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)

We note the Devil's strategy. He casts doubt in our minds about God's Word. Yet the deeper we dig into the Word, the more we must recognize its reliability.

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!"

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.

He tempts us to look only on the outer appearance and believe that the material is all there is. Satan is the ultimate materialist.

Horite Territory

Alice C. Linsley


Abraham and his wives were Horites. Jews call them "Horim." The Horites were a caste of ruler-priests who were devotees of Horus. Horus prefigures Jesus Christ.This is the origin of Messianic expectation among Abraham's proto-Saharan or Kushite ancestors.

The worship of Horus originated in ancient Kush among Abraham's Kushite ancestors. The oldest known site of Horus worship is at Nekhen in Sudan. Horites spread from Africa to the Indus Valley. In the Bible they are associated with Seir the Horite (Gen. 36) and the region of Edom. Petra reflects Horite beliefs.

The word Horite is likely related to the Egyptian khar, a measurement of fuel used in burnt offerings. It is related also to the Egyptian har-wa, meaning priest. The root of Horus' name is HR and takes numerous forms: Horowitz, Hor, Hur, Har, horos, horismos, horizontal, horizon, horotely, horologion, etc.

Keturah, Abraham's cousin wife, was a Horite bride, the daughter of Joktan. Her sons became the founders of the Joktanite Tribes of Arabia. In the Qur'an the word Horite appears as Houris and refers to deified ancestors. Some Jews and some Arabs share this common ancestry.

Horite ruler-priests were careful to marry chaste daughters of priests. It is not a coincidence that Joseph, the first-born son of Jacob by Rachel, was married to Asenath, daughter of "priest of On" (Gen. 41:45). The intermarriage between Horite priestly lines requires that we take these words quite literally: "For me you shall be a kingdom of priests, a holy nation." (Ex. 19:6)

Terah, the father of Abraham and Sarah, was Horite, the son of Na'Hor or Na-Hur. I Chronicles 4:4 lists Hur (Hor) as the "father of Bethlehem". Clearly, the author of I Chronicles knew that Bethlehem was originally a Horite settlement, less than 10 miles from Mt. Hor. Bethlehem was in the heartland of Horite territory.

David was born about B.C. 1040, the eighth and youngest son of Jesse, a Horite shepherd-priest. The settlement was originally known for the sacrifice of sheep and rams. The meat was distributed to the poor, which is why the settlement was originally called "House of Meat." This meaning is retained in the Arabic name for the town: "bêt lahm".

The original Horite territory appears to have extended north-southeast between Mount Hor (shown above Kadesh-barnea) and Mt. Harun (at red marker). This is consistent with the pattern established among the rulers of Abraham's people who maintained 2 wives on a north-south axis. This pattern is evident with Terah, Abraham's father, who maintained one wife in Haran and the other in Ur. It is evident with Abraham, who maintained Sarah in Hebron and Keturah in Beersheba. The pattern is evident as far back at Genesis 4 where we find Cain associated with Nok and Kano and where we discover that Lamech the Elder set himself up as God by placing his wives on an east-west axis. In Horite cosmology, the sun was the Creator's emblem or God's chariot from which He daily surveys His territory, making a circuit from east to west.

Horite rulers controlled the major water systems at a time when Africa and the Near East were wetter. Noah was a great chief in the area of Lake Chad. Terah's territory was in the region of the Tigrus-Euphrates Valley, there was also a system of lakes about halfway between his settlements in Haran and Ur. Likewise the original Horite territory had water sources at both ends and a body of water halfway between Mt. Hor and Jabal Harun (Aaron's Mountain).

The prominence of the Horites is attested by the detail of the geneological information provided in Genesis 36 and I Chronicles 1. Here we find a great amount of information about Abraham's Horite people. Although Genesis doesn't explicitly state that Isaac married Horite brides, it is evident that he did. Rebekah (his cousin bride) was a descedent of Na'Hor and Terah, and Isaac's half-sister bride (living in Beersheba) was a descendent of Sheba.

