Scrutinising the C7th AD for its conundrums and anachronisms

by Damien F. Mackey Introduction So far, my only other article in this series has been this one (on the C15th AD): Bible-themed people and events permeate what we call [the] C15th AD (3) Bible-themed people and events permeate what we call C15th AD Here now, in this new article, we flip all the way back to what the text books, and historians generally, call the C7th (AD). Someone (cryptastic) has already written a handy summary of this era, at: https://steemit.com/history/@cryptastic/our-world-in-the-7th-century-a-d It is entitled: Our World in the 7th Century A.D. I shall be drawing from parts of this article (I would not necessarily accept population figures estimated), with my own comments added: Sometimes this question will randomly pop in my head, "What are other people around the world doing right this second?"; it's an interesting thing to think about. It occurred to me that was an interesting idea to apply to history. For example, while the Sui Dynasty was collapsing in China, what was going on in Canada? While the Mayans were performing human sacrifices, who were the Vikings raiding? When Braveheart was getting beheaded was Kublai Khan wiping his butt? These are burning questions that need answering. So basically I thought it would be interesting to choose a specific time period and look at what was going on globally. I'm currently studying early medieval China so I thought I'd pick the 7th century, 600-700 A.D. I'll organize this by region, listing interesting facts about the people or culture. It's interesting the variance in detail of historical records by location. Areas close to where human civilization began: Europe, middle east, central asia, you have documented historical records, while in America and Africa you have to rely mostly on artifacts and geological data to determine the cultures and timelines. China • The Tang Dynasty was started by Gaozu after the Sui collapsed (blowing all their cash on failed military exploits). Success of the Tang was mainly due to Emporer Taizhong, son of Gaosu, regarded by most as the greatest dynastic ruler in Chinese history. He did this by basically just being a rational dude. • Cultural achievements: Largest civilization in the world, first printed book, golden age of poetry, advanced criminal code, opera, porcelain, metalwork, clockwork. This is way above most other cultures at the time and for hundreds of years. • Population was about 50 million people. "Fun" fact - it would have been a lot more, but it was cut in half by the wars of the Three Kingdoms period a couple hundred years before. • Buddhism was made the state religion for the first time. • Chang An, currently known as Xian, was the largest city in the world with a population of 500k - 1 million. My comments: The Chinese, people of Sin (Sinites), hailed from a cursed ancestor, Canaan (cf. Genesis 9:24-27; 10:17). Considering the distance of China from the Middle East, where humanity began, the Chinese civilisation would have been much younger than, say, the Syro-Palestinians, Egyptians and Mesopotamians – though it, in its isolation, developed more slowly (e.g. its primitive logographic writing form), no alphabet. Much of what the Chinese are supposed to have invented, “way above most other cultures at the time and for hundreds of years”, would already have been known in the earlier civilisations. “Metalwork” was already practised before the Great Noachian Flood (Genesis 4:22). Unsurprisingly, the Chinese carried into their mythology some of early Genesis, including the Flood. On this, see e.g. my article: Ancient Chinese History and the Book of Genesis (4) Ancient Chinese History and the Book of Genesis Just as the later Greeks were given credit for discoveries that already, long before, had been made by the Egyptians: https://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba …. Much has been attributed to the Greeks that did not belong to them - e.g. Breasted … made the point that Hatshep¬sut's marvellous temple structure was a witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the later Greeks would be credited as originators. …. and by the Assyrians, e.g. the water screw pump: Beware of Greeks boasting inventions https://www.academia.edu/123266859/Beware_of_Greeks_boasting_inventions So what if the Chinese discovered pasta – a really big “if”, I would think? Buddha is but a fictitious non-historical composite, based primarily on Moses: Buddha partly based on Moses (4) Buddha partly based on Moses Today, a more fertile ground for critics may be ancient China, which, like Egypt once again, has known many dynasties. Biblical lecturer John D. Morris (Institute for Creation Research) tells of his having been the recipient of such a query from a scholar about the Chinese: http://www.icr.org/article/how-can-chinese-dynasties-extend-back-many-thousan/ I was lecturing on the Biblical and scientific evidence for recent creation to a university audience in Hong Kong, China, when a scholar raised the objection: “The Chinese have a documented history going back many thousands of years, much earlier than your dates for creation and the Flood. We have known dynasties and named rulers. The Bible must be wrong”. Critics have said the very same thing about the Egyptian and other ancient histories, presuming them to be right, hence the Bible must be wrong. The fact is that, when exposed to the torch of scrutiny, they are found to be, not right. What about China? China’s Documented Dynasties According to Morris, reliably documented Chinese history does not even precede 2000 BC: The solution lies in an examination of the earliest Chinese dynasties. Actually, precisely documented dynasties go back only to about 2000 B.C. The first true dynasty was founded about 4000 years ago by a leader remembered for having "sweetened the waters," making the land habitable after wide-spread flooding. The ten listed dynasties before that, however, were of a different sort, with very long lives and questionable details attributed to them. …. This sounds suspiciously Noachic and reminds one of the great Genesis Flood. North America-600-700 A.D. • The eastern United States was in the Later Woodland Period of Hopewell culture. These were hunter-gatherers on the verge of developed farming. There were small groups of hunter gatherers roaming around most of what is now the USA and Canada. • Cultural achievements and characteristics during this period: bow and arrow, burial mounds, sport, tempered pottery with decoration, wigwams and longhouses. No written history. • Population about 4 million (less than the population of modern San Francisco) …. My comment: I know next to nothing about early North America. But this puzzles me, the Fernando de Soto expedition and its failure to mention bisons - although it is supposed to pertain to the C16th AD, rather than to the C7th AD: AI Overview De Soto's expedition traveled through Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, among other areas. These regions are within the historical range of the bison …. Absence of Bison in Records: Historical accounts of De Soto's expedition do not mention bison, despite detailed descriptions of the flora and fauna encountered. …. Though I am dealing here with the C7th, not C16th AD, the following article might help to account for Spanish Conquistador anomalies in the C16th AD: Alexander the Great and Hernán Cortés https://www.academia.edu/62585521/Alexander_the_Great_and_Hern%C3%A1n_Cort%C3%A9s Europe-600-700 A.D. A lot to cover here so I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. • Population about 20 million (population of modern New York or Shanghai) • Byzantine Empire: This is what was left of the Roman Empire after Italy was overrun by the Ostrogoths, who had been supplanted by the Lombards in Italy by the 7th century. It consisted of parts of Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Egypt, and a smidge of Italy. Heraclius, emporer [sic] at the time, and his dynasty were Armenian in ancestry. It was an advanced culture, with art, literature, and Roman technology, but like any at the time, still brutal, they were mainly at war with the Persians. The emperor at the time, Heraclius had many political opponents blinded, castrated, or subject to nose, hand, or leg amputations. Including his son, who tried to overthrow him, but in the end his rebellion didn't have a leg to stand on. My comment: Let’s stop right here with the emperor Heraclius, the most confused attempt at an historical character of whom I have ever read. I have just written this on him in my article: James D. Tabor claims the Shroud of Turin to be an early C14th medieval relic (3) James D. Tabor claims the Shroud of Turin to be an early C14th medieval relic …. Now, here is our ‘miraculous’ Heraclius. What a treat! But what a joke!: A composite character to end all composites Heraclius seems to have one foot in Davidic Israel, one in the old Roman Republic, and, whatever feet may be left (because this definitely cannot be right), in the Christian era. What a mix of a man is this emperor Heraclius! What a conundrum! What a puzzle! I feel sorry for Walter Emil Kaegi, who has valiantly attempted to write a biography of him: Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium. The accomplishment of this scholarly exercise I believe to be a complete impossibility. And I could simply base this view on what I read from Kaegi’s book itself (pp. 12 and 13): The story of Heraclius, as depicted in several literary historical traditions, is almost Herodotean in his experience of fickle fortune's wheel of triumph and tragedy, of ignorance or excessive pride, error, and disaster. My comment: To classify the story of Heraclius as “Herodotean” may be appropriate. Herodotus, ostensibly “the Father of History” (according to Cicero), has also been called “the Father of Lies” by critics who claim that his ‘histories’ are little more than tall tales. Heraclius, as we now read, is spread ‘all over the place’ (my description): At one level his name is associated with two categories of classical nomenclature: (1) ancient classical offices such as the consulship, as well as (2) many of the most exciting heroes, places, precedents, and objects of classical, ancient Near Eastern, and Biblical antiquity: Carthage, Nineveh, Jerusalem, the vicinity of Alexander the Great's triumph over the Persians at Gaugamela, Noah's Ark, the Golden Gate in Jerusalem, Arbela, the fragments of the True Cross, Damascus, Antioch, perhaps even ancient Armenia's Tigra-nocerta, and of course, Constantinople. My comment: According to a late source (conventionally 600 years after Heraclius): “The historian Elmacin recorded in the 13th Century that in the 7th Century the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius had climbed Jabal Judi in order to see the place where the Ark had landed”. http://bibleprobe.com/noahark-timeline.htm Biblically, Heraclius has been compared with such luminaries as Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, Daniel, and even with Jesus Christ. And no wonder in the case of David! For we read in Steven H. Wander’s article for JSTOR, “The Cyprus Plates and the “Chronicle” of Fredegar” (pp. 345-346): https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1291381.pdf …. there is one episode from the military career of Heraclius that bears a striking similarity to the story of David and Goliath. Byzantine chroniclers record that during his campaign against the Emperor Chosroes in 627, Heraclius fought the Persian general Razatis in single combat, beheading his opponent like the Israelite hero. …. George of Pisidia, the court poet, may have even connected this contemporary event with the life of David. In his epic panegyrics on Heraclius' Persian wars, he compared the Emperor to such Old Testament figures as Noah, Moses, and Daniel; unfortunately the verses of his Heraclias that, in all likelihood, dealt in detail with the combat are lost. …. [End of quote] That fateful year 627 AD … the year … of the supposed Battle of Nineveh said to have been fought and won by Heraclius! [Nineveh disappeared in c. 612 BC] According to Shaun Tougher, The Reign of Leo VI (886-912): Politics and People: “Heraclius … appears to have been intent on establishing himself as a new David …”. • Spain at the time was ruled by the Visigoths, germanic people. Interestingly, the Spanish language didn't exist there until the 10th century. Conquering muslims took Spain from the Visigoths the following century. There is virtually no trace of the Visigoth culture in modern Spain, besides the weird kids in school that wear black eye liner. They were pagans, not christians, and one interesting thing that remains of the Visigoth culture in modern Spain is some of their law code giving women property rights. • The UK was split into many different kingdoms and had a population between 1-2 million. The UK was a mess since the Romans left the 5th century. The Germanic Angles and Saxons invaded and wiped out a lot of people, in fact the population during Roman occupation, before the chaos, was over 2 million. During 7th century, the area was largely converted to Christianity and became split into the Anglo Saxon regions of Northumbria, Mercia, Anglia, then the Picts in Scotland. • Irish history wasn't documented until the beginning of the Christian period in the 6th century. There wasn't much outside interaction until the Vikings invaded and conquered a hundred years later. It was all Gaelic at the time with a clan/chieftain system. The Gaelic history was orally preserved until the introduction of literature in the 6th century by the Christian Missionaries. • The vikings weren't around yet, Scandinavian people at the time were just clans that apparently really liked cold weather. It was the next century in which they learned to build boats and they discovered they also really liked killing and stealing. • France and much of Western Europe was ruled by the Franks; Germanic people who are seen as the forebears of most Europeans, French, Germans, Dutch, Austrians. During the 7th century, the Frankish Realm was divided into a handful of Kingdoms like Aquitaine and Ron Burgundy. Chlothar II reunited them under his rule. Most spoke variants of German and Dutch. Modern French started later in a small area of what is now Northern France and Belgium, and evolved from the previous mix of Roman and the local people's colloquial dialect at the time. • Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Russia, were at the time populated with the Slavs, Bulgurs, and Avars. They preceded the Rus peoples that became Russian, Poland, Ukraine, etc. The Slavs were pagan tribes, the Avars were horse raiders from the southeast, that basically were like the Vikings of the area. Not very nice with all their raping and pillaging. The slavs through interaction became horsemen as well. The Avars origins are not known for sure. What is known is that besides raiding for themselves, they acted as mercenaries for the Byzantine Empire, until they turned on them as well. Guess who stopped their shenanigans? The French! Who would've thought. Although really the French were mostly German at the time. We'll give it to them since they were all called "Franks". Got all that? My comment: Now, switching to the Avars, I have written this article, based on an idea of Gyula Tóth: Avaric advancement coincides with the Magyar advancement? (3) Avaric advancement coincides with the Magyar advancement? Therein I wrote: I shall include this other section from Tóth’s article, as it includes Heraclius and Constantine III or Constantine VII? Illig in his book takes account of the [eerie] resemblance between events of the 5th and the 10th century as well. "The (Byzantine) empire is weakened militarily by the advancements of the Avars around the year 600 to the Balkan peninsula." - he writes. Let's not forget: with the correction of 300 years the Avaric advancement coincides with the Magyar advancement! For the Byzantine Empire had to face a strong enemy from the north in the beginning of the nine hundreds, [namely] the Magyars, the suspicion arises that the whole Avaric era is [none] other [than] the duplicate of the Magyar Ingression backdated. Illig takes reference on Manfred Zeller, who in his works about the peoples of steppe shows that: "the number of the horse-archer peoples' in the first millennium doubles, filling the empty centuries!" Therefore the Avars are just a duplicate! A duplicate created beside the Hun-Magyar nations with one purpose, to fill in the empty centuries. The archaeological artifacts denoted as Avaric could easily be that of the Huns of Atilla's. For now let's return to the Byzantine Empire: in 602 under the name of Phocas, a fearsome and untalented emperor sits on the throne by usurpation. At this time, the king of the Persians, Khosrau