuteronomy 23:3: “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the LORD’s assembly; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, may ever enter the LORD’s assembly”.

Yet of Achior it is said, upon Judith’s victory over the now headless “Holofernes”: “When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised, and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day.” – Judith 14.10 (NRSV).

Commentators struggle to deal with this apparently blatant breach of Mosaïc Law. For example (http://knightword.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/the-conversion-of-achior-judith-14-10/):

In … Judith 14.10, Achior becomes a proselyte within the house of Israel. It is interesting to note that at least to the author of the Book of Judith … they seemed to have no problem in letting Achior within the house of Israel. … Since it should be noted that Achior isn’t just any sort of pagan, he’s an Ammonite, a chief leaders, as evidence by Judith 5.5a “Then Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites.”

But if one remembers Deuteronomy 23.3 it reads that “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord,” So before even going any further, when one looks at Achior, we see in him one of the … unlikeliest men to convert to Judaism.

Despite the rule in Deuteronomy, the Book of Judith has Achior converted. There are of course a variety of different reasons given to why Achior might have been exempted from the rule. Perhaps he was a special case (as was Ruth the Moabitess), perhaps the prohibition has past, Achior being past the tenth generation, or maybe the author is even just expressing the same “universalism,” of the book of Jonah. ….

In any case, despite who Achior is racially, the author of Judith clearly wishes for him to be seen in the light of the other righteous Gentiles of the bible. … Achior is said to believe “firmly,” or “exceedingly, the greek word being σφόδρα which Crowley say “must mean ‘with all his heart,’”…. Thus Achior is indeed a genuine conversion, moreover he moves from the simple “God fearer,” sort of Gentile and now into full proselytism, and hence has “bound himself,” the laws which accompany that. …. So that in spite of all the difficulties which Achior brings, he becomes a symbolic invitation to other would be converts, to the author, Achior is not one secluded case, but instead a representative of all gentiles who would wish to come to faith in the God of Israel. …

[End of quote]

This interpretation, I would suggest, is not the answer.

The complete story of Achior is to be found, I believe, only in the Catholic Bible. Providentially, we have also for this very same historical period the Book of Tobit, whose Vulgate version likewise tells of this Achior (11:20: …. veneruntque Achior et Nabath consobrini Tobiae gaudentes …), otherwise called Ahikar.

Now, Achior (or Ahikar) was Tobit’s very nephew (Tobit 1:21-22 GNT):

 

[The Assyrian king] Esarhaddon … put Ahikar, my brother Anael’s son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire. This was actually the second time Ahikar was appointed to this position, for when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal. Since Ahikar was my nephew, he put in a good word for me with the emperor ….

 

More recently I have suggested re this same “Esarhaddon”:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

"As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … ]Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face".

Karen Radner

 

The Tales of Ahikar (var. Ahiqar), the inspiration for Æsop and Sinbad, are famous in literature. This Ahikar was celebrated in the ancient Near East for his outstanding wisdom.

But Ahikar was no more an Assyrian sage than he was an Ammonite.

He was presumably, like his uncle Tobit, an Israelite from the tribe of Naphtali.

What pagan Ammonite would have been able to rattle off the history of Israel so unhesitatingly as Achior (in an historical summary reminiscent of St. Stephen’s to the Sanhedrin, Acts 7:2-47) was able to do when asked by “Holofernes”: ‘… tell me about the people who live in these mountains. Which cities do they occupy? How large is their army? What is the source of their power and strength? Who is the king who leads their army? Why have they alone, of all the people in the west, refused to come out and surrender to me?’ (Judith 5:3-4, 6-19)

This was the Achior who, though belonging to a wholly apostate tribe, except for the pious Tobit (‘But my entire tribe of Naphtali rejected the city of Jerusalem and the kings descended from David’, Tobit 1:4), had latterly come under the influence of his goodly uncle who no doubt reinforced in the mind of the young nephew all the traditions of Israel and its history. The connection of Achior with “Ammonite” in the Book of Judith is indeed problematical - though in Judith 6:5 he is differently linked, by “Holofernes”, with Ephraïm, “Achior, you and your Ephraimite soldiers”.

Ephraïm (a designation for northern Israel) would indeed be more fitting for a relative of Tobit’s.

Below I shall be suggesting that “Ammonite” is a mistake for “Elamite”, a people governed by Achior (Ahikar), but one quite foreign to Achior’s own Israelite ethnicity.

 

Previously I wrote about Achior as a supposed Ammonite:

 

… there now arises that problem with my actual reconstruction of Achior as an Israelite in the Assyrian army, and it is this verse: “Then Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites, said to [Holofernes] ...” (5:5). Achior is said in this verse to have been an “Ammonite”; a matter we discussed in some detail … when considering why [the Book of Judith] was not accepted into the Hebrew canon. Whilst this does immediately loom as a major problem, there is one factor – apart from what has already been said about Achior – that makes his being an Ammonite highly unlikely, and this is that Achior will later, in [Judith] 14, be converted to Judaïsm and will be circumcised. The author of [Judith], who is an absolute stickler for the Mosaïc Law, and who writes in fact like a priest or Levite … would hardly have countenanced so flagrant a breach of the Law as having an Ammonite received by pious Jews into the assembly of faith, when this was clearly disallowed by Moses (Deuteronomy 23:3, 4).

Judith herself, who would so scrupulously observe all of the religious ordinances of the Law even whilst in the camp of the Assyrians [Judith] (… 12), would hardly (if she were real) have been a party to this forbidden situation.

[End of quote]

 

So, of whom was Achior actually the “leader” when he, prior to his conversion, accompanied “Holofernes” with the massive Assyrian army to Israel? Very likely, the Elamites (with whom Ammonites may have later been confused), since Tobit tells us of his blindness that (2:10): “Ahikar [Achior] … took care of me for two years, until he left for Elam”. I think that there is a verse in the Book of Judith (1:6) that echoes this, thereby binding together the eras of Tobit and Judith. I previously wrote on this (Elam and Elymaïs being synonymous):

 

There is a gloss later added to the Vulgate version of the Book of Judith which tells that "Arioch [Erioch] ruled the Elymaeans" (1:6). "Arioch" is unknown. Obviously a copyist had failed to realize that this person, given as Arioch [or Erioch], was the same as the Achior who figures so prominently throughout the main story. The copyist, it seems, should have written: "Achior ruled the Elymaeans". From there it is smooth running to make the comparison:

"Achior ... Elymaeans" (Judith); "Ahikar ... Elymaïs" (Tobit).

See also my article:

 

"Arioch, King of the Elymeans" (Judith 1:6)

 

https://www.academia.edu/28190921/_Arioch_King_of_the_Elymeans_Judith_1_6_

 

Typically biblical commentators, recalling that there was a foreign king, “Arioch”, way back in the Book of Genesis (14:1), whilst denying any real historical credence to the characters in the Book of Judith, ascribe mention of an Arioch in the latter to something like ‘the author’s fondness for biblical archaïsms’. In their mind, Judith, Achior, Arioch, never really existed.

 

I beg to differ. Achior was the nephew of Tobit, an Israelite from the tribe of Naphtali.

 

Pre-conversion, Achior may also figure famously in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and Isaiah, as the brash Rabshakeh military officer whom we already introduced on p. 19. Thus Isaiah 36:2: “And the King of Assyria sent the Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem, with a great army”.

Not surprising that “the King of Assyria”, Sennacherib [= Book of Judith’s “Nebuchadnezzar”], might have selected this highly-talented Israelite to harangue the Jews in their own language. This was Achior as a rising prodigy in Assyrian captivity before his conversion, later, thanks to Judith’s bringing to a shuddering halt the Assyrian war machine at Bethulia (= Shechem).

Achior was not a foreigner to Israel, but apparently a “leader” (governor and captain) of foreign contingents in the mighty Assyrian army. Notice how, in contemporary scholarship, Israel keeps getting squeezed out. ‘No one’ speaks Hebrew, instead it is Aramaïc! The same thing is happening in archaeology. Some time ago, professor Gunnar Heinsohn of the University of Bremen wrote that:

 

Mainstream scholars are in the process of deleting Ancient Israel from the history books. The entire period from Abraham the Patriarch in the -21st century (fundamentalist date) to the flowering of the Divided Kingdom in the -9th century (fundamentalist date) is found missing in the archaeological record.  

 

Even back in the days of Paul and Barnabas, the pagan Greeks were bent on appropriating these famous Jews into their own pantheon (Acts 14:12): “They decided that Barnabas was the Greek god Zeus and that Paul was Hermes, since he was the chief speaker”.

 

Anyway, getting back to the main thread of this article, there follow some brief comments on those other (apart from Achior), supposedly Gentile, biblical characters (1-6): 

 

From Melchizedek to the New Testament

 

1. MELCHIZEDEK, I suggest, was not an enlightened Canaanite priest-king at all, a pagan. The great man of faith, Abram (Abraham) was hardly going to submit to being blessed by a pagan priest (Genesis 14:19). No, Melchizedek was the great Shem, son of Noah, as according to a Jewish tradition.

As Shem, Melchizedek was the archetypal S[h]EM-ite (Semite).

 

2. RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rahab, whose “faith” both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised, incidentally (like Jesus with the centurion, Luke 7:1-10), was surely not the same woman as she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught.

To have been so would once again have meant a flouting of the Mosaïc Law, in this case Deuteronomy 7 (1-3): “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess, and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites … you must destroy them totally. … Do not intermarry with them”.

R. K Phillips, in “The Truth About Rahab”, has argued for Rahab the harlot to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling).

 

3. RUTH. She, Ruth of the Judges era, could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for those reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3).

 

4. ACHIOR. Was most certainly an Israelite, as we have already discussed at length. The mistaken notion that Achior was an Ammonite chief is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of their scriptural canon.

 

5. JOB I have firmly identified Job as Tobit’s very son, Tobias, in “Job’s Life and Times”, http://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times Thus Job was not an enlightened Edomite (nor an Arabian sheikh), as is often thought, but a sage of Israel, a cousin of Achior.