Jacob married Horite brides in Rachel and Leah, both descendents of Na'Hor and Terah. Genesis 36 tells us that Esau married at least one Horite bride in Oholibamah, a descendant of Seir the Horite.

Besides being the name of Abraham's father, Terah is also the name of an Arabian tribe (Terabin) that dwells chiefly between Gaza and Beersheba. This information links Terah to the clans of Joktan and Sheba, from which he took his wife, Abraham's mother. It also suggests that Terah's mother was a daughter of a Horite chief named Terah. She named her first-born son by Terah after her father, according to the rites who married Horites.

Josephus calls the descendants of Abraham by Keturah "Hoorites" and, quoting the words of an ancient historian, speaks of them as "conquerors of Egypt and founders of the Assyrian Empire." The people of Esau (Edomites) hardly supplanted the Horites if Esau and Jacob were Horites. It is not possible that the Horites emerged after the time of Abraham since his father and grandfather were Horites.

Horite identity was figured through the mothers and is already evident at the time of Peleg, Noah's great great grandson. Peleg was one of 3 sons, and 3 sons in Genesis always points to a tribal unit. The Horite tribal unit is indicated by the clans of Peleg, Joktan the Elder, and Sheba the Elder. Yet we are told that Peleg's generation marked a time of "division." The division involved geographical separation of the Horite clans in Afro-Asiatic Arameans and Afro-Arabians.  However, the territorial division did not change their kinship pattern. Through intermarriage of the priestly lines, these rulers spread their essentially Nilotic worldview across the ancient Near East as far as Nepal and Cambodia.

During the Roman Period, the Nabateans occupied the heartland of Horite territory.  They were masters of water management and, like their kin in Dedan, lived in caves. Their capital was Petra, the architecture of which corresponds to that of Horite temples along the Nile.


Related reading:  Who Were the Horites?; Peleg: Time of Division; Abraham and Job: Horite Rulers; The Christ in Nilotic Mythology; Who Was Oholibamah?; Abraham's Nephews and Niece; Who Were the Kushites?

Peleg: Time of Division

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)


Alice C. Linsley


This verse has perplexed readers of Genesis for centuries. It is often associated with the Tower of Babel and seen as a marker of the time when God created many languages as an act of divine judgment.  However, all of the languages spoken by the peoples listed in Genesis 4-12 are in the Afro-Asiatic family or emerged from a common Proto-Afroasiatic source. When did this happen? The best guess is in the ninth century B.C.

Militarev, who linked proto-Afroasiatic to the Natufian culture, believes the Proto-Afroasiatic language family to be about 10,000 years old. 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."

Another view holds that this division pertains to tectonic activity. The German scholar Alfred Wagener insisted that the division referred to tectonic drift beginning in Peleg's time, but 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 after the separation of the continents. Wagener's interpretation ignores a vast body of data and important details in Genesis about Noah and his descendants.
Wagener was correct, however, in thinking that the word "Peleg" has to do with separation by waterways. Genesis reveals that after the time of Peleg there was a separation of the ruler-priests lines who controlled separate water systems of the ancient Afro-Asiatic world. The line of Ramaah, Nimrod's brother, was estbalished in northern Arabia. These are the Afro-Arabians whose language was old Arabic. The line of Nimrod settled and established cities in the Tigris-Euphrates River Valley. These are the ancestors of those who spoke Aramaic. So, there was a geographical and linguistic separation of priestly lines. However, the priestly lines continued to intermarry exclusively. They did not change the marriage pattern of their Horite ancestors.

The evidence for ruler-priests exercising control over water systems is found as early as Noah whose homeland was in Bor-No (Land of Noah), in the region of Lake Chad. He lived during the late Holocene Wet Period 8-7,000 years ago. Though Genesis doesn't explicitly state that Noah lived in Africa, it is evident from analysis of the Genesis genealogies that he and Abraham's ancestors were Nilotic peoples. DNA studies have demonstrated that Noah's descendents moved out of Africa into the Arabah. This was the first time of division. The time of Peleg would be the second, when the Kushite migration continued into Mesopotamia.