II, taking advantage of the situation makes an attack on Byzantine seemingly to avenge the murdered emperor. In 610 Heraclius puts an end to the terror reign of Phocas, but the Persian advancements continue: they take over Eastern Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestina, Egypt and on the Northern shores of Africa they reach till Tripoli. The occupation of Jerusalem and the taking of the True Cross happened in 614 may 22nd after a three [week] siege. An interesting thing about Heraclius is that he had a co-emperor. This is his own son who is already crowned in 613 at the age of two. Being at the side of his father with no contribution in decision making. When he finally got to the throne he only ruled for a mere four months. This being none other then Constantine III, who is mentioned in the Chronicon Pictum about the time of the Magyar Ingression: "... one hundred and four years after the death of the Magyar king Atilla, in the times of Emperor Constantine the III. and Pope Zachary - as can be found written in the chronicles of the Romans - the Magyars rode out for the second time from Scythia..." It is very interesting that the Chronicon Pictum's author sets the emperor from the time of the Magyar Ingression as an emperor who lived in the six hundreds! As we know according to Illig, the start of the phantom segment in our chronology takes place from 614, shortly after the True Cross is taken away. In this time Constantine III is already crowned, but only of three years of age. The time when he gains power to reign falls within the phantom segment. If Illig is right, then the character of Constantine III has to appear in some form in the 10th century as well. And as by magic, in the 10th century we also have a Constantine! This time not the III but the VII! Namingly Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos (the Purpleborn), who probably was one of the mastermind behind the fabrication of our chronology. After this Illig analyzed Constantine's life story. The story of the 10th century takes its beginning where Emperor Leo VI the Wise within four years becomes a widower three times, then finally Zoe Zaoutzaina gives birth to a son but illegitimate. When Leo crowns this boy as co-emperor, he dies within a year, in 912. (One should keep in mind that according to Illig in the year 911 the history starts anew. So in 912 the crowning of the illegitimate son belong to the real events of the time line.) But this boy has no saying in the state's matter until the age of 24. In this perspective bares resemblance with Constantine III, who also was crowned as coemperor at a young age and only could take the state's power into his hands much later on. So who do you think was the illegitimate son of Emperor Leo from the 10th century? Well, none other then Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos! The similarities are too remarkable between the life of Constantine III from the 7th century and that of Constantine VII from the 10th century. Worthy of note is the matter of the regaining of the True Cross from the hands of the Persians. It is not by mistake that Constantine VII has put it on the account of Heraclius, by doing this he did nothing else but paying homage to his own father's memory. For Heraclius in first of all not only being the father of Constantine III from the 7th century, he was also the father of Constantine VII of the 10th century! On top of all Constantine VII Porphyrogennetos arranges the beginning of the real history in a way that would start with his own coronation! In similarities not only the characters of the two emperors show resemblance, but also the foreign policies of the Byzantine Empire of the 7th and 10th century. As we've seen, in the 7th century the empire was troubled from the north by the Avaric advancements, meanwhile, in the southeast by that of the Persians. In the 10th century events repeat with different characters: in the north the Magyars trouble the empire, while in the southeast the Arabic expansion does the same. At this point one pauses for a brief moment and asks himself: isn't it possible that the Avars of the 7th century are no more [than] the Magyars of the 10th century? And the Arabic expansion of the 10th century is likely to be the Persian expansion of the 7th century? So, if the Byzantine Empire was troubled in the 7th century by Persians and Avars, in the 10th century these become Arabs and Magyars! My comment: And, regarding the supposed C11th AD Muslim conquests, see my article: Myth of C11th AD Arab Invasion (3) Myth of C11th AD Arab Invasion South America and Mexico-600-700 A.D. • Population - 4 million in Mexico, 3 million in South America. • 7th Century was the peak of Mayan Society. Mayans, on the Yucatan Penninsula, had an advanced written language, not just symbols(the only group in the Americas of this time period that did), art, mathematics, and astronomical system. Of course, they also liked war and they performed human sacrifices by cutting the still beating heart out of victims, as well as by torture and decapitation. So you take the good with the bad. • In South America there were the Wari and Tiwanaku Cultures, which were antecedents to the Incan Empire(The Incan Empire peaked in the 15th century). The Tiwanaku used the resources of Lake Titikaka, fish, birds, plants. They herded llama and Alpaca and also ate potatoes, quinoa, beans, and corn. • Note- All around North and South America, besides the specific sites mentioned, there were small groups of hunter gatherers for which there is very little historical data, but they also contributed to the population numbers mentioned above. The big cities of the Mayans, Tiwanaku, and Wari typically had no more than 100,000 residents. My comments: Again, see my article (above) on Hernán Cortés. The Incas, Mayans and Aztecs were all BC peoples. The Spanish led by Hernán Cortés, had he existed, would have had about as much chance of encountering Aztec multitudes in the C16th AD as Napoleon Bonaparte would have had being faced by an Egyptian army led by Pharaoh Ramses II when Napoleon rode up to the Giza Pyramids in c. 1800 AD. India-600-700 A.D • India at the time had the world's largest economy, 1/3-1/4 of the world's wealth. • Population over 50 million, more than Tang China or anywhere else at the time. However, the population of Tang China was the largest population under one ruling empire. • From this period South India started a shift from smaller kingdoms to larger empires, like the Chalukya, Pallavas, and Penyas. This brought advancements in government administration, overseas trade, and architecture. It was a golden age of South India. • Temples of Hinduism to gods like Vishnu were excavated sandstone, essentially sculpted from stone already at that location. • Sanskrit, the oldest Indo-aryan language was spoken mostly in the North, while Tamil was spoken mostly in the South. Both are thousands of years old written languages, predating our modern systems. Mongolia and Siberia-600-700 A.D • Between the vast Mongolian step plains and Siberia's frozen tundra, the step tribes formed from nomadic east and central asians, as well as some eastern europeans. From 1st millennia B.C. through the 15th century were a dominant force of mostly nomadic tribes of horse warriors occasionally uniting to wreak havoc on the surrounding peoples. • By the 7th century, many tribes had coalesced and the gokturk culture came to dominate the step plains north of China, reaching through Russia, eastern Europe, and towards Iran. • They were raiders and mercenaries, often used by Chinese militaries and many times the decisive factor for victory. They were, however, completely unreliable and would often rape and pillage the cities that they were supposed to be fighting for. • Over the millennia they had blended with the Chinese to a large degree. Interestingly, when looking at the whole of ancient history, it was the step tribes that were generally victorious over Imperial China. Chinese military was not successful using traditional warfare in the harsh environment of the north against the more mobile calvaries of horse warriors. The step tribes like the gokturks never tried to control much of China, however, with the exception of some Northern kingdoms, and of course the Mongol Empire which lasted a hundred years or so around the 13th century(the time of Ghengis Khan). • Even young girls were trained with horse and bow as children. • Ruling class members often took Chinese names and spent time in Chinese capitals. Chinese would send women to them for marriage alliances so they would stop raiding Northern Chinese towns. Africa-600-700 A.D • Population was about 15 million. • Languages included Nilo-Sara of Nubia and West Africa, Coptic/ancient Egyptian in Egypt(not like modern Egyptian/Arabic), and Bantu(antecedent of Zulu) in the South. • In the north people were skilled with copper, bronze, and iron. Jewelry, pottery, coins, eating utensils, etc. • Islam started to reach Eastern and Northern Africa during the 7th century as the Muslim Empire started to invade and conquer surrounding areas. • The Arabs also began the slave trade in 7th century, transporting across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and Sahara Desert. • The southern Bantu peoples were iron-using agriculturists and herdsmen at the time, mostly unaffected by the chaotic goings on of the North. Middle East-600-700 A.D • Languages spoken at the time were Arameic [sic] and Greek (language of Byzantine Empire). Arabic was not spoken until the 8th century. • The 7th century was huge for the middle east, it was a time of unification and expansionism. Muhammad the prophet of Islam appeared and unified the Arabian Peninsula by 632. Unified under Islam, this paved the way for the Umayyad Caliphate to form after Muhammad and conquer Iran, central asia to the borders of China, Northern Africa, and even Spain by mid 8th century. • The Muslims were mainly able to conquer due to their unification under Islam and the weakness of the surrounding empires, the Byzantine and Persian, after they had been warring against each other for many years. It all disintegrated by the end of the 8th century though. • Interestingly, within the Muslim Empire, non-muslims were free to practice their own religion, as long as they acknowledged their second class citizenship. My comment: The influence of Aramaïc may have been “overrated”: https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/A/aramaean-language.html “According to historical records which trace the migrations of the Syro-Arabians from the east to the south-west, and also according to the comparatively ruder form of the Aramaic language itself, we might suppose that it represents, even in the state' in which we have it, some image of that aboriginal type which the Hebrews and Arabians, under more favorable social and climatical influences, subsequently developed into fullness of sound and structure. But it is difficult for us now to discern the particular vestiges of this archaic form; for, not only did the Aramaic not work out its own development of the original elements common to the whole Syro-Arabian sisterhood of languages, but it was pre-eminently exposed, both by neighborhood and by conquest, to harsh collision with languages of an utterly different family. Moreover, it is the only one of the three great Syro-Arabian branches which has no fruits of a purely national literature to boast of. We possess no monument whatever of its own genius; not any work which may be considered the product of the political and religious culture of the nation, and characteristic of it — as is so emphatically the case both with the Hebrews and the Arabs. The first time we see the language it is used by Jews as the vehicle of Jewish thought; and although, when we next meet it, it is employed by native authors, yet they write under the literary impulses of Christianity, and under the Greek influence on thought and language which necessarily accompanied that religion. These two modifications, which constitute and define the so-called Chaldee and Syriac dialects, are the only forms in which the normal and standard Aramaic has been preserved to us. It is evident, from these circumstances, that up to a certain period the Aramaic language has no other history than that of its relations to Hebrew. The earliest notice we have of its separate existence is in Ge 31:47, where Laban, in giving his own name to the memorial heap, employs words which are genuine Aramaic both in form and use. The next instance is in 2Ki 18:26, where it appears that the educated Jews understood Aramaic, but that the common people did not. A striking illustration of its prevalence is found in the circumstance that it is employed as the language of official communication in the edict addressed by the Persian court to its subjects in Palestine (Ezr 4:17). The later relations of Aramaic to Hebrew consist entirely of gradual encroachments on the part of the former. The Hebrew language was indeed always exposed, particularly in the north of Palestine, to Aramaic influences; whence the Aramaisms of the book of Judges and of some others are derived. It also had always a closer conjunction, both by origin and by intercourse, with Aramaic than with Arabic. But in later times great political events secured to Aramaic the complete ascendency; for, on the one hand, after the deportation of the ten tribes, the repeopling their country with colonists chiefly of Syrian origin generated a mixed Aramaic and Hebrew dialect (the Samaritan) in central Palestine; and on the other the exile of the remaining two tribes exposed them to a considerable, although generally overrated, Aramaic influence in Babylon, and their restoration, by placing them in contact with the Samaritans, tended still further to dispossess them of their vernacular Hebrew”. Japan-600-700 A.D • During the Asuka period of medieval Japan. Population was about 4 million. • Buddhism first entered Japan during this period. • Japan experienced a military defeat by Tang China joined by Scilla (early Korean Kingdom). This was well before Japan's Samurai strong military period, and this loss inspired Japan to start reformations of their military. • Japan adopted Tang China style government administration during this period. My comment: Japan may have borrowed from an ancient Hebrew tradition: Japanese ‘omikoshi’ like Ark of Covenant (3) Japanese 'omikoshi' like Ark of Covenant Problems with Islamic ‘History’ In some cases, Islam and its scholars have shown a complete disregard for historical perspective. I had cause to discuss this in my review of Islamic scholar Ahmed Osman’s book, Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity Revealed, in: Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses (4) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu (4) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part Two: Christ The King | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu his books being a diabolical historical mish-mash in which the author, Osman, sadly attempts to herd a millennium or more of history into the single Eighteenth Dynasty of ancient Egypt. But getting right to the heart of the situation, the historical problems pertaining to the Prophet Mohammed himself are legendary. My own contribution, amongst many, to this subject, is, for example: Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History (4) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Scholars have long pointed out the historical problems associated with the life of the Prophet Mohammed and the history of Islam, with some going even so far as to cast doubt upon Mohammed’s actual existence. Biblico-historical events, normally separated the one from the other by many centuries, are re-cast as contemporaneous in the Islamic texts. Muslim author, Ahmed Osman, has waxed so bold as to squeeze, into the one Egyptian dynasty, the Eighteenth, persons supposed to span more than one and a half millennia. Now, as I intend to demonstrate in this article, biblico-historical events that occurred during the neo-Assyrian era of the C8th BC, and then later on, in the Persian era, have found their way into the biography of Mohammed supposedly of the C7th AD. Added to all this confusion is the highly suspicious factor of a ‘second’ Nehemiah, sacrificing at the site of the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem during a ‘second’ Persian period, all contemporaneous with the Prophet of Islam himself. The whole scenario is most reminiscent of the time of the original (and, I believe, of the only) Nehemiah of Israel. And so I wrote in an article, now up-dated as: Two Supposed Nehemiahs: BC time and AD time https://www.academia.edu/12429764/Two_Supposed_Nehemiahs_BC_time_and_AD_time This … later Nehemiah “offers a sacrifice on the site of the Temple”, according to