It's time for me to go. I've been putting my thoughts on the bible out into the ether for about five years now. It started out as an antidote to my religious conditioning and an outlet for things I wish I could say out loud. At that time, I was a closeted atheist attending a church of christ. My husband was the only person in the world who knew I was an atheist and he was not happy about it. I was more than a little afraid for my future, having been socialized to believe I would be shunned and abandoned if anyone ever knew what I actually thought about god, the bible, and religion.
I kept this blog anonymous and unfunded, even though it kept me in the no man's land of the Google algorithm, because I didn't want it to affect my personal life in any way. I didn't care how many viewers I got, but have been pleasantly surprised throughout the years. My blog's map shows me I've had readers from every continent. (Hello, to my regular visitors) However, I never received any comments on my actual content. Just a bit of spam now and then. That's okay. It actually made me less self conscious and willing to ramble on.
My life and the world have changed over the last five years. I feel that I have covered everything I needed and wanted to discuss about the bible in this blog. I'm no longer attending church and have no plans to ever go back. I have friends and family members who know I am an atheist and have not abandoned me. However, I still feel the need to exercise caution when speaking about religion. My husband is still not happy about it, but he pretends it is a non-existent issue. My fear is not as great as it once was, but my sorrow has increased a hundred fold. I have lost someone very dear to me.
Because of my loss, I have had to make some monumental life changes and mental shifts. My psyche has been in emotional turmoil for over six months. I really should find a therapist that I can work with, one who won't "bimble off into woo woo land." I've shed a lot of former activities and associations, clearing my way for a future that is still a mystery to me. I have plans to finish my education and do a little travelling. I also want to move away from an area which has not been good for my mental health. In the spirit of trying new things to see what sticks, I bought myself a ukulele.
Existential angst is a powerful thing. I suspect embracing it might be easier and healthier than resisting. We'll see. In the meantime, the earth has been well watered with my tears. Life is strange. I can wake up in the morning and appreciate the beauty of my world, hear the laughter of people I love, and even laugh a little myself. Yet still I walk around with a broken heart and the certain knowledge that we are all but space dust. The universe and time care nothing for my tears.
To my friends and family, should you ever find this blog: I have been as honest in these pages as I know how to be. If anything I have written gives you pain or sorrow, know that it was not my intent. I was writing what I saw as true at the time.
To my children, should you ever find this blog: I love you dearly, more than words can tell.
Rest in peace my dear one.
AG
Friday, October 4, 2019
Esther part twelve and wrap up.
We are now at chapter nine. The year went by and it is now the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, the month of Adar. The Jews assembled in all the cities waiting to attack those who would try to destroy them. Many of the non Jews were afraid of them. The nobles and officials decide to side with the Jews because Mordecai had become very powerful and influential. The Jews used swords to kill their enemies, destroying five hundred men in the citadel of Susa alone. They also killed Haman's ten sons, but they did not lay hands on the plunder. This is again a reference to the time Saul was to completely destroy the Agagites and not take plunder. Saul broke the rules. Mordecai, his supposed descendent didn't. It was redemption.
The king heard about the destruction in Susa and the death of Haman's sons. He asked Esther if there was anything else she wanted. Esther requested that the Jews in Susa be allowed to continue protecting themselves the next day as well. She also wanted Haman's sons to be hung on gallows. The king agreed. The next day, the fourteenth of Adar, three hundred more men were killed by the Jews in Susa. But the plunder was not taken.
On the fifteenth of Adar, the Jews rested "and made it a day of feasting and joy." The author says this is why rural Jews celebrate this event on the fourteenth of Adar and the Jews of Susa presumably celebrate on the fifteenth. It became day of joy and feasting and for giving presents to each other. Mordecai sent letters throughout the empire giving instructions about how in the future they were to celebrate those days that the Jews were saved from their enemies. The Jews agreed that they and their descendents would uphold this celebration the same two days every year. It was called Purim, because Haman had cast lots to find out what day would be good for the Jews destruction. A lot was called the "pur." That is where the word Purim is supposed to have come from.
We are now at chapter ten. King Xerxes required tribute from his entire empire, "to its distant shores," which would have included Jerusalem, Israel, and Palestine. Every thing he did, and the full account of Mordecai's greatness, are supposed to have been written in the annals of the kings of Media and Persia. Too bad we don't have those records. We do have Herodotus' account of Xerxes' exploits and they do not contain any information about Mordecai or Esther. Nothing outside the bible does. Mordecai the Jew was supposedly second in command to Xerxes and held in high esteem by all the Jews. That's a pretty big deal, if it is true. However, that suspiciously similar to Joseph's relationship to Pharaoh in the book of Genesis. Plus, Neither Mordecai or Esther are mentioned anywhere else in the bible.
This book was written by an unknown author. It does not mention any other Old Testament characters, places, or events. It does not mention Yahweh, or any of his commandments. It does not mention any uniquely Jewish religious or cultural practises or beliefs. It does not claim to be the inspired word of a god. It seems to merely serve as an explanation for the celebration of Purim. It is my considered opinion that the celebration had some other less exalted explanation and this story was derived to give the holiday legitimacy. I could be wrong about that. However, the holiday seems to be used as a good reason to have a party with a lot of alcohol.
Herodotus tells us that Xerxes wife Amestris (Vashti?), when she was old, "made return for her her own life to the god who is said to be beneath the earth by burying twice seven children of Persians who were men of renown." In other words, she tried to get immortality by sacrificing fourteen children. Nice lady. Xerxes was assassinated about 465 BCE, after reigning about 21 years.
The king heard about the destruction in Susa and the death of Haman's sons. He asked Esther if there was anything else she wanted. Esther requested that the Jews in Susa be allowed to continue protecting themselves the next day as well. She also wanted Haman's sons to be hung on gallows. The king agreed. The next day, the fourteenth of Adar, three hundred more men were killed by the Jews in Susa. But the plunder was not taken.
On the fifteenth of Adar, the Jews rested "and made it a day of feasting and joy." The author says this is why rural Jews celebrate this event on the fourteenth of Adar and the Jews of Susa presumably celebrate on the fifteenth. It became day of joy and feasting and for giving presents to each other. Mordecai sent letters throughout the empire giving instructions about how in the future they were to celebrate those days that the Jews were saved from their enemies. The Jews agreed that they and their descendents would uphold this celebration the same two days every year. It was called Purim, because Haman had cast lots to find out what day would be good for the Jews destruction. A lot was called the "pur." That is where the word Purim is supposed to have come from.
We are now at chapter ten. King Xerxes required tribute from his entire empire, "to its distant shores," which would have included Jerusalem, Israel, and Palestine. Every thing he did, and the full account of Mordecai's greatness, are supposed to have been written in the annals of the kings of Media and Persia. Too bad we don't have those records. We do have Herodotus' account of Xerxes' exploits and they do not contain any information about Mordecai or Esther. Nothing outside the bible does. Mordecai the Jew was supposedly second in command to Xerxes and held in high esteem by all the Jews. That's a pretty big deal, if it is true. However, that suspiciously similar to Joseph's relationship to Pharaoh in the book of Genesis. Plus, Neither Mordecai or Esther are mentioned anywhere else in the bible.
This book was written by an unknown author. It does not mention any other Old Testament characters, places, or events. It does not mention Yahweh, or any of his commandments. It does not mention any uniquely Jewish religious or cultural practises or beliefs. It does not claim to be the inspired word of a god. It seems to merely serve as an explanation for the celebration of Purim. It is my considered opinion that the celebration had some other less exalted explanation and this story was derived to give the holiday legitimacy. I could be wrong about that. However, the holiday seems to be used as a good reason to have a party with a lot of alcohol.
Herodotus tells us that Xerxes wife Amestris (Vashti?), when she was old, "made return for her her own life to the god who is said to be beneath the earth by burying twice seven children of Persians who were men of renown." In other words, she tried to get immortality by sacrificing fourteen children. Nice lady. Xerxes was assassinated about 465 BCE, after reigning about 21 years.
Esther part eleven
We are now at chapter seven. The king and Haman are dining with Esther and the king again asks Esther what he can do for her. With a great deal of dignity, Esther asks the king to spare her people from annihilation. She adds that she wouldn't have bothered him if they were just be sold into slavery. The king wanted to know who would dare to do such a thing and the queen said, "The adversary and enemy is this vile Haman." I don't know if it is intentional, but "the adversary" has been used as a term for the devil.
Haman was naturally terrified. The king was enraged and went out into the garden, probably to gain control of his temper. Haman stayed behind to beg Esther for his life. He knew that the king was furious enough to execute him. Just as Haman was dramatically falling on Esther in humility, the king walked back in. He immediately suspected Haman of trying to molest her. Haman was held prisoner and a eunuch in attendance informed the king of the gallows Haman had built for Mordecai. The king order Haman to be hung on it.
We are now at chapter eight. Xerxes gave Esther all Haman's property. She told the king Mordecai was her relative and the king gave Mordecai the signet ring that Haman had once worn. Esther put Mordecai in charge of Haman's estate. She also begged the king with many tears to rescind Haman's plan to execute the Jews. The king said another decree could be written in behalf of the Jews, in the king's name and sealed with his signet ring. However, the previous decree could not be rescinded because it too was sealed by the king's signet ring, and "a document written in the king's name and sealed with his ring, could not be revoked. "
It is now the twenty third day of the month of Sivan, the third month of the year. Mordecai comes up with a new document that will counteract the effects of the old. He has it translated into all the necessary languages, he seals it with the king's ring and sends copies out to all parts of the empire by special couriers. These couriers may have used the famous Persian Royal Road.
What did the king's (Mordecai's) new edict say? It gave the Jews the right to assemble, to protect themselves, and to kill anyone who might try to kill them. They were also allowed to plunder the property of their enemies. The day appointed for all this was the same day that Haman had declared to be when the Jews should be attacked, the 13th day of the twelfth month. Copies of this edict were made known throughout the land. Everyone was to know that the Jews would be ready to face their attackers, with the king's permission. The city of Susa was also informed and greatly rejoiced. There must have been a lot of Jews living there. Mordecai now had royal robes and a large crown. There was a lot of feasting and celebrating throughout the provinces. Some non Jews decided it was a good time to become Jewish.
Till next time.
Haman was naturally terrified. The king was enraged and went out into the garden, probably to gain control of his temper. Haman stayed behind to beg Esther for his life. He knew that the king was furious enough to execute him. Just as Haman was dramatically falling on Esther in humility, the king walked back in. He immediately suspected Haman of trying to molest her. Haman was held prisoner and a eunuch in attendance informed the king of the gallows Haman had built for Mordecai. The king order Haman to be hung on it.
We are now at chapter eight. Xerxes gave Esther all Haman's property. She told the king Mordecai was her relative and the king gave Mordecai the signet ring that Haman had once worn. Esther put Mordecai in charge of Haman's estate. She also begged the king with many tears to rescind Haman's plan to execute the Jews. The king said another decree could be written in behalf of the Jews, in the king's name and sealed with his signet ring. However, the previous decree could not be rescinded because it too was sealed by the king's signet ring, and "a document written in the king's name and sealed with his ring, could not be revoked. "
It is now the twenty third day of the month of Sivan, the third month of the year. Mordecai comes up with a new document that will counteract the effects of the old. He has it translated into all the necessary languages, he seals it with the king's ring and sends copies out to all parts of the empire by special couriers. These couriers may have used the famous Persian Royal Road.
What did the king's (Mordecai's) new edict say? It gave the Jews the right to assemble, to protect themselves, and to kill anyone who might try to kill them. They were also allowed to plunder the property of their enemies. The day appointed for all this was the same day that Haman had declared to be when the Jews should be attacked, the 13th day of the twelfth month. Copies of this edict were made known throughout the land. Everyone was to know that the Jews would be ready to face their attackers, with the king's permission. The city of Susa was also informed and greatly rejoiced. There must have been a lot of Jews living there. Mordecai now had royal robes and a large crown. There was a lot of feasting and celebrating throughout the provinces. Some non Jews decided it was a good time to become Jewish.
Till next time.
Esther part ten.
We are now at Esther chapter five. It is the third day of the Jew's fasting for Esther. Esther puts on her royal robes and goes to seek an audience with the king. The king sees her and extends his royal scepter. Esther goes to him. The king calls her "Queen Esther" and says he will grant her anything, up to half the kingdom. This is also what Herod promises his wife's daughter in Mark 6:23. First, we already know it is highly unlikely Esther was the Queen. Second, I wonder if anyone ever called a king's bluff and asked for half a kingdom. (I'm guessing that is a purely fictional trope.)
Esther chooses to ask the king if he and Haman will come to a banquet she has prepared that day. (Notice the contrast to the fast Esther has just been on)The king sends for Haman and they go to Esther's banquet. The king is pretty sure Esther hasn't actually asked for what she wants yet. While they are drinking wine, he asks her again what he can give her. She asks that the king and Haman come back to another banquet the next day.
Haman was pleased as punch with the mark of the queen's favor. However, when he went out of the king's gate and saw that Mordecai would still not show him physical signs of respect, he was furious. He didn't do anything to Mordecai, but went home and bragged to his wife and friends about his current exalted position and the fact that he got to attend the queen's banquet. Then he complained about Mordecai being the one thing that irritated him. His wife and friends had a solution: build a gallows 75 feet high, then ask the king for permission to hang Mordecai on it. Haman gleefully decided to carry out this proposal. Seventy five feet is about as tall as a seven story building. My commentary suggests it is either an exaggeration or the gallows was built on top of the city wall. I vote for exaggeration.
We are now at chapter six. The night after Esther's banquet, the king has insomnia. He orders the book of the record of his reign to be read to him. While the record is read, the king hears the story of how Mordecai foiled the plot of the king's assassination. He asked what had been done to reward Mordecai and the answer is nothing. By that time, Haman had come back to work and was getting ready to ask the king for permission to hang Mordecai on the gallows he had built. Wow. That was fast. Haman had a 75 foot gallows built over night.
Haman is told to come into the presence of the king. The king asks Haman a hypothetical question, "What should be done for the man the king delights to honor." Ooh, boy. Haman is sure the king is talking about him! Who else could it be? Haman proceeds to describe his own fantasy about being honored. He wants to wear a royal robe that the king has worn, and ride on a horse the king has ridden. The horse is to have a royal crest on its head and is to be led through the streets by one of the noble princes who would be proclaiming, "This is what is being done for the man the king delights to honor."
The king loves this idea and tells Haman to do everything single he suggested.....for Mordecai. The tables have turned. So Haman himself had to lead Mordecai through the streets proclaiming, "This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor." That must have stung. Afterward, Haman ran home in shame to tell his wife and friends what happened. They tried to console him by reminding him that Mordecai was a Jew and all the Jews were going to be destroyed any way. Then Haman had to hurry off to attend the next banquet being given by Esther for Haman and the king. The
Till next time.
Esther chooses to ask the king if he and Haman will come to a banquet she has prepared that day. (Notice the contrast to the fast Esther has just been on)The king sends for Haman and they go to Esther's banquet. The king is pretty sure Esther hasn't actually asked for what she wants yet. While they are drinking wine, he asks her again what he can give her. She asks that the king and Haman come back to another banquet the next day.
