The Egyptian Roots of 'Freemasonry', the Inner Cult of the 'Kings'

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member

I added another item (in green) to the Samson - Trump parallels regarding the very name Trump. I have frequently used the Trump name intentionally in a similar fashion, as in X trumps Y, but for some reason it didn't occur to me until last night about 'trump' being used as a pretext.

The name is also curious in that it is a 'fake' name, that was supposedly changed from 'Drumpf' via their 'German' origins. I wonder if even this is an authentic surname?

Fake News, fake person, Fake President. Lifetime Actor

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 16A

Now we come to the last 3 chapters of Judges that detail a very odd and disturbing narrative, the almost complete annihilation of the tribe of Benjamin that is precipitated because of the gruesome death of an unnamed Levite's concubine. The tribe of Benjamin is 'saved' from this fate via the infusion of 400 virgin lasses from another tribe's city that refused to take part in the first slaughter, and thus were slaughtered themselves ... except for the virgins. More new blood was added to Benjamin via dancing damsels from Shiloh press-ganged into marriage. Let's remember here that Shiloh is the capital and temple city of Ephraim, and thus all of Israel at the time, and that Benjamin was the other son of the loved wife of Jacob, Rachel. Hence the tribe of Benjamin is ostensibly the closest kin to the Ephraimites and those of Manasseh.

Not stated in the text is that the Benjamite, Saul, will emerge from all this bloody mess as the very first king. More-so, Saul is from Gibeah where this mess originates. Of course, we know that King Saul failed miserably only to be deposed and trumped by Kind David, of Bethlehem, and whose great-grandmother, Ruth, was not a Hebrew, but of Moab. But don't worry, the details only get more bizarre.

It is most common to take most of the prior as merely later polemic propaganda against King Saul by the Davidic camp. But what to make of it all, if it like the other narratives in Judges are cobbled together contextual reformulations taken from older stories?

The Levite and his Concubine

1And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah. 2And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months. 3And her husband arose, and went after her, to speak friendly unto her, and to bring her again, having his servant with him, and a couple of asses: and she brought him into her father's house: and when the father of the damsel saw him, he rejoiced to meet him. 4And his father in law, the damsel's father, retained him; and he abode with him three days: so they did eat and drink, and lodged there. (Judges 19 KJV)

We must first note that none of the characters were named in this appalling narrative, and for me this appears to indicate some matter of significance which the astute observer should be on the lookout for the real meaning. We are informed that the antagonist is a Levite from Ephraim, the side of the mount is telling us that he is likely of the temple. He has taken a concubine from Bethlehem, where the Davidic line will start from. It uses the word for 'concubine' and not for 'wife', and notes (in the KJV) that she "played the whore against him" which is frequently taken that she was sexually unfaithful to him. However, this interpretation is debated. It might all be translated that, as a secondary mate (to a wife) she was mad and left him to return home to her father.

The father was very glad to see his estranged son-in-law, getting the Levite to stay two days longer than the intended 3 days, including causing the reunited couple to leave late on the fifth day, from which if they had left at a reasonable hour none of the following disaster for so many people may have happened.

7And when the man rose up to depart, his father in law urged him: therefore he lodged there again. 8And he arose early in the morning on the fifth day to depart: and the damsel's father said, Comfort thine heart, I pray thee. And they tarried until afternoon, and they did eat both of them. 9And when the man rose up to depart, he, and his concubine, and his servant, his father in law, the damsel's father, said unto him, Behold, now the day draweth toward evening, I pray you tarry all night: behold, the day groweth to an end, lodge here, that thine heart may be merry; and to morrow get you early on your way, that thou mayest go home. 10But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him. 11And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it. 12And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel; we will pass over to Gibeah. 13And he said unto his servant, Come, and let us draw near to one of these places to lodge all night, in Gibeah, or in Ramah. 14And they passed on and went their way; and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gibeah, which belongeth to Benjamin. 15And they turned aside thither, to go in and to lodge in Gibeah: and when he went in, he sat him down in a street of the city: for there was no man that took them into his house to lodging. (Judges 19 KJV)

Verse 3 mentioned the two asses (and a servant) and in verse 10 the asses are reintroduced as if they had not been mentioned earlier. Now very late, the three come upon Jebus, the future Jerusalem, and the Levite decides that he cannot lodge there, so they go to Gibeah, where Saul will soon rise up from. Saul and a servant will go in search of ... two lost asses ... only to meet up with Samuel and become the first king.

Two asses? Seems rather innocent and mundane, right? But we were told this mundane aspect not once, but twice. Does this evoke the circumstance of Delilah being paid 1,100 hundred silver pieces by the Philistine lords only to have the unnamed mother in the very next Judge narrative have to deal with 1,100 pieces of silver with her son Micah? Is this plausible deniability, or merely happenstance? How about the odd couple coming to a city where no one will take them in? In this case, they are coming from Bethlehem, while the one we are more familiar with the couple went to Bethlehem. This is another 'framing', or 'bookending', of the millenium, as I have previously suggested with the two respective characters named 'Saul'.

Whatever the case, now all Hell breaks loose in Gibeah, which I'll cover in the next segments.

In the matter of Samson and Delilah, we are dealing with two 'globalist' factions of immigrants (the Philistines and the Danites) which are framed against the other Israelites, especially Judah. The Judahites et al. can be cast as the 'natives' and future 'nationalists'. Here one usually sees the Danites as part of the Israelite polity, because this is what we are told, i.e. the Bible tells us so. But, we know that they were immigrants from Mycenaean Greece, just like Trump/Drumpf and his fake family were planted here to create the same chaos as Samson did. The common target between the two narratives is the fake 'natives', at least in the contemporary case, who actually did have a Conquest in their historical past instead of a fictional one.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
A new hypothesis on the Philistines and Sea Peoples emerges. I have mentioned before that the archaeological evidence indicates that the Philistines seemed to have had a peaceful co-existence with the 'natives', be they Canaanites or Biblical Israelites. The evidence also shows them to be rather cosmopolitan in their cultural influences as discussed in the excerpted article below.

The new hypothesis gives them a more northern origin such as from the collapsed empire of the Hittites or related to this. The OT has many references to the Hittites clear up to the time of King David (i.e. Uriah). Hebron was characterized as a Hittite trading colony typical for the general period usually granted for Abraham.

Research into ancient Egyptian records from the 12th century B.C.E. is shedding new light on a mystery archaeologists have been debating for decades: the origin of the Philistines and other marauding “Sea Peoples” that appeared in the Levant during the late Bronze Age.

The research, and other recent discoveries, suggest the enigmatic Philistines may have been a native Middle Eastern population, rather than invading pirates from the Aegean islands, as traditional scholarship holds.

The Philistines may also have played a much less nefarious role than previously thought in the sudden and unexplained collapse of great civilizations – including the Hittite empire, Egypt and Mycenae – that occurred around the 12th century BCE.

“We shouldn’t think of the Philistines and the other Sea Peoples as this huge coalition of Mediterranean fighters who whoosh through the land and destroy everything in their way,” says Shirly Ben-Dor Evian, the curator of Egyptian archaeology at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem, whose doctoral research at Tel Aviv University resulted in the article published last week in the Oxford Journal of Archaeology.

Ben-Dor Evian suggests that while piracy by the Sea Peoples and warfare may have contributed to weaken the great empires of the age, we need to look elsewhere for the main causes of the Bronze Age collapse, such as the increasing complexity of those civilizations and the difficulties centralized powers faced in sustaining them. In 2013, a study by Tel Aviv University added climate fluctuation to the list of possible culprits, showing a long period of drought in the late Bronze Age that may have driven mass migration and conflict.

As for the origins of the Philistines, Ben-Dor Evian says it seems likely the people Ramses III defeated may have been simply locals from Syria or Anatolia who filled the vacuum created by the fall of the Hittite empire.

A Levantine origin for the Philistines is further supported, she says, by the fact that the Medinet Habu inscriptions identify the Sea Peoples as teher – the same term reserved to describe Syrian or Anatolian warriors allied with the Hittites during the battle of Kadesh, the great clash that Ramses II had won against his northern foes around 1274 B.C.E., nearly a century earlier.

“So, they were not this unknown group that suddenly appeared out of nowhere,” Ben-Dor Evian concludes. ...

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part #$%^&!
Taking my tongue out of my cheek, are you suggesting that Samuel's assertion to Saul that the asses were found was a fib?
My further research into the slaughter of Benjamites draws me back to the question of Saul's father's asses. I had neglected to display the assertion of Samuel to Saul that they were safe. But this all begs, even more, questions now. Such as why the asses are so important to be constantly mentioned, below in the context of Saul being anointed for his new royal mission.

Samuel Anoints Saul

1Then Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the LORD hath anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance? 2When thou art departed from me to day, then thou shalt find two men by Rachel's sepulchre in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah; and they will say unto thee, The asses which thou wentest to seek are found: and, lo, thy father hath left the care of the asses, and sorroweth for you, saying, What shall I do for my son? (1 Samuel 10 KJV)

Note that Samuel tells Saul that the two men will tell him what Samuel has just told him. Very funny. But as well, this evokes the imagery of people visiting Jesus's sepulcher and being told that Jesus is no longer there. Why would two men hanging out at Rachel's sepulcher be waiting to tell Saul about said asses ... which aren't there either? So where are they?

Does this possibly have anything to do with the images of saviors with donkey heads?

There's more:

Samuel's Signs Fulfilled

9And it was so, that when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all those signs came to pass that day. 10And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. 11And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that is come unto the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets? 12And one of the same place answered and said, But who is their father? Therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among the prophets? 13And when he had made an end of prophesying, he came to the high place.

14And Saul's uncle said unto him and to his servant, Whither went ye? And he said, To seek the asses: and when we saw that they were no where, we came to Samuel. 15And Saul's uncle said, Tell me, I pray thee, what Samuel said unto you. 16And Saul said unto his uncle, He told us plainly that the asses were found. But of the matter of the kingdom, whereof Samuel spake, he told him not. (1 Samuel 10 KJV)

I had previously discussed some of the above but had glossed over parts. Regarding the asses, Saul informs his uncle that Samuel told him that the asses had been found, but he decides not to mention that he is being made the king of Israel. Is this because the asses are so significant, or that Saul might think that his father and uncle might be worried about Saul being made king, or what? If the asses are just incidental why are they constantly mentioned, and us knowing that Saul is intimately linked to Gibeah, his home, and where the prior incident regarding the slaughter of the Benjamites occurred?

And where the heck did Saul's uncle come from?

These verses also take us back to Saul being the first prophet, except for the fact that he has joined with a company of prophets. In verse 12 we see that the phrase from the very previous verse became a proverb. This is rather remarkable, all in the space of writing two consecutive verses, if nothing else. Of course, we understand that all these texts were redacted centuries after the alleged time, but this is funny in any case. But more importantly, what is the underlying significance of asking whether or not Saul should be considered a prophet or not? His later namesake is not counted as such, yet Saul, as Paul, is actually the creator of normative Christianity. It is Jesus that some, including Islam, consider as a prophet.

And so let's review what we've been over and see if we can come to a deeper meaning:

Similar to the 1100 pieces of silver cryptically linking Samson and Delilah to the subsequent narrative of Micah, and his unnamed mother, we have these two unnamed asses:rolleyes: that are mentioned in the slaughter of the Benjamites story with the unnamed Levite (and a servant), and the unnamed father-in-law (from Bethlehem). If we consider that the Saul story, ignoring Samuel the Seer, is essentially the subsequent narrative to the slaughter of the Benjamites, then the asses form an odd link between the two, albeit there being a conundrum involved. And we already have Saul being a Benjamite, from the very city where the Levite's concubine was raped and killed.