Étienne Couvert (La Vérité sur les Manuscripts de la Mer Morte, 2nd ed, Éditions de Chiré, p. 98. My translation). “He even seems to have attempted to restore the Jewish cult of sacrifice”, says Maxine Lenôtre (Mahomet Fondateur de L’Islam, Publications MC, p.111, quoting from S.W. Baron’s, Histoire d’Israël, T. III, p. 187. My translation), who then adds (quoting from the same source): “Without any doubt, a number of Jews saw in these events a repetition of the re-establishment of the Jewish State by Cyrus and Darius [C6th BC kings of ancient Persia] and behaved as the rulers of the city and of the country”. [End of quote] So, conceivably, the whole concept of a Persian (or Sassanian) empire at this time, with rulers named Chosroes, again reminiscent of the ancient Cyrus ‘the Great’, may need to be seriously questioned. Coins and Archaeology And how to “explain inscriptions on early Islamic coins – the ones that showed Muhammed meeting with a Persian emperor [Chosroes II] who supposedly died a century before”? http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/place-london/plain/A85654957 Emmet Scott, who asks “Were the Arab Conquests a Myth?”, also points out major anomalies relating to the coinage of this presumed period, and regarding the archaeology of Islam in general, though Scott does not go so far as to suggest that the Sassanian era duplicated the ancient Persian one: http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/160197/sec_id/160197 Note the remark [in Encyclopdaedia Iranica]: “The Arab-Sasanian coinages are not imitations,” but were “designed and manufactured by the same people as the late Sasanian issues.” We note also that the date provided on these artefacts is written in Persian script, and it would appear that those who minted the coins, native Persians, did not understand Arabic. We hear that under the Arabs the mints were “evidently allowed to go on as before,” and that there are “a small number of coins indistinguishable from the drahms of the last emperor, Yazdegerd III, dated during his reign but after the Arab capture of the cities of issue. It was only when Yazdegerd died (A.D. 651) [in the time of the Ummayad Caliph Mu'awiya] that some mark of Arab authority was added to the coinage.” (Ibid.) Even more puzzling is the fact that the most common coins during the first decades of Islamic rule were those of Yazdegerd's predecessor Chosroes II, and many of these too bear the Arabic inscription (written however, as we saw, in the Syriac script) besm Allah. Now, it is just conceivable that invading Arabs might have issued slightly amended coins of the last Sassanian monarch, Yazdegerd III, but why continue to issue money in the name of a previous Sassanian king (Chosroes II), one who, supposedly, had died ten years earlier? This surely stretches credulity. The Persian-looking Islamic coins are of course believed to date from the time of Umar (d. 664), one of the “Rightly-guided Caliphs” who succeeded Muhammad and supposedly conquered what became the Islamic Empire. Yet it has to be stated that there is no direct archaeological evidence for the existence either of Umar or any of the other “Rightly-guided” Caliphs Abu Bakr, Uthman or Ali. Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears the name of these men. Archaeologically, their existence is as unattested as Muhammad himself. …. [End of quote] But surely what Scott alleges about these early Caliphs, that: “Not a brick, coin, or artifact of any kind bears the name of these men”, cannot be applied to Suleiman the Magnificent himself, evidence of whose building works in, say Jerusalem, are considered to abound and to be easily identifiable. A typical comment would be this: “Jerusalem’s current walls were built under the orders of Suleiman the Magnificent between the years 1537 and 1541. Some portions were built over the ancient walls from 2,000 years ago. The walls were built to prevent invasions from local tribes and to discourage another crusade by Christians from Europe”: http://www.generationword.com/jerusalem101/4-walls-today.html

New technology has unrolled the charred scrolls of Herculaneum

Researchers used AI to decipher ancient scrolls buried by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius. “Launched by Brent Seales and tech leaders like Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross, the Vesuvius Challenge offered $700,000 to teams decoding texts from unopened scrolls. The contest rewarded students for picking out Greek words like “porphyras,” meaning “purple,” marking the first words read since antiquity”. Carl Wyndham https://www.factinate.com/things/researchers-ai-read-ancient-scroll-vesuviu Jul 15THINGSCarl Wyndham The charred scrolls of Herculaneum, buried under the ash of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, have long mesmerized scholars with their mysteries. Discovered in the 1750s at the villa of Julius Caesar’s father-in-law, the scrolls were charred rolled-up lumps thought to be undecipherable. But a new breakthrough in artificial intelligence has unrolled the scrolls so we can see what’s written on them. Digitally Driven Unravelling Researchers used high-resolution X ray micro-CT scans and phase contrast tomography to create detailed 3D images of the scrolls. AI-powered segmentation algorithms then virtually separate the page layers, literally unfolding the scroll in digital space. It’s a bit hard to understand, but this digital unwrapping evidently preserves the fragile papyrus material while enabling people to read the text hidden inside. Herculaneum scrolls: A 20-year journey to read the unreadable, University of Kentucky, YouTube Factinate Video of the Day The Vesuvius Challenge Throws Down A Gauntlet Launched by Brent Seales and tech leaders like Nat Friedman and Daniel Gross, the Vesuvius Challenge offered $700,000 to teams decoding texts from unopened scrolls. The contest rewarded students for picking out Greek words like “porphyras,” meaning “purple,” marking the first words read since antiquity. First Passages Revealed: Disgust And Philosophy In February 2025, AI-aided translation revealed the Greek word for “disgust” (“διατροπή”) within PHerc. 172, preserved at Oxford’s Bodleian Library. Further work finally zeroed in on the scroll’s title: On Vices and Their Opposite Virtues by Philodemus. He was an Epicurean philosopher of the 1st century BC. This was the first confirmed author and title ever deciphered from a sealed papyrus. Reading Ancient Ink With Machine Learning AI models can detect carbon-based ink within volumetric scans by analyzing subtle phase shifts in X-rays, distinguishing ink from carbonized papyrus. Projects like EduceLab Scrolls use supervised learning to align CT scans with spectral images, as part of models that can "see" writing that is invisible to the human eye. Crowdsourcing Expertise And Continuity The Vesuvius Challenge was a funding pipeline for innovation but opened up the scrolls to global teams. Beyond early student successes, researchers from University of Würzburg and Oxford worked together to nail down the title and author of the scroll by using similar AI and imaging tech. From Words To Full Texts The early results have decoded scattered words and short passages, but the goal of the project is far more ambitious, and is intended to read entire scrolls from start to finish. For another Herculaneum scroll, Pherc Paris 4, teams have read around 5% of the text covering Epicurean themes of pleasure and food. The 2024 grand prize was determined to reach 90% text recovery, laying the groundwork for complete translations. Resurrecting History Using Technology Unlike earlier mechanical unrolling, like Padre Antonio Piaggio’s 18th-century silk-thread device, these modern methods are non-invasive. Using digital imaging and AI, researchers avoid damaging these irreplaceable artifacts. The method holds the promise of unlocking countless secrets of the past. A Breath Of Fresh Air For Classical Studies All of this use of machine learning, imaging, and collaborative competition is a major breakthrough in humanities research, and could turn out to be the biggest discovery of the 21st century. In deciphering these scrolls, researchers are adding massively to our understanding of ancient thought. Future projects could reveal lost works by Philodemus, Seneca, or even philosophical texts whose authors’ names we don’t know. A Huge Backlog With over 800 scrolls piled up waiting for analysis across Naples, Oxford, and elsewhere, the AI quest for the truth is only now taking its first bold steps. As the technology gets better, the integration of X rays, infrared imaging, and machine learning promise to bring more history-shattering revelations. The 24/7 digitization and open-access initiatives should keep scholars occupied for years to come. …. The deciphering of the Herculaneum scrolls shows how new technology can breathe life into a field of study stuck at a standstill. As researchers continue to reveal the secrets of these scrolls, the dusty halls of academia are going to be a much noisier and more exciting place!

Origins of Islam

by Damien F. Mackey With regard to my interest in the archaeology of Mecca, for example: A funny thing happened on the way to Mecca (2) A funny thing happened on the way to Mecca a Southern Evangelical Seminary Faculty Member has suggested to me: “Check out the Hidden Origins of Islam edited by Karl Heinz-Ohlig, as well as Crossroads to Islam by Yehuda Nevo. These books will get you started”. https://www.amazon.com.au/dp/1591026342?ref_=mr_referred_us_au_au Despite Muhammad's exalted place in Islam, even today there is still surpisingly [sic] little actually known about this shadowy figure and the origins of the Qur'an because of an astounding lack of verifiable biographical material. Furthermore, most of the existing biographical traditions that can be used to substantiate the life of Muhammad date to nearly two centuries after his death, a time when a powerful, expansive, and idealized empire had become synonymous with his name and vision - thus resulting in an exaggerated and often artificial characterization of the prophetic figure coupled with many questionable interpretations of the holy book of Islam. On the basis of datable and localizable artifacts from the seventh and eighth centuries of the Christian era, many of the historical developments, misconceptions, and fallacies of Islam can now be seen in a different light. Excavated coins that predate Islam and the old inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem utilize symbols used in a documented Syrian Arabic theology - a theology with Christian roots. Interpreting traditional contexts of historical evidence and rereading passages of the Qur'an, the researchers in this thought-provoking volume unveil a surprising - and highly unconventional - picture of the very foundations of Islamic religious history. [End of quote] My own view is that Mohammed was not a real C7th AD historical figure, at all, but a non-historical fictitious composite. See e.g. my article: Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History https://www.academia.edu/114699777/Biography_of_the_Prophet_Mohammed_Muhammad_Seriously_Mangles_History https://www.google.com/search?num=10&sca_esv=160e23f215d5943b&rlz=1C1RXQR_en-gbAU979AU979&sxsrf=AE3TifO-rBqgpX_cHXyLZS6DnO4Y7Y4IQg:1752095116912&q=Crossroads+to+Islam+by+Yehuda+Nevo.&source=lnms&fbs=AIIjpHwdlVWI4oi2g38E8_BbusNmV4N_PDMDZa8kD6jzfAqHH_e2wpq3bNF0nim2pM6iwiLn2tgcBi6KhLdjbQw7R8Fi7jULpZo01m0UyVnlrVcDlnjKUd6VUEtcUxkKOkJ_ARTEKORVHwkJf2FZXaIYJy120b1nNDaJp1BaVVMduHDgLVzhvfg7TgHnUp7kEhpqmBAphim3QbBp1v-3jrurwJCyytP4-eHZVyf_pirXqJbxa0xLv_k&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjdrbn41rCOAxUcxTgGHZFFFgEQ0pQJKAB6BAgPEAE&biw=1920&bih=945&dpr=1 Crossroads to Islam: The Origins of the Arab Religion and the Arab State is a book by archaeologist Yehuda D. Nevo and researcher Judith Koren. The book presents a radical theory of the origins and development of the Islamic state and religion based on archeological, epigraphical and historiographical research.

Merging a Kassite and a Hittite king

by Damien F. Mackey Historical parallel – which I regard as being just the one historical event – we have Tukulti-ninurta attacking Babylon and removing its Kassite king, Kastiliash so-called IV, in chains to Assyria; and we have Sargon II attacking Carchemish and removing its Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), in chains to Assyria. Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207 BC, conventional dating) was, in my scheme of things, the same neo-Assyrian king as Sargon II-Sennacherib: Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib (3) Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib And, again in my scheme of things, Babylon was the same as Carchemish. Now, in a recent article of mine on the subject: Capital importance that Sargon II attached to the city of Carchemish (4) Capital importance that Sargon II attached to the city of Carchemish I drew an historical parallel between Tukulti-Ninurta’s defeat of the Kassite king, Kashtiliash, of Babylon, and Sargon II’s defeat of the Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), of Carchemish (Karkemish, Karkamis). Here is the gist of it: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS JOURNALS—In “A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish,” published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Gianni Marchesi translates a recently discovered inscription of the Assyrian King Sargon II found at the ruins of the ancient city of Karkemish. The inscription, which dates to around 713 B.C., details Sargon’s conquest, occupation, and reorganization of Karkemish, including his rebuilding the city with ritual ceremonies usually reserved for royal palaces in capital cities. The text implies that Sargon may have been planning to make Karkemish a western capital of Assyria, from which he could administer and control his empire’s western territories. The cuneiform inscription was found on fragments from three different clay cylinders in 2015 as part of the Nicolò Marchetti-led Turco-Italian Archaeological Expedition at Karkemish. Now in ruins, the site is located on the Euphrates river on the border between present day Syria and Turkey. Marchesi analyzed and translated the total of thirty-eight lines of partially broken Akkadian text, using reference material, academic literature and other inscribed Assyrian artifacts as reference points for filling in the gaps. The lines of text ranged from two-thirds complete to much less, and no line of text was completely intact. “Even so, we can grasp much of the original text, which turns out to be very informative,” Marchesi writes. “In fact, unlike other Sargon cylinders, which contain relatively standard ‘summary’ inscriptions or annalistic accounts of the events of Sargon’s reign, the Karkemish Cylinder provides us with a completely new inscription, dealing almost exclusively with the newly conquered city on the Euphrates in a highly-elaborated, literary style.” In the inscription, Sargon tells of the “betrayal” of … [Pisiri], the Hittite King of Karkemish who exchanged hostile words about Assyria with its enemy, King Midas of Phrygia. Sargon invades Karkemish, deports Pisiri and his supporters, destroys his palace, seizes his riches as booty and incorporates Pisiri’s army into his own. He resettles the city with Assyrians. Mackey’s comment: A vital connection can be made between Carchemish and Babylon, I believe, if one first accepts my thesis that Sargon II (Sennacherib) was the same as Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I: Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib (2) Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib Tukulti-Ninurta had fought and defeated Kashtiliash so-called IV, king of Babylon. Kaštiliašu was captured, single-handed by Tukulti-Ninurta according to his account, who “trod with my feet upon his lordly neck as though it were a footstool”. And we have just read - what I would consider to be the parallel version to this - where Sargon II defeats and deports Pisiri[s], king of Carchemish. Previously, in my article: Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon (2) Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon I spelled out the striking parallels between the two scenarios:  Historical parallel – which I regard as being just the one historical event – we have Tukulti-ninurta attacking Babylon and removing its Kassite king, Kastiliash so-called IV, in chains to Assyria; and we have Sargon II attacking Carchemish and removing, its Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), in chains to Assyria. Spelt out, Tukulti-ninurta/Sargon II attacks and takes the city of Babylon/ Carchemish and captures the Kassite/Hittite king, Kashtiliash/Piyasili, taking him in chains to Assyria.

Hebrew influences permeated the lore of the ancient pagans

by Damien F. Mackey “The name of Aqht, the son of Danel, returns as Qehat, the grandfather of Moses. The name of the locality Mrrt, where Aqht was killed, figures in the gentilic form Merarî as the brother of Qehat in the Levite genealogy. The name of P?t, the daughter of Danel and the devoted sister of Aqht, is met in the Moses story as Pû'ã, a midwife who saved the life of the new-born Moses”. Michael Astour Law and Government Moses The great Lawgiver in the Bible, and hence in Hebrew history, was Moses, substantially the author of the Torah (Law). But the history books tell us that the Torah was probably dependent upon the law code issued by the Babylonian king, Hammurabi (dated to the first half of the 18th BC). I shall discuss this further on. Also, the famous Spartan lawgiver, Lycurgus, seems to have been based upon Moses: Moses and Lycurgus (4) Moses and Lycurgus For Egyptian identifications of Moses, see e. g. my article: Realisation of who was the Egyptianised Moses (4) Realisation of who was the Egyptianised Moses The Egyptians may have corrupted the legend of the baby Moses in the bulrushes so that now it became the goddess Isis who drew the baby Horus from the Nile and had him suckled by Hathor (the goddess in the form of a cow – the Egyptian personification of wisdom). In the original story, of course, baby Moses was drawn from the water by an Egyptian princess, not a goddess, and was weaned by Moses’ own mother (Exodus 2:5-9). But could both the account of the rescue of the baby Moses in the Book of Exodus, and the Egyptian version of it, be actually based upon a Mesopotamian original, as the textbooks say; based upon the story of king Sargon of Akkad in Mesopotamia? Sargon tells, “in terms reminiscent of Moses, Krishna and other great men”, that [as quoted by G. Roux, Ancient Iraq, Penguin Books, 1964, p. 152]: .… My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me. She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed my lid. She cast me into the river which rose not over me. The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the drawer of water. Akki, the drawer of water, took me as his son and reared me …. Given that Sargon is conventionally dated to the C24th BC, and Moses about a millennium later, it would seem inevitable that the Hebrew version, and the Egyptian one, must be imitations of the Mesopotamian one. Such is what the ‘history’ books say, at least. The fact is, however, that the extant Sargon legend is very late (C7th BC); though thought to have been based upon an earlier Mesopotamian original. Dean Hickman has re-dated king Hammurabi of Babylon to the time of kings Solomon and David (mid-C10th BC), re-identifying Hammurabi’s older contemporary, Shamsi-Adad I, as king David’s Syrian foe, Hadadazer (2 Samuel 10:16) (“The Dating of Hammurabi”, Proceedings of the Third Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History, Uni. Of Toronto, 1985, ed. M. Luckerman, pp. 13-28). For more on this, see e. g. my articles: Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon (4) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon and: (4) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as contemporaries of Solomon. Part Two (b): Zimri-Lim's Palace and the four rivers? According to this new scenario, Hammurabi could not possibly have influenced Moses. Greek and Levant 'Moses-like Myths' Michael Astour believes that Moses, a hero of the Hebrew scriptures, shares "some cognate features" with Danaos (or Danaus), hero of Greek legend. He gives his parallels as follows (Hellenosemitica, p. 99): Moses grows up at the court of the Egyptian king as a member of the royal family, and subsequently flees from Egypt after having slain an Egyptian - as Danaos, a member of the Egyptian ruling house, flees from the same country after the slaying of the Aigyptiads which he had arranged. The same number of generations separates Moses from Leah the "wild cow" and Danaos from the cow Io. Mackey’s Comment: The above parallel might even account for how the Greeks managed to confuse the land of Ionia (Io) with the land of Israel in the case of the earliest philosophers. Astour continues (pp. 99-100): Still more characteristic is that both Moses and Danaos find and create springs in a waterless region; the story of how Poseidon, on the request of the Danaide Amymona, struck out with his trident springs from the Lerna rock, particularly resembles Moses producing a spring from the rock by the stroke of his staff. A ‘cow’ features also in the legend of Cadmus, son of Agenor, king of Tyre upon the disappearance of his sister Europa, who was sent by his father together with his brothers Cilix and Phoenix to seek her with instructions not to return without her. Seeking the advice of the oracle at Delphi, Cadmus was told to settle at the point where a cow, which he would meet leaving the temple, would lie down. The cow led him to the site of Thebes (remember the two cities by that name). There he built the citadel of Cadmeia. Cadmus married Harmonia, the daughter of Ares, god of war, and Aphrodite and, according to the legend, was the founder of the House of Oedipus. Astour believes that "even more similar features" may be discovered if one links these accounts to the Ugaritic (Levantine-Canaanite) poem of Danel, which he had previously identified as "the prototype of the Danaos myth" (p. 100): The name of Aqht, the son of Danel, returns as Qehat, the grandfather of Moses. The name of the locality Mrrt, where Aqht was killed, figures in the gentilic form Merarî as the brother of Qehat in the Levite genealogy. The name of P?t, the daughter of Danel and the devoted sister of Aqht, is met in the Moses story as Pû'ã, a midwife who saved the life of the new-born Moses. The very name of Moses, in the feminine form Mšt, is, in the Ugaritic poem, the first half of Danel's wife's name, while the second half of her name, Dnty, corresponds to the name of Levi's sister Dinah. Michael Astour had already explained how the biblical story of the Rape of Dinah (Genesis 34) was "analogous to the myth of the bloody wedding of her namesakes, the Danaides". He continues on here with his fascinating Greco-Israelite parallels: Dân, the root of the names Dnel, Dnty (and also Dinah and Danaos), was the name of a tribe whose priests claimed to descend directly from Moses (Jud. 18:30); and compare the serpent emblem of the tribe of Dan with the serpent staff of Moses and the bronze serpent he erected. …Under the same name - Danaë - another Argive heroine of the Danaid stock is thrown into the sea in a chest with her new-born son - as Moses in his ark (tébã) - and lands on the serpent-island of Seriphos (Heb. šãrâph, applied i.a. to the bronze serpent made by Moses). Moses, like Danel, is a healer, a prophet, a miracle-worker - cf. Danel's staff (mt) which he extends while pronouncing curses against towns and localities, quite like Moses in Egypt; and especially, like Danel, he is a judge…. Roman 'Moses-like Myth' The Romans further corrupted the story of the infant Moses, following on probably from the Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Levantines and Greeks. I refer to the account of Romulus (originally Rhomus) and Remus, thought to have founded the city of Rome in 753 BC. Both the founders and the date are quite mythical. Did the Romans take an Egyptian name for Moses, such as Musare, and turn it into Rhomus and Remus (MUSA-RE = RE-MUS), with the formerly one child (Moses) now being doubled into two babies (twins)? According to this legend, the twins were put into a basket by some kind servants and floated in the Tiber River, from which they were eventually rescued by a she-wolf. Thus the Romans more pragmatically opted for a she-wolf as the suckler instead of a cow goddess, or a lion goddess, Sekhmet (the fierce alter ego of Hathor). The Romans may have taken yet another slice from the Pentateuch when they had the founder of the city of Rome, Romulus, involved in a fratricide (killing Remus); just as Cain, the founder of the world's first city, had killed his own brother, Abel (cf. Genesis 4:8 and 4:17). Mohammed: Arabian `Moses-like Myths' ... An Islamic lecturer, Ahmed Deedat ["What the Bible Says About Mohammed (Peace Be Upon Him) the Prophet of Islam" (www.islamworld.net/Muhammad.in.Bible.html)], told of an interview he once had with a dominee of the Dutch Reformed Church in Transvaal, van Heerden, on the question: "What does the Bible say about Muhummed?" Deedat had in mind the Holy Qur'an verse 46:10, according to which "a witness among the children of Israel bore witness of one like him…". This was, in turn, a reference to Deuteronomy 18:18's "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." The Moslems, of course, interpret the "one like him [i.e. Moses]" as being Mohammed himself. Faced with the dominee's emphatic response that the Bible has "nothing" to say about Mohammed - and that the Deuteronomic prophecy ultimately pertained to Jesus Christ, as did "thousands" of other prophecies - Deedat set out to prove him wrong. On the deft apologetical ploy used here, see my article: Zakir Naik’s apologetical tactic meant to embarrass Christians (4) Zakir Naik's apologetical tactic meant to embarrass Christians For some of my own views on the Prophet Mohammed, see my article: Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History (4) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History Some Conclusions regarding Mohammed (c. 570-632 AD, conventional dating) Whilst Mohammed supposedly lived much later than Moses, there nevertheless do seem to be Arabic borrowings of the Moses story itself (and even appropriations of certain very specific aspects of the life of Jesus, as we shall read later) in the legends about Mohammed, who especially resembles Moses in: (i) the latter's visit to Mount Horeb with its cave atop, its Burning Bush, and angel (Exodus 3:1-2), possibly equating to Mohammed's "Mountain of Light" (Jabal-an-Nur), and 'cave of research' (`Ghar-i-Hira'), and angel Gabriel; (ii) at the very same age of forty (Acts 7:23-29), and (iii) there receiving a divine revelation, leading to his (iv) becoming a prophet of God and a Lawgiver. Mohammed as a Lawgiver is (like the Spartan Lycurgus) a direct pinch, I believe, from the Hebrew Pentateuch, and also from the era of Jeremiah. Consider the following by M. O'Hair ("Mohammed", A text of American Atheist Radio Series program No. 65, first broadcast on August 25, 1969: www.atheists.org/Islam.Mohammed.html "Now the Kaaba or Holy Stone at Mecca was the scene of an annual pilgrimage, and during this pilgrimage in 621 Mohammed was able to get six persons from Medina to bind themselves to him. They did so by taking the following oath. Not consider anyone equal to Allah; Not to steal; Not to be unchaste; Not to kill their children; Not willfully to calumniate". This is simply the Mosaïc Decalogue, with the following Islamic addition: "To obey the prophet's orders in equitable matters. In return Mohammed assured these six novitiates of paradise. The place where these first vows were taken is now called the first Akaba". "The mission of Mohammed", perfectly reminiscent of that of Moses, and later of Nehemiah, was "to restore the worship of the One True God, the creator and sustainer of the universe, as taught by Prophet Ibrahim [Abraham] and all Prophets of God, and complete the laws of moral, ethical, legal, and social conduct and all other matters of significance for the humanity at large." The above-mentioned Burning Bush incident occurred whilst Moses (a) was living in exile (Exodus 2:15) (b) amongst the Midianite tribe of Jethro, near the Paran desert. (c) Moses had married Jethro's daughter, Zipporah (v. 21). Likewise Mohammed: (a) experienced exile; (b) to Medina, a name which may easily have become confused with the similar sounding, Midian, and (c) he had only the one wife at the time, Khadija. Also (d) Moses, like Mohammed, was terrified by what God had commanded of him, protesting that he was "slow of speech and slow of tongue" (Exodus 4:10). To which God replied: "Who gives speech to mortals? Who makes them mute or deaf, seeing or blind? Is it not I, the Lord? Now go, and I will be your mouth and teach you what you are to speak' (vv. 11-12). Now this episode, seemingly coupled with Moses’s call, has come distorted into the Koran as Mohammed's being terrified by what God was asking of him, protesting that he was not learned. To which God supposedly replied that he had 'created man from a clot of congealed blood, and had taught man the use of the pen, and that which he knew not, and that man does not speak ought of his own desire but by inspiration sent down to him'. Ironically, whilst Moses the writer complained about his lack of verbal eloquence, Mohammed, 'unlettered and unlearned', who therefore could not write, is supposed to have been told that God taught man to use the pen (?). But Mohammed apparently never learned to write, because he is considered only to have spoken God's utterances. Though his words, like those of Moses (who, however, did write, e.g. Exodus 34:27), were written down in various formats by his secretary, Zaid (roughly equating to the biblical Joshua, a writer, Joshua 8:32, or to Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch). This is generally how the Koran is said to have arisen. But Mohammed also resembles Moses in his childhood (and Tobit also) in the fact that, after his infancy, he was raised by a foster-parent (Exodus 2:10). And there is the inevitable weaning legend (Zahoor, A. and Haq, Z., "Biography of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)", http://cyberistan.org/islamic/muhammad.html 1998.): "All biographers state that the infant prophet sucked only one breast of his foster-mother, leaving the other for the sustenance of his foster-brother". There is even a kind of Islamic version of the Exodus. Compare the following account of the Qoreish persecution and subsequent pursuit of the fleeing Moslems with the persecution and later pursuit of the fleeing Israelites by Pharaoh (Exodus 1 and 4:5-7) [O’Hair, op. cit., ibid.]: When the persecution became unbearable for most Muslims, the Prophet advised them in the fifth year of his mission (615 CE) to emigrate to Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) where Ashabah (Negus, a Christian) was the ruler. Eighty people, not counting the small children, emigrated in small groups to avoid detection. No sooner had they left the Arabian coastline [substitute Egyptian borders], the leaders of Quraish discovered their flight. They decided to not leave these Muslims in peace, and immediately sent two of their envoys to Negus to bring all of them back. The Koran of Islam is basically just the Arabic version of the Hebrew Bible with all of its same famous patriarchs and leading characters. That is apparent from what the Moslems themselves admit. For example [ibid.]: The Qur'an also mentions four previously revealed Scriptures: Suhoof (Pages) of Ibrahim (Abraham), Taurat ('Torah') as revealed to Prophet Moses, Zuboor ('Psalms') as revealed to Prophet David, and Injeel ('Evangel') as revealed to Prophet Jesus (pbuh). Islam requires belief in all prophets and revealed scriptures (original, non-corrupted) as part of the Articles of Faith. On this, see e.g. my article: Durie’s verdict on Prophet Mohammed (4) Durie's verdict on Prophet Mohammed Mohammed is now for Islam the last and greatest of the prophets. Thus, "in the Al-Israa, Gabriel (as) took the Prophet from the sacred Mosque near Ka'bah to the furthest (al-Aqsa) mosque in Jerusalem in a very short time in the latter part of a night. Here, Prophet Muhammad met with previous Prophets (Abraham, Moses, Jesus and others) and he led them in prayer" [ibid.]