Using Manetho to prove Cheops of Herdotus was Kufu

I'm no longer as inclined to believe any typical fringe theories about the Great Pyramid (and the other two Giza Pyramids).  I don't think it was a Monument to Yahuah, I don't think it has anything to do with Isaiah 19, I don't think it's Pre-Flood or built by Enoch, nor built by Noah or Shem or Melchizedek or Abraham or Joseph or Moses.

I still have doubts about the evidence for identifying it's builder as Kufu of the 4th Dynasty.  But if it wasn't Kufu, I'm now inclined to be the opposite of most fringe theories and say I think it's younger not older then the traditional view.   That it's absurd to think the most impressive Pyramids predate many inferior ones.

For one thing if you take Herodotus' account in the context of his full Egyptian narrative, it makes it younger than the Fall of Troy.  His Cheops is later then his Sesostris who he identifies as the contemporary of the Fall of Troy.

I see the logic of how Kufu can become Cheops etymologically, but I still feel it's shaky.  The big issue is when people use Manetho as a smoking gun on that identification.  First off Manetho highly criticized Herdotus elsewhere, he hated his narrative of Egypt.

And who knows if these details were added by transcribers.  These same transcribers have Manetho identify Memnon of the Trojan War with an Amenhotep, but Josephus makes no such reference discussing the same dynasty in Manetho.

When discussing the Fourth Dynasty, Manehto as transcribed by Eusebius says.

Of these the third was Suphis, the builder of the Great Pyramid, which Herodotus says was built by Cheops. Suphis conceived a contempt for the gods, but repenting of this, he composed the Sacred Book, which the Egyptians hold in high esteem.

This can equally be interpreted as attacking Herodutus and saying this guy not Cheops built it.

That account is interesting in light of claims the Great Pyramid builder wasn't following the normal Egyptian religion.  What Archeology tells us about Kufu doesn't fit that legend however.

A quote attributed to Manetho but that is not authentically Ancient is circulating the Net saying the Hyksos built the Great Pyramid.  This quote seems adapted from what Josephus quotes as it firmly misidentifies the Hyksos as Israelites.  But Josephus doesn't mention the Great Pyramid.  It doesn't even seem to come from the Book of Sothis which is at least medieval.

Theorists using this don't want to make the Pyramid younger though, so they attempt to say the Second Intermediate period Hyksos weren't the only Hyksos and that the 4th Dynasty Pharaohs were Hyksos too.  They do this by misquoting the start of Manetho's Fourth Dynasty account 

"The Fourth Dynasty comprised seventeen kings of Memphis belonging to a different royal line. "  

As saying 

"The Fourth Dynasty comprised seventeen kings of Memphis belonging to a different race."  

See the difference?

Osiris and Horus may be mentioned in The Bible, but they're not Nimrod or Tammuz

We don't know for sure how any Egyptian words or names were properly pronounced, we have their scripts which like Hebrew did not represent vowels, and since no one's spoken it in at least 2000 years, the precise pronunciations are lost.

And with many names our most common default forms of them are filtered through Greek sources, which among other things often ended names with an S that didn't in their native language (this has also influenced our pronunciations of Jesus and Moses who in Hebrew are Yeshua and Moshe).  And among the Egyptian names subject to this are Osiris, Isis and Horus, none of whom end with an S in Egyptian inscriptions.

I've long noticed many names of Egyptian gods happen to look and sound a lot like Hebrew words but usually with very different meanings.  Particularly the fact that Ra sounds like a Hebrew word for evil (Strongs number 7451).

I find Set/Seth being known by that name interesting, like there was an attempt to deliberately Corrupt the history of Genesis 4 by giving the name of Seth to someone who committed Cain's sin.

A Hebrew etymology for Toth/Thoth is easy to imagine too, just use two Teths or a Tau and a Teth, and maybe a Vav in between.

The most probable correct form of Isis is Aset or Iset.  Not quite identical to any Hebrew name, but makes sense as being related to the names of Ashteroth/Astarte and Ishtar/Easter, the Near East equivalents to Isis.  Perhaps Strong numbers 6245 or 6247 are Hebrew word Aset could have come from.

