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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.