| by Cam Rea (Kendallville, Indiana) |
|---|
| The Achaemenid dynasty’s foundation is based on a man by the name of Achaemenes. Not much is known about the man himself. However, he is considered the eponymous founder according to the Behistun inscription of Darius I listed in his genealogy. Cyrus the Great says nothing on the Babylonian cylinder about the founder of their dynasty. However, Cyrus refers to himself as an Achaemenid on the inscriptions found at Pasargadae, but it is also debated whether the inscriptions are of Cyrus the Great as it could be quite possible that Darius I wrote those inscriptions after Cyrus died. Nevertheless, their most likely was a man by the name of Achaemenes. The only problem surrounding Achaemenes was, who was he?[i] Let us start with the name Achaemenes. Achaemenes is a Greek form of his name. His name in Old Persian is Hakhamanish,[ii] or Haxamanis, or in Babylonian Ahamaniis, and in Elamite Haakkamannuis.[iii] In addition, we also have Hakhamanas[iv] and Hakhamaneshi[v] as well as Hakamanish.[vi] As you can see, there are various spellings and pronunciations of his name. Now, the name Hakhamanish is said to possibly mean “friendly-minded”. Hakha or Sakha means “friend or friendly”, while the man in “manish” means “mind or minded.”[vii] This may be true, but there is another alternative to his name that should be considered. Sakha is Sanskrit and Hakha is Old Persian. Both languages are related to a certain degree.[viii] However, the term Sakha that is used in India is also used when referring to the Saka and you can find the name Saka in Sakha Sakha. In-addition, there was a tribe of Scythians called Sakha/Saka that migrated into Northern India[ix] and seem to have settled in the Panjab/Punjab region. In-addition, the Sakha/Saka are also called Shaka, and their capital was Shakala in Eastern Punjab.[x] It now becomes possible that Hakha in Hakhamanish is another form for the term “Saka”. To give you a fuller detail let us look at the similarities between the two names. Now, the Hakha and Sakha, both obviously have “akha” found in the name but consider that both share the letters aka which is found in the word “Saka”. Now, look at the name Hakha and the Scythians called Shaka. Both once again share the “haka” in the name and if you remember reading earlier Haka was another form of Hakha. It also seems that Sakha/Hakha are similar to the name “Sahak” as you read earlier which was another name for King Astyages which means Isaac, and Isaac in Hebrew is “Ishak”. Notice the “hak” in Ishak, which bears similarities to Hakha and Sakha. In-addition, it also becomes possible that Hak is an epithet of “Haik”, which also means Isaac. Thus, it becomes quite possible to suggest that Hakha or Sakha is not just the word friend or friendly, but can also represent an origin, and that name seems to point to none other than the Saka/Scythian tribes that bear the name Isaac.[xi] The next bit that needs to be focused on is the manish in Hakhamanish. As you have already read, there is a number of ways it is spelled. Manish, Manis, Maniis, Mannuis, Manas, Maneshi, Menes. When looking at the various forms of Manish, it becomes possible and thus speculated that all the various names for Manish you have just read, point to the tribe known as Manasseh. Take the name Manas that you have just read. Manas is also another name for Manasseh. The same can be said for Mannuis, which seems to be similar to Mannus, and is also linked to Manasseh. The name Menes could be linked to the name “Menesen”, which also seems to be connected to Manasshe as well. In-addition, the name Hakhamanish also bears the suffix “ish or esh” which represents a sense of being or be-longing to a certain tribe or a person of ancestry. Thus, in conclusion to the meaning of the name Hakhamanish, it seems plausible that his name could mean “Isaac of Manasseh”.[xii] [i] M. A. Dandamayev. “ACHAEMENES,” http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f4/v1f4a108.html [ii] Bienkowski, Millard, Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, p. 1 [iii] Tavernier, Iranica in the Achaemenid Period (ca. 550-330 B.C.), p. 17-18 [iv] Herzog, Hauck, Realencyklopadie fur protestantische Theorogie und Kirche, p. 390 [v] Nabarz, The Mysteries of Mithras, p. 149 [vi] Nanavutty, The Parsis, p. 177/ Culican, The Medes and Persians, p. 49 [vii] Burton, Camoens: His life and His Lusiads, p. 656 [viii] Wiesehöfer, Ancient Persian, p. 239 [ix] Hackmann, Buddism as a Religion: Its Historical Development and its pre-sent conditions, p. 49 [x] Narain, Later Indo-Scythians, p. 121-122 [xi] Davidy, Lost Israelite Identity, p. 56, 288 [xii] Davidy, Lost Israelite Identity, p. 153-154/ Davidy, The Tribes, p. 147, 389, 404, 425, 350 |
| Iron Sharpening Iron In regard to: Were the Early Great Kings of Persia Israelites? Article by Cam Rea Comments by Ray Daly (Lincoln, North Dakota) |
|---|
| This is in response to Cam Rea’s report on whether any of the kings of Persia “were Israelites”. While history and Scripture supports there being some Israelite influences within the realm of Persia, Scripture and history does not support Persia’s kings being Israelite. The book of Esther doesn’t give any inclination of this, though the “Judeans” living within said empire, did indeed come to have strong influence. But there is no evidence that any of the Judeans ever became rulers in Persia. However, there were at least two- and one-half Israelite tribes living next to Persia. These being the half tribe of Manasseh, and the tribes of Reuben and Gad. Which tribes settled “east of the Jordan”. It was in the 700’s BC when the armies of Assyria invaded that area, taking several peoples captive. Including the Israelite tribes. Those of Manasseh were settled as a buffer in northern India. While Reuben and Gad were settled on the border of Asia. Which would have put them next to the countries of Persia. And, it would have been very likely that these Israelites would have had normal relationships with the Persians. Since in a sense, they were related to the Persians. We find this in the following Scripture. One which to date, I have not found discussed amongst the historical Sabbath keepers’ writings. In Gen. 25 we read of Abraham’s descendants. First are listed the sons of Abraham’s second wife, Keturah. Which sons were settled in Arabia, east of Israel. These were also removed from this area by the Assyrians or fled from the Assyrian’s. The point is, these sons of Keturah wound up in Macedonia, and were the “Grecian Empire”, that defeated the Persians. Which at that time, made the Israelites “kings in the former Persian Empire” area. Keturah’s sons today are the nations of Eastern Europe. Including the “white Russians”. But going on in Gen. 25. We are told that Abraham gave all to his son Isaac. But note what it tells us in 25:6. “But, of the CONCUBINES, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived. EASTWARD, unto the EAST country.” Or, quite far from Isaac’s lands that his son Jacob would one day bring Israel to. Thus, it seems that the Persians were of Abraham, and thus they would have had a decent relationship with the tribes of Israel mentioned above. Such countries as Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (Somewhere I seem to remember that there were “seven” sons of the concubines?) would be those of Abraham’s concubines. For even though there is bad relations today, it was not always so. At one time, the Shah of Iran was a friend of the US. Until, that is, the descendants of Haman the Amalakite took power. Haman, as you know, wanted to kill all of the Judeans in Persia. Because he was an Amalakite. He and his sons were hanged. But his sons wives and children were allowed to live. And as mentioned, they rule in Persia for the most part today. Again, there may be some relationship with the meanings of Persian kings, but it is very unlikely that any were Israelites. Which tribes mentioned, lived outside of Persia’s borders. As buffers for Assyria. |
Views: 0
Sign up to Receive [The "New" Church of God Messenger] weekly newsletter: