Reign of King Deioces stretched over 55 years

by Damien F. Mackey Deioces would be a contemporary of the early part of Ardys’ reign or the late part of Gyges’ reign. However, if we recall that in 660 BC Gyges made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, it would seem strange to find Deioces, who was transported by Sargon in 715 BC to Hamath, to be still found at the time of Ashurbanipal. In my postgraduate thesis (2007), Volume One, pp. 142-144, I gave the following five: …. (B) Conventional Theory’s Weaknesses Consider these categories: • Worrying Duplications and Anomalies. 1. The ubiquitous king of Babylon, Merodach-baladan II, was: - already a political factor in the days of Tiglath-pileser III (c. 744-727 BC). - He then, supposedly two reigns later, becomes a complete thorn in Sargon II’s side for the latter’s first, approximately, 12 years of reign (c. 721-710). - He then resurfaces at the time of Sennacherib, who defeats him in his first campaign and then, finally, in his fourth campaign (c. 704-700). Kings can reign over long periods of time, but this Merodach-baladan seems perhaps to have overstayed his welcome. Mitinti of ‘Ashdod’ ranges through the same approximate, long neo-Assyrian period. Comment: The matter can be greatly simplified, however, if, as I also argued in this thesis, the conventional neo-Assyrian succession: Tiglath-pileser; Shalmaneser; Sargon; Sennacherib be modified to just this: Tiglath-pileser = Shalmaneser; Sargon = Sennacherib Perhaps even more telling in this regard is the case of: 2. Deioces, king of the Mannaeans and the Medes. A study of Deioces in relation to the succession of neo-Assyrian kings (Sargon II to Ashurbanipal) who I am arguing were all contemporaries of Hezekiah, would tend to support my argument that this period stands in need of a significant time reduction. Sargon II, in his Annals for c. 715 BC, refers to Daiukku as a ruler of the Mannai (the Minni of the Bible) … allies of the Medes. Most scholars consider Daiukku to be the same as the Deioces of the Greek sources, the founder of the Median empire. Daiukku followed Aza and Ullusuv as ruler of Mannai. According to Luckerman, Daiukku had a very short reign as Sargon deposed him from the throne after only a year in power and exiled him to the west. …. Herodotus, on the other hand, makes Deioces an approximate contemporary of Gyges, who made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, thought to be Sargon’s great grandson. Herodotus wrote that Alyattes, the son of Sadyattes, the son of Ardys, the son of Gyges, made war with Cyaxares, the son of Phraortes, the son of Deioces. …. Luckerman, not surprisingly, has some problem with the chronology of all this: …. If this be the case, then Deioces would be a contemporary of the early part of Ardys’ reign or the late part of Gyges’ reign. However, if we recall that in 660 BC Gyges made a treaty with Ashurbanipal, it would seem strange to find Deioces, who was transported by Sargon in 715 BC to Hamath, to be still found at the time of Ashurbanipal. A span of 55 years (715-660 BC) for Deioces, though humanly possible, is somewhat unlikely. Thus Luckerman, in order to maintain the traditional identification between Deioces and Daiukku, feels it necessary to stretch the matter a bit: It is not beyond the realm of possibility that Daiukku, if he is correctly identified with Deioces, was only a child ruler when first overthrown by Sargon of Assyria. Later, while the successors of Sargon expended Assyria’s power in debilitating warfare, Daiukku/Deioces was able to take advantage of the situation to found a Median dynasty. And such a stretching is indeed necessary if one maintains the conventional linear succession of (i) Sargon II, (ii) Sennacherib, (iii) Esarhaddon and (iv) Ashurbanipal. According to the model being proposed here, and in Section Three, on the other hand, with Sargon II identified as Sennacherib, and with Esarhaddon’s entire reign being incorporated within his father’s reign - and with Ashurbanipal even being active in the latter part of Esarhaddon’s reign - then the conventional 55 years for Deioces can be reduced by approximately 30 years, to a more realistic 25 years. In that case Luckerman’s “child ruler” theory for Deioces need no longer be proposed. Comment: As already noted, (i) and (ii) here need to be merged into one. But I was completely wrong about (iii), whom I have since merged as one with (iv). Thus the conventional arrangement: Sargon; Sennacherib; Esarhaddon; Ashurbanipal now becomes simply: Sargon = Sennacherib; Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal thereby still trimming off about three unwanted decades. 3. Sennacherib is thought, already by 713 BC, to have been the recipient, as crown prince, of the heavy tribute from Azuri of ‘Ashdod’, who was in fact Sargon’s foe. …. 4. Disturbing, too, is the following unprecedented situation at ‘Ashdod’ as viewed by Tadmor from the conventional angle: …. Ashdod was then organized [by Sargon] as an Assyrian province. Sennacherib however restored it to its former state as a tributary kingdom. .... Mitinti, the king of Ashdod, is mentioned in the Annals of Sennacherib .... There is no doubt, therefore, that at the time of the campaign of Judah (701) Ashdod had an autonomous king and not an Assyrian governor. The reorganization of Ashdod - from a province back to a vassaldom - has no precedent. .... in the time of Esarhaddon Ashdod was again turned into a province. All this topsy turvy supposedly in the space of a few decades! 5. The somewhat recently published Tang-i Var inscription (to be considered further in Chapter 12) cannot possibly accommodate the conventional links between Sargon (died 705 BC) and the 25th (Ethiopian) dynasty, since it now reveals that pharaoh Shebitku, thought not to have begun to reign until c. 702 BC, was the Cushite pharaoh who handed over to Sargon the rebel, Iatna-Iamani; an incident currently dated to c. 711 BC. …. [End of quotes] For a revised identification of pharaoh Shebitku, see e.g. my article: Khaemwaset, son of Ramses ‘the Great’ (1) Khaemwaset, son of Ramses 'the Great'

Ahikar, Uriakku (Arioch) of Adana (Ecbatana), extended as Deioces (Daiukku) of Ecbatana

by Damien F. Mackey DEIOCES (Gk. Dēïókēs), name of a Median king; this Greek form, like Assyrian Da-a-a-uk-ku (i.e., Daiukku) and Elamite Da-a-(hi-)(ú-)uk-ka, Da-a-ya-u(k)-ka, and so on, reflects Iranian *Dahyu-ka-, a hypocoristic based on dahyu – “land” (cf. Schmitt). DEIOCES - Encyclopaedia Iranica Awarikus [Arioch] became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III … who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE [sic]. …. Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum. …. Wikipedia Introduction Much of this introductory part will be taken from my article: Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria’s Shalmaneser (3) Ahikar was, like his uncle Tobit, already prominent during the reign of Assyria's Shalmaneser in which I further extended the identity of Ahikar (Achior, Arioch), nephew of Tobit, and governor of Elam for Assyria, to include Awarikus [Uriakku, Arioch] of Adana (Ecbatana). We know this great man now under some several variations of his name, Ahikar (Aḥiqar): http://www.melammu-project.eu/database/gen_html/a0000639.html “The hero has the Akkadian name Ahī-(w)aqar “My brother is dear”, but it is not clear if the story has any historical foundation. The latest entry in a Seleucid list of Seven Sages says: “In the days of Esarhaddon the sage was Aba-enlil-dari, whom the Aramaeans call Ahu-uqar”.” In the Book of Tobit, he is called Ahikar, but Achior, in the Douay version. In the Book of Judith, he is called, again, Achior. His Babylonian name may have been, Esagil-kini-ubba: Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba (2) Famous sage Ahikar as Esagil-kinni-ubba Islam turned him into a great sage and polymath, Loqmân: Ahiqar, Aesop and Loqmân https://www.academia.edu/117040128/Ahiqar_Aesop_and_Loqm%C3%A2n but, even more incredibly, a handful of Islamic polymaths, supposedly in AD time, were based on Ahikar, as either Aba-enlil-dari or as Esagil-kini-ubba: Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism (3) Melting down the fake Golden Age of Islamic intellectualism | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu This man was obviously monumental, leaving a giant historical and literary footprint. We know from the Book of Tobit that Ahikar went to Elam (Elymaïs) (2:10): “For four years I [Tobit] remained unable to see. All my kindred were sorry for me, and Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais”. This fact is picked up in a gloss in the Book of Judith in which Achior is referred to, rather confusingly, as Arioch (1:6): “Many nations joined forces with King Arphaxad—all the people who lived in the mountains, those who lived along the Tigris, Euphrates, and Hydaspes rivers, as well as those who lived in the plain ruled by King Arioch of Elam”. Apparently, then, Ahikar actually governed Elam on behalf of the neo-Assyrians. Thus the Book of Judith should have referred to Achior as leader of all the Elamites, rather than (causing much confusion) “Achior … the leader of all the Ammonites” (5:5). Arioch may well be now, also, the “Arioch” of Daniel 2: Did Daniel meet Ahikar? (2) Did Daniel meet Ahikar? We are now in the reign of King Nebuchednezzar the Chaldean. It is most important, however, for what follows, that Nebuchednezzar be recognised as the same king as Esarhaddon, as Ashurbanipal: King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 (2) King Ashurbanipal, the sick and paranoid Nebuchadnezzar of Daniel 4 As “King Arioch of Elam” ‘Are not my commanders all kings?’ Isaiah 10:8 We probably find Arioch as Uriakku, and Urtak, of the Assyrian records: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urtak_(king_of_Elam) Urtak or Urtaku was a king of the ancient kingdom of Elam …. He ruled from 675 to 664 BCE, his reign overlapping those of the Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (681-669) and Ashurbanipal (668-627). …. Mackey’s comment: Not “kings”, but only the one king, Esarhaddon = Ashurbanipal (see above). Urtak was preceded by his brother, Khumban-Khaldash II. …. Khumban-Khaldash made a successful raid against Assyria, and died a short time thereafter. …. He was succeeded by Urtak, who returned to Assyria the idols his elder brother had taken in the raid, and who thereby repaired relations between Elam and Assyria. …. He made an alliance with Assyria's Esarhaddon in 674 … and for a time Elam and Assyria enjoyed friendly relations … which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon's reign, and deteriorated after Esarhaddon was succeeded by Ashurbanipal [sic]. …. We find Arioch, again, in the context of a geographically revised Elam (Media): Ecbatana and Rages in Media (1) Ecbatana and Rages in Media as the ruler of Adana (Ecbatana) during the neo-Assyrian period, as one Wariku/ Awariku(s), which name is clearly Arioch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awarikus …. Other attestations …. The name Awarikkus referred to in the Karatepe and Çineköy inscriptions as ʾWRK (𐤀𐤅𐤓𐤊‎‎), and Warikkas is referred to in the Hasanbeyli and Cebelireis Daǧı inscriptions as WRYK (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊‎)[7] and in the İncirli inscription as WRYKS (𐤅𐤓𐤉𐤊𐤎‎‎).[11] In Akkadian Awarikkus or Warikkas is referred to in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions as ᵐUrikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅅𒆠)[12]) and ᵐUriaikki (𒁹𒌑𒊑𒅀𒅅𒆠[12]).[13][14] …. Life Awarikus claimed descent from one Muksas, who is also referred to in his Phoenician language inscriptions as MPŠ (𐤌𐤐𐤔‎‎), and also appears in Greek sources under the name of Mopsos (Μόψος) [Mackey: derived from Moses?] as a legendary founder of several Greek settlements across the coast of Anatolia during the early Iron Age. This suggests that Awarikus belonged to a dynasty which had been founded by a Greek colonist leader.[15][7][21][22] Damien Mackey’s comment: Is Mopsus a reflection back to Moses, the great Lawgiver? Ahikar, as a Naphtalian Israelite, could, in a sense, have claimed descent from Moses. Reign Awarikus became a vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire during the rule of its king Tiglath-pileser III,[23] who listed Awarikus as one of his tributaries in 738 BCE.[7][24][25] Awarikus remained loyal to the Neo-Assyrian Empire during conflicts opposing it to Arpad, Gurgum, Kummuh, Samʾal and Urartu, in exchange of which Tiglath-pileser III rewarded him with lands belonging to Arpad, Samʾal and Gurgum.[26][20] Awarikus seems to have remained a loyal vassal of the Neo-Assyrian Empire throughout most of his reign, thanks to which he was able to reign in Ḫiyawa for a very long period until throughout the rules of Tiglath-pileser III and his successor Shalmaneser V, and was still reigning when Sargon II became the king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire.[27] Ḫiyawa under Awarikus likely cooperated with the Neo-Assyrian forces during Tiglath-pileser III's campaign in the Tabalian region in 729 BCE.[28] In his inscription from his later reign, Awarikus claimed to have enjoyed good relations with his overlord, the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II, with Awarikus's relation with Sargon II appearing to have been an alliance or partnership through a treaty according to which Sargon II was the protector and suzerain of Awarikus.[29][7] According to this inscription, Awarikus had a very close relationship with Sargon II, and he declared that Sargon II himself and the Neo-Assyrian royal dynasty had become "a mother and father" to him and that the peoples of Ḫiyawa and Assyria had "become one house."[15] According to this same inscription, Awarikus had built 15 fortresses in the west and east of Ḫiyawa.[30][15] Assuming the king WRYK of the Cebelires Daǧı inscription was the same as Awarikus of Hiyawa, his kingdom might have extended to the western limits of Rough Cilicia and nearly reached Pamphylia, and would thus have included Ḫilakku.[31] …. Monuments An inscription by Awarikus is known from the site of Çineköy, located about 30 kilometres to the south of his capital of Adanawa.[23][35] Other monuments of Awarikus include a stela from İncirli and a border stone from Hasanbeyli.[36] Under direct Neo-Assyrian rule After Sargon II's son-in-law and vassal, the king Ambaris of Bīt-Burutaš, had rebelled against the Neo-Assyrian Empire in 713 BCE, he deposed Ambaris and annexed Bīt-Burutaš.[30][35] As part of his reorganisation of the Anatolian possessions of the Neo-Assyrian Empire after the annexation of Bīt-Burutaš, in 713 BCE itself Sargon II imposed a Neo-Assyrian governor on Ḫiyawa who also had authority on Bīt-Burutaš, as well as on the nearby kingdoms of Ḫilakku and Tuwana.