I like to periodically explain what I'm trying to do with this blog, for any newcomers. It also helps me refocus and may remind my long term audience of why I write a certain way.
First of all, I am not an expert in theology, history, or science. I'm an ordinary person with an interest in those subjects and how they relate to each other. I do have over forty years experience as a former protestant fundamentalist christian, and an avid reader. I was a very serious christian, intent on doing the right thing, and following the bible as correctly as possible. I studied the bible diligently and read many apologetics books. I would often be dismayed when I found that I knew more about a topic than a preacher or a bible class teacher. Eventually, I gave myself permission to read about the bible and religion outside of my tradition and came to be an atheist.
As an atheist, I find the bible more fascinating than ever. I discover things in its pages that would never have struck me as a christian. This blog is to record my thoughts as I read through the scriptures with the open eyes of a nonbeliever. I use many of the tools that are available to any ordinary person, an NIV study bible, an interlinear Greek New Testament, and Strong's exhaustive concordance. I also use online resources like Bible Hub- for many bible versions and other research tools; Bible Gateway- for searching through different versions of the bible for particular words or phrases; Wikipedia- for general knowledge; JPS tagged Tanakh- for a Jewish version of the old Testament; the searchable Jewish Virtual Library- as a reference.
Each post is my own original content. My discussions are informal and not meant to be authoritative. When using sources, I try to either mention them, quote, or give links. I base my topics on whatever strikes my interest at the moment. When reading through a portion of the bible I take note of obvious inconsistencies and questions that naturally arise in my mind. Those are the things I explore. I may miss obvious things that other people have discussed about the same passage. I contrast what I find and what comes to mind, with what I was taught in my past fundamentalist christianity background, and what is still being taught in the church I attend as a nonbeliever. I also contrast the fundamentalist point of view with the secular.
My audience continues to grow. I get daily views from most continents across the globe, except Africa. I do not get many comments. When I do, half of them are spam. The other half are very general comments that are complimentary, but contain no hints that the commenter has actually read the content. They boil down to "I like this blog." As a result, I am unsure whether those comments are spam also. Should you wish to comment, it would help if you would include the title of the post you read, or mention a particular relevant topic. That way I will know when a comment is an actual reader. I am very grateful for everyone who checks in here regularly.
My bias: I do not believe in any gods, demons, or supernatural entities. I do not believe in magic, witchcraft, prophecy, or other supernatural abilities. I do not believe in the holiness or sacredness of any texts. I accept evolution and the findings of modern science, as far as they have the preponderance of evidence in their favor. I believe in the power of education, experimentation, and research of what can be known. That which can not be known is not my god. It is not anything with which I concern myself.
As always, I encourage you to read and explore on your own.
Wednesday, April 25, 2018
Friday, April 20, 2018
High priest Joshua, wrap up
We will not move on in the book of Zechariah. Chapters 9-14 are completely different and seem to have no connection to the previous chapters in style or content. In chapters 1-8, we saw two different types of text, one first person, one third person point of view. The portions of the text written in third person are harsher in tone and do not flow with the rest of the text. If I was to guess, I would assume the first person portions of the text to be authentic. It seems to have been written just before the building of the second temple. It also appears to be predicting a wonderful future for the Israelites returning to their homeland. God will return to them, everyone will prosper, the nations around will be envious.
The high priest Joshua will be given a supreme position of honor and authority, for god will have cleansed him of any sin that he incurred before he arrived in Jerusalem. He will be responsible for the construction of the new temple, with the help of other returning exiles, after Zerubbabel has laid the foundation. When it is finished, Zerubbabel will set in the capstone. All the sin present in Jerusalem will be packed up and carried off to Babylonia. Exiles from the four corners of the earth will return. People will live to old age, and children will play safely in the streets. Yahweh will save them and make them a blessing. It's a very pleasant and optimistic prophecy, very much like a pep talk for the first waves of returning exiles.
We know that optimism was misplaced. Ezra-Nehemiah, writing later and looking back, outlined the many troubles the exiles had rebuilding the temple and the city walls. It also details the poor relations the Jews maintained with the locals, which was the cause of most of the trouble. No wonder. We are told that the Jews refused their help in rebuilding the temple, scorned their worship of yahweh, and eventually instituted a policy of separation and segregation. They even insisted on divorcing wives who were locals, and what became of their children? Can we blame the locals for sabotage and enmity in those circumstances?
Just as the book of Haggai does not mention Zechariah, Zechariah does not mention Haggai. Zechariah's tone is gentler and more optimistic than book of Haggai. Zechariah was also far more inclusive and ecumenical. I imagine that first half of the book of Zechariah could have formed the basis of a hope for the Jews after the destruction of the second temple and the new diaspora that resulted. Maybe there would be another High Priest Joshua to rebuild the temple. It happened before, why not again?