. Thus Mohammed supposedly led Jesus in prayer. The reputation of Ibn Ishaq (ca 704-767), a main authority on the life and times of the Prophet varied considerably among the early Moslem critics: some found him very sound, while others regarded him as a liar in relation to Hadith (Mohammed's sayings and deeds). His Sira is not extant in its original form, but is present in two recensions done in 833 and 814-15, and these texts vary from one another. Fourteen others have recorded his lectures, but their versions differ [ibid.]: It was the storytellers who created the tradition: the sound historical traditions to which they are supposed to have added their fables simply did not exist. . . . Nobody remembered anything to the contrary either. . . . There was no continuous transmission. Ibn Ishaq, al-Waqidi, and others were cut off from the past: like the modern scholar, they could not get behind their sources.... Finally, it has to be realized that the tradition as a whole, not just parts of it as some have thought, is tendentious, and that that tendentiousness arises from allegiance to Islam itself. Mohammed, a composite figure, seems to have likenesses even to pre-Mosaïc patriarchs, and to Jesus in the New Testament. Thus Mohammed, at Badr, successfully led a force of 300+ men (the number varies from 300-318) against an enemy far superior in number, as did Abraham (Genesis 14:14); and, like Jacob (Genesis 30, 31), he used a ruse to get a wife (in Jacob's case, wives). And like Jesus, the greatest of all God's prophets, Mohammed is said to have ascended into heaven from Jerusalem. Modern Myths about Moses From the above it can now be seen that it was not only the Greeks and Romans who have been guilty of appropriation into their own folklore of famous figures of Israel. Even the Moslems have done it and are still doing it. A modern-day Islamic author from Cairo, Ahmed Osman, has - in line with psychiatrist Sigmund Freud's view that Moses was actually an Egyptian, whose Yahwism was derived from pharaoh Akhnaton's supposed monotheism [Out of Egypt. The Roots of Christianity Revealed (Century, 1998)] - identified all the major biblical Israelites, from the patriarch Joseph to the Holy Family of Nazareth, as Eighteenth Dynasty Egyptian characters. Thus Joseph = Yuya; Moses = Akhnaton; David = Thutmose III; Solomon = Amenhotep III; Jesus = Tutankhamun; St. Joseph = Ay; Mary = Nefertiti. This is mass appropriation! Not to mention chronological madness! I was asked by Dr. Norman Simms of the University of Waikato (N.Z.) to write a critique of Osman's book, a copy of which he had posted to me. This was a rather easy task as the book leaves itself wide open to criticism. Anyway, the result of Dr. Simms' request was my article, "Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses" article [The Glozel Newsletter, 5:1 (ns) 1999 (Hamilton, N.Z), pp. 1-17], in which I argued that, because Osman is using the faulty textbook history of Egypt, he is always obliged to give the chronological precedence to Egypt, when the influence has actually come from Israel over to Egypt. [This article, modified, can now be read at: Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People (4) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part One: The Chosen People and: Osman’s ‘Osmosis’ of Moses. Part II: Christ the King (4) Osman's 'Osmosis' of Moses. Part Two: Christ The King The way that Egyptian chronology is structured at present - thanks largely to Dr. Eduard Meyer's now approximately one century-old Ägyptische Chronologie (Philosophische und historische Abhandlungen der Königlich preussischen Akad. der Wissenschaften, Berlin, Akad. der Wiss., 1904).) could easily give rise to Osman's precedence in favour of Egypt view (though this is no excuse for Osman's own chronological mish-mash). One finds, for example, in pharaoh Hatshepsut's inscriptions such similarities to king David's Psalms that it is only natural to think that she, the woman-pharaoh - dated to the C15th BC, 500 years earlier than David - must have influenced the great king of Israel. Or that pharaoh Akhnaton's Hymn to the Sun, so like David's Psalm 104, had inspired David many centuries later. Only a proper revision of ancient Egyptian history brings forth the right perspective, and shows that the Israelites actually had the chronological precedence in these as in many other cases. It gets worse from a conventional point of view. The 'doyen of Israeli archaeologists', Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv University, frequently interviewed by Beirut hostage victim John McCarthy on the provocative TV program “It Ain't Necessarily So”, has, together with his colleagues, virtually written ancient Israel right off the historical map, along with all of its major biblical characters. This horrible mess is an inevitable consequence of the faulty Sothic chronology with which these archaeologists seem to be mesmerized. With friends like Finkelstein and co., why would Israel need any enemies! The Lawgiver Solon Whilst the great Lawgiver for the Hebrews was Moses, and for the Babylonians, Hammurabi, and for the Moslems, supposedly, Mohammed, the Lawgiver in Greek folklore was Solon of Athens, the wisest of the wise, greatest of the Seven Sages. Though Solon is estimated to have lived in the C6th BC, his name and many of his activities are so close to king Solomon's (supposedly 4 centuries earlier) that we need once again to question whether the Greeks may have been involved in appropriation. And, if so, how did this come about? It may in some cases simply be a memory thing, just as according to Plato's Timaeus one of the very aged Egyptian priests supposedly told Solon (Plato's Timaeus, trans. B. Jowett, The Liberal Arts Press, NY, 1949), 6 (22)) and /or Desmond Lee's translation, Penguin Classics, p. 34]: "O Solon, Solon, you Hellenes [Greeks] are never anything but children, and there is not an old man among you. Solon in return asked him what he meant. I mean to say, he replied, that in mind you are all young; there is no old opinion handed down among you by ancient tradition, nor any science which is hoary with age. …" Perhaps what the author of the Timaeus really needed to have put into the mouth of the aged Egyptian priest was that the Greeks had largely forgotten who Solomon was, and had created their own fictional character, "Solon", from their vague recall of the great king Solomon who "excelled all the kings of the earth in riches and in wisdom" (1 Kings 10:23). Solon resembles Solomon especially in roughly the last decade of the latter's reign, when Solomon, turning away from Yahwism, became fully involved with his mercantile ventures, his fleet, travel, and building temples for his foreign wives, especially in Egypt (10:26-29; 11:1-8). Now, it is to be expected that the pagan Greeks would remember this more 'rationalist' aspect of Solomon (as Solon) rather than his wisdom-infused, philosophical, earlier years when he was a devout Jew and servant of Yahweh (4:29-34). And, Jewish, Solon apparently was! Edwin Yamauchi has studied the laws of Solon in depth and found them to be quite Jewish in nature, most reminiscent of the laws of Nehemiah (c. 450 BC) ("Two reformers compared: Solon of Athens and Nehemiah of Jerusalem," Bible world. New York: KTAV, 1980. pp. 269-292). That date of 450 BC may perhaps be some sort of clue as to approximately when the Greeks first began to create their fictional Solon. Solomon was, as I have argued in my "Solomon and Sheba" article ("Solomon and Sheba", SIS C and C Review, 1997:1, pp. 4-15), the most influential Senenmut of Egyptian history, Hatshepsut's mentor; whilst Hatshepsut herself was the biblical Queen [of] Sheba. This article can now be read at: Solomon and Sheba http://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba I have also identified Hatshepsut/Sheba as the biblical Abishag, who comforted the aged David (I Kings 1-4), and the beautiful virgin daughter of David, Tamar. See e.g. my article: The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife (4) The vicissitudinous life of Solomon's pulchritudinous wife Professor Henry Breasted had made a point relevant to my theme of Greek appropriation - and in connection too with the Solomonic era (revised). Hatshepsut's marvellous temple structure at Deir el-Bahri, he said, was "a sure witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the Greeks later would be credited as the originators" (A History of Egypt, 2nd ed., NY (Scribner, 1924), p. 274). One need not necessarily perhaps always accuse the Greeks of a malicious corruption of earlier traditions, but perhaps rather of a 'collective amnaesia', to use a Velikovskian term; the sort of forgetfulness by the Greek nation as alluded to in Plato's Timaeus. There is also to be considered that the Levantines and/or Jews had migrated to Greece. In 1 Maccabees 12:21 [Areios king of the Spartans, to Onias the high priest, greetings: "A document has been found stating that the Spartans and the Jews are brothers; both nations descended from Abraham." By this late stage the earlier histories would already have been well and truly corrupted. The Abrahamic emigrants would naturally have carried their folklore - not to mention their architectural expertise - to the Greek archipelago where it would inevitably have undergone local adaptation. The Jewish philosopher, Aristobulus, was one who claimed that the Greeks had borrowed heavily from the Hebrew Torah. Thus we read an article by E. S. Gruen (2016), “Jewish Perspectives on Greek Culture and Ethnicity: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/10.1515_9783110375558-011.pdf [Pp. 181-185. Note: Whereas the author himself, E. S. Gruen, believes that the Jews greatly manipulated the Greek texts to make these conform to their own point of view – I believe, on the other hand, that the Greeks appropriated, but distorted, the original Hebrew writings]: Aristobulus, a man of wide philosophical and literary interests … wrote an extensive work, evidently a form of commentary on the Torah, at an uncertain date in the Hellenistic period. …. Only a meager portion of that work now survives, but enough to indicate a direction and objective: Aristobulus, among other things, sought to establish the Bible as foundation for much of the Greek intellectual and artistic achievement. Moses, for Aristobulus as for Eupolemus and Artapanus, emerges as a culture hero, precursor and inspiration for Hellenic philosophical and poetic traditions. But Aristobulus’ Moses, unlike the figure concocted by Eupolemus and Artapanus, does not transmit the alphabet, interpret hieroglyphics, or invent technology. His accomplishment is the Torah, the Israelite law code. And from that creation, so Aristobulus imagines, a host of Hellenic attainments drew their impetus. Foremost among Greek philosophers, Plato was a devoted reader of the Scriptures, poring over every detail, and faithfully followed its precepts. …. And not only he. A century and a half earlier, Pythagoras borrowed much from the books of Moses and inserted it into his own teachings. …. …. Other philosophers, too, came under the sway of the Torah. So at least Aristobulus surmised. The “divine voice” to which Socrates paid homage owed its origin to the words of Moses. …. And Aristobulus made a still broader generalization. He found concurrence among all philosophers in the need to maintain reverent attitudes toward God, a doctrine best expressed, of course, in the Hebrew Scriptures which preceded (and presumably determined) the Greek precepts. Indeed, all of Jewish law was constructed so as to underscore piety, justice, selfcontrol and the other qualities that represent true virtues—i.e., the very qualities subsequently embraced and propagated by the Greeks. …. Aristobulus thereby brought the whole tradition of Greek philosophizing under the Jewish umbrella. That was just a part of the project. Aristobulus not only traced philosophic precepts to the Torah. He found its echoes in Greek poetry from earliest times to his own day. The Sabbath, for instance, a vital part of Jewish tradition stemming from Genesis, was reckoned by Aristobulus as a preeminent principle widely adopted and signaled by the mystical quality ascribed to the number seven. …. And he discovered proof in the verses of Homer and Hesiod. …. Aristobulus … interpreted a Hesiodic reference to the seventh day of the month as the seventh day of the week. And he (or his source) emended a line of Homer from the “fourth day” to the “seventh day.” …. The creative Aristobulus also enlisted in his cause poets who worked in the distant mists of antiquity, namely the mythical singers Linus and Orpheus. Linus, an elusive figure variously identified as the son of Apollo or the music master of Heracles, conveniently left verses that celebrated the number seven as representing perfection itself, associating it with the heavenly bodies, with an auspicious day of birth, and as the day when all is made complete. …. The connection with the biblical origin of the Sabbath is strikingly close …. Aristobulus summoned up still greater inventiveness in adapting or improvising a wholesale monotheistic poem assigned to Orpheus himself. The composition delivers sage advice from the mythical singer to his son or pupil Musaeus (here in proper sequence of generations), counseling him to adhere to the divine word and describing God as complete in himself while completing all things, the sole divinity with no rivals, hidden to the human eye but accessible to the mind, a source of good and not evil, seated on a golden throne in heaven, commanding the earth, its oceans and mountains, and in control of all. …. The poem, whether or not it derives from Aristobulus’ pen, belongs to the realm of Hellenistic Judaism. It represents a Jewish commandeering of Orpheus, emblematic of Greek poetic art, into the ranks of those proclaiming the message of biblical monotheism. Aristobulus did not confine himself to legendary or distant poets. He made bold to interpret contemporary verses in ways suitable to his ends. One sample survives. Aristobulus quoted from the astronomical poem, the Phaenomena, of the Hellenistic writer Aratus of Soli. Its opening lines proved serviceable. By substituting “God” for “Zeus,” Aristobulus turned Aratus’ invocation into a hymn for the Jewish deity. …. The campaign to convert Hellenic writings into footnotes on the Torah was in full swing. In that endeavor Aristobulus had much company. Resourceful Jewish writers searched through the scripts of Attic dramatists, both tragic and comic, for passages whose content suggested acquaintance with Hebrew texts or ideas. …. Verses with a strikingly Jewish flavor were ascribed to Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and others to the comic playwrights Menander, Diphilus, and Philemon, again a combination of classical and Hellenistic authors. On Aeschylus, see my series: Ezekiel and Aeschylus. Part One: Aeschylus a Greek appropriation of Ezekiel? beginning with: (4) Ezekiel and Aeschylus. Part One: Aeschylus a Greek appropriation of Ezekiel? The fragments are preserved only in Church Fathers and the names of transmitters are lost to us. But the milieu of Jewish-Hellenistic intellectuals is unmistakable. …. Verses from Aeschylus emphasized the majesty of God, his omnipotence and omnipresence, the terror he can wreak, and his resistance to representation or understanding in human terms. …. Sophocles insisted upon the oneness of the Lord who fashioned heaven and earth, the waters and the winds; he railed against idolatry; he supplied an eschatological vision to encourage the just and frighten the wicked; and he spoke of Zeus’ disguises and philandering—doubtless to contrast delusive myths with authentic divinity. …. Euripides, too, could serve the purpose. Researchers found lines affirming that God’s presence cannot be contained within structures created by mortals and that he sees all, but is himself invisible. …. Attribution of comparable verses to comic poets is more confused in the tradition, as Christian sources provide conflicting notices on which dramatist said what. But the recorded writers, Menander, Philemon, and Diphilus, supplied usefully manipulable material. One or another spoke of an all-seeing divinity who will deliver vengeance upon the unjust and wicked, who lives forever as Lord of all, who apportions justice according to deserts, who scorns offerings and votives but exalts the righteous at heart. ….