[37] Under this arrangement, Awarikus became subordinate to Aššur-šarru-uṣur, who was the first governor of Que, as Ḫiyawa was called in the Neo-Assyrian Akkadian language. Thus, Awarikus was either reduced to the status of a token king or deposed and demoted to a lower position such as an advisor of the governor, while Aššur-šarru-uṣur held all the effective power although the Neo-Assyrian administration sought to preserve, for diplomatic purposes, the illusion that Awarikus was still the ruler of Ḫiyawa in partnership with Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][38][39] Thus Hiyawa and other nearby Anatolian kingdoms were placed the authority of Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[40][41][42] Following the appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur, Awarikus of Ḫiyawa and Warpalawas II of Tuwana became largely symbolic rulers although they might have still held the power to manage their kingdoms locally.[39] The reason for these changes was due to the fact that, although Awarikus and Warpalawas II had been loyal Neo-Assyrian vassals, Sargon II considered them as being too elderly [sic] to be able to efficiently uphold Neo-Assyrian authority in southeastern Anatolia, where the situation had become volatile because of encroachment by the then growing power of Phrygian kingdom.[39] Deposition The appointment of Aššur-šarru-uṣur as his superior might have led to tensions between him Awarikkus, who had likely been left disillusioned with Neo-Assyrian rule after his long period of loyal service to the Neo-Assyrian Empire. Therefore, Awarikus might have attempted to rebel against the Neo-Assyrian Empire, and therefore in 710 or 709 BCE he sent an embassy composed of fourteen delegates to Urartu to negotiate with the Urartian king in preparation for his rebellion.[43] This embassy was however intercepted by the king Midas of Phrygia, who was seeking a rapprochement with the Neo-Assyrian Empire and therefore handed it over to Aššur-šarru-uṣur.[30][35][44] Awarikus was consequently deposed, and possibly executed, by the Neo-Assyrian Empire for attempting to revolt, after which Ḫiyawa was annexed into the Neo-Assyrian Empire as the province of Que, and Aššur-šarru-uṣur was given full control of Que, which merely formalised the powers that he had already held.[30][45][44] The exact fate of Awarikus is however unknown,[46] and he might already have been dead by the time that Midas handed over his delegation to Assur-sarru-usur, hence why no mention of punishing him appears in the Neo-Assyrian records.[47] Mackey’s comment: No, Arioch was still alive and well during the reign of Esarhaddon, like Urtak (above), “… which lasted throughout the remainder of Esarhaddon’s reign”. Aššur-šarru-uṣur (var. Ashur-resha-ishi), for his part, may well have been one of the sons of Sargon II/Sennacherib, Sharezer (šarru-uṣur), who assassinated their father: Adrammelech and Sharezer murdered king Sennacherib https://www.academia.edu/119221740/Adrammelech_and_Sharezer_murdered_king_Sennacherib When Tobit’s (and presumably Ahikar’s) tribe of Naphtali was taken into captivity by Shalmaneser ‘the Great’, who must be recognised as Shalmaneser III/V, and also as Tiglath-pileser so-called III, or Pul, who took Naphtali into captivity (2 Kings 15:29), Tobit and his family were taken to “Nineveh”, whilst some of Tobit’s relatives, or kinsmen, Ahikar, Raguel and Gabael?, must have been taken into Media (Elam). Since Tiglath-pileser took his Israelite captives “to Halah, and on the Habor [Khabur], the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (17:6), then Tobit’s “Nineveh” may likely have been Calah (Nimrud), given here as “Halah”. Deioces of Ecbatana The legendary Deioces, whose name Daiukku might well remind one of Uriakku (Arioch), ruler of Adana in southern Cilicia – Ecbatana in Elam – ruled over that region for a very long time, the same time as Arioch “was the king of the Elymeans” (Judith 1:6). Arioch, who was Tobit’s nephew Ahikar, a kind person, who “gave alms” (Tobit 14:10), befits the wise and just, lawgiving ruler, Deioces. As K. Halk tells of him (2025): Deioces: The Legendary Founder of the Median Kingdom — Historact Platform Deioces (Ancient Greek: Δηιόκης) was the legendary founder and the first king of the Median kingdom, an ancient polity in western Asia that played a significant role in the development of the ancient Near East. Deioces is remembered for his efforts to establish a centralized and orderly government in a region marked by chaos and disunity. His leadership laid the foundation for what would eventually become the Median Empire, a precursor to the mighty Achaemenid Empire. This article explores the life, reign, and legacy of Deioces, as well as his contributions to the formation of one of the first organized states in the region. Through his story, we gain insight into the emergence of the Medes as a powerful and influential people in ancient history. The Background of the Median Kingdom The Medes were an ancient Iranian [sic] people who inhabited the region that is today known as northwestern Iran. The Median kingdom emerged during the early 1st millennium BCE, at a time when the area was dominated by various tribes and small polities. The Medes, along with other Iranian groups, began migrating into the region, where they settled and gradually assimilated with the local population. The political landscape of the region was characterized by a lack of central authority, with numerous tribes vying for power and influence. The Rise of the Medes The Medes are believed to have settled in the region sometime around the 9th century BCE. They were one of several Iranian-speaking groups that migrated southward from the steppes of Central Asia. Over time, the Medes established themselves as a distinct cultural and political entity, and by the 8th century BCE, they began to emerge as a significant power in the region. The early history of the Medes is largely obscure, with much of what is known coming from later sources, such as the writings of Herodotus. The Medes faced challenges from neighboring powers, including the Assyrian Empire, which exerted considerable influence over the region. The Assyrians were a dominant force in the Near East, and their campaigns often brought them into conflict with the Medes. Despite this, the Medes managed to maintain their independence and gradually consolidated their power under the leadership of Deioces. The Rise of Deioces Deioces is traditionally regarded as the first king of the Medes and the founder of the Median kingdom. According to Herodotus, Deioces was a wise and just man who gained the respect and admiration of the Median people. His rise to power was marked by his reputation for fairness and his ability to resolve disputes, which earned him a following among his fellow Medes. The Need for Order During the time of Deioces, the Median tribes were divided and lacked a central authority. The region was plagued by lawlessness and internal conflicts, with each tribe governed by its own leader. In this chaotic environment, Deioces distinguished himself as a man of integrity and wisdom. He became known for his ability to mediate disputes and deliver impartial judgments, which led many people to seek his counsel. Recognizing the need for stability and order, the Medes decided to unite under a single ruler. They chose Deioces as their leader, believing that his sense of justice and fairness would bring peace and unity to their people. Deioces accepted the role of king, but he set certain conditions: he demanded that the Medes build a fortified capital and establish a centralized government that would allow him to exercise authority effectively. The Establishment of Ecbatana One of Deioces’ first actions as king was the construction of a new capital city, which he