El Shaddai's (Seti's) Conquest

[Marcilla Smith]

 

[Jerry Russell]

We should just stop all this then, including the same speculations with CM.

I'd be willing to argue that the evidence for CM is a lot more complete, and allows us to tell a story with tighter constraints. We have more or less contemporary documents from several points of view, and the very strong, dense and sequential parallels in the 'Flavian Signature', that point to a consistent picture.

Perhaps we need to use a color code to indicate 'Provisional' from 'Definitive and Unassailable' and such?

Yes, maybe a color code would be a convenient way to indicate these sorts of things. I'm sorry if I'm seeming overly critical.

I do agree that we can say that "hundreds of years later, when the OT gets fully redacted, the troops of Seti become known as the Hebrews of Joshua." I don't see how any other interpretation fits the facts on the ground, as we have them.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

Dare I to say there's a point of agreement as to Seti I = Joshua?

But wait... I just found this speculation that Joshua was about Merneptah's campaign against the Sea People:

[Genesis 47:11] mentions Ramesses, who ruled 1279~1213 bce, and the "long period" of their stay in Egypt was his 66-year reign — the longest in the New Kingdom. Then, a new pharaoh came to power (i.e., Merneptah), who "did not know Joseph", and who changed the terms, oppressing the people to the point of revolt. Next we hear of the brutal conquest of Canaan in the Book of Joshua, which would have actually been Merneptah's campaign against the Sea Peoples coalition, leaving the destruction noted by Deborah.

More here (it even has a timeline): http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/12719.html

As to whether Atenism traveled to Moses or Zoroaster, could it be both? IOW, monotheism in the levant does not reach critical mass until Cyrus "liberates" those Jews of a mind to go build a monotheistic temple in Jerusalem to do so. However, does this preclude the likelihood that Moses is based on a historical figure of direct Egyptian (rather than Persian) descent since how else does he end up with an Egyptian name?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Just as with Jesus, it is possible for the Exodus and Conquest accounts to contain composites of various individuals compressed into one.

The OT depicts a long and bloody struggle to consolidate the populace into being normative monotheists. This likely had to be done in phases, because of the issues that we have seen discussed here about cultural changes, and any change (for better or worse) seen as degradation to anyone having his cultural ox gored.

The idea that either Akhenaten, or members of his court, went to Media (which eventually fomented the empire of Cyrus) is a concept that Jerry and I have discussed several times. It has a lot of merit in my opinion. As Jerry tells me, Emmet Sweeney believes Media and Mittani were one and the same. The latter had the sole intermarriage known into the Egyptian royal line just prior to the Amarna period. It would make sense that Akhy could have been sent packing to what I term the Hidden Resort in a place where he had ancestors that were also in on the big project.

It is thought that the Magi of the Medes were an odd familial clan of uncertain origin. Gee, where have we heard that before, Mr. De Vere?

Then we find that Cyrus, with an interesting and evocative youth as I remember, hooks up with the Medes and takes over Persia, turning it into the first expansionist empire. Then the Magi become the force behind the movement of Zoroaster, but as well, there are internal religio-political issues to be dealt with from the prior pagan stratas of Media, Persia, and then Babylon.

If you remember from the Bible, Cyrus was the first Judaic Savior. This before Julius Caesar [sic] was the second according to many Jews, because he had defeated Pompey the Great who had defiled their Temple. Those who wailed loudest at Julius 's funeral were the Jews, and who actually witnessed him ascend to Heaven to join Romulus as a god. And then Jesus Titus for the Xians. But according to the gospel accounts, there were far fewer witnesses that saw Jesus ascend to Heaven than Julius.

So, you see how several individuals, over time can be rolled into one? Cyrus is explicitly named as such, yet we are commonly led to believe that this is Jesus.

In fact, anyone who was anointed by petroleum as the next high priest and/or king is technically a messiah - the annointed one. This is why the later kings, claiming descent from Christ (aka the Caesarians), and popes must be anointed. Then they can risk claiming the divine right of kings, which only appears to the hoi polloi as blasphemy.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I'd be willing to argue that the evidence for CM is a lot more complete, and allows us to tell a story with tighter constraints. We have more or less contemporary documents from several points of view, and the very strong, dense and sequential parallels in the 'Flavian Signature', that point to a consistent picture.