Dsemschid (Jamshid), a Babel era hero or Iranian imitation of King Solomon?

by Damien F. Mackey “In this profile Solomon resembles another mythic king whose rise and fall is told in another book in Meḥmed's library at Topkapı: Jamshīd, the culture hero of Abū’l-Qāsim Firdawsī's Iranian epic Shāhnāma”. Carlos Grenier The first time that I ever heard of this character with the impossible name of Dsemschid was in reading stigmatist Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s supposed visions of the Old Testament. I had never heard of Dsemschid, who does not appear in either the Bible, or in any history of which I am aware. Who was he? Below one will find Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich’s detailed account of Dsemschid, “one of the grandsons of Thubal”, an antediluvian patriarch. Just yesterday (22nd April, 2025), I came across Dsemschid’s name in the variant form of Jamshid, a figure from Iranian mythology, who, some think, was King Solomon. Thus Carlos Grenier writes in his article: Solomon, his temple, and Ottoman imperial anxieties Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2022 https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/bulletin-of-the-school-of-oriental-and-african-studies/article/solomon-his-temple-and-ottoman-imperial-anxieties/6647CBD2FB994F8E80D29594F088548B Abstract Several works focusing on the complex figure of Solomon appeared between 1450 and 1580, each offering variations on the themes of empire-building, sedentarization, sacral kingship, and technological change.The Dürr-i Meknun, written around the time of the conquest of Constantinople, uses Solomon to illustrate the risks of urbanization, imperial hubris and potential tyranny. The second, the Süleyman-name by the technically inclined author Uzun Firdevsi, portrays Solomon in the image of Sultan Bayezid II. The prophet, using his bureaucratic capacities, enacts Ottoman dreams of control over the eastern Mediterranean. Finally, the accounts given of the deeds of Sultan Süleyman, notably the reconstruction of the Temple Mount and the construction of the Süleymaniye complex in Istanbul, show the Solomonic myth consciously enacted by the state itself. These sources trace a trajectory whereby anxieties surrounding the transformations of early modernity are expressed and worked through by means of the vocabulary of a prophetological sacred history. …. In his library in Topkapı Palace in Istanbul, the Ottoman Sultan Mehmed II (r. 1451–81) kept a copy of the Testament of Solomon, an anonymous Greek text of disputed date.Footnote1 It tells of the Biblical Solomon's encounters with demons and spirits and closes with a cautionary tale in which the prophet-king falls in love with a princess from a pagan land. This pagan princess says she will not marry him unless he worships her gods, which Solomon, as prophet of the one God, refuses to do. She insists and lays before the king “five grasshoppers, saying ‘Take these grasshoppers, and crush them together in the name of the gods Raphan and Moloch; then I will sleep with you’”. Solomon confesses, “And this I actually did. And at once the Spirit of God departed from me … Wretch that I am, I followed her advice … and my spirit was darkened, and I became the sport of idols and demons”.Footnote2 Elsewhere in Topkapı's library were preserved closely related stories. Several versions of the ubiquitous medieval collections of prophet tales known as Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā (“Tales of the Prophets”) present Solomonic narratives derived in part from the sources of the Testament. Emerging out of a body of lore on pre-Islamic prophetology collectively termed isrā’īliyyāt (“Israelite lore”),Footnote3 the Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyā of al-Thaʿlabi and al-Kisā’i tell of a pagan princess whom Solomon had married, and who was secretly devoted to the cult of her own father whom she had re-imaged as an idol of gold in her private palace.Footnote4 The wise vizier Asaf discovers this and informs Solomon, who, distraught, loses his divine guidance as the demon Sakhr steals the king's signet ring and sits on his throne. Exiled from kingship and prophecy, the disgraced Solomon is forced to repent fully for his wife's paganism before he can regain his throne. The Solomon of the Qiṣaṣ of Ibn ʿAsākīr hews even more closely to that of the Testament: the king sacrifices a locust to his wife's idols.Footnote5 As for the Quran itself, the standard by which Muslim readers would measure the authenticity of the others, Solomon is rehabilitated,Footnote6 but not before he is for a time made absent from his throne, replaced by a “mere body”.Footnote7 This exiled Solomon, whose love for his wives leads him to dabble in pagan worship and to rush towards a hubristic fall, is based on the canonical Solomon of the Hebrew Bible. “As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods …”, reads 1 Kings, and God resolves to take his kingdom away from him.Footnote8 This complex Biblical Solomon presents to the Jewish and Christian exegete a certain problem: the ultimate builder, possessed of wisdom and kingly virtues, nonetheless succumbs to a temptation that squanders his gifts.Footnote9 In this profile Solomon resembles another mythic king whose rise and fall is told in another book in Meḥmed's library at Topkapı: Jamshīd, the culture hero of Abū’l-Qāsim Firdawsī's Iranian epic Shāhnāma. “[Jamshīd cried] ‘Who would dare say that any man but I was king?’ All the elders inclined their heads … By saying this he lost God's farr, and through the world men's murmurings of sedition grew … Jamshīd's days were darkened, and his world-illuminating splendor dimmed”, writes Firdawsī.Footnote10 For this reason, Jamshīd and Solomon were commonly interpreted by Muslims from India to the Ottoman lands as two names for the same person.Footnote11 Indeed, the conflation of Solomon and Jamshīd seems to have created in the minds of Muslim commentators the same problem that vexes Biblical exegetes. How could Solomon and Jamshīd have been the same, when the latter clearly sinned? How can a glorious king and prophet fail so spectacularly? Although the fifteenth-century Persian historian Mīrkhwānd absolves Solomon of Jamshīd's sins by noting the many centuries that separate the two,Footnote12 Solomon, in the imagination of many, had absorbed Jamshīd's darker aspects. Seen together, the several Solomon stories that shared the shelves of Sultan Meḥmed's library speak with deep multivalence. While remaining the ultimate archetype of sacral kingship and the overseer of monumental urbanism, Solomon presents at the same time a counter-narrative critical of monarchy. In showing Solomon succumbing to the allure of power as his domain expands to pagan territories and as his household grows to include polytheist women, the story seems to give voice to an awareness of dangers of imperial expansion and the centralization that complements it. The story alludes to the precarity of the imperial model, always at the verge of a fall, a fall precisely connected to the cosmopolitanism of empire. The strength of empires in accommodating difference here leads to their disintegration. …. [End of quote] Now, According to Blessed Anne Catherine Emmrich’s completely different account of Dsemschid (in Life of Jesus Christ): …. I saw them, Thubal's fol¬lowers, on a high mountain where they dwelt one above another in long, low huts like arbors. I saw them digging the ground, planting, and setting out trees in rows. The opposite side of the mountain was cold. Later on the whole region became much colder. In consequence of this change in the climate, one of the grandsons of Thubal, the ancestor Dsemschid, led them further toward the southwest. With a few excep¬tions, all who had seen Noe and had taken leave of him died in this place, that is, on the mountain to which Thubal had led them. They who followed Dsem¬schid were all born on the same mountain. They took with them the few surviving old men who had known Noe, carrying them very carefully in litters. When Thubal with his family separated from Noe, I saw among them that child of Mosoch, Hom, who had gone with Thubal into the ark. Hom was already grown, and later on I saw him very different from those around him. He was of large stature like a giant, and of a very serious, peculiar turn of mind. He wore a long robe, he was like a priest. He used to go alone to the summit of the mountain and there spend night after night. He observed the stars and practiced magic. He was taught by the devil to arrange what he saw in vision into a science, a religion, and thereby he vitiated and counteracted the teaching of Henoch. The evil inclinations inherited from his mother mingled in him with the pure hereditary teach-ings of Henoch and Noe, to which the children of Thubal clung. Hom, by his false visions and revela¬tions, misinterpreted and changed the ancient truth. He studied and pondered, watched the stars and had visions which, by Satan's agency, showed him deformed images of truth. Through their resemblance to truth, his doctrine and idolatry became the mothers of heresy. Thubal was a good man. Hom's manner of acting and his teaching were very displeasing to Thubal, who was greatly grieved to see one of his sons, the father of Dsemschid, attach himself to Hom. I heard Thubal complaining: "My children are not united. Would that I had not separated from Noe!" Hom conducted the waters of two springs from the higher part of the mountain down to the dwellings. They soon united into one stream which, after a short course, swelled into a broad torrent. I saw Dsemschid and his followers crossing it at their departure. Hom received almost divine homage from his followers. He taught them that God exists in fire. He had also much to do with water, and with that viscous root from which he derived his name. He planted it, and solemnly distributed it as a sacred medicine and nour¬ishment. This distribution at last, became a ceremony of religion. He carried its juice or pap around with him in a brown vessel like a mortar. The axes were of the same material. They got them from people of another tribe that lived far away in a mountainous country and forged such implements by means of fire. I saw them on a mountain from which fire burst forth, sometimes in one place, sometimes in another. I think the vessel which Hom carried around with him was made out of the melted metal or rock that flowed from the mountain, and which was caught in a mold. Hom never married nor did he live to be very old. He published many of his visions referring to his own death. He himself put faith in them as did also Derketo and his other followers at a later period. But I saw him dying a frightful death, and the evil one carried him off body and soul; nothing remained of him. For that reason his followers thought, that, like Henoch, he had been taken up to a holy dwelling place. The father of Dsemschid had been a pupil of Hom, and Hom left him his spirit in order that he might then be the one who would succeed him. On account of his knowledge, Dsemschid became the leader of his people. They soon became a nation, and were led by Dsemschid still further south. Dsems¬chid was very distinguished; he was well-educated, and had embraced Hom's teachings. He was unspeak-ably lively and vigorous, much more active and better also than Hom, who was of a dark, rigid disposition. He practiced the religion formulated by Hom, added many things of his own thereto, and gave much atten¬tion to the stars. His followers regarded fire as sacred. They were all distinguished by a certain sign which denoted their race. People at that time kept together in tribes; they did not intermingle then as now. Dsem¬schid's special aim was to improve the races and maintain them in their original purity; he separated and transplanted them as seemed best to him. He left them perfectly free, and yet they were very sub¬missive to him. The descendants of those races, whom I now see wild and barbarous in distant lands and islands, are not to be compared with their progeni¬tors in point of personal beauty or manly character; for those early nations were noble and simple, yet withal most valiant. The races of the present day are also far less skillful and clever, and possess less bodily strength. On his marches, Dsemschid laid the foundations of tent cities, marked off fields, made long roads of stone, and formed settlements here and there of cer¬tain numbers of men and women, to whom he gave animals, trees, and plants. He rode around large tracks of land, striking into the earth with an instrument which he always carried in his hand, and his people then set to work in those places, grubbing and hack¬ing, making hedges and digging ditches. Dsemschid was remarkably strict and just. I saw him as a tall old man, very thin and of a yellowish-red complex¬ion. He rode a surprisingly nimble little animal with slender legs and black and yellow stripes, very much like an ass. Dsemschid rode around a tract of land just as our poor people go around a field on the heath by night, and thus appropriated it for cultivation. He paused here and there, plunged his grubbing axe into the ground or drove in a stake to mark the sites of future settlements. The instrument, which was after¬ward called Dsemschid's golden plough share, was in form like a Latin cross. It was about the length of one's arm and, when drawn out, formed with the shaft a right angle. With this instrument, Dsemschid made fissures in the earth. A representation of the same appeared on the side of his robe where pockets gen¬erally are. It reminded me of the symbol of office that Joseph and Aseneth always carried in Egypt, and with which they also surveyed the land, though that of Dsemschid was more like a cross. On the upper part was a ring into which it could be run. Dsemschid wore a mantle that fell backward from the front. From his girdle to the knee hung four leath¬ern flaps, two behind and two before, strapped at the side and fastened under the knee. His feet were bound with leather and straps. He wore a golden shield on his breast. He had several similar breastplates to suit various solemnities. His crown was a pointed cir¬clet of gold. The point in front was higher and bent like a little horn, and on the end of it waved some¬thing like a little flag. Dsemschid constantly spoke of Henoch. He knew that he had been taken away from the earth with¬out undergoing death. He taught that Henoch had delivered over to Noe all goodness and all truth, had appointed him the father and guardian of all bless¬ings, and that from Noe all these blessings had passed over to himself. He wore about him a golden egg shaped vessel in which, as he said, was contained something precious that had been preserved by Noe in the ark, and which had been handed down to him¬self. Wherever he pitched his tent, there the golden vessel was placed on a column, and over it, on ele¬gant posts carved with all kinds of figures, a cover¬ing was stretched. It looked like a little temple. The cover of the vessel was a crown of filigree work. When Dsemschid lighted fire, he threw into it something that he took out of the vessel. The vessel had indeed been used in the ark, for Noe had preserved the fire in it; but it was now the treasured idol of Dsemschid and his people. When it was set up, fire burned before it to which prayers were offered and animals sacri¬ficed, for Dsemschid taught that the great God dwells in light and