If we look back at the book of Jude, it does not use Zechariah as a basis for optimism. Jude cherry picks verses from Zechariah 3 and other old testament books to prove his own point, which appears to be that he thinks ungodly men are trying to corrupt Judaism (Christianity, if you believe Jude is a christian book). Jude sounds very much like a fundamentalist sounds today. He sees people of his tribe doing and saying non-traditional things. He is throwing up his hands in horror at their audacity and proclaiming them condemned men. He is telling his friends to strengthen their faith and remain loyal to it.
Someone very likely did not like the name Joshua/Jesus included in the passage about the archangel and Satan, in Jude 1:9. So, they changed Joshua to Moses. If it had remained Joshua, it would automatically have been associated with the high priest Joshua, who was proclaimed The Branch by Zechariah. This may have thrown doubt on the christian claim that a first century Jesus/Joshua was the one the branch the prophesies of old were referring to, not a post exile high priest.
The high priest Joshua will be given a supreme position of honor and authority, for god will have cleansed him of any sin that he incurred before he arrived in Jerusalem. He will be responsible for the construction of the new temple, with the help of other returning exiles, after Zerubbabel has laid the foundation. When it is finished, Zerubbabel will set in the capstone. All the sin present in Jerusalem will be packed up and carried off to Babylonia. Exiles from the four corners of the earth will return. People will live to old age, and children will play safely in the streets. Yahweh will save them and make them a blessing. It's a very pleasant and optimistic prophecy, very much like a pep talk for the first waves of returning exiles.
We know that optimism was misplaced. Ezra-Nehemiah, writing later and looking back, outlined the many troubles the exiles had rebuilding the temple and the city walls. It also details the poor relations the Jews maintained with the locals, which was the cause of most of the trouble. No wonder. We are told that the Jews refused their help in rebuilding the temple, scorned their worship of yahweh, and eventually instituted a policy of separation and segregation. They even insisted on divorcing wives who were locals, and what became of their children? Can we blame the locals for sabotage and enmity in those circumstances?
Just as the book of Haggai does not mention Zechariah, Zechariah does not mention Haggai. Zechariah's tone is gentler and more optimistic than book of Haggai. Zechariah was also far more inclusive and ecumenical. I imagine that first half of the book of Zechariah could have formed the basis of a hope for the Jews after the destruction of the second temple and the new diaspora that resulted. Maybe there would be another High Priest Joshua to rebuild the temple. It happened before, why not again?
If we look back at the book of Jude, it does not use Zechariah as a basis for optimism. Jude cherry picks verses from Zechariah 3 and other old testament books to prove his own point, which appears to be that he thinks ungodly men are trying to corrupt Judaism (Christianity, if you believe Jude is a christian book). Jude sounds very much like a fundamentalist sounds today. He sees people of his tribe doing and saying non-traditional things. He is throwing up his hands in horror at their audacity and proclaiming them condemned men. He is telling his friends to strengthen their faith and remain loyal to it.
Someone very likely did not like the name Joshua/Jesus included in the passage about the archangel and Satan, in Jude 1:9. So, they changed Joshua to Moses. If it had remained Joshua, it would automatically have been associated with the high priest Joshua, who was proclaimed The Branch by Zechariah. This may have thrown doubt on the christian claim that a first century Jesus/Joshua was the one the branch the prophesies of old were referring to, not a post exile high priest.
Thursday, April 19, 2018
High Priest Joshua, part 4
We continue in Zechariah 6. Zechariah is still with the angel in his vision. Now he sees four chariots with four different color horses, coming from between two mountains of bronze. These horses are sent in the four cardinal directions throughout the earth.
Next, the word of the lord came to Zechariah, telling him to take silver and gold from some of the exiles, make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua. Then, Zechariah is to say, "Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the lord. It is he who will build the temple of the lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two." So here the high priest Joshua is called the branch. The author of Zechariah seems to be saying saying that Joshua is the fulfillment of the prophecies about the Branch, found in Isaiah 4 and Ezekiel 17. Jeremiah 23 and 33 also mention a righteous branch. After this, the crown is to be given back to the exiles, but kept in the temple as a memorial. This is to remind them the temple will be built if they obey the lord.
Since it is clear from this passage that Joshua was the Branch. It seems quite plausible that he could have become a larger than life mythological figure or symbol in Judaism, or among some Jews, representing a man of righteousness and favor with god. After the destruction of the second temple, in the days of Rome, wouldn't the Jews be looking for a second Joshua/Branch to rebuild the temple and be anointed as high priest by Yahweh? It's a compelling thought.