 

6. THE MAGI. If Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich be correct that: “The kings [Magi] were descendants of Job” (http://www.spiritdaily.net/emmerichmanger.htm), then we might conclude that the Magi’s “East” (Matthew 2:1) was the same as that of Job (1:3): “He was the greatest man among all the people of the East”. With our modern tendency to think globally, we usually pitch the Magi all the way east to Persia – for instance, enlightened Zoroastrians (those “enlightened pagans” once again). But was even Zoroaster an enlightened pagan? - for there are Syro-Arabic traditions that Zoroaster was the biblical scribe, Baruch.

I think it at least conceivable that the Magi, as potential Transjordanian Israelites, may not have had to travel any further than the same approximate “east” wherein Job had dwelt, in the land of Uz (Transjordanian Bashan).

 

 

Australian Aboriginal link to Göbekli Tepe?

 

“We start with a comparison between the only female figure discovered at Göbekli Tepe,

and a rock painting depicting a well-known creator being from Arnhem land, Yingarna.

The likeness between these two images is immediately striking; we recognise similar posture with the same positioning of the legs and breasts, cartoonish exaggeration of the female genitalia, and clearly inhuman heads”.

 

Bruce R. Fenton

 

 

Whilst in the following article, Bruce Fenton manages to draw some amazing comparisons between Australian aboriginal art and that found at Göbekli Tepe, I (Damien Mackey) would neither accept his dating (his evolutionary views), or his belief that the aboriginals were at Göbekli Tepe only after having been in Australia. Göbekli Tepe first, I would suggest, and then, some time later, the great southern continent.

 

Bruce Fenton writes:

http://ancientnews.net/2017/10/13/a-global-aboriginal-australian-culture-the-proof-at-gobekli-tepe/

 

A Global Aboriginal Australian Culture? The Proof at Göbekli Tepe

 

By Bruce R. Fenton on 13th October 2017 Archaeology

A Global Aboriginal  Australian Culture? The Proof at Göbekli Tepe

(Originally published in New Dawn Magazine, July 2017)

 

Scientists and independent researchers have publicly speculated on the purpose of the mysterious Göbekli Tepe megalithic complex in southern Turkey. The question that the experts seem unable to address is the identity of the builders. Having completed an in-depth investigation of human origins and early migrations, it is now appropriate to reveal my extraordinary findings – Göbekli Tepe is the product of Aboriginal Australian culture. The identification of the builders will likely be considered very controversial, as it should because this represents a major paradigm shift.

 

Göbekli Tepe is the largest well-dated megalithic complex of the pre-pottery period. There may be other megalithic sites of greater antiquity, but none matches the complexity, scale and advanced knowledge revealed at this site.

 

In 1994, Klaus Schmidt of the German Archaeological Institute began excavations at a Neolithic hill site in what is today southern Turkey (formerly Armenia). Beneath the hill was the most extraordinary archaeological site yet uncovered, remarkable for both its immense size and incredible antiquity.

 

By BRUCE FENTON

Images of Göbekli Tepe. top: Beginning stages of the archaeological dig plus location map. middle: Aerial view. above: Researcher Alistair Coombs standing next to one of the massive T-shaped stone pillars.

 

Göbekli Tepe is an arrangement of at least two hundred T-shaped stone pillars of up to 6 metres in height and 22 tonnes in weight. The pillars are covered with imagery. The recognised boundaries of the complex include over 22 acres of land.¹ The physical aspects of the Göbekli Tepe archaeological site are quite amazing, but its dating astonished researchers. The pillars of Göbekli Tepe have stood for at least 12,000 years, 10,000 of those underneath a huge pile of soil deliberately placed over them.

Göbekli Tepe is not some lone anomalous site, existing outside a greater context. Archaeologists recognise around 40 archaeological sites sharing the cultural signature observed at Göbekli Tepe. These discoveries cover a vast area within the Mesopotamian region. Scientists have also identified a correlation between the distribution of ancient sites and the presence of wheatgrasses.

There has been significant debate on the purpose of the Göbekli Tepe constructions. Mainstream academics tend to suggest it was a ceremonial site. The plethora of stylised animals on the pillars, alongside many anthropomorphic beings, is certainly reminiscent of known shamanistic traditions. The strongest argument put forward by the academics is that a form of ‘bird shamanism’ was observed by the local culture. Some members of the Göbekli Tepe research team have gone as far as to speculate that crane dances may have been performed there.²

Leading voices in the independent and alternative archaeological research community have offered their opinions on Göbekli Tepe. In his recent book Gobekli Tepe Genesis of the Gods: The Temple of the Watchers and the Discovery of Eden, Andrew Collins finds agreement with the proposed bird-shamanism link. Collins connects biblical tales to the site, including the ‘Garden of Eden’ and the mysterious ‘Watchers’. His work also suggests that a pre-historic Polish population, the Swiderian culture, might be the builders. In his bestselling book Magicians of the Gods: The Forgotten Wisdom of Earth’s Lost Civilization, Graham Hancock gives significant space to an analysis of Göbekli Tepe. Hancock details a possible astronomical interpretation of animal symbols on pillar 43, suggesting these images represent recognisable constellations. Pillar 43 is regarded in his work as a snapshot of the sky at the time of a cometary impact event.

