Powered By Blogger

Monday, April 20, 2026

Following Middle Bronze I Israel after the Exodus from cruel Egypt

 


 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

  

The people of Israel had witnessed the miraculous and had the miraculous ever before them in the form of the Glory Cloud (popularly known as the Shekinah).

  

Introduction

 

After the miraculous Exodus from Egypt, a sign that was meant to be remembered down through the generations (cf. Deuteronomy 6:6-7), Moses and his people sang of the Lord’s power and glory (Exodus 15:1-21).

 

Moses, so eager when in Egypt to free his people - but having succumbed to the comforts of married life during his long sojourn in Midian, hoping that the Lord might consider someone else for the daunting task - was now fully reconciled again to what the Lord was asking from him.

Family life seems to have become a matter of secondary importance – though there will soon be a moment of controversy regarding his Midianite wife, Zipporah.

 

But it would not be long before the people of Moses, the Israelites, despite all that had recently happened, took to their customary grumbling again. Only 2 verses into the next chapter of the Book of Exodus do we read (16:2-3):

 

In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, ‘If only we had died by the Lord’s hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death’.

 

At the forefront of this would be that ungrateful Reubenite pair, Dathan and Abiram (“Jannes and Jambres” as St. Paul would much later call them, 2 Timothy 3:8).

 

Some fellow Levites would also rise up in rebellion against Moses.

 

And so, even, would Moses’ own older brother and sister, Aaron and Miriam.

 

God detests ingratitude.

 

Psalm 105:21-25 (Douay version) sums up what the Lord had done for Israel and how ungrateful Israel had repaid Him:

 

They forgot God, who saved them, who had done great things in Egypt, Wondrous works in the land of Cham: terrible things in the Red Sea. And he said that he would destroy them: had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach: To turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them. And they set at nought the desirable land. They believed not his word, And they murmured in their tents: they hearkened not to the voice of the Lord.

 

The C20th world, too, had forgotten God, prompting Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn to recall the old lament: “Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened”.

 

 

Still, we have forgotten Him, hence our world gone utterly mad.

 

The people of Israel had witnessed the miraculous and had the miraculous ever before them in the form of the Glory Cloud (popularly known as the Shekinah).

 

The Gentile nations, aware of all of this, were also meant to acknowledge the might and power of the Lord. When they didn’t, when peoples like the Amalekites, the Ammonites and the Moabites, the giant king Og of Bashan, hindered Israel on its path to the Promised Land, the Lord rose up in fury against these as well.

 

The historical context

 

As I have noted previously:

My purpose has been, not so much theological and interpretive, as an effort to show that the Bible is real history, with a firm archaeology (and sometimes geology) underpinning the whole of it.

Geographical corrections have also proven to be a crucial part of this task.

 

Possibly no other part of the Bible lends itself more satisfactorily to an archaeological investigation than does the Exodus and Joshuan Conquest.

It should be - and indeed is - in plain sight. 

 

Sadly however, as we have read, the yoking of the Bible to an overblown chronology (by the likes of Dr. Albright and Fr. Louis Hugues-Vincent) has resulted in the massive amount of archaeological evidence for the Exodus and the Conquest becoming completely overlooked, with a different (and totally unsuitable) era preferred by the experts.

 

As we have determined, Moses departed Midian not long after the termination of the cruelly oppressive Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt, whose last ruler, briefly, was a female. Moses and Aaron would now face the Thirteenth Dynasty pharaoh, a man of military background, Neferhotep I. Archaeologically, it was this providential point in time, when workmen are found to have abandoned their sites at places like Illahûn, that Egyptianised ‘Asiatics’ (the fleeing Israelites) would depart from Egypt, later to be replaced by Non-Egyptianised ‘Asiatics’, the Hyksos invaders.

 

These, we shall probably meet as the Amalekites.

 

Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had called the Hyksos invasion of a greatly weakened Egypt “the Eleventh Plague”.

 

Grumbling Israel

 

The manna with which the Lord would so providentially feed in abundance the grumbling Israelites was almost certainly not a purely miraculous phenomenon, like the quails which also came, since both have been experienced in this desert region.

 

Rightly, though, the manna has become a symbol of the Blessed Eucharist.

 

Later, the famous image of the bronze serpent suspended on a pole will become a symbol of Jesus Christ on the Cross, and will be biblically interpreted as such (John 3:14): ‘Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him’.