If any Benjamites should have been killed over any others it should be those from Gibeah. Meaning those like Saul, his father Kish, and Saul's uncle. But no, instead, we hear about these two asses, incessant worry that they have been lost and Saul must go out with a sevant and find them. The reason they are missing is never mentioned, could it be that these asses were scared off during the slaughter of the Benjamites? But here is the conundrum in making this connection. The asses in the slaughter story belong to the Levite from the mount of Ephraim, aka Shiloh. The asses in the Saul and Samuel story belong to Kish, Saul's father. Hmmm

In various modern day scandals we are told to follow the money, but what if in the Bible we are supposed to follow the asses? Are we really being told that Kish the Benjamite is really the Levite, or in some otherr way connected. I have been saying all along, that the Bible is cryptically telling us about ethnic cleansing and identity substitutions, of either the elites or their human sheep. For example, the patriarch Gomer, really his eponymous tribe is turned into a metaphorical whore, Gomer, in Hosea 1. This to repopulate the land of the Israelites who have been expelled.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 16B (additions 7/29/17)

Since my comments above in Part 16A and what came after, a separate discussion, here, about Biblical archaeology, brought attention to the story of the pharaoh Shishak and his campaign to support Jeroboam, the first 'Israelite' king of the so-called Divided Monarchy after the death of Solomon. I bring this up here, out of sequence again, because the Bible reports that Shishak mostly campaigned against the region of Benjamin, and not so much against the region of Judah, the opposition to the Egyptians' favorites du jour (the Israelites).

This is curious because, according to the Biblical chronology, only a few generations before, the tribe of Benjamin had been severely reduced in numbers and had to be reinvigorated with 400 virgin girls from the genocide at Jabeshgilead (coming later in this Part 16 sub-series) and some abducted dancing girls from Bethel/Shiloh. So why would Shishak be so concerned with campaigning in Benjamin and not so much in Judah?

Biblical Shishak
Shoshenq I is frequently identified with the Egyptian king Shishaq (שׁישׁק Šîšaq, transliterated),[12] referred to in the Hebrew Bible at 1 Kings 11:40, 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9.[13] According to these passages, Jeroboam fled from Solomon and stayed with Shishaq until Solomon dies, and Shishaq invaded Judah, mostly the area of Benjamin, during the fifth year of the reign of king Rehoboam, taking with him most of the treasures of the temple created by Solomon. Shoshenq I is generally attributed with the raid on Judah: this is corroborated with a stela discovered at Megiddo.

As the wider Wikipedia article correctly notes, there is controversy about Shishak and Shoshenq I actually being one and the same. This, despite that Shoshenq I's reign is at about the right time, but his records about his campaigns don't jibe in regards to Judah. But the Bible verses actually qualify the action as "mostly the area of Benjamin". Technically, and originally, Benjamin is a separate tribal region from Judah, and was only linked together later because of the Divided Monarchy alliance between the two.

Records found in Egypt and in Israel show that Shoshenq I's campaign likely took him to Meggido and further up to Byblos in Phoenicia. From the Egyptian accounts, this also appears to be the first Egyptian military incursion into Canaan for centuries, no doubt related to the collapse of the Late Bronze Age civilizations and including a negative impact on Egypt itself.

And so, as I proceed with the story of the genocide of Benjamin, in Judges, we should be aware of the significance of the supposedly later Shishak story. And keep in mind a motive and ability for the Biblical redactors to transpose chronology, and in this case even split up story elements to disguise the real history. This in addition to keeping certain names anonymous, as in the genocide of Benjamin narrative.

Thus, immediately upon my return to Judges 19, we soon come to the old man inquiring of the unnamed Levite as to where he is from:

16And, behold, there came an old man from his work out of the field at even, which was also of mount Ephraim; and he sojourned in Gibeah: but the men of the place were Benjamites. 17And when he had lifted up his eyes, he saw a wayfaring man in the street of the city: and the old man said, Whither goest thou? and whence comest thou? 18And he said unto him, We are passing from Bethlehemjudah toward the side of mount Ephraim; from thence am I: and I went to Bethlehemjudah, but I am now going to the house of the LORD; and there is no man that receiveth me to house. (Judges 19 KJV)

We learn several important matters from this seemingly innocuous passage. First (and out of order), the Levite tells the old man that they are returning to the side of Mount Ephraim, and specifically to the "house of the Lord" (Beth - El). This really means they are returning to the temple at Bethel/Shiloh, which is at the center of the region of Ephraim, the then de facto capital of Israel (not Judah).

Secondly, and interestingly, the Hebrew words are specific about Mount Ephraim, while other new translations water down the meaning to that they are returning to a 'remote area' in the hills of Ephraim. The temple and capital of Israel cannot be described as being "remote". As we'll see, there was obfuscation by the original redactors, but with the later translations, they have attempted to further hide what I've just discovered.

Thirdly, as we saw Samson went looking for "an occasion against the Philistines", here, between the old man and the Levite, we see the same thing, a pretext of nasty dimensions.

Since my first draft of this segment, Jerry has caught some aspects of verse 16, about Gibeah and the old man, and whether or not Bethel is one and the same as Shiloh (as Barbiero has it).

About the last, I generally agree with Barbiero, but it may be that the older Bethel was the administrative center of the 'Egyptian' colonial masters, and Shiloh was the adjacent capital for the 'Hebrew' vassals (being converted into future nationalists).

Verse 16 actually states that the 'old man' is also sojourning in Gibeah, meaning he doesn't really live there, as with the Levite. (See my discussion of 'sojourning' in the next segment Part 16C.) At least as his principal domicile. And so we are presented with another seeming conundrum, an old man tending late to his field, "which was of Mount Ephraim". On the surface, we are to believe that the old man and the Levite meet by chance, but the alert can see this as planned, ... God's plan, the pharaoh's covert one, that is.

