Bishop George Berkeley – What, in God’s name, is an infinitesimal?

“These quantities seemed like ghosts, phantasms that were somehow necessary to calculate derivatives but vanished the moment they had served their purpose. Berkeley coined the phrase, “ghosts of departed quantities,” and it stuck”. Dr Colin WP Lewis For a realistic introduction to the great philosopher of science, and mathematician, George Berkeley, see my (Damien Mackey’s) article: Common sense philosophy of Irish Bishop George Berkeley (5) Common sense philosophy of Irish Bishop George Berkeley Meanwhile, Dr. Colin Lewis wrote this on George Berkeley in 2024: The Bishop Who Hated Infinitesimals (and Why It Matters) The Bishop Who Hated Infinitesimals (and Why It Matters) Bishop Berkeley and why we should fix AI’s Black Box …. Bishop Berkeley’s work is a strong reminder for AI developers and society. Many of us know about the Newton-Leibniz feud, that bitter quarrel of the calculus pioneers. Who invented it first, who borrowed from whom, and who ultimately deserved the glory. But behind this main act was a peculiar side story, one that features neither Newton's gravity-defying apple nor Leibniz's elegant notation. This is the story of George Berkeley, a philosopher-priest who … took direct aim at the very core of mathematics and may have asked a simple yet devastating question: What, in God’s name, is an infinitesimal? The answer, he implied, was that there really wasn't one, not in any meaningful, provable way. Who Was This Bishop, Anyway? George Berkeley was not, by any stretch, your typical critic of mathematics. He was a philosopher, first and foremost, and he wore the robe of an Anglican bishop in a corner of Ireland not exactly famous for producing math prodigies. Berkeley lived in a world shaped by the Enlightenment, an era where reason and empirical science were beginning to challenge religious and traditional authorities. Newtonian physics was rapidly becoming a kind of intellectual gospel, a framework through which one might explain both falling apples and the movement of stars. The rise of empirical methods and a mechanistic worldview presented a direct challenge to metaphysical and theological explanations, creating a cultural backdrop in which Berkeley's critiques took on profound significance. Yet Berkeley's own interests were less about the celestial and more about the nature of knowledge. He was deeply concerned with how we know what we know, not just the content of our knowledge. And when he took a long, hard look at Newtonian calculus, he saw a big, glaring problem. To Berkeley, calculus appeared to rest upon shaky conceptual ground. The mysterious infinitesimals, those infinitely small quantities that appear in the numerator or denominator only to vanish without a trace, bothered him. For example, in early calculus, one might consider the derivative of a function as the ratio of two infinitesimally small changes in variables, such as Δy/Δx, with Δ approaching zero. These quantities seemed like ghosts, phantasms that were somehow necessary to calculate derivatives but vanished the moment they had served their purpose. Berkeley coined the phrase, “ghosts of departed quantities,” and it stuck. He wanted mathematicians to explain, coherently and rigorously, how they justified their reliance on such specters. It wasn't until the introduction of the rigorous δ-ε (ε, δ) definition of limits by mathematicians like Cauchy and Weierstrass that calculus found a solid foundation. This approach allowed mathematicians to precisely define what it means for a function to approach a value, addressing Berkeley's concerns about the logical inconsistencies of infinitesimals. To Berkeley, these ghostly quantities were no better than a magician's sleight of hand, a trick where mathematicians pretended rigor while actually cutting corners. Damien Mackey’s comment: I doubt if George Berkeley would have been any more impressed by the Epsilon-Delta, δ-ε (ε, δ), ‘solution’ of Cauchy and Weierstrass. More mental artefacts. The question is asked at: real analysis - Does the epsilon-delta definition of limits truly capture our intuitive understanding of limits? - Mathematics Stack Exchange Does the epsilon-delta definition of limits truly capture our intuitive understanding of limits? …. I've been delving into the concept of limits and the Epsilon-Delta definition. The most basic definition, as I understand it, states that for every real number ϵ>0, there exists a real number δ>0 such that if 0<|x−a|<δ then |f(x)−L|<ϵ, where a is the limit point and L is the limit of the function f at a. While I grasp the formal definition, I'm grappling with the philosophical aspect of it. Specifically, I'm questioning whether this definition truly encapsulates our intuitive understanding of what a limit is. The idea of a limit, as I see it, is about a function's behavior as it approaches a certain point. However, the Epsilon-Delta definition seems to be more about the precision of the approximation rather than the behavior of the function. In the book "The Philosophy of Mathematics Today" by Matthias Schirn, on page 159, it is stated that: "At one point, Etchemendy asks: 'How do we know that our semantic definition of consequence is extensionally correct?' He goes on to say: 'That [this question] now strikes us odd just indicates how deeply ingrained is our assumption that the standard semantic definition captures, or comes close to capturing, the genuine notion of consequence' (Etchemendy 1990, 4-5). I do not think that this diagnosis is correct for some people: for some logicians, the question is similar to: How do we know that our epsilon-delta definition of continuity is correct?". This quote resonates with my current dilemma. Does the Epsilon-Delta definition truly capture the essence of what we mean by a 'limit'? though the epsilon-delta definition is a mathematical construct, what evidence do we have that it accurately reflects our intuitive concept of a limit? How can we be sure it is not merely a useful formalism, but a true representation of the limit as a variable approaching some value? Are there alternative definitions or perspectives that might align more closely with our intuitive understanding of limits? I would appreciate any insights or resources that could help me reconcile these aspects of the concept of limits. Thank you in advance for your help. ________________________________________ Dr. Colin Lewis continues: How to Roast a Mathematician To be fair, Berkeley wasn’t against mathematics. He was against bad epistemology. He published his arguments in The Analyst (1734), ostensibly as a critique of calculus, but also, perhaps even primarily, as a jab at atheists who used calculus to boast about the superiority of scientific over religious reasoning. His work challenged both mathematicians and those who saw themselves as the new intellectual priests of a secular age. Mathematicians like Colin Maclaurin and others attempted to counter Berkeley's arguments by defending the practical success of calculus, even if the foundational rigor was lacking. Maclaurin, for instance, worked to justify Newton's methods and demonstrated that the results of calculus were not merely coincidental but systematically reliable, despite Berkeley's philosophical objections. Berkeley did what any good philosopher does, he got under everyone's skin. He asked, in essence, ‘If you’re so smart, why are you still relying on ideas you can’t even define properly?’ The result was irritation, sure, but also introspection. What Berkeley managed to do was shake the faith in the calculus as it then stood. Not because he proved it wrong, the answers calculus produced were undeniably correct, but because he revealed that no one was quite sure why they were right. Mathematicians had powerful tools but lacked a firm philosophical foundation. The power of Newton's fluxions or Leibniz's differentials was there for all to see, but Berkeley's critique revealed the scaffolding underneath was less than sturdy. How could they talk about “infinitely small quantities” and act as though these unseeable, untouchable entities had real, measurable existence? They couldn't, at least not without a clearer articulation of the concepts in play. The Mathematicians Respond Berkeley may have lacked mathematical training, but his philosophical training was sharp enough to provoke a substantial response. The very discomfort he caused led to a slow but monumental shift in mathematics. His critique highlighted the need for rigor. Mathematicians like Augustin-Louis Cauchy and later Karl Weierstrass set out to reframe calculus in terms that even a skeptic could accept. As I mentioned above, enter the “δ-ε definition or (ε, δ)” of limits, a notion that allowed mathematicians to rigorously define what they meant when they said something was approaching zero, but not quite there. It took roughly a century for calculus to shed the phantoms Berkeley had identified, but it did. The ‘rigorization’ of calculus became one of the crowning achievements of 19th-century mathematics. Moreover, in the 20th century, infinitesimals themselves were given a rigorous foundation in non-standard analysis, a branch of mathematics developed by Abraham Robinson. This new approach provided a formal way to work with infinitesimals, addressing Berkeley's concerns in a modern context. So, while Berkeley's critiques were valid in his time, mathematics has since evolved to address these issues comprehensively. The Irony of Berkeley's Victory There’s a twist in this story, though, which Berkeley might have appreciated. In questioning calculus, he paved the way for a stronger, more resilient mathematical framework, even if it meant giving legitimacy to the very secular science he so often combated. His critique indirectly led to developments that would ultimately make calculus indispensable in the very scientific worldview that was undermining religion's intellectual authority. He never got to see this outcome; Berkeley died in 1753, long before the mathematicians took his rebuke to heart. But his role as the gadfly of early calculus is, if not celebrated, certainly acknowledged by those who understand the history of mathematics. He forced math to grow up, to address its own inconsistencies, and to become what it is today: a field rooted in careful, precise definition. ….

An Astronomy that has meaning!

by Damien F. Mackey G. Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. Introduction As discussed previously, some laudable attempts have been made by scholars to identify the Nativity Star of the Magi. The complexity of such an enterprise is apparent from Frederick (“Rick”) A. Larson’s question: Could the star have been a meteorite; a comet; a supernova; a planet; or a new star? Whilst lawyer, Larson, will favour, for the Magi Star, the planet Jupiter, the two other scholars considered in my article: Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky (3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Bruce Killian and G. Mackinlay, have opted for the planet Venus. Though Venus, again, will even play a rôle in Larson’s view of a bright conjunction with Jupiter. Frederick Larson is nothing if not thorough. He has picked up what he has called “The Nine Points of Christ’s Star” that he believes to be the key pieces in the puzzle of the sacred text, and he says he will not be satisfied with a final scenario that does not accommodate all nine of these. https://youtu.be/HIrwQJpD_OA Such is Larson’s thoroughness that even eight points for him will not suffice. His major difficulty will be with the fact that the Magi Star had stopped. But then it occurred to him that the planets, due to the optical phenomenon known as “retrograde motion”, actually appear to stop. Mars does a loop; Venus does a backflip; Jupiter inscribes a shallow circle. Important Chronological Notes While Larson has his Nine Points, I have interlaced previous articles on this subject with four Chronological Notes, the most relevant one here being this first one, on retrocalculation: * A very important comment on chronology (D. Mackey): Studies on the Star of the Magi and on other archaeoastronomical issues, with their retrocalculations of the night skies back into BC time, assume that our AD time is fixed, and that we actually live, today, a little over 2000 years after the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Not until revisionists like Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky came along were the standard BC calculations and ‘Dark Ages’ seriously questioned, and that has led to scholars today also rigorously testing AD time and its ‘Dark Ages’. See, e.g., Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf and Jan Beaufort’s summary: http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm I, whilst not necessarily agreeing with all of what these writers have to say, think that there is enough in their theses, however, and that of those to whom they refer, to prompt one seriously to question the accuracy of the received AD dates. (I have since done this in various articles). Applying this note to Larson’s thesis, for instance, I have written: One of Larson’s nine points, his first in fact, has to do with this tricky subject of chronology. And this area of research may be his weak link, and may actually vitiate his whole argument. Larson has determined, based on an ancient version of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, that the Birth of the Messiah had occurred in relation to the reign of Herod in 3-2 BC (***). *** A third chronological note This all becomes quite irrelevant, however, if I am correct in my view of Judas Maccabeus belonging to the approximate time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ …. Next I introduced: Bruce Killian, Venus The Star Of Bethlehem, whilst warmly praising Larson’s effort, has offered his own criticisms of Larson’s “The Star of Bethlehem” (2021): http://www.scripturescholar.com/VenusStarofBethlehem.pdf …. Fredrick Larson is a lawyer and does an excellent job of selling the wrong identification of the Star of Bethlehem. He identifies the Star of Bethlehem as Jupiter. He also notes that Jupiter is the largest of the planets, but that was unknown to the ancients who would see Venus as the most important because it was the brightest. He sees the king of the Jews identified in a month long shallow loop of Jupiter near Regulus the king star in the constellation of Leo. It does not “crown” this star but loops near it as it appears to loop like a Spiro graph drawing continuously in the sky. He then observed a close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter to indicate the conception of Jesus and he claims these two stars coming together was the brightest star anyone had ever seen. The problem is that Venus at its inferior conjunction is brighter than these two stars together. Finally he saw a link between the woman in Revelation 12 giving birth, but he fails to mention this happens each year and that it was not visible because it was during the day. He further presents the star guiding the magi to Bethlehem when they already knew that was where they were to go, but not identifying which of the many boys in Bethlehem was the newborn king. The stopping of Jupiter is when it reverses and goes into retrograde motion, but this point really does not even point to Bethlehem because when do you determine that this has occurred, visually you can’t, and when during the night? A miracle—many believe the star that guided the magi was simply a miracle. A light clearly called a star. Today we live at a time that planes fly over head all the time, God could have done this but why say a star guided them rather than an angel. It is clear from the information presented in this article that God was able from the foundation of the world to use the lights He set in the sky to guide the magi. I believe that most who hold this view do not recognize the special attributes of the planet Venus. These stars could be seen by all, but were faint, one would only see them if they were paying close attention. .... [End of quote] Bruce Killian would agree with Frederick Larson, though, about the Divine use of easy-to-read star tableaux. Regarding Killian’s hard BC dates (days and months), I added, recall my earlier warning about retrocalculations. George Mackinlay’s major contribution By far the most important contribution of the three, though, so I believe, is that of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay, The Magi: How they recognized Christ's star (Hodder and Stoughton, 1907). He, too, had determined that the Star of Bethlehem was a planet, namely Venus in his case. He did not, back in his day, have the advantage of modern computer software, as has Larson, but was reliant on astronomical charts to put a date to the circumstances of Venus that he had determined had pertained to the chronology of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay - like Larson and others, relying heavily on the Scriptures - showed just how significant Venus was as “the morning star” and “the evening star”, and he quoted texts from the prophet Micah; including that fateful text without which King Herod (the Godfather of today’s abortionists) would never have condemned to death the children of Bethlehem. George Mackinlay also showed through Micah that the Baptist was symbolised as the morning star, heralding as it does the dawn (Christ). He was able to determine an internal chronology of Jesus Christ, and the Baptist, based on the periods of shining of the morning star, all this in connection with historical data, seasons and Jewish feasts. As said, the inherent weakness in such reconstructions as Larson’s, and even Mackinlay’s, is their presuming that the conventional dates for Herod and Jesus Christ are basically accurate - just as 539 BC is now wrongly presumed to be a certain date for King Cyrus of Persia - and that it is, therefore, simply a matter of finding an astronomical scenario within that