In chapter 7 of Zechariah, we start with a short paragraph written in third person, possibly inserted later. It is now supposed to be the 4th year of Darius, ninth month, 4th day. People of Bethel came to ask the lord a question, through the priests. They wanted to know if they should continue to mourn and fast in the fifth month as they had done for years.
Next, in verse 4, we have first person passage where god asks Zechariah to ask all the people and priests if they had really been fasting for yahweh, or even feasting for yahweh, over the last seventy years. Hadn't the prophets of old asked the same thing when the Jerusalem and the surrounding area were at peace? The appearance of the number seventy usually has some prophetic significance.
In verse 8, we switch back to third person. Verses 8-10 appear to be inserted in the text. They disrupt the continuity of the passage. If they were left out the rest of chapter eight would make more sense, continuing in the vein of what happened when the prophets of old warned the people but they did not listen. Then the lord scattered them among the nations. It's about the past. However, verses 8-10 seem to be trying to connect it with Zechariah's time. It is slightly confusing.
Moving on to chapter 8, we are back in first person. Yahweh tells Zechariah he will return to Jerusalem to live. Once again there will be peace and prosperity. Yahweh will save his people from the east and the west and the will come back to live in Jerusalem. Everyone hearing those words needed to be strong to rebuild the temple. The lord was not going to treat the remnant of his people as he did in the past. (That didn't work out so well, did it?) Crops would grow, rain would fall, and the remnant's inheritance would flourish. Judah and Israel would be a blessing. Yahweh brought disaster upon their ancestors when they angered him, but now he is determined to do good again to Jerusalem. These are the things Yahweh required of them: to speak the truth, be just, and treat their neighbors right.
So, to answer the question from verse four, the mourning fasts are to become festivals of joy. Many people from other lands will come and seek out Yahweh. They will beg to live in the land of the Jews.
More to come.
Next, the word of the lord came to Zechariah, telling him to take silver and gold from some of the exiles, make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua. Then, Zechariah is to say, "Here is the man whose name is the Branch, and he will branch out from his place and build the temple of the lord. It is he who will build the temple of the lord, and he will be clothed with majesty and will sit and rule on his throne. And there will be harmony between the two." So here the high priest Joshua is called the branch. The author of Zechariah seems to be saying saying that Joshua is the fulfillment of the prophecies about the Branch, found in Isaiah 4 and Ezekiel 17. Jeremiah 23 and 33 also mention a righteous branch. After this, the crown is to be given back to the exiles, but kept in the temple as a memorial. This is to remind them the temple will be built if they obey the lord.
Since it is clear from this passage that Joshua was the Branch. It seems quite plausible that he could have become a larger than life mythological figure or symbol in Judaism, or among some Jews, representing a man of righteousness and favor with god. After the destruction of the second temple, in the days of Rome, wouldn't the Jews be looking for a second Joshua/Branch to rebuild the temple and be anointed as high priest by Yahweh? It's a compelling thought.
In chapter 7 of Zechariah, we start with a short paragraph written in third person, possibly inserted later. It is now supposed to be the 4th year of Darius, ninth month, 4th day. People of Bethel came to ask the lord a question, through the priests. They wanted to know if they should continue to mourn and fast in the fifth month as they had done for years.
Next, in verse 4, we have first person passage where god asks Zechariah to ask all the people and priests if they had really been fasting for yahweh, or even feasting for yahweh, over the last seventy years. Hadn't the prophets of old asked the same thing when the Jerusalem and the surrounding area were at peace? The appearance of the number seventy usually has some prophetic significance.
In verse 8, we switch back to third person. Verses 8-10 appear to be inserted in the text. They disrupt the continuity of the passage. If they were left out the rest of chapter eight would make more sense, continuing in the vein of what happened when the prophets of old warned the people but they did not listen. Then the lord scattered them among the nations. It's about the past. However, verses 8-10 seem to be trying to connect it with Zechariah's time. It is slightly confusing.
Moving on to chapter 8, we are back in first person. Yahweh tells Zechariah he will return to Jerusalem to live. Once again there will be peace and prosperity. Yahweh will save his people from the east and the west and the will come back to live in Jerusalem. Everyone hearing those words needed to be strong to rebuild the temple. The lord was not going to treat the remnant of his people as he did in the past. (That didn't work out so well, did it?) Crops would grow, rain would fall, and the remnant's inheritance would flourish. Judah and Israel would be a blessing. Yahweh brought disaster upon their ancestors when they angered him, but now he is determined to do good again to Jerusalem. These are the things Yahweh required of them: to speak the truth, be just, and treat their neighbors right.
So, to answer the question from verse four, the mourning fasts are to become festivals of joy. Many people from other lands will come and seek out Yahweh. They will beg to live in the land of the Jews.
More to come.