Haman was pleased as punch with the mark of the queen's favor. However, when he went out of the king's gate and saw that Mordecai would still not show him physical signs of respect, he was furious. He didn't do anything to Mordecai, but went home and bragged to his wife and friends about his current exalted position and the fact that he got to attend the queen's banquet. Then he complained about Mordecai being the one thing that irritated him. His wife and friends had a solution: build a gallows 75 feet high, then ask the king for permission to hang Mordecai on it. Haman gleefully decided to carry out this proposal. Seventy five feet is about as tall as a seven story building. My commentary suggests it is either an exaggeration or the gallows was built on top of the city wall. I vote for exaggeration.
We are now at chapter six. The night after Esther's banquet, the king has insomnia. He orders the book of the record of his reign to be read to him. While the record is read, the king hears the story of how Mordecai foiled the plot of the king's assassination. He asked what had been done to reward Mordecai and the answer is nothing. By that time, Haman had come back to work and was getting ready to ask the king for permission to hang Mordecai on the gallows he had built. Wow. That was fast. Haman had a 75 foot gallows built over night.
Haman is told to come into the presence of the king. The king asks Haman a hypothetical question, "What should be done for the man the king delights to honor." Ooh, boy. Haman is sure the king is talking about him! Who else could it be? Haman proceeds to describe his own fantasy about being honored. He wants to wear a royal robe that the king has worn, and ride on a horse the king has ridden. The horse is to have a royal crest on its head and is to be led through the streets by one of the noble princes who would be proclaiming, "This is what is being done for the man the king delights to honor."
The king loves this idea and tells Haman to do everything single he suggested.....for Mordecai. The tables have turned. So Haman himself had to lead Mordecai through the streets proclaiming, "This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor." That must have stung. Afterward, Haman ran home in shame to tell his wife and friends what happened. They tried to console him by reminding him that Mordecai was a Jew and all the Jews were going to be destroyed any way. Then Haman had to hurry off to attend the next banquet being given by Esther for Haman and the king. The
Till next time.
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Esther part nine
We are at the end of chapter three. The edict to destroy the Jews on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, of the twelfth year if Xerxes reign, has been sent out. "The king and Haman sat down to drink, but the city of Susa was bewildered."
When Mordecai found out about the edict, he went into mourning. He tore his clothes, wore sackcloth and ashes, and wailed loudly. Jews throughout the empire did the same thing, including fasting. What was this supposed to accomplish? 1 Kings 21:27-28, shows us an example of king Ahab doing this to show humility before god, so that god will change his mind about destroying him. In Genesis 37:34, Jacob mourns his son while in sackcloth. My commentary suggests the author of Esther may have been familiar with Joel 2:12-17, Which suggests that mourning behavior can cause god to relent from sending calamity. There are also many instances of fasting, often as a sign if repentence.
While Mordecai was thus attired, he was not allowed to enter through the king's gate. Esther heard about Mordecai through her maids and eunuchs. She sent him some other clothes, but he would not wear them. Esther sent one of her eunuchs out to find out what the problem was. Mordecai told the eunuch the whole story and gave him a copy of the edict. The eunuch went back to Esther and reported what Mordecai had told him, along with a request for Esther to go into the king's presence and plead for the lives of her people.
Esther sent the eunuch back to Mordecai with a message. Everyone knew that to go into the presence of the king without being summoned was a risky enterprise. They could be put to death, unless the king extended his gold scepter. Plus, Esther had not been called to go to the king for a month. Mordecai sent a message back to Esther. "Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to this royal position for such a time as this?" This is the main theme of the whole story.
God is not mentioned at all, but Mordecai expects salvation for at least some of the Jews, if not for him and Esther. From whence cometh this salvation? Is hope in this salvation justified? Even today, after over 2,5000 years, there is a firm belief that there will always be a remnant of the Jewish god's chosen people on earth. Many Christians consider themselves part of that category.
Note: My bible commentary says that the other "place" where salvation arrives from may be a play on words, one of the names of god being "the place."
Next, Esther sends her message back to Mordecai. She wants him to gather up all the Jews in Susa and have them conduct a fast on her behalf, for three days and three nights. (Hmmm. That's a familiar time span.) Esther and her maids will also fast. After that she will go take her chances with the king. "Mordecai went away and carried out all of Esther's instructions."
Notice the contrast between the fasting and acts of humility and service of Esther and Mordecai and the extravagance and feasting of the royal household.
When Mordecai found out about the edict, he went into mourning. He tore his clothes, wore sackcloth and ashes, and wailed loudly. Jews throughout the empire did the same thing, including fasting. What was this supposed to accomplish? 1 Kings 21:27-28, shows us an example of king Ahab doing this to show humility before god, so that god will change his mind about destroying him. In Genesis 37:34, Jacob mourns his son while in sackcloth. My commentary suggests the author of Esther may have been familiar with Joel 2:12-17, Which suggests that mourning behavior can cause god to relent from sending calamity. There are also many instances of fasting, often as a sign if repentence.
While Mordecai was thus attired, he was not allowed to enter through the king's gate. Esther heard about Mordecai through her maids and eunuchs. She sent him some other clothes, but he would not wear them. Esther sent one of her eunuchs out to find out what the problem was. Mordecai told the eunuch the whole story and gave him a copy of the edict. The eunuch went back to Esther and reported what Mordecai had told him, along with a request for Esther to go into the king's presence and plead for the lives of her people.
Esther sent the eunuch back to Mordecai with a message. Everyone knew that to go into the presence of the king without being summoned was a risky enterprise. They could be put to death, unless the king extended his gold scepter. Plus, Esther had not been called to go to the king for a month. Mordecai sent a message back to Esther. "Do not think that because you are in the king's house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father's family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to this royal position for such a time as this?" This is the main theme of the whole story.
God is not mentioned at all, but Mordecai expects salvation for at least some of the Jews, if not for him and Esther. From whence cometh this salvation? Is hope in this salvation justified? Even today, after over 2,5000 years, there is a firm belief that there will always be a remnant of the Jewish god's chosen people on earth. Many Christians consider themselves part of that category.
Note: My bible commentary says that the other "place" where salvation arrives from may be a play on words, one of the names of god being "the place."
Next, Esther sends her message back to Mordecai. She wants him to gather up all the Jews in Susa and have them conduct a fast on her behalf, for three days and three nights. (Hmmm. That's a familiar time span.) Esther and her maids will also fast. After that she will go take her chances with the king. "Mordecai went away and carried out all of Esther's instructions."
Notice the contrast between the fasting and acts of humility and service of Esther and Mordecai and the extravagance and feasting of the royal household.
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
Esther and Herodotus part eight
We are at chapter three, verse 2. It is about the the beginning of the twelfth year of Xerxes' reign, a little more than four years after he supposedly made Esther Queen. Haman has been exalted by the king, who has commanded that all the royal officials at the king's gate kneel down to Haman. Mordecai dies not kneel down or pay Haman honor. Why? Who knows. Maybe because he's supposed to be an Agagite, an hereditary enemy of the Israelites. However, though it makes for a good story, it's highly unlikely that was actually the case. Five hundred years had passed since the alleged enmity between the two tribes. Even if it actually happened, what are the chances that level of disdain would travel that far through the centuries, maintaining its fervor?
The royal officials wanted to know why Mordecai would not comply. He did not answer or change his behavior. The officials told Haman to see what he would do about it, as well as revealing to Haman that Mordecai was a Jew. Haman was hopping mad. When he found out who Mordecai's people were, he decided to kill the lot of them throughout the whole kingdom.
It was the first month (Nisan) of the twelfth year of Xerxes's reign. Haman cast lots to see when would be a good time to kill all the Jews. The lot fell on the twelfth month, the last month (Adar) of the year. Haman went to Xerxes and told him "there is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples. In all the provinces of your kingdom whose customs are different from those of all other people and who do not obey the king's laws. It is not in the king's interest to tolerate them. If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will put ten thousand talents of silver into the royal treasury for the men who carry out this business.
Haman is offering to pay for the extermination of the Jews if the king will sign off on it. He doesn't appear to tell the king who he is going to exterminate, though. The king gives Haman his royal ring, which basically gives him the power to do almost anything. Xerxes also tells him to forget about the money, Haman is allowed to do whatever he wants to the people. If this story was true, Xerxes was an idiot. He gave Haman carte blanche to destroy a bunch of people in his kingdom, without even asking any questions?!!
On the thirteenth day of the first month, Haman had the royal scribed write out his orders in the various languages of the empire and had them sent out by couriers to all the king's provinces. The orders were written in the name of Xerxes and sealed with his ring. They said that "all the Jews, young and old, women and children," were to be killed on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. Permission was also given to plunder the goods of the Jews. Extra copies of the edict were issued and sent out so that all the non-official peoples of every tribe would also be ready to attack the Jews.
It probably wasn't a coincidence that the day the author says this declaration was written, the thirteenth of Nisan, was the day before the Fast of the first born and two days before the Jewish Passover week. Another interesting coincidence is that in Persia/Iran, the thirteenth day of the first month was an annual celebration called Sizdeh Be-dar. This day is traditionally around the American date of April first or second and has been a day to play pranks, since before the time our story takes place! The Jews were also to be killed on the thirteen day of the last month. Thirteen certainly looked like an unlucky number for them.
Till next time.
The royal officials wanted to know why Mordecai would not comply. He did not answer or change his behavior. The officials told Haman to see what he would do about it, as well as revealing to Haman that Mordecai was a Jew. Haman was hopping mad. When he found out who Mordecai's people were, he decided to kill the lot of them throughout the whole kingdom.
It was the first month (Nisan) of the twelfth year of Xerxes's reign. Haman cast lots to see when would be a good time to kill all the Jews. The lot fell on the twelfth month, the last month (Adar) of the year. Haman went to Xerxes and told him "there is a certain people dispersed and scattered among the peoples. In all the provinces of your kingdom whose customs are different from those of all other people and who do not obey the king's laws. It is not in the king's interest to tolerate them. If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy them, and I will put ten thousand talents of silver into the royal treasury for the men who carry out this business.
Haman is offering to pay for the extermination of the Jews if the king will sign off on it. He doesn't appear to tell the king who he is going to exterminate, though. The king gives Haman his royal ring, which basically gives him the power to do almost anything. Xerxes also tells him to forget about the money, Haman is allowed to do whatever he wants to the people. If this story was true, Xerxes was an idiot. He gave Haman carte blanche to destroy a bunch of people in his kingdom, without even asking any questions?!!
On the thirteenth day of the first month, Haman had the royal scribed write out his orders in the various languages of the empire and had them sent out by couriers to all the king's provinces. The orders were written in the name of Xerxes and sealed with his ring. They said that "all the Jews, young and old, women and children," were to be killed on the thirteenth day of the twelfth month. Permission was also given to plunder the goods of the Jews. Extra copies of the edict were issued and sent out so that all the non-official peoples of every tribe would also be ready to attack the Jews.
It probably wasn't a coincidence that the day the author says this declaration was written, the thirteenth of Nisan, was the day before the Fast of the first born and two days before the Jewish Passover week. Another interesting coincidence is that in Persia/Iran, the thirteenth day of the first month was an annual celebration called Sizdeh Be-dar. This day is traditionally around the American date of April first or second and has been a day to play pranks, since before the time our story takes place! The Jews were also to be killed on the thirteen day of the last month. Thirteen certainly looked like an unlucky number for them.
Till next time.
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Esther and Herodotus part seven
We are at Esther 2:11. Esther has undergone a year of intensive beauty treatments. It was her turn to get deflowered go to the king. She had permission to take whatever she wanted, but limited herself to what the head eunuch suggested. This made her very likable. "She was taken to King Xerxes in the royal residence in the tenth month, in the month of Tebeth, in the seventh year of his reign." That was in the winter, somewhere around 479 BCE, at least four years after the banquet in chapter one.
The text tells us the king was highly attracted to Esther and liked her better than all the other virgins he sampled. "So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti." If this story is about the historical king of Persia, Xerxes, and his actual queen, Amestris, the last statement is a blatant falsehood. It is historically unbelievable that this king should have take a woman of unknown origin and make her his queen in place of the mother of his heirs, just because she made a good impression in the bedroom. Not only that, Amestris was obviously a wickedly jealous woman, if Herodotus is to be believed.
Next, the king gave a great banquet, "Esther's banquet." He invited all the nobles and officials and gave out presents. Did he ask the new queen to show up at the banquet when everyone was drunk? It doesn't say.
Verse 19 is rather odd. It says, "when the virgins were assembled a second time, Mordecai was sitting at the king's gate." So, the king chose his new queen but kept rounding up virgins any way. Why was Mordecai sitting at the king's gate? The text has only said that he has been concerned about Esther's fate. By now, she's been in the royal compound for over a year. I'm pretty sure the implication is that he has found some occupation there. Perhaps as a scribe or other servant. The text goes on to say that from his position at the gate, Mordecai continues to give Esther instructions, and she continues to follow them. Plus, at Mordecai's command, she still has not told anyone she is a Hebrew,
While Mordecai was still sitting at the king's gate. He happened to discover a plot to kill the king. Mordecai relayed the news to Esther who reported it to the king, The report was "investigated and found to be true." The conspirators were hanged and the event was written in the king's records.
We are now at chapter three. Some time has passed between chapters two and three, possibly up to five years, as we will see. Enter the villain, Haman the Agagite. We are told that the king elevated him and gave "him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles." It may not be obvious, but the author is having a little fun with words here. Way back in Chronicles, all the Agagites were supposedly destroyed during the reign of Saul. How could Haman be an Agagite at least 500 years later? Back in the day, Agag was a king whose downfall by the Israelites was allegedly predicted in Numbers 24:7, "Their king will be greater than Agag; their kingdom will be exalted." The name Agag meant "high." It has the connotation of great or exalted. Numbers was playing off that meaning to say that Agag may be high, but Israel would be higher. This prediction is supposed to have come true with the destruction of Agag and his kingdom in Chronicles.
So, when the author of Esther called Haman an Agagite, he is basically saying that Haman may look high and mighty now, but he's cruising for a fall. And at the hands of a possible descendant of Saul no less.
Till next time.
The text tells us the king was highly attracted to Esther and liked her better than all the other virgins he sampled. "So he set a royal crown on her head and made her queen instead of Vashti." If this story is about the historical king of Persia, Xerxes, and his actual queen, Amestris, the last statement is a blatant falsehood. It is historically unbelievable that this king should have take a woman of unknown origin and make her his queen in place of the mother of his heirs, just because she made a good impression in the bedroom. Not only that, Amestris was obviously a wickedly jealous woman, if Herodotus is to be believed.
Next, the king gave a great banquet, "Esther's banquet." He invited all the nobles and officials and gave out presents. Did he ask the new queen to show up at the banquet when everyone was drunk? It doesn't say.
Verse 19 is rather odd. It says, "when the virgins were assembled a second time, Mordecai was sitting at the king's gate." So, the king chose his new queen but kept rounding up virgins any way. Why was Mordecai sitting at the king's gate? The text has only said that he has been concerned about Esther's fate. By now, she's been in the royal compound for over a year. I'm pretty sure the implication is that he has found some occupation there. Perhaps as a scribe or other servant. The text goes on to say that from his position at the gate, Mordecai continues to give Esther instructions, and she continues to follow them. Plus, at Mordecai's command, she still has not told anyone she is a Hebrew,
While Mordecai was still sitting at the king's gate. He happened to discover a plot to kill the king. Mordecai relayed the news to Esther who reported it to the king, The report was "investigated and found to be true." The conspirators were hanged and the event was written in the king's records.