named Ecbatana (modern-day Hamadan in Iran). Ecbatana was strategically located and well-fortified, serving as the political and administrative center of the newly unified Median kingdom. According to Herodotus, the city was built with a series of seven concentric walls, each painted in different colors, creating an impressive and formidable fortress. The establishment of Ecbatana as the capital was a significant step in the consolidation of Median power. It provided a central location from which Deioces could govern, and it symbolized the unity of the Median tribes under a single ruler. The construction of Ecbatana also demonstrated Deioces’ vision for a strong, centralized state that could withstand external threats and maintain internal order. The Reign of Deioces Deioces’ reign marked the beginning of a new era for the Medes, characterized by political stability and the establishment of a centralized government. As king, Deioces implemented a number of reforms aimed at strengthening his authority and creating a more organized and cohesive society. Centralization of Power One of Deioces’ primary goals was to centralize power and establish a strong monarchy. He sought to distance himself from the people, believing that a sense of awe and reverence was necessary to maintain authority. …. … Deioces was able to create a stable and orderly government that laid the foundation for the future expansion of the Median kingdom. Legal Reforms and Governance As a ruler known for his sense of justice, Deioces placed a strong emphasis on the development of a legal system that would ensure fairness and equality. He established a formal system of laws and appointed judges to oversee legal matters throughout the kingdom. These judges were responsible for resolving disputes and ensuring that justice was administered impartially. The establishment of a legal system helped to create a sense of order and stability within the kingdom. It also reinforced Deioces’ authority, as he was seen as the ultimate source of justice and the guarantor of the people’s rights. By creating a system of laws and governance, Deioces was able to transform the Medes from a collection of loosely connected tribes into a unified and organized state. The Legacy of Deioces …. Deioces was a visionary leader whose efforts to establish a centralized and orderly government laid the foundation for the rise of the Median kingdom and the eventual emergence of the Achaemenid Empire. His reign marked the beginning of a new era for the Medes, characterized by political stability, legal reforms, and the construction of a powerful and well-organized state. Although much of what is known about Deioces comes from the writings of Herodotus and may contain elements of legend, his legacy as the founder of the Median kingdom is undeniable. ….

Short Commentary on the Book of Job

“Job belongs to the corpus of wisdom literature, yet it stands apart for its global, rather than national, scope. Its universal themes—suffering, justice, mortality, and faith—speak across cultures and ages”. The Way of Truth ________________________________________ The Way of Truth article (with Damien Mackey’s comments added) can be found at: Understanding the Book of Job: Suffering and Divine Wisdom …. The book of Job stands as one of the most profound and challenging works in all of Scripture. It grapples unflinchingly with the problem of suffering—the question that has haunted humanity since the dawn of time: Why do the righteous suffer? Written in majestic poetry and framed by a prose narrative, Job confronts this question not through philosophical speculation but through divine revelation. It shows that while God’s purposes often lie beyond human understanding, His wisdom and justice remain perfect, and His grace is sufficient even in the darkest affliction. Damien Mackey’s comment: The Book of Job is actually a highly philosophical work: Why Job Had to Suffer (A Philosophical Answer to the Problem of Pain) — The Think Institute The Deeper, Philosophical Meaning of the Book of Job | Owen Anderson (ThinkPod) Worldview Legacy | The Think InstituteBy The Think InstituteJun 23, 2021 The problem of suffering has been with humanity since the very beginning. And no book of the Bible addresses this problem more directly than the book of Job. But what is the meaning of the book? How should we really understand Job's story? And is it possible that the majority of commentators are missing something important here? In this episode, Dr. Owen Anderson helps us get to the true, deeper, philosophical meaning of Job. Owen has been teaching philosophy and religious studies for more than two decades and is a professor of philosophy and religious studies at Arizona State University. His research focuses on general revelation and related questions about reality, value, and knowledge. He has been a fellow at Princeton University, a visiting scholar at Princeton Seminary, and a fellow at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He has published several books including "Job: A Philosophical Commentary" (2021), in which he argues that it is Job, not the Greeks, who was the earliest philosopher. Specifically, you will learn: • Why Owen Anderson believes Job is the earliest work of true philosophy. • Why we should view Job as a philosophical conversation. • What is the deepest problem being addressed in the book of Job? • Whether Job had been sinning, and why he was still called "blameless." • What's up with Job's 10 kids. • How Job's interpreters have gotten him wrong over the years. • The deep, philosophical meaning of Job. And much, much more. …. I. Historical Setting and Authorship The exact time of Job’s life is uncertain, but internal clues suggest an early patriarchal setting, perhaps contemporaneous with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Damien Mackey’s comment: I believe, on the contrary, that the prophet Job clearly belonged to the time of the Chaldean empire (Job 1:17): ‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them’. This era was a good millennium and more after “Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. For, Job was none other than Tobias, the son of Tobit, whose life began in Assyrian captivity in Nineveh. On this, see e.g. my article: Job’s Life and Times (5) Job’s Life and Times There are many parallels between Job and Tobias, not least of which is having seven sons (cf., Job 1:2; 42:13; Tobit 14:3) – which is, surprisingly, quite rare in the Bible. The article continues: Job’s wealth is measured in livestock, his lifespan exceeds 140 years, and there is no mention of the Mosaic Law or Israelite institutions. The author is likewise unknown. Some traditions attribute the book to Moses, while others suggest an ancient sage inspired by God to record Job’s story as both history and divine drama. Regardless of authorship, the book’s literary excellence and theological depth mark it as one of the earliest and greatest masterpieces of biblical revelation. Damien Mackey’s comment: The Book of Job is, in fact, considered to be closest in style to the Book of Jeremiah, which, again, is much later than the era as suggested in The Way of Truth article: “Some traditions attribute the book to Moses …”. intertextual.bible | Biblical Intertextuality | Comparing Job and Jeremiah Job and Jeremiah: A Comparison The Book of Job and the Book of Jeremiah share several parallels, particularly in their treatment of suffering and the relationship between the individual and God. Both texts address the question of why the righteous suffer, with Job's