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
High priest Joshua, part 3
We left off in Zechariah chapter 2. This chapter does not mention the high priest Joshua, but I am doing a summary of Zechariah so we can see where Joshua fits in the book. Last time I mentioned I wanted to explore something about this particular chapter. I was confused at the way the angel's speech to Zechariah was worded in the NIV. It seemed as if there were two "Lords" speaking, the plain lord and the lord almighty. Plus, an angel was speaking on behalf of the lord, as though he was the lord. It was confusing and I needed to get it straight in my head. I'm still confused. In verses 8-13, all the words "lord" are from the word yahweh, but yahweh appears to be talking about himself in the third and first person at the same time. It is a grammatical horror. I decided to compare the Christian version of Zechariah 2 with the Jewish version. They are quite different in grammatical structure, but I am no more enlightened than I was before. So, we will move on to chapter three.
Zechariah is telling what else happened in his vision. The angel who was speaking to him showed him Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the lord. The angel of the lord in these kinds of situations usually appears to physically represent the lord and speak for him, almost as if he is the lord, but he is not. It can get confusing. This angel of the lord was thought to be the archangel Michael, as seen in Jude. Satan is standing at Joshua's right side to accuse him. This is not the Christian version of Satan, but the Jewish version. He is kind of like a prosecuting attorney, trying to prove the defendant guilty. The lord (actually the angel) said to Satan, "the lord rebuke you, Satan," then the angel requested that Joshua's filthy clothes, representing sin, be taken away, and rich garments be put on him. Zechariah told the angel to put a clean turban on Joshua's head, and it was done.
Next, the angel of the lord commissioned Joshua to govern the temple, if Joshua would walk in Yahweh's ways. Then he would be given a place among the angels. He told Joshua that he and his associates were symbolic of things to come. Yahweh was going to bring his servant, the Branch. This refers to prophecies in Ezekiel 17 and Isaiah 4, about Yahweh restoring Jerusalem,and maybe the monarchy, with a descendant of the old monarchy. My study bible calls it a messianic prophecy, but I think the author is just referring to the restoration of Jerusalem. The chapter goes on to predict an ideal future for the land. It should be noted that this was probably written before the Greeks and Romans came to conquer the holy land. There was no need for a savior. Things were going to be fixed. The Jews were migrating back to their homeland and rebuilding their city as well as their relationship with Yahweh. Later jews looking for a savior may have tried to find hope of a messiah in this passage, but I doubt that was the original purpose. Funny that the prophet Zechariah did not foresee the future conquests.
In chapter 4, the angel of the lord wakes Zechariah up, only to find himself in another symbolic vision with lamp stands, lights, olive trees, etc. this is supposed to represent the word of the lord about Zerubbabel laying the foundation of the temple and completing it. The two olives trees represent two who are anointed to serve the lord of all the earth. It could be the new king and the new high priest. My study bible says it could be another messianic vision of a future combination priest-king. However, these are two separate and distinct olive trees.
In chapter 5, Zechariah does a double take and sees a flying scroll. It is a curse against all thieves and liars. Then the angel draws his attention to a basket. It was a measuring basket, inside the basket was a woman. She represented wickedness. (Ugh, it would be a woman.) the basket has a lead cover which was pushed down over the top. It was lifted up by two other women with wings who carried it away to Babylon.
We will continue on next time.
Zechariah is telling what else happened in his vision. The angel who was speaking to him showed him Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the lord. The angel of the lord in these kinds of situations usually appears to physically represent the lord and speak for him, almost as if he is the lord, but he is not. It can get confusing. This angel of the lord was thought to be the archangel Michael, as seen in Jude. Satan is standing at Joshua's right side to accuse him. This is not the Christian version of Satan, but the Jewish version. He is kind of like a prosecuting attorney, trying to prove the defendant guilty. The lord (actually the angel) said to Satan, "the lord rebuke you, Satan," then the angel requested that Joshua's filthy clothes, representing sin, be taken away, and rich garments be put on him. Zechariah told the angel to put a clean turban on Joshua's head, and it was done.
Next, the angel of the lord commissioned Joshua to govern the temple, if Joshua would walk in Yahweh's ways. Then he would be given a place among the angels. He told Joshua that he and his associates were symbolic of things to come. Yahweh was going to bring his servant, the Branch. This refers to prophecies in Ezekiel 17 and Isaiah 4, about Yahweh restoring Jerusalem,and maybe the monarchy, with a descendant of the old monarchy. My study bible calls it a messianic prophecy, but I think the author is just referring to the restoration of Jerusalem. The chapter goes on to predict an ideal future for the land. It should be noted that this was probably written before the Greeks and Romans came to conquer the holy land. There was no need for a savior. Things were going to be fixed. The Jews were migrating back to their homeland and rebuilding their city as well as their relationship with Yahweh. Later jews looking for a savior may have tried to find hope of a messiah in this passage, but I doubt that was the original purpose. Funny that the prophet Zechariah did not foresee the future conquests.
