Summary of Findings

Alice C. Linsley

Here is a brief summary of what I have uncovered about Abraham's people after 30+ years of research on the book of Genesis.


Abraham is the pivotal figure of the book of Genesis. What does Genesis reveal about this Patriarch?

• Some of his ancestors were Kushites linked to the rulers of Egypt.
• Some of his ancestors lived in the region of Lake Chad (in Bor'No - Land of Noah)
• One of his ancestors was Nimrod who has been identified as the Kushite ruler Sargon the Great.
• Terah, Abraham's father, controlled a vast territory along the Euphrates River between Haran and Ur.
• Some of his ancestors were ruler-priests who were devotees of Horus who was called "son of God."
• His mother and father were Horites and patrilineal cousins.
• Rulers among his people had two wives in separate households on a north-south axis.
• One wife was a half-sister (as was Sarah to Abraham) and the other wife was a patrilineal cousin or niece (as was Keturah to Abraham).
• The cousin/niece bride named her first-born son after her father because that son ascended to the thorne of his maternal grandfather. So Joktan, Keturah's firstborn son was heir to her father's throne.
• The firstborn son of the sister wife ascended to the throne of his biological father. So Isaac was Abraham's heir.
• The Horite ruler-priests strictly adhered to this unique pattern marriage and ascendency pattern.
• Other sons were sent away to establish territories of their own. This feature drove Kushite expansion.
• This Horite pattern of marriage and ascendency can be traced from Genesis 4 to the New Testament.
• Ruler-priests among Abraham's people controlled strategic water systems.
• The lines of Cain and Seth intermarried according to this unique pattern.
• The lines of Ham and Shem intermarried according to the same pattern.
• The lines of Abraham and Nahor intermarried according to the same pattern.
• The lines of Sheba and Joktan intermarried according to the same pattern.

Related reading:  The Afro-Asiatic Dominion; Who Were the Horites?; Who Were the Kushites?

Serpent Most Subtle

Now the snake was the most subtle of all the wild animals that Yahweh God had made. It asked the woman, 'Did God really say...?' (Gen. 3:1 NJB)


Alice C. Linsley


None should ever doubt that God has an enemy. That enemy is portrayed from very ancient times as a serpent who self-presents as one who offers advice. This reflects the experience of shamans who consume certain plants and plant combinations that cause them to see and even speak to snakes. Such shamanic religion was forbidden to Abraham and his people and is forbidden to "people of the Book" even today.

In his book The Cosmic Serpent: DNA and the Origins of Knowledge (1999), Jeremy Narby tells of his fieldwork with the Ashaninca and Quirishari of the Peruvian Amazon. Through use of the hallucinogen ayahuasca, derived from a serpent shaped vine (shown on left), Narby encountered the metaphysical reality presented in Genesis 3: the beguiling cosmic serpent who "was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say...?"

Ayahuasca vine

Narby explains, “I began my investigation with the enigma of ‘plant communication.’ I went on to accept the idea that hallucinations could be the source of verifiable information. And I ended up with a hypothesis suggesting that a human mind can communicate in defocalized consciousness with the global network of DNA-based life. All this contradicts principles of Western knowledge."

Plants with similar chemical properties have been found in Africa and Asia. The Genesis story is critical of seeking knowledge and wisdom from the wrong source. The story of Eve, the serpent, and the tree is likely an ancient criticism of using plant material from certain trees to alter consciousness so as to gain knowledge by occult means.

In his book Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis notes the Devils' many tactics. He stirs pride, hatred, animosity, cruelty and greed. He discourages, distracts and promotes doubt. He presents as one who is wise to those who are seeking knowledge. He casts doubt in our minds about God's Word and the true order of creation.

He suggests that God isn't good. Yet all of creation testifies that what God has made is good and reflects God's goodness. Were the angels to remain silent, these very stones would cry out "Hosannah!"

The cosmic Serpent tempts us to look only on the outer appearance and believe that the material is all there is. He urges men to set aside their only hope and to believe that there is no God, no eternity, no soul. Satan is the ultimate materialist.

He seeks to invert God's order of creation by bringing the woman, the crown of creation, under the authority of a creature who slithers on the ground. She is Ha-Va, the birther. The V is a very old glyph indicating the life-giver. Many words contain this glyph. Two are especially significant: vagina and the verb volcar, to overturn. The serpent understood the true nature of things. He needed only to go after the crown of creation to corrupt the whole. By consenting to the serpent's designs, Ha-Va (Eve) inverted the hierarchy of creation from this ▲ to this ▼. Each of us continues to do this daily when we consent to anything that is not of God.

The serpent is called the "dragon" in Revelation, and his end is described there. John's vision comes between the proclamation about the eternal Kingdom of Christ and the vision of the blasphemous Beast who makes war on the Saints. This recapitulates Genesis 3:15, the first promise of Scripture concerning the Woman and her Seed, the Holy One who crushes the Serpent’s head. This was accomplished at Christ’s birth, death, resurrection and ascension (“The Christ Event”) and the vision describes the victory in these words: “The woman was delivered of a boy, the son who was to rule all the nations with an iron rod, and the child was taken straight up to God and to his throne.” (Rev. 12:5) Revelation identifies the dragon as "that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray." (Rev. 12:9, 20:2)

Related reading: The Serpent of Eden; Serpent Symbolism; The Cosmic Serpent Exposed; The Biblical Meaning of Eve

Horite Hebrew Territory

Abraham's territory extended between Hebron and Beersheba and was entirely in ancient Edom.

Alice C. Linsley

The Horite Hebrew were a widely dispersed group of priests before the time of Abraham (c. 2000 BC). The maintained settlements along the Nile River, in the region of Lake Chad, in Arabia, Canaan, Mesopotamia and Anatolia. The region of Edom is specifically identified as having Horite chiefs (Gen. 36). The Greeks called Edom Idumea, meaning land of red people.

The Horite Hebrew and the Sethite Hebrew are mentioned in ancient Nilotic texts. In the Pyramid Texts (2400-2100 BC) they are said to serve the same king and worship the same God. The two groups are one people organized into separate ritual groups (moieties) who maintained separate shrines (mounds). The Horite Hebrew were the more prominent group of Hebrew. Their mounds are described as the higher mounds. Pyramid Test Utterance 470 contrasts the Horite mounds with the mounds of Seth, designating the Horite Mounds "the High Mounds." 