narrative providing a way to relate to the Jewish exile and the themes of divine justice and human suffering. The cursing of the day of their birth is a strikingly similar moment in both texts, highlighting the shared human experience of despair and the search for meaning. The comparison between Job and Jeremiah also touches on the idea of knowing God's will in advance, a theme that resonates in both texts as they explore the complexities of suffering and the human condition. That may make the prophet Jeremiah, who was the High Priest, Eliakim (Joakim), of the Book of Judith: Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest (2) Jeremiah was both prophet and high priest and who is a favoured candidate for the authorship of that book: Author of the Book of Judith (2) Author of the Book of Judith a potential candidate also for the authorship of the Book of Job. Another, perhaps likelier, candidate for the authorship of Job would be the inspired “Elihu … the Buzite” (Job 32:2), who may well be the same as the great prophet “Ezekiel son of Buzi” (Ezekiel 1:3): Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel (3) Elihu a contemporary of the prophet Ezekiel Elihu and Ezekiel were contemporaries, both of whom referred to Job (Elihu addressed Job), Buzites, they experienced similar awesome theophanies, and were filled with God’s spirit. There are three other points raised in The Way of Truth article upon which I would like to comment. Firstly: “Job’s wealth is measured in livestock…”. In “Job’s Life and Times”, I compared Job and Tobias in this regard: …. The fortunes of the once-impoverished Tobias had taken a quantum leap upwards by the conclusion of his successful visit to Ecbatana. We read: “... Raguel ... gave Tobias half his wealth, menservants and maid-servants, oxen and sheep, donkeys and camels, clothes, and money and household things” (10:10. Jerusalem Bible version). Moreover, the angel Raphael had retrieved for Tobias, from nearby “Rages”, the ten talents of silver that his father had “left there in trust with Gabael”, one of his kinsmen (v.14), some 20 years before (cf. 4:20 and 9:5). Interest on this sum (equivalent to many thousands of dollars) must have greatly accumulated during that period of time. Materially speaking, Tobias would eventually benefit further from family inheritances; from his father’s estate in Nineveh, and afterwards, from that of his parents-in-law, in Ecbatana: “[Tobias] inherited their property and that of his father Tobit” (14:13). Thus the wealth that Tobias had accumulated by the time that he had settled down away from Assyria would compare most favourably with the following description that we encounter in the opening verses of the Book of Job: “There was a man ... whose name was Job .... He had seven thousand sheep, three thousand camels, five hundred yoke of oxen, and five hundred she-asses, and very many servants ...” (1:1, 3). Note that the very same types of livestock are listed in both accounts: “oxen”, “sheep”, “donkeys” (she-asses) and “camels”, plus the abundance of human “servants”. We might add another domestic animal here as well: the sheepdog. The dog in the Book of Tobit is sometimes singled out by commentators as being an irrelevancy. What is the point, they exclaim, of even mentioning it! I personally am glad for the dog’s inclusion. Apart from it adding a realistic, eyewitness flavour to a story that is already saturated with such detail (as is often noted by biblical commentators), it provides a further possible link with Job. For, whereas virtually every reference in the Old Testament to a “dog” or “dogs” is derogatory or unflattering - and never homely - it seems that the rare exceptions are to be found in the books of Tobit and Job. Thus: Tobit: “And Tobias went forward; and the dog followed him ...” (cf. 6:1 and 11:4). …. “Then the dog, which had been with [Tobias and the angel] along the way, ran ahead of them; and coming as if he had brought the news showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail” (Tobit 11:9). Job: “But now they make sport of me, men who are younger than I, whose fathers I would have distained to set with the dogs of my flock” (30:1). (RSV version). Another version has: “... no sheep-dog of mine ever tended”. …. According to the Heb. Londinii (or HL) version of Tobit, a large party went with the bridal pair (Tobias and Sarah) a day’s journey homewards; and “... everyone gave a ring of gold … and a piece of silver” (11:1). The only other place in Scripture of which I am aware, where the same thing happened, is in the Book of Job; and it is virtually word for word with Tobit: “... each of them gave [Job] a piece of money and a ring of gold” (42:11). Secondly, “Job’s … lifespan exceeds 140 years …”. While Tobias, likewise, surpassed 1oo, the numbers vary in the different versions of the Book of Tobit, e.g. “a hundred and twenty-seven years” (RSV); “117 years” (GNT); but only “ninety-nine years” in the Douay version. Thirdly, “… and there is no mention of the Mosaic Law or Israelite institutions”. The supplementary Book of Tobit, however, is replete with such: e.g., Tobit 1:3-8; 2:1-9; 3:1-6, 11-15; 4:3-19; 6:11-15; 8:5-7; 12:6-10; 13:1-18; 14:4-6, 9. II. Structure and Literary Form Job is composed of a prologue and epilogue in prose (chapters 1–2 and 42:7–17) framing an extensive poetic dialogue (chapters 3–42:6). 1. Prologue (Chapters 1–2): Job is introduced as “perfect and upright,” yet Satan challenges his integrity, asserting that his faith depends on prosperity. God permits Job to be tested, first by the loss of his possessions and children, then by personal affliction. Yet Job refuses to curse God. 2. Dialogues and Discourses (Chapters 3–37): In poetry of unparalleled intensity, Job and his friends—Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar—debate the cause of his suffering. They assume that suffering is always the consequence of sin, while Job maintains his innocence and wrestles with God’s silence. Later, a younger man, Elihu, adds his own perspective, emphasizing God’s justice and pedagogical use of suffering. 3. The Divine Encounter (Chapters 38–41): Out of the whirlwind, God speaks, not to explain why Job suffers, but to reveal who He is. Through a series of awe-inspiring questions about creation, providence, and power, God humbles Job’s limited understanding and restores his trust. 4. Epilogue (Chapter 42): Job repents in dust and ashes, not for hidden sin but for presuming to judge God’s ways. His fortunes are restored twofold, and his relationship with God is deepened through the experience of divine grace. III. Purpose and Message The central purpose of Job is not to solve the mystery of suffering, but to deepen our understanding of God’s wisdom, sovereignty, and justice. The book teaches that: • The righteous may suffer not as punishment, but as part of God’s hidden purposes. • True faith clings to God even when His ways are inscrutable. • Human wisdom cannot fully grasp divine providence; “the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom” (Job 28:28). • God is sovereign over both prosperity and pain, and His plans ultimately display His glory and goodness. In essence, Job challenges the shallow theology of retribution, the belief that good things always happen to good people and bad things to the wicked. It replaces this moral simplism with a theology of reverence: God is not obligated to justify Himself to man, and yet He is always righteous in all His dealings. Damien Mackey’s comment: This profound message from the ancient Book of Job appears to have been completely lost on the Apostles (John 9:2-5): His disciples asked him, ‘Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?’ ‘Neither this man nor his parents sinned’” said Jesus, ‘but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him. As long as it is day, we must do the works of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the light of the world’. IV. Theological Themes 1. The Sovereignty of God: God reigns supreme over creation and over Satan. Even the Adversary’s attacks are bounded by divine permission. 2. The Reality of Satan and Spiritual Conflict: The opening scenes remind us that earthly suffering often has unseen spiritual dimensions. 3. The Mystery of Providence: God’s purposes transcend human understanding, yet they are never arbitrary or unjust. 4. Faith under Trial: Job’s perseverance under unimaginable loss exemplifies the triumph of faith refined by fire. 5. The Quest for a Mediator: Job’s yearning for an advocate between himself and God (9:33; 16:19) anticipates Christ, the ultimate Mediator who reconciles man to God. 6. The Grace of Restoration: Job’s story ends not in despair but in renewal, prefiguring the resurrection hope that emerges from the ashes of affliction. V. Historical and Apologetic Considerations Job belongs to the corpus of wisdom literature, yet it stands apart for its global, rather than national, scope. Its universal themes—suffering, justice, mortality, and faith—speak across cultures and ages. The book’s ancient setting and poetic style affirm its authenticity as an early and inspired work, while its insights into divine providence and moral order testify to its revelation from God rather than mere human speculation. VI. Christological Significance Throughout Job, faint rays of messianic hope pierce the darkness of suffering. Job’s cry—“I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth” (19:25)—is one of the clearest anticipations of the resurrection in the Old Testament. Christ is the answer to Job’s longing: the sinless sufferer who bore undeserved pain, the mediator who pleads for His people, and the risen Lord who guarantees final vindication. In Jesus, the riddle of innocent suffering finds its ultimate resolution, not in explanation, but in redemption. VII. Practical and Devotional Application For believers, Job is not merely a philosophical treatise but a pastoral companion in seasons of pain. It teaches that worship is possible even when explanations are withheld, that faith may question without forsaking, and that God’s silence is not His absence. It calls us to trust the God we cannot always trace and to rest in His character when we cannot understand His plan. VIII. Conclusion The book of Job stands as a monument of divine wisdom and human faith. It does not promise easy answers but invites us into a deeper trust in the God who “doeth great things past finding out” (Job 9:10). Through suffering, Job’s knowledge of God moves from hearsay to encounter: “I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear, but now mine eye seeth thee” (42:5). That is the goal of every believer’s trial: that through pain, perplexity, and perseverance, we might see God more clearly and worship Him more truly. Job thus teaches the greatest lesson of all: though the righteous suffer, God remains righteous. And in the end, His purposes will shine brighter than the storm.

Barry Setterfield partly correct about Christ’s Star in Matthew

by Damien F. Mackey “But wait! There is one more important detail. Matthew 2:9-11 implies that something was marking the very house that Jesus had been living in for 15 months. The planets and stars can never mark a single building. What is the answer to this Biblical conundrum? Throughout the Scriptures, God has consistently appeared to His servants in what has often been called the Shekinah Glory Cloud.” Barry Setterfield THE CHRISTMAS STAR By Barry Setterfield ________________________________________ The Christmas story with the angels, shepherds, wise men and star has gripped the imagination of many over the last 20 centuries. We are indebted to two Biblical accounts, one in Matthew, and one in Luke. They provide the basic information needed to reconstruct Mid-Eastern history and astronomical events in order to discover exactly what occurred in the night sky on that first Christmas when Messiah was born in the cave at Bethlehem amongst the cattle and horses. Luke records that it was the whim of the Roman Emperor Augustus which sent Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem. This 125 Km journey by foot, and on the back of a donkey, was particularly exhausting for a woman in her 9th month of pregnancy. In the event, they only just got to Bethlehem in time. To make matters worse, when they arrived there, Bethlehem was so crowded that there was no room for them at the inn. Mary had the [same] Emperor Augustus to thank for that too. He had decreed that there should be a world census and taxation so that he would know the exact resources of his Empire. This order required that each return to the city which had originated their family lineage, and Bethlehem was the city for all those descended from King David. The Census order was given by Augustus in 8 BC, but it was implemented province by province. Provincial Italy was taxed in 8/7 BC. Rome itself was taxed in 7/6 BC. As for the province of Judea, Luke records that it was taxed when 'Cyrenius was first Governor of Syria.' Senator P. Sulpicius Quirinius, otherwise known as Cyrenius, was Governor of Syria twice. As Luke states, it was on the first occasion that the world census occurred. Quirinius was Legate (Governor) to Syria an that first occasion for 5 years during the Homonadensian War. He then become adviser to Gaius Caesar in I BC. Additionally, the Christian historian Tertullian records that the Judean census took place when Sentius Saturninus was Proconsul to Syria, attending to the day to day running of the province, which included Judea. He left early in 2 BC to be replaced by Quintillius Varus, about a year before the death of Herod, who was the king of Judea. These facts indicate that the census acted on by Joseph and Mary had been completed by late in 3 BC. This is confirmed by the date of Herod's death. Damien Mackey’s comment: There may still be a lot of work to be done on all of this. For example, what if this is the case?: Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (2) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus Barry Setterfield continues: According to Matthew, Herod ordered the slaughter of all children two years old and under, according to the time the Star first appeared to the Wise Men. Therefore, if we back-track two years from the date of Herod's demise, this will give the date for the first appearance of the Star and an approximate date for the birth of the Christ-Child. Josephus records that Herod died shortly after an eclipse of the Moon seen at Jericho, and sometime before the Feast of Passover. It is this point which has caused much historical confusion, as we have to select between four Lunar eclipses. Damien Mackey’s comment: We may, in fact, need a full-scale reconsideration of the life of King Herod himself: King Herod ‘the Great’ (2) King Herod ‘the Great’ Barry Setterfield continues: There is one key piece of evidence which is often overlooked. The Jewish historian Josephus, records that there was a Jewish holiday celebrating Herod's death on 2nd day of the month Shebat. Significantly, this date is in accord with only one of those 4 eclipses, namely the one an 9th Jan, 1 BC. The 