Both the Levite and the old man are agents from Mount Ephraim and are out to seek an occasion against the Benjamites, as Samson did with the Philistines.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 16C

Gibeah's Crime

22Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him. 23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly. 24Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing. 25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go. 26Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light. 27And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold. 28And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place. 29And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel. 30And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds. (Judges 19 KJV)

And so, the above becomes the pretext for an occasion against the Benjamites and not just those of Gibeah. Gibeah, where Benjamite King Saul will arise from. And so now this all begs a number of questions. But first, let's return to the first two verses of Judges 19:

1And it came to pass in those days, when there was no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah. 2And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah, and was there four whole months. (Judges 19 KJV)

We had just discussed that the Levite seemed to tell the old man that he was from Mount Ephraim, but verse 1 tells us that he was "sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim". The word "sojourn" actually means to stay temporarily at some place, meaning Mount Ephraim is not really where he is from permanently. In this case, the Levite is temporarily staying at Mount Ephraim, so where is he really from? Like his name, we are never told. This is highly significant, just as much so as the constant link to the tribe of Benjamin. And there is a constant concern over the two asses, further linking 'Benjamite' stories together, that seemingly don't figure to otherwise.

From the Oxford Compact English Dictionary:
sojourn noun - a tempory stay
verb - stay temporarily
from the Latin sub 'under' + diurnum 'day'

The above story of Gibeah seems based upon the nasty story of Lot providing the men of Lot with his daughters in order to save the angels of God from such 'Greek cultural' degradation (aka Sodomy). Oddly, the old man of the house offers not only his daughter to the Gibeanites, but he offers the Levite's concubine to them. And the Levite seems to offer no complaint, but instead, after an implied change of textual focus, the Levite physically brought her forth to them to abuse.

In the morning, we find the concubine fallen down at the front door, but we're not really sure if she is dead. The Levite talks to her, and says, "Up, and let us be going". Whatever the case, the Levite decides to chop her into 12 pieces and send them to the different tribal regions of Israel. This will be used to muster the tribes to Gibeah to exact a bloody justice that escalates beyond the men of Gibeah.

But notice that the Levite had placed the concubine upon an ass before taking her into the house and turning her into cube steak, or rather concubine steak.

But what happened to the ass and his ass friend? Did they take the concubine to her resting places? Will these asses end up in another narrative, where some supposed Benjamite will be sent looking for them, but ends up becoming a king?

And where did Shishak 'sojourn' while he was in 'Israel', assisting Jeroboam. Did he stay at Bethel, instead of in Judah's Jerusalem?

Was the Levite's concubine (or secondary wife) really an alliance marriage intended to cement strained bonds? Did she return to her father in Bethlehem because she was unhappy with her lower status? Why was her father so happy to see the Levite, a man who would soon offer her to a horrific fate?
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Barbiero discusses this incident and concludes that the unnamed Levite is probably Gershom, who is high priest and a descendant of Moses. He also argues that Shiloh and Bethel are being discussed in this section as if they're one and the same place. But, conventional wisdom is that Bethel is located to the south of Shiloh.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I think Barbiero is correct in his equating Bethel with Shiloh. Much was made of Jacob wrestling all night with God (aka El) at Bethel where there was El's temple. Shiloh is where the Israelite temple was and where they stashed the Ark until moving it to Jerusalem.

Although I guess there might be a case that the Israelites were not given permission to use the same facilities as their colonial 'masters', hence the two were close by each other but not the same.
Last edited by a moderator:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In the map below, one can also see they have Bethel, immediately between Shiloh and Jerusalem. This makes it interesting to command covert authority over the two competing capitals.

Gabaon must be Gibeah. Silo is Shiloh. Even nearer Betel (Bethel) is Ai, which is remarkably evocative of the Pharaoh Ay, whom seems to be the orchestrator of the wider Amarna affair, central to what happens later.

For reference:
Last edited by a moderator:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In thinking about the millennial parallels, I just realized the significance of the slaughter of the Benjamites, and feel compelled to write it down now, before proceeding to finish the slaughter episode.

If Saul/Paul is a type of (King) Saul, then we must ask what happened to Saul's native people, the Benjamites (and King Saul Paul was from Gibeah no less, so he was supposed to be killed, but wasn't), in terms of the comparison. For here, Saul/Paul's native Jews were slaughtered by the Romans, but some survived, to align themselves with the Romans. King Saul's tribe was almost eliminated, but some remnant survived, including help from some fresh Ephraimite DNA was added into it. A grafting of humans of a sort. As well, in the later Divided Monarchy schism of the Promised Land, the Judeans would be allied with the Benjamites, the latter whose tribal lands contained Jerusalem.

So lets keep in mind that Ephraim hosted the capital/temple at Shiloh, and then after all these episodes, it gets transferred to Jerusalem in addition to initiating the practice of kingship.

The subsequent Book of Ruth is basically filler material that can be effectively placed in different Biblical sequences, and some canons do just that. Recognizing this, then the next narrative is really that of King Saul, that is if one includes prior Samuel as a subservient narrative to King Saul's rise. It is Samuel who selects Saul, so to speak.

And Samuel is also a Nazarite, BTW. In this case, one who selects a king who will fail. This link discusses that not only Samson and Samuel were Nazarites, but several of Josephus' Maccabean family were as well. Perhaps this is why the Books of Maccabee were included in the Catholic canon? They were proud of this association quietly linking Hellenized Jewish kings to Christianity.

Let's remember, here, that as the earlier Saul, he was a tormentor of the 'Christians', but he had his epiphany thus becoming Paul. But if we invoke the many parallels between Paul and Josephus, and some more chronological time magic (ala Caesar's Messiah), then Saul, as Josephus Maccabee (cum Flavius), is out in Galilee fighting off the Romans, before he had his convenient 'conversion'.

Josephus even mentions at one point that a friend named Jesus (one of many) had saved him from from fellow Jews, who felt that Josephus was not acting in their interest. More dark humor.