Both the Horite Hebrew wand the Sethite Hebrew believed in God Father and the son of God who they called HR (Horus in Greek). In the ancient Egyptian language HR means the "Most High One".

The distinction between the two groups is evident in Pyramid Text, Utterance 424: "O King, a boon which the King grants, that you occupy the Mounds of Horus, that you travel about the Mounds of Seth..."

Utterance 308 also addresses the Sethites and Horites as separate entities: "Hail to you, Horus in the Horite Mounds! Hail to you, Horus in the Sethite Mounds!"

Utterance 424 continues, "that you [King] sit on your iron throne and judge their affairs at the head of the Great Ennead which is in On." On is mentioned in Genesis 41:45. Joseph married Asenath, a daughter of the High Priest of On or Iunu (Heliopolis in Greek). She probably was Joseph's cousin.

The Horite Hebrew priests served rulers who are described in Genesis as the "mighty men of old". They controlled commerce on the major water systems from Lake Chad to the Indus River. 

Genesis 36 lists some of the Horite rulers living in Edom. These are the descendants of Seir the Horite. The usual narrative is that Esau of Edom was not related to Seir and that he and his people drove out the Horites. There is no historical or biblical support for the view that the Horites were brought under the rule of the descendants of Esau, also known as Edom.

The only textual support for the assertion that Esau's descendants dispossessed the Horites is in Deuteronomy 2:12. "Horites used to live in Seir, but the descendants of Esau drove them out. They destroyed the Horites from before them and settled in their place, just as Israel did in the land the LORD gave them as their possession."

The Deuteronomist is writing from a much later perspective, at least 1000 years after Abraham and the two Edomite chiefs named Esau. This later source would have us believe the Israelites coming out of Egypt were the only Hebrew and that they took over all of Canaan and Edom. This claim does not align with the archaeological, historical, and anthropological data, nor does it square with the rest of the canonical Scriptures. 

The Horites were established in Edom when Abraham arrived there and they continued to be established in Edom into the time of Abraham's great great grandson, Esau the Younger (shown in this diagram as the husband of Oholibamah).

Esau the Elder and Esau the Younger were Horite Hebrew descendants of Abraham. 

They married Horite Hebrew women of the clan of Seir the Horite (Gen. 36)

The Horite Hebrew rulers had two wives who lived in separate settlements. Abraham's two wives are an example. Sarah resided in Hebron and Keturah resided in Beersheba. The wives' settlements marked the northern and southern boundaries of Abraham's territory in Edom. These settlements were guarded by trained warriors who protected the settlements and the territory.

The east-west range of Abraham's territory appears to have extended between the waters of Ein Gedi and the wells he dug in Gerar.

Abraham and his wives were Horite Hebrew. The Horite Hebrew were devotees of Horus, the son of the High God Ra. They believed in God Father and God Son, a belief that was rejected by their later descendants who adhere to Judaism or Islam. (See Trinitarian Correspondances Between Mesopotamia and the Nile.)

Terah, the father of Abraham and Sarah, was also Horite Hebrew, and King David had Horite Hebrew ancestry as he was born in Bethlehem. I Chronicles 4:4 lists Hur (Hor) as the "father of Bethlehem". Job was Horite Hebrew, as were Moses and his father. The Horite Hebrew appear to be the primary source behind the canonical Scriptures.

Related reading: The Enigma of Joseph; Edom and the Horites; The Extent of Edomite Territory; Edo, Edom, Idumea; Abraham and Job: Horite Hebrew Rulers; Who Was Oholibamah?

Peleg: Time of Division

Alice C. Linsley


To Eber were born two sons: the first was called Peleg, because it was in his time that the earth was divided, and his brother was called Joktan. (Genesis 10:25)

The Hebrew word for earth is "eretz" and should be rendered in this verse as "territory" because the account is about the Hebrew ruler Eber dividing his territory between two sons that may have been twins. It appears that Eber assigned to each royal son a portion of his territory.

This verse has perplexed readers for centuries. It has been suggested that the separation of the clans occurred after the Tower of Babel when God confused the languages. However, all of the languages spoken by the peoples listed in Genesis 4-12 are in the Afro-Asiatic family and it is believed they emerged from a common Proto-Afroasiatic source. Many of these early Hebrew rulers spoke Akkadian, the oldest known Semitic language.

Alexander Militarev, a Russian scholar of Semitic, Berber, Canarian, and Afroasiatic languages, linked proto-Afroasiatic to the Natufian people. He wrote that the "Proto-Afrasian language, on the verge of a split into daughter languages" (Cushitic, Omotic, Egyptian, Semitic and Chadic-Berber) "should be roughly dated to the ninth millennium B.C." That would be around 6000 years before the time of the biblical Noah.

Another view insists that this division pertains to tectonic activity. This view was espoused by the German scholar Alfred Wagener. However, analysis of Genesis 4 and 5 indicates that Peleg lived in the Bronze Age. The tectonic drift interpretation is impossible as humans were not on the surface of the earth until long after the separation of the continents. Wagener's interpretation ignores a vast body of data in Genesis about Noah and his descendants. Noah's homeland was in Borno or Benue (Land of Noah) in the region of Lake Chad. He lived during the wet period known as the African Aqualithic. 

The word "Peleg" has to do with separation and control of water. Genesis reveals that the early Hebrew rulers controlled major water systems of the ancient Fertile Crescent. 

Peleg's brother was Joktan whose descendants came to reside in Southern Arabia. The are known as the Joktanite clans.

Hebrew brothers often lived geographically distant. The line of Raamah, Nimrod's brother, resided in southwestern Arabia. The line of Nimrod settled in the Tigris-Euphrates region (Mesopotamia) where writing was the work of royal scribes. Overtime the geographical separation of Hebrew priestly lines led to the adoption of different languages. However, the Hebrew ruler-priest caste continued to intermarry (caste endogamy). They did not change the unique and distinctive marriage and ascendancy pattern of their ancestors. 

It is not entirely clear at what point the clans became geographically separated, but it is clear that their kinship pattern did not change. Apparently, the division of Eber's territory occurred about five generations before Abraham, but the separation should be understood as geographical, not social.

Genesis 10:25 is speaking of separate territories. Two sons cannot both rule over the father's land holding. According to the early Hebrew marriage and ascendancy pattern, the firstborn son of the first wife was heir to the father's kingdom. Other sons are sent away to establish territories of their own. This pattern drove the Hebrew dispersion out of the Nile Valley.

However, in the case of twin sons, the Hebrew rule might choose to divide his territory between the sons.

Note that the name "Peleg" doesn’t appear in the lines from which Abraham descends. Analysis of the data reveals that critical information is missing about the chiefs who were contemporaries of Reu, Serug and Nahor. (See chart below, using data from Genesis 10:24-30.)

The information that is missing concerns the descendants of the Hebrew ruler Sheba. The descendants of Sheba are traced through Abraham and his patrilineal cousin Keturah. Keturah was of the Hebrew clan of Sheba in whose territory there were many wells (Beer-Sheba means "Well of Sheba".) It seems that Peleg is an ancestor of the people of Sheba.

The Queen of Sheba probably did not rule over the same territory as Sheba the Elder, her powerful Hebrew ancestor. By the time of Solomon came to power, Sheba's territory was diminished. David likely took control of some of those lands in the south. David's claim to the throne was contested by a man named Sheba. That man lost his life when he took refuge in the city of Abel Beth Maacah where he was beheaded (2 Sam. 20:1-22).

It is possible that Melchizedek, the ruler-priest of Jerusalem in Abraham's time, was a descendant of Sheba. 

Related reading: Were Peleg and Joktan Twins?; The Hebrew Hierarchy of Sons; Noah's Homeland; How Big Was Noah's Flood; Noah's Sons and Their Descendants; Keturah was Abraham's Second Wife; Keturah was a Hebrew Wife

The Cousin Bride's Naming Prerogative

Alice C. Linsley


Among Abraham's Hebrew caste, the rulers had two wives. The first was usually a half-sister and the second was usually a patrilineal cousin. The first-born son of the first wife was the ruler's proper heir. The first-born son of the cousin wife belonged to the household of his maternal grandfather and after he came of age, he served in the territory of his maternal uncle. (See The Hebrew Hierarchy of Sons.)

The relationship between the cousin bride's first-born son and her father is illustrated by a distinctive naming practice which I refer to as "the cousin bride's naming prerogative." This prerogative pertains only to cousin wives of high-status Hebrew rulers. These were the second wives, taken prior to the ruler's assuming control over his father's territory. The diagram below illustrates the cousin bride's naming prerogative.

Lamech the Elder (Gen 4) had a daughter Naamah. She married her patrilineal cousin Methuselah (Gen. 5) and named their first-born son Laech after her father.

As the sister wife had the same father as her husband, there was no need to identify her firstborn with the ruling father. The first-born son of the half-sister bride was his father's proper heir. 

Sarah was Abraham's half-sister bride and Isaac was Abraham's proper heir. Keturah was Abraham's patrilineal cousin bride, and her first-born son would have served as a high official in the territory of her father.

Beginning in chapter 11, Abraham becomes the focal point of Genesis. We are told that he was Hebrew, and he was very rich in cattle, silver, and gold (Gen. 13:2). His high social status is evident in the personal audiences he had with Pharoah and King Abimelech. Melchizedek, the priest-king of Jerusalem, ministered to Abraham after battle. This involved ritual cleansing from blood. The Hittites (descendants of Heth the Hebrew) recognized Abraham as a "great prince" among them. Abraham’s personal guard consisted of at least 318 warriors trained in his household.

 

Names and Titles

Throughout the Bible we find examples of women naming their sons. In the case of Benjamin, Rachel's name choice of 'Ben Oni' was overruled by Jacob (Gen. 35:17-20). Mary was told to name her son Jesus. Elizabeth was told to name her son John. 

Names are changed to make a statement. Jacob came to be called Israel. Abram became Abraham.

Some names indicate the person's office or title. Terah means priest. Lamech is related to the word melek, meaning king. Na'Hor and Hur are Horus names. Horus names appear among the Horite Hebrew. 

Some name changes appear to disguise the ruler's ancestry, and this may be intentional in some cases.

Right of Primogeniture

The first-born sons of concubines were given gifts and sent away from the chief's proper heir. This is what Abraham did (Gen. 25). Often these "sent-away sons" became rulers, having established themselves in new regions. An example is Nimrod, a Kushite kingdom builder who established his kingdom in Mesopotamia (Gen. 10). Another example is Abraham. Abraham received his calling to go to Canaan after his father died in Haran and his older brother assumed control of Terah's holdings. God directed Abraham's future course as a sent-away son. 

Keeping with the custom of his Hebrew ancestors, the ruler-priest Terah had two wives. One wife was the mother of Nahor and Abraham, and the second wife was the mother of Haran and Sarah. Nahor was Terah's proper heir. Haran's mother was a cousin bride as is evident by the cousin bride's naming prerogative. She named her first-born son Haran after her father, the chief of Haran, shown on this map.

 

Terah's firstborn sons were Haran and Nahor. Haran died in Ur and Nahor ascended to Terah's throne and ruled over Terah's territory between Haran and Ur. This means that Nahor, not Abraham, was the firstborn son of Terah's sister wife. Abraham was led by God to relocate to another region, and Abraham went to where his mother's kin lived in Canaan. This is what Jacob did also.

Among Abraham's Hebrew people the right of primogeniture was figured through the fathers, but ethnicity or blood line was figured through the mothers. This is evident even today among Jews. One is Jewish only if one's mother is Jewish, or if one has properly converted under the supervision of a rabbi.


Related reading: Who Were the Horite Hebrew?; The Hebrew Were a Caste; Hebrew Rulers with Two Wives; Royal Sons and Their Maternal Uncles; Abraham the Hebrew

Locating Biblical Ur

Alice C. Linsley

The ancient rulers named in Genesis controlled vast territories along major river routes. This was true for Terah, Abraham's father who was a descendant of Nimrod, the son of Kush (Gen. 10: 8).

The map shows Terah's territory which extended from Haran [1] in southern Turkey to biblical Ur [2] in southern Iraq. The marker at the midpoint between Haran and Ur shows that Terah's route between his two wives corresponded to the Euphrates River and its lakes. In Terah's day the rivers and lakes were larger.