2nd Shebat date fell just 15 days after that eclipse. This means that Herod died 24th January I BC. Consequently, the Christmas star must have appeared throughout 3 and 2 BC. This accords with the census completed by late 3 BC. As to the time of the year that Messiah was born, Luke gives us further details. He records that shepherds were watching over their flocks by night. There are only two specific times in a year when this was done, namely when lambs were being born in the spring or autumn. At other times of the year they were kept safely in their sheep-folds to protect them from wild animals. Significantly the flocks bred in the Bethlehem fields were used for the Temple sacrifices. It was there, to those shepherds, that the angels announced the birth of the Lamb of God who was to make the final sacrifice for the sin of the world. However, we can pinpoint the in the time of Messiah's birth more exactly. Revelation 12 tells of the birth of Messiah when the constellation Virgo (the woman in the heavens) was clothed with the sun and had the moon at her feet. This tells us that Jesus was born when the sun and moon were in Virgo. In other words, at the time of the September New Moon, or shortly thereafter. This fits the autumn lambing season. Furthermore, it coincides with the season of the three Jewish feasts, Trumpets, Atonement and Tabernacles. Interestingly, the apostle John records in John 1:14 that the "Word became flesh and tabernacled amongst us." As the New Moon was on the 10th and Tabernacles on the 25th September in 3 BC, the birth of Christ would be somewhere between those dates. Why then do we celebrate Messiah's birth on December 25th? There are 4 reasons. Firstly there was the Jewish feast of Hanukkah - the Festival of Lights, or Feast of Dedication as it is called in John 10:22. On this occasion, Jewish children lit candles, sang hymns and gave gifts to celebrate a genuine miracle which occurred with the Temple Menorah (or 7-branched lamp-stand) in 165 BC. Now the early Christians were nearly all Jewish and the other Festivals were linked with Messiah's ministry rather than his birth. It seemed the natural occasion to commemorate the birth of Messiah who had come to be the Light of the World [Jn 8:2), and who admonished His followers to have their Lamps trimmed and burning as they waited for Him to Return (Matthew 25). This Jewish feast occurred on 25th Kislev which corresponds to our month of December. Up until 1583 AD, the time when the Gregorian calendar was introduced, the 25th Kislev and 25th December were the same day. Following the introduction of the new calendar, the two dates parted company. England did not adopt the new calendar until 1752 AD, by which time it was 11 days out of step with Europe. However December 25th was also celebrated by the Romans as the feast of the Saturnalia, which celebrates the winter solstice-the longest night of the year. In the northern hemisphere this now occurs on December 21 or 22, but back then it was December 25. On this day the Romans celebrated the birth of the 'New Sun' as the days lengthened and light triumphed over darkness. Romans Christians in those days saw a new significance in this pagan festival. They too celebrated the birth of the New Sun in accordance with Malachi 4:2 - this time the Sun of Righteousness who will arise with healing in His wings. On the 3rd of February 313 AD in Milan, Italy, the Roman Emperor Constantine issued an edict giving absolute tolerance to Christianity throughout the Empire. It comes as no surprise, therefore, to find that December 25th was first documented as Christmas Day in 354 AD. Under the Roman Emperor Justinian, it became an official holiday around 550 AD. This constitutes the third reason why we celebrate Christmas on that date. However, there is a fourth reason. All the astronomical evidence suggests that this date also marked the final appearance of the Christmas Star. It was on 25th Dec in 2 BC when Jesus was 15 months old, that the Wise Men presented their gifts to the young Messiah. Damien Mackey’s comment: Much of the above may be fanciful. The author now turns to a subject of greater relevance: This leads us naturally to consider who these Wise Men were. THE CHRISTMAS STAR PART 2: … who were the Wise Men? Matthew 2:1 says that they came from the East, that is east of Judea. Now Judea was a buffer state between the sprawling Roman Empire in the West, and the fabulous Persian Empire of the Parthian Dynasty in the east. Whenever the Persians and Romans clashed militarily, the Persians almost always won. Their crack cavalry units could pin down the Roman legions indefinitely. The Persian Empire also controlled the Silk Route to India and China. The gifts that the Wise Man brought to Jesus, the gold, the frankincense and myrrh were the very best that world trade could offer from this route. Damien Mackey’s comment: Unfortunately, for what follows, the Magi could not possibly have been Persians. On this see e.g. my article: Where exactly in Bethlehem was the Christ Child born? (2) Where exactly in Bethlehem was the Christ Child born? Barry Setterfield continues: As to the identity of the Wise Men, the word that Matthew uses to describe them is Magoi. As we take this word over into a Persian setting, an amazing fact emerges. The Parthian Dynasty was ruled by something equivalent to our houses of Parliament. They called It the Megistanes. The Lower House members were called the Sophoi or 'Wise Ones': the Upper House members were called the Magoi or 'Great Ones'. It was these Magoi, the king makers of their empire, that come to visit Jesus. It was not the astrologers - It was the politicians - and there were more then 3, even if only three types of gift were given. This delegation of Rulers from Persia penetrated 750 km into Roman territory. They would be escorted by their crack cavalry units that consistently won out against the Romans. These Persians were the finest equestrians in the world. They always rode horses as their means of transport - camels were only used for baggage. Consequently, it was no wonder that Herod was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. He had a small army from a foreign power at the gates of Jerusalem. And at a very inconvenient time too. Herod's garrison that normally protected Jerusalem was away helping fight the Homonadensian War. Jerusalem was virtually undefended. Furthermore, the news was not good. These Magoi proclaimed the birth of a contender for Herod's throne. Indeed, they had come to support this child-king, and their army was there to back them. It was a very tense time for Herod, but he played his options very skillfully. But why did the Persian Magoi make such a perilous trip at all? There were 3 reasons. Firstly, the Hebrew prophet Daniel had been held in high regard in the Persian court. In Daniel 9, the Magoi had the prophecy of Messiah's sacrifice as a man cut off at age 35 (in the midst of his years). They knew that this event would occur 483 Babylonian years of 360 days after a specific decree. Backtracking 35 years gave a birth date for Messiah of 448 Babylonian years or 442 actual years after the decree. As It turned out, that decree was Issued by the Persian king Artaxerxes in his 20th year which was 445/444 BC. The Magoi consequently knew the time of Messiah's birth as around 3/2 BC on our Calendar. Damien Mackey’s comment: Barry Setterfield will come up with some good ideas now. Whether or not Matthew’s Magi were readers of the constellations, they were certainly able to see what the author calls by the popular