Dr. Robert M. Schoch, an associate professor at the College of General Studies, Boston University, briefly discusses Göbekli Tepe in his book, Forgotten Civilization: The Role of Solar Outbursts in our Past and Future. Dr. Schoch is well-known for his attribution of the Egyptian Sphinx to a lost civilisation that existed around 9,000 years ago. Göbekli Tepe offers support for Schoch’s existing hypothesis that a megalithic culture existed during the pre-pottery period. He suspects that the deliberate burial of Göbekli Tepe followed the onset of cataclysmic solar storms.

 

 

These three heavyweights all agree the site was at least in some significant part an astronomical observatory and that it offers compelling evidence for an advanced civilisation that fell foul to a forgotten catastrophic event. They also see obvious links between the dating of Göbekli Tepe and the Younger Dryas climate events. Briefly, the Younger Dryas period is marked by sudden intense cooling 12,800 years ago followed by equally sudden and intense warming 11,500 years ago. Archaeological evidence suggests that at both ends of the Younger Dryas global cataclysms occurred that led to mass extinctions.

Certainly, the megalithic builders responsible for Göbekli Tepe lived through the collapse of their civilisation and decided to bury their work. It is evident their culture went into rapid retreat, and today it only remains in the region of origination [sic] – Australasia. The stones of Göbekli Tepe speak, but only if one knows their language. These mighty megaliths bear the signature of the Australian Aboriginal traditions from which they emerged.

The fingerprints of this culture remain across much of northern Australia, but lest anyone raise the accusation of regional cherry-picking, the focus here will be almost entirely in one area, Arnhem Land.

 

Carved on exposed megalith at Gobekli Tepe – Image Credit: Verity Cridland

 

Arnhem land is no arbitrary selection for investigation. Situated on the closest point to the Indonesian islands, Arnhem Land was once part of lands that extended much further out into the Timor Sea and the Arafura Sea. Migrants moving towards Southeast Asia would have passed through what is now Arnhem Land.

 

 

Yingarna is a female, humanoid, personification of a rainbow serpent, one of the powerful entities from Aboriginal mythology (Dreaming Lore).

The female rainbow serpent is responsible for seeding humanity across the landscape, while the male rainbow serpent is responsible for shaping much of the landscape.⁵ George Chaloupka, the foremost expert on the rock art of Arnhem Land, informs us that:

The belief in the Rainbow Snake, a personification of fertility, increase (richness in propagation of plants and animals) and rain, is common throughout Australia. It is a creator of human beings, having life-giving powers that send conception spirits to all the waterholes. It is responsible for regenerating rains, and also for storms and floods when it acts as an agent of punishment against those who transgress the law or upset it in any way. It swallows people in great floods and regurgitates their bones, which turn into stone, thus documenting such events.⁶

Until very recent historical times, all traffic was one-way, moving out of Australasia not inwards. This fact has been well established in multiple genetic studies and indicates that any truly ancient cultural elements are indigenous to Australia.³ There is also some evidence that the flooded lands of the Sahul and Sunda plates, shown in the maps on page 62, were once home to an advanced megalithic culture, eventually swallowed by the rising sea. Arnhem Land would have formed part of this lost culture’s territory and is likely to retain elements from it. This region also boasts an extensive wealth of ancient rock art, some of which dates to 45,000 years before present.⁴

We start with a comparison between the only female figure discovered at Göbekli Tepe, and a rock painting depicting a well-known creator being from Arnhem land, Yingarna. The likeness between these two images is immediately striking; we recognise similar posture with the same positioning of the legs and breasts, cartoonish exaggeration of the female genitalia, and clearly inhuman heads.

The belief in the Rainbow Snake, a personification of fertility, increase (richness in the propagation of plants and animals) and rain, is common throughout Australia. It is a creator of human beings, having life-giving powers that send conception spirits to all the waterholes. It is responsible for regenerating rains, and also for storms and floods when it acts as an agent of punishment against those who transgress the law or upset it in any way. It swallows people in great floods and regurgitates their bones, which turn into stone, thus documenting such events.⁶

In the traditions of Arnhem Land peoples, Yingarna is said to have arrived on the eastern shores of the continent, emerging from the ocean. Yingarna carried many bags with her, each containing spirit children and yam seeds. We can see these bags in a second rock art painting (see above). Note her extremely narrow and serpentine body atop which sits the same strangely shaped head we saw in the previous painting. The only facial features are two huge eyes.