The location of biblical Ur has been the subject of interest through the centuries. St. Jerome suggests that Ur may represent a religious practice rather than a place. He wrote, "...in the Hebrew it has 'in ur Chesdim,' that is, 'in the fire of the Chaldeans.' Moreover the Hebrews, taking the opportunity afforded by this verse, hand on a story of this sort to the effect that Abraham was put into the fire because he refused to worship the fire, which the Chaldeans honor, and that he escaped through God's help and fled from the fire of idolatry."[3]

Here St. Jerome refers to a legendary episode based on midrash in which Abraham was thrown into the fire by order of King Nimrod. The legend is as anacronistic as the citing of Ur as a Chaldean population center in the time of Terah. Ur could not have been "of the Chaldeans" prior to the Neo-Babylonian empire in the seventh century B.C.

Josephus and Rabbi Maimonides believed that Ur Kaśdim was in Northern Mesopotamia, in what is today Syria or Turkey. Following their idea, various sites have been proposed as biblical Ur. One site is Urkish in modern Syria (37° 3′ 25″ N, 40° 59′ 50″ E37.056944, 40.997222 ). There are two problems with this location. First, Afro-Asiatic chiefs established their territories along waterways which they controlled, but there was no waterway running between Harran and Urkish. Second, as Urkish is almost directly east of Harran, this would mean that Terah set his two wives on an east-west axis, which is unlikely.[4]

Another site that has been proposed is Urartu. This is impossible since it isn't a specific site but a region of Armenia near Lake Van. The placement of wives in separate settlements, each with their own shrines, requires a specific site.

The third location is Urfa in modern Turkey (37° 9′ 0″ N, 38° 48′ 0″ E37.15, 38.8). This site is more likely than either of the first two proposed because it is about 40 miles north of Harran. This would mean that Terah's two wives were properly placed on a north-south axis. However, this indicates that Terah's territory was much smaller than seems likely. (Terah is the great Patriarch from whom all the principal figures of biblical history are descended.) Another problem is that the route between Harran and Urfa does not correspond to a waterway.

The most likely site is that proposed by the British archaeologist Charles Woolley in 1927. He identified biblical Ur Kaśdim with the Sumerian city of Ur in southern Mesopotamia, situated east of the present Euphrates river in Iraq (see map above). This site is the most likely as it fits the pattern of Afro-Asiatic chiefs maintaining their wives on a north-south axis corresponding to waterways. If this is biblical Ur, we must conclude that Terah was a very great chief indeed. His territory would have extended along the Euphrates River for about 800 miles. This explains why Terah's descendents - Nahor, Abraham, Lot, Isaac, Jacob, Esau and Joktan - were recognized as great chiefs also.

There is a tendency to think that people in Abraham's time didn't travel widely, but the Genesis material suggests that rulers traveled the length and breadth of their territories. Terah traveled between his 2 wives, one in Haran and the other in Ur, a distance of at least 730 miles. Abraham traveled about this distance from Haran to the shrine between Bethel and Ai, where he first settled in Canaan.

Abraham also set his wives on a north-south axis, with Sarah in Hebron and Keturah in Beersheba. This means that Abraham's territory corresponded to a system of rivers, lakes and wells as did the territory of his father and his ancestors Noah and Nok.


NOTES

1. Haran means "crossroads" and suggests the existence of a shrine in the time of Terah.

2. Ur means "fire" and it appears in many place names in the area shown on the map. It probably refers to the fire altars that were common throughout the Afro-Asiatic Dominion. Archaeological evidence of such altars has been found in the Indus Valley culture dating from the proto-Harappan age (3500 BC- 2500 BC) to the Harappan age (2500 BC - 1750 BC). There was probably a fire altar in Jerusalem (a Jebusite city) in the time of Melchizedek. David built a fire altar at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite. Elijah's offering, and Jezebel's false prophets, were consumed by fire from heaven on a fire altar.

3. Read the text of Jerome's comment here.

4. The wives maintained separate households on a north-south axis. Their households marked the northern and southern boundaries of the chief’s territory. Sarah, Abraham’s sister bride, resided in Hebron and Keturah, Abraham’s cousin bride, resided in Beersheba, to the south. The wives were placed on a north-south axis rather than on an east-west axis because these chiefs did not presume to set themselves up as God, whose solar emblem moves from east to west.

St. Jerome on Genesis

Alice C. Linsley


Eusebius Hieronymus, better known as St. Jerome (c.347-420), was one of the most learned men of Christian antiquity. His grasp of ancient Semitic roots is astonishing. He was a classically trained scholar who became a monk and resided in Bethlehem, practicing extreme ascetical practices. He is the translator of the Latin Vulgate and a gifted interpreter of the Bible. The following reflections of St. Jerome on Genesis help us to understand some of the more difficult passages.

The water of creation prefigures the water of baptism.

In the beginning of Genesis, it is written: "And the Spirit was stirring above the waters." You see, then, what it says in the beginning of Genesis. Now for its mystical meaning - "The Spirit was stirring above the waters" - already at that time baptism was being foreshadowed. It could not be true baptism, to be sure, without the Spirit. (Homilies 10)

To be sure, if there was water and the Spirit, there was also from the beginning the Pleromic Blood of Jesus, for these three - the water, the Spirit and the Blood - bear eternal witness to the Truth.

On the Tree of Life at the sacred center

Now if wisdom is the tree of life, Wisdom itself is Christ. You understand now that the man who is blessed and holy is compared to this tree - that is, he is compared to Wisdom. Consequently, you see too that the just man, that blessed man who has not followed the counsel of the wicked - who has not done that but has done this - is like the tree that is planted near running water. He is, in other words, like Christ, inasmuch as he "raised us up together and seated us together in heaven." You see then that we shall reign together with Christ in heaven. You see too that because this tree has been planted there together with him. (Homilies 1)

The Tree of Life at the center of the garden forshadowed the Wisdom of God hidden and revealed in the Cross, the tree planted at the center of the universe.


On the building up of the Church

"God took a rib from the side of Adam and made it into a woman." Here Scripture said aedificavit ("built"). The concept of building intends to denote the construction of a great house; consequently Adam's rib fashioned into a woman signifies, by apostolic authority, Christ and the church, and that is why Scripture said he formed (aedificavit) a woman from the rib. We have heard about the first Adam; let us come now to the second Adam and see how the church is made (aedificatur) from his side. The side of the Lord Savior as he hung on the cross is pierced with a lance, and from it there comes forth blood and water. Would you like to know how the church is built up from water and blood? First, through baptism of water, sins are forgiven; then, the blood of martyrs crowns the edifice. (Homilies 66)


On God's coming to Adam in the cool of the day
We read in Genesis that when Adam transgressed, when he paid heed to the serpent rather than to God, when he hid himself from the face of God, then God came into the garden and was walking about in the cool of day. Now listen to what the Scripture says. God sought out Adam, not at midday but in the evening. Adam had already lost the sunlight, for his high noon was over. (Homilies 1)

Here we see that St. Jerome knew the Tradition that speaks of God meeting man at high noon when there are no shadows. Noon is the sacred center of the day. This is what St. James intends us to understand when he writes, "every good giving, and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variation, or shadow of turning."