We are now at chapter three. Some time has passed between chapters two and three, possibly up to five years, as we will see. Enter the villain, Haman the Agagite. We are told that the king elevated him and gave "him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles." It may not be obvious, but the author is having a little fun with words here. Way back in Chronicles, all the Agagites were supposedly destroyed during the reign of Saul. How could Haman be an Agagite at least 500 years later? Back in the day, Agag was a king whose downfall by the Israelites was allegedly predicted in Numbers 24:7, "Their king will be greater than Agag; their kingdom will be exalted." The name Agag meant "high." It has the connotation of great or exalted. Numbers was playing off that meaning to say that Agag may be high, but Israel would be higher. This prediction is supposed to have come true with the destruction of Agag and his kingdom in Chronicles.
So, when the author of Esther called Haman an Agagite, he is basically saying that Haman may look high and mighty now, but he's cruising for a fall. And at the hands of a possible descendant of Saul no less.
Till next time.
Saturday, September 28, 2019
Esther and Herodotus, part six.
Now we know what has been happening between the end of chapter one and the beginning of chapter two. The text tells us that King Xerxes' anger has cooled off since the banquet of chapter one and he realizes he has banished the queen from his presence. Who will take Vashti's place? After all, he needs someone to keep him warm at night when he is in the mood for female company. (It seems that seducing his relatives didn't work out too well for him.) The king's advisers propose an empire wide search for beautiful virgins to fill his harem. The girls are to be placed under the care of the king's eunuch who will see that they get full beauty treatments. The one girl who pleases the king, after he tries them all, will get to be queen. What luck! For the king. Of course, he heartily approved of this plan.
Did this happen? Who knows. It seems a risky undertaking, especially for the girls, considering the temperament of Xerxes queen Amestris/ Vashti. It is highly unlikely that any of these girls that Xerxes has gathered will actually become queen, even Esther. That's not how things worked. The queens were almost always royal family, with known connections. Marriage for a king was usually strategic and political. If this story happened, Esther would have been one among many concubines. Herodotus tells us that the Persians "marry each one several lawful wives, and they get also a much larger number of concubines." The wives were to bear royal children who would be in line for the throne or to marry other royals. The concubines had a lower status.
Enter Mordecai and Esther. We are told their family background and how Esther came to be in Mordecai's care. (See Esther and Herodotus, the main characters ) the implication is that Esther herself is of royal Jewish lineage. Perhaps that is supposed to lend credence to the unspoken claim that she deserved to be the king's wife. According to the story, Esther was beautiful, of course. She was one of the many virgin girls taken to the palace in Susa. Do you think she would have had any say in the matter? Could she have refused? The Eunuch in charge of the harem was very pleased with Esther. He made sure she got extra special beauty treatments and food. She was given seven (!) maids from the palace and the best place in the harem, all before the king had even seen her.
Next, we are told that "Esther had not revealed her nationality and family background, because Mordecai had forbidden her to do so." Why did he do that? First of all, the fact that no one knew of Esther's lineage is a clear tell that she was not ever a wife or queen of Xerxes. Second, it seems obvious that if anyone in the palace cared what her lineage was, they would have found it out. Since it appears to have been a non issue to them, Esther was clearly not going to be a wife or queen. Mordecai need not have worried. Esther was a beautiful woman, that's all that was necessary for the king's purposes. (Let's be real. Sex.) The secret identity is just a part of the story's plot line. Nevertheless, we are told that every day Mordecai walked back and forth near the courtyard of the harem to find out how Esther was and what was happening to her.
What was happening to Esther? Twelve months of beauty treatments: "Six months with oil of myrrh and six months with perfumes and cosmetics." This was to prepare her for her first encounter with the king. It was probably also a precaution to make sure she was not pregnant and had no diseases. When it was her turn to go to the king, she could take anything she wanted from the harem to the king's palace. She would go in the evening, and in the morning she would be taken to another part of the harem, no longer a virgin. This other domicile was the dwelling place of the concubines, another obvious tell that Esther was never a queen or wife. Esther would not return to the king unless he had been pleased with her. Hmm. To please the king or not to please the king, which would be better...or worse?
Till next time.
Did this happen? Who knows. It seems a risky undertaking, especially for the girls, considering the temperament of Xerxes queen Amestris/ Vashti. It is highly unlikely that any of these girls that Xerxes has gathered will actually become queen, even Esther. That's not how things worked. The queens were almost always royal family, with known connections. Marriage for a king was usually strategic and political. If this story happened, Esther would have been one among many concubines. Herodotus tells us that the Persians "marry each one several lawful wives, and they get also a much larger number of concubines." The wives were to bear royal children who would be in line for the throne or to marry other royals. The concubines had a lower status.
Enter Mordecai and Esther. We are told their family background and how Esther came to be in Mordecai's care. (See Esther and Herodotus, the main characters ) the implication is that Esther herself is of royal Jewish lineage. Perhaps that is supposed to lend credence to the unspoken claim that she deserved to be the king's wife. According to the story, Esther was beautiful, of course. She was one of the many virgin girls taken to the palace in Susa. Do you think she would have had any say in the matter? Could she have refused? The Eunuch in charge of the harem was very pleased with Esther. He made sure she got extra special beauty treatments and food. She was given seven (!) maids from the palace and the best place in the harem, all before the king had even seen her.
Next, we are told that "Esther had not revealed her nationality and family background, because Mordecai had forbidden her to do so." Why did he do that? First of all, the fact that no one knew of Esther's lineage is a clear tell that she was not ever a wife or queen of Xerxes. Second, it seems obvious that if anyone in the palace cared what her lineage was, they would have found it out. Since it appears to have been a non issue to them, Esther was clearly not going to be a wife or queen. Mordecai need not have worried. Esther was a beautiful woman, that's all that was necessary for the king's purposes. (Let's be real. Sex.) The secret identity is just a part of the story's plot line. Nevertheless, we are told that every day Mordecai walked back and forth near the courtyard of the harem to find out how Esther was and what was happening to her.
What was happening to Esther? Twelve months of beauty treatments: "Six months with oil of myrrh and six months with perfumes and cosmetics." This was to prepare her for her first encounter with the king. It was probably also a precaution to make sure she was not pregnant and had no diseases. When it was her turn to go to the king, she could take anything she wanted from the harem to the king's palace. She would go in the evening, and in the morning she would be taken to another part of the harem, no longer a virgin. This other domicile was the dwelling place of the concubines, another obvious tell that Esther was never a queen or wife. Esther would not return to the king unless he had been pleased with her. Hmm. To please the king or not to please the king, which would be better...or worse?
Till next time.
Friday, September 27, 2019
Esther and Herodotus part five.
We are now at Esther chapter two. It begins with the word "later" but how much later? We will find out that the events of chapter two probably begin in the sixth year of Xerxes reign.The banquet in the previous chapter took place about 483 BCE, the third year of his reign. History tells us Xerxes arrived in Sardis, an important Persian territory, to gather his army and navy, around 481 BCE. He was going to fight the Greeks as planned. In August of 480, the Battle of Thermopylae is a victory for the Persians. Please read the links if you want a fuller picture of the events surrounding the history of Xerxes and the empire. They also provide some comments about what Herodotus says about these places and events in his Histories.
In September of 480, the Persians sack Athens. Later that same month, the Greek navy routs the Persian Navy in the Battle of Salamis. The Persian forces are scattered. Xerxes goes back to Sardis. (Histories IX:108-109) While in Sardis, Xerxes develops a passion for the wife of his brother Masistes, who were both there. He tries to seduce his sister in law, but she refuses him. He doesn't force himself on her. Instead, decides his son will marry her daughter, his niece, thinking this will soften his sister in law to his will. You see, Darius was next in line to be king. Darius's wife (also his cousin) could have been the next queen. What woman could resist the man who had honored her daughter thusly?
The royal entourage goes then goes back to Susa. His niece is now in Susa, married to Darius, Xerxes' son. Xerxes forgets about the mother and focuses his attentions on his daughter in law. They have an affair, if you can call it that. Xerxes offers his daughter in law/niece/mistress a gift of anything she wants. It just so happens she wants a beautiful robe that his wife made for him. He tries everything to dissuade her, but she insists. So, he gives her the robe. His wife, Amestris/Vashti, naturally finds out. She decides to take revenge on the girl's mother, Xerxes original target for his lust.
According to Herodotus IX:110-113, Amestris wanted the death of her sister-in-law, whom she considered responsible for Xerxes philandering, even though she had actually done nothing. Amestris waited until the king's birthday, when there was a banquet feast. It was tradition that what ever was asked of the king while he was at his birthday feast would be granted. Amestris asked for her sister in law. Xerxes knew the motivation but not the intention. He reluctantly acquiesced, because the rules compelled him to. In the meantime, Xerxes sent a message to his bother Masistes, telling him he should not keep his present wife, but marry one of Xerxes daughters instead. Masistes sent a message back saying thanks, but no thanks. He wanted to keep his wife. He had no idea what was happening.
Amestris had her sister in law forcefully captured. Her breasts, nose, ears, lips and tongue were cut off. Masistes wife was sent home in this condition. When Xerxes brother went home and found his wife, he was naturally furious and planned a revolt against his brother. Xerxes found out about it and sent an army after him. Xerxes' army slew his brother, his brother's army and his brother's sons. These events in Susa bring us approximately to the time of the events of Esther chapter two and fill us in to what has been happening in Xerxes' life. How's that for context?
P.S. What is it with kings, banquets, and awkward or deadly requests from women? Didn't the same thing happen To Herod, when his step daughter requested the head of John the baptist? This seems like an obvious ancient storytelling trope.
In September of 480, the Persians sack Athens. Later that same month, the Greek navy routs the Persian Navy in the Battle of Salamis. The Persian forces are scattered. Xerxes goes back to Sardis. (Histories IX:108-109) While in Sardis, Xerxes develops a passion for the wife of his brother Masistes, who were both there. He tries to seduce his sister in law, but she refuses him. He doesn't force himself on her. Instead, decides his son will marry her daughter, his niece, thinking this will soften his sister in law to his will. You see, Darius was next in line to be king. Darius's wife (also his cousin) could have been the next queen. What woman could resist the man who had honored her daughter thusly?
The royal entourage goes then goes back to Susa. His niece is now in Susa, married to Darius, Xerxes' son. Xerxes forgets about the mother and focuses his attentions on his daughter in law. They have an affair, if you can call it that. Xerxes offers his daughter in law/niece/mistress a gift of anything she wants. It just so happens she wants a beautiful robe that his wife made for him. He tries everything to dissuade her, but she insists. So, he gives her the robe. His wife, Amestris/Vashti, naturally finds out. She decides to take revenge on the girl's mother, Xerxes original target for his lust.
According to Herodotus IX:110-113, Amestris wanted the death of her sister-in-law, whom she considered responsible for Xerxes philandering, even though she had actually done nothing. Amestris waited until the king's birthday, when there was a banquet feast. It was tradition that what ever was asked of the king while he was at his birthday feast would be granted. Amestris asked for her sister in law. Xerxes knew the motivation but not the intention. He reluctantly acquiesced, because the rules compelled him to. In the meantime, Xerxes sent a message to his bother Masistes, telling him he should not keep his present wife, but marry one of Xerxes daughters instead. Masistes sent a message back saying thanks, but no thanks. He wanted to keep his wife. He had no idea what was happening.
Amestris had her sister in law forcefully captured. Her breasts, nose, ears, lips and tongue were cut off. Masistes wife was sent home in this condition. When Xerxes brother went home and found his wife, he was naturally furious and planned a revolt against his brother. Xerxes found out about it and sent an army after him. Xerxes' army slew his brother, his brother's army and his brother's sons. These events in Susa bring us approximately to the time of the events of Esther chapter two and fill us in to what has been happening in Xerxes' life. How's that for context?
P.S. What is it with kings, banquets, and awkward or deadly requests from women? Didn't the same thing happen To Herod, when his step daughter requested the head of John the baptist? This seems like an obvious ancient storytelling trope.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Esther and Herodotus part four
I know this particular study has been slow going, but I do intend to finish it.
We are at Esther chapter one, verse 13. Vashti/Amestris has refused to appear before the drunken king and his drunken entourage. The king is angry. He decides to speak to his advisers, the seven (there is that number again) highest nobles and wise men in the kingdom. The king asks them to tell him what must be done to the Queen for not obeying his command, according to the law.
Notably, the wise men do not directly answer the king's actual question. Instead, pandering to the king, one of them says, "Queen Vashti has done wrong not only against the King but also all the nobles and the people of all the provinces." In other words, for refusing to show up and be shown off in front of a bunch of drunken men, the queen has sinned against the entire Persian empire. However, the noble does not state an actual law to that effect, probably because there isn't one. Yet.
The noble goes on to explain why Vashti has wronged the empire. It is because all the other women will hear about Vashti's conduct, follow her example, and begin to despise their husbands. The wives of the nobles (remember the ladies' banquet?) would hear about this outrageousness that very day and would also emulate the queen's conduct. "There would be no end of the disrespect and discord." Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. The authoritarian men were quaking in their boots. If the queen could defy the king, they were doomed.
If there was a law against the queen's behavior, the king's advisers would have found it. We know there wasn't, because they suggested that the king immediately draft such a law. He was to "issue a royal decree....which cannot be repealed." Vashti was never again to enter the king's presence. Her royal position was to be given to someone else better than she. That would show all the women in the land that they had better respect their husbands. Right.
The good ol' boys present at the banquet thought the advice the king had been given was terrific. So, the king made a royal proclamation and had it sent to every province in the empire, in the appropriate language. It stated that every man should be ruler over his own household. All the men of the empire became petty kings of their own domestic castles.
Notes:
There is no reason to believe any of this ever happened, especially if this story is referring to Amestris, Xerxes' one and only official queen. There is no record of another. Even if Amestris fell out of royal favor, she was still the queen and of noble ancestry. She may have been in disfavor, but, she definitely was not killed. She was also still the mother of the royal heirs, hence a person of import. Also, according to secular history, Amestris had at least six children. She can't have been that despised by the king. Maybe the worst that would have happened was that she no longer got invited to the king's bed. Too bad.
Now comes an interesting piece of speculation. Amestris was the daughter of one Otanes, a commander in Xerxes army, according to Herodotus Histories VII:61. There is also an Otanes mentioned in Histories III: 83 who does not contend for the throne on condition neither he nor his descendants was under any obligation to obey the Persian monarch. Since this was possibly the same Otanes who was the father of Amestris, it could be a reason for Vashti/ Amestris to not fear refusing to obey the king's order to appear before the nobles.
We are at Esther chapter one, verse 13. Vashti/Amestris has refused to appear before the drunken king and his drunken entourage. The king is angry. He decides to speak to his advisers, the seven (there is that number again) highest nobles and wise men in the kingdom. The king asks them to tell him what must be done to the Queen for not obeying his command, according to the law.