name of Shekinah, a non-biblical term. Barry Setterfield continues: The second reason was that there had been a Mesopotamian [sic] prophet called Balaam who had foretold the coming of the Star that would herald Messiah for all the tribes of Israel (see Numbers 24). Finally, Zoroaster, a pupil of Daniel, had incorporated these prophecies in his bible, called the Zend Avesta, and Zoroastrianism was the State Religion of Persia at the time of Christ's birth. It prophesied that there would be born unto the Jews a King Messiah, and that His coming would be heralded by a sign in the heavens in the constellation Virgo. That compels us to find out just what this sign was in the heavens. What was the Star that appeared in the skies of 3 and 2 BC? As we begin this search, we note that the word star had a variety of meanings back then. It could mean anything that blazed, shone or moved across the sky. It could mean an aurora, the sun, moon, or a star. It may mean any strange light in the sky - a bolt of lightning, an oddly illuminated cloud, a planet, or grouping of several planets. The two-year time period for visibility automatically eliminates many objects. Meteors are too transitory. Meteor showers only last a few weeks. Novae or unstable stars shine longer, but rarely last two years. When the record is searched, there was only one nova at the time - a faint one in 4 BC. Supernovas last longer and can be visible in broad daylight. But again we are disappointed. Only two supernovae are recorded near the time of the Nativity: one in 134 BC, the other in 173 AD. As we examine Matthew, it becomes apparent that the account requires the star to appear in the eastern sky, move across the starry background, and go before the Magoi to Judea. Damien Mackey’s comment: Nowhere does Matthew say that the Magi followed the Star to Judah. Barry Setterfield concludes: Only comets, planets, or groupings of planets behave this way. Comets can travel through the background stars at the rate of 1 or 2 degrees per day. They may be visible to the naked eye for 100 days or so. Now a journey to Judea from Persia would take the Wise Men about 6 weeks. Comets would thus be visible long enough for the journey itself. But none last 2 years, and no comets were recorded for the prime dates of 3 and 2 BC. Halley's comet flared in the skies in 11 BC. Another comet swept across the heavens in 4 BC. But both of these were too early. So comets fade as a possibility for the Star. This leaves the option of planets. When we examine the night sky with planets in mind, a series of amazing celestial events occurred. On the 1st August 3 BC the drama began to unfold with Jupiter rising helically in the rays of dawn. On the 13 August Venus and Jupiter stood very close together in the sunrise. On the 18th, Mercury came out of the solar glare, and on September 1st, Mercury and Venus stood 1/3rd degree apart in Leo. These were dramatic events. The astronomers who were based at the Sippar Institute would see an astrological significance in these signs. Essentially, Jupiter, the King planet, had left the Sun, the Father of the Gods, to be conjoined with Venus, the Virgin Mother in the constellation of Leo, which is the symbol for the tribe of Judah in Israel. Furthermore, Mercury, the Messenger of the Gods, had come from the Sun's presence to stand with Venus the virgin mother in the rays of the dawn. Then on 14th September 3 BC and 17th February and 8th May in 2 BC, Jupiter the King planet stood next to Regulus the brightest star in Leo, which also represented Royalty. Then came a climax to the display. On June 17th 2 BC, Venus and Jupiter, the two brightest planets in the Solar System, appeared to collide. They stood an Incredible 1/50th degree apart and seemed to fuse into one immense ball of Light. This was an unprecedented event. But that was not all. On 27th August in 2 BC there was a grand meeting of the planets In Virgo. Jupiter and Mars were only 1/7th degree apart and close at hand were Mercury and Venus standing together in the glare of the rising sun. This dramatic sequence of events ending in Virgo qualified for the Star spoken of by the Zend Avesta. But then Jupiter left the other planets in the dawn, and moved westwards. This was the sign the Magoi were waiting for. Jupiter the key player in the Christmas star sequence was leading them towards Judea. And so they set out. From that moment in Mid-November, Jupiter the King planet actually went before them in the sky towards Judea. Six weeks later as the Magoi checked the pre-dawn sky, Jupiter was on the Meridian due south of Jerusalem. It would appear directly over Bethlehem 65 degrees above the southern horizon. And just at that time, the final event occurred. Jupiter had reached its furthest point westward, and no longer moved against the background store. It actually 'Stood Over' where the young child was. Incredibly, on that some day, the Sun was at its furthest point south for the year, and stood still in the heavens (for that is what the word 'solstice' means). Jupiter was again in the constellation Virgo as the Zend Avesta predicted, when this occurred on 25th December in 2 BC. It was a unique sequence of events that had landed the Magoi at Bethlehem. Damien Mackey’s comment: Finally, the author becomes really interesting. But wait! There is one more important detail. Matthew 2:9-11 implies that something was marking the very house that Jesus had been living in for 15 months. The planets and stars can never mark a single building. What is the answer to this Biblical conundrum? Throughout the Scriptures, God has consistently appeared to His servants in what has often been called the Shekinah Glory Cloud. The Children of Israel were guided from Egypt to Canaan by the 'Pillar of cloud by day, and a Pillar of fire by night' (see Ex.13:21.22 etc). In Genesis it is described as looking like a twisting blazing, shining object at the entrance to the Garden of Eden. The Shekinah out of which God spoke to the patriarch Job appeared as a whirlwind of bright and shining cloud. Abraham saw this cloud of Glory at sunset outside his tent as a burning smoking light. Ezekiel witnessed the Shekinah In which God dwelt as a whirlwind of fire enfolding itself. For the Magoi, this oddly Illuminated cloud also qualified for the word 'star'. It would have been seen and described by Balaam as he looked down on the hosts of Israel. The Wise Men also had the record of Daniel 7 where the Shekinah is linked with Messiah and described as the 'Cloud of Heaven'. This same Glory of the Lord shone around the shepherds just before the angels announced Messiah's birth to them. Similarly, when the Persian Magoi arrived near Bethlehem in the early dawn, the Shekinah would be seen standing above and marking the very house where Messiah was. The Magoi would Immediately recognize this as a sign of Messiah's presence. They had seen the blazing planetary orb in the sky. Then the key planet, Jupiter had led them to Judea and was now poised above Bethlehem. Finally, with the sign of the Shekinah Glory Cloud standing over the house, the Magoi from Persia would assuredly know that their quest had ended. They had found the One of Whom the Star of David speaks - the Messiah of the Tribes of Israel, Who was to become the Savior of the world. Has your quest to find Messiah ended? Remember, with child-like faith in the prophecies of Daniel and Balaam contained In the Scriptures, the Wise Men set out. In the depths of winter, they undertook a long and difficult journey deep into enemy territory to come and worship Christ. ….