In chapter 4, the angel of the lord wakes Zechariah up, only to find himself in another symbolic vision with lamp stands, lights, olive trees, etc. this is supposed to represent the word of the lord about Zerubbabel laying the foundation of the temple and completing it. The two olives trees represent two who are anointed to serve the lord of all the earth. It could be the new king and the new high priest. My study bible says it could be another messianic vision of a future combination priest-king. However, these are two separate and distinct olive trees.
In chapter 5, Zechariah does a double take and sees a flying scroll. It is a curse against all thieves and liars. Then the angel draws his attention to a basket. It was a measuring basket, inside the basket was a woman. She represented wickedness. (Ugh, it would be a woman.) the basket has a lead cover which was pushed down over the top. It was lifted up by two other women with wings who carried it away to Babylon.
We will continue on next time.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
The High Priest Joshua, part 2
Now let us look at what Haggai and Zechariah have to say about the priest Joshua/Jeshua. They were supposedly present at the rebuilding of the second temple in Jerusalem.
Haggai 1:1 tells us Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, was the high priest in the second year of King Darius. At that Time, Haggai was prophet to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah. The book speaks of Haggai completely in third person but its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Haggai. This seems to be a common practice in the Bible. To me it is clear that the true author/authors are unknown, especially when the book itself makes no authorship claims. The time period that the events are to have taken place is fairly easy to figure out because there is secular history of Darius and the Persian Empire.
In verses 1:12&14, we are told that the high priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel listened to and obeyed Haggai because he was god's messenger and delivered "the voice of the lord." So Haggai was kind of telling everyone what to do and claiming it was god's will. Haggai's message from the Lord was "I am with you." This made them all anxious to build god a house, the temple.
In chapter 2, Haggai continues to tell Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor what god is saying. Why can't god speak to them directly? That is so weird, and suspicious. Anyway, they are told god's spirit will stay with them and they are not to be afraid. The new temple they build for him will be greater than the previous one. "The silver and the gold is mine," declares the lord. Ha! Even more suspicious. Then god tells them that they were defiled before, now they will be blessed. Plus, Zerubbabel will be like god's chosen king. That's pretty much it. Nothing different or earth shattering. The word of the lord came from Haggai in the second year of Darius, on the sixth, seventh and ninth months. He does not mention Zechariah.
Let's look at Zechariah. This book begins in third person with a kind of introduction. It says the word of the lord came to Zechariah in the second year, on the eighth and eleventh months. How convenient, another mouthpiece of god, one who can speak for god on the months when Haggai doesn't. The word of the lord is a little more harsh in tone coming from the introduction to Zechariah. He tells the people they need to turn from their evil ways and repent. If they return to him, he will return to them.
Starting in verse 1:8, the narrative switches to first person and appears to be coming directly from Zechariah. He is having visions. These visions have elements and symbols that are common to other apocalyptic writings. You've got horsemen on horses of different colors riding through the earth, and angels talking with "the lord" and Zechariah. (Move over Revelation.) But these horsemen said they rode through the earth and found peace. When does Jerusalem get a piece of it? The lord says he is going to return to Jerusalem. His house will be rebuilt and prosperity will return. Then he speaks of four horns that scattered Judah and four craftsmen who will throw down the horns. This predicts a defeat of Israel's enemies.
In chapter two we read Zechariah's continuing vision of the coming glory of the new Jerusalem. It won't have exterior walls because the lord himself will be a wall of fire around it. Well. That didn't happen. According to Ezra-Nehemiah, walls were built. Zechariah continues with a theme of the Jews returning to Jerusalem and "the lord" returning to live with them. There is something going on in this 2nd chapter that I want to explore next time. Till then.
Haggai 1:1 tells us Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, was the high priest in the second year of King Darius. At that Time, Haggai was prophet to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah. The book speaks of Haggai completely in third person but its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Haggai. This seems to be a common practice in the Bible. To me it is clear that the true author/authors are unknown, especially when the book itself makes no authorship claims. The time period that the events are to have taken place is fairly easy to figure out because there is secular history of Darius and the Persian Empire.
In verses 1:12&14, we are told that the high priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel listened to and obeyed Haggai because he was god's messenger and delivered "the voice of the lord." So Haggai was kind of telling everyone what to do and claiming it was god's will. Haggai's message from the Lord was "I am with you." This made them all anxious to build god a house, the temple.