On Methuselah's Dying in the Year of the Flood

There is a famous question that has been aired by discussion in all the churches: that by a careful reckoning it can be shown that Methuselah lived fourteen years after the flood. It appears that in this case as in many others, in the Septuagint translation of the Bible there is an error in the numbers. Among the Hebrews and the books of the Samaritans, I have found the text written this: "Methuselah lived a hundred and eighty-seven years and became the father of Lamech. Methuselah lived after the birth of Lamech seven hundred and eighty-two years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred and sixty-nine years; and he died. And Lamech lived one hundred and eighty two years and begot Noah." Accordingly, there are 369 years from the day of Methuselah's birth to the day of Noah's birth; to these add Noah's six hundred years, since the flood occurred in the six hundredth year of his life, and so it works out that Methuselah died in the nine hundred sixty-ninth year of his life, in the same year when the flood began. (Hebrew Questions on Genesis 5:25-29)

Here Jerome notes the discrepancy between the Septuagint and the Hebrew and Samaritan texts. The Septuagint has Methuselah living for 14 years after the flood. The Hebrew and Samaritan texts have him dying the year of the flood. It is possible that the Septuagint was influenced by the Babylonian Talmud in assigning these 14 years. In the Babylonian tradition, 14 - the sum of 7+ 7 - represents the fullness of time. In the Hebrew and Samaritan tradition, which use a base 9 counting system, the 369 years from Methuselah's birth to Noah's birth is obviously symbolic. It signifies the end of unity on earth, and the 600 years of Noah's life signifies that two lines of descent from Noah will be established on earth (which happened with the lines of Shem and Ham, which intermarried).

In either case, the flood of Noah occurred during a wet period that lasted about 500 years in the region of Lake Chad and the symbolic numbers assigned to the antediluvian patriarchs are sensible in the context of the Afro-Asiatic cosmology of Abraham's people. As removed as Westerners are from the ancient deep reading of the Scriptures, it would help us were this to be "aired by discussion in all the churches."

On the deeper meaning of the Ark's dimensions

We read in Genesis that the ark that Noah built was three hundred cubits long, fifty cubits wide and thirty cubits high. Notice the mystical significance of the numbers. In the number fifty, penance is symbolized because the fiftieth psalm of King David is the prayer of his repentance. Three hundred contains the symbol of crucifixion. The letter Τ is the sign for three hundred, whence Ezekiel says "Mark THAV on the forehead of those who moan; and do not kill any marked with THAV." No one marked with the sign of the cross on his forehead can be struck by the devil; he is not able to efface this sign, only sin can. (Homilies 84)


Noah's dishonor prefigures the Cross

After the deluge Noah drank and became drunk in his own house, and his thighs were uncovered and he was exposed in his nakedness. The elder brother came along and laughed; the younger, however, covered him up. All this is said in type of the Savior, for on the cross he had drunk of the passion: "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass away from me." He drank and was inebriated, and his thighs were laid bare - the dishonor of the cross. The older brothers, the Jews, came along and laughed; the younger, the Gentiles, covered up his ignominy. (Homilies on Genesis 13)


In the Bible we find 2 fathers who became drunk with wine. The first is Noah and the second is Lot. In Noah’s case, his 3 sons decide what to do while their father sleeps in a drunken stupor. In Lot’s case, his 2 daughters decide what to do while their father sleeps. Fathers should not fall into drunken slumbers! The consequences are not good.

One of Noah’s sons comes under a curse and Abraham’s descendents are troubled by Lot’s descendents, the Moabites. Yet even in these stories we find redemption. The descendents of Ham helped the Israelites escape from Egypt. Jethro, the Priest of Midian (a descendent of Ham through Keturah’s line) acted as an advisor to Moses. A Moabitess trusted God to care for her and Naomi in Bethlehem. There Ruth married Boaz and became the great grandmother of King David and ancestress of Messiah.

Notice the symmetry of a father-in-law and a mother-in-law. This is consistent with the complementary binary oppositions that frame the Afro-Asiatic worldview. We also find the theme of laughing Jews in the story of Sarah, a type of the Jewish people. To her was given the promise of a son. Initially, she laughed at the promise because she thought only in natural terms and she was beyond the age of child bearing. Then in her later days, she received the promised son and even insisted that he alone was to rule over his father’s territory. This is what happened to the Jews. They were given the promise of the Messiah, God’s Son, and they laughed at the promise. But later many came to believe in Him.
From this brief exploration of Jerome's exposition of Genesis, it is evident that he read the Scriptures on a deep level and detected the pattern that points us to Jesus Christ. The Church is richer for his work in translating the Bible into Latin, tirelessly comparing the versions available to him. May St. Jerome's memory be eternal!


All quotations are taken from Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Volume I, Genesis 1-11. InterVarsity Press, 2001. Edited by Andrew Louth in collaboration with Marco Conti.


Related reading:  Gender Reversal and Sacred Mystery; Methuselah's Real Age

Genesis and Genetics

Alice C. Linsley


Can the essence of entities change?

You have heard it said, "There is nothing new under the Sun." In this view no changes in the essence of entities occurs. The essence of humans is the same as it was at the dawn of human existence. The essence of trees is the same today as at the time of the appearance of the first tree. Plato believed that the eternal soul re-cognizes objects because they reflect the properties of the one eternal Form of which the soul has innate knowledge. We re-cognize the elm and the pine as trees because they reflect the one eternal form Tree. They embody "treeness" though these trees are quite different. Likewise, each human embodies the essence of humanness though there is a wide range of human features.

Plato's theory of Forms is an early brand of essentialism. Essentialism is the view that a specific entity (group of people, living creatures, or objects such as rocks) has a set of attributes or traits all of which are essential to its identity and function. Other essentialists include Aristotle, and Saul Kripke. Jacques Derrida expresses an essentialist view in his ontotheology. These would argue that the essence of an entity may fluctuate but does not change.