It is not entirely clear at what point the clans became geographically separated, but it is clear that their kinship pattern did not change.

Further, written records already existed in the time of Nimrod, Noah's great great grandson. Those records indicate that "the earth" refers is the Afro-Asiatic Dominion which extended west into central Africa and east into Mesopotamia. This is why Genesis contains eastern and western accounts of the creation and of the flood. In In the eastern/Nilotic account, Noah takes only one pair of animals on board and releases a dove.  In the western/Asiatic account, he takes seven pairs of clean animals and releases a raven. Africa is not a habitat for ravens, but there are many varieties of doves.


The Clue of Two Sons
Genesis tells us that Eber had "two sons". These words are a clue that the text is speaking of a territory here. Two sons always represents a land holding in Genesis. So we may safely assume that the division of Peleg's time had to do with a separation or parting of ways between two sons or two lines of descendents. The question is which sons or lines separated? To answer that we must look more closely at the genealogical information.

Note that the name "Peleg" doesn’t appear in the lines from which Abraham descends. As far as we know Peleg had no offspring. The lack of information about Peleg's offspring suggests that a separation of clans had taken place at this time. Or it could mean:

a. a loss of information (not likely)

b. a change in kinship pattern (not supported by the evidence), or

c. a veiling of Abraham's Horite blood.

Analysis of the geneological data reveals that critical information is missing about the chiefs who were the contemporaries of Reu, Serug and Nahor. (See chart at right.) The information that is missing pertains to Abraham's mother's people who controlled a region between Mt. Hor (northeast of Kadesh-barnea) and Mt. Harun (near Petra). Genesis 10:30 tells us that these were the clans whose dwelling place extended from Mesha "all the way to Sephar, the eastern mountain range." They are called Horites (Egyptian Khar) in Genesis 14:6, 36:20 and in Deuteronomy 2:12. Numbers 33:27-28 mentions 'Terah' as a place near Mount Harun (Mount of Aaron in Jordan).

Besides being the name of Abraham's father, Terah is also the name of an Arabian tribe (Terabin) that dwells chiefly between Gaza and Beersheba. This information links Terah to the clans of Joktan and Sheba, from which he took his wife, Abraham's mother. It also suggests that Terah's mother was a daughter of a Horite chief named Terah. She named her first-born son by Terah after her father, according to the cousin bride's naming prerogative.

With this information, we are able to list the rulers whose names do not appear in Genesis 10 and 11. The reconstructed chart (below) shows the intermarriage between the lines of Eber and Sheba and reveals Abraham's connections to the Horites of Canaan through his father and his mother. As bloodline was figured through the mother, Abraham would have been regarded as Horite.


Conclusion
After Joktan the Elder married a daughter of Sheba, the Arameans and the Afro-Arabians became established in geographically distant regions. However, their kinship pattern remained unchanged. The lines of Eber and Sheba continued to intermarry, which means that wives were chosen from kin of distant territories (as did Jacob when he married his patrilineal cousin). Their pattern of intermarriage parallels the pattern of intermarriage between the lines of Cain and Seth, the lines of Ham and Shem and the lines of Abraham and Nahor. Apparently, the territorial division began about five generations before Abraham, but can only be understood as geographical separation, not social separation.

Though the clans of Peleg, Joktan and Sheba became geographically separated, they continued to intermarry according to a long-standing kinship pattern. It is interesting to speculate why preservation of the bloodline was so important to these rulers. Could it be that they knew themselves to be direct heirs of God's promise that the Son of God would be born to their bloodlines?  Indeed that is exactly what happened when Jesus was born to Mary, the daughter of a priest and the patrilineal cousin of Joseph of the priestly line of Mattai.