The letters that spell Osiris seem to be, Wsjr, with suggested pronunciations being Asar, Yasar, Aser, Asaru, Ausar, Ausir, Wesir, Usir, Usire, and Ausare.  This website, proposes Oh-SEAR, Ou-SEAR or Oh-SEAR-ee.

The Hebrew spelling that would most likely be used for Wsjr would be Vav-Shin-Yot-Resh.  That is basically a form of Seir with a Vav added at the beginning as a Prefix.  Vav can be used as a Prefix, the reference to Dan in Ezekiel 27 uses a Vav as a Prefix in the Hebrew.

The connection between Seir and Osiris I've noted before, it's on Wikipedia.  But I had originally thought that was an alternate name, now I see that the name Osiris itself may come from Seir.

What Seir means in Hebrew is Goat.  Banebdjedet (The Goat of Mendes), the Egyptian Goat-god (sometimes mistakenly called a Ram-god) must have originally been an aspect of Osiris since he's also the father of Horus The Child, and shrines to Osiris and his mythical ancestors exist in his main Temple.  And the Book of the Heavenly Cow calls the Goat of Mendes the Ba(Soul) of Osiris.

On the Wkipedia page the suggested Egyptian meaning for Seir is Prince.  One Hebrew word for Prince is Sar, which in Hebrew is two letters, S-R, Seir arguably comes from adding a vowel like letter between the two letters that spell Sar

Horus is really Hor or Haru.  Which could very likely equate in Hebrew to Hor, Hori, Horite/Horim and Horeb.  All place or tribal names in or near Edom.

Seir is a name linked to Edom but it was first the name of a Horite, the people who lived in Edom's land before Esau, who were there at least as early as Genesis 14.  While Seir is called a Horite, I think that name comes from his grandson Hori, mentioned in Genesis 36:20.

Hori is the son of Lotan and Lotan the son of Seir.  So how did the grandson become a son?

Well Lotan is not used in The Bible besides this name, but it's used in Pagan Canaanite texts of Ugarit as a seven headed Dragon that Baal destroyed, and possibly a form of Yam, Baal's brother.  Comparative mythology tends to compare Lotan to both Leviathan/Rahab and Typhon of Greek mythology.  We know from Manetho that the Greeks of Egypt often identified Typhon with Set.  And some references to Rahab are taken as seeming like references to Egypt.

So how did Seir's son become his brother?  It's not uncommon in antiquity including in The Bible for a Son to take as his wife a wife or concubine of his father, but usually not the one who's his mother, to secure succession.  It was also often common to call any wife poetically a sister.

Maybe a rumor persisted that Hori was actually fathered by Seir, even though it should have been chronologically clear he was conceived after Seir died.  Horus in Egyptian mythology was conceived after Osiris died.

Hori's brother was Hemam, what the Strongs says for entries 1967 and 1968 implied Hemem is related to Aman, which is in turn related to Amon.  So perhaps this name is connected to the Egyptian god Amon.

Timna is refereed to as the sister of Lotan.  Set also had a Sister-Wife, Nephthys (or Hebet Het, or Nepthet), but it seems like a not very real Marriage, they didn't have any kids, and both are often linked to Homosexuality.  I think maybe the assumption that this Timna and the mother of Amalek are the same could be mistaken, and she really lived much earlier.  Or perhaps this connection is a factor in why the Hyksos favored the worship of Set.

If Aholibamah is a descendant rather then direct daughter of Anah, then Seir could well have lived long before Esau or even Abraham.

Maybe the Egyptian name for the Moon, Iah or Aah, could come from Ajah/Aiah, which is not a Yah theophoric name but can easily be confused for one, it comes from the Hebrew word for Hawk or Kite or Vulture.  The Egyptian moon god, Khonsu's name is spelled with Hieroglyphics that resemble similar kinds of birds.