conventional period and then being able to refine the dates using sophisticated modern scientific data. Happily, though, neither Larson’s nor Mackinlay’s scenario has that odd situation of the shepherds watching their sheep out in the open, in winter, that critics seem to latch on to every Christmas in order to ridicule St. Matthew’s account. Whilst I do not accept that Larson, Killian, or Mackinlay have managed, despite their valiant attempts, to identify the Magi Star, the contribution of Mackinlay on the chronological importance of the planet Venus I consider to be ground-breaking. Neither Killian’s nor Larson’s efforts - worthwhile though they assuredly are - can, I believe, match the coherent consistency of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay’s model, that shows a Divine plan at work in every major phase of the life of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay was able to demonstrate how perfectly the eight year cycles of Venus wrap around the events of the life of Christ (who is also the “Sun of righteousness”), shining throughout the joyful occasions, but hidden during episodes of sadness and darkness. But not only does the Divine artist make use of the planet Venus in this regard. The Moon, too, in its various phases, and also the seasons (reflecting now abundance, now paucity), as Mackinlay has shown, also serve as chronological markers. Mackinlay’s harmonious theory has, to my way of thinking, the same sort of inherent consistency as has Florence and Kenneth Wood’s explanation, in Homer’s Secret ‘Iliad’ (http://www.amazon.com/Homers-Secret-Iliad-Night-Decoded/dp/0719557801), that the battles between the Greeks and Trojans as described in The Iliad mirror the movements of stars and constellations as they appear to fight for ascendancy in the sky. Since George Mackinlay’s thesis is far too detailed to do justice to it here, with all of its diagrams and detailed astronomical explanations always interwoven with the Scriptures, the interested reader is strongly advised to read the entire book. Mackinlay commences with the example of Saint John the Baptist and his association also with the morning star. (This symbolism has an Old Testament precedent, too, in Joseph’s astronomical dream, Genesis 37:9-10, according to which people are represented by heavenly bodies). Let us begin. Simile of St. John the Baptist to the Morning Star The figurative use of the morning star in reference to the Baptist is evident from the prophet Malachi’s description of the Christ’s forerunner: “My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me” (Malachi 3:1); because, as noted by Mackinlay (p. 39), “the same figure of speech is supported by Malachi 4:2, where the Christ is spoken of as the Sun of righteousness, who shall arise with healing in His wings”. That this definitely is the right association of scriptural ideas is shown by the reference made by Zechariah, the father of St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:76), to these two passages in the Old Testament. Thus, on the occasion of St. John’s circumcision, Zechariah prophesied of him: “You shall go before the face of the lord”, and, two verses later, he likens the coming of the Christ to “the Dayspring [or Sunrising] from on high”, which shall visit us. We note further that this same passage from Malachi, with reference to the Baptist, was quoted also by Mark the Evangelist (1:2); by the angel of the Lord who had appeared to Zechariah before his son’s birth (Luke 1:17); by the Baptist himself (John 3:28); by Jesus during his ministry (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:27); and by the Apostle Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:24-25). These quotations are all the more remarkable because they were made at considerable intervals of time the one from the other. Jesus used the words more than three decades after they had been spoken to Zechariah by the angel, announcing that Christ’s forerunner would be born. And St. Paul referred to the very same passage in the Book of Malachi some fourteen years after Jesus had spoken them. St. John the Evangelist wrote of the Baptist: “The same came for a witness, that he might bear witness to the Light, that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness to the Light” (John 1:7, 8). George Mackinlay, commenting on this passage (p. 41), says that “The Light par excellence is the Sun, and the Morning Star, which reflects its light, is not the light itself, but is a witness of the coming great luminary”. All four Evangelists record the Baptist as stating that the Christ would come after him: a statement in perfect harmony with the comparison of himself to the morning star (see e.g. Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16 and John 1:15). On three memorable occasions St. John the Baptist preceded and also testified to Jesus: viz. some months before Jesus’s birth (Luke 1:41, 44); shortly before Jesus’s public ministry (Matthew 3:11); and by his violent death at the hands of Herod, about a year before the Crucifixion (Matthew 14:10). Alluding to the Baptist’s martyrdom, Jesus said: “Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer” (Matthew 17:12, 13). The figure of St. John the Baptist as the morning star is therefore a most appropriate one. Object of Reference Always Present George Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested (p. 56) that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. “We may reasonably conclude”, he added, “that the planet was then to be seen in the early morning before sunrise”. Mackinlay realised that if Newton’s principle really worked in this instance, it would enable him to “find an indication of the dates of the ministries of Christ and of John, and consequently of the crucifixion”. Making use of calculations made by expert astronomers at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Mackinlay, himself a professional observer, drew up a chart recording the periods when Venus appeared as the morning star for the period AD 23-36 – “a period which covers all possible limits for the beginning and ending of Christ’s ministry”. {One will need to refer to Mackinlay’s own chart reproducing the astronomical data that he had received. I have already listed various chronological precautions that I believe must seriously affect dating methods, including Mackinlay’s}. From Mackinlay’s diagram we learn that the morning star shines continuously on the average for about seven and a half lunar months at the end of each night, giving at least an hour’s notice of sunrise; but if we include the period when it is still visible, but gives shorter notice, the time of shining may be lengthened to about nine lunar months. An eight years’ cycle containing five periods of the shining of the morning star - useful for practical purposes - exists between the apparent movements of the sun and Venus, correct to within a little over two days. The morning star is conventionally estimated (see previous comment on chronology) to have begun to shine at the vernal equinox, AD 25, and eight years afterwards, viz. in AD 33, it began again its period of shining at the same season of the year; and so, generally, at all years separated from each other by eight years, the shinings of the morning star were during the same months. From the historical data available, it is conventionally agreed that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ occurred between the years AD 28 – 33. Of necessity, then, the three and a half years’ ministry (Mackinlay is of the view that Christ’s public ministry lasted “the longer period” of between three and four years, whilst he also discusses “the shorter period” of less than three years) would have begun in one of the years AD 24-29 (conventional dating). We shall proceed now to examine in more detail those passages in the Gospels that refer to St. John the Baptist as the morning star. (a) Beginning of the Baptist’s Ministry At the very beginning of his ministry, the Baptist referred to the prophecy in Malachi 3:1, in which he himself is likened to the morning star, when he said: “He who comes after me is mightier than I” (Matthew 3:2, etc.). Now, according to Isaac Newton’s principle of scriptural interpretation, that figures are taken from things actually present, the morning star would have been shining when the Baptist began his ministry; thus the witness in the sky, and the human messenger, each gave a prolonged heralding of the One who was to come. If we refer to the Gospel of Matthew (3:8, 10 and 12), we find St. John the Baptist using three figures of speech at the beginning of his ministry: 1. “Now is the axe laid to the root of the trees” – presumably to mark the unfruitful trees to be cut down (see also Matthew 7:19). 2. “Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down …”. 3. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear his threshing floor, and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire”. As Mackinlay has noted (p. 60), these three figures used by St. John all refer to the time of harvest, which would have taken place within the month of the Passover, “as the place where John began his ministry was the deep depression ‘round about Jordan’ (Luke 3:3), where the harvest is far earlier than on the Judaean hills”. Now, according to Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star was shining during the month after the Passover (April or May) only in the years AD 24, 25 and 27, in the period AD 24-29. Hence we conclude that St. John the Baptist began his ministry in one of these three years. (b) Beginning of Jesus’s Ministry The Baptist again bore witness just before the beginning of Jesus Christ’s public ministry, when he proclaimed to the people: “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for He was before me’” (John 1:15); and he repeated that statement the next day (John 1:30) – again bearing out the simile of the morning star and the rising sun. George Mackinlay, analysing what time of year this was, is certain that it must have been a good deal later than the beginning of St. John’s own ministry; “probably at least four or five months, to allow time for the Baptist to be known and to attract public attention”, he says (p. 61). It could not have been earlier than the latter part of August, he goes on; and “it must also have been long before the following Passover”, for several events in Jesus’s ministry “occurred before that date”. Mackinlay suggests that Jesus Christ most likely began his public ministry, “which we must date from the marriage in Cana of Galilee”, before November, “because there would have been leaves on the fig tree” when Nathanael came from under it (John 1:47, 48) (pp. 61-62). Jesus approvingly called Nathanael “an Israelite indeed” (John 1:47). Unlike the hypocrites who loved to pray so as to be seen by men (Matthew 6:5), Nathanael had carefully hidden himself for quiet prayer under cover of his fig tree, and so he was greatly surprised that Jesus had seen him there. In Scripture, the state of the vegetation of the fig tree is used to indicate the seasons of the year (see Matthew 24:32). We are informed that when the branch of the fig tree “becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near”. From the Song of Songs (2:13), we read of the season when “the fig tree puts forth her green figs”; and the fading of the leaf of the fig tree is mentioned in Isaiah 34:4. From this scriptural detail, relating to seasons, Mackinlay is able to narrow even further the choice of years (from AD 24-29) for the beginning of the two ministries. “We must reject AD 24, for the morning star definitely was not shining between the months August to November of that year”, he writes (p. 63). This leaves us with only two options, viz. AD 25 and 27. At this stage Mackinlay makes a further assumption – previously he had asked the reader to assume for the time being that “the shorter period’ choice for the length of Jesus’s ministry be put aside – in relation to the date AD 27. Whilst admitting that AD 27 would fulfil the necessary conditions given above “if we suppose that Christ began His ministry within a month or six weeks from the time of John’s first appearance”, Mackinlay elected to put aside this date for reasons that would become apparent later on. “He must increase, but I must decrease”. The next reference to St. John the Baptist under the figure that we are considering is: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). According to F. Meyer, the Baptist “knew that he was not the Light, but sent to bear witness of it, not the Sun, but the Star that announces the dawn …” (Life and Light of Men, p. 42). St. John’s words may have foreshadowed his imprisonment as well, as Mackinlay thinks, for “they were uttered after the first Passover, which took place, according to the assumption which we have just made, in AD 26, but before the Baptist was cast into prison” (pp. 63-64). Consequently, he adds, we may assume that St. John the Baptist spoke these words about the beginning or the middle of April. Meyer may not have been correct, however, in concluding his otherwise beautiful metaphor above by saying that “the Star”, which represents the Baptist, and which “announces the dawn”, also “wanes in the growing light” of the Sun. The waning of a celestial body appears to be the scriptural symbolism for the destruction of wickedness. The seeming annihilation of the stars caused by the rising of the sun, was an ancient figure of speech used to typify the triumph of good over the powers of darkness and evil. George Mackinlay suggests that this may be the image intended by St. Paul when he spoke of “The lawless one, whom the Lord shall bring to nought by the manifestation (in Greek, “shining forth”) of His coming” (II Thessalonians 2:8); and he adds that the figure of the rising sun extinguishing the light of the stars “is associated with conflict, punishment and judgment, which certainly did not represent the relationship between Christ and His forerunner John” (p. 65). Undoubtedly, rather, the impression that the Evangelist was intending to convey in this instance was one of the morning star decreasing in the sense of its non-appearance in the sky at the end of each night, as the increasing power of the sun’s heat and light became manifest. The planet Venus moves further and further away from its position as morning star, and increases its angular distance on the other side of the sun as the evening star. According to Mackinlay, in the year 26 AD Venus began to appear as the evening star “shortly before midsummer” (p. 64). Interestingly, George Mackinlay’s chart indicates that it is the more probable explanation of the non-appearance of Venus in the sky at the end of the night as being the more appropriate figure to depict the decreasing of St. John the Baptist, which is fulfilled in the circumstance under consideration. Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist It is likely, as W. Sanday has noted (Outlines from the Life of Christ, p. 49), that the imprisonment of the Baptist took place after the Passover, and before the harvest of AD 26 (John 4:35); and soon after St. John had stated that “He must increase, but I must decrease”. Sanday considered that the events surrounding the Passover (of John 2:13-4:45) did not occupy more than three or four weeks, and when Jesus arrived in Galilee (see Matthew 4:12) the impression of his public acts at Jerusalem was still fresh. Sanday thought that his estimation of the date of the Baptist’s imprisonment was “somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels record no events after Christ’s Baptism and before John was delivered up, except the Temptation (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14 see also Luke 4:14); and because the Apostle Paul said that “as John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. No, but after me One is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie’.” (Acts 13:25)”. These words tend to place the end of the Baptist’s career rather early, because the message here referred to was proclaimed by him when he announced the Messiah, in autumn of AD 25 (John 1:26, 27). Following George Mackinlay (p. 64), we therefore estimate that St. John the Baptist was imprisoned about the middle or end of April, AD 26, when, as is apparent from Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star, appropriately, was not shining. “He was a burning and shining lamp” The next reference to St. John the Baptist under this simile is a very striking one. Jesus speaks of him as “a burning and shining lamp; and you were willing to rejoice for a season in his light”. (John 5:35). Mackinlay has suggested that, because the definite article is used twice in the Greek version of this passage, “it therefore seems to indicate some particular light” (p. 67). Though St. John was in prison, Jesus said of him at this time: “You sent to John, and both was and still is a witness to the truth” (John 5:33). Regarding the phrase “to rejoice for a season in his light”, Dr. Harpur tells of a custom in the East for travellers by night to sing songs at the rising of the morning star because it announces that the darkness and dangers of the night are coming to an end (as referred to by Mackinlay, p. 68). In effect, then, Jesus was saying that the disciples of the Baptist were willing to rejoice in the light of the herald of day, which shines only by reflecting the light of the coming sun; but should rejoice now ever more since the sun itself had arisen – since “the Light of the World” had actually come. This interpretation harmonises with Jesus’s statement recorded a few verses on (John 5:39) that “you search the Scriptures … which bear witness of Me”; the inference again being – now that I have come, you ought to receive Me. All through this conversation, Mackinlay notes, “the subject is that of bearing witness” – by his own works; by the Father; by the Baptist; by the Scriptures and by Moses – “the whole pointing to the necessity