This is only true from the standpoint that the CM can be cleanly placed in its own little 'box'. The 18th and 19th Dynasties, plus all the supporting prior documents (referenced by the Sabbahs) that feed into the cultural stream provides a massive amount of 'typology', including archaeological evidence. There is archaelogical evidence for the Christian era, but it points to such things as the Flaviod Chrestians and militant Ebionites, which there seems to be no interest in pursuing the consequences and implications of, perhaps indicating that the little box is not big enough?

Thus making a movie limited to the focus of CM allows several vectors of interpretation, both coming in and going forward in time, that might allow someone to say: 'Gee, those Roman emperors and their friends were really nasty, etc.., but thank Heavens for seemingly miraculous circumstances that allowed us the become so brilliantly wonderful. That is, before 'somebody' started a revenge campaign to degrade us.' As I've stated before, the first part of that equation is what was summed up by Wright in The Evolution of God as a mainstream view of scholars about how Israel rose up from nothing to be the seed of Western Civilization.

 

[Jerry Russell]

The 18th and 19th Dynasties, plus all the supporting prior documents (referenced by the Sabbahs) that feed into the cultural stream provides a massive amount of 'typology', including archaeological evidence.

True there's archaeological typology, but it seems to be at a high 'storyboard' sort of level. That is, we have a picture of walls of water being separated by a serpent, but no vivd narrative of a people passing between the walls, or of Pharaoh's army drowned after the water fell back. (That is, unless something has gone un-translated.) It seems to be more of an image of the afterlife.

I agree that the image itself is all that's necessary to demonstrate a cultural or ideological link, maybe it's unrealistic of me to want more than that.

There is archaelogical evidence for the Christian era, but it points to such things as the Flaviod Chrestians and militant Ebionites, which there seems to be no interest in pursuing the consequences and implications of, perhaps indicating that the little box is not big enough?

I can't speak for Joe, but I don't mean to indicate any lack of interest. I just don't understand the big implications you're seeing.

 

[Richard Stanley]

True there's archaeological typology, but it seems to be at a high 'storyboard' sort of level. That is, we have a picture of walls of water being separated by a serpent, but no vivd narrative of a people passing between the walls, or of Pharaoh's army drowned after the water fell back. (That is, unless something has gone un-translated.) It seems to be more of an image of the afterlife.

I agree that the image itself is all that's necessary to demonstrate a cultural or ideological link, maybe it's unrealistic of me to want more than that.

Using your criteria, then CM is invalidated because there is no connectable historical imagery of anyone's apotheosis. The closest that comes to Titus is his father's deathbed joke, but not Titus. Neither Titus or Eliezar ascend to Heaven, as does Jesus.

Here, Julius has a better claim, but I say so what, it was all part of the same drawn out marketing 'process', i.e. establishing a brand so to speak.

I just don't understand the big implications you're seeing.

It's the difference between two general schools of thought, between the wholistic Maximalists, like me, and the Minimalists.

The Minimalist approach is that matters like 9/11 (or whatever other event floats your boat), once solved and true justice rendered, will restore harmony to the sheepish Order. The Maximalist approach says BS, these events are all connected as part of keeping the human sheep going along with the shepherds' hidden agenda.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Using your criteria, then CM is invalidated because there is no connectable historical imagery of anyone's apotheosis.

What I mean is, there's the entire narrative of Titus in Josephus, and the narrative of Jesus in the NT, that match in so many vivid ways. In place of an apotheosis, there's the strange 'three crucified, one survives' story, which Joe interprets as part of the 'root and branch' scheme.

But obviously, not every reader is convinced by CM either.

The Maximalist approach says BS, these events are all connected as part of keeping the human sheep going along with the shepherds' hidden agenda.

I would be a 'maximalist', but in the CM context, we already have Julius and Augustus as precursors to Jesus, Mark Antony and Marcus Agrippa as precursors to Mark the evangelist, and Domitian, Trajan and Constantine (and most all emperors in between) as followup. All these seem to be part of the interconnected plan.