And then from the NT (more of which I had earlier posted on this thread):

Acts of the Apostles is also attributed to Luke and in Acts 18:18, Paul cut off his hair because of a vow he had taken[26] we learn that the early Jewish Christians occasionally took the temporary Nazarite vow, and it is probable that the vow of St. Paul mentioned in Acts 18:18, was of a similar nature, although the shaving of his head in Cenchræ, outside of Palestine, was not in conformity with the rules laid down in the sixth chapter of Numbers, nor with the interpretation of them by the Rabbinical schools of that period. (See Eaton in Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, s. v. Nazarites.) If we are to believe the legend of Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius[27], St. James the Less, Bishop of Jerusalem, was a Nazarite, and performed with rigorous exactness all the ascetic practices enjoined by that rule of life. and in Acts 21:20-24 Paul was advised to avoid the hostility of the "Jews there are which believe" (believe in Jesus, i.e. the Jewish Christians) in Jerusalem who had heard Paul taught against the law by purifying himself and accompanying four men to the temple who had taken nazaritic vows[28] (so that he might appear "orderly"[29]), a stratagem that only delayed the inevitable mob assault on him. This event brought about the accusation in Acts 24:5-18 that Paul was the "ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes", and thus provides further verification that the term Nazarene was a mistranslation of the term Nazirite.

What is curious is that Luke does not here mention the apostle James the Just as taking nazirite vows, although later Christian historians (e.g. Epiphanius Panarion 29.4) believed he had, and the vow of a nazirite would explain the asceticism Eusebius of Caesarea ascribed to James (Historia Ecclesiastica 2.23), an asceticism that gave James the title "James the Just".

Appeal has been made to "nazirite" rather than "of Nazareth" or "the Nazarene" for the origin of these Hebrew/Aramaic epithets for Jesus. This conclusion is based in part on the prophecy in Matthew 2:23 that says of Jesus, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." It is doubtful that the prophets had actually said 'Nazarene', rather than 'Nazirite', because reference bibles state that the prophecy cited in Matt. 2:23 is in reference to Judges 13:5-7 concerning Samson's description as "a Nazirite to God from the womb to the day of his death". In addition, there is no word translated ‘Nazarene’ or any reference to a city of 'Nazareth' in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Furthermore, although Luke 1:13-15 describes John the Baptist as a Nazirite from birth, John implied that Jesus was holier than he in Matthew 3:13-15, which says, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me? And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him". Thus Jesus was baptized, immersion in water being a fulfillment of the nazirite vow.

Thus, in both cases we have a 'failed' king preceded by a Nazarite who prepares the way for the One (here talking about John the Baptist and not Paul). In both cases, there is a grafting of sorts, especially if we can suspect that King Saul was grafted into being a Benjamite during the ethnic cleansing of his supposed tribe. A wholly disproportionate act, a tribocidal ethnic cleansing that took place under what is obviously a pretext, namely that the unnamed Levite and the 'old man' offered up their ladies for abuse.

Replacing the failed king is David, who launches a new order, and who takes poor, poor Judea to fabulous, big league, worldly wealth along with his son.

And we have Nazarites all over the place. And with relocating the timing of the End Times to 70 BCE, let's remember that Josephus states that during the critical last moments of the battle at the Temple a signal is given so that the Maccabees withdraw to safety. Perhaps using the underground passages.

Samuel, then, appears to prefigure John the Baptist, albeit the annointing role gets swapped out to Mary Magdalene.

As I discuss also, see here, the Maccabees can be considered rather fully in bed with the gentil Hellenizing Greeks long prior, and so why not with the later Romans?

This is useful in allowing us to see Trump today as one of the set-up men for the later 'revelatory' denouement, and who I've asserted is the Beast of the Sea, a Lifetime Actor role if ever there was one. We even get in this the shared loss of "about 3,000" lives at the Twin Towers and from the collapse of the Philistine temple columns, and more.

The Nazorean rebels, the 'patriotic' nationalists du jour, we joined by the Maccabee royal family, until they weren't. Well, just who is Trump/Drumpf loyal too?
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 16D

Continuing on with the slaughter of the Benjamites. In chapter 19 the unnamed Levite had carved up his concubine into 12 pieces to serve as a grisly summons to all the tribes, apparently except Benjamin (see verse 3 below). Remember here it was only the male inhabitants of Gibeah that harmed the concubine.

The Decree of the Assembly

1Then all the children of Israel went out, and the congregation was gathered together as one man, from Dan even to Beersheba, with the land of Gilead, unto the LORD in Mizpeh. 2And the chief of all the people, even of all the tribes of Israel, presented themselves in the assembly of the people of God, four hundred thousand footmen that drew sword.3(Now the children of Benjamin heard that the children of Israel were gone up to Mizpeh.) Then said the children of Israel, Tell us, how was this wickedness? 4And the Levite, the husband of the woman that was slain, answered and said, I came into Gibeah that belongeth to Benjamin, I and my concubine, to lodge. 5And the men of Gibeah rose against me, and beset the house round about upon me by night, and thought to have slain me: and my concubine have they forced, that she is dead. 6And I took my concubine, and cut her in pieces, and sent her throughout all the country of the inheritance of Israel: for they have committed lewdness and folly in Israel. 7Behold, ye are all children of Israel; give here your advice and counsel. (Judges 20 KJV)

First off, there is an accounting problem, because of the absence of the Benjamites from the assembly. It does not seem to me that the entirety of Benjamin was summoned to the assembly, which seems supported by the verse 3 highlight. Maybe the scribes used the number 12 symbolically, but then this still doesn't answer why Benjamin wasn't mustered. Then there is the complications of that the Levites were spread across the 12 regions, and the number twelve then only possible by dividing the tribe of Joseph into two, Ephraim and Manasseh. Oh vey!

With verse 4 we get the confirmation that the Levite and his concubine were indeed married, meaning that she was indeed a secondary mate to the Levite's primary wife. The Hebrew words for 'wife' and 'concubine' are distinctly different, with conjecture that the latter may even be a foreign loan word.