of receiving the One to whom such abundant witness had been borne”. The time when Jesus made this particular statement about the Scriptures bearing witness to Him was just after the un-named feast of John 5:1, and before the Passover of John 6:4. It is often assumed, George Mackinlay informs us, that this un-named feast was Passover – but some have opted for naming it the feast of Purim, fixed several centuries earlier by the command of Queen Esther (Esther 9:32); or even the feast of Weeks at the beginning of June (p. 69). This does not affect our chronological scheme, however, for we learn from Mackinlay’s chart that the morning star was appropriately shining on each one of these feasts in AD 27. The Crucifixion But when we come to the last Passover, in the year AD 29, the herald of the dawn had just disappeared. George Mackinlay shows (p. 81) that the disappearance of the planet Venus harmonises perfectly with the record of the complete isolation of Jesus Christ at his Crucifixion, given as follows: (1) The disappearance of the witness John by death (Matthew 14:10). The forsaking of Our Lord by all his disciples (Matthew 26:56; Psalm 38:11; 49:20). (3The absence of any record of a ministry of angels, as after the Temptation (Matthew 4:11). The hiding of God’s face, when Christ uttered the cry: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; Psalm 22:1). (5) In nature, the Sun’ light failed (Luke 23:45). (6) Being daytime, the Paschal Full Moon was, of course, below the horizon. Most relevant to our subject also is the following chapter from George Mackinlay’s book: Chapter Three: “A Star … out of Jacob” Mackinlay commences by establishing “the greater probability” of the following two facts: (a) That the Nativity of Jesus Christ was at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star, and (b) That the Nativity was at a Feast of Tabernacles (p. 140). Firstly, we consider Mackinlay’s reason for believing that the Lord’s Nativity was: (a) Five months after a period of shining. To begin with, we must consider what reason there is for supposing that the morning star was shining at all when Jesus Christ was born. In Malachi 3:1, as we have seen already, St. John the Baptist is referred to under the figure of the morning star, as the forerunner of the Christ. But the morning star itself may be called “My messenger who shall prepare the way before Me”. It is not unusual for inanimate objects thus to be spoken of in Scripture, for instance in Psalm 88:38 we have “the faithful witness in the sky”, and in Psalm 148:3 the sun, moon and stars of light are exhorted to praise God. Consequently, as George Mackinlay has explained it (p. 141), “we can reasonably suppose that the Morning Star was shining at the Nativity”. Furthermore, he adds, if the morning star were the herald of the coming One, it is fitting to imagine that a somewhat prolonged notice should be given; for “it would be more dignified and stately for the one to precede the other by a considerable interval, than that both should come almost together”. We shall find Mackinlay’s supposition of a prolonged heralding by the morning star borne out by the following inference. According to the principle of metaphors being taken from things present, we could infer that the morning star was actually shining when Jesus Christ (in Matthew 11:10), quoting Malachi 3:1, spoke of the Baptist as “My messenger … before My face”. Consistently following the same line of thought, we may reasonably infer that the morning star was also shining more than thirty years earlier when Zechariah quoted the same scriptural verse– i.e. Malachi 3:1 – at the circumcision of his son, John (Luke 1:76). Even had this appropriate passage not been quoted at the time, Mackinlay suggests (p. 142), “we might have inferred that the herald in the sky would harmoniously have been shining at the birth of the human herald”. George Mackinlay further suggests from his inference that both Jesus and John were born when the morning star was shining, that “both must have been born during the same period of its shining”. [He shows this in his charts]. The Annunciation to Mary was made by the angel Gabriel in the sixth month after the announcement to Zechariah (Luke 1:13, 24, 26); and so it follows that the Baptist was born five to six months before Jesus. Since Mackinlay’s charts indicate that the periods of shining are separated from each other by intervals of time greater than six months, then both Jesus and his herald must have been born during the same period of shining. Consequently Jesus Christ was born at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star. It will be noticed that some years in Mackinlay’s charts are omitted – this is due simply to lack of space – but no events recorded in the Gospels took place in these omitted years, nor were any of them enrolment (see below) or Sabbath years. (b) At a Feast of Tabernacles The Law, we are told by St. Paul, has “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). The various ordinances and feasts of the Old Testament, if properly understood, are found, according to George Mackinlay, “to refer to and foreshadow many events and doctrines of the New Testament” (p. 143). Again, A. Gordon had remarked that: “Many speak slightingly of the types, but they are as accurate as mathematics; they fix the sequence of events in redemption as rigidly as the order of sunrise and noontide is fixed in the heavens” (The Ministry of the Spirit, p. 28). The deductions drawn from Gospel harmonies attest the truth of his statement. We have already observed that the Sabbath Year began at the Feast of Tabernacles; the great feasts of Passover and Weeks following in due course. Jesus’s death took place at the Passover (Matthew 27:50), probably, George Mackinlay believes, “at the very hour when the paschal lambs were killed”. “Our Passover … has been sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:7); the great Victim foretold during so many ages by the yearly shedding of blood at that feast. The first Passover at the Exodus was held on the anniversary of the day when the promise –accompanied by sacrifice – was given to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (Exodus 12:41; Genesis 15:8-18). Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the day after the Sabbath after the Passover (John 20:1); the day on which the sheaf of first fruits, promise of the future harvest, was waved before God (Leviticus 23:10, 11). Hence we are told by Saint Paul that as “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20. 23) rose, so those who believe in him will also rise afterwards. This day was the anniversary of Israel’s crossing through the “Sea of Reeds” (Exodus 12-14), and, as in the case of the Passover, it was also a date memorable in early history, being the day when the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). The month Nisan, which had been the seventh month, became the first at the Exodus (Exodus 12:2). Thus Christ’s Resurrection was heralded by two most beautiful and fitting types, occurring almost – possibly exactly – on the same day of the year; by the renewed earth emerging from the waters of the Flood, and by the redeemed people emerging from the waters of the “Sea of Reeds”. Mackinlay proceeded to search for any harmonies that there may be between the characteristics of this Feast of Tabernacles and the events recorded in connection with the Nativity. As we have noticed previously, he says (p. 146), there were two great characteristics of the Feast of Tabernacles: 1. Great joy and 2. Living in booths (tents). 1. Great joy. The Israelites were told at this feast, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:40), and “You shall rejoice in your feast … you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:14, 15). King Solomon dedicated his Temple on a Feast of Tabernacles, and the people afterwards were sent away “joyful and glad of heart” (1 Kings 8:2, 66; 2 Chronicles 7:10). There was no public rejoicing at the Nativity of Jesus Christ, however; on the contrary, as George Mackinlay notes, “shortly afterwards Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:3). But though He was rejected by the majority, we find the characteristic joy of Tabernacles reflected in the expectant and spiritually-minded souls. Before the Nativity both the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth rejoiced in anticipation of it (Luke 1:38, 42, 44, 46, 47). At the Nativity an angel appeared to the shepherds and brought them good tidings of great joy; and then “suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest’.” The shepherds then came to the infant Saviour and returned “glorifying and praising God” (Luke 2:9-20). Forty days after the Nativity, at the Purification, Simeon, who had been waiting a long time for the consolation of Israel, and the venerable Anna who was a constant worshipper, joined in with their notes of praise and gladness (Luke 2:22-38). And lastly the wise men from the East “rejoiced with exceeding great joy” when they saw the star indicating where the Saviour was, and they came into the house, saw the young Child with his Mother, and presented the gifts that they had brought (Matthew 2:9-11). This “Mother”, the Virgin Mary, is the ultimate “Star” pointing to Jesus Christ, her Son. John Paul II’s encyclical, Redemptoris Mater (1987), is full of allusions to the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘our fixed point’, or star ‘of reference’. To quote just this one example (# 3): …. The fact that she “preceded” the coming of Christ is reflected every year in the liturgy of Advent. Therefore, if to that ancient historical expectation of the Saviour we compare these years which are bringing us closer to the end of the second Millennium after Christ and to the beginning of the third, it becomes fully comprehensible that in this present period we wish to turn in a special way to her, the one who in the “night” of the Advent expectation began to shine like a true “Morning Star” (Stella Matutina). For just as this star, together with the “dawn,” precedes the rising of the sun, so Mary from the time of her Immaculate Conception preceded the coming of the Saviour, the rising of the “Sun of Justice” in the history of the human race. 2. Living in booths. According to George Mackinlay (pp. 147-148), the living in booths finds a parallel in the language of the Apostle John, when he wrote concerning the Birth of Jesus, “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14); and Our Lord himself used a somewhat similar figure when he spoke of his body thus “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it up” (John 2:19) – words misunderstood by his enemies and afterwards quoted against him (Matthew 26:61; 27:40). It was at the Feast of Tabernacles that the glory of God filled the Temple that King Solomon had prepared for Him (2 Chronicles 5:3, 13, 14), and it would seem to have been at the beginning or first day of the feast, the fifteenth day of the month. Consequently, in Mackinlay’s opinion (p. 148) “it would appear to be harmonious that the Advent of the Lord Jesus in the body divinely prepared for him (Hebrews 10:5) should also take place at the same feast and most suitably on the first day of its celebration”. It will be noticed that the glory of God did not cover the tent of meeting when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and did not fill the tabernacle, at the Feast of Tabernacles. But it did so on the first day of the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt (Exodus 40:17, 34, 35). We must remember that there was no Feast of Tabernacles in the wilderness, nor was the Sabbath Year kept at this stage; but both of these ordinances were to be observed when the Israelites entered into the Promised Land (Exodus 34:22). No agricultural operations were carried out during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. As the Feast of Tabernacles inaugurated the Sabbath Year, Mackinlay judged (p. 149) that the glory of God filled the temple on the first day of the feast, “as that would be in harmony with what happened in the tabernacle in the wilderness when the glory of the Lord filled it on the first day of the only style of year then observed”. A. Edersheim, writing about the Feast of Tabernacles, says (The Temple, note on p. 272): “It is remarkable how many allusions to this feast occur in the writings of the prophets, as if its types were the goal of all their desires”. For further reading, see my articles: The Magi and the Star that Stopped (3) The Magi and the Star that Stopped and: Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers (3) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers

Louisiana Governor enthrones Sacred Heart in Governor’s Mansion

Louisiana Governor Enthrones Governor’s Mansion Home Reflections Louisiana Governor Enthrones Governor's Mansion August 3rd, 2024 “It was with great honor as the 57th governor of Louisiana to be entrusted with the historical event of enthroning the Sacred Heart of Jesus over the governor’s mansion; our home and the home of the people. In doing so may our great state and its people remain blessed and under the protection of God for centuries to come!” -Governor Jeff Landry

Feast of Christ the King – Enthronement of the Sacred Heart

“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation”. Matthew 12:43-45 While there are various plausible interpretations of this parable, one, suggested in a sermon, is that, while the soul has now become clean, it is empty. So there is nothing there to resist the incursion of a band of powerful and determined demons. The perfect antidote to this parlous situation would be to have the Sacred Heart of Jesus enthroned as King in the spiritual epicentre of one’s being. Then, even if Satan himself should come with all of his legion of fallen angels, he would not be able to gain entrance there. The soul would remain perfectly secure. Christ is King! Enthronement to the Sacred Heart Posted by Theology of Home on November 23, 2024 By Emily Malloy It is hard to believe that the liturgical calendar is already coming to an end with the Solemnity of Christ the King. It serves as a dramatic close to the Church's calendar year. On this feast, the Church celebrates the eternal kingship of Jesus Christ over all of creation. We often think of God's omnipotence over all of the universe in times of turmoil and find peace. Less considered is Christ's kingship over our homes. I am referencing the practice of the Sacred Heart Enthronement within the home, a devotion that began in 1908 by a French priest. Jesus revealed to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque that He “will bless every place in which the image of my Sacred Heart shall be exposed and honored.” Making the solemn acknowledgement of Christ's kingship over our homes serves as a beautiful way to rightly order our place (and businesses, too, for that matter, but more on that type of enthronement for another day). It also reminds of our membership within the mystical body of Christ with him at the head and is a beautiful bridge between the Mother Church and our domestic churches. Earlier this year, Governor Jeff Landry of Louisiana enthroned the Governor's Mansion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, to which he said, "it was with great honor as the 57th governor of Louisiana to be entrusted with the historical event of enthroning the Sacred Heart of Jesus over the governor’s mansion; our home and the home of the people. In doing so may our great state and its people remain blessed and under the protection of God for centuries to come!” Meditating upon this devotion within the context of the upcoming feast provides much to ponder. Christ has dominion over the entire cosmos, died for our sins and defied the finality of death, yet he simply knocks on the door of our homes waiting for an invitation to enter. This mysterious and astounding paradox in the power and meekness of our Lord continually beguiles. The ceremony, lead by your pastor in your home (and the consequent graces that follow), acknowledges our need for Christ's presence and leadership within the folds of our lives. It is fairly brief and involves the participation of the members of the household along with the priest. A blessing of the home also takes place. The promises made by those in the home involve practicing devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, involving participation in the First Friday devotions, daily family rosary, celebration of the feast of the Sacred Heart, and a prominent placement of an image of the Sacred Heart within the home. These practices serve as an outward expression seeking to rightly order the home and acknowledge and invite the perfect dominion of Christ. As this liturgical year comes to a close, ponder these twelve promises made by Christ to St. Margaret Mary Alacoque as you consider enthroning Christ within your home: 1. I will give them all the graces necessary in their state of life. 2. I will establish peace in their homes. 3. I will comfort them in all their afflictions. 4. I will be their secure refuge during life, and above all, in death. 5. I will bestow abundant blessings upon all their undertakings. 6. Sinners will find in My Heart the source and infinite ocean of mercy. 7. Lukewarm souls shall become fervent. 8. Fervent souls shall quickly mount to high perfection. 9. I will bless every place in which an image of My Heart is exposed and honored. 10. I will give to priests the gift of touching the most hardened hearts. 11. Those who shall promote this devotion shall have their names written in My Heart. 12. I promise you in the excessive mercy of My Heart that My all powerful love will grant to all those who receive Holy Communion on the First Fridays in nine consecutive months the grace of final perseverance; they shall not die in My disgrace, nor without receiving their sacraments. My divine Heart shall be their safe refuge in this last moment.