In chapter 2, Haggai continues to tell Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor what god is saying. Why can't god speak to them directly? That is so weird, and suspicious. Anyway, they are told god's spirit will stay with them and they are not to be afraid. The new temple they build for him will be greater than the previous one. "The silver and the gold is mine," declares the lord. Ha! Even more suspicious. Then god tells them that they were defiled before, now they will be blessed. Plus, Zerubbabel will be like god's chosen king. That's pretty much it. Nothing different or earth shattering. The word of the lord came from Haggai in the second year of Darius, on the sixth, seventh and ninth months. He does not mention Zechariah.
Let's look at Zechariah. This book begins in third person with a kind of introduction. It says the word of the lord came to Zechariah in the second year, on the eighth and eleventh months. How convenient, another mouthpiece of god, one who can speak for god on the months when Haggai doesn't. The word of the lord is a little more harsh in tone coming from the introduction to Zechariah. He tells the people they need to turn from their evil ways and repent. If they return to him, he will return to them.
Starting in verse 1:8, the narrative switches to first person and appears to be coming directly from Zechariah. He is having visions. These visions have elements and symbols that are common to other apocalyptic writings. You've got horsemen on horses of different colors riding through the earth, and angels talking with "the lord" and Zechariah. (Move over Revelation.) But these horsemen said they rode through the earth and found peace. When does Jerusalem get a piece of it? The lord says he is going to return to Jerusalem. His house will be rebuilt and prosperity will return. Then he speaks of four horns that scattered Judah and four craftsmen who will throw down the horns. This predicts a defeat of Israel's enemies.
In chapter two we read Zechariah's continuing vision of the coming glory of the new Jerusalem. It won't have exterior walls because the lord himself will be a wall of fire around it. Well. That didn't happen. According to Ezra-Nehemiah, walls were built. Zechariah continues with a theme of the Jews returning to Jerusalem and "the lord" returning to live with them. There is something going on in this 2nd chapter that I want to explore next time. Till then.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Jude afterthoughts, the High Priest Joshua
I got to thinking about that High Priest Joshua guy from Zecariah 3 and I thought it would be a shame
not to explore who he was while he was fresh in our minds. First of all, let's remember that the name Joshua = Yeshua= Jesus. It's the same name, but not necessarily the same person. However, I would like to consider the possibility that the myth and cult surrounding Jesus might have had an origin in the mythic tradition surrounding the high priest Joshua that Jude was probably referring to. In fact one possibility is that the only word in Jude that was changed is the word Jesus (Yeshua) into the word Moses in verse 9. The other Jesus phrases may have been in the original text, actually referring to the high priest of Zechariah, not the Jesus of Nazareth. There is no way to know, but, to me, these speculations make more sense than that Jude was written by a christian worshipper of the New Testament Jesus. That Jesus can't be found in the book of Jude.
First let's note that the high priest Joshua is called Jeshua the son of Jozadak in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. He is called Joshua son of Josedech in Haggai and Zechariah. They are considered the same person.
In Ezra 2:2, we see Jeshua was a Babylonian exile, returning to Jerusalem. In Ezra 3:2, we see Jeshua is a priest. Seven months after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests build the altar of god to burn sacrifices. In Ezra 3:8, two years after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests and Levites supervise the building of the new temple. In Ezra 4:3, the people who were living in the land when the exiles returned wanted to help build the new temple because they had also been worshipping Yahweh. Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel refused their help. The locals resented that and set about trying to sabatoge the building. Eventually, after multiple complications, the building came to a stop. In Ezra 5:2, Haggai and Zechariah were prophets, the ones who later supposedly wrote about Joshua/Jeshua. They were helping Jeshua try to rebuild the temple. They finished the temple in Ezra 6. In Ezra 7, many more exiles returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, including Ezra, supposedly the writer of this book, even though it refers to him in the third person. They brought many levites and lots of treasure for the temple with them. When the new group got to Jerusalem, they had a great sacrifice to god. Later, they were told that the previous group of returned exiles had intermarried with the locals. Ezra was appalled. After a lot of weeping, wailing, and repenting, all the men who had married "foreign" women were required to "put away" their wives, which probably meant to divorce them. Then they had to each sacrifice a ram as a guilt offering. This included descendants in Jeshua's family.
I always think its funny how the bible calls the locals of that land foreigners. Technically, the returning Israelites themselves were the foreigners by that time.
In Nehemiah, we have an account of later events. Ezra had left Babylon for Jerusalem in Artaxerxes 7th year. Nehemiah left Babylon in the 20th year. He left because he heard that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and its gates burnt. He wants to help rebuild. After the walls have been rebuilt and guards appointed, Nehemiah wants to register everyone. He finds the genealogical records of the first group of returned exiles. Jeshua's name is included in Nehemial 7:7, 12:1, 7, 10 (there we learn names of one of Jeshua's sons and some of his grandsons.) In this book Jeshua's son is called Joiakim. Joiakim served "in the days of Nehemiah the governor and Ezra the priest and scribe." The name Jeshua is repeated a few times in the book of Nehemiah, but it is unclear if it always the same Jeshua.