I may not be understanding the importance of Chrestians and Ebionites, but that doesn't make me a 'minimalist' by your definition, though I do confess to being a huge Phillip Glass fan.

 

[Richard Stanley]

I would be a 'maximalist', but in the CM context, we already have Julius and Augustus as precursors to Jesus, Mark Antony and Marcus Agrippa as precursors to Mark the evangelist, and Domitian, Trajan and Constantine (and most all emperors in between) as followup. All these seem to be part of the interconnected plan.

To what?

What I mean is, there's the entire narrative of Titus in Josephus, and the narrative of Jesus in the NT, that match in so many vivid ways. In place of an apotheosis, there's the strange 'three crucified, one survives' story, which Joe interprets as part of the 'root and branch' scheme.

But obviously, not every reader is convinced by CM either.

"One survives" is not typology of apotheosis, arguably the most important aspect of Xianity.

I'm not sure why this is such an issue as: 'What I mean is, there's the entire narrative of Moses et al in the OT, that match in so many vivid ways.'

 

[Jerry Russell]

To what?

Joe's view in CM is that the Gospels from the Flavian court were targeted largely at the Jews, which would include the Zealots of Palestine as well as Hellenistic Jews throughout the Mediterranean. You can also make the case that this was only an opportunistic gambit within a larger enterprise to create a religion that would unify the entire Roman Empire, which is what eventually came to pass during Constantine's time and after.

"One survives" is not typology of apotheosis, the most important aspect of Xianity.

True, and it's an interesting fact that the Resurrection seems to be missing from the Flavian system. Perhaps this represents an intention to leave the Julian Easter typology in place?

I'm not sure why this is such an issue as: 'What I mean is, there's the entire narrative of Moses et al in the OT, that match in so many vivid ways.'

My concern is about the idea of a series of Janus-faced pharaohs who presented themselves as Yahwist monotheists in Palestine, simultaneously with their presence in Egypt as Amunist polytheists. It might be true, but I don't see that the various typological evidence is strong enough to demonstrate it.

The CM typology isn't even trying to prove such a thing; that is, nobody claims that Titus tried to pass himself off as Jesus the Jewish Messiah during appearances at wedding festivals, or walking on the Sea of Galilee. Jesus is, basically, a fictional character with certain typological elements drawn from Titus. Our null hypothesis would be that Moses, Joshua, the judges, Solomon and David are all fictional characters, with some typological elements drawn from Egyptian pharaohs.

Sweeney argues that the Achaemenid kings of Persia passed themselves off as neo-Assyrians, but as evidence, he tries to show that the lives of the various dopplegangers line up in great detail. The attempt is only marginally successful, as many discrepancies go unexplained, but there's a lot that lines up like a jigsaw puzzle.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

The Minimalist approach is that matters like 9/11 (or whatever other event floats your boat), once solved and true justice rendered, will restore harmony to the sheepish Order. The Maximalist approach says BS, these events are all connected as part of keeping the human sheep going along with the shepherds' hidden agenda.

I don't know, but I think that if Dick Cheney went on live television to swear on a stack of Bibles that he personally piloted the reverse-engineered at Area 51 cold-fusion-powered spacecraft that cloaked itself into the shape of the commercial airliners that pre-planted the nano-thermite that took down tower 7, the first question most Americans would want answered would be, "so what's the latest news on Kim K and Kanye?" Consequently, I don't think I could be considered a minimalist.

On the other hoof, the intelligence test results of the captured Nazi leaders held at Nuremberg indicate that the people who rise to the highest positions of leadership within a society tend not to be so profoundly intelligent as merely "above average." Consequently, I find I cannot subscribe to the idea of an elite Master Race as prime movers in the oppression of the masses, and therefore suppose I am not a maximalist, either.

Since I know "will of the almighty Father" is a non-sensical statement in this context, then maybe I will say I subscribe to more of a DeLeuzian (or is that DeLusional?) collective unconscious as a model for thinking about how such global (large-scale) decisions come about (not that I claim to know that much of Mr. DeLeuze)

 

[Richard Stanley]

Jerry's language is rather confusing, as he is a Maximalist. He merely is correctly saying that CM can indeed stand on its own. But this does not address the context of my question. Joe's assertion (or Jerry's take on Joe's position) of the sole intent (Jewish pacification) of the Flavian intertwined gospels gets to the heart of my question, and in my opinion the assertion fails, not that militant Jewish pacification wasn't a key part of the plan.