With verse 5 we come to the big lie, where he states that the Gibeanites thought that they had killed him, but the Chapter 19 narrative says no such thing. The Levite gave her over, as the old man had just prior given up his daughter to them. The Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament supports this interpretation:

... Then the Levite, the husband of the murdered woman, described the whole affair. הגּבעה בּעלי, the owners or citizens of Gibeah (see at Judges 9:2). "Me they intended to kill:" the Levite draws this conclusion from what had happened to his wife; the men of Gibeah had not expressed any such intention in Judges 19:22. ...

Can you imagine one of John Wayne's characters doing such with a concubine?

Verse 1 seems a bit on the hyperbolic side, as surely the people would not leave there lands and homes untended and undefended to some degree. And, with verse 2 might we wonder why the number of "footmen who sword" was only 400,000 strong, given the emphasis on begetting large families in this culture, and based upon the numbers given for the Exodus.

12And the tribes of Israel sent men through all the tribe of Benjamin, saying, What wickedness is this that is done among you? 13Now therefore deliver us the men, the children of Belial, which are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death, and put away evil from Israel. But the children of Benjamin would not hearken to the voice of their brethren the children of Israel: 14But the children of Benjamin gathered themselves together out of the cities unto Gibeah, to go out to battle against the children of Israel. (Judges 20 KJV)

In the above, we see the reason why Benjamin must not have been mustered to the assembly. This is because the remaining tribesmen were sent amongst all the small region of Benjamin and ordered the Benjamites to arrest their fellow Benjamites from Gibeah, so that they could execute them. They were going to make the innocent Benjamites take the risk of arresting their allegedly guilty cousins. If the men of Gibeah were not inclined to surrender to arrest they would be fighting fellow Benjamites. So, if the Benjamites, sans Gibeah, had been summoned to the assembly, this would make for some dangerous awkwardness when asked to arrest their tribesmen. And, the Gibeanites might guess why they had been left out, and potentially flee.

The remainder of the chapter tells the details of the three day battle, where we are told that 600 Benjamite men survived, taking refuge at the rock Rimmon. The Benjamites then kill all the non-combatants of every Benjamite city. The ambiguity of the use of 'all' we be cleared up in the next chapter.

But chapter 20 ends with:

47But six hundred men turned and fled to the wilderness unto the rock Rimmon, and abode in the rock Rimmon four months. 48And the men of Israel turned again upon the children of Benjamin, and smote them with the edge of the sword, as well the men of every city, as the beast, and all that came to hand: also they set on fire all the cities that they came to. (Judges 20 KJV) [added 8/8/17]
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Samuel, then, appears to prefigure John the Baptist,

I'm sorry, I'm very confused about this set of typological mappings.

Beginning with the Samuel -> Saul -> David relationship:

If Samuel is like John the Baptist, doesn't that make Jesus analogous to Saul? But if so, where is David?

If NT's Paul is like Saul, then how has JtB anointed Paul? If David is like Jesus, then why do we find JtB anointing Jesus directly? And, we have Paul proclaiming Jesus, but only posthumously; it might as well be said that Jesus anointed Paul, rather than vice versa.

wholly disproportionate act, a tribocidal ethnic cleansing that took place under what is obviously a pretext, namely that the unnamed Levite and the 'old man' offered up their ladies for abuse.

While I agree that this seems to be a pretext, I don't understand the real reason why it was necessary to wipe out the Benjamites. Do you see any clue as to where the Benjamites actually went wrong?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
If Samuel is like John the Baptist, doesn't that make Jesus analogous to Saul? But if so, where is David?
David equates with Titus. We are talking about grafts in both cases.

If NT's Paul is like Saul, then how has JtB anointed Paul? If David is like Jesus, then why do we find JtB anointing Jesus directly? And, we have Paul proclaiming Jesus, but only posthumously; it might as well be said that Jesus anointed Paul, rather than vice versa.
JtB selected the failed king, Jesus. We can't really be sure if King Saul if King Saul was a real Benjamite or not, considering that as a supposed resident of Gibeah, his father, at least, should have been killed. Unless they were one of the remnant 600. But these were all infused with Ephraimite blood, because for some reason all the Benjamite women and children were killed. Hence, they needed 400 virgin girls and some additional dancing girls from Bethel.

While I agree that this seems to be a pretext, I don't understand the real reason why it was necessary to wipe out the Benjamites. Do you see any clue as to where the Benjamites actually went wrong?
This is interesting as well. At the time, Jerusalem (then Jebus) is run by the Jebusites, and it is in the middle of Benjamin land. What we are really talking about is the ethnic clearing of the land around Jebus, and/or Jerusalem itself, though with Jerusalem, this is supposed to occur later on with David. Nowhere in the story is Jebus mentioned, though the Israeilites went to every city of Benjamin.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Joshua 11 & 12 say that the Israelites smote the Jebusites and conquered Jerusalem. Joshua 18:28 says that "Jebusi (which is Jerusalem)" was part of the inheritance of Benjamin. Wikipedia quotes Niels Lemche as saying "There is no evidence of Jebus and the Jebusites outside of the Old Testament". Jerusalem was known as "Urusalem" already in the Amarna letters. So it's hard to be sure what's happened here, in terms of who has been ethnically cleansed, when, and why. But as Joe would say, malfeasance.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I had forgotten that, its been so long since I've read Joshua. Maybe its a good thing though?

I wonder if this is a redaction error, they forgot to scrub Jebus when the cobbled together Judges?

10But the man would not tarry that night, but he rose up and departed, and came over against Jebus, which is Jerusalem; and there were with him two asses saddled, his concubine also was with him. 11And when they were by Jebus, the day was far spent; and the servant said unto his master, Come, I pray thee, and let us turn in into this city of the Jebusites, and lodge in it. 12And his master said unto him, We will not turn aside hither into the city of a stranger, that is not of the children of Israel; we will pass over to Gibeah. (Judges 19 KJV)

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The plot gets thicker. Judges 1 says that Jerusalem was captured after Joshua died, by the children of Judah, but that the Benjamites did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem, instead dwelling with them. Verse 21 is the beginning of a list of places that the various tribes had been unsuccessful at driving out the Canaanites and others. In Joshua it just says that the king of the Jebusites was killed along with 69 other kings. Apparently in battle outside of their cities for the most part.