Pope Leo warns against a false Marian devotion

Pope Leo XIV and doctrinal office affirm Mary’s unique role, rejects ‘co-Redemptrix’ and ‘co-Mediatrix’ titles By CNS 5 November 2025 WHILE praising devotion to the Blessed Mother, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith firmly rejected moves to formally proclaim Mary as “co-redemptrix” or “co-mediatrix”. In a lengthy doctrinal note titled Mater Populi Fidelis (Mother of the Faithful People of God), the dicastery said the title co-redemptrix or co-redeemer “carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ” in salvation. “And, regarding the title co-mediatrix or co-mediator, it said that Mary, “the first redeemed, could not have been the mediatrix of the grace that she herself received.” However, it said, the title may be used when it does not cast doubt on “the unique mediation of Jesus Christ, true God and true man”.” Pope Leo XIV approved the text on October 7 and ordered its publication, said the note, which was released on November 4. Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the doctrinal dicastery, presented the document during a conference at the Jesuit headquarters in Rome and said its teaching becomes part of the church’s “ordinary magisterium” and must be considered authoritative. For more than 30 years, some Catholics, including some bishops, have asked for formal dogmatic declarations of Mary as co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix, the document’s introduction said. But Monsignor Armando Matteo, secretary of the dicastery’s doctrinal section, told the conference that the first study of the doctrinal implications of the titles went all the way back to 1926. … Cardinal Fernández said that one time, when St Peter’s Basilica was closed, he spent a long time in front of Michelangelo’s Pietà. The sorrow on Mary’s face because of the death of her son and, at the same time, her obvious strength, he said, “was so beautiful it was understandable why people would want to say everything and more about Mary”. The new document said titles used for the Blessed Mother should speak of her motherly care for all people and her place as the first and perfect disciple of Jesus, but must not create any doubt that Catholics believe Jesus was the redeemer of the world and the bestower of grace. “Any gaze directed at her that distracts us from Christ or that places her on the same level as the Son of God would fall outside the dynamic proper to an authentically Marian faith,” it said, because Mary always points to her son. The titles co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix have been used in reference to Mary by theologians and even popes in the past millennium, the doctrinal dicastery said, but without elaborating on the precise meaning and the extent to which those titles could describe Mary’s role in salvation history. St John Paul II “referred to Mary as ‘Co-redemptrix’ on at least seven occasions,” the note said, but after consultation with the then-Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and its prefect, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in 1996, he did not issue a dogmatic declaration and stopped using the title. Citing Scripture and tradition, the future Pope Benedict XVI said, “The precise meaning of these titles (co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix) is not clear, and the doctrine contained in them is not mature.” “Everything comes from Him – Christ – as the Letter to the Ephesians and the Letter to the Colossians, in particular, tell us; Mary, too, is everything that she is through Him. The word ‘Co-redemptrix’ would obscure this origin,” Pope Benedict said. Pope Francis, at a general audience in 2021, said that Jesus entrusted Mary to humanity as a mother, “not as a goddess, not as co-redemptrix,” adding that love motivated some people to call her co-redemptrix, but love often leads people to “exaggerate”. “Given the necessity of explaining Mary’s subordinate role to Christ in the work of Redemption, it would not be appropriate to use the title ‘Co-redemptrix’ to define Mary’s co-operation,” the doctrinal note said. The title, it said, “risks obscuring Christ’s unique salvific mediation and can therefore create confusion and an imbalance in the harmony of the truths of the Christian faith, for ‘there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.'” “When an expression requires many repeated explanations to prevent it from straying from a correct meaning, it does not serve the faith of the People of God and becomes unhelpful,” the dicastery concluded. The use of the title “co-mediatrix” is more complicated, the doctrinal note said, because the word “mediation” often is “understood simply as cooperation, assistance or intercession” and easily could apply to Mary without calling into question “the unique mediation of Jesus Christ, true God and true man.” Mary’s role in salvation history is unique, the document said. She willingly accepted to become the mother of Jesus the saviour, she raised him, travelled with him and stood at the foot of his cross. While Christ, fully human and fully divine, was the one mediator between God and humanity, it said, “he enables various forms of participation in his salvific plan because, in communion with him, we can all become, in some way, cooperators with God and ‘mediators’ for one another”. “If this holds true for every believer – whose cooperation with Christ becomes increasingly fruitful to the extent that one allows oneself to be transformed by grace – how much more must it be affirmed of Mary in a unique and supreme way,” the doctrinal note said. The church believes that those in heaven can pray and intercede for people still on earth and, “among those chosen and glorified with Christ, first and foremost is his Mother,” the note said. “Therefore, we can affirm that Mary has a unique collaboration in the saving work that Christ carries out in his Church. With this intercession, Mary can become for us a motherly sign of the Lord’s mercy.”

Where exactly in Bethlehem was the Christ Child born?

“One would think that the New Testament would tell us precisely where the Messiah would be born “in Bethlehem.” It does not. Surprisingly, the Old Testament gives us the answer. An earlier verse in the book of Micah tells us exactly where to expect His birth”. Joseph Lenard Jesus’ Birth – The Case for Migdal Edar | Truth in Scripture Taken from the book by Joseph Lenard entitled Mysteries of Jesus’ Life Revealed—His Birth, Death, Resurrection, and Ascensions. For an overview and complete chapter listing of this fascinating study, click here. Jesus’ Birth – The Case for Migdal Edar Where Was Jesus Born? John the Baptist exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, KJV). I believe he was making a statement which, among other things, pointed to a particular place in Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ. How so? As we have seen many times, bits and pieces from Scripture, taken together, often provide a road map. In this case, I believe the road map supports my position that Jesus was actually born at a place called Migdal Edar (Heb. “Tower of the Flock”) in Bethlehem. In addition to the statement by John the Baptist referring to Jesus as “the Lamb of God,” these bits and pieces of Scripture come from diverse sources, from both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. I believe all of the following will ultimately be shown to point to Migdal Edar as the birthplace of Jesus: The shepherds who – while “watching their flocks by night” – became aware of exactly where to find the newborn Messiah “in Bethlehem”. The special lambs born and raised in the fields of Bethlehem, to be used specifically as Temple sacrifices. The account of the death of Jacob’s wife Rachel, on the outskirts of Bethlehem Why is it that most of us have never heard of Migdal Edar, let alone in reference to the birth of Jesus? Once again, we have Emperor Constantine and his mother, Helena, to thank for the erroneous selection of the site of Jesus’ birth. The church was led astray in the 4th Century AD and has since steadfastly supported the traditional site of the cave under the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Let’s see where key statements in the Old and New Testaments lead us in our search to confirm the actual birthplace of Jesus. I give credit to Cooper P. Abrams, III and his article Where Was the Birth Place of the Lord Jesus? for bringing together many of the details in support of the case for Migdal Edar. Old Testament Account – Micah’s Prophecy When the Magi from Persia came to Jerusalem in search of the Jewish Messiah, they called upon King Herod as a courtesy and inquired of him where the Messiah was to be born. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: Following a geographical revolution in recent years, the land of Persia had had to be significantly re-located. It is no longer “in the East”, hence the Magi could not have been from Persia. See e.g. these articles: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea (4) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea The Magi and the Star that Stopped (4) The Magi and the Star that Stopped Joseph Lenard continues: The Jewish religious authorities gave their answer from an Old Testament passage from Micah: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he [Messiah; Jesus] come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2, KJV). In the Bible we find several other names for Bethlehem, including Ephratah (Micah 5:2) and Ephrath (Genesis 35:16, 19; 48:7). It should be noted that Ephrath (or Ephratah) was the ancient name for the area which later was called Bethlehem. Ephrath means “ash heap” and “place of fruitfulness,” and seems to refer to Isaiah 61:3, which mentions “beauty from ashes . . .” It is also widely known that the word “Bethlehem” means “house of bread.” This too may be a reference to Jesus, as He stated during the Seder (Last Supper) with His Disciples that He is the bread which is broken for each of us (Luke 22:19); and He had previously said that He is the true bread which came down from heaven (John 6:32–33) and that He is the bread of life (John 6:35). We know from Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But where in Bethlehem? One would think that the New Testament would tell us precisely where the Messiah would be born “in Bethlehem.” It does not. Surprisingly, the Old Testament gives us the answer. An earlier verse in the book of Micah tells us exactly where to expect His birth: And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom [the Messiah shall bring the Kingdom] shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem [Mary the mother of Jesus].” (Micah 4:8, KJV) This “tower of the flock” mentioned in Micah 4:8 is in Hebrew “Migdal Edar” and literally means “watch tower of the flock.” Consequently, the Old Testament tells us that the Messiah, Jesus, would be born at Migdal Edar, in Bethlehem. What about the “watch tower of the flock?” Undoubtedly, this was a military tower used to watch over the valley at the edge of Bethlehem and to provide protection to the city. These types of towers were common and are mentioned in various Old Testament books (Judges 8:17; 9:46, 51; 2 Kings 9:17, 18:8; Nehemiah 3:1). Cooper P. Abrams III states in his article regarding Migdal Edar in Jerusalem: “This watch tower from ancient times was used by the shepherds for protection from their enemies and wild beasts. It was also the place ewes were safely brought to give birth to the lambs. In this sheltered building/cave the priests would bring in the ewes which were about to lamb for protection. These special lambs came from a unique flock that was designated for sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem.” Abrams then states the following: Typically, “Migdal Edar”, (the tower of the flock) at Bethlehem is the perfect place for Christ to be born. He was born in the very birthplace of tens of thousands of lambs, which had been sacrificed to prefigure Him. God promised it, pictured it, and performed it at “Migdal Edar”. It all fits together, for that’s the place where sacrificial lambs were born! Jesus was not born behind an inn, in a smelly stable where the donkeys and other animals of travelers were kept. He was born in Bethlehem, at the birthing place of the sacrificial lambs that were offered in the Temple in Jerusalem which Micah 4:8 calls the “tower of the flock.” The Sheep and Shepherds of the Fields at Migdal Edar In his classic book, The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah (1883; Latest Edition, 1993), Alfred Edersheim (1825 – 1889), a Messianic Jew, had great insights regarding the birth of Jesus from a Hebrew-Christian perspective. In his work, Edersheim referenced the Jewish Mishnah (The Mishnah was the first recording of the oral law and Rabbinic Judaism. The word in Hebrew means “repetition,” which means that it was memorized material. It is the major source of the rabbinic teachings of Judaism. After the Scriptures, the Mishnah is regarded as the basic textbook of Jewish life and thought and is traditionally considered to be an integral part of the Torah, as revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.) Edersheim also referenced the Targum (The Targum is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanak), which was written during Israel’s seventy-year captivity in Babylon. Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, an important group of languages known almost from the beginning of human history and including Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Akkadian [ancient Babylonian and Assyrian]). Edersheim’s book was the result of a seven year effort. In it he states: “That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem was a settled conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, ‘the tower of the flock’. This Migdal Edar was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah (Shekelim 7.4) leads to the conclusion that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds.” In summary, we can state with some certainty that the flocks which were pastured around Migdal Edar were sheep destined for Temple sacrifices, and the shepherds who tended them were special shepherds, trained to take care of these sheep from birth until the time they were delivered to the Temple. I believe that Jesus was born in this same “Tower of the Flock,” and these shepherds went to see Jesus and His mother and father in that structure. New Testament Account of the Birthplace of Jesus Luke has the most complete account of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, as recorded in Chapter 2: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and linage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. (Luke 2:4–20 KJV) We see from the New Testament Scripture that Jesus was, indeed, born in Bethlehem. But the New Testament does not state the exact place in Bethlehem where Jesus was born. Nativity scenes displayed at Christmas depict the birth of Jesus in a stable surrounded by donkeys, sheep, and cows. This is due to the tradition that there was no room for Joseph and Mary in the inn, so Jesus was born in the stable behind the inn, where the animals were kept. However, all that is stated in Scripture is that Mary gave birth to Jesus, that she laid Him in a manger, and that she wrapped Him in swaddling clothes. We know that these things occurred somewhere in the city of Bethlehem. But from Micah 4:8 we now know that He was actually born at “the Tower of the Flock” (Migdal Edar). The Terms “Manger” and “Swaddling Clothes” The account of the birth of Jesus in Luke includes the terms “manger” and “swaddling clothes.” What specifically are these referring to? And why are these items a “sign”, given to the shepherds by the angel as they tended their flocks in the field? The Greek word which is translated “manger” in our English Bibles is Yatnh phat-ne. It is defined as a “stall” where animals are kept, and in Luke 13:15 it is translated that way. In Proverbs 14:4, in the Septuagint [Greek translation of the Old Testament], the word means a “stall” or a “crib.” What, then, was the “stall” or “manger” referred to in the New Testament; and what kind of animals were fed or housed there? Is there a “logical” place where God would choose to have His Son born, one which would be described by the angel to the shepherds in the country as being “. . . a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger?” To be a “sign,” it would have to be distinctive, understandable, and unique. From the description of the “swaddling clothes” and the “manger,” the shepherds knew right where to go to find the babe. Where was that? My position is that they went to where the newborn lambs were typically wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger – in the “Tower of the Flock” (Migdal Edar), not far from where they were tending the sheep which birthed the lambs used for sacrifice in the Temple. The “Lamb of God,” as John the Baptist called Jesus, was born in the unique place where the other lambs used for sacrifice were born. Indeed, that was a unique “sign” to these shepherds – that this baby was, indeed, the “Savior, Christ the Lord,” the promised Messiah, as told to them by the angel which appeared to them, and as foretold by the Prophets of Israel. Note what is said of the shepherds: “And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.” They did not have to go around Bethlehem searching each and every stable for this newly born baby. The impression given is that they were able to go “with haste” because they knew from the description of the “wrapped in swaddling clothes” and “lying in a manger” exactly where to go – to the “Tower of the Flock,” Migdal Edar. It was not just any stable in Bethlehem. There was no need for the angel to give the shepherds directions to the place of Jesus’ birth – they already knew exactly where to find him! Key Statement by John the Baptist The father of John the Baptist was Zacharias, a priest who served in the Temple in Jerusalem. John the Baptist was the only son of Zacharias, and he was also of the priestly line. In a sense, John the Baptist was the first of several things: First Christian, first Christian witness, first Christian preacher, first Christian prophet, and first Christian martyr. He was also the first to baptize converts, and he might have even started the first “church” as the disciples of Jesus were initially following John before they were instructed to follow Jesus (John 1:35–37; Acts 1:15–26). Before we look at the famous statement by John the Baptist upon seeing Jesus, it is helpful to first review the problem of sin, which relates to the statement of John and gives us a better understanding of the context. The Bible teaches us that mankind has a sin problem. Sin is violation of God’s Word, a rebellion against God. This is a big problem with God and, consequently, with man. God is holy and He cannot have sin in His presence. Sin came into the world through Adam in the Garden of Eden, as presented in the early chapters of Genesis. Fortunately, God had His plan of redemption through Jesus, which He had established from the very foundations of the world (Romans 5:12–21; 1 Peter 1:18–20; Revelation 13:8; John 1:29). The need for a substitutionary sacrifice and shedding of innocent blood to atone for sin is well established in Scripture, beginning in Genesis 3:21, where God made use of animal skins to cover the nakedness and shame of Adam and Eve following their disobedience. A blood sacrifice is required by God, as presented in Leviticus: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). God’s ultimate plan of redemption is further seen in the account of Abraham’s willingness to offer his son, Isaac, on an altar at God’s command (Genesis 22). Abraham’s hand was stayed, and God provided a substitute sacrifice, just as He would provide in His Son, Jesus. Lastly, God’s ultimate plan of redemption is reflected in the Feasts of the Lord, which God established as yearly rehearsals by the people of Israel, beginning with the Feast of Passover and the shedding of the blood of an innocent lamb (Leviticus 23). My first book, The Last Shofar! – What the Fall Feasts of the Lord are Telling the Church (which I co-authored with Donald Zoller and which is also presented on this website) provides an excellent description of God’s plan of redemption in Jesus, as foreshadowed in the Feasts of the Lord. This background of the problem of sin and God’s remedy through the sacrifice of His one and only son, Jesus, offers us a better understanding of John the Baptist’s statement upon seeing Jesus approaching, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus is the perfect lamb sacrifice, which God provided to pay for the sin debt of mankind. He is, indeed, “the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.” The lambs sacrificed daily in the Temple ceremonies – as well as the lamb sacrificed annually for the nation’s sins at Passover in the Temple – were but a foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, the perfect sacrifice of God. This sacrifice was meant to be sufficient to atone for the sin-debt of all mankind. John the Baptist likened Jesus to those lambs carefully chosen for sacrifice in the Temple. Rachel and Migdal Edar What does Rachel, the wife of Jacob, have to do with the birthplace of Jesus? It involves a veiled prophecy in Genesis, and it has to do with the first mention in Scripture of the term Migdal Edar, at the time of Rachel’s death. Let’s look at two passages in Genesis (Genesis 35:5–21 and Genesis 48:7): “And they journeyed: and the terror of the God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob. So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Bethel [Heb. literally “House of God”], he and all the people that were with him. And he built there an altar, and called the place El-beth-el: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother [Esau]. “But Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Bethel under an oak: and the name of it was called Allon-bachuth. And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him. And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply: a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee will I give the land. And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him. And Jacob set up a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon. “And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour. And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also. And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day. 21 And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar” [Heb. Migdal Edal: “Tower of the Flock”]. (Genesis 35:5–21) And the second passage: “And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem.” (Genesis 48:7, KJV) Reflecting on these passages in Genesis regarding to the death of Rachel, it is easy to imagine Jacob’s anguish. After Jacob buried Rachel, he traveled on “. . . and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar”. Jacob loved Rachel more than all his other wives, from the time he first laid eyes on her (Genesis 29:17–18, 30). When she died, he was heartbroken. But why would Moses record that Jacob pitched his tent at Migdal Edar at Bethlehem? What is significant about that place? We know that every word of Scripture has meaning (Deuteronomy 32:47), so there must be a reason. Although it is not known for certain, I can offer some thoughts which I believe have merit. We know now that the Tower of the Flock would be the birthplace of the Messiah, who would take away all death, heartache, and tears. Rachel and Jacob would one day weep no more, as both would share eternal life in the presence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe that God intended that from the place of Jacob’s greatest sorrow, where his beloved Rachel died, would later come the Messiah, who would bring eternal life and joy for all those who trust in Him. Did Jacob fully understand all of these things? Probably not. But he did understand that God was all-powerful and that He was good, holy, and righteous. I believe that Jacob trusted in God for redemption and that he knew God would eventually make all things right, including the removal of death and heartache. I concede that the evidence related to Rachel is not definitive in supporting the case for Migdal Edar. However, the other evidence provided here is strong; and I believe the case for confirming Migdal Edar as the birthplace of Jesus is compelling.