Notably, the wise men do not directly answer the king's actual question. Instead, pandering to the king, one of them says, "Queen Vashti has done wrong not only against the King but also all the nobles and the people of all the provinces." In other words, for refusing to show up and be shown off in front of a bunch of drunken men, the queen has sinned against the entire Persian empire. However, the noble does not state an actual law to that effect, probably because there isn't one. Yet.
The noble goes on to explain why Vashti has wronged the empire. It is because all the other women will hear about Vashti's conduct, follow her example, and begin to despise their husbands. The wives of the nobles (remember the ladies' banquet?) would hear about this outrageousness that very day and would also emulate the queen's conduct. "There would be no end of the disrespect and discord." Ye olde slippery slope fallacy. The authoritarian men were quaking in their boots. If the queen could defy the king, they were doomed.
If there was a law against the queen's behavior, the king's advisers would have found it. We know there wasn't, because they suggested that the king immediately draft such a law. He was to "issue a royal decree....which cannot be repealed." Vashti was never again to enter the king's presence. Her royal position was to be given to someone else better than she. That would show all the women in the land that they had better respect their husbands. Right.
The good ol' boys present at the banquet thought the advice the king had been given was terrific. So, the king made a royal proclamation and had it sent to every province in the empire, in the appropriate language. It stated that every man should be ruler over his own household. All the men of the empire became petty kings of their own domestic castles.
Notes:
There is no reason to believe any of this ever happened, especially if this story is referring to Amestris, Xerxes' one and only official queen. There is no record of another. Even if Amestris fell out of royal favor, she was still the queen and of noble ancestry. She may have been in disfavor, but, she definitely was not killed. She was also still the mother of the royal heirs, hence a person of import. Also, according to secular history, Amestris had at least six children. She can't have been that despised by the king. Maybe the worst that would have happened was that she no longer got invited to the king's bed. Too bad.
Now comes an interesting piece of speculation. Amestris was the daughter of one Otanes, a commander in Xerxes army, according to Herodotus Histories VII:61. There is also an Otanes mentioned in Histories III: 83 who does not contend for the throne on condition neither he nor his descendants was under any obligation to obey the Persian monarch. Since this was possibly the same Otanes who was the father of Amestris, it could be a reason for Vashti/ Amestris to not fear refusing to obey the king's order to appear before the nobles.
Friday, September 20, 2019
Good Omens ate my brain.
Hi guys. I'm still working on the Esther and Herodotus study, but I thought I would take the time to recommend the newish mini series Good Omens, which can be seen on Amazon Prime. If you don't have Prime, you can sign up for a free month, then cancel. I'm not promoting Amazon, just the show.
Good Omens is based on a book by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. It is about an angel and a demon who live and work on earth, becoming quite human and forming a bond between them. Together with four children (one of whom is the antichrist), a witch, two witchfinders, and a retired Jezebel, the angel and the demon try to avert god's divine plan. They come up against the four motorcycle persons of the apocolypse and must figure out how to stop armaggedon from happening. It's sweet, funny, and definitely blasphemous.
I absolutely adore this show. I've actually watched it all the way through 5 times now! It's got everything I love in television/movie watching, It's visually interesting, has good music, a great cast, and the story is lovely and very amusingly British. It is also very quotable. I'm seriously addicted to looking at Michael Sheen and David Tennant look at each other.
Go watch it!
Good Omens is based on a book by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. It is about an angel and a demon who live and work on earth, becoming quite human and forming a bond between them. Together with four children (one of whom is the antichrist), a witch, two witchfinders, and a retired Jezebel, the angel and the demon try to avert god's divine plan. They come up against the four motorcycle persons of the apocolypse and must figure out how to stop armaggedon from happening. It's sweet, funny, and definitely blasphemous.
I absolutely adore this show. I've actually watched it all the way through 5 times now! It's got everything I love in television/movie watching, It's visually interesting, has good music, a great cast, and the story is lovely and very amusingly British. It is also very quotable. I'm seriously addicted to looking at Michael Sheen and David Tennant look at each other.
Go watch it!
Friday, September 13, 2019
Esther and Herodotus part three
We are at Esther chapter one, verse 9. Xerxes is giving a sumptuous banquet for a bunch of important men. The wine is flowing freely. They are possibly discussing an attack on Greece. Queen Vashti (Amestris?) now enters our story. She is giving a banquet for the women in the royal palace. Unlike the description of the men, we are not told who these women are. They could be wives and concubines of the important men, or they could just be Xerxes wives and concubines, his harem, we are not told. Herodotus's Histories I:135 tells us that the Persians "marry each one several wives, and they get also a much larger number of concubines." Some well documented information about the concept of harem in ancient Iran (Persia) can be found here (link). Secular history tells us that even though Xerxes may have had many wives and concubines, he only had one head wife and queen, Amestris. She live almost as long as her husband Xerxes. Remember that.
It is interesting that the word banquet occurs twenty times in the book of Esther, equal to all the other times it occurs in the rest of the entire bible. This banquet of Xerxes' lasted seven days. On the seventh day, a drunk Xerxes commanded his seven eunuchs to bring in Queen Vashti, "wearing her royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at. But when the attendants delivered the king's command, Queen Vashti refused to come. Then the king became furious and burned with anger."
Why did Vashti/Amestris refuse to do what the king asked? We are not actually told. It's easy to guess. Perhaps she was embarrassed to be shown off in public. Perhaps she did not want to appear in front of a bunch of drunk men and be subjected to their remarks or rude handling. Perhaps she did not want to leave her guests. Perhaps she was just stubbornly independent, as much as a woman of that time could be, and not afraid of the king. Perhaps she was also drunk. Perhaps she objected to the plans to go to war with Greece. Just because she was a woman in ancient times doesn't mean she was ignorant or without influence. I've heard much speculation that she was probably asked to appear nude, that's why she refused. The text doesn't give any reason at all. I think it would be a mistake to assume any modern western interpretation of Vashti's refusal to appear before the king.
That said, there is a story in Herodotus' Histories V:18 that takes place at the home of a Macedonian man who is providing hospitality to seven (!) high ranking men in the Persian army, who were envoys of King Darius, Xerxes father. The Persians notice there are no women present at the meal, as is the custom in that place. They pressure the host to bring in the women of the household and insist that the women must sit beside them. As would be expected, the drunk Persian men feel free to molest the women. You should read the story, it also contains cross dressing, deception, and revenge.
Did you notice the multiple occurrances of the number seven? Seven is one of the ancient magic numbers. It will appear more times in the story of Esther. Seven and its multiples, 70, 700, 7000, appears many times in Herodotus's Histories. Events cover seven days and seven nights. There are even multiple instances of numbers that non multiples of seven, but they end in seven, like 17 and 127. Amazing, isn't it, how superstition crosses time and cultures.
It is interesting that the word banquet occurs twenty times in the book of Esther, equal to all the other times it occurs in the rest of the entire bible. This banquet of Xerxes' lasted seven days. On the seventh day, a drunk Xerxes commanded his seven eunuchs to bring in Queen Vashti, "wearing her royal crown, in order to display her beauty to the people and nobles, for she was lovely to look at. But when the attendants delivered the king's command, Queen Vashti refused to come. Then the king became furious and burned with anger."
Why did Vashti/Amestris refuse to do what the king asked? We are not actually told. It's easy to guess. Perhaps she was embarrassed to be shown off in public. Perhaps she did not want to appear in front of a bunch of drunk men and be subjected to their remarks or rude handling. Perhaps she did not want to leave her guests. Perhaps she was just stubbornly independent, as much as a woman of that time could be, and not afraid of the king. Perhaps she was also drunk. Perhaps she objected to the plans to go to war with Greece. Just because she was a woman in ancient times doesn't mean she was ignorant or without influence. I've heard much speculation that she was probably asked to appear nude, that's why she refused. The text doesn't give any reason at all. I think it would be a mistake to assume any modern western interpretation of Vashti's refusal to appear before the king.
That said, there is a story in Herodotus' Histories V:18 that takes place at the home of a Macedonian man who is providing hospitality to seven (!) high ranking men in the Persian army, who were envoys of King Darius, Xerxes father. The Persians notice there are no women present at the meal, as is the custom in that place. They pressure the host to bring in the women of the household and insist that the women must sit beside them. As would be expected, the drunk Persian men feel free to molest the women. You should read the story, it also contains cross dressing, deception, and revenge.
Did you notice the multiple occurrances of the number seven? Seven is one of the ancient magic numbers. It will appear more times in the story of Esther. Seven and its multiples, 70, 700, 7000, appears many times in Herodotus's Histories. Events cover seven days and seven nights. There are even multiple instances of numbers that non multiples of seven, but they end in seven, like 17 and 127. Amazing, isn't it, how superstition crosses time and cultures.
Thursday, September 12, 2019
Esther and Herodotus part two
At this point you may be wondering what an atheist is doing, trying to show how secular history and the book of Esther have many points of agreement. Do I believe the events in this story are literally true and historically accurate? Not at all. However, I do think the book of Esther is one of the most clever pieces of historical fiction in the bible. The person writing this knew their subject well. They seem to be extremely familiar with the Persians and their customs. They are also familiar enough with the Hebrew language to make a fascinating variety of puns and other word games, and familiar enough with the canonical Hebrew history to borrow from it while doing their own world building. I think the author knew exactly what he was doing and had a lot of fun doing it. For these reasons, I find Esther one of the most fascinating books in the bible.
Time for some more historical context. Though Mordecai and Esther were considered Jews in exile. They were also third generation Persian Jews, born in Persia. They most likely would have never left the general area they were born and raised in. They might not have wanted to.They most likely would have absorbed a great deal of Persian culture. Before they were born, according to the bible, up to 50,000 Jews had returned to Israel with permission from Cyrus and Darius, Xerxes' grandfather and father. The "second temple" had been built by 516 BCE, probably also before Esther would have been born. The quotation marks are there because there is no clear evidence of the existence of the first temple, supposedly built by Solomon.
The bible depicts the return of the Jews to their home land as happening in four general waves. The third (458 BCE) and fourth (445 BCE) waves happened after the time period of the story of Esther. I would not be surprised if the author of Esther was among the third or fourth wave of immigrant Persian Jews, possibly leaving with Nehemiah, who was supposed to have been a royal cupbearer to the then current king of Persia, Artaxerxes, the son of king Xerxes of the book of Esther. All we really know is the author has a working knowledge of Persian culture and familiarity with the supposed history of the Jewish monarchy recorded in Samuel and Chronicles. He could also have been familiar with Herodotus's works, which would put the book closer to 400 BCE.
Herodotus was born about 486 BCE and wrote his Histories somewhere about 430 BCE, after he had traveled extensively. Strangely, or not, Herodotus does not mention the Jews/ Hebrews/ Israelites at all. In his Histories Volume II, book VII:89, Herotus does mention people from the region of Syria, including those who lived in Palestine. That would have included the area we know as Israel. It has long been my contention that the Israelites/ Jews never were as major a name in the area as the bible makes them out to be. All that area was considered part of the first Persian empire for a while. In fact the Jews may never have been autonomously self governing again, if they ever were.
Many of the people who immigrated to the Palestinian area from various parts of the empire may have ethnically originated from there, but they may not have been religiously united until after the generations of living elsewhere. This seems to be the case in the bible books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and others. The people had to be told what they were to believe. Also, it is possible that a great deal of the Hebrew scriptures were compiled in an attempt to create a unified monotheistic cult of Yahweh that didn't actually exist pre-exile. There were Egyptian Jews with their own yahweh temple in Elephantine, as late as 411 BCE, who seem to have no knowledge of the torah or much of the claimed Jewish pre-exile history. They were also polytheistic.
It is taking me longer than usual to write these posts because of all the research and cross checking. Even so, it is quite possible some of my claims are erroneous. You are free to check anything that sound off to you.
Time for some more historical context. Though Mordecai and Esther were considered Jews in exile. They were also third generation Persian Jews, born in Persia. They most likely would have never left the general area they were born and raised in. They might not have wanted to.They most likely would have absorbed a great deal of Persian culture. Before they were born, according to the bible, up to 50,000 Jews had returned to Israel with permission from Cyrus and Darius, Xerxes' grandfather and father. The "second temple" had been built by 516 BCE, probably also before Esther would have been born. The quotation marks are there because there is no clear evidence of the existence of the first temple, supposedly built by Solomon.
The bible depicts the return of the Jews to their home land as happening in four general waves. The third (458 BCE) and fourth (445 BCE) waves happened after the time period of the story of Esther. I would not be surprised if the author of Esther was among the third or fourth wave of immigrant Persian Jews, possibly leaving with Nehemiah, who was supposed to have been a royal cupbearer to the then current king of Persia, Artaxerxes, the son of king Xerxes of the book of Esther. All we really know is the author has a working knowledge of Persian culture and familiarity with the supposed history of the Jewish monarchy recorded in Samuel and Chronicles. He could also have been familiar with Herodotus's works, which would put the book closer to 400 BCE.
Herodotus was born about 486 BCE and wrote his Histories somewhere about 430 BCE, after he had traveled extensively. Strangely, or not, Herodotus does not mention the Jews/ Hebrews/ Israelites at all. In his Histories Volume II, book VII:89, Herotus does mention people from the region of Syria, including those who lived in Palestine. That would have included the area we know as Israel. It has long been my contention that the Israelites/ Jews never were as major a name in the area as the bible makes them out to be. All that area was considered part of the first Persian empire for a while. In fact the Jews may never have been autonomously self governing again, if they ever were.
Many of the people who immigrated to the Palestinian area from various parts of the empire may have ethnically originated from there, but they may not have been religiously united until after the generations of living elsewhere. This seems to be the case in the bible books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and others. The people had to be told what they were to believe. Also, it is possible that a great deal of the Hebrew scriptures were compiled in an attempt to create a unified monotheistic cult of Yahweh that didn't actually exist pre-exile. There were Egyptian Jews with their own yahweh temple in Elephantine, as late as 411 BCE, who seem to have no knowledge of the torah or much of the claimed Jewish pre-exile history. They were also polytheistic.
It is taking me longer than usual to write these posts because of all the research and cross checking. Even so, it is quite possible some of my claims are erroneous. You are free to check anything that sound off to you.
Tuesday, September 10, 2019
Esther and Herodotus, part one
Now let us get into the text of Esther. The story tells us it takes place during the time of Xerxes, who ruled over 127 provinces from India to Cush (Egypt). This is referring to the Persian Empire, also known as the Achaemenid Empire, between 486-465 BCE. The author tells us "Xerxes reigned from his royal throne in the citadel of Susa."
The links are an important part of this study. They provide tons of historical context and include many of Herodotus's references to the people places and events we will be covering. It is too much for me to include all that information in the blog posts. It is your homework to read it for yourself. Chase down any rabbits you wish to follow. Who knows, you may find you disagree with some of what I say. That is okay.
The author of Esther tells us that the time period is three years into the reign of Xerxes, which would make it approximately 483 BCE. Xerxes would be about 39 years old. He had just finished suppressing revolts in Egypt and Babylon. The Persian Empire under Darius, Xerxes father, had lost a war with Greece, an attempt to expand the empire. In 483, Xerxes was planning to back to war with Greece. The author of Esther tells us Xerxes "gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the province were present." For a full 180 days before the banquet, he had been putting his kingdom's wealth and glory on display.