fire, and that He has many inferior gods and spirits serving Him. All submitted to Dsemschid. He established colonies of men and women here and there, gave them herds and permitted them to plant and build. They were now allowed to follow their own pleasure in the mat¬ter of marriage, for Dsemschid treated them like cat¬tle, assigning wives to his followers in accordance with his own views. He himself had several. One was very beautiful and of a better family than the oth¬ers. Dsemschid destined his son by her to be his suc¬cessor. By his orders, great round towers were built, which were ascended by steps for the purpose of ob¬serving the stars. The women lived apart and in subjec¬tion. They wore short garments, the bodice and breast of material like leather, and some kind of stuff hung behind. Around the neck and over the shoulders they wore a full, circular cloak, which fell below the knee. On the shoulders and breast, it was ornamented with signs or letters. From every country that he settled, Dsemschid caused straight roads to be made in the direction of Babel. Dsemschid always led his people to uninhabited regions, where there were no nations to expel. He marched everywhere with perfect freedom, for he was only a founder, a settler. His race was of a bright red¬dish yellow complexion like ochre, very handsome people. All were marked in order to distinguish the pure from these of mixed descent. Dsemschid marched over a high mountain covered with ice. I do not remem¬ber how he succeeded in crossing, but many of his followers perished. They had horses or asses; Dsem¬schid rode on a little striped animal. A change of cli¬mate had driven them from their country. It became too cold for them, but it is warmer there now. Occa¬sionally he met on his march a helpless tribe either escaping from the tyranny of their chief, or awaiting in distress the advent of some leader. They willingly submitted to Dsemschid, for he was gentle, and he brought them grain and blessings. They were desti¬tute exiles who, like Job, had been plundered and banished. I saw some poor people who had no fire and who were obliged to bake their bread on hot stones in the sun. When Dsemschid gave them fire, they looked upon him as a god. He fell in with another tribe that sacrificed children who were deformed or who did not reach their standard of beauty. The lit¬tle ones were buried up to the waist, and a fire kin-dled around them. Dsemschid abolished this custom. He delivered many poor children, whom he placed in a tent and confided to the care of some women. He afterward made use of them, here and there, as ser¬vants. He was very careful to keep the genealogical line pure. Dsemschid first marched in a southwesterly direc¬tion, keeping the Prophet Mountain to the south on his left; then he turned to the south, the mountain still on his left, but to the east. I think he afterward crossed the Caucasus. At that period, when those regions were swarming with human beings, when all was life and activity, our countries were but forests, wildernesses, and marshes; only off toward the east might be met a small, wandering tribe. The Shining Star (Zoroaster), who lived long after, was descended from Dsemschid's son, whose teachings he revived. Dsemschid wrote all kinds of laws on bark and tables of stone. One long letter often stood for a whole sen¬tence. Their language was as yet the primitive one, to which ours still bears some resemblance. Dsem¬schid lived just prior to Derketo and her daughter, the mother of Semiramis. He did not go to Babel him¬self, though his career ran in that direction. I saw the history of Hom and Dsemschid as Jesus spoke of it before the pagan philosophers, at Lanifa in the isle of Cyprus. These philosophers had in Jesus' presence spoken of Dsemschid as the most ancient of the wise kings who had come from far beyond India. With a golden dagger received from God, he had divided off and peopled many lands, and had scattered bless¬ings everywhere. They questioned Jesus about him and the various wonders related to him. Jesus responded to their questions by saying that Dsem¬schid was by nature a prudent man, a man wise ac¬cording to flesh and blood; that he had been a leader of the nations; that upon the dispersion of men at the building of the Tower of Babel, he had led one race and settled countries according to a certain order; that there had been other leaders of that kind who had, indeed, led a worse life than he, because his race had not fallen into so great ignorance as many others. But Jesus showed them also what fables had been writ¬ten about him and that he was a false side picture, a counterfeit type of the priest and king Melchisedech. He told them to notice the difference between Dsem¬schid's race and that of Abraham. As the stream of nations moved along, God had sent Melchisedech to the best families, to lead and unite them, to prepare for them lands and abiding places, in order that they might preserve themselves unsullied and, in propor¬tion to their degree of worthiness, be found more or less fit to receive the grace of the Promise. Who Melchisedech was, Jesus left to themselves to deter¬mine; but of one thing they might be certain, he was an ancient type of the future, but then fast approach¬ing fulfillment of the Promise. The sacrifice of bread and wine which he had offered would be fulfilled and perfected, and would continue till the end of time.

Saint Vincent Ferrer channelling Apostle John the Evangelist?

by Damien F. Mackey Some common factors here are the references to the ‘Angel of Judgment’ of the Book of Revelation (14:6-7) and to an impending terrible judgment. Many amazing similarities between biblical (mainly OT) characters (even their names) and events, on the one hand, and notables of, supposedly, the C15th AD (1400’s), on the other, were pointed out in my recent article: Bible-themed people and events permeate what we call C15th AD (1) Bible-themed people and events permeate what we call C15th AD The C15th characters chosen to illustrate my point here were the following nine: 1. Joan of Arc: 1412-1431 2. Isaac Abarbanel: 1437-1508 3. Girolamo Savonarola: 1452-1498 4. Christopher Columbus: 1451-1506 5. Leonardo da Vinci: 1452-1519 6. Cesare Borgia: 1475-1507 7. Niccolò Machiavelli: 1469-1527 8. Martin Luther: 1483-1546 9. Suleiman the Magnificent: 1494-1566 But I could comfortably have brought this list up to a rounded ten (10) had I remembered to include the wonderworking Spanish Dominican saint, Vincent Ferrer (1350-1419), who (a) fits early into this time period, and who (b) can come across as being somewhat too good to be true, and who - like the nine others - bears about him a biblical stamp. In this case, though, unlike the others in the main, Vincent Ferrer emerges like a veritable NT character, notably, like John the Beloved Apostle. Introduction I once held a very different view about Saint Vincent Ferrer, based on the research of Fr. Herman B. Kramer, whose writings had intrigued me. I refer to his captivating study on the Apocalypse, The Book of Destiny (Tan, 1975), in which the author made some startling connections between John the Evangelist and Vincent Ferrer. According to Fr. Kramer’s novel interpretation of the Apocalypse, each chapter can be linked literally to an important era of Christian history. For instance, Revelation chapters 8 and 9 Fr. Kramer aligned with, respectively, the Great Western Schism (C14th-15th AD) and the Protestant Reformation (C16th AD). Perhaps Fr. Kramer’s lynchpin for all of this was his identifying of the Eagle, or Angel of Judgment, of Revelation 8:13, or 14:6, with St. Vincent Ferrer, OP. He wrote (ibid., pp. 208-9): By a wonderful co-incidence a great saint appears at this stage [the Western Schism] in the history of the Church. His eminence and influence procured for him the distinction of an eagle flying through mid-heaven. This was the Dominican priest, St. Vincent Ferrer. When in 1398 he lay at death’s door with fever, our Lord, St. Francis and St. Dominic appeared to him, miraculously cured him of his fever and commissioned him to preach penance and prepare men for the coming judgments. Preaching in the open space in San Esteban on October 3, 1408 he solemnly declared that he was the angel of the judgment spoken of by St. John in the Apocalypse. The body of a woman was just being carried to St. Paul’s church nearby for burial. St. Vincent ordered the bearers to bring the corpse before him. He adjured the dead to testify whether his claim was true or not. The dead woman came to life and in the hearing of all bore witness to the truth of the saint’s claim and then slept again in death (Fr. Stanislaus Hogan O.P.). Just as this, St. Vincent Ferrer’s extraordinary miracle, had convinced the Dominican Fathers, his superiors, that he was correct in his claim to be the Angel of Apocalypse, so was it all the proof that I needed back in the 1980’s to accept Fr. Kramer’s opinion that Revelation 8 and 14 (which include references to a warning Angel) were fixed to the very time of St. Vincent Ferrer. Thrilling stuff, all of it - but could it be true? Was Vincent Ferrer the wonderworking thaumaturgist that tradition claims him to have been, even to the extent that his miracles seemed to outdo those recorded of the twelve Apostles combined? Or, is “Vincent Ferrer”, like possibly the other nine candidates listed above, a biblical person (or combined persons) mysteriously projected into a fantasy C15th AD time? The Book of Revelation Despite the superficial ingenuity of Fr. Kramer’s interpretation, it does not – on closer scrutiny – match itself appropriately to St. John the Evangelist’s own words. Whereas Fr. Kramer tumbled out, like far flung dice, the events that the Evangelist described, spinning them right down through the centuries, even to our own time, St. John was clearly telling about an early fulfilment of the events that Jesus Christ had revealed to him. On this, see e.g. my article: Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject (2) Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject As noted in that article, I am greatly indebted to the insights of Dr. Kenneth L. Gentry on this subject. There is a pronounced dichotomy here between the standard interpretations of the Book of Revelation and the actual words of the author. St. John had said emphatically that these events were to happen “soon”; that is, soon for St. John’s era and generation of the C1st AD. St. John meant that soon-ness literally (indeed he repeats it in various ways). Thus a literal fulfilment of Revelation 8 and 14 in St. Vincent Ferrer’s time, almost a millennium and a half after St. John, as Fr. Kramer had proposed, would not seem to be at all compatible with St. John’s “soon”. In St. Vincent’s case, the matter of typology is further complicated by the difficulty of deciding whether his type is the Eagle/Angel of Revelation 8 or Revelation 14; a difficulty that Fr. Kramer obviously had at least – just as the author also seems to stumble over the fact that the Dominican was, like the Evangelist, utterly convinced that the judgments he foretold were to be fulfilled very soon (op. cit., p. 209): The above testimony [of the miracle] is accepted by all biographers of St. Vincent as a proof of his claim. But they make his reference to the Apocalypse indicate chapter XIV. 6, for they say he often chose it as his text, ‘Fear God, and give Him honor, for the day of His judgment is at hand’. They do not prove that he pronounced himself that particular angel. And he seems to have had only the general revelation that he was appointed “the angel of the judgment”. By designating him the angel of chapter XIV.6, the commentators run into inexplicable difficulties. For St. Vincent emphatically and repeatedly asserted that the day of Wrath was to come “soon, very soon, within a short time”, cito, bene cito et valde breviter. St. John announced that the judgment was to come very quickly (Apoc. III. II), which meant that it would begin to operate soon. Since St. Vincent uttered these prophecies, five centuries have elapsed, and the end of the world and last judgment have not come. Some try to explain it by saying that the saint meant the particular judgment; but that is meaningless. Others contend that he predicted the approach of the last judgment conditionally, as Jonas predicted the destruction of Nineveh …. But these are all conjectures of biographers. St. Vincent did not aver that he was the angel of chapter XIV. or that the General Judgment was very near. Fr. Kramer, after writing at some length in this rather tortuous vein, goes on to wonder whether St. Vincent might not have been entirely correct about his own apocalyptical identification, because he certainly estimated wrongly in another major matter (ibid., p. 211): Now that St. Vincent himself might have been mistaken about the place assigned to him in the apocalyptic prophecies need not appear strange. He adhered to the anti-pope, Benedict XIII, and sincerely believed him to be the legitimate pontiff. This was a matter in which his human judgment gave the decision. And this judgment can easily err. So also, since it was not explicitly revealed to him what angel of the Apocalypse he was, he may have drawn the mistaken conclusion that it was the one of chapter XIV. 6. However, it has not been proven that he claimed to be that angel or even thought he was. This latter angel has the commission to preach to EVERY “nation and tribe, and tongue, and people”. St. Vincent, even though his fame spread over it all, so that he was like “one flying through mid-heaven”, personally reached only a small part of Christendom. Fr. Kramer seems to be getting tangled up here. Confusion is exacerbated by failure to recognise that the apocalyptical judgment about which St. John was referring was intended for that generation (c. 30-70 AD), culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem (70 AD), and that it equates with the “coming” that Our Lord and the Apostles frequently referred to in regard to the generation that had crucified Him: a “coming” in judgment. Not to recognise this is to make a mockery of Our Lord’s clear words and of other New Testament prophecies. It also takes away the concreteness intended by Our Lord. When, prior to his Passion, He had placed before Him by “some people” the examples of (i) those slain by Pilate’s Roman troops, and (ii) others killed by a falling tower, He had insisted: ‘Unless you do penance you will all perish as they did [that is, by a violent death]’ (Luke 13:1-5). Whilst this statement is also open to spiritual interpretation, it should immediately be understood in the concrete sense, that this is exactly what was going to happen physically to that wicked generation of Jews if they did not have a change of heart within the allotted period of mercy. At the end of the 40 years of probation thousands upon thousands of Jews did die violent deaths at the hands of the Roman troops, with towers likewise falling upon them, as well as missiles, stones and fire. Could one man, Vincent Ferrer - whose predictions were dubious, to say the least - have achieved all of the amazing things accredited to him? Sunil Saldanha tells the incredible story of his life, which often seems to borrow from that of John the Beloved: https://medium.com/@suniljepc/st-vincent-ferrer-and-the-stories-of-those-he-raised-from-the-dead-3a3d0f48d057 St Vincent Ferrer and the stories of those he raised from the dead One of greatest miracle