Only problem is Genesis does not connect the Horites to Egypt, they seem to be Canaanites not Mizriamites.  But they are near Israel's border with Egypt, and Egypt had a more diverse population then most realize.  And if Velikovsky is right that Canaan is Ta Netjer "God's Land", there is evidence the Egyptians viewed Ta Netjer as their ancestral Home Land.  This article discuses how many people groups made up Pre-Dynastic Egypt, and at least one came from Asia, though because of their conventional bias that's not the group they think came from Ta Netjer.

Egypt is called in The Bible the Land of Ham in Psalms 105 and 106, and one of Egypt's names for itself, Khem, is more similar to Ham then Misraim.  Maybe all of Ham's sons had connections to Egypt.  1 Chronicles 4:40 when recording Simeon's much later migration to Edomite territory says "for they of Ham had dwelt there of old".  Why say Ham and not Canaanites?  Maybe this verse specifically means Ham in the sense of Egypt being the Land of Ham?

Seir had many sons according to Genesis 36, perhaps it was mainly descendants of Lotan who came to Egypt, while the others mostly stayed in what would become Edom.

The myths about Osiris-Set-Horus in their most common forms talk as if they are taking place in Egypt.  But it's natural that would happen.  If Ta Neteru is called the "land of the gods" it must mean the gods lived there.

Horus was the son of Osiris and his successor who defeated Set.  That is well known but what isn't as well known is that the Turin Papyrus lists a second Horus reigning at the end of the dynasty of the gods, between the two are Thoth and Maat.  Even less well known is that Horus's wife Hathor is depicted in the Dendera Temple as bearing him a son named Ihy who is also called Hor-seme-tawy, or Horus the Younger.

The earliest known ruler of Pre-Dynastic Egypt that archaeology has uncovered is Iry-Hor in Upper Egypt.  I think he is Ihy/Horus the Younger. 

Going back to the name of Osiris.  Another possibility enters my mind, that maybe the prefix part before the Seir could give a meaning that could justify meaning he's a son or descendant of Seir, maybe specifically the Firstborn. 

The name in Egyptian mythology for the father of Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephthys is Geb, which means Earth, but he's male unlike other Earth deities which were goddesses.  It could easily comes from an Egyptian translation of them being called sons or daughters of Adam, who's name means Human, Red and Earth.  Which makes the coincidence of Set's name even more interesting.  Either way it's likely at this point the genealogy becomes purely mythological.

Another Egyptian meaning proposed for Osiris name is "the place of doing or creation", meaning the idea is right there that it is also a place name.  Seir was a sacred site in Edom, both for Pagans and Monotheists as it is linked Biblically to Yahuah.  Could people of that region have thought it was the site of Adam's creation?  The sons of Seir are all called Dukes of the Horites, perhaps Lotan was the Duke of Mount Seir.  Ladon, another Lotan figure of Greek mythology coils around an Apple Tree in the Garden of Hesperides, this myth is the reason we came to think of the Forbidden Fruit as an Apple.

Lotan in Hebrew is assumed to mean covering, only place where it's root is used not as a name (Lot is the other name form of the root) is Isaiah 25:7, "And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations.".  Next verse sounds like it's about the end of Revelation 20 going into 21.  Basically Isaiah 25:7 could support a desire to affiliate the name of Lotan with Satan and/or the Antichrist, of whom we often view Osiris as a type.

However I also think it could be Tan, a root meaning Dragon, with an L as a prefix.  This fits the Lotan of mythology being a Dragon like monster.

The second son of Seir is Shobal, who's name begins with the same letter as Seth.

The Greeks often got things wrong in their identifications, it can be said the more accurate Typhon-Lotan figure of Egyptian mythology is Apep, a coiling Serpent.  Who is in fact the enemy of Set in the myths where Set isn't a villain.  Adding to that Set's affiliation with Storms and one could see him as very similar to the Canaanite Baal, which identification could be a factor in why the Asiatic Hyksos favored him.