Jerusalem and Hebron Captured

8Now the children of Judah had fought against Jerusalem, and had taken it, and smitten it with the edge of the sword, and set the city on fire.

21And the children of Benjamin did not drive out the Jebusites that inhabited Jerusalem; but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin in Jerusalem unto this day.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Part 16E

Mourning the Tribe of Benjamin

1Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpeh, saying, There shall not any of us give his daughter unto Benjamin to wife. 2And the people came to the house of God, and abode there till even before God, and lifted up their voices, and wept sore; 3And said, O LORD God of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel, that there should be to day one tribe lacking in Israel? 4And it came to pass on the morrow, that the people rose early, and built there an altar, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings.

5And the children of Israel said, Who is there among all the tribes of Israel that came not up with the congregation unto the LORD? For they had made a great oath concerning him that came not up to the LORD to Mizpeh, saying, He shall surely be put to death. 6And the children of Israel repented them for Benjamin their brother, and said, There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day. 7How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing we have sworn by the LORD that we will not give them of our daughters to wives? (Judges 21 KJV)

The collective people of Israel have just slaughtered all the people of the tribe of Benjamin, save for 600 men, who are hiding out at rock Rimmon. They decide that they shall not give any of their daughters unto these 600 men to allow for the continuance of the tribe, yet there is yet concern, for some odd reason that the tribe does indeed continue. So how will they come to a solution, as anyone who does provide a daughter for such purpose will be put to death? The solution comes easily, as one must merely put to death some people first, save their virgin daughters. But who will it be? Surely there must be some people worthy of such a fate?

Ask and ye shall receive bitches!!! Isn't God great?

Provision for Benjamin's Survival

8And they said, What one is there of the tribes of Israel that came not up to Mizpeh to the LORD? And, behold, there came none to the camp from Jabeshgilead to the assembly. 9For the people were numbered, and, behold, there were none of the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead there. 10And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the children. 11And this is the thing that ye shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man. 12And they found among the inhabitants of Jabeshgilead four hundred young virgins, that had known no man by lying with any male: and they brought them unto the camp to Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan. 13And the whole congregation sent some to speak to the children of Benjamin that were in the rock Rimmon, and to call peaceably unto them. 14And Benjamin came again at that time; and they gave them wives which they had saved alive of the women of Jabeshgilead: and yet so they sufficed them not.

It seems that there were some cowardly Jabeshiadites, from Gilead across the Jordan River, who did not heed the call to muster against the evil Benjamites, who themselves had not turned the gang rapist / concubine murderers from Benjamite Gibeah over to the Israelites. At least, they were gang rapist / concubine murderers according to the Levite husband of the concubine who then cut her into 12 Jewish cutlets. Cutlets tell no lies, at least back then when satanic forensic sciences had not developed to any degree. And, we are still left to wonder what happened to the 'old man's' daughter who was delivered up to the Gibeanites along with the concubine.

And supposedly hundreds of years after Joshua, why are we discussing the land of Canaan, and not the land of Israel? These same people still get so upset when we call it Palestine today.

Oh well.

But there are still not enough virgins to suffice for the balance of the remnant of Benjamin. There is a shortfall of 200 girlies for the protectors of gang raping, concubine murderers. For those who had survived and fled the war, that is. The Jabeshiadites, who did not attend the fight were slaughtered, while the Benjamites who fled were rewarded with virgins and dancing girls.

Oh heavens, what shall be done?

Ask and ye shall receive bitches!!!! Isn't God great?

16Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we do for wives for them that remain, seeing the women are destroyed out of Benjamin? 17And they said, There must be an inheritance for them that be escaped of Benjamin, that a tribe be not destroyed out of Israel. 18Howbeit we may not give them wives of our daughters: for the children of Israel have sworn, saying, Cursed be he that giveth a wife to Benjamin.

19Then they said, Behold, there is a feast of the LORD in Shiloh yearly in a place which is on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem, and on the south of Lebonah. 20Therefore they commanded the children of Benjamin, saying, Go and lie in wait in the vineyards; 21And see, and, behold, if the daughters of Shiloh come out to dance in dances, then come ye out of the vineyards, and catch you every man his wife of the daughters of Shiloh, and go to the land of Benjamin. 22And it shall be, when their fathers or their brethren come unto us to complain, that we will say unto them, Be favourable unto them for our sakes: because we reserved not to each man his wife in the war: for ye did not give unto them at this time, that ye should be guilty. 23And the children of Benjamin did so, and took them wives, according to their number, of them that danced, whom they caught: and they went and returned unto their inheritance, and repaired the cities, and dwelt in them. 24And the children of Israel departed thence at that time, every man to his tribe and to his family, and they went out from thence every man to his inheritance.

25In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

The last verse is included as part of the later scribal narrative construction demonstrating the Cultural Degradation in the Israelite polity gradually occurring as a consequence of the lack of having a god ordained king. As I have discussed prior, it is from not only Benjamin, but Gibeah, that the first king, Saul, arises. And the pervasive odd inclusion of two asses ties the narrative of Saul to the narrative of the unnamed Levite who is traveling home from .... Bethlehem.

Saul's unfortunate heritage seems to prefigure his doom, his kingship surrendered to the ruddy (red) David who does come from Bethlehem, where the poor concubine originated from.

The unnamed Levite and the 'old man are linked to Ephraim, and Bethel / Shiloh, as are the dancing girls. The story of the dancing girls is similar to the Roman foundational story of the Rape of the Sabine Women, with the end result being near the same. The Sabines were the elite tribe of the Romans, as are those of Ephraim for the 'Jewish' narrative. The Sabines were colonists, who arrived from the east, as were the ruddy elites of the Jewish narrative, at least. Contrary to popular cultural interpretations, the elite Romans and the elite 'Jews' were related, hence such as the Talmud calling the Romans 'Edomites', for ruddy Esau (the brother of Jacob). And this is why the Bible called for Esau to regain his inheritance, which otherwise makes no sense in the popular Judeo-Christian construct. This happened in 70 AD.