 

Return to Mount Sinai

 

The Exodus route taken by the Israelites to Mount Sinai, and the identification of the mountain, have become the topic of interest of countless articles and videos.

 

But no two of these seem to agree. 

 

Immediately to be rejected are those interpretations that do not take into consideration that a great mass of nomadic people wandering in desert regions would be in need of regular drinking water stopping points, wells, along the way.

 

The beauty of professor Emmanuel Anati’s proposed Exodus route is that it has been determined by one who has had decades of archaeological experience in the regions and has duly taken into account the need for drinking water, not to mention the location of the tribes mentioned in the Exodus account: Midian, Amalek, etc.

 

Previously, it has been suggested that a location of the Sea of Reeds closer to Egypt than Anati’s Lake Serbonis would be preferable, and that – while his location of Israel’s encampment in the Karkom Valley appears to fit very well indeed – the holy mountain may not actually be his choice of Har Karkom there, but rather a mysterious mountain right in the centre of the Karkom Valley, as identified by professor Anati’s colleague, Flavio Barbiero.

 

Both the professor and Flavio Barbiero appear to be in harmony, though, with the location of Rephidim and its important water source (they locate it at Beer Karkom), about which we next read (Exodus 17:1-7):

 

The whole Israelite community set out from the Desert of Sin, traveling from place to place as the Lord commanded. They camped at Rephidim, but there was no water for the people to drink. So they quarreled with Moses and said, ‘Give us water to drink’.

Moses replied, ‘Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the Lord to the test?’

But the people were thirsty for water there, and they grumbled against Moses. They said, ‘Why did you bring us up out of Egypt to make us and our children and livestock die of thirst’?

Then Moses cried out to the Lord, ‘What am I to do with these people? They are almost ready to stone me’.

The Lord answered Moses, ‘Go out in front of the people. Take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand the staff with which you struck the Nile, and go. I will stand there before you by the rock at Horeb. Strike the rock, and water will come out of it for the people to drink’. So Moses did this in the sight of the elders of Israel. And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the Lord saying, ‘Is the Lord among us or not?’

 

Israel’s grumbling had become so insistent that places were even named after it.

 

Sunday, April 5, 2026

Four great kings self-identified as ‘son of a nobody’ – or was this just the one mighty ruler?

 



by

 Damien F. Mackey

  

Here, I have selected four names, Esarhaddon, Ashurbanipal, Nabopolassar and Nabonidus, whom I have identified in various articles as only one king. For example:

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel

 

(2) Aligning Neo-Babylonia with the Book of Daniel

 

and:

 

Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

(2) Nabopolassar a great king if only one could find him

 

Specifying status as ‘Son of a nobody’

 

Another common key-word (buzz word), or phrase, for these king-names would be ‘son of a nobody’, pertaining to a prince who was not expecting to be elevated to kingship.

 

Thus I had previously introduced Ashurbanipal-as-Nebuchednezzar/Nabonidus with the statement: “Nabonidus is not singular either in not expecting to become king. Ashurbanipal had felt the same”.

 

Now, Esarhaddon is presented by Mattias Karlsson, as a likely ‘son of a nobody’, in his article:

 

The Expression "Son of a Nobody" in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions

2016

https://www.academia.edu/24256060/The_Expression_Son_of_a_Nobody_in_Assyrian_Royal_Inscriptions

 

…. Esarhaddon may be the "son of a nobody" in question. Regarding this epithet, we here have another attestation of it as carrying a positive meaning. It is said of this "son of a nobody", which probably alludes to Esarhaddon (or at least to this king’s irregular ascent to the throne), even though he was of royal descent (Roux 1992: 324-25), that he "[will come out and se]ize [the throne]; he will restore the temples [and establish sacrifices of the gods; he will provide jointly for(all) the temples.]" ….

 

Who was the actual father of this composite king of ours?

If we turn to consider him with regard to his alter ego, “Nabonidus”, then:

https://emahiser.christogenea.org/watchman-s-teaching-letter-59-march-2003

"His father was a certain Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, who is called the ‘wise prince’, though actually he seems to have been the chief priest of the once famous temple of the moon-god Sin in Mesopotamian Harran".