Disagreeing with the Strongs proposed meaning for Shobal, which seems convoluted to me.  Perhaps it's a shorting of sorts of Seth-Baal?  And Lotan Ben-Seir Duke of the Horites of Mount Seir became the basis for both Osiris and Apep depending on how one viewed Shobal?  Osiris is often depicted with Green Skin, usually this is explained as him being a vegetation god, but I don't see the basis for that, maybe it's evidence he was once a Serpent god.

Certain Atlantis themed fringe theorists make a big deal of the idea that the god-kings ruled in a different land.  But they're not reliable sources, so it's only because of the verification I talked about above already that I know that claim has some small truth to it.  But their claim it's in specifically Manetho I can't find, nor can I find in Manetho the name "Auritean" or "Aulitean".  

They want to place the "Land of the gods" to the West so they can make it Atlantis.  This website on the subject however admits that Dr. Charleton Coon (who's Racist bias was also for Civilization coming from the West) says Osiris home was sometimes placed to the North rather then West.  Daniel 11 defined Ptolemaic Egypt as the South from the perspective of Israel, so it makes sense a Holy Land location like Seir might be viewed as the North from an Egyptian perspective.

The references to the West these people are drawing on is probably Amentu, the Egyptian name for the land of the Dead which also meant the West because they believed it was also where the Sun traveled from west to east during the night.

Many in Revised Chronology date the beginning of the first Dynasty of Egypt to around 2100 BC, I'd long noticed how that happens to corresponds with Ussher's date for the founding of Egypt in 2188 BC.  But I'm willing to date the first Dynasty's founding to a little before that.

Still however the Biblical Chronology I support places the time of Genesis 12 in 2322 BC, and 14 I'd say within a few years, a decade tops.  So I think Abraham's time in Egypt was probably what Archaeologists now call Pre-Dynastic Egypt.

We should remember that we use Pharaoh how we do largely because of The Bible, or how we perceive The Bible's use of it.  Ancient Egyptians didn't use it as a word for King, it was a word for the palace the King lived in.  So calling the leader of Egypt "Pharaoh" is equivalent to calling the President of the United States, The White House.  Which is pretty common, though we don't strictly mean an individual when we do it.

Basically the use of "Pharaoh" in Genesis 12 (which may have been just Moses editorial decision anyway, the word is only used by the narrative voice not in dialogue), does not contradict it being "Pre-Dynastic".  In fact I feel it does not even require a Monarchical form of Government, which could also be interesting to keep in mind reading Prophecies about Egypt that may or may not be about Modern/End Times Egypt (Like Isaiah 19, or Ezekiel 29-32).

Abraham died when Jacob and Esau were 15 in 2222 BC, their birth was in 2237 BC.

Going back to the possibly of Osiris meaning "of Seir".  I recently learned that Osiris and Isis show up later in Egyptian History then most realize, in the 5th Dynasty.  While Horus and Set were there from the start.  It came up on a Wikipedia talk page.

 J. Gwyn Griffiths pointed out long ago that there's no certain evidence of Isis and Osiris before the Fifth Dynasty. (There is some ambiguous evidence earlier than that, such as a relief from a shrine of Djoser that may depict the Ennead, which would imply that Isis and Osiris were around by then, but we can't be sure that's what it is.) Based on that and some inconsistencies in the Pyramid Texts' characterization of Osiris and Horus, Griffiths argued that the Horus–Seth rivalry was originally a separate tradition from the murder of Osiris and that the two were conjoined, producing the Osiris myth as we know it, sometime before the PT were written down. Egyptologists today generally seem to agree with this thesis, though it's hard to tell how widespread that acceptance is. Anyway, the impression I get is that during the Old Kingdom, Isis and Osiris emerged from obscurity and were tied in with kingship and the Horus–Seth conflict. By being connected with the king in the afterlife, Osiris became much more important, displacing deities like Anubis to become the premier god of the afterlife by the end of the Old Kingdom.

So maybe the Hor of Genesis 36 was originally the basis for both Osiris and Horus, but became split in two later.

Damien F. Mackey

Is a figure in Revised Chronology circles we need to be very cautious of.  He makes some good observations, but.....