The essentialist makes a distinction between change and flux. For example, the essence of water is H2O. The form of water can change (flux) between a solid (ice), liquid, and vapor, but the essence remains H2O.

Non-Essentialism is the view that a specific entity does not have a set of attributes which are essential to its identity and function. Some non-essentialists include Heraclitus and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Clearly, great thinkers do not agree on the question of change. We often assign different meaning to the word "change." When we say the weather is changing are we speaking of a shift in the wind direction or in the transition from one season to another? When we say that modern humans represent a change from archaic humans are we speaking of essential change or anatomical change?


Archaic views of change

In the ancient world the order of creation was viewed as hierarchical and fixed. This was based on the observation of patterns in nature. In the time of Abraham's ancestors, the observation of the fixed movement of the heavenly bodies was done by priests. Plato, who studied in Egypt, stated that the Nilotic priests had been observing the stars and constellations for 10,000 years. They noted the constellations have a clocklike movement, the seasons are linked to the 12 lunar cycles, and the Sun directly overhead marks mid-day.

They perceived boundaries in the nature order. The boundaries were fixed between "kinds" arranged hierarchically. The Biblical "kind" is not synonymous with "species." Because of mutation and adaptation there are many more creatures than there are kinds. Kinds refers to the original pattern of a created entity. Creationists believe the original pattern never disappears. The Biblical "kind" represents an essentialist worldview.

If the biblical worldview is true, no discrepancy should exist between genetics and the biblical assertion that the order of creation is fixed with genetic boundaries between "kinds." Those who believe that the Bible presents a true view of reality must understand what is meant by "fixed order of creation" and "kinds."  Because of a fixed order or pattern in nature we can count on the laws of physics and we are able to identify anomalies. Kind refers to a given living organism that reproduces itself.

What is often termed evolutionary "change" is really flux, a distinction many fail to make. Flux is expected within kinds and is certainly evident in biology. The theory of common ancestry for chimps and humans assumes the possibility of emergence of two kinds from a common kind. Humans reproduce only humans. Chimps reproduce only chimps. Humans and chimps cannot therefore represent flux within a fixed order. They represent different kinds, different, but similar essences.


Evolutionary Claims

The claim of universality of the DNA code as a prediction of common descent doesn't align with known variations that violate this prediction. At the same time there appear to be specific fixed boundaries within the DNA code. This explains why humans reproduce humans and not some other animal.  Further, while the similarity of humans to primates may suggest a common origin, this common ancestor isn't known to have actually existed.  It is the creation of artists who draw images for Biology books.

There are now enough fossils recovered in Hadar, Ethiopia and in Cameroon to reconstruct a picture of Lucy and her people. They were clearly human and not apes although the artists drawings persist in showing them as hairy and apelike. For example, complete fourth metatarsal of A. afarensis was discovered at Hadar that shows the deep, flat base and tarsal facets that "imply that its midfoot had no ape-like midtarsal break. These features show that the A. afarensis foot was functionally like that of modern humans."

It is ludicrous to assume that because nurse sharks and camels share an antigen receptor protein they are descended from a common ancestor. The DNA sequences that code for the proteins are different between sharks and camels.

This suggests that what are held to be examples of evolutionary changes are not really changes. The horse was once smaller and is now large. Yet the horse's essence has not changed. The earliest human fossils show a range of anatomical features yet all these features are found among humans today. The nearly complete skulls of people who lived 160,000 years ago are, in the words of paleontologist Tim White, "like modern-day humans in almost every feature."[1]

When Jeremy DeSilva, a British anthropologist, compared the ankle joint, the tibia and the talus of fossil "hominins" between 4.12 million to 1.53 million years old, he discovered that all of the hominin ankle joints resembled those of modern humans rather than those of apes. [2]

Some of the australopithecine fossils dating between 700,000 and 2.4 million years are recognized as "early human fossils."  Although classified as "ape of the South", some are recognized as having had human dentition, bipedalism and stone tools.[3]

With DNA samples from 2400 individuals from more than 100 modern African populations, researchers have identified a panel of 1327 sites of genetic variation across the entire genome. Analysis of the data suggests that modern Africans are descended from 14 ancestral populations, which correlate with known linguistic groups. Comparative linguistics and genetics are moving to similar conclusions when it comes to the question of "change" among humans. The evidence in both fields indicates a limited amount of flux, but no essential change.[4]

In other words, there is no evidence of essential change within "kinds", and no support for the macro-evolutionary worldview of change from one kind into another kind. Roux and others say, "Evolutionary convergence at the molecular level is presumed to be widespread, but is poorly documented."[5] Convergent evolution is an interpretation, not an unbiased presentation of data.

Consider the work of Richard Lenski at Michigan State University. He has grown E. coli in the test-tube for more than 40,000 generations. The first generations showed little mutation. Then a “mutator” strain arose, after which new genetic varieties were present in all cells, resulting in more than 250 varieties. The total number of single changes is more than a thousand, yet Lenski has produced nothing fundamentally new.

It appears that God established an order in which there is flux within fixed boundaries, but no essential change from species to species. As Professor Scott Rae has written, "Scripture affirms that there is a fixed order that governs the natural physical world."[6]

The Bible teaches that God created in an orderly fashion from the least complex creatures to humans, the most complex creatures. It teaches that each "kind" reproduces according to its own kind, and the mixing of kinds (even different fibers) is discouraged or forbidden.

The Bible teaches that violations of the order of creation represent sinful rebellion against the Creator. Eve's sin, as St. John Chrysostom points out, is a sin against the order of creation because she exchanged her glory as one made in the image of God for subservience to the serpent, a creature low in the order of creation. Onanism is a violation of the order of creation because, just as the seed of plants should fall to the earth to bring forth plants from the earth, so the seed of man should fall on his own kind (the womb), from which man comes forth.

In Jeremiah 33:25 we read: "Yahweh says this, 'If I have not created day and night and fixed the laws governing heaven and earth, why, then I shall reject the descendants of Jacob and of David my servant and cease to choose rulers from his descendants for the heirs of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob!'"

Jeremiah 31:35-36 says, "Yahweh who provides the sun to shine by day, who regulates moon and stars to shine by night, who stirs the sea, making its waves roar, he whose name is Yahweh Sabaoth, says this: 'Were this established order ever to pass away before me, Yahweh declares, then the race of Israel would also cease being a nation for ever before me!"