We can read about Xerxes and his rise to power in book VII of Herodotus's Histories. In paragraph VII:8, we can read where Xerxes "summoned a chosen assembly of the best men among the Persians" that he might learn their opinions and also declare his intentions. According to Herodotus, Xerxes addressed the men with this speech: "....from the day on which I mounted the throne, I have not ceased to ponder by what means I may rival those who have preceded me in this post of honor, and increase the power of Persia as much as any of them." He wants to make a name for himself, like his father (Darius 1) and grandfather (Cyrus) before him. His plan is to annex Greece into his empire, obtaining satisfaction and revenge. Xerxes goes on to say, "For this cause I have now called you together, that I might make known to you what I design to do."
There is much more of Xerxes speech about how he planned to attack Greece in Herodotus's Histories, including replies by some of the men present and a few dream sequences. It is my belief that it is quite likely this gathering of Xerxes's is one and the same as the one mentioned in the opening verses of the book of Esther. The time period certainly works.
Verses 5 and 6 of Esther chapter one describe the setting of the banquet held for all those important men. It was in an enclosed garden. Around the garden were hangings of "white and blue linen, fastened with white linen cords and purple material to silver rings on marble pillars. There were couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement made of porphyry, marble, mother of pearl, and other costly stones." Wine was being served in golden goblets, and it was flowing as generously as the guests wanted it to.
This leads me to another passage in Herodotus Book I:113. Speaking of Persian customs, Herodotus claimed, "They are very fond of wine and drink it in large quantities....it is also their practice to deliberate on affairs of weight when they are drunk; and then on the morrow, when they are sober, the decision to which they came the night before is put before the by the master of the house in which it was made; and if it is approved, they act on it; if not, they put it aside. Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine." This also seems to line up with the story in Esther.
The links are an important part of this study. They provide tons of historical context and include many of Herodotus's references to the people places and events we will be covering. It is too much for me to include all that information in the blog posts. It is your homework to read it for yourself. Chase down any rabbits you wish to follow. Who knows, you may find you disagree with some of what I say. That is okay.
The author of Esther tells us that the time period is three years into the reign of Xerxes, which would make it approximately 483 BCE. Xerxes would be about 39 years old. He had just finished suppressing revolts in Egypt and Babylon. The Persian Empire under Darius, Xerxes father, had lost a war with Greece, an attempt to expand the empire. In 483, Xerxes was planning to back to war with Greece. The author of Esther tells us Xerxes "gave a banquet for all his nobles and officials. The military leaders of Persia and Media, the princes, and the nobles of the province were present." For a full 180 days before the banquet, he had been putting his kingdom's wealth and glory on display.
We can read about Xerxes and his rise to power in book VII of Herodotus's Histories. In paragraph VII:8, we can read where Xerxes "summoned a chosen assembly of the best men among the Persians" that he might learn their opinions and also declare his intentions. According to Herodotus, Xerxes addressed the men with this speech: "....from the day on which I mounted the throne, I have not ceased to ponder by what means I may rival those who have preceded me in this post of honor, and increase the power of Persia as much as any of them." He wants to make a name for himself, like his father (Darius 1) and grandfather (Cyrus) before him. His plan is to annex Greece into his empire, obtaining satisfaction and revenge. Xerxes goes on to say, "For this cause I have now called you together, that I might make known to you what I design to do."
There is much more of Xerxes speech about how he planned to attack Greece in Herodotus's Histories, including replies by some of the men present and a few dream sequences. It is my belief that it is quite likely this gathering of Xerxes's is one and the same as the one mentioned in the opening verses of the book of Esther. The time period certainly works.
Verses 5 and 6 of Esther chapter one describe the setting of the banquet held for all those important men. It was in an enclosed garden. Around the garden were hangings of "white and blue linen, fastened with white linen cords and purple material to silver rings on marble pillars. There were couches of gold and silver on a mosaic pavement made of porphyry, marble, mother of pearl, and other costly stones." Wine was being served in golden goblets, and it was flowing as generously as the guests wanted it to.
This leads me to another passage in Herodotus Book I:113. Speaking of Persian customs, Herodotus claimed, "They are very fond of wine and drink it in large quantities....it is also their practice to deliberate on affairs of weight when they are drunk; and then on the morrow, when they are sober, the decision to which they came the night before is put before the by the master of the house in which it was made; and if it is approved, they act on it; if not, they put it aside. Sometimes, however, they are sober at their first deliberation, but in this case they always reconsider the matter under the influence of wine." This also seems to line up with the story in Esther.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Esther and Herodotus: Supporting characters.
Vashti is a supporting character who appears in the first and second chapters of Esther and nowhere else. She is called Xerxes's queen and appears to have some power and quite a bit of hutzpah. There seems to be a great many Jewish legends surrounding her.
Xerxes's number one wife and actual queen was named Amestris, which is thought to mean "strong woman." She was the daughter of Otanes, a commander of the Persian army, and his wife, who was possibly the sister of Darius I. Darius I was also Xerxes's father. That would make Xerxes and Amestris cousins. (It was not unusual for royals to marry in the family, from ancient times on into the modern era.) Herodotus mentions the name Otanes numerous times. However, they might not all be the same person. Herodotus mentions Amestris a few times and we will look at some of that later. I encourage you to read through the links provided to get a better picture of the time period and the royal families. For this study, I will assume that Vashti and Amestris are the same person.
Mordecai is another supporting character who, if you remember, was Esther's cousin and raised her when her parents died. He is said to have been of the tribe of Benjamin, which is the same tribe king David came from. He was supposedly the great grandson of one Kish, who was taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar II, along with the king of Judah. The implication seems clear that Mordecai is presumed to be the descendant of a man who, even if he might not have been royalty, hung out with royalty. He is possibly nobility himself. Also, there is a chance that his name is derived from the name of the god Marduk who just happens to be associated with a different Nebuchadnezzar. Mordecai of this story is not known to actually be an historical figure, however there are multiple texts from the time of Xerxes I that mention officials named Mordecai. The person who wrote this account seems to have been familiar with that fact.
Haman is the last character I will cover before we begin reading the story. He is our villain. Haman will first appear in chapter three when Xerxes honors him by elevating him higher than all the other nobles. The reader is informed that he is the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, that means he is supposedly a member of the family tribe of Agag. Calling him an Agagite could be a pun.
Here's where things get interesting. If you read the Wikipedia article on Agag. You will see a statement that biblical poetry is full of puns. That is true, but not the whole truth. The truth is that a great deal of the bible is full of puns and clever word games, even the bits that are supposed to be historical. That's one of the things that makes it unreasonable to take it all at face value. Esther is chock full of that kind of stuff.
That said, here is some pertinent information that may help you parse out some of the word play that is going on in the biblical descriptions of Mordecai and Haman: Once upon a time, supposedly at least 500 years before the events in Esther, in Numbers 24, Balaam prophesied the downfall of Agag and the Amalekites. He said the king of Israel would be greater and more exalted than Agag, whose name just happens to mean "high." (reread above paragraph about Haman)According to I Samuel and 1 Chronicles, there was a man of the tribe of Benjamin named Kish. He was the father of the man who would become Israel's first king, Saul. In I Samuel 15, Saul fought Agag, king of the Amalekites, and won. He did not immediately kill Agag, though he had supposedly completely destroyed the Amalekites, as god had commanded. (God hated the pesky Amalekites) Even though Saul eventually killed Agag, his initial hesitation contributed to his eventual downfall. In 2 Samuel 1:8, Saul was killed at his own request, by an Amalekite. (The Amalekites should have all been dead, right?) Weirdly, David also fought Amalekites in I Samuel 30. In I Chronicles 4:43, some Simeonites ( a tribe of Israel) are said to have wiped out the last of the Amalekites.
Wednesday, September 4, 2019
Esther and Herodotus: the main characters
The first main character of the book of Esther is, of course, Esther herself. There is no record of Esther in history, outside of the bible. That is not surprising. Why should there be? If she actually existed, she would not have been important to anyone but the Jews. We will see later that her position in the palace was not as exalted as is usually assumed. If she existed, her name may not even have been Esther. Many characters in bible stories are given symbolic names that have meaning attached to the story being told.
In spite of being the main character, Esther does not appear in the story till chapter two, after the stage is set. There we learn that her father and mother were dead. She was brought up by her cousin Mordecai, as his daughter. Mordecai and Esther were Jews living in Susa, Persia (Modern day Iran). They were three generations from Kish, their great grandfather of the tribe of Benjamin, "who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar." We will talk about that more later.
Esther's original Hebrew name was Hadassah. Her Persian name, Esther, may mean star or could be derived from the name of the goddess Ishtar, who was also known as the queen of heaven. Please read the linked article on Ishtar/Inanna. I consider it quite possible that the name Esther is in fact a deliberate association with the goddess. Perhaps Yahweh is never mentioned in the book because it is actually meant to be a way that the Hebrews, who were forbidden to worship the Queen of heaven, could obliquely honor Ishtar without getting in trouble with the Hebrew priests. Perhaps they attributed their salvation during the Persian era of their exile to the goddess. It is important to remember that religions were not so firmly separated and delineated in ancient times as they are now.
Esther is said to be very good looking, "lovely in form and feature," which is a key element to the story because her beauty gets her into the palace of the king, Xerxes I, our other main character. There is plenty of extrabiblical source material for this man. Xerxes, called Ahasuerus in the Hebrew bible, was son of Darius and king of Persia from 486-465 BCE. There is some dispute as to whether the Ahasuerus of the Hebrew scriptures actually was Xerxes I, but for the purposes of this study we will assume they are one and the same. We will see that the historian Herodotus's description of Xerxes seems to mesh quite well with what the bible tells us.
In spite of being the main character, Esther does not appear in the story till chapter two, after the stage is set. There we learn that her father and mother were dead. She was brought up by her cousin Mordecai, as his daughter. Mordecai and Esther were Jews living in Susa, Persia (Modern day Iran). They were three generations from Kish, their great grandfather of the tribe of Benjamin, "who had been carried into exile from Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar." We will talk about that more later.
Esther's original Hebrew name was Hadassah. Her Persian name, Esther, may mean star or could be derived from the name of the goddess Ishtar, who was also known as the queen of heaven. Please read the linked article on Ishtar/Inanna. I consider it quite possible that the name Esther is in fact a deliberate association with the goddess. Perhaps Yahweh is never mentioned in the book because it is actually meant to be a way that the Hebrews, who were forbidden to worship the Queen of heaven, could obliquely honor Ishtar without getting in trouble with the Hebrew priests. Perhaps they attributed their salvation during the Persian era of their exile to the goddess. It is important to remember that religions were not so firmly separated and delineated in ancient times as they are now.
Esther is said to be very good looking, "lovely in form and feature," which is a key element to the story because her beauty gets her into the palace of the king, Xerxes I, our other main character. There is plenty of extrabiblical source material for this man. Xerxes, called Ahasuerus in the Hebrew bible, was son of Darius and king of Persia from 486-465 BCE. There is some dispute as to whether the Ahasuerus of the Hebrew scriptures actually was Xerxes I, but for the purposes of this study we will assume they are one and the same. We will see that the historian Herodotus's description of Xerxes seems to mesh quite well with what the bible tells us.
Thursday, August 29, 2019
Esther and Herodotus- introduction
Hello, readers! I'm going to attempt something ambitious here in the coming weeks, a comparison of the bible book of Esther and what history and Herodotus have to say about the Persians at the time period presented. When I was a christian, I led a women's bible study with this theme. Now I will try to do it justice as an atheist. This is one study I wanted to complete on this blog before I stop posting for good. I don't know if I will stop after this, but it is an option. Just in case, I will have accomplished my goals for this blog and can leave at any time, feeling closure. My life has been rebooted in the last few months and I no longer feel the same strong need for this outlet that I once did.
As usual, I will be using the NIV version of the Bible.
First let us take a look at the book of Esther here. No one actually knows who wrote Esther, but tradition often attributes it to Mordecai, one of the characters in the book. The story takes place during the reign of Ahauserus, also known as Xerxes, between 485 and 465 BCE. The author appears to be very familiar with the culture and of Persia and its royalty. This leads to a belief by some that it was written within 100 years of the supposed events.
The descriptions of people and customs mesh so well with the writings of Herodotus, a Greek historian, that it is my personal opinion that the author of Esther was either familiar with Herodotus's writings or he once lived in the same general area and time as Herodotus. Herodotus lived and wrote around the same time period that Xerxes was king of Persia. I will be using and quoting from an English translation of Herodotus's Histories, found here.
Esther is most likely a work of historical fiction, placing fictional people's lives in a genuine historical setting. It's purpose appears to be an etiological explanation of how the celebration of the Jewish holiday Purim came about. The theme is the continuing salvation of a remnant of the Jews in Persian exile. This book is unique in that it implies a hidden hand working on behalf of the Jews but never mentions god/Yahweh at all.
I hope you will find this study fascinating and fun. It is not meant to be too serious, mostly speculative. Join me in the journey. Till next time.
As usual, I will be using the NIV version of the Bible.
First let us take a look at the book of Esther here. No one actually knows who wrote Esther, but tradition often attributes it to Mordecai, one of the characters in the book. The story takes place during the reign of Ahauserus, also known as Xerxes, between 485 and 465 BCE. The author appears to be very familiar with the culture and of Persia and its royalty. This leads to a belief by some that it was written within 100 years of the supposed events.
The descriptions of people and customs mesh so well with the writings of Herodotus, a Greek historian, that it is my personal opinion that the author of Esther was either familiar with Herodotus's writings or he once lived in the same general area and time as Herodotus. Herodotus lived and wrote around the same time period that Xerxes was king of Persia. I will be using and quoting from an English translation of Herodotus's Histories, found here.
Esther is most likely a work of historical fiction, placing fictional people's lives in a genuine historical setting. It's purpose appears to be an etiological explanation of how the celebration of the Jewish holiday Purim came about. The theme is the continuing salvation of a remnant of the Jews in Persian exile. This book is unique in that it implies a hidden hand working on behalf of the Jews but never mentions god/Yahweh at all.
I hope you will find this study fascinating and fun. It is not meant to be too serious, mostly speculative. Join me in the journey. Till next time.
Friday, August 23, 2019
Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians part four and wrap up.
We are now at chapter 20 of Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians. Ignatius tells them that he will write again telling them a story about the "new man Jesus" if they are good little girls and boys and obey their bishop. I suspect that "new man" is a reference to a symbolic new Adam, rebooting creation so that humanity no longer has to die because of Adam's sin. It just *looks* like they are still dying, but really they aren't. Ignatius is going to tell the Ephesians about Jesus's dispensation, his faith, love, suffering and resurrection. Unfortunately, he doesn't say much of anything about those things in this letter.
How do the Ephesians get immortality? Besides obeying the church leadership with unity of mind, they must together take the medicine of immortality, the bread. This bread is most likely referring to the communion bread, but it could also be a metaphor for Jesus who supposedly called himself the bread of life. Ignatius calls this bread the "antidote to death."