It seems the work done on the now gone SpecialtyInterests site (which I always had mixed feelings on) was mostly his work.

But back then he mostly agreed with Velikovsky probably more then I do, but is now abandoning several pillars of Velikovsky's models while still it seems clinging to Hatsheput as the Queen of Sheba.

What is more dangerous however is his being involved in really weird theories saying certain Pharaohs of Egypt and Kings of Israel were the same persons.  He plays games with the Song of Solomon and Abishag to make her, Shulamith, the Queen of Sheba and Hatshebsut all the same person.  And make David Tuthmosis I.  That is simply wrong.

For The Song of Solomon, I have argued elsewhere that Solomon is not the Beloved and that Shulamith is his granddaughter Shelomith.

Psalm 45 may have a thematic parallel to the Song of Solomon, but I don't think it's about the same Romance since it would have been written by David before Solomon's reign began.

He actually responded to my Queen of Sheba article in some places.  Basically making an argument I already dealt with in advance, the Queen of Sheba does NOT need to be important by Secular standards.

What Jesus said about her requires no more then what the TNAK says.  Jesus mentioned her because she was Saved, Hatshebsut clearly never converted to Monotheism, but there is nothing to contradict the kingdoms of Yeman being Monotheistic at this time.

Update July 2017: On another Blog I discussed his theories about Tobit and Judith.

Sinai in Midian/Arabia

I've agreed before with placing Sinai in Midian and identifying it with Jabal El Lawz, and citing the research of Bob Cornuke to support that.

Recently I've read some critics of the view, fellow believers who are critics of it and who support the traditional site (or at least a Sinai Peninsula view), not Atheists.  Mainly two from the Idolphin website, Is Mt Sinai in Saudi Abrabia? and Problems with Mt Sinai in Saudi Arabia.

I'm not interested in addressing every criticism there, no one is perfect, and I'm very open to Sinai being not Jabal El Lawz but some other site in Midian or really anywhere in Arabia for reasons that will become clear later.  The main reason for favoring this mountain over other Midianite candidates is that it's the tallest.  1, only Extra Biblical sources say Sinai was the tallest, 2, things change and others might have been taller in the past.  I've recently developed an interest in Jabel al-Madhbah near Petra.

I've also been thinking, maybe Horeb and Sinai aren't the same mountain.  They certainly must be near each other though.

Nor am I as interested in denying that the traditional site has antiquity to it, maybe even before Helena though we're pretty much dependent on her word that a tradition already existed.

One argument against the traditional site not addressed is the significance of Edom not letting the Israelites pass through their land in Numbers 20.

First of all if they were coming from the Sinai Peninsula they would not have been dependent on Edom to enter the Promised Land from the South.  The Philistine lands at least were lands Edom wouldn't have ruled.

But second, Edom controlled everything between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, so if Israel couldn't pass through Edom how did they wind up east of the Jordan when the wandering was over?  And if you're going to object that maybe Edom didn't always control all the way to the Gulf of Aqaba then you are only further undermining the significance of not being allowed to pass through Edom being such an inconvenience and a large part of why they were stuck in this wilderness for 40 years.

I also do not see the necessity of crossing the Red Sea in the traditional view, and it often overlaps with the ridiculous "Sea of Reeds" argument, which only even works as a pun in English, the Hebrew is Yam Suf.  I've seen it claimed that Yam Suf refers specifically to the Gulf of Aqaba, but I'm not going to bet on that right now, but I know it includes that Gulf from references to Solomon's port on it in 1 Kings 9:26.

Also I personally have come to see the limited geography associated with the wandering even by Conruke and other Jabal El Lawz supporters as being pretty silly given this a 40 year wandering.  Yet if they were stuck in Sinai you have no choice but to limit it, and that limitation is the reason we became so used to viewing it's scale as so small.  Basically I think it's possible they wandered all over Arabia and Jordan.  The narrative parts of Exodus-Deuteronomy are mostly about specific situations and I do not think are a complete record of 40 whole years at all.   For a modern comparison, that is equivalent to from the Bicentennial, 1976, to this year (I'm writing this in late April 2016).  From the last year of Ford to the last year of Obama.  Also both World Wars happened in less then 40 years.