"The Lord spoke further to Jeremiah, 'I, Lord, make the following promise: I have made a covenant with the day and with the night that they will always come at their proper times. Only if you people could break that covenant could my covenant with my servant David and my covenant with the Levites ever be broken. So David will by all means always have a descendant to occupy his throne as king and the Levites will by all means always have priests who will minister before me. I will make the children who follow one another in the line of my servant David very numerous. I will also make the Levites who minister before me very numerous. I will make them all as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sands which are on the seashore.'" (Jeremiah 33:19-22)

We note in these passages that the fixed order of creation is linked to God's plan to choose rulers from among Abraham's people. Genesis reveals that the fixed nature of God's plan is expressed in the unchanging kinship pattern of Abraham's people. The kinship pattern of these people remains consistent from before the time of Abraham to the birth of Jesus Christ. This so that the Christ should appear according to God's ordained plan.

The constellations, the stars and planets move according to a fixed plan. That's why scientists can predict where to look and when to look there. That's how they can identify apparent singularities such as the Star of Bethlehem.

Progress in the sciences depends on the fixed order of creation. It assumes the consistency of the laws of nature. Geneticists recognize certain genetic patterns which form the basis for their research. Physicists' exploration of the material world is based on physical laws that do not change. Anthropologists find that humans are essentially the same regardless of their environments. The oldest known human skeletons show the same range of flux, the same essential nature as human skeletal structures today. Even technological "change" has been possible because of the fixed nature of mathematical and physical laws.

All this is to say that the hypothesis of randomness that is touted by the media is not supported by empirical evidence. Natural selection, with its appearance of randomness, may be about orderly transition or flux within kinds. If the order of creation is fixed, we may expect to reap what we sow. If I plant corn, I harvest corn, not apricots. If I sow wheat, I harvest wheat, not frogs. All languages can be classified because there is order in human language. All born of women are human because there is order in the human genome. Events in the heavens are predictable because the stars, planets and constellations move according to a fixed pattern. This is how astronomers know where and when to focus their telescopes on a specific region of space. Singularities or anomalies are evident because they stand in contrast to the patterns observed in the fixed order of creation.


The Clash of Worldviews

The Essentialist worldview and the non-Essentialist worldview are at odds. Genesis 1 presents an Essentialist view which is consistent with the thinking of people in the ancient world. Creationists have written volumes in defense of their interpretation of Genesis 1, but the text has a context, and a better understanding of that context is needed.

NOTES
1. Read the report on the 160,000-year-old Ethiopian fossils here.

2. Chimpanzees flex their ankles 45 degrees from normal resting position. This makes it possible for apes to climb trees with great ease. While walking, humans flex their ankles a maximum of 20 degrees. The human ankle quite distinct from that of apes. Read more here.

3. Working from their convergent evolution framework, Richard, Mary and Louis Leakey named some fossils "Zinjanthropus" (now called Australopithecus boisei), others "Homo habilis", and Lucy and her community "Australopithecus". These are presented as divergence strains of hominids, including the extinct and extant humans and mammals. This classification has been revised several times because the criterion of classification of human and ape has not been consistently applied.

4. To read about the "out of Africa" gene study go here.

5. Roux et al. 1998 The identification of an unusual antigen receptor protein structure found in camels and nurse sharks is used to argue that these have a common ancestor. Kenneth Roux appears convinced, yet he admits that there is not enough written support for the convergence model.  It is conversationally agreed upon among convergence ideologues, but not as well documented as Roux would hope.

6. Read excerpts from Scott B. Rae's book Moral Choices here.



Related reading: The Themes of Genesis 1-3; First People at Genetic Center; Biblical Anthropologists Discuss Darwin; The Science Guy Reveals His Ignorance

Methuselah's Real Age

Alice C. Linsley


The only "old" dude mentioned in Genesis is Abraham, as St. Jerome, notes: "I am reviewing carefully the places in Scripture where I might find old age mentioned for the first time. Adam lived for 930 years, yet he is not called an old man. Methuselah's life was 969 years, and he is not called an old man. I am coming down all the way to the flood, and after the flood for almost three thousand years, and I find no one who has been called old. Abraham is the first, and certainly he was much younger than Methuselah." (Homilies on the Psalms 21)

Jerome's observation is significant. Abraham was old. Those who lived before the flood are not called old because the numbers assigned to them are symbolic.

Invariably, people ask: “What is the significance of the long lifespans listed in Genesis?” and “Why did those who lived before the flood live longer than those after the flood?” Many seem unaware of the semitic association of numbers to the letters of the alphabet. In the Hebrew system (Gematria), there is no notation for zero and the numeric values for individual letters are added together. This poses a challenge when attempting to understand the symbolism of years which include a zero, such as Kenan's 910 and Seth's 600 years.

Then there is the discrepancy between the Septuagint, the Masoretic, and the Samaritan texts. The three don't agree on the number of years before begetting sons and the total number of years. The total number of years in the Septuagint and the Masoretic (Hebrew) records agree except in the case of Lamech the Younger (Noah's father). The Septuagint assigns Lamech a total of 753 years, whereas the Samaritan Pentateuch assigns him only 653 years. The New Jerusalem Bible, following the Masoretic Pentateuch, assigns Lamech 777 years.

In his extraordinary Commentary on Genesis (Volume 1), Umberto Cassuto wrote, "What is the cause of the divergences between the three texts, and which recension has preserved the original figures? Much has been written on this subject, and the answer remains in dispute" (p. 265). Cassuto himself believed that the original figures are preserved in the Masoretic chronology. Those are the numbers I will use here.

Consider the lifespan assigned to each of these pre-flood patriarchs in Genesis 5:

Seth – 912 years
Jared – 962 years
Kenan – 910 years
Methuselah – 969 years
Lamech the Younger – 777 years

Now compare the lifespan of each of the following in Genesis 11:

Shem – 600 years
Eber – 464 years
Serug – 230 years
Nahor the Elder (Terah's father) – 148 years
Terah – 205 years

Various explanations are offered to make sense of the patriarchs’ longevity. They include:

· People lived longer in ancient times.

· God shortened the lifespan due to sin.

· Those who recorded the list of patriarchs (Gen.11) honored their forefathers by ascribing to them length of days.

· The numbers assigned are symbolic and intended to convey information about each patriarch.

· The number symbolism is based on a mystical numerological system that requires fuller investigation.