 

My tentative comment: It is not entirely impossible, I think, that, with Nabonidus as Nebuchednezzar:

 

“Nebuchednezzar” of the Book of Daniel

 

(2) "Nebuchednezzar" of the Book of Daniel

 

then this Nabu-balatsu-iqbi could be the prophet Daniel himself, possibly known as “father” to the Babylonians as the shrewd Haman would become known as “our father” to the Persians according to the Book of Esther (13:11).

Daniel’s Babylonian name, “Belteshazzar” is not a Bel name, like e.g. Belshazzar, as is commonly thought. King Nebuchednezzar himself tells us (Daniel 4:8): “Finally, Daniel came into my presence and I told him the dream. (He is called Belteshazzar, after the name of my god)”. Thus we would expect Daniel to have a Nabu (Nebu) name, like King Nebuchednezzar himself. “Belteshazzar” could then be a Grecized version of the element balatsu-:

Nabu-balatsu-iqbi - Wikipedia

“In his inscriptions, Nabonidus refers to his father Nabu-balatsu-iqbi as a "learned counsellor",[1] "wise prince", "perfect prince" and "heroic governor".[2] Nabonidus never elaborates more on his father's origin and ethnicity, just maintaining that he was courageous, wise and devout.[3] No person named Nabu-balatsu-iqbi who can reasonably be identified as Nabonidus's father appears in documents prior to Nabonidus's reign, making his father's status and position unclear”.

 

As for Ashurbanipal, generally  considered to have been the son of Esarhaddon - but, according to my first article above, he was Esarhaddon - the reason why he (and logically, then, his alter egos) did not expect to become king was that he was by no means the first in line to the succession.

 

First came one Sin-iddina-apla, who died untimely:

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/ashurbanipal-oldest-surviving-royal-library-world-over-30000-clay-tablets-007127

“Ashurbanipal had initially not been expected to succeed his father, Esarhaddon [sic], as king, since he had an older brother, Sin-iddina-apla. When this brother died in 672 BC, Ashurbanipal was made his father’s heir.

Since Ashurbanipal was not originally intended to inherit the kingship prior to his elder brother’s death, he was free to indulge in scholarly pursuits. As a result of this, he was able to read and write, and mastered various fields of knowledge, including mathematics and oil divination. It is perhaps due to this that Ashurbanipal had his royal library built after he had stabilized his empire. ….

But apparently Ashurbanipal was not even next in line after Sin-iddina-apla.

For, at presumably the same time as Sin-iddina-apla, the oldest in line, had been appointed Crown Prince of Assyria, one Shamash-shum-ukin, he also older than Ashurbanipal, was appointed as the ruler of Babylon”.

 

This Shamash-shum-ukin was, therefore, presumed to have been superior to Ashurbanipal.

 

My comment: I do not, however, believe that this Shamash-shum-ukin was the brother of Ashurbanipal, but was his son:

 

Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme

 

(2) Fitting Ashurbanipal’s so called brother, Shamash-shum-ukin, into my revised scheme

 

However, that is apparently not how Ashurbanipal wanted history to know of the relationship. As explained by: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/44088732.pdf

 

ASHURBANIPAL AND SHAMASH-SHUM-UKIN: A TALE OF TWO BROTHERS FROM THEARAMAIC TEXT IN DEMOTIC SCRIPT: PART 1

Author(s): Richard C. Steiner and Charles F. Nims

Source: Revue Biblique (1946-), Vol. 92, No. 1 (JANVIER 1985), pp. 60-81

 

Ashurbanipal and Shamash-shum-ukin were the two sons of Esarhaddon [sic] who, at their father's behest, divided his realm between them - the former becoming king of Assyria, and the latter, king of Babylon(ia). Although the two were, in theory, "equal brothers," [sic] Ashurbanipal assumed full control of Babylonia's foreign policy and even meddled in Babylonia's internal affairs. …. It was perhaps to rationalize this usurpation of the authority granted to Shamash-shum-ukin by his father that Ashurbanipal claimed to be the one who had appointed Shamash-shum-ukin to the kingship of Babylon. ….

 

Son of a nobody explained

“In ancient Assyrian sources, the phrase "son of a nobody" (akk| | mār lā mamman) is used to indicate a king of disreputable origins. Usurpers, lowborns, immoral rulers, and foreign kings were all commonly referred to as a “son of a nobody”.[1]

….

In the time of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the king Nabopolassar strikingly referred to himself as a “son of a nobody” in his own inscriptions, something that no previous Neo-Babylonian usurper king had done.[6]