Arguing whether or not all of what we today call Sinai can be considered part of Egypt I would agree shouldn't be as big a deal.  But their certainty it was not has one big unacknowledged problem, that the Wadi Al-Arish is by any descent scholar known to be the the "River of Egypt" often refereed to as a Border of what was Promised to Abraham.  A few uninformed commentators will act like that is the Nile, but that idea is obviously absurd, clearly Egypt's heart was not it's border with Israel.

The allotments of Ezekiel 40-48 make clear the Sinai Peninsula was not part of what God promised to Israel.

They do not deny that Midian refers to land in North Western Saudi Arabia east of the Gulf of Aqaba.  But make all kinds of convoluted arguments to justify saying Jetho was a Priest East of Aqaba but his flocks were west of it.  His argument about Shepherds sometimes traveling long distances to tend their flocks is valid, in the modern world, and maybe in the ancient world, but that a Midanianite Priest wold have his flocks on effectively a different continent is ridiculous.

The first article attempts to use Exodus 18 and Numbers 10 to Prove Sinai was outside Midian.  Neither chapter says "Midian" in the verses cited, both are Midianite individuals talking while at Sinai of returning to their homeland.  Their homeland could very well have been a different part of Midian then where Sinai was.  Genesis 25:4 gives Midian 5 sons, and Numbers 31:8 divides Midian between 5 kings at this time.  (Speaking of Numbers 22, 25 and 31, how was Israel involved in a geo-political scenario that involved both Midian and Moab from the Sinai Peninsula?)  Bill Cooper in After The Flood (A book this same Website supports) says in Appendix 1 that the Kenites descended from Midian's son Henoch, why he thinks that is still unclear to me.

But it could be explained other ways too.  Like how when I go to Burlington, I've left Racine City but am still in Racine County.  Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 2 says Moses came to a City called Midian.

For dealing with what Paul said in Galatians 4:24-26, they cite a few ancient Greek sources that define Arabia in a way that includes the Sinai Peninsula.  While I would concede that allows sufficient room for doubt, but it's clear the majority of Roman and Jewish references to Arabia clearly do not include it. Also in-context Paul is linking the mountain to Hagar and Ishmael, who were never located west of the Dead Sea/Edom.

The second article cites Josephus quoting Apion in against Apion as saying Sinai was "Between Egypt and Arabia" and says if Josephus disagreed with that he would have said so.  Josephus had bigger concerns here then a geographical error.  And we can't be sure what Apion meant given how Arabia clearly means different things in different references, either way Apion certainly doesn't agree with the other sources they care so much about that defines Arabia broadly enough to put Sinai within it.

Overall Josephus supports Sinai in Midian.  That website is a little confused by what Jospehus means when he refers to Petra, and how that effects dating Josephus.  Petra was the capital of the Nabatean Kingdom already before Rome conquered it.  But that need not discredit it's overall point.

But either way Josephus doesn't settle the matter, I unlike most fellow Revised Chronologists think Josephus was wrong when he said the Queen of Sheba ruled Egypt.  And I already said an antiquity for the traditional view proves nothing.  I don't necessarily expect the correct view to have antiquity because eventually the Midianites became Pagans and Israel as a Kingdom never ruled where Sinai was.

The second article also mentions the Muslim origins of the Arabian Sinai theory to try and discredit it.  I'm not so reactionary that I need to reject anything Muslims have ever thought just because their religion has a horrible theology.  I think the Muslim view of the Desert of Paran is probably the correct one, as I argued for on my Prophecy Blog about the Wandering.

The first article likewise cites the traditional Sinai view derived placements of Paran, Kadesh Barnea and Seir to support their Sinai view.  Jerome and Eusebius were Pre-Islamic non Arabic Christians who placed Paran is Arabia Desteria.  Arabia Desteria is a far more precise Roman geographical term that can't be reinterpreted by citing the broadest possible meaning for Arabia.  It refers specifically to the vast Arabian desert between the Nabatean Kingdom (Jordan) and Arabia Felix (Yemen).  Meaning Saudi Arabia basically.  And there is no proposed site for Sear that is east of the Gulf of Aqaba.