Wherever Yingarna travelled, she seeded human populations, giving to each group a bag containing their culture and language. Before moving onwards, Yingarna would teach the newly founded communities how to farm yams.⁷

The Rainbow Serpent takes many forms, not only humanoid and serpentine but also sometimes a bizarre chimaera incorporating elements of multiple animals and plants. In the above bark painting, we see Yingarna with a feathered head, fishtail and sprouting many strange mushroom-like appendages. These strange growths are Australian yam plants with distinctive heart-shaped leaves.

above:  Pillar56 in Enclosure H at Göbekli Tepe shows multiple large-bodied birds with long necks. These bird images are almost identical to emus represented in rock art from Arnhem Land.
above right:  Another pillar with emu-like birds.
top right:  Artist depiction (by Nobu Tamura) of Genyornis newtoni, a now extinct, large, flightless bird that lived in Australia.
right:  Two examples of Genyornis painted on 40,000-year-old Arnhem Land rock art

 

If we look again at the engraving of the female figure from Göbekli Tepe, we see it has one of Yingarna’s yam leaves as her head. This parallel in iconography, across such a vast distance, is nothing short of stunning. (image credit: Ben Gunn).

If we return to Göbekli Tepe’s iconic pillar 43, we see this column includes depictions of both serpents and bags. Three bags are given the most prominent position of all – right at the very top. The snakes depicted on the relief sport swollen heads, making them resemble mushrooms. This is a common element of snakes engraved around the compound.

If we take a closer look at one of the serpents depicted at Göbekli Tepe, on a stone artefact (see page 63), we see the exaggerated head. It is evident the artists tried to make it clear these are not common snakes.

The yam-leaf-shaped heads remind us immediately of rainbow serpent iconography. If we take a glance at the painting of Yingarna with her bags we recognise the same bulbous head with prominent eyes. If we were to add two arms to this snake engraving, and placed a few bags around the neck, we would have a perfect replication of Yingarna. The builders of Göbekli Tepe were living during a time of global catastrophe, a significant part of which involved flooding, animal extinctions and assumedly forced relocations. With immense changes happening in their world, it may be that Göbekli Tepe represents their strenuous human effort to reverse the declining environmental situation. The images at Göbekli Tepe are mostly animals; it is tempting to think that this represented a significant effort by the shamans to call forth the spirits of the animals, many of which had become extinct. The second part of this project would have been an effort to placate spiritual beings associated with flooding, such as the rainbow serpent. Snake images are everywhere at Göbekli Tepe.  Birds are another well-represented animal form at Göbekli Tepe. At the very bottom of pillar 43 we see a large bird head attached to a very long neck, we do not see the body, but it looks rather like an emu. Large flightless birds appear elsewhere, most notably on pillar 56 where we see representations of multiple large-bodied birds with long necks. These bird images are almost identical to emus represented in rock art from Arnhem Land. These large birds may, in fact, be Genyornis, an emu-like bird that went extinct around 30,000 years ago. Similarities are evident when we look at a rock art depiction of Genyornis from a site in Australia’s Northern Territory. The emu holds a very special place in Aboriginal astronomy, associated with the dark rift of the Milky Way.

The second part of this project would have been an effort to placate spiritual beings associated with flooding, such as the rainbow serpent. Snake images are everywhere at Göbekli Tepe.  Birds are another well-represented animal form at Göbekli Tepe. At the very bottom of pillar 43 we see a large bird head attached to a very long neck, we do not see the body, but it looks rather like an emu. Large flightless birds appear elsewhere, most notably on pillar 56 where we see representations of multiple large-bodied birds with long necks. These bird images are almost identical to emus represented in rock art from Arnhem Land. These large birds may, in fact, be Genyornis, an emu-like bird that went extinct around 30,000 years ago. Similarities are evident when we look at a rock art depiction of Genyornis from a site in Australia’s Northern Territory. The emu holds a very special place in Aboriginal astronomy, associated with the dark rift of the Milky Way.⁸

It is especially interesting to note that pillar 56 includes an eagle grabbing a giant serpent in its talons with smaller serpents depicted beneath. In some of the many Aboriginal flood stories, it is the eagle that halts the progression of the rising seas. The flood is a punishment for human misbehaviour, and only after humans agree to correct their behaviour does the eagle step in and end the mounting cataclysm. The eagle also has a prominent role in Aboriginal astronomy, linked to both Altair and the Southern Cross.⁹

 

It is not only at Göbekli Tepe that we find this Aboriginal Australian symbolism. Contained in the greater body of research work is a far broader picture. After the cataclysms, new sprouts of civilisation emerged from cultural seeds planted by a lost Aboriginal Australian global culture. Aboriginal Australasians have carried the hidden history of this first culture through comet impacts, solar storms and deliberate genocide. Today we owe them an enormous debt. The sacred art of Aboriginal Australians provides a final few cultural connections between the builders of Göbekli Tepe and Aboriginal Australia. In these photographs, we see an exact match between a symbol on an Aboriginal elder’s chest and one on a pillar at Göbekli Tepe (see page 65). The meaning of this is often suggested to be of two people sitting to share knowledge.  On a central pillar in enclosure D, we find a set of symbols normally reserved for the most sacred artefacts of the Australian Aboriginals, churinga stones. A modern example of a churinga stone is shown on page 65. The only difference from the symbol on the pillar is that the two lines do not merge with the central circle. Churinga stones are regarded as receptacles for spiritual energy associated with creator beings, sky heroes that came down to Earth. Incredibly, the full pillar on which this churinga symbol appears is itself described as a stylised representation of a humanoid deity. We see the mysterious being’s arms folded just above the belt (see image on page 65).¹⁰

Bruce Fenton is the author of the new e-book The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution. He presents a compelling case for his new evolutionary hypothesis that Homo sapiens evolved first in Australasia, not Africa. Order through the links on his website www.brucefenton.info/ into-africa-theory/

 

© Copyright New Dawn Magazine, http://www.newdawnmagazine.com. Permission granted to freely distribute this article for non-commercial purposes if unedited and copied in full, including this notice.

 

….

 

FOOTNOTES

 

1. ‘Gobekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?’ by Andrew Curry, Smithsonian Magazine, Nov 2008
2. “Dances with Cranes” – Animal masquerade in Pre-Pottery Neolithic ritual, https://tepetelegrams.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/danceswith-cranes-animal-masquerade-in-pre-pottery-neolithic-ritual/
3. ‘Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia’, Nature 544, 180–184 (13 April 2017)
4. ‘Arnhem Land find proves to be rock art of ages’ by Caroline Herbert, ABC News, 19 Jun 2012
5. aboriginalartonline.com/culture/rainbow.php
6. George Chaloupka, Journey in Time: The World’s Longest Continuing Art Tradition, Reed, 1993
7. bluethumb.com.au/thommo-nganjmirra/Artwork/yingarna-creation-mother
8. Genyornis newtoni, Australian Museum, www.australian museum.net.au/genyornis-newtoni
9. ‘Bunjil’ by Carolyn Briggs Boonwurrung, Culture Victoria, www.cv.vic.gov.au/stories/aboriginal-culture/meerreeng- an-here-is-my-country/bunjil/
10. Tjurunga: Art and Religion, www.britannica.com/topic/tjurunga

 

Hebrew biblical persons re-presented as Gentiles

 

 by

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

“Thus Achior is indeed a genuine conversion, moreover he moves from the simple

“God fearer,” sort of Gentile and now into full proselytism, and hence has

“bound himself,” the laws which accompany that”.

 

 

 

At least some of those biblical characters commonly designated by commentators as being “enlightened pagans (or Gentiles)” cannot possibly have been so, without throwing into turmoil Mosaïc Law.

 

Some examples of this common designation would be: 1. Melchizedek (Genesis); 2. Rachab (in the genealogy of David and Jesus); 3. Ruth of Moab; 4. Achior (Book of Judith); 5. Job; and, perhaps 6. The Magi of the New Testament.

 

In this article, I shall be focussing very much upon 4. Achior, a supposed Ammonite, with just brief notes on the rest of 1-6.

 

Achior could not have been an Ammonite!

 

If we are to take seriously the Book of Judith, and not just relegate it (as do most commentators) to merely some ‘pious fiction’ genre, then it is impossible that Achior was an Ammonite. And the same would apply (unless there were a different law for females) to 3. Ruth, a supposed Moabite (“a prototypical Gentile who must be inspired by the teachings of our Torah”: http://www.thejewishweek.com/jewish-life/sabbath-week/conversion-ruth). For, according to Deuteronomy 23:3: “No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the LORD’s assembly; none of their descendants, even to the tenth generation, may ever enter the LORD’s assembly”.

Yet of Achior it is said, upon Judith’s victory over the now headless “Holofernes”: “When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised, and joined the house of Israel, remaining so to this day.” – Judith 14.10 (NRSV).

 

Commentators struggle to deal with this apparently blatant breach of Mosaïc Law. For example (http://knightword.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/the-conversion-of-achior-judith-14-10/):

In … Judith 14.10, Achior becomes a proselyte within the house of Israel. It is interesting to note that at least to the author of the Book of Judith … they seemed to have no problem in letting Achior within the house of Israel. … Since it should be noted that Achior isn’t just any sort of pagan, he’s an Ammonite, a chief leaders, as evidence by Judith 5.5a “Then Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites.”

But if one remembers Deuteronomy 23.3 it reads that “No Ammonite or Moabite shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of their descendants shall be admitted to the assembly of the Lord,” So before even going any further, when one looks at Achior, we see in him one of the … unlikeliest men to convert to Judaism.

Despite the rule in Deuteronomy, the Book of Judith has Achior converted. There are of course a variety of different reasons given to why Achior might have been exempted from the rule. Perhaps he was a special case (as was Ruth the Moabitess), perhaps the prohibition has past, Achior being past the tenth generation, or maybe the author is even just expressing the same “universalism,” of the book of Jonah. ….

In any case, despite who Achior is racially, the author of Judith clearly wishes for him to be seen in the light of the other righteous Gentiles of the bible. … Achior is said to believe “firmly,” or “exceedingly, the greek word being σφόδρα which Crowley say “must mean ‘with all his heart,’”…. Thus Achior is indeed a genuine conversion, moreover he moves from the simple “God fearer,” sort of Gentile and now into full proselytism, and hence has “bound himself,” the laws which accompany that. …. So that in spite of all the difficulties which Achior brings, he becomes a symbolic invitation to other would be converts, to the author, Achior is not one secluded case, but instead a representative of all gentiles who would wish to come to faith in the God of Israel. …

[End of quote]

 

This interpretation, I would suggest, is not the answer.