The letter ends with Ignatius saying that he is writing from Smyrna and is bound for Rome. He is from the church in Syria. He says he is "the last of the faithful there." It is unclear to me whether "there" is Syria or Rome. Ignatius is grateful for the people the Ephesians sent to him, and he loves Polycarp, who was the bishop of Smyrna.
--------------------------------
Now, what did we find out about Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians? In common with many of the New Testament epistles, Ignatius stressed faith, unity, and obedience to church authority, specifically bishops. Bishops are Jesus's representatives on earth. Ignatius himself was bishop of Antioch (before 155 CE) on his way to Rome to be imprisoned for some unspecified crime. While in Smyrna, on his way to Rome, the leaders of the Ephesian church visited him and he sings their praises. Ignatius appears to be familiar with a few of Paul's letters, using similar language multiple times, but not referring to the source.
In this letter, the Jews and the Jewish scriptures are not mentioned at all, except for saying that Jesus was of the "seed of David according to the flesh." This appears to me to be a reference to his ethnicity/nationality, not a claim to Judaic kingship. The new testament places mentioned are Antioch, Syria, Smyrna, Ephesus, and Rome. He mentions Satan but not angels, demons or a judgement day. Purveyors and listeners of false doctrine are going to be thrown into a lake of fire instead of recieving eternal life. There is no mention of where they will go or what they will be doing for eternity.
The only New Testament person mentioned, besides Jesus, is Mary as Jesus's virgin mother. Ignatius's Jesus is literally god in human form, born of a virgin, by the holy spirit. His presence in the world and his death were two of the three mysteries "wrought in silence" by god, to hide them from "the prince of this world." His mother's virginity was the first mystery. The sign of Jesus's "manifestation" was a super bright stellar event. Jesus was born, baptized, annointed, suffered, was crucified, died, and was resurrected. There is no mention of his childhood, teachings, travels, miracles, or trial. There are no statements that anchor Jesus in time.
Ignatius tells the Ephesians that in order to thwart Satan, they must meet together frequently in the same location. They must be of one mind with their bishop, and they must eat the bread that is the "medicine of immortality" and the "antidote to death." There are no commands to preach or teach the gospel, or to be baptised.
How do the Ephesians get immortality? Besides obeying the church leadership with unity of mind, they must together take the medicine of immortality, the bread. This bread is most likely referring to the communion bread, but it could also be a metaphor for Jesus who supposedly called himself the bread of life. Ignatius calls this bread the "antidote to death."
The letter ends with Ignatius saying that he is writing from Smyrna and is bound for Rome. He is from the church in Syria. He says he is "the last of the faithful there." It is unclear to me whether "there" is Syria or Rome. Ignatius is grateful for the people the Ephesians sent to him, and he loves Polycarp, who was the bishop of Smyrna.
--------------------------------
Now, what did we find out about Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians? In common with many of the New Testament epistles, Ignatius stressed faith, unity, and obedience to church authority, specifically bishops. Bishops are Jesus's representatives on earth. Ignatius himself was bishop of Antioch (before 155 CE) on his way to Rome to be imprisoned for some unspecified crime. While in Smyrna, on his way to Rome, the leaders of the Ephesian church visited him and he sings their praises. Ignatius appears to be familiar with a few of Paul's letters, using similar language multiple times, but not referring to the source.
In this letter, the Jews and the Jewish scriptures are not mentioned at all, except for saying that Jesus was of the "seed of David according to the flesh." This appears to me to be a reference to his ethnicity/nationality, not a claim to Judaic kingship. The new testament places mentioned are Antioch, Syria, Smyrna, Ephesus, and Rome. He mentions Satan but not angels, demons or a judgement day. Purveyors and listeners of false doctrine are going to be thrown into a lake of fire instead of recieving eternal life. There is no mention of where they will go or what they will be doing for eternity.
The only New Testament person mentioned, besides Jesus, is Mary as Jesus's virgin mother. Ignatius's Jesus is literally god in human form, born of a virgin, by the holy spirit. His presence in the world and his death were two of the three mysteries "wrought in silence" by god, to hide them from "the prince of this world." His mother's virginity was the first mystery. The sign of Jesus's "manifestation" was a super bright stellar event. Jesus was born, baptized, annointed, suffered, was crucified, died, and was resurrected. There is no mention of his childhood, teachings, travels, miracles, or trial. There are no statements that anchor Jesus in time.
Ignatius tells the Ephesians that in order to thwart Satan, they must meet together frequently in the same location. They must be of one mind with their bishop, and they must eat the bread that is the "medicine of immortality" and the "antidote to death." There are no commands to preach or teach the gospel, or to be baptised.
Thursday, August 22, 2019
Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians, part three.
Sorry it's been a while since my last post. I dealt with an episode of grief and I also accidentally deleted everything I had written for this post. Not fun.
Now we are at chapter 15 of Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians, which is summed up in the first sentence. "It is better to be silent and be a christian than to talk and not be one." In other words, practice what you preach. Chapter 16 says that anyone who corrupts the faithful with "wicked doctrine" will be bound for everlasting fire. Chapter 17 says the doctrine of "the prince of the world" has a bad odor.
Chapter 18 appears to have been influenced by 1 Corinthians, referring to the cross as a stumbling block to those who don't believe, but eternal life to those who do. It also has another doctrinal type statement. "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." Notice that Jesus is called god and so is god. Two gods? Somehow the holy ghost planted the seed of David in Mary. Inconceivable. ;)
Chapter 19 claims that three mysteries were hidden from the prince of the world. 1. Mary's virginity. 2. Her offspring. 3. Jesus's death. Presuming the prince of the world was Satan. How did they keep those things hidden? Angels supposedly announced his birth in one gospel. In another, Herod killed a bunch of babies to try to kill Jesus. Not only that, Satan supposedly tempted Jesus in person. Plus, jesus supposedly jad a public trial and crucifixion. Ignatius goes on to say these three mysteries were wrought in silence. That seems to mean they happened without anyone knowing about them.
So, if all this happened in silence, how was Jesus "manifested?" According to Ignatius, by a super bright star that shone brighter than all the others. It sounds like a super nova or maybe a comet or some other celestial explosion? The problem is there is no extrabiblical record of such an event around the time Jesus was supposed to have been conceived. (This one doesn't count because it is not an eye witness.) We definitely would have heard about it by now. According to Ignatius, that is when god manifested in human form for the "renewal of eternal life." This leads me to think that Ignatius believed that there was a period of time when there was no eternal life expected. This would be a logical inference from reading the Old Testament.
This manifestation of Jesus is also supposed to have destroyed every kind of magic and the bonds of wickedness, removed ignorance, and abolished the old kingdom. I don't see that that actually happened. It was supposedly a new beginning because god "meditated the abolition of death." He was seriously thinking about it. Ignatius is sounding like a bit of a whackadoodle to me.
More next time.
Now we are at chapter 15 of Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians, which is summed up in the first sentence. "It is better to be silent and be a christian than to talk and not be one." In other words, practice what you preach. Chapter 16 says that anyone who corrupts the faithful with "wicked doctrine" will be bound for everlasting fire. Chapter 17 says the doctrine of "the prince of the world" has a bad odor.
Chapter 18 appears to have been influenced by 1 Corinthians, referring to the cross as a stumbling block to those who don't believe, but eternal life to those who do. It also has another doctrinal type statement. "For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." Notice that Jesus is called god and so is god. Two gods? Somehow the holy ghost planted the seed of David in Mary. Inconceivable. ;)
Chapter 19 claims that three mysteries were hidden from the prince of the world. 1. Mary's virginity. 2. Her offspring. 3. Jesus's death. Presuming the prince of the world was Satan. How did they keep those things hidden? Angels supposedly announced his birth in one gospel. In another, Herod killed a bunch of babies to try to kill Jesus. Not only that, Satan supposedly tempted Jesus in person. Plus, jesus supposedly jad a public trial and crucifixion. Ignatius goes on to say these three mysteries were wrought in silence. That seems to mean they happened without anyone knowing about them.
So, if all this happened in silence, how was Jesus "manifested?" According to Ignatius, by a super bright star that shone brighter than all the others. It sounds like a super nova or maybe a comet or some other celestial explosion? The problem is there is no extrabiblical record of such an event around the time Jesus was supposed to have been conceived. (This one doesn't count because it is not an eye witness.) We definitely would have heard about it by now. According to Ignatius, that is when god manifested in human form for the "renewal of eternal life." This leads me to think that Ignatius believed that there was a period of time when there was no eternal life expected. This would be a logical inference from reading the Old Testament.
This manifestation of Jesus is also supposed to have destroyed every kind of magic and the bonds of wickedness, removed ignorance, and abolished the old kingdom. I don't see that that actually happened. It was supposedly a new beginning because god "meditated the abolition of death." He was seriously thinking about it. Ignatius is sounding like a bit of a whackadoodle to me.
More next time.
Thursday, August 15, 2019
Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians part two.
After reading the Wikipedia article on Ignatius and reading some of his letter to the Ephesians, I have a lot of questions about how anyone could know if he was real or fiction. As far as I know there are no originals of Ignatius's letters. He would have been writing on or about the first century mark, if his letters are genuine. Why was he imprisoned? We are not told. Yet it can't have been just for being a a Christian or preaching christianity, because others were doing that freely. He was even supposedly permitted to fraternize with christians while he was in chains. Why was he being taken to Rome? The authorities could have dealt with him right where he lived. Why did he expect to be martyred? That early on, martyrdom didn't necessarily mean death.
We are now at the 8th chapter of Ignatius's letter. Let's see what else he has to say. Ignatius appears to be buttering up the Ephesians , telling them they are living according to god's will, being faithful, spiritual, and doing all things in Jesus. They don't listen to false teachers, no siree. They are the cream of the crop, the tippety top, when it comes to loving god and obeying the commandments of Jesus. We aren't told what those commandments are.
The Ephesians are to pray for the poor deluded souls who are not followers of the lord. They are to be meek and humble in the face of insults, boasting, and cruelties. After all, no people are more unjustly treated than the followers of the lord. The Ephesians are to stay holy and not let the devil plant any false ideas in their minds.
Next, the author says they are in the "last times." Sound familiar? It's been the last times for a long time. In spite of the fact that Ignatius thinks the Ephesians are already the greatest, he feels it is necessary to tell them how to live, as if they didn't know. They must do one of two things: "Either stand in awe of of the wrath to come or or show regard for the grace which is at present displayed." When the end comes, he wants to be on the same team as the Ephesians.
Ignatius is a condemned man, but the Ephesians live in safety and appear to be a refuge for refugees of the gospel. They were mentioned by Paul "in all his epistles." (That isn't actually true.) They were initiated into the mysteries of the gospel with "Paul, the holy, the martyred, the deservedly most happy." Ignatius wants to find himself at the feet of Paul when he dies. At the writing of this letter, Paul should not have been dead more than about 50 years, yet he is being venerated as something of a saint.
The Ephesians are to meet regularly in the same place. That destroys the power of Satan. (Wouldn't they have already been doing that?) None of the things in this letter are hid from them if they perfectly possess faith and love. (If these things are not hidden and the Ephesians are as wonderful as Ignatius says, why does he need to tell them all this stuff. Isn't he preaching to the choir?) A person who makes a declaration of faith does not sin. A person who loves does not hate. How the Ephesians behave matters, not just "mere profession." They must be faithful to the end. I hope they had good lives, in spite of never getting to see the end they were hoping for.
More next time.
Tuesday, August 13, 2019
Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians
I thought we would take a quick break from the bible and look at something written by Ignatius of Antioch, one of the so called "apostolic church fathers." I've done this before with the letter of 1 Clement to the Corinthians. Today we will look at Ignatius's letter to the Ephesians. I'm not going to give you a complete blow by blow break down of the letter, but a quicker overview and opinion instead. You can read the letter for your self at the link provided above. It's not very long.
Where there is a scripture cross reference in blue, that was not in the original letter, that is where it is assumed scripture supports or influenced what Ignatius wrote. It by no means proves that Ignatius had access to the scriptures he is not directly quoting. Just as today, religions tend to create their own traditional language that gets perpetuated by repetition, often without conscious thought, or even without concrete knowledge of where the ideas and words originated from. Today it would be called Christianese. I will try to take notice of when there appears to be a legitimate quote, not a loose paraphrase that might imply a quote.
Ignatius lived some time between 50 and 140 CE. Seven of his letters are usually considered authentic. Protestants aren't too thrilled with them because they show an early system of single bishops being in charge of individual churches, which is very similar to Catholicism. This particular letter seems to me to be saying Ignatius has never been to Ephesus. However, He has met Onesimus, their Bishop; Burrhus, their deacon; plus Crocus, Euplus, and Fronto, all upstanding members of the Ephesian congregation, possibly also deacons. These apparently provided Ignatius with some kind of help on behalf of the Ephesians, during his imprisonment. He was bound in Syria and transported to Rome, where he claims he hopes to be martyred. To me this sounds like an echo of Paul.
Ignatius abundantly praises the leadership of the Ephesians' church and expresses his wish for the members to be unanimously obedient to their authorities. He's not Ordering them to obey, like he has any influence over them. He's just Exhorting them do do the will of God. After all, Bishops exist by the will of Jesus. According to Ignatius, the leadership of the Ephesians works especially well together, like the strings of a harp or a harmonious choir. The Ephesians need to be in unison with the leaders, one of mind, judgment, and speech. Ignatius himself has come to adore their bishop in a short period of time and thinks the Ephesians should always be careful never to set themselves in opposition to him.
In chapter 6, things get very cult-y. The bishop is to be esteemed as though he were Jesus himself. He just wants the Ephesians to live according to the truth, exactly like Jesus. They don't need to listen to anyone else. Some people, says Ignatius, use the name of Jesus but don't practice the truth. The Ephesians need to keep away from them. They are like rabid dogs that can't be cured. However, "There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible — even Jesus Christ our Lord." The part in quotes must have been some kind of early doctrinal staement. It seems to point obliquely to the type of heresy the Ephesians are to avoid, one that would deny either the humanity or godhood of Jesus. (Passible means capable of suffering).
More next time.
Saturday, August 10, 2019
2 Thessalonians wrap up
2 Thessalonians claims to be a letter from Paul, Silas, and Timothy to the church in Thessaloniki. Scholars are divided on the question of authenticity. The date of writing is unknown with the earliest extrabiblical attestation around the turn of the first century. The letter does not claim to be the word of god or divinely inspired. There does not seem to be much point to this letter but to affirm the Thessalonians faith and encourage them to keep on obeying Paul's instructions, in spite of unspecified trials, persecutions, and suffering.
There is absolutely no mention of Old Testament people, events, places, or quotes in this letter. There is no mention of New Testament people, places, or events except Paul, Silas, Timothy, the Thessalonians, and Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus's birth, baptism, teachings, miracles, trial, crucifixion, death on the cross, burial, or resurrection.
One day "The lord Jesus (will be) revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know god and who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus." We are not told specifically what that gospel is. There is a rumor going around that Jesus already came. That's a lie. He won't come "until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed." The man of lawlessness "will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called god or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in gods temple, proclaiming himself to be god." When the lawless one is revealed "Jesus will overthrow (him) with the breath of his mouth." Satan will be around at that time tricking those who are deluded into believing lies about counterfeit miracles signs and wonders. The man of lawlessness is not mentioned anywhere else in the NT.