Exodus East Wind driving back the waters is a phenomenon observed in modern times

“Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and all that night the Lord drove the sea back with a strong east wind and turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, and the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left”. Exodus 14:21-22 We read at: RedSeaCrossingExodusIsraelBallahLakes Map of Israel's crossing of the Red Sea at Ras el Ballah, "Cape Ballah" (Baal-Zephon?) or Qantara and Lake Menzaleh? 20 November 2009 (Revisions through 27 October 2021) Exodus 14:21 and 27 has a sea being pushed back by a strong east wind during the night, then, in the morning, with the wind dissipated (?) the sea "returns to its strength" and refills its formerly empty bed. "Where" was such a phenomenon "documented"? Eventually I found an account of the eastern half of Lake Menzaleh having its shallow waters pushed back by a gale force east wind exposing its lake bottom in January of 1882. It appears then that such a phenonemon is documented for shallow Egyptian marsh-lakes, Menzaleh's waters being generally 4 to 7 feet in depth with a few exceptions according to European visitors to the area in the 1800's. Red Sea in Hebrew is called Yam Suph, yam= sea, suph= reed, "sea of reeds," suggesting an area possessing a fresh water environment for the reeds and marsh grasses to grow in, suiting the area of Lake Menzaleh. Professor Humphreys (2004) sought to explain the drying up the Red Sea via physcial phenomena. He argued that "wind setdown" was the mechanism that created a passage in the sea. He said this worked only on large bodies of water (he noted it being documented at Lake Erie in the United States). Wind setdown "removes" water whereas wind setup "adds" water. He noted some thought the crossing was at the Gulf of Suez. He dismissed this location however because only a wind from the northwest could blow back this gulf's waters exposing dry land and the Bible said it was an east wind. He then noted that at the Gulf of Aqaba it would take a wind from the northeast to blow black the waters and expose the sea's bottom. He favored Aqabah as the crossing point of the Red Sea, despite the fact that an east wind could not blow back the gulf's waters only a northeast wind could do this. He was apparently unaware of the 1882 report of an east wind blowing back Lake Menzaleh's waters in this lake's eastern sector near the mouth of the Suez Canal. This lake is roughly 43 miles in length and 12 miles wide so it is big enough for wind set-down to work (cf. pp. 246-252. Colin J. Humphreys. The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist's Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories. HarperCollins. 2004) A British officer who lived in Egypt reported a phenomenon that somewhat paralled the Exodus account as related by Professor Kent (1914) of Yale University: "...Major-General Tulloch, who states that the shallow waters of Lake Menzaleh, which lies only a short distance to the north and is subject to the same conditions, were driven back by the wind for seven miles, leaving the bottom of the lake dry (Journal of the Victorian Institute, Vol. XXVIII, p. 267, and Vol. XXVI, p. 12)." (pp. 113-114. Charles Foster Kent. Biblical Geography and History. New York. Charles Scribner's and Sons. 1914, 1916, 1926) C.R. Conder (1915) stated that Tulloch beheld this wonder in 1882 (the Suez Canal was completed by 1869): "In 1882 Sir Alexander Tulloch saw the waters of Lake Menzaleh driven back more than a mile by the east wind." (C. R. Conder. "Exodus, the Route." James Orr. Editor. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 1915) Professor Haupt of Johns Hopkins University (1904) noted that the receding water was in the eastern portion of Lake Menzaleh, near ancient Pelusium and the mouth of the Suez Canal (the mud-flats area west of Pelusium and et-Tina, which as late as 1856 was subject to flooding by the Nile which left its characteristic dark silt): "In my paper on Archaeology and Mineralogy...I mentioned the fact that Major-General Tulloch observed that under a strong east wind the shallow waters of Lake Manzaleh at the northern entrance to the Suez Canal receded for a distance of seven miles. There is therefore no reason for doubting the historical character of the passage of the Red Sea." (p. 149. Paul Haupt. "Moses' Song of Triumph." The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures. Vol. 20. No. 3. April. 1904) Another account has the 1882 east wind diminishing the water level by 6 feet (my note: A depth capable of drowning Pharaoh's army!): "Major General Tulloch of the British Army (Proceedings of the Victoria Institute. XXVIII, pp. 267-280) reports having witnessed the driving off of water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower the level 6 feet, thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded for a while in the muddy bottom." (BibleExplore.Com, "Red Sea," on the internet) A variance of 7 feet was documented for Lake Erie in the United States between Buffalo New York and Toledo, Ohio: "The power of the wind to affect water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States, where according to the report of the Deep Waterways Commission for 1896 (165, 168) it appears that a strong wind from the southwest sometimes lowers the water at Toledo Ohio on the western end of the lake to the extent of more than 7 feet, at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at the eastern end a similar amount..." A description of Lake Menzaleh (1868) has its depth as 4-5 feet, 43 miles long, 12-11 miles wide and full of marsh reeds: "...Lake Menzaleh...the bottom is a mixture of mud and sand, generally covered in reeds, but quite level; so that the greatest depth of the lake does not vary more than 6 or 8 inches, being rarely much under 4 feet, and seldom materially above it, except where the sea enters." (p. 386. General Francis Rawdon Chesney. Narrative of the Euphrates Expedition: Carried on by the Order of the British Government During the years 1835, 1836 and 1837. London. 1868) Bonar (ca. 1843?) understands Lake Menzaleh's deeper parts are 10 feet, but mostly 4 to 5 feet: "...Lake Menzaleh...It is nowhere more than ten feet deep, and in general only four or five...at evening we entered a canal among immense reeds...we reached San about ten...the ruins of Zoan..." (Andrew Bonar. The Biography of Robert Murray M'Cheyne. Note: M'Cheyne lived 1813-1843) ("Red Sea," BibleExplore.Com) Tulloch's account of the eastwind blowing away Lake Menzaleh's waters appears in his published military memoirs of 1903, he witnessed the event apparently at the end of January of 1882 while he was at Port Said inspecting the Suez Canal's embankments for acts of sabotage. The dried up Menzaleh Lake was to the west side of the canal "as far as the eye could see" (Haupt's 7 miles?). Of interest here is that the wind apparently began blowing during the day, continued all through the night and was still blowing in the morning and the lake bed was empty. Yahweh, overnight, dries up Yam Suph, and Lake Menzaleh, overnight, is dried up too: ""We landed at Port Said the end of January...I made a curious discovery. An easterly gale came up very rapidly, and at last was so strong, driving the sand from the dry side into my face, that I had to cease work. Next morning the wind having a good deal gone down, I went on to the canal bank again, when, to my astonishment, I noticed that Lake Menzaleh on the west side of the canal had disappeared beyond the horizon in that direction, and that the Arabs were walking on the mud where the day before large boats had been floating. When thinking over this extraordinary effect of wind on shallow water, it suddenly flashed upon me that I was witnessing a similar event to that which had taken place between three to four thousand years ago, at the time of the passage of the so-called Red Sea by the Israelites. Subsequently, when I had time for it, I examined the shores of the Bitter Lakes, and came to the unquestionable conculsion that the Red Sea of Pharaoh's day extended to the head of the Bitter Lakes, and it was here the passage took place, and that the description of it in Exodus is literally correct, word for word." (pp. 245-246. Major-General Sir Alexander Bruce Tulloch, K.C.B., C.M.G. Recollections of Forty Years' Service. London & Edinburgh. William Blackwood & Sons. 1903) My note: In the 1880s many scholars believed that the head of the Gulf of Suez in antiquity was at Lake Et-Timsah, which included the Bitter Lakes, hence, probably Tulloch's notion that the Red Sea Crossing was at the Bitter Lakes. Today we know the head of the Suez Gulf has always been at its present location at least since the days of the Pharaohs. The evidence? Archaeologists have found ancient Egyptian mining camps on the Suez Gulf's shore revealing its level today was nearly the same 5000 years ago. DeLesseps visited in 1856 Pelusium before the Suez Canal was built and crossed the mud-flats on camels which sank a bit into the mud, by December no sinking occurred: "The rise of waters this year had been less than usual, and had dried up quickly, and at the end of December we crossed these seas of mud dry-footed and without our camels sinking into it at all." (p. 47. Joseph Everett Nourse. The Maritime Canal of Suez: From its Inauguration, November 17, 1869 to... Naval Historical Foundation. Washington, D.C. 1974, using source material from 1884?) I note that such mud could clog pharaoh's chariot wheels. The "drying up" of a sea's bed by an east wind pushing the waters away near the Pelusium and et-Tina mud-flats (which are subject to Nile inundations) seems to _identify_ the "pre-biblical source" for the biblical story as being this area. Below a map from the 1897 Encyclopedia Britannica showing the northern mouth of the Suez Canal, where in 1882, an east wind blew away a portion of Lake Menzaleh's waters for a distance of 7 miles from the vicinity of the canal's entry point. I have set my compass to create a 7 mile arc from Port Said, the canal's entry point, to show the viewer what 7 miles looks like from any given direction from Port Said. I have colored the exposed lake bed yellow (I am using the map's scale, marked off in numbers every 2 miles, 0-10, in the upper right corner to determine the 7 mile arc from) The area exposed "may have been" even greater extending along the whole of the eastern coast of Menzaleh from Said to Qantara/Kantara if the "line of view" from Said is restricted to only 7 miles? The 4/5 foot drop in water on the east side of Menzaleh probably caused a 4/5 foot height increase on the west side of the lake as happened at Lake Erie. Note: Tulloch said it was on the west side of the Suez Canal that the waters of lake Menzaleh had blown away; the canal's high embankment would prevent the lake water east of the canal from being blown away. So the "yellow" area on the below map should more properly be restricted to the area west of the Suez Canal's entry. Below, a map of Ras el Ballah, alternately called Ras el Moyeh ("Cape of Water"), on the west side of the Ballah inlet showing water on either side of two tracks. The Pink track from Salhieh in the delta takes one north to Qatieh in the northern Sinai; the Orange route goes to Bir Abou Rouq. I understand that Baal-Zephon is Ras el Ballah and Pi-ha`hiroth is the northern opening or "mouth" to the El Kraieh marsh east of Ras el Ballah. Israel probably used the orange track "to cross the Reed Sea" (Ex 14:21-22). Israel camped before Baal-Zephon (Ras el Ballah) on the orange route, west of the marsh-ford in front of Ras el Ballah. Going from west to east, as Israel passed over the dried up marsh-ford, she saw a "wall of water" on either side, the deeper waters of the Ballah inlet colored in a deeper blue, the lighter blue lined areas are marshy ground with green marker for tufts of sedge or swamp grasses and reeds, hence its name Yam Suph "sea of reeds" (Exodus 14:22). Note that this track does cross the marsh-swamp, there apparently was a shallow ford at this location which "might" dry up at times (Map of 1826, Paris, France. Titled "Canal de Suez" sheet no. 31. Surveyed 1797-1799 by Napoleon Bonoparte's Corps of Engineers and Cartographers). Note: Bir Abou Rouq is transcribed variously as: Abou-el-Rouq; Abou Erouq; Abu Ruk; Abu Rukk; Bir Abou el Rouq; Bir Abou Erouq; Bir Abou Rouq; Bir Abu el-Uruq; fountaine d' Abou el `Arouq (cf. p. 1132. Vol. 2. Herbert Verreth. The Northern Sinai From the 7th Centrury BC till the 7th Century AD, A Guide to the Sources. Leuven, Belgium. 2006. Available for download on the internet as two PDF files). The transcription Erouq, for me, most closely parallels the biblical Hiroth (Pi-Ha`Hiroth). Erouq is described as possessing "two wells and a few palm trees" according to Verreth, and cared for by a Bedouin family. So Hiroth appears to be possibly preserved in Erouq. The problem? The proper pronounciation in Hebrew is not Hiroth, its Chiroth/Khiroth which is best preserved at the marsh of El Kraieh (Karach, Karash on various maps). Verreth translates Ras el Ballah as "Cape of [lake] Ballah," noting it is alternately called Ras el Moyeh "the Cape of the Lakes" (Verreth. p. 827. Vol. 1) but I understand "lake" is birket while moyeh means "water" (Aramaic moyeh= water; Hebrew: mayim= water; Egyptian: mu= water; Arabic ma= water; vulgar Egyptian: moyeh= water), so I would translate "Cape of Water" or "Headland of Water." This headland appears on a map of 1885 as Ras el Ballah el Ras el Moyeh, "the headland or cape of Ballah/Water." Ballah's water is from Nile flooding via Lake Menzaleh; Menzaleh is classed as a "salt-marsh" (17% salinity in 1926), so Ballah would be a salt-marsh too. Exodus 14:22 RSV, "...Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground _the mayim_ being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." Both "water" and "waters" in Hebrew is mayim (Strong 4325), is there a relationship here to Ras el Moyeh, "the Cape of the Water"? The "waters" Israel passed through on her right and left hand as shown on the above map? In other words "the water/waters" Israel passed through at Baal-Zephon (Ras el Ballah?) are alluding to Ras el Moyeh, "the Cape of Water." Below, another view of the track from Salhieh on the edge of the Egyptian delta (viewer's left, not shown on this image) to Ras el Ballah, "the Headland of Ballah," which lies on the west side of the Ballah inlet and its marshes. To the ESE of Ras el Ballah is Bir Abou rouq (marked by two concentric red circles, other, later maps' `Ruk, Aruk, Erouq, `Uruq). A track in orange marker passes through the southern swamps of the Ballah inlet east of Ras el Ballah to Bir Abou Rouq. At Rouq one has two tracks in orange to go south to Lake Et-Timsah (Etham?). The western track goes directly to Lake Et-Timsah, the middle track (orange) passes by Timsah on its east side headed for the Bitter Lakes region. The far right orange track heading east of Bir Abou Rouq takes one to Bir el Makdal (probably Pi-ha`hiroth's and Baal-Zephon's Migdol). Alternately, Migdol might be the below map's conical "Ruines" tell ENE of Ras el Ballah. Without explanation Hazlitt identifies Migdol, classical Magdolum, with Ras el Moyeh! If he is correct then Migdol/Magdolum at Ras el Moyeh puts Israel at Ras el Ballah (cf. p. 212. "Migdol." William Hazlitt. The Classical Gazetteer of Ancient Geography, Sacred and Profane. London. Whittaker & Company. 