The complete story of Achior is to be found, I believe, only in the Catholic Bible. Providentially, we have also for this very same historical period the Book of Tobit, whose Vulgate version likewise tells of this Achior (11:20: …. veneruntque Achior et Nabath consobrini Tobiae gaudentes …), otherwise called Ahikar.

Now, Achior (or Ahikar) was Tobit’s very nephew (Tobit 1:21-22 GNT):

 

[The Assyrian king] Esarhaddon … put Ahikar, my brother Anael’s son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire. This was actually the second time Ahikar was appointed to this position, for when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal. Since Ahikar was my nephew, he put in a good word for me with the emperor ….

 

More recently I have suggested re this same “Esarhaddon”:

 

Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar

 

https://www.academia.edu/38017900/Esarhaddon_a_tolerable_fit_for_King_Nebuchednezzar

 

"As we know from the correspondence left by the roya1 physicians and exorcists … ]Esarhaddon’s] days were governed by spells of fever and dizziness, violent fits of vomiting, diarrhoea and painful earaches. Depressions and fear of impending death were a constant in his life. In addition, his physical appearance was affected by the marks of a permanent skin rash that covered large parts of his body and especially his face".

Karen Radner

 

The Tales of Ahikar (var. Ahiqar), the inspiration for Æsop and Sinbad, are famous in literature. This Ahikar was celebrated in the ancient Near East for his outstanding wisdom.

But Ahikar was no more an Assyrian sage than he was an Ammonite.

He was presumably, like his uncle Tobit, an Israelite from the tribe of Naphtali.

What pagan Ammonite would have been able to rattle off the history of Israel so unhesitatingly as Achior (in an historical summary reminiscent of St. Stephen’s to the Sanhedrin, Acts 7:2-47) was able to do when asked by “Holofernes”: ‘… tell me about the people who live in these mountains. Which cities do they occupy? How large is their army? What is the source of their power and strength? Who is the king who leads their army? Why have they alone, of all the people in the west, refused to come out and surrender to me?’ (Judith 5:3-4, 6-19)

This was the Achior who, though belonging to a wholly apostate tribe, except for the pious Tobit (‘But my entire tribe of Naphtali rejected the city of Jerusalem and the kings descended from David’, Tobit 1:4), had latterly come under the influence of his goodly uncle who no doubt reinforced in the mind of the young nephew all the traditions of Israel and its history. The connection of Achior with “Ammonite” in the Book of Judith is indeed problematical - though in Judith 6:5 he is differently linked, by “Holofernes”, with Ephraïm, “Achior, you and your Ephraimite soldiers”.

Ephraïm (a designation for northern Israel) would indeed be more fitting for a relative of Tobit’s.

Below I shall be suggesting that “Ammonite” is a mistake for “Elamite”, a people governed by Achior (Ahikar), but one quite foreign to Achior’s own Israelite ethnicity.

 

Previously I wrote about Achior as a supposed Ammonite:

 

… there now arises that problem with my actual reconstruction of Achior as an Israelite in the Assyrian army, and it is this verse: “Then Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites, said to [Holofernes] ...” (5:5). Achior is said in this verse to have been an “Ammonite”; a matter we discussed in some detail … when considering why [the Book of Judith] was not accepted into the Hebrew canon. Whilst this does immediately loom as a major problem, there is one factor – apart from what has already been said about Achior – that makes his being an Ammonite highly unlikely, and this is that Achior will later, in [Judith] 14, be converted to Judaïsm and will be circumcised. The author of [Judith], who is an absolute stickler for the Mosaïc Law, and who writes in fact like a priest or Levite … would hardly have countenanced so flagrant a breach of the Law as having an Ammonite received by pious Jews into the assembly of faith, when this was clearly disallowed by Moses (Deuteronomy 23:3, 4).

Judith herself, who would so scrupulously observe all of the religious ordinances of the Law even whilst in the camp of the Assyrians [Judith] (… 12), would hardly (if she were real) have been a party to this forbidden situation.

[End of quote]

 

So, of whom was Achior actually the “leader” when he, prior to his conversion, accompanied “Holofernes” with the massive Assyrian army to Israel? Very likely, the Elamites (with whom Ammonites may have later been confused), since Tobit tells us of his blindness that (2:10): “Ahikar [Achior] … took care of me for two years, until he left for Elam”. I think that there is a verse in the Book of Judith (1:6) that echoes this, thereby binding together the eras of Tobit and Judith. I previously wrote on this (Elam and Elymaïs being synonymous):

 

There is a gloss later added to the Vulgate version of the Book of Judith which tells that "Arioch [Erioch] ruled the Elymaeans" (1:6). "Arioch" is unknown. Obviously a copyist had failed to realize that this person, given as Arioch [or Erioch], was the same as the Achior who figures so prominently throughout the main story. The copyist, it seems, should have written: "Achior ruled the Elymaeans". From there it is smooth running to make the comparison:

 

"Achior ... Elymaeans" (Judith); "Ahikar ... Elymaïs" (Tobit).