That's pretty much it for Jeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah. The only definite claim to fame in these books is that he was a levite priest and one of the first exiles to return. He was supposed to be instrumental in building the new temple, aka "the house of god."
Next we look at what the books of Haggai and Zechariah have to say about him.
not to explore who he was while he was fresh in our minds. First of all, let's remember that the name Joshua = Yeshua= Jesus. It's the same name, but not necessarily the same person. However, I would like to consider the possibility that the myth and cult surrounding Jesus might have had an origin in the mythic tradition surrounding the high priest Joshua that Jude was probably referring to. In fact one possibility is that the only word in Jude that was changed is the word Jesus (Yeshua) into the word Moses in verse 9. The other Jesus phrases may have been in the original text, actually referring to the high priest of Zechariah, not the Jesus of Nazareth. There is no way to know, but, to me, these speculations make more sense than that Jude was written by a christian worshipper of the New Testament Jesus. That Jesus can't be found in the book of Jude.
First let's note that the high priest Joshua is called Jeshua the son of Jozadak in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. He is called Joshua son of Josedech in Haggai and Zechariah. They are considered the same person.
In Ezra 2:2, we see Jeshua was a Babylonian exile, returning to Jerusalem. In Ezra 3:2, we see Jeshua is a priest. Seven months after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests build the altar of god to burn sacrifices. In Ezra 3:8, two years after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests and Levites supervise the building of the new temple. In Ezra 4:3, the people who were living in the land when the exiles returned wanted to help build the new temple because they had also been worshipping Yahweh. Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel refused their help. The locals resented that and set about trying to sabatoge the building. Eventually, after multiple complications, the building came to a stop. In Ezra 5:2, Haggai and Zechariah were prophets, the ones who later supposedly wrote about Joshua/Jeshua. They were helping Jeshua try to rebuild the temple. They finished the temple in Ezra 6. In Ezra 7, many more exiles returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, including Ezra, supposedly the writer of this book, even though it refers to him in the third person. They brought many levites and lots of treasure for the temple with them. When the new group got to Jerusalem, they had a great sacrifice to god. Later, they were told that the previous group of returned exiles had intermarried with the locals. Ezra was appalled. After a lot of weeping, wailing, and repenting, all the men who had married "foreign" women were required to "put away" their wives, which probably meant to divorce them. Then they had to each sacrifice a ram as a guilt offering. This included descendants in Jeshua's family.
I always think its funny how the bible calls the locals of that land foreigners. Technically, the returning Israelites themselves were the foreigners by that time.
In Nehemiah, we have an account of later events. Ezra had left Babylon for Jerusalem in Artaxerxes 7th year. Nehemiah left Babylon in the 20th year. He left because he heard that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and its gates burnt. He wants to help rebuild. After the walls have been rebuilt and guards appointed, Nehemiah wants to register everyone. He finds the genealogical records of the first group of returned exiles. Jeshua's name is included in Nehemial 7:7, 12:1, 7, 10 (there we learn names of one of Jeshua's sons and some of his grandsons.) In this book Jeshua's son is called Joiakim. Joiakim served "in the days of Nehemiah the governor and Ezra the priest and scribe." The name Jeshua is repeated a few times in the book of Nehemiah, but it is unclear if it always the same Jeshua.
That's pretty much it for Jeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah. The only definite claim to fame in these books is that he was a levite priest and one of the first exiles to return. He was supposed to be instrumental in building the new temple, aka "the house of god."
Next we look at what the books of Haggai and Zechariah have to say about him.
Saturday, April 7, 2018
Jude, part 4 and wrap up
We continue with verses 17-19. "...remember what the apostles of our lord (Jesus Christ) foretold. They said to you, 'In the last days there will be scoffers ("mockers" in some translations) who will follow their own ungodly desires.' These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the spirit." I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it could be taken out and the passage could very well have been written by a Jewish non Christian. None of the ideas in this passage, or in the whole of Jude, have been distinctly Christian.
The term apostle was not new with christianity, it had the generic greek meaning of messenger or one who was sent on behalf of another. Both the old and new testaments speak of scoffers or mockers and last days. The quote Jude mentions does not occur in either the old or new testament. There were issues of divisions in Judaism in the first century, even besides the introduction of Christianity. Jude's letter could very well have been a polemic against the Hellenization of Judaism.
Verses 20-21: ".... build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the holy spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our lord (Jesus Christ) to bring you to eternal life." Again, nothing here is specific to Christianity and could be referring to Judaism. I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it is not necessary to the passage.