They argue that the Kadesh Barnea location suggested by Jabal El Lawz supporters to fit the eleven day journey statement would, since Barnea is also cited as a border of Israel, place all of Edom in Israel.  They are overlooking that the Tribal Allotments of Joshua also gave Asher all of Phoenicia including Tyre and Zidon in Joshua 19:24-31, and the Trans-Jordan Tribes much of Ammon they never actually took.  Israel was supposed to subject all these people but failed to, that is part of the theme of Judges.

The eleven days journey is also less of an issue if it's a more Northern Midianite mountain.  And I often think our modern assumptions underestimate how far an Ancient could travel in a given time period, this effects my perspective on a number of things.

There is good reason to believe Teman is modern Ma'an.  And the way Habakkuk 3:3 parallels Deuteronomy 33:2 has me thinking Seir was in Teman.

So Sinai being in Midian remains the only Biblically viable option.

New Evidence for Tuthmosis III being Shishak

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/egyptian-amulet-bearing-name-of-pharaoh-found-in-soil-from-temple-mount/2016/04/19/

New Archaeological Evidence for Hezikiah

http://mysteriousearth.net/archaeologists-reaffirmed-the-reality-of-the-kingdom-of-judah/

Not sure how to tie this into Revised Chronology yet, but it's a good find indeed.

Did the Magi/Wise Men really come from Persia/Parthia?

I've spent a lot of time on my Prophesy Blog playing up the Biblical significance of Persia, Media and Parthia.  So perhaps nothing is more shocking then to see me of all people argue for removing them from this Biblical theme.  And I've in the past supported Chuck Missler's the Magi were taught by Daniel conjecture, that depends on them coming from Persia.  But I've rethought much of this.

All of the stars rise in the East like the sun does, so saying they observed the Star of Bethlehem rising in the east I don't consider a clue to where they came from.  Likewise them coming to Jerusalem from the East could just mean they entered through an Eastern gate.  Now the location I'm going to suggest can be described as East of Jerusalem and Judea, but that's not necessarily the first or even primary geographical direction one is likely to use describing it's relationship to Judah.

Magi (translated Wise Men in the KJV) gets used as a proper name for a specific priesthood that is usually refereed to as Median in origin.  But the word is only in that exact form once of all the times it's used in Matthew 2, and it's used elsewhere in the New Testament like in Acts 8 and 13 to refer to Samaritan and Jewish miracle workers, no one connects either of those individuals to Persia, Josephus also uses the word of certain Jews.  The word Mage comes from the same term.  In Ancient Greek texts it in time simply became their standard word for Magician in-spite of being non-Greek in origin.  The following is copied form Wikipedia.

According to Robert Charles Zaehner, in other accounts, "we hear of Magi not only in Persia, Parthia, Bactria, Chorasmia, Aria, Media, and among the Sakas, but also in non-Iranian lands like Samaria, Ethiopia, and Egypt. Their influence was also widespread throughout Asia Minor. It is, therefore, quite likely that the sacerdotal caste of the Magi was distinct from the Median tribe of the same name."

 Zaehner, Robert Charles (1961), The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, New York: MacMillan, p. 163.

Also in Jeremiah 39, Rabmag is clearly used of a Babylonian office.

Wikipedia is of course not always up to do date on how we now know the Median Magi were originally enemies of the Zoroastrian religion, they worshiped Mithra, they were not inclined toward Monotheism.

Isaiah 60:6 is often taken by scholars as being connected to the visit of the Magi because it refers to Gold and Incense/Frankincense, (in fact this verse is why they're often depicted riding Camels, Camels aren't mentioned in Matthew 2).  The ultimate fulfillment is clearly about the Messianic Kingdom (either the Millennium or New Jerusalem or both) but it's believed that the visit of the Magi at Jesus Birth serves as a lesser near fulfillment, the Myrrh isn't in the final fulfillment because it represents His Death and Burial which is in the past by that point.