See also my article:

 

"Arioch, King of the Elymeans" (Judith 1:6)

 

https://www.academia.edu/28190921/_Arioch_King_of_the_Elymeans_Judith_1_6_

 

Typically biblical commentators, recalling that there was a foreign king, “Arioch”, way back in the Book of Genesis (14:1), whilst denying any real historical credence to the characters in the Book of Judith, ascribe mention of an Arioch in the latter to something like ‘the author’s fondness for biblical archaïsms’. In their mind, Judith, Achior, Arioch, never really existed.

 

I beg to differ. Achior was the nephew of Tobit, an Israelite from the tribe of Naphtali.

 

Pre-conversion, Achior may also figure famously in 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and Isaiah, as the brash Rabshakeh military officer whom we already introduced on p. 19. Thus Isaiah 36:2: “And the King of Assyria sent the Rabshakeh from Lachish to King Hezekiah at Jerusalem, with a great army”.

Not surprising that “the King of Assyria”, Sennacherib [= Book of Judith’s “Nebuchadnezzar”], might have selected this highly-talented Israelite to harangue the Jews in their own language. This was Achior as a rising prodigy in Assyrian captivity before his conversion, later, thanks to Judith’s bringing to a shuddering halt the Assyrian war machine at Bethulia (= Shechem).

Achior was not a foreigner to Israel, but apparently a “leader” (governor and captain) of foreign contingents in the mighty Assyrian army. Notice how, in contemporary scholarship, Israel keeps getting squeezed out. ‘No one’ speaks Hebrew, instead it is Aramaïc! The same thing is happening in archaeology. Some time ago, professor Gunnar Heinsohn of the University of Bremen wrote that:

 

Mainstream scholars are in the process of deleting Ancient Israel from the history books. The entire period from Abraham the Patriarch in the -21st century (fundamentalist date) to the flowering of the Divided Kingdom in the -9th century (fundamentalist date) is found missing in the archaeological record.  

 

Even back in the days of Paul and Barnabas, the pagan Greeks were bent on appropriating these famous Jews into their own pantheon (Acts 14:12): “They decided that Barnabas was the Greek god Zeus and that Paul was Hermes, since he was the chief speaker”.

 

Anyway, getting back to the main thread of this article, there follow some brief comments on those other (apart from Achior), supposedly Gentile, biblical characters (1-6): 

 

From Melchizedek to the New Testament

 

1. MELCHIZEDEK, I suggest, was not an enlightened Canaanite priest-king at all, a pagan. The great man of faith, Abram (Abraham) was hardly going to submit to being blessed by a pagan priest (Genesis 14:19). No, Melchizedek was the great Shem, son of Noah, as according to a Jewish tradition.

As Shem, Melchizedek was the archetypal S[h]EM-ite (Semite).

 

2. RAHAB. The Canaanite harlot, Rahab, whose “faith” both Paul (Hebrews 11:31) and James (2:25) praised, incidentally (like Jesus with the centurion, Luke 7:1-10), was surely not the same woman as she who became the ancestress of David and Jesus, despite what is universally taught.

To have been so would once again have meant a flouting of the Mosaïc Law, in this case Deuteronomy 7 (1-3): “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess, and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites … you must destroy them totally. … Do not intermarry with them”.

R. K Phillips, in “The Truth About Rahab”, has argued for Rahab the harlot to be distinguished from the Israelite woman, Rachab (note different spelling).

 

3. RUTH. She, Ruth of the Judges era, could not plausibly have been a Moabitess for those reasons already explained (Deuteronomy 23:3).

 

4. ACHIOR. Was most certainly an Israelite, as we have already discussed at length. The mistaken notion that Achior was an Ammonite chief is perhaps the primary reason why the Jews have not accepted the Book of Judith as part of their scriptural canon.

 

5. JOB I have firmly identified Job as Tobit’s very son, Tobias, in “Job’s Life and Times”, http://www.academia.edu/3787850/Jobs_Life_and_Times Thus Job was not an enlightened Edomite (nor an Arabian sheikh), as is often thought, but a sage of Israel, a cousin of Achior.

 

6. THE MAGI. If Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich be correct that: “The kings [Magi] were descendants of Job” (http://www.spiritdaily.net/emmerichmanger.htm), then we might conclude that the Magi’s “East” (Matthew 2:1) was the same as that of Job (1:3): “He was the greatest man among all the people of the East”. With our modern tendency to think globally, we usually pitch the Magi all the way east to Persia – for instance, enlightened Zoroastrians (those “enlightened pagans” once again). But was even Zoroaster an enlightened pagan? - for there are Syro-Arabic traditions that Zoroaster was the biblical scribe, Baruch.

I think it at least conceivable that the Magi, as potential Transjordanian Israelites, may not have had to travel any further than the same approximate “east” wherein Job had dwelt, in the land of Uz (Transjordanian Bashan).