1851). As Israel, after crossing Yam Suph, is headed for the wilderness of Etham, Israel could have taken any of the three orange tracks at Bir Abou Rouq to Birket Et-Timsah. The first orange track going south (viewer's left) from Bir Abou rouq takes one directly to Et-Timsah via Marais de Karach (the 1799 marsh of Karach, 1885: El Kraieh), the second orange track headed south bypasses Et-Timsah's east side. The third orange track (viewer's right) continues to Bir El Makdal (my proposal for Migdol of the Red Sea Crossing). From Makdal a track goes due south headed for the Bitter Lakes called Murrat in Arabic (The Exodus' "bitter waters of Marah"?). Bir el rouq (`Ruk, `Aruk, Erouq, `Uruq) may preserve the Exodus' Pi-ha`hiroth _if_ Hiroth is the correct pronounciation, if _not_, then Chiroth/Khiroth is preserved in El Kraieh (1885 map). In any event, Israel had to cross through or "ford" the marshy lower portion of the Ballah Inlet east of Ras el Ballah to get to Rouq and continue south to Etham/Timsah and Marah. From Pi-hahiroth, Baal-Zephon, and Migdol and the crossing of the Reed Sea Israel spent three days crossing the wilderness of Shur/Etham. She had herds of cattle (Ex 12:38) and cattle drives to Abilene, Texas did not exceed more than 10 to 15 miles a day. If the "waters" of Marah (Hebrew plural and singular: mayim) is an allusion to more than one water source the two salt-marshes of Murrat, today's two Bitter Lakes would seem to fit the bill; Murrat in Arabic means "bitter" and Hebrew Marah also means "bitter." Three days to cross the wilderness of Shur/Etham from Pi-ha`hiroth at 10 to 15 miles a day suggests that the crossing point of the Red Sea is roughly 30 to 45 miles north of some location at the two Bitter Lakes. 15 miles south of Bir Abou rouq (Pi-ha`hiroth?) we are in the vicinity of Lake Et-Timsah (Etham?); at 25 miles we are at the northern part of the Great Bitter Lake (al-Buhayrah al-Murrat al-Kubra); at 40 miles we are at the Little Bitter Lake (al-Buhayrah al-Murrat as-Sughra); at 45 miles we are just south of the Little Bitter Lake Please Click Here to access an interactive version of the below map and see the Ballah inlet in greater, clearer, more focused detail. The Jews in Jerusalem would know of these sites (Baal-Zephon/Ras el Ballah, etc.) via caravan merchants as they served as major sign posts along the way for the caravans plying their trade goods back and forth between Canaan/Judah and Egypt. The Jews apparently, by 562-560 BC when Genesis-2 Kings appears in its final format, understood that Yam Suph extended from in front of Egypt (Exodus 13:18; 14:21-22, 27) to the Solomonic ports of Elath and Ezion-Geber (Nu 33:35, 36, De 2:8, 2 Ch 20:36); a "huge" sea indeed, in their imagination, but they had, in error, confounded and conflated the reed marshes of Menzaleh, Ballah/Moyeh, Karash/Kraieh, Timsah and the Bitter Lakes with the gulfs of Suez and Aqabah. So the crossing of a shallow marsh ford under the eastern slopes of Ras el Ballah (my Baal-Zephon), which on occasion was probably dry, became Israel crossing the Reed Sea/Yam Suph extending from before Egypt all the way to Edom! In other words, because a great sea was envisioned as east of Egypt and extending to Edom, the crossing on dry land of this sea under the slopes of Baal-Zephon (Ras el Ballah) became Israel's God performing a wonderous miracle, allowing his people to flee Egyptian bondage. The humble marsh-ford at Ras el Ballah (Baal-Zephon) had _mistakenly_ come to be envisioned as the great depths of the sea of Suez and Aqaba and because of this error, a mighty miracle had been performed by God, the drying up of the Reed Sea for his people's benefit and salvation. I just now finally realized that the _only_ event that people would regard as "a miracle" would be the sudden drying up of a portion of Lake Menzaleh for a distance of 7 miles as reported by Tulloch. That is to say the sea that dried up under a wind's influence _is_ Lake Menzaleh rather than the Ballah inlet! Imagine yourself in the center of circle 7 miles in diameter: whichever direction you turn and face: north, east, south or west for a distance of 3 1/2 miles all you see is lake bottom where formerly there was water (assuming you can see 3 1/2 miles away). This would have to be regarded as a miraculous event worth remembering and recounting to anyone you chanced to come into contact with. To the degree that the Ballah Inlet is an extension of Menzaleh the two lakes probably came to conflated together into one great sea, Yam Suph, extending from Menzaleh to Edom. That is to say miracle of an east wind drying up the eastern half Menzaleh came to be conflated with the drying up of the Ras el Ballah ford which is an extension of the eastern half of Menzaleh. The main road from Egypt to Canaan and Judah passes by the east side of this lake. The local natives would surely pass on to the caravans passing over Qantara to Egypt the story of their Reed Sea (marshland) being dried up for a distance of eight miles by a wind and the caravaneers and merchants would pass this story on to the Jews in Jerusalem. So the Red Sea (Reed Sea, Yam Suph) that dried up was Lake Menzaleh, or at least a portion of it, probably the eastern part near Qantara. As the Qantara traderoute is the _major_ track leaving Egypt for Canaan and the most famous of the tracks going to and from Egypt, it would make sense that the Jews would associate the leaving of Egypt by their ancestors with this track which skirts the southeast edge of Lake Menzaleh. So the drying up Menzaleh or a part of it _plus_ a major track leaving Egypt for Canaan, became Israel's Egyptian Exodus and the miracle of the drying up of the Reed Sea; the east side of Manzela is very shallow and not navigable and is full of marshes, reeds, and miry mud-flats under Moses. There is a problem: The Qantara crossing is on the biblical "way to the land of the Philistines" which the Bible says Israel did _not_ take (Ex 13:17). This leaves, then, by default, the Ras el Ballah route as the body of water Israel crossed north of Etham (Et-Timsah?) and Marah (the Bitter Lakes?). Coptic pi-akhirot "place where the sedge grows" is another suggestion for Pi-ha`hiroth's Egyptian etymology (cf. the Jewish Encyclopedia on the internet). Sedge embraces various forms of marsh-growing plants including reeds and grasses. The appearance of a marsh with grasses and reeds in the midst of the Isthmus of Suez at Ras el Ballah and the El Kraieh marsh would be a remarkable sight for caravans crossing an otherwise arid wilderness from Judah to Egypt and would serve as a reference point for caravans which would cross this marsh-ford for Egypt. Below, a map (1848) showing that two caravan tracks leaving Egypt for the town of Katieh (Qatieh) in the Sinai cross the Ballah inlet, an extension of Lake Menzaleh. The German cartographer has grossly over simplified this area as revealed in the above 1797-1798 maps of this region by Napoleon's cartographers, nevertheless, in _both_ cases, a track must cross a body of water, the Ballah inlet. The northern track crosses the water at Qantara (on pre 1860 maps rendered Kantara or Tresor), the southern track crosses the Ballah inlet between Ras el Ballah, west of the inlet and Bir Abu Ruk (1797 Bir Abou rouq) east of the inlet. Red circles mark the possible sites for the crossing of the Red Sea (the Ballah inlet) on each of the below maps. The northern crossing of the Ballah inlet at Qantara is on the biblical "way to the land of the Philistines," a route the Bible says Israel did _not_ take (Ex 13:17), leaving by "default" the southern crossing of the Ballah inlet at Ras el Ballah. This map shows the area about Tineh (et-Tineh) and Pelusium (not on this map) were marshy and subject to inundations of the Nile before the Suez Canal was built. In this very area in 1882 near the mouth of the Suez Canal, Lake Manzelah's bottom was exposed for 7 miles by an east wind. Below, 1832 map, John Arrowsmith, London, notes "Inundations of the Nile" from Lake Menzaleh to Birket el Karash (El Kraieh marsh on 1885 map) south of Birket el Ballah. Below, 1853 map, Heinrich Keipert, Germany showing three tracks crossing the Ballah inlet. There are _two_ northern tracks from Taphne (Biblical Tahpanes, a colony of Greek mercenaries; Arabic: Safnas on an 1802 map) one to Pelusium the other to Katieh via the "Ruins of Magdolum" (Tell es Smoot on other 19th century maps). The third track is at Bir Abu Ruk (1797-1799 Bir Abou rouq) near the south end of Lake Ballah. For those wishing to argue Baal-Zephon is recalling Greek Dafnae, biblical Tahpanes, Arabic Safnas (1802 map) and Migdol being Tell es Smoot/Classical Magdolum (?) the Qantara land bridge would be "the crossing point" of the Red Sea. The second possible location for the crossing of the Red Sea would be at Ras el Ballah (Baal-Zephon?). Undoubtedly the Qantara crossing is the "major" exit point from Egypt, it was heavily guarded and several Forts or Migdols exist near this route that could be the Bible's Migdol. In favor of Qantara over Ras el Ballah is that the Qantara land bridge is nearer to the drying-up of Lake Menzaleh by a wind and the landbridge's height would provide a better view for Israel when she crossed over it on dry land and saw two walls of water on either side of her, the left-hand wall of water would be Lake Manzaleh and its marshes on its eastern periphery while the right-hand wall of water would be the Ballah inlet and its marshes. Against the Qantara proposal is that this land bridge never was submerged so an east wind pushing back waters here is not called for. Also against this proposal is that Qantara is part of the Way to the land of the Philistines, a route not taken by Israel. Both bodies of water (Menzaleh and Ballah) possess marsh and reeds making them candidates for the Reed Sea or Yam Suph. The Ballah inlet is part of Lake Menzaleh, in Jewish eyes, when Israel crossed "the sea that dried up by a wind" (the eastern shore of Menzaleh) this sea existed on both the Menzaleh and Ballah sides of the crossing point. Some notes on Yam Suph: Yam Suph (the Reed Sea) for the Exilic narrator (562-560 BC) apparently embraced (1) the marshes of Lake Menzaleh, (2) the marshes of Birket Ballah, (3) the marshes of Birket Karach/Karash, (4) the marshes at Birket Timsah, (5) the marshes of the two bitter lakes, (6) the gulf of Suez, and (7) the gulf of Aqabah. When Israel left Rameses she headed for the "way of the wilderness of Yam Suph" (Ex 13:18) at Etham (Ex 13:20), Birket Timsah, today's Et-Timsah, a marshy lake which periodically received its freshwater via Nile inundations before the Suez Canal was constructed in the 1860s. Then Israel turns about to Pi-ha`hiroth and camps at Yam Suph (Ex 14:1-2) leading Pharaoh to think they are lost in the wilderness west of Yam Suph, from Pi-ha`hiroth to Etham (Ex 14:3). After crossing Pi-ha`hiroth/Yam Suph they backtrack three days to Marah via the wilderness of Shur named after Abu Suweir (?) west of Lake et-Timsah where caravan routes intersect each other, today's Isthmus of Suez from Qantara to the Bitter Lakes called Murrah, meaning "bitter" in Arabic (Ex 15:23). However this 3 day backtrack is called the wilderness of Etham in Numbers 33:8. Both are correct as Shur (Hebrew shuwr) is probably Abu-Suweir-by-Lake-Et-Timsah. I suspect that Suweir/Timsah are but alternate names for the Isthmus of Suez between Ras el Ballah and Marah (the Bitter Lakes). Then Israel camps at Elim (Ayun Musa?), day 4 since the Red Sea crossing at Ras el Ballah ( Ex 15:27), Day 5 Israel camps at Yam Suph, south of Elim/Ayun Musa on the shore of the gulf of Suez (Nu 33:10-11), then they camp in the Wilderness of Sin (Nu 33:11). Israel later leaves Kadesh-Barnea to camp at Ezion-Geber on the Yam Suph (Nu 33:35-36). Numbers 21:4 has Israel at Mount Hor near Arad in the Negeb and Edom when Israel journeys to ":the way to the Red Sea" (Ezion-Geber). By comparing Exodus 14 with the Numbers 33 itinerary it is obvious to me that Yam Suph was _incorrectly envisioned_ as extending from Lake Menzaleh to the Gulf of Aqabah and Edom without any landbridge breaks in it (land passages do exist south of Ballah, south of Karach/Karash, south of Timsah, and south of the Bitter Lakes above the Suez Gulf but the Exilic narrator apparently was unaware of them. It is the pushing back of the sea's waters by a powerful east wind that allows Israel to escape Egypt and cross over into the Sinai. Because of the depth of Yam Suph at Elath and Ezion-Geber (the Gulf of Aqabah) Pharoh's army was portrayed as sinking in the depths of the sea when it returned to its strength in the morning watch when the wind stopped blowing (not a tidal action, not a tsunami, but an east wind setdown). The reality was that the shallow waters, varying from one to five feet on Lake Menzaleh's east side were what was blown away by a wind, but the Exilic narrator was apparently unaware of this, he knew only of Yam Suph/Aqabah's deep waters. The below map from the Bible and Spade website, based on Hoffmeier's research (figure 1. James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai, the Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford University Press. 