Let us explore each of these explanations.

Evidence for Exceptional Longevity among Ancient Peoples

Studies in Paleopathology indicate that the lifespan of ancient peoples living in an area extending from North Africa to Turkey and Mesopotamia was about 32 years. This data applies to peoples in the Late Paleolithic - 30,000 to 9,000 B.C., the Mesolithic - 9,000 to 7,000 B.C. and the Early Neolithic - 7,000 to 5,000 B.C. (For more information on this, go here.)

One might argue that the patriarchs listed in Genesis 11 enjoyed extraordinary longevity by divine providence. Were this the case we would want to know why God’s providence seems limited to a specific time, people and place. In other words, the singularity of the extraordinary longevity of these patriarchs is a miracle and therefore beyond scientific explanation. While I believe in miracles, I find this explanation unlikely, unnecessary and without support from the Bible itself.


God Shortened the Lifespan

Genesis 6 hints that God shortened the lifespan. The Lord said, “My breath shall not abide in man forever, since he too is flesh; let the days allowed him be one hundred and twenty years.” (Gen. 6:3) Were we to take this literally we would expect the lifespan of the patriarchs in Genesis 11 to be no more than 120 years, yet all exceed that number. This suggests that the number 120 is symbolic, but what it symbolizes is unclear without access to the numerology that stands behind this text. If we examine the mystical symbolism of Kabbala, we find clues as to what the number 120 might signify in this context.

The directional poles are critical to the interpretation of the numerical symbolism. The number 1 is associated with north and always represents the Creator God. The number 2 represents the Generative Word and zero is a placeholder that makes this a 3-digit number. The number 3 is associated with the Spirit of God. With this in mind, the symbolism of the number 120 seems to be that the lifespan of the sons of Adam is the exclusive knowledge of God, God’s Generative Word and God’s Spirit. It could also be that the zero is a pictograph representing a cycle or eternity. If so, the meaning would be that what God creates and imbues with the Generative Word will be eternal.


Honoring the Forefathers by Ascribing Length of Days

The Assyrian Kings List provides evidence that ascribing length of days to noble persons was not a common practice. If anyone expected to be shown honor, it was the ancient kings, but their regnal years are, by all appearances, historical. This is borne out by the similarity between the different inscriptions that speak of these kings’ reigns.

Were the Forefathers honored by the assignment of length of days, we would expect Abraham to have been assigned many years since he is the principal Patriarch and the progenitor of Jews, Arabs and other Semites. Yet we are told that Abraham's days were only 175 (Gen. 25:7). If we take up the idea that the longer days are a sign of honor, then we would expect Abraham, the most honored of the Patriarchs to have a very great number. Instead his number - 175- is the equivalent of 4 average lifespans for people at that time.


The Numbers are Symbolic and Convey Information

That the numbers are not to be taken literally is supported by the assignment of 930 years to the mythological first Father, Adam.

Were I to interpret the significance of this number based on the mystical numerology of Kabbala, it would be this: The creature will enjoy the consummation of his faith at the end of time. This makes Adam a type of Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten, who will enter the bridal chamber at the end of days. Paul may have had this in mind when he wrote: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at his coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father…” (1 Corinthians 15:22-24a) And this: “And so it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being.’ The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.” (1 Corinthians 15:45)

I draw on Kabbala, not because I believe it accurately represents the number system of Abraham's people, but because it has affinity to the older Afro-Asiatic cosmology which assigns numbers to the directional poles and to points between the north-south and east-west axes.

This exploration of the Patriarchs' lifespans seems to indicate that the numbers are symbolic and intended to say something about these individuals. What is being communicated is not clear because we still have much to learn about the numerology of Abraham's people.

The view that the numbers are symbolic is supported by the numerical discrepancy surrounding Lamech the Younger. Some might not view him as especially righteous because he was named after his maternal grandfather who bragged about killing a man. Yet Lamech was Noah's father, and Noah found favor with God. The different numbers pertaining to Lamech the Younger are (Greek Septuagint) 753, (Samaritan) 653, and (Hebrew) 777. No other man in the chronology has such a discrepancy in total number of years. It makes one wonder what the numbers suggest about Lamech in each cultural context.

So if the numbers are symbolic, what is Methusaleh's real age? He is assigned 969 years. The sum of these numbers is 21. That would mean that Methusaleh's lifespan was shorter than average. But there is another possibility. As the number system of Abraham's people was base nine, 969 might indicate that Methuselah lived 2 full cycles plus 1/3 again. If the average lifespan was 35 years, this would mean that he lived 35+ 17 + 35 = 87 years.


Who was Melchizedek?

Melchizedek, the ruler-priest of Jerusalem (Salem), is one of the most fascinating figures of Genesis. His Hebrew name means "righteous king." He is mentioned in Genesis 14, Psalm 110:4 and in the New Testament book of Hebrews. Melchizedek is also considered in the works of modern philosophers such as Soren Kierkegaard.

It is clear from Genesis 14 that Melchizedek and Abraham were well acquainted. Both belonged to the Horite caste of ruler-priests which practiced endogamy. In other words, they were kin. It is likely that Melchizedek was the brother-in-law of Joktan, Abraham's father-in-law.

Melchizedek comes to Abraham after a battle in which Abraham incurred blood guilt. Melchizedek's ministry in this situation would have been to perform the appropriate purification ritual. Every warrior society has a purification ritual to help returning warriors deal with their blood guilt. Melchizedek performed the purification ritual that absolved Abraham of blood guilt. In thanks, Abraham offers him the tithe.

Related reading:  Methuselah's Wife; The Lifespans of Methuselah and Lamech; Methuselah's Ancestry

What if Henry had only 2 Wives?

I invite readers to think about and comment on this discussion question: What if Henry VIII had taken only 2 wives, as did the rulers among Abraham’s people?

Assuming that Catherine of Aragon was the first wife/queen and Anne Boleyn the second, would this have put an end to Henry's need for a male heir?

Would the succession wars have been fought between 2 sons instead of 2 daughters?

Would Edward VI have been enthroned?

Would this arrangement have served any practical purposes?

Would lives have been spared?

How would 2 wives have affected events such as:

· the beheading of Anne Boleyn (Queen Elizabeth’s mother)?
· the succession tug-of-war between Mary (Catherine's daughter) and Elizabeth I?
· the blending of Catholicism and reformed ideas under Elizabeth I?