But when suggesting this connection it's often forgotten that specific nations are named there.

The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall show forth the praises of Yahuah.

All names linked to Arabia, but the big one is Sheba, indeed the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon is also thought of as connected to this since Solomon is also a type of the Messianic Kingdom.  Psalm 72 also further seems to back up Sheba playing this role.  Jeremiah 6:20 is also an interesting reference.  Genesis 10:30 refers to Mount Sephar, a location in Yemen where Joktan's family settled, as a Mount of the East.

Indeed history shows that the various nations of Ancient Yemen including the Sabaeans were the leading exporters of Frankincense and Myrrh, so to First Century readers that's possibly the first place they'd think of reading Matthew's account.  And Gold we know could be found in this region because that's where Ophir was.  The Ancient Kingdom of Saba continued to exist till 275 AD.

Tony Maalouf argues the Magi were from Arabia in "Were the Magi From Persia or Arabia?", Bibliotheca Sacra, 156 (October 1999), 423-42.  The earliest report of the magi's place of origin is found in Justin Martyr, and he identifies them as Arabians (Dialogue With Trypho, 77). Clement of Rome refers to Arabia as "the East" and associates the region with frankincense and myrrh while addressing a context other than Matthew 2 (First Clement, 25).

Christianity is believed to have come to this region as early as 70-135 AD among Jews who fled the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

From around 275-570 AD various calamities reshaped ancient Yemen among them were the conquests of the Himyar and the collapse of the Ma'rib Dam, that caused many Qahtanite/Joktanite Arabic tribes of Yemen to migrate North to Jordan and Syria.  Among these were the Tanukhids from whom came the Christian Queen Mavia(Māwiyya).  And the Gassanids who formed a Christian Kingdom that controlled modern Jordan and much of modern Syria and the Golan Heights.  And the Lahkmids who formed a Christian Kingdom in modern Iraq west of the Euphrates.

All in territory that was Biblically Ishmaelite, which probably explains why Mavia was mistakenly called an Ishmaelite in some Byzantine sources.  Some of the Ishmaelites (mainly of Kedar/Qedar) possibly began migrating south after the fall of the Nabatean kingdom during the reign of Trajan.

All of this further backs up that the Queen of Sheba must have been a Queen in Arabia not Africa.

The Koran in Sura 2:62 refers to those who already in some way believed in "Allah" before Muhammad, and were distinct from the pagan polytheists.  While most such references refer to only two groups, Jews and Christians, this one refers to three groups, those and the Sabeans.  I don't think Himyarite Jews are what is meant, in fact I think most of Muhammad's references to Jews had primarily Himyar and Yathrib in mind, especially the more Anti-Semitic verses, those were the Jews that he fought wars with.  But I can't entirely rule them out either.

Jesus mentions the Queen of Sheba as an example of a Gentile who was saved.  Many extra-Biblical traditions say that results in a conversion of her entire Kingdom.  Maybe there is more truth to that then we thought.

The surviving Kings Lists of Sheba do not take us all the way back to Solomon's time.  But only to 755 or 750 BC.  This also seems to contradict certain traditions (mentioned in the Joktan link) that imply after king Phar'an the Kingdom was ruled only by Queens, (some of those look to me like they could be more feminine then our biases assume, but many are clearly masculine).  At face value those traditions imply the Queen who visited Solomon was the last.  But I have trouble seeing 60 Queens reigning in just the time from Reu to Solomon.  So perhaps 755-750 BC marks when the Matriarchy was supplanted by a patriarchy.

According to one version of the Kings List, the King at the time Jesus was born was Yadail Darih II, who reigned from 10 BC-10 AD.

But since we've discussed the subject of Sheba's relationship to matriarchy.  I feel like also pointing out that Matthew doesn't really tell us the gender of the Magi.

 [Since I originally made this post the dates have been removed from the Wikipedia page for the Kings Lists of Sheba and Himyar]