2005). I reject the notion of there being 3 Ballah Lakes as the maps made before the 1865 Suez Canal changed the Ballah topography reveal it was merely an inlet of Lake Menzaleh, the crossing of the Red Sea being Ras el Ballah, "the headland of Ballah," or "Cape Ballah," a prominent height or elevation west of the Ballah inlet crossing.Hoffmeier shows the Qantara landbridge area as being the site for Israel's crossing of the Reed Sea, yet the Bible says Israel avoided this location as it was part of the "way to the land of the Philistines." Contra Hoffmeier I understand that the area north of Qantara was periodically covered in water from Nile inundations, a shallow freshwater lake with marsh grasses and reeds and that this is "where" the sea's bottom was exposed by a wind for 7 miles as noted by Tulloch. So via a series of errors, not understanding the real geography of Yam Suph, the shallow marshes east of Egypt were confused and conflated with the depths of Yam Suph at Elath and Ezion-Geber (the Gulf of Aqabah). I find rather ironic that this confused geography is a "foundation stone" of sorts for Judaism, Christianity and Islam: Israel's Red Sea Crossing via a wind blowing back a sea's waters exposing its bed. Below, my route of the Exodus in pink marker -compare it with Hoffmeier's above map- Hoffmeier has the Crossing of the Reed Sea in the northern sector of Ballah, "the way to the land of the Philistines," whereas I have the crossing in the southern sector of Ballah; from Goshen (Fakoos) to Etham (Birket Tamsah, modern Lake Et-Timsah), "turning about" from Etham at the "edge of the wilderness" (lands receiving Nile water) to Pi-ha`hiroth by Baal-Zephon (Ras el Ballah, "the headland of Ballah," not on this map but west of the track crossing the southern tip of Birket Ballah, west of Beer Mooktool/Migdol (?). I associate the waters (mayim, can mean both water or waters) of Marah with the two Bitter Lakes called Murrah, the Septuaginta's Merra (for the map cf. Keith Alexander Johnston, London, 1861 Map at the David Rumsey Historical Maps Archive on the internet). Note: The ancient Egyptian language did not have the letter "L" instead they used "R." The word Baal-Zephon however does appear in inscriptions found in Egypt, not in Egyptian, but in _Greek_ at Tell Defenneh (Greek: Dafnae), a settlement for Greek mercenaries to guard Egypt's borders circa the 7th-6th centuries BC and into Greek Ptolemaic times of the the 3rd-1st centuries BC. This suggests for me that the word Baal-Zephon is really Greek, circa the 7th-6th century BC (the Exodus account being written in the Exile, in Babylonia circa 562-560 BC during the reign of the Neo-Babylonain King Evil-Merodach, Amel-Marduk, who reigned between those dates cf. 2 Kings 25:27), not Egyptian, and is "marker" that the Exodus account is very late (not written by Moses circa 1445-1404 BC for some Conservative Protestant scholars) and after the 7th century BC and settlement of Greek mercenaries at Dafnae (Jeremiah's circa 572 BC Tahpanhes Jer 43:7-9; 44:1; 46:14). Migdol or "fort" in Egyptian would be Maktar or Magtar. Jeremiah suggests that following the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians some Jews fled to Tahpanhes, where they would have come into contact with accounts in Greek of a Baal-Zephon. It is also possible that Greek mercenaries stationed in Judah to pacify it after Egypt conquered it (after killing king Josiah at Megiddo who opposed them) the Jerusalem Jews learned of a "Ras Ballah" in the northern part of the Isthmus near a major trade route going into Egypt. The Wikipedia on Baal-Zephon in Greek texts: "Gmirkin (2006) also notes that a Ptolemaic era geographical text in the Cairo Museum mentions the sites Baal Zephon and Migdol, listing four border guard stations and fortresses, the third being called 'Migdol and Baal Zephon thought to be located on a route to the Red Sea Coast..." Judaica Encyclopedia. Gale Group. Jewish Virtual Library: "BAAL-ZEPHON... is identified with a Migdal Baal-Zephon mentioned in a papyrus from the Hellenistic period (Cairo papyrus 31169)... W. F. Albright has identified Baal-Zephon with the Egyptian port Taḥpanḥes (Daphne). Michael Avi-Yonah BIBLIOGRAPHY: O. Eissfeldt, Baal Zaphon… (Ger., 1932); Bourdon, in: RB, 41 (1932), 541ff.; Albright, in: BASOR, 118 (1950), 17; EM, 2 (1965), 291–2; Aharoni, Land, 179; M. Dothan, in: Eretz-Israel, 9 (1969), 48–59. ADD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: H. Niehr, DDD, 152–54. Below, two maps of the Qantara area, 1826, Paris Map. "Canal de Suez," Sheet 31, Surveyed 1797-1799. Blue is deep water, blue lines on yellow is shallower water. Marshes exist on many of the "islands" scattered all about. The Orange line is the Qantir route from Salhieh on the eastern edge of the Delta to Qatieh in the northern Sinai east of Pelusium. The Pink route links Salhieh to Qatieh as well but it passes the east side of the Ballah inlet and crosses via a shallow ford at the southend of the Ballah inlet east of Ras el Ballah for Salhieh. In either case, a "reed sea" or "marsh" must be _forded_ on both routes leaving Salhieh, Egypt for Qatieh in the northern Sinai. That is to say, one cannot get away from the Egyptians without "crossing" (fording) a reed sea or marsh (Yam Suph, the Reed Sea?) at either Qantara or Ras el Ballah. Below, a map of 1885 showing the Suez Canal traversing the Ballah Inlet. It is more detailed than the preceding French map surveyed in 1797-1799. "Ras el Ballah el Ras el Moyeh" is shown as being to the west of six small lakes, ponds, or pools. "Missing" on the below map is the track from Bir Abou Rouq to Ras el Ballah going to Salhieh on the 1797-1799 survey. The below map however shows the marshes of El Kraieh as extending to the six pools. When the missing track from the 1799 survey is superimposed on the below 1885 map it appears that the track passed between the six pools. Perhaps El Kraieh preserves Pi-ha`hiroth rendered by some as Pi-ha`Chiroth or Pi-ha`Khiroth? If so, then Israel, camped "before" Pi-ha`Khiroth, is on the west side of the six pools of water on the below map, then, later, she passes between them (?) to Bir Abou Rouq. Migdol is Bir el Makdal "at the end of the track" from Salhieh, Ras el Ballah, and Bir Abou Rouq. The 1799 survey reveals two important tracks from Bir el Makdal to Egypt: (1) The northeastern track: Makdal, Rouq, Ras el Ballah, Salhieh; (2) Belbeis via Wadi Tumilat to Makdal. So biblical Migdol, is a key reference point for caravans to and from the Egyptian delta from Salhieh and Belbeis and I believe it is a reference point for the location of Pi-ha-Khiroth (the marsh of El Kraieh 1885), bounded on the north by Ras el Ballah (Baal-Zephon?) and on the east by the track from Makdal to Ras el Ballah from Bir el Makdal (Migdol?). Click here to visit the below interactive version of the map allowing scrolling and magnifying. The Graeco-Roman Geographer Strabo said that areas of marsh and pools were called barathra, were the 6 pools at Ras el Ballah called barathra? Ezekiel's Pi-beseth in Egypt was called by the Greeks Bubastis, apparently Hebrew pi- can become Greek bu-? Is barathra a Greek rendering of Pi-ha-hiroth, the six pools of Ras el Ballah in a marshy setting? If so, then the Pi-ha`hiroth Israel camped "before" was the six barathra pools surrounded by marsh east of Ras el Ballah. Strabo (Geography. Bk. 17.1.19-21): "Pelusium itself is surrounded by marshes and pools, which some call clefts or pits (barathra)." (p. 42. Vol. xliv. Robert Jameson. The Edinburgh New Philosophocal Review. Edinburgh, Scotland. October 1847 to April 1848) TANAKH, The Holy Scriptures (1985. Philadephia & New York. The Jewish Publication Society): Exodus 14:2 "Tell the Israelites to turn back and encamp before Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, before Baal-zephon; you shall encamp facing it, by the sea...the Egyptians ...overtook them encamped by the sea, near Pi-hahiroth, before Baal-zephon...a strong east wind all that night...turned the sea into dry ground. The waters were split, and the Israelites went into the sea on dry ground, the waters forming a wall for them on their right and on their left...at daybreak the sea returned to its normal state..." Numbers 33:7-8 "They set out from Etham and turned about toward Pi-hahiroth, which faces Baal-zephon, and they encamped before Migdol. They set from Pene-hahiroth [Pi-hahiroth] and passed through the sea into the wilderness; and they made a three-days' jpurney in the wilderness of Etham and encamped at Marah." Pi-ha`hiroth is "between" Migdol and the sea: The marsh of el Karieh is between Bir el Makdal (Migdol) and the el Ballah lake. Alternately, if the 6 pools east of Ras el Ballah are Barathra/Pihahiroth, they are "between" Bir el Makdal on the east and Ras el Ballah on the west. Israel camps before Pi-ha`hiroth: Israel is on the westside of the northern opening to the El Kraieh marsh; alternately, if the 6 pools are bartahra/pihahiroth, Israel camps west of these pools. Israel is also camped "before" the sea and "before" Baal-Zephon: Israel is east of Ras el Ballah and west of the Ballah inlet, 6 pools and El Karieh marsh opening. Numbers 33:7-8 Pi-hahiroth "faces" Baal-zephon: East of Ras el Ballah is the northern opening of the El Kraieh marsh (Pi-ha-Khiroth?) and the 6 pools (barathra/pihahiroth?). Israel camps before Migdol: Israel is on the westside if the Ballah marsh-ford and on the track which will take them to Pi-ha`hiroth (the northern opening of the El Kraieh marsh and 6 pools or barathra/pihahiroth) and will also continue to the end of the track at Bir el Makdal (Migdol is before Israel as it is at the end of the track Israel will use to cross Yam Suph (Ballah marsh) south of Baal-zephon (Ras el Ballah?) to arrive at Pi-ha`hiroth. Pharaoh's pursuit of Israel is from Salhieh, said track crossing the Ballah marshes and splitting near Ras el Ballah (Baal-zephon?) one track goes north to Qatieh, or east to Bir Abou Rouq and Bir el Makdal (Migdal?) from which point Israel will turn south to the Bitter Lakes (Arabic: Murrah, biblical Marah?). Below: 24 November 2009 12:10 Noon, my proposal for the "Crossing of the Red Sea": The pink marker is my proposal for Israel's route from Qantir (Rameses?) in Goshen (Faqous?), via Salhieh to Etham (Lake Et-Timsah?) at the edge of the wilderness, then, from Etham, "turning back" to Yam Suph the "Reed Sea" at the Ballah marshes. Israel camps west of the Ballah marsh at the very end of the track from Salhieh (ancient Pharaonic Sile?), from which Pharaohs traditionally launched their military campaigns with chariots into Philista, Canaan and Syria. Israel waits like "bait" on this track for Pharaoh's direct arrival from Salhieh (track of small red circles). The track from Salhieh ends at Ras el Ballah (Baal-Zephon?); normally Pharaoh's army would turn north at Ras el Ballah, paralleling the east shore of the Ballah marsh inlet (Yam Suph?) to Qatieh and on to Syria. Upon Pharaoh's arrival Israel crosses the marsh ford south of Ras el Ballah on the track headed for Bir Abou Rouq; the sea is envisioned as engulfing Pharaoh's army at this ford south of Ras el Ballah. Israel continues from Pihahiroth, the north opening to the el Kraieh marsh (Marais de Karach) to Bir el Makdal (Migdal?) where she turns south on the track going to the Bitter Lakes, Arabic Murrah (the waters of Marah). As this track from Bir el Makdal to Marah is "east of Lake Et-Timsah," this wilderness is called alternately the wilderness of Etham or of Shur. Why Shur? There exists a track from Judah's Negeb crossing the Sinai and terminating near Lake Et-Temsah called by the bedouin the "Darb es Shuwr, "the way to Shuwr." Probably referring to Bir Abou Suweir on the north side of Wady Tumilat, just west of Lake Timsah, where several caravan tracks intersect each other for different parts of Egypt. The below map is sheet No. 2. Printed 1818 at Paris France. The Cartographic Survey was done circa 1797-1799 by Napoleon Bonoparte's Army personnel. "...the geographical setting of Exodus 14 is the area between the north side of the el-Ballah Lake system and the southern tip of the eastern lagoon... (p. 108. James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford University Press. 2005) Hoffmeier's below map of the Crossing of the Red Sea is at the northern tip of Ballah Lakes (dark gray area) the light gray area is "wetlands," from Abu Sefeh to Ahmar and T-78 Migdol of Seti (?) (figure 10. James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford University Press. 2005) To get one's bearings have a look at the location of Tell el-Herr on the above maps 1797-1865. Note: Hoffmeier's below map suggests that Lake Menzaleh (including the sites of et-Tineh and Pelusium) did _not_ exist in Ramesside times as he has the Mediterranean Sea near a "paleo-lagoon" and the Ballah Lake. An eastwind setdown would then (if this map is correct?) be limited to the lagoon and Ballah Lake. Hoffmeier's notion that the Pelusium mud flats did not exist appears to be indebted to a map by the Egyptologist Manfred Bietak (cf. Fig. 1. "Map of the Eastern Delta and a reconstruction of the ancient environment and Nile branches." facing p. 3. Manfred Bietak. Avaris, The Capital of the Hyksos, Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab'a. London. British Museum Press. 1996). There is a problem, the Bible says that a "wall" of water appeared on either side of Israel as she crossed the dried up sea (Ex 14:29) and the Hebrew term suggests for some scholars the waters were "piled" or "heaped up" like a fortress wall. In this situation, we have a "miracle" as such does _not_ occur in Nature! Wind set down can push water back from a broad area but it can _not_ make a dry path in the middle of a sea with water piled up 7-30 feet or more like a high fortress wall as shown in the below pictures of the Crossing of the Red Sea by Israel: Below, a modern map of the sea area and of Lake Menzaleh where in late January of 1882 seven miles of lake bottom were exposed by a powerful east wind according to Major-General Tulloch. Below, a panorama view of Lake Menzaleh. Tanis (red square) is ancient Zoan where Israel dwelt and Moses performed God's miracles before Pharaoh (Psalm 78:12,43 ). Below a map showing this area was subject to flooding by the Nile as late as 1856 before the Suez Canal was built, its dark mud being recognized by DeLesseps on his visit to Pelusium, as being left by Nile inundations. In December the mud flats had dried and hardened allowing men and camels to walk where once there was a sea, the Menzaleh Lake being called a "sea" or Bahr in Arabic (For the below map cf. figure 19. James K. Hoffmeier. Ancient Israel in Sinai, The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. Oxford University. 2005) Note: The dark line going from viewer's left to right is the remains of Pelusiac branch of the Nile ending near ancient Pelusium (Farama). The dark line going from bottom to top is the "eastern canal" ending in the vicinity of et-Tineh (Perhaps Pharonic Ta-Denit "The Dividing Water"? seen as Egypt's border?) Below, a map of Lake Menzaleh showing it lined by reeds and swamp grasses in Graeco-Roman times. Tanis is biblical Zoan where Israel dwelt (Psalm 78:12, 43) and it lies on a channel from the Nile lined in reeds emptying into Menzaleh, probably on this channel Moses was placed among the reeds in a reed basket. ….