Verses 22-23: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Snatching from fire is found in Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. The Zachariah verse is found in the context of the high priest Joshua (Jesus figure) that I mentioned in a previous post. After Joshua was said to have been snatched from the fire. Zechariah 3:4 says he was dressed in filthy clothes, equated with sin. The angel of the lord had them removed and clean clothes were put on him. Coincidentally, this passage in Jude mentions clothing stained by corrupted (sinful) flesh. Actually, I don't think it was a coincidence. Jude seems to have anchored part of his letter on the first verses in Zechariah 3.
Jude's letter ends with "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (like Joshua in Zechariah 3)--to the one and only god our savior be the glory, majesty, power, and authority, (through Jesus Christ) our lord ( ,) before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." I put the words "through Jesus Christ" and the comma in parentheses to show how the meaning and flow of the sentence is changed without them. There were no comma's in the early manuscripts. Also if you read the interlinear text, the word order of this passage differs from the NIV. The translators are the ones responsible for that. I don't blame those christians who get suspicious of certain translations. Liberties do seem to be taken in many cases. Perhaps doctrinal agendas are at play in some instances.
I urge you to go back and read quickly through the book of Jude, leaving out all references to Jesus Christ. When I do that, I see a Jewish document, not a Christian one. There is no mention of any of Jesus's life or unique teachings. No, birth, baptism, sermons, miracles, death, burial, or resurrection. None of the disciples/apostles are mentioned by name. No specific churches are mentioned. No uniquely christian doctrines are discussed. On the contrary, Jude mentions a number of specifically Jewish teachings and writings, biblical (old testament) and extrabiblical.
This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. I think some enterprising christian may have co-opted a first century Jew's sermon or essay and inserted a few generic references to Jesus. Maybe it was stolen or confiscated. Maybe this writing was referring to those of the new christian sect as the bad guys. Anyway, It seems obvious: Jude=Jew. I don't wonder that it was disputed by the early church.
The term apostle was not new with christianity, it had the generic greek meaning of messenger or one who was sent on behalf of another. Both the old and new testaments speak of scoffers or mockers and last days. The quote Jude mentions does not occur in either the old or new testament. There were issues of divisions in Judaism in the first century, even besides the introduction of Christianity. Jude's letter could very well have been a polemic against the Hellenization of Judaism.
Verses 20-21: ".... build yourselves up in your most holy faith and pray in the holy spirit. Keep yourselves in God's love as you wait for the mercy of our lord (Jesus Christ) to bring you to eternal life." Again, nothing here is specific to Christianity and could be referring to Judaism. I put Jesus Christ in parentheses to show that it is not necessary to the passage.
Verses 22-23: "Be merciful to those who doubt; snatch others from the fire and save them; to others show mercy mixed with fear--hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh." Snatching from fire is found in Amos 4:11 and Zechariah 3:2. The Zachariah verse is found in the context of the high priest Joshua (Jesus figure) that I mentioned in a previous post. After Joshua was said to have been snatched from the fire. Zechariah 3:4 says he was dressed in filthy clothes, equated with sin. The angel of the lord had them removed and clean clothes were put on him. Coincidentally, this passage in Jude mentions clothing stained by corrupted (sinful) flesh. Actually, I don't think it was a coincidence. Jude seems to have anchored part of his letter on the first verses in Zechariah 3.
Jude's letter ends with "To him who is able to keep you from falling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy (like Joshua in Zechariah 3)--to the one and only god our savior be the glory, majesty, power, and authority, (through Jesus Christ) our lord ( ,) before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen." I put the words "through Jesus Christ" and the comma in parentheses to show how the meaning and flow of the sentence is changed without them. There were no comma's in the early manuscripts. Also if you read the interlinear text, the word order of this passage differs from the NIV. The translators are the ones responsible for that. I don't blame those christians who get suspicious of certain translations. Liberties do seem to be taken in many cases. Perhaps doctrinal agendas are at play in some instances.
I urge you to go back and read quickly through the book of Jude, leaving out all references to Jesus Christ. When I do that, I see a Jewish document, not a Christian one. There is no mention of any of Jesus's life or unique teachings. No, birth, baptism, sermons, miracles, death, burial, or resurrection. None of the disciples/apostles are mentioned by name. No specific churches are mentioned. No uniquely christian doctrines are discussed. On the contrary, Jude mentions a number of specifically Jewish teachings and writings, biblical (old testament) and extrabiblical.
This book does not claim to be inspired or the word of god. I think some enterprising christian may have co-opted a first century Jew's sermon or essay and inserted a few generic references to Jesus. Maybe it was stolen or confiscated. Maybe this writing was referring to those of the new christian sect as the bad guys. Anyway, It seems obvious: Jude=Jew. I don't wonder that it was disputed by the early church.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)