Related reading:  Noah's Homeland; The Christ in Nilotic Mythology; Noah's Sons and Their Descendants; Nimrod: Afro-Asiatic Kingdom Builder; God's Word Never Fails

Cousin Bride's Naming Prerogative

Alice C. Linsley


Among Abraham's Horite caste, the bride's naming prerogative pertains only to patrilineal cousin or niece brides. These were the second wifes, taken prior to ascent to the throne. Keturah was Abraham's cousin wife. The ruler-to-be married his first wife at a younger age.  She was a half-sister, as was Sarah to Abraham.

Horite rulers maintained two wives in separate households on a north-south axis. The wives' settlements marked the northern and southern boundaries of the ruler's territory.

As the sister wife had the same father as her husband, there was no need to identify her firstborn with the ruling father. On the other hand, the cousin bride's father would be identified through the naming of her firstborn son after her father. We first see this pattern in Genesis 4 and 5 where Lamech's daughter marries her cousin Methuselah and names their firstborn son Lamech after her father. Keturah's firstborn was named Joktan after her father. Esau the Younger was named after his maternal grandfather, Esau the Elder. The pattern remains consistent throughout Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Chronicles. It is so consistent among that it can be used to trace Jesus' and John the Baptist's Horite ancestry.

The Horites were devotees of Horus who they called "son of God." Horite kings patterned their rule after thei beliefs concerning Horus. Horus was said to have united two land holdings (the Upper and the Lower Nile) which is why one of his titles was Har-pa-Neb-Taui, which means "Horus of the two lands."

Name Changes

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 give to her Son the name Jesus, which was a common name of that time. Elizabeth also was told to name her son John. Throughout the Bible God assigns names to those called according to His purpose. Jacob was renamed Israel.

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


Right of Primogeniture and Line of Descent

The firstborn son of the sister wife inherited his father's property, territory, authority and legal prerogatives. As the chief had two firstborn sons, provision had was also made for the cousin/niece's firstborn son. The firstborn of the cousin/niece wife ascended to the throne of his maternal grandfather, after whom he was named. The firstborn of concubines and the younger sons of wives were usually given gifts and sent away.  This is what Abraham did with all of his sons except Isaac (Gen. 25:5,6).  Many "sent-away sons" became rulers, having established themselves in new regions. One such ruler was Nimrod (Gen. 10) who is known in history as Sargon the Great. This pattern of neo-local residence for most sons is referred to in Genesis 2:24:  "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother..."

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 Horite 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).

Abram's name doesn't appear anywhere else in the Genesis genealogical lists, but ancient Nilotic peoples, as with African today, took names very seriously.  We can be sure that Abram's name was no coincidence. It was probably a common name in his mother's homeland between Mt. Harun (Mount of Aaron near Petra in Jordan) and Mt. Hor (near Kadesh-barnea).


Related reading:  The Afro-Asiatic Dominion; Who Were the Horites?; Abraham's Canaanite Mother

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

Eusebius Hieronymus, better known as St. Jerome (c.347-420), was one of the most learned men of Christian antiquity. 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.

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 ice, liquid, vapor, etc., 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 Kushite ancestors, the observation of the fixed movement of the heavenly bodies was done by a caste of priests. They noted the constellations have a clocklike movement, the seasons are linked to the 12 lunar cycles, and the Sun directly over head marks mid-day.

They perceived boundaries in the nature order. The boundaries were fixed between "kinds" arranged hierarchically (pyramid). The Biblical "kind" is not synonymous with the word "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 wordview.

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 recontruct 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 descendents of Jacob and of David my servant and cease to choose rulers from his descendents 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. The order of creation is fixed. We 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. The Biblical worldview is Essentialist and often dismissed because it is recognized as biblical. The claim of objectivity is betrayed when a scientist dismisses a significant source of information because he is prejudiced against religion. Such persons should consider the close alignment of the Historical Timeline of Genesis and the findings of the Sciences.


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: First People at Genetic Center; Biblical Anthropologists Dicusss 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?