The Thessalonians are to stand firm in Paul's teachings and commands. (Not god's or Jesus's) Paul prays that they will be delivered from wicked and evil men, because not everyone has faith. The Thessalonians are not to be idle, but work for their daily bread, like Paul did when he was there. "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Anyone who ignores Paul's rule is to be lovingly shunned, so he will feel ashamed.
The letter ends with supposed Paul writing, "I Paul write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write." This makes this letter suspect because it is much more explanatory than is common, and seems to be purposefully trying to authenticate the writing.
There is absolutely no mention of Old Testament people, events, places, or quotes in this letter. There is no mention of New Testament people, places, or events except Paul, Silas, Timothy, the Thessalonians, and Jesus. There is no mention of Jesus's birth, baptism, teachings, miracles, trial, crucifixion, death on the cross, burial, or resurrection.
One day "The lord Jesus (will be) revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. He will punish those who do not know god and who do not obey the gospel of our lord Jesus." We are not told specifically what that gospel is. There is a rumor going around that Jesus already came. That's a lie. He won't come "until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed." The man of lawlessness "will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called god or is worshipped, so that he sets himself up in gods temple, proclaiming himself to be god." When the lawless one is revealed "Jesus will overthrow (him) with the breath of his mouth." Satan will be around at that time tricking those who are deluded into believing lies about counterfeit miracles signs and wonders. The man of lawlessness is not mentioned anywhere else in the NT.
The Thessalonians are to stand firm in Paul's teachings and commands. (Not god's or Jesus's) Paul prays that they will be delivered from wicked and evil men, because not everyone has faith. The Thessalonians are not to be idle, but work for their daily bread, like Paul did when he was there. "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Anyone who ignores Paul's rule is to be lovingly shunned, so he will feel ashamed.
The letter ends with supposed Paul writing, "I Paul write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write." This makes this letter suspect because it is much more explanatory than is common, and seems to be purposefully trying to authenticate the writing.
Friday, August 9, 2019
2 Thessalonians part four
We are now at chapter three. The author asks for the Thessalonians' prayers that "the message of the lord be spread quickly and honored," just as it was with them. They were also to pray that Paul and his cohorts be "delivered from wicked and evil men, for not everyone has faith." The clear implication is that those without faith are wicked and evil. The author has confidence that the Thessalonians are doing and will continue to do the things he commanded. Woah. The things he commanded, not the things god or Jesus commanded?
Wondering what was commanded? Here is an example: "Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us." When Paul was there, he worked day and night, and he paid for any food he ate. This was his way of setting a good example for the Thessalonians to follow. His rule was, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." It's not a horrible rule, unless someone is unable to work or the work load is not divided fairly.
The author claims to have heard that some of the Thessalonians are not busy, just busybodies. They are told to "settle down and earn the bread they eat." Anyone who doesn't follow these instructions is to be shamed by shunning, without being regarded as an enemy. It's done with brotherly love. Shunning is despicable. But I don't know how you would deal with someone who was deliberately sponging off others. I certainly don't think it is right to starve anyone, even those who refuse to work. I'll have to think about it some more.
The letter ends with a wish for peace for the Thessalonians. Then it says "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write." That's kind of an odd thing to say in a second letter to people who presumably already know what his written greetings look like. If this author is not Paul, he may be trying to establish his credentials with this statement.
Well that's it for this short letter. Next time is the wrap up.
Wondering what was commanded? Here is an example: "Keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us." When Paul was there, he worked day and night, and he paid for any food he ate. This was his way of setting a good example for the Thessalonians to follow. His rule was, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." It's not a horrible rule, unless someone is unable to work or the work load is not divided fairly.
The author claims to have heard that some of the Thessalonians are not busy, just busybodies. They are told to "settle down and earn the bread they eat." Anyone who doesn't follow these instructions is to be shamed by shunning, without being regarded as an enemy. It's done with brotherly love. Shunning is despicable. But I don't know how you would deal with someone who was deliberately sponging off others. I certainly don't think it is right to starve anyone, even those who refuse to work. I'll have to think about it some more.
The letter ends with a wish for peace for the Thessalonians. Then it says "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write." That's kind of an odd thing to say in a second letter to people who presumably already know what his written greetings look like. If this author is not Paul, he may be trying to establish his credentials with this statement.
Well that's it for this short letter. Next time is the wrap up.
Thursday, August 8, 2019
2 Thessalonians part three
We are in chapter two looking at the passages that speak of the "man of lawlessness" who must come before the day of the lord. What I find interesting is that Jesus himself, as depicted in the gospels, was very similar to this man of lawlessness. Was he doomed to destruction? Yes. Did he oppose and exalt himself over everything that was called god and worshipped. Yes. Did he set himself up in god's temple? Not in reality, but he is said to be in god's heavenly temple. Did he proclaim to be god? Kind of, yes, depending which bible authors you read.
The author asks the Thessalonians to remember the stuff he told them about the man of lawlessness, when he was with them. However, he is not mentioned at all in the first letter to the Thessalonians. The man of lawlessness is currently being held back (by whom?) so that "he may be revealed at the proper time." There is a "secret power of lawlessness already at work." Someone is holding it back. Who? Whoever it is will eventually be taken out of the way. That sounds ominous. After that "the lawless one will be revealed." When? Hasn't happened yet.
The lawless one will be overthrown and the splendor of his coming destroyed by the breath of Jesus's mouth. Too funny. The jokes could write themselves. "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders." Still sounds like the Jesus of the gospels. This lawless guy will deceive those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth and be saved. God sends the perishing people a powerful delusion they will believe the lie. Nice god. What exactly is "the lie" that they are believing ? The proclamation by this guy that he is god? Oops. Wasn't that Jesus's lie also? Anyway, everyone who hasn't believed "the truth" as defined by the author will be condemned.
The author will always be thankful for the Thessalonians, because god chose them "to be saved through the sanctifying work of the spirit, and through belief in the truth." I'm skeptical about how much sanctifying work a spirit can do and how much of anything a spirit can do. The Thessalonians are said to have been called so they can share in the glory of the lord Jesus. Who called? Did anyone actually hear anyone calling? Probably not. In christianity a calling is usually determined by merely having a strong feeling about something. The spirit must be at work in such cases. That's christian logic.
The Thessalonians are urged to stand firm in their faith and hold on to the teachings the authors passed on, by word of mouth or letter. (If they didn't, it would make the authors look bad.) this letter doesn't actually seemed to have accomplished anything, as far as I can tell. The central teaching is about the man of lawlessness coming before the christians get to meet Jesus in glory. This was not even hinted about in the first letter, where it seemed Jesus was expected within a short time frame.
Till next time.
The author asks the Thessalonians to remember the stuff he told them about the man of lawlessness, when he was with them. However, he is not mentioned at all in the first letter to the Thessalonians. The man of lawlessness is currently being held back (by whom?) so that "he may be revealed at the proper time." There is a "secret power of lawlessness already at work." Someone is holding it back. Who? Whoever it is will eventually be taken out of the way. That sounds ominous. After that "the lawless one will be revealed." When? Hasn't happened yet.
The lawless one will be overthrown and the splendor of his coming destroyed by the breath of Jesus's mouth. Too funny. The jokes could write themselves. "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders." Still sounds like the Jesus of the gospels. This lawless guy will deceive those who are perishing because they refuse to love the truth and be saved. God sends the perishing people a powerful delusion they will believe the lie. Nice god. What exactly is "the lie" that they are believing ? The proclamation by this guy that he is god? Oops. Wasn't that Jesus's lie also? Anyway, everyone who hasn't believed "the truth" as defined by the author will be condemned.
The author will always be thankful for the Thessalonians, because god chose them "to be saved through the sanctifying work of the spirit, and through belief in the truth." I'm skeptical about how much sanctifying work a spirit can do and how much of anything a spirit can do. The Thessalonians are said to have been called so they can share in the glory of the lord Jesus. Who called? Did anyone actually hear anyone calling? Probably not. In christianity a calling is usually determined by merely having a strong feeling about something. The spirit must be at work in such cases. That's christian logic.
The Thessalonians are urged to stand firm in their faith and hold on to the teachings the authors passed on, by word of mouth or letter. (If they didn't, it would make the authors look bad.) this letter doesn't actually seemed to have accomplished anything, as far as I can tell. The central teaching is about the man of lawlessness coming before the christians get to meet Jesus in glory. This was not even hinted about in the first letter, where it seemed Jesus was expected within a short time frame.
Till next time.
Sunday, August 4, 2019
2 Thessalonians part two
We are at chapter two. Things get a little wierd now. The author tells the Thessalonians not to pay any attention to prophecies, reports, or letters, saying "The day of the lord has already come." In other words, people might try to get them to believe Jesus came and they missed it. Did this actually happen? Were people saying those kinds of things? Isn't that kind of what the gospels were saying? The christ already came and he was not recognized for who he was. After all Paul is not using the word return. In fact, I just looked up the words "return" and "returned" in Strong's concordance. It doesn't occur in reference to Jesus in any of the New Testament epistles.
" The New Testament talks of Jesus, the lord, or the christ, coming out of heaven at the end of times. Nowhere in any of the non gospel books can I find the words return or returning when referring to "the day of the lord." There is also no phrase "second coming" referring to Jesus, as is often used in Christianity. It seems strange to me. If he was coming back to the earth he left, wouldn't the language reflect that?
In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says the Son of Man is going to come In his kingdom, but he doesn't say that is himself. He also says that will happen before some of the people he is talking to die.
The book of John, the latest gospel, written later than most of the rest of the NT, is the only one that specifically has Jesus saying he will come back, to the apostles. That is in chapter 14, where he also says, "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.....On that day you will realize I am in my father and you are in me, and I am in you....He who loves me will be loved by my father, and I too will love him and show myself to him...If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. my father will love him and come to him and make our home with him...the holy spirit, whom the father will send in my name will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said."
This doesn't sound anything like a literal return to me. By the time this was written, the christian community had to have given up hope in any kind of "day of the lord" coming soon and created an alternate scenario of Jesus privately revealing himself to believers." (I also posted the portion in quotes in the Roll to Disbelieve comments.)
Anyway, the Thessalonians are told the lord hasn't come yet. "That day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (Who is that man?) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called god or worshipped, so that he sets himself up in god's temple, proclaiming himself to be god." The emperor Caligula tried to do exactly that, about the year 40CE, according to Philo of Alexandria. Read what Philo wrote here: (XLIII).
Caligula's statue appears to have never made it into the temple, and Caligula was killed. This letter to the Thessalonians was written at least a decade after Caligula died. If it is referring to him, it is a retroactive prophecy. If this author is not actually Paul, and he wrote much later, he appears to have his timeline messed up. I can't find any other indication that a statue of a "god" was ever set up in the Jewish temple. That doesn't mean there wasn't plans by some other emperor to do that. However, the temple is gone. If this man of lawlessness was supposed to set himself up as a god in the temple, it would have happened almost two thousand years ago. What does could this possibly have to do with us today?
" The New Testament talks of Jesus, the lord, or the christ, coming out of heaven at the end of times. Nowhere in any of the non gospel books can I find the words return or returning when referring to "the day of the lord." There is also no phrase "second coming" referring to Jesus, as is often used in Christianity. It seems strange to me. If he was coming back to the earth he left, wouldn't the language reflect that?
In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus says the Son of Man is going to come In his kingdom, but he doesn't say that is himself. He also says that will happen before some of the people he is talking to die.
The book of John, the latest gospel, written later than most of the rest of the NT, is the only one that specifically has Jesus saying he will come back, to the apostles. That is in chapter 14, where he also says, "Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me.....On that day you will realize I am in my father and you are in me, and I am in you....He who loves me will be loved by my father, and I too will love him and show myself to him...If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. my father will love him and come to him and make our home with him...the holy spirit, whom the father will send in my name will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said."
This doesn't sound anything like a literal return to me. By the time this was written, the christian community had to have given up hope in any kind of "day of the lord" coming soon and created an alternate scenario of Jesus privately revealing himself to believers." (I also posted the portion in quotes in the Roll to Disbelieve comments.)
Anyway, the Thessalonians are told the lord hasn't come yet. "That day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. (Who is that man?) He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called god or worshipped, so that he sets himself up in god's temple, proclaiming himself to be god." The emperor Caligula tried to do exactly that, about the year 40CE, according to Philo of Alexandria. Read what Philo wrote here: (XLIII).
Caligula's statue appears to have never made it into the temple, and Caligula was killed. This letter to the Thessalonians was written at least a decade after Caligula died. If it is referring to him, it is a retroactive prophecy. If this author is not actually Paul, and he wrote much later, he appears to have his timeline messed up. I can't find any other indication that a statue of a "god" was ever set up in the Jewish temple. That doesn't mean there wasn't plans by some other emperor to do that. However, the temple is gone. If this man of lawlessness was supposed to set himself up as a god in the temple, it would have happened almost two thousand years ago. What does could this possibly have to do with us today?
Friday, August 2, 2019
2 Thessalonians, introduction
We are going to follow 1 Thessalonians with 2 Thessalonians. The opinions of whether this letter is genuine are split. There are many reasons to question its authenticity. Some of those reasons have to do with a comparison of the teachings in 2 Thessalonians to those in the first letter to the Thessalonians. We will take that in mind as we read.
The letter begins with a standard greeting from Paul, Silas, and Timothy, just as the first did. The first paragraph is thanking god for the Thessalonians. It mentions their love, faith, and endurance, also as the first did. The author says he boasts to other churches about the Thessalonians' faith under persecution.
According to the author, this proves god's judgment is right and the Thessalonians "will be counted worthy of the kingdom of god" for which they are suffering. Not to worry, god will pay back the persecutors and relieve the Thessalonians' troubles "when the lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels." Jesus was supposed to punish those who didn't know god and who didn't obey the gospel. The persecutors were supposed to be condemned to "everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the lord." The Thessalonians would get to marvel at Jesus because they believed Paul's testimony. Too bad that day never came. The Thessalonians suffered for nothing.
We are not yet told what defines the gospel in this letter. Nor are we told what constitutes persecution. Paul and cohorts continue to pray for the Thessalonians, so they will behave the way he thinks the faithful believers should. That way the name of Jesus will be glorified in them.
More next time.
The letter begins with a standard greeting from Paul, Silas, and Timothy, just as the first did. The first paragraph is thanking god for the Thessalonians. It mentions their love, faith, and endurance, also as the first did. The author says he boasts to other churches about the Thessalonians' faith under persecution.
According to the author, this proves god's judgment is right and the Thessalonians "will be counted worthy of the kingdom of god" for which they are suffering. Not to worry, god will pay back the persecutors and relieve the Thessalonians' troubles "when the lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels." Jesus was supposed to punish those who didn't know god and who didn't obey the gospel. The persecutors were supposed to be condemned to "everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the lord." The Thessalonians would get to marvel at Jesus because they believed Paul's testimony. Too bad that day never came. The Thessalonians suffered for nothing.
We are not yet told what defines the gospel in this letter. Nor are we told what constitutes persecution. Paul and cohorts continue to pray for the Thessalonians, so they will behave the way he thinks the faithful believers should. That way the name of Jesus will be glorified in them.