The other word for 'popular' is: 'wrong'.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Returning back to the main theme of this thread, I am currently watching this long (3:43:47) video on Masonic geometric and geographical symbology, a tour de force indeed. A fair amount of this I have seen discussed in other sources, but this puts it all together, and in a manner that demonstrates conclusively, IMHO, that esoteric Christian references, and the Judaic, are merely intermediate stepping stones from Egypt and Sumeria/Babylon to Rome, London and Washington DC (not to forget Venice and Paris). There are numerous references linking today back to ancient Egypt that otherwise should not have been possible without the contiguous transmission of such knowledge.

The symbology of Isis and Osiris, as Virgo and Leo, found in Washington DC and the UN Security Council backdrop, is rather stunning in confirmation of the significance of the coming (suspected Revelation 12) September 23 alignment of Jupiter and the Sun with Virgo and Leo et al,.

Impressive is the revelation of what the Washington Monument actually represents.

Among other aspects mentioned in passing is the US Post Office building, which Trump owns. All this also helps put in context Jared Kushner's ownership of 666 Fifth Avenue. 666, of course, refers to the Mark of the Beast, of which one must have in order to continue to do business in the marketplace. And, of course, on an even deeper level it is an esoteric geometrical and cosmic reference of considerable sophistication, as discussed by David Fideler in his seminal Jesus Christ, Sun of God.

On the forum has been the topic of the JFK assassination an such as whether or not it was faked. I have posited that JFK represents a type of sacrificial messiah, and in the symbology discussed, of NYC's Central Park, is discussed that Jackie Kennedy is represented as Isis, whose husband, Osiris, was killed by uncle Set.

The intro is too long, but afterwards it goes very fast, packing in a lot of material. Being familiar with some of this esoteric material is thus a big help. Similar to what Tupper Saussy discussed in Ruler of Evil, it cannot honestly be denied that such as the Jesuits were equally involved, with their supposed enemies (the controlled opposition) with the creation of the 'New Jerusalem', aka Washington DC.

Scott Onstott, the video creator's website:
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I just started reading a book that Jerry found, written by a retired Italian admiral, Flavio Barbiero. It is titled The Secret Society of Moses. Jerry and Joe briefly talked about it on one of their podcasts, I believe on Mithraism and Early Xianity. Hopefully, Jerry will correct me if I am wrong.

I believe Jerry mentioned the book because of that Barbiero claims that Mithraism was a secret society vehicle that acted much then as does what we know of in the last few centuries as Freemasonry. This claim was also made by David Fideler in his Jesus Christ, Sun of God. We can add to Mithraism a long list of related other societies as well, and that the role of such can evolve over time as is expedient to the needs of the day. Hence such an example as Mithraism can have a considerably different aesthetic than does the typical Egyptian motif found in the various forms of masonry. The important thing to consider is that these societies provide cover to allow strings to be pulled, sub rosa, within a respective society that would not be considered Hoyle otherwise if everything is performed 'above board'.

Much ado is made by some concerned about masonry in that it is obviously 'Judaic' in nature and thus part of the Jews ever nefarious Zionist plot. Well, as I have discussed before, this is only partially true, just not the whole picture, .... importantly. Sardonically, many of the same people get their hackles raised in their desire to defend from what they perceive as an outside Judaic (or other) attack upon themselves and their Xian 'gentile' culture. This is exactly the way the system, Western Civilization much less masonry, was designed.

I decided that I needed to close down a lot of open research tabs on my browser and came across the following, of which it is now lost on me how I got there. In any case, it struck me that, if contested claims of Mithraic provenance are true, then this conforms to Flavio Barbiero's thesis, that such as Josephus Flavius' Jewish entourage were centrally involved in establishing the cult.

Note in the third excerpted paragraph the comment about the timing of rituals based upon astrological formula or horoscopes, which is exactly what I have claimed for the events of 9/11/2001.

The "Mithras Liturgy" is a text from the Great Magical Papyrus of Paris, part of the Greek Magical Papyri,[1] numbered PGM IV.475-834.[2] The modern name by which the text is known originated in 1903 with Albrecht Dieterich, its first translator,[3][4] based on the invocation of Helios Mithras (Ἥλιοϲ Μίθραϲ) as the god who will provide the initiate with a revelation of immortality.[5] The text is generally considered a product of the religious syncretism characteristic of the Hellenistic and Roman Imperial era, as were the Mithraic mysteries themselves.[6] Some scholars have argued that it has no direct connection to particular Mithraic ritual.[7] Others consider it an authentic reflection of Mithraic liturgy,[8] or view it as Mithraic material reworked for the syncretic tradition of magic and esotericism.[9]
Magic context
In Book IV of the Greek Magical Papyri in which the "Mithras Liturgy" occurs, lines 1-25 are a spell calling on Egyptian and Jewish powers in order to obtain information. Lines 1127-64 are a spell for exorcising a demon, using Coptic words of Christian origin,[citation needed] with instructions for preparing an amulet. Lines 1716-1870 are headed "Sword of Dardanos" and is a love spell.
The Mithras Liturgy shares several elements found widely in magic as practiced in the Greco-Roman world, which drew on or claimed the authority of Egyptian religion and magic. These include the preparation of amulets and ointments, the timing of rituals based on astronomical phenomena or horoscopes, and the manipulation of breath and speech. Vocalizations include popping and hissing sounds for onomatopoeia, variations on the sequence of Greek vowels, glossolalia, and words that are untranslatable but seem to derive from or are intended to sound like Egyptian, Hebrew and other languages.[16]

I suspect that a lot of the objections about this truly belonging to Mithraic origins stem from traditional thinking that the cult had no semblance to Jewish norms. This despite all the zodiacal representations found on the floors of synagogues, this aspect being of older Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources, as was almost everything Judaic and Greek.