I am a Maximalist in the genetic sense, and as well, in the memetic sense.

As such, ironically, I do indeed believe in the "will of the Father", but instead I have recontextualized it from the non-sense realm to the sensical realm. This is the key message of such as Jupiter Ascending. Our 'fathers' who art in ...

 

[Jerry Russell]

Joe's assertion (or Jerry's take on Joe's position) of the sole intent (Jewish pacification) of the Flavian intertwined gospels gets to the heart of my question, and in my opinion the assertion fails, not that militant Jewish pacification wasn't a key part of the plan.

If I were to argue that various individuals within the elite might have different intentions, would that be a minimalist or maximalist position? Anyhow, it seems possible that Vespasian and Titus might have had a narrow view of the purpose of their Gospel innovation, while (for example) Augustus and Constantine might have had the broader view in mind for their roles in promoting Christianity.

 

[Richard Stanley]

And if John Bartram is correct about their Chrestian connection? I say dubious, even without Bartram.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

Joe's CM is how I came to understand the Gospels as a work of fiction, so all respect for that.

As to the specific issue of their purpose being to pacify the Jewish resistance, first, I don't think that was all Joe said was behind it. I wouldn't think of "pacifism" as an ideal typical to be espoused by generals who made their name through conquest, but I understand how it might seem like a better alternative to militant anti-colonialist nationalism.

In any event, the other issue is that I find the premise difficult to defend, at least for Hebrew-speaking Jews. As Joe correctly points out, the most frequently quoted part of the OT in the NT is from Psalm 110 (?) about "the LORD said to my lord, 'sit at my right hand until I place your enemies beneath your feet.'"

In many of the English translations, there can be a seen this subtle difference between the first LORD and the second lord. This would have been less clear in the Koine Greek of the Septuagint, popular outside of Hebrew-speaking communities, where both would have been rendered as kyrios with no capitalization to distinguish them.

In the Hebrew, the first word would be the tetragrammaton of the ineffable name of the Lord, whereas the second word would designate a clearly earthly and non-divine "lord," such as a boss or a king. Thus, as little sense as the psalm already makes as any kind of evidence that David was aware of the existence of Jesus, in Hebrew it makes even less.

Therefore, while I can see there being some appeal to non-Hebrew-speaking, Hellenistic ethnic Jews without a firm grounding in the language of the Psalms, I find it difficult to make the case that the NT was written to target "rebellious Jews," particularly the ones who would have come from Judea

 

[Richard Stanley]

Grasshopper leaps high!!

Yahweh said to Adon ay ...​

Considering that Psalm 104 is obviously The Hymn of the Aten, well then, I think this now calls for a complete examination of these texts.

To be fair, pacification makes sense to the extent that it might sway various Jews prone to becoming radicalized. Deja vu?

But they had also initiated a program to tone down the Jewish canon, perhaps even under the watchful eye of Josephus. Josephus also had stated that one school of Pharisees had been eliminated, as opposed to the other one that survived and became today's rabbis. Cui bono?

We need to examine the narratives of Jesse, David, Solomon, Rehoboam and Jeroboam, at least to look for parallels in Egyptian records. Ralph Ellis has written some on this. Upon the collapse of the United Monarchy, one of the latter two, the one from 'Israel' spent a considerable amount of time in Egypt as an exile, in the Egyptian royal court.

 

[Marcilla Smith]

To be fair, pacification makes sense to the extent that it might sway various Jews prone to becoming radicalized. Deja vu?

That sounds dangerously close to advocating Christianity as having a stabilizing effect on society!

 

[Richard Stanley]

Mr. Kochba apparently didn't get the good news.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Lastly, the Sabbahs mention the silver trumpets which God order Moses to have made. These are used by Joshua's men to help bring down the walls of Jericho. In Tut's tomb were found four silver military trumpets.

There were two trumpets in Tut's tomb, one silver and one copper.
Here are audio samples :

 

[Jerry Russell]

That sound would blow the walls right down, no question about it. Thanks!