More next time.
Sunday, July 28, 2019
1 Thessalonians wrap up
What did we learn? 1 Thessalonians is probably the oldest book of the New Testament and the first available letter of Paul. There is not much scholarly dispute that it is written by Paul, possibly in the early 50's CE. It is written to the church in Thessaloniki, Greece, which apparently was started by Paul, Silas, and Timothy. They had left the area and Paul was not able to go back for some time. He became anxious about whether the church was keeping the faith, and sent Timothy to check up on them. Timothy came back to Paul with a positive report. In spite of persecution, they were still active believers. It is said that they originally started out as idol worshippers, which would make them gentiles. Paul considered their success his crown of glory.
The author does not claim this letter is inspired or the word of god. There is no mention of specific Old Testament people, places, or events, in this letter. There are no Old Testament quotes. The only New testament people mentioned are Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Jesus. The New Testament places mentioned are Judea, Macedonia, Achaia, and Philippi. There are no New Testament events mentioned except travel and/or persecution in the mentioned areas. The specific persecutions mentioned were being insulted, forbidden from preaching the gospel to gentiles, and being run out of town.
There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, or teachings. There is no mention of his trial, crucifixion or burial. He is in heaven, having been raised from the dead. He will come back to earth. Satan is mentioned as stopping Paul from doing what he wants. He is also called the tempter who might have led the Thessalonians astray.
In this letter, the author accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, just as they killed the prophets. In the gospels we see that the Romans were the actual executioners of Jesus. The only way we see Jews killing anyone in the New Testament is by stoning. They never seemed to get in trouble with the authorities for that. Which makes me wonder, if they could do that, why didn't they stone Jesus? Also, it is very difficult to find any prophets who were killed by the Jews anywhere in the bible. In the New Testament, John the baptist might count, maybe Stephen also. In 1 Kings 19:10, Elijah tells god that his (unnamed) prophets have been put to death with the sword. That's the only mention I could find in the Old Testament.
Paul also mentions that he gave the Thessalonians instructions, by the authority of Jesus, on how to live as children of god. These instructions included avoiding certain sexual behaviors which sound like he could be obliquely referring to homosexuality. He does encourage self control and not taking advantage of others, which I guess is good in this oddly worded passage. They are also told to mind their own business and work with their hands. Significantly, in my mind, they aren't told to spread the gospel. How often are any people in the NT, besides the apostles, told to spread the gospel? I'm having trouble thinking of any.
Faithfulness and obedience to Paul's message is stressed in this letter. The message is one of eternal life for believers, when Jesus comes back. On a surprise date, the archangel will announce Jesus and god's trumpet will sound. The dead in christ will literally rise up into the air, then the living believers will follow and meet them in the clouds. Believers should be expecting this to happen in their lifetime so they will be ready. Unbelievers will be caught unaware. Believers don't need to grieve the death of other beloved believers, they will see them again. Not like non believers, they have no hope. (Erg.)
The author does not claim this letter is inspired or the word of god. There is no mention of specific Old Testament people, places, or events, in this letter. There are no Old Testament quotes. The only New testament people mentioned are Paul, Silas, Timothy, and Jesus. The New Testament places mentioned are Judea, Macedonia, Achaia, and Philippi. There are no New Testament events mentioned except travel and/or persecution in the mentioned areas. The specific persecutions mentioned were being insulted, forbidden from preaching the gospel to gentiles, and being run out of town.
There is no mention of Jesus's birth, life, miracles, or teachings. There is no mention of his trial, crucifixion or burial. He is in heaven, having been raised from the dead. He will come back to earth. Satan is mentioned as stopping Paul from doing what he wants. He is also called the tempter who might have led the Thessalonians astray.
In this letter, the author accuses the Jews of killing Jesus, just as they killed the prophets. In the gospels we see that the Romans were the actual executioners of Jesus. The only way we see Jews killing anyone in the New Testament is by stoning. They never seemed to get in trouble with the authorities for that. Which makes me wonder, if they could do that, why didn't they stone Jesus? Also, it is very difficult to find any prophets who were killed by the Jews anywhere in the bible. In the New Testament, John the baptist might count, maybe Stephen also. In 1 Kings 19:10, Elijah tells god that his (unnamed) prophets have been put to death with the sword. That's the only mention I could find in the Old Testament.
Paul also mentions that he gave the Thessalonians instructions, by the authority of Jesus, on how to live as children of god. These instructions included avoiding certain sexual behaviors which sound like he could be obliquely referring to homosexuality. He does encourage self control and not taking advantage of others, which I guess is good in this oddly worded passage. They are also told to mind their own business and work with their hands. Significantly, in my mind, they aren't told to spread the gospel. How often are any people in the NT, besides the apostles, told to spread the gospel? I'm having trouble thinking of any.
Faithfulness and obedience to Paul's message is stressed in this letter. The message is one of eternal life for believers, when Jesus comes back. On a surprise date, the archangel will announce Jesus and god's trumpet will sound. The dead in christ will literally rise up into the air, then the living believers will follow and meet them in the clouds. Believers should be expecting this to happen in their lifetime so they will be ready. Unbelievers will be caught unaware. Believers don't need to grieve the death of other beloved believers, they will see them again. Not like non believers, they have no hope. (Erg.)
Saturday, July 27, 2019
1 Thessalonians part four
We are at chapter four verse 13. Paul is telling the Thessalonians about people who have "fallen asleep" which a euphemism for died. He doesn't want the Thessalonians to grieve about those people who have died "like the rest of men who have no hope." (Is false hope a good thing?) Paul believes "that Jesus died and rose again" and that one day he will bring the dead back with him. Well, not all the dead. Just the ones who "fell asleep in him." In other words, only Jesus believers. So, should the Thessalonians grieve for those who died and didn't believe?
By the way, grieving is normal and very human. It also occurs in the animal kingdom. Pretending that people don't actually die, but live on, prevents people from learning valuable coping skills. Tragedies happen. Death happens every day. We will all die. Everyone we love will die, some before us. We need to talk about how to deal with it in non harmful ways.
Next Paul tells the Thessalonians that the dead in christ will rise before the living, at the command of the archangel and the trumpet call of god. When he says rise, he literally means rise up into the air. After the dead begin to rise, the living believers..."we who are alive and left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air. And we will be with the lord forever." Very dramatic. What happens to the rest of the people, the dead and the living? Anyway, it never happened, did it?
Paul can not tell the Thessalonian when this will happen because god wants it to be a surprise. He wants to catch people off guard, when they think they are safe. Then boom! Destruction. No escape. Nice god. No worries, the Thessalonians won't be caught off guard, like those who sleep peacefully at night and don't expect intruders. No, the Thessalonians are like fully awake people in the day time, alert and self controlled.
The Thessalonians will be ready for Jesus's coming by "putting on faith and love as a breastplate and the hope of salvation as a helmet." There's a war coming. They need armor. God did not "appoint them to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through Jesus." He died for the believers, the dead and the living ones. They will all get to live together with him. Good for them. I'll pass.
Next Paul tells them how to police each other. They were to respect the hard workers who are over them in the lord. These are not everyday hard workers but ones who have been given authority over the church in Thessaloniki. This passage is talking about church work, not everyday living work. The respect has not necessarily been earned. They are also to "warn the idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, and be patient with everyone." This is in the context of the church. It is god's will that they are always joyful, thankful, and prayerful, no matter what.
Finally the Thessalonians are told not to put out the spirit's fire, not to treat prophecies with contempt, test everything, and avoid every kind of evil. The letter ends with a kind of blessing. May god grant the Thessalonians sanctification and blamelessness of spirit, soul, and body, and he can do it. (What is the difference between a spirit and a soul?) Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for his entourage and to greet all the bothers with a holy kiss. The letter is to be read aloud.
Next the wrap up.
By the way, grieving is normal and very human. It also occurs in the animal kingdom. Pretending that people don't actually die, but live on, prevents people from learning valuable coping skills. Tragedies happen. Death happens every day. We will all die. Everyone we love will die, some before us. We need to talk about how to deal with it in non harmful ways.
Next Paul tells the Thessalonians that the dead in christ will rise before the living, at the command of the archangel and the trumpet call of god. When he says rise, he literally means rise up into the air. After the dead begin to rise, the living believers..."we who are alive and left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the lord in the air. And we will be with the lord forever." Very dramatic. What happens to the rest of the people, the dead and the living? Anyway, it never happened, did it?
Paul can not tell the Thessalonian when this will happen because god wants it to be a surprise. He wants to catch people off guard, when they think they are safe. Then boom! Destruction. No escape. Nice god. No worries, the Thessalonians won't be caught off guard, like those who sleep peacefully at night and don't expect intruders. No, the Thessalonians are like fully awake people in the day time, alert and self controlled.
The Thessalonians will be ready for Jesus's coming by "putting on faith and love as a breastplate and the hope of salvation as a helmet." There's a war coming. They need armor. God did not "appoint them to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through Jesus." He died for the believers, the dead and the living ones. They will all get to live together with him. Good for them. I'll pass.
Next Paul tells them how to police each other. They were to respect the hard workers who are over them in the lord. These are not everyday hard workers but ones who have been given authority over the church in Thessaloniki. This passage is talking about church work, not everyday living work. The respect has not necessarily been earned. They are also to "warn the idle, encourage the timid, help the weak, and be patient with everyone." This is in the context of the church. It is god's will that they are always joyful, thankful, and prayerful, no matter what.
Finally the Thessalonians are told not to put out the spirit's fire, not to treat prophecies with contempt, test everything, and avoid every kind of evil. The letter ends with a kind of blessing. May god grant the Thessalonians sanctification and blamelessness of spirit, soul, and body, and he can do it. (What is the difference between a spirit and a soul?) Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for his entourage and to greet all the bothers with a holy kiss. The letter is to be read aloud.
Next the wrap up.
Thursday, July 25, 2019
1 Thessalonians part three
We are at chapter two verse 17. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, had to leave the Thessalonians. They wanted to go back very badly but Satan stopped them. Hmm. How do they know it was Satan and not humans? They are truly sad about that because the Thessalonians are the glorious crown they will wear in the presence of Jesus, when he comes. They make Paul and company look good. Too bad Jesus never came.
Paul got impatient (What, he didn't trust god's timing?) and sent Timothy back to Thessaloniki without him. Timothy was to bolster their faith, so they wouldn't be unsettled by the persecution they were going through. It was inevitable that they would be treated that way, as they had been told the first time Paul visited them. We are not told exactly what these persecutions entailed, physical, economic, or social harm, or a combination. Paul knew beforehand that it would happen, probably because he had seen the same results of his teaching elsewhere. He was worried that the Thessalonians would lose faith in what he taught them. Then his efforts would have been in vain. Their trials were blamed on "the tempter" tempting them.
Timothy returned back to Paul with a good report. The Thessalonians still like Paul and would like to see him again. Whew! They haven't given up their faith. Praise the lord! Paul and company are going to keep earnestly praying for the Thessalonians. One day they will get back and "supply what is lacking" in the Thessalonians' faith. What does that mean? What are they lacking? Paul is hoping god clears the way for another visit. In the meantime, he wants god to make their love increase and strengthen their hearts, so they will be ready when Jesus comes. Too bad he never came.
We are now at chapter four. Paul says he instructed the Thessalonians on how to live to please god, and they are doing it. But they've got to do it more. After all their instructions came by the authority of the lord Jesus. That's how we can know that their instructions were crap. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, never met Jesus, except in visions. Their authority is purely on their say so. The Thessalonians fell for it, hook line, and sinker. They get to tell the Thessalonians what god's will is and how are the Thessalonians to disagree? They never had any personal revelation of Jesus.
What did Paul say was god's will? Avoiding sexual immorality, controlling their bodies and not indulging in passionate lust "like the heathen who do not know god." The Thessalonian should not wrong his brother or take advantage of his brother, regarding this matter. Is Paul talking of same sex relations? It's hard to tell. It's obviously about some kind of sexual purity standards. Those who don't follow the standards have been warned that the lord will punish them.
Paul says he doesn't need to preach to the Thessalonians about brotherly love, because god seems to have already taught them how to love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. The brothers are clearly other christ believers. If god could teach them brotherly love without Paul's help, couldn't he have taught them other things as well. Why does god need Paul to spread his message?
Next, Paul tells the Thessalonians to "lead a quiet life, mind your own business, and work with your hands." That way they will earn the respect of outsiders and not be dependant on anyone. Wait. They are not to preach the gospel to their neighbors? It just occurred to me, most of the New Testament letters don't even encourage the readers to spread the gospel. The readers are just passive and obedient recipients of the message, a message that needs reinforcing and policing by Paul and his cohorts.
Till next time.
Paul got impatient (What, he didn't trust god's timing?) and sent Timothy back to Thessaloniki without him. Timothy was to bolster their faith, so they wouldn't be unsettled by the persecution they were going through. It was inevitable that they would be treated that way, as they had been told the first time Paul visited them. We are not told exactly what these persecutions entailed, physical, economic, or social harm, or a combination. Paul knew beforehand that it would happen, probably because he had seen the same results of his teaching elsewhere. He was worried that the Thessalonians would lose faith in what he taught them. Then his efforts would have been in vain. Their trials were blamed on "the tempter" tempting them.
Timothy returned back to Paul with a good report. The Thessalonians still like Paul and would like to see him again. Whew! They haven't given up their faith. Praise the lord! Paul and company are going to keep earnestly praying for the Thessalonians. One day they will get back and "supply what is lacking" in the Thessalonians' faith. What does that mean? What are they lacking? Paul is hoping god clears the way for another visit. In the meantime, he wants god to make their love increase and strengthen their hearts, so they will be ready when Jesus comes. Too bad he never came.
We are now at chapter four. Paul says he instructed the Thessalonians on how to live to please god, and they are doing it. But they've got to do it more. After all their instructions came by the authority of the lord Jesus. That's how we can know that their instructions were crap. Paul, Silas, and Timothy, never met Jesus, except in visions. Their authority is purely on their say so. The Thessalonians fell for it, hook line, and sinker. They get to tell the Thessalonians what god's will is and how are the Thessalonians to disagree? They never had any personal revelation of Jesus.
What did Paul say was god's will? Avoiding sexual immorality, controlling their bodies and not indulging in passionate lust "like the heathen who do not know god." The Thessalonian should not wrong his brother or take advantage of his brother, regarding this matter. Is Paul talking of same sex relations? It's hard to tell. It's obviously about some kind of sexual purity standards. Those who don't follow the standards have been warned that the lord will punish them.
Paul says he doesn't need to preach to the Thessalonians about brotherly love, because god seems to have already taught them how to love all the brothers throughout Macedonia. The brothers are clearly other christ believers. If god could teach them brotherly love without Paul's help, couldn't he have taught them other things as well. Why does god need Paul to spread his message?
Next, Paul tells the Thessalonians to "lead a quiet life, mind your own business, and work with your hands." That way they will earn the respect of outsiders and not be dependant on anyone. Wait. They are not to preach the gospel to their neighbors? It just occurred to me, most of the New Testament letters don't even encourage the readers to spread the gospel. The readers are just passive and obedient recipients of the message, a message that needs reinforcing and policing by Paul and his cohorts.
Till next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)