workers-thaumaturges in the history of the Catholic church was the Dominican priest St. Vincent Ferrer (1350–1419). He moved in the limelight before both ordinary people and the great of the world. He once converted 10,000 Jews at one time by marching right into their synagogue and preaching to them; the Jews turned their synagogue into a Catholic Church. So great a missionary was St. Vincent Ferrer that he can only be compared to the 12 Apostles. His accomplishments were incredible and rare in the whole history of the Church; his life story contains one amazing story after another, many of these are documented in the book “St Vincent Ferrer –The Angel of the Judgment” by Father Andrew Pradel, O.P. When St. Vincent Ferrer was 46 years old, suffering from a grievous illness, Our Lord appeared to him, accompanied by St. Francis and St. Dominic; Our Lord said to Vincent, among other things, “Arise, then, and go to preach against vice; for this have I specially chosen thee. Exhort sinners to repentance, for My judgment is at hand.” Our Lord told St. Vincent that his preaching before the coming of Antichrist would be for mankind a merciful occasion of repentance and conversion. During this vision St. Vincent was immediately cured. Two years later, in 1398, he was given permission to begin his apostolate of preaching. St. Vincent travelled all over western Europe preaching penance, attracting enormous crowds, and followed by thousands of disciples. He converted St. Bernardine of Siena and Blessed Margaret of Savoy. Vincent had the gift of languages; preaching in his Valencion idiom he was understood wherever he went; and in conversation he spoke French, Italian, German or English as fluently as his native tongue. St. Vincent Ferrer identified himself as “The Angel of the Judgment” and preached as if the end of the world were near. Some would say that since it did not end, Vincent, at least in that respect, failed as a prophet. It would seem there is a simple answer: All such prophecies or predictions by individuals are contingent upon reform and penance. Through Vincent’s thunderous words and the results of his preaching, the end of the world was simply delayed again. Many who are informed in the ways of God, of prophecy and reparation, believe this has probably happened more than once in the history of the world. To cite two examples from Holy Scripture: Jerusalem was spared again and again before its final destruction by the Romans and also the city of Ninevah was spared through the conversion of the people due to the preaching of Jonah the prophet. Some would consider it a conservative estimate that St. Vincent Ferrer converted 25,000 Jews and 8,000 Moors; his total number of conversions was around 200,000 souls - among them Moors, Jews, heretics, and apostate Catholics. At Toulouse he spoke on the Passion for six hours without a break before a crowd of 30,000 at the packed Place St. Etienne. When he cried out, “Arise you dead, and come to Judgment!” the whole crowd fell on their faces begging for mercy. Learning about the many other wonders of St. Vincent makes it easier to accept the accounts of his death-to-life miracles. The Acta Sanctorum records 873 miracles performed by the saint, but there were actually many more. In 1412 Vincent himself told a crowd, “God has wrought in His mercy, through me a miserable sinner, three thousand miracles.” After that Vincent lived seven more years, which was a period of even greater miracles. The Bollandist hagiographers tell of 70 persons who were delivered from diabolical possession by St. Vincent Ferrer. He had such power over devils that it was often enough for him to touch a possessed person for him to be freed; at other times, a possessed person would be freed from the devil merely upon going to the same place as where Vincent was or even simply when Vincent’s name was pronounced. St. Antonius (Antoninus), Archbishop of Florence, another learned Dominican about 30 years old when Vincent died, stated that St. Vincent had raised 28 persons from the dead. But others claimed that St. Antonius’ estimate fell far short of the actual number raised. Perhaps there is some confusion in distinguishing those Vincent personally raised during his life and those raised through his intercession after his death. The author Fr. Andrew Pradel states that St. Vincent Ferrer “resuscitated more than 30 persons during his lifetime.” Near Palma of Majorca St. Vincent Ferrer stilled a storm in order to preach from a wharf. At Beziers he stopped a flood. At the gates of Vannes he cured a great number of the sick. At Guerande he delivered a man possessed by the devil and more dead than alive. In France he had the British victors at Caen praying together with the defeated French for a sick man, who was then cured — and all of them, enemies or not, shouted for joy. At Leride he cured a cripple in the presence of the king. St. Vincent Ferrer is often pictured with wings. Multitudes of people have witnessed him, in the middle of preaching, suddenly assume wings and fly off to help some suffering person; he would return in the same manner and continue preaching. On some occasions, when St. Vincent was exhausted, he would commission somebody else to go perform miracles instead; the helper would then do so. Vincent once said to a novice, Alphonso Borgia, “You will become pope and will canonize me.” And years later that novice, then Pope Callixtus III, did exactly that. Vincent also told St. Bernardine of Siena that he (Bernardine) would be canonized before himself — and so it happened. Once a mute woman signed to him, and then she spoke, asking for speech and bread. He promised her bread, but took back her speech, saying that she would make ill use of it. He made beautiful an ugly woman who had been beaten by her husband for her looks. We learn from St Vincent Ferrer that one must never mock the gifts God has given to His saints. As has happened in similar cases, on one occasion a boy pretended to be dead, while his friends snickered. St. Vincent leaned over and shook-a corpse! Vincent said: “He pretended to be dead to amuse you, but evil has come upon him; he is dead!” A cross was erected to commemorate the event. Happenings like that can save many souls by instilling in them a healthy fear of the Lord. At Pampeluna an innocent man had just been condemned to death. St. Vincent knew of his innocence and pleaded for him, but in vain. As the grim procession led the poor man to the scaffold, they met another procession, that of a man already dead. The corpse was being borne on a stretcher to the burial place. Vincent seemed to have a sudden inspiration. He stopped suddenly and addressed the corpse: “You no longer have anything to gain by lying. Is this man guilty? Answer me!” The dead man sat up, then spoke the words: “He is not!” As the man began to settle down again on his stretcher, Vincent offered to reward him for his service. He gave him the opportunity of remaining alive on earth. But the man re-sponded, “No, Father, for I am assured of salvation.” With that he died again as if going to sleep, and they carried his body off to the cemetery. In another miracle credited to Vincent, the Venerable Father Micon is reported as claiming that a number of witnesses, gathered at Lerida before the Church of St. Jean, saw Vincent encounter a corpse there. With the Sign of the Cross Vincent returned the corpse alive to its feet. The Fathers of the convent at Calabria gave guarantees of this miracle. In another report a priest judged a child to be dead. The child’s whole body was mangled and broken. A vow was made, and the child was restored to life. It is not known for certain whether this is the same child as that in the following miracle. Fifty years after Vincent’s death, young Jean de Zuniga, son of Don Alvar de Zuniga, Duke of Placensia and Arevola, and of his Duchess, Leonor de Pimentel, died at the age of 12. The Duchess’ confessor, Jean Lopez de Salamanque, O.P., counseled the noble lady to invoke his fellow Dominican, the newly canonized Vincent Ferrer. The mother made a vow to build a church and convent in St. Vincent’s honor. As soon as she had formulated her vow, the boy came back to life. This boy became the Grand Master of Alcantara, the Archbishop of Seville, and a Cardinal. The Duchess became very devoted to Vincent and fervently desired that his life, virtues, and miracles be written about. When a grand ceremony was held at the newly finished cathedral, the Duke and Duchess presented their son, and the raised boy then understood all about his resuscitation. On the feast day of St. Vincent Ferrer at that same cathedral, the scheduled preacher became ill and did not appear. But a wonderful, charming, unknown preacher appeared from nowhere - and mysteriously disappeared after giving his sermon. Many believed it was Vincent repaying the honors given him. There are two different accounts of either the same or very similar miracles. In one account Vincent summoned a dead man on the way to burial to attest that Vincent was the “Angel of the Judgment.” In another account, it was a woman who was summoned. (Since Vincent performed a great number of miracles of many kinds, it is possible, even if unlikely, that he performed this action on more than one occasion.) On an occasion when St. Vincent was preaching to thousands at Salamanca, he suddenly stopped and said: “I am the Angel of the Apocalypse and am preaching Judgment!” Then he directed: “Some of you go near St. Paul’s Gate, and you will find a dead person borne on men’s shoulders on the way to the grave. Bring the corpse hither, and you shall hear the proof of what I tell you.” The men went on their errand, the multitude waited, and soon the bier was brought with a dead woman upon it. They raised the litter and set it up so all could see. St. Vincent bade her return to life, and the dead woman sat up. “Who am I?” Vincent asked her. She answered: “You, Father Vincent, are the Angel of the Apocalypse, as you have already told this vast assembly.” In the case of the woman, after her testimony she died again. In another almost identical account, this time it was a man, Vincent asked him which was his preference, to live or to die again. The man asked to live, and St. Vincent responded, “Then be it so!” The man is reported as having lived for many more years. Another miracle seems to involve either a Jew or Jewess. (Recall that Vincent converted 25–30,000 Jews. It is reported that at a church in Vera Cruz a host of little white crosses once fell upon the Jews in the congregation.) There was a rich Jew of Andalusia, named Abraham, who began to leave a church in anger while Vincent was preaching. The Jew did not like what he was hearing. As some people at the door opposed his passing through, St. Vincent cried out: “Let him go! Come away all of you at once, and leave the passage free!” The people did as he ordered, and at the instant the Jew left, part of the porch structure fell on him and crushed him to death. Then the saint rose from his chair and went to the body. He knelt there in prayer. Abraham came to life, and his first words were: “The religion of the Jews is not the true faith. The True Faith is that of the Christians.” In memory of this event the Jew was baptized Elias (in honor of the prophet who had raised the boy from the dead). The new convert established a pious foundation in the church of the “accident” and the miracle. Bishop Peter Ranzano’s account was used for this version of the miracle. The father of a certain child had given Vincent lodging while he was on a missionary journey. His wife, a virtuous woman, suffered from bad attacks of nerves, and at times was close to madness. Upon his return from hearing one of Vincent’s sermons, the father came upon a terrible tragedy. His wife had gone mad, cut their small son’s throat, then chopped up the boy’s body and roasted a portion of it, which she then attempted to serve her husband. When he realized what had happened, the man fled in horror and disgust to St. Vincent Ferrer. Vincent told him that-as in the case of the crushed Jew-the tragedy would be for the glory of God. St. Vincent went with the father back to the home and prayed as he gathered the bloody pieces together. He said to the father: “If you have faith, God, who created this little soul from nothing, can bring him back to life.” Vincent knelt and prayed. He made the Sign of the Cross over the reassembled body. The pieces became united together, the body came to life again, and Vincent handed over to the father a living child. This event is depicted in a painting by Francesco del Cossa in the New Picture Gallery in the Vatican. Bishop Ranzano claimed this as one of the miracles submitted in the canonization process for St. Vincent Ferrer. Some may be surprised to know that he above miracle is not without some real, though lesser, counterparts. St. Francis of Paola restored a lamb from its mere bones and fleece, and in the palace of the King of Naples he revived an already-cooked fish; also, St. Philip Benizi restored a child partially devoured by a wolf. A similar wonder was worked for a young man who was with his parents in a group of pilgrims on their way to the famous shrine of Santiago (St. James) de Compostella in Spain. They stopped at La Calzada, where the young man was falsely accused and hanged. The poor bereaved parents continued their pilgrimage, and on their return journey were astonished to find their son still alive eight days later. Perhaps it was a reward for their tears and for faithfully continuing on to the shrine in hope, rather than succumbing to rebellion and grief. But the story goes beyond this wonder. When the lad’s mother rushed to tell the magistrate (he was at dinner), the magistrate said, “Woman, you must be mad! I would as soon believe these pullets which I am about to eat are alive as that a man who has been gibbeted for eight days is not dead.” At his words the pullets on the dish rose up alive. There was a great procession with the live birds to the shrine of St. James at Compostella. The Bollandists relate this miracle, as do many other authors. And there have been other miracles similar to it in the lives of the Saints. One should note that none of these miracles were performed for mere sensationalism, which the saints despise. They were worked for various good purposes, especially the conversion of sinners and the strengthening of faith. As St. Vincent told the bereaved father, miracles are worked for the glory of God. This was also stated by Christ at the grave of Lazarus, and to His Apostles. The saints’ powers are of course limited by God, to whom all power belongs. Otherwise, with unrestricted powers, the saints could be “as gods.” The hagiographer Henri Gheon relates that Pere Fages, a patient researcher, found and visited the house of the last related miracle of Saint Vincent. He described the room, the placement of the oven, and the lower room, where a part of the child was served at table. The place had not changed since the fifteenth century. A chapel stands there now and two inscriptions, one inside and one out, attest to the truth of the miracle. St. Vincent Ferrer died at Vannes, Brittany, France in 1419, and the canonical process at Vannes brought to light an incredible number of wonders, including a surprising number of resurrections from the dead. In the French work - “Histoire de St. Vincent Ferrier” by Pere Fages, O.P., there are a number of accounts of the dead raised through St. Vincent. ….