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.
Showing posts with label the temple. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the temple. Show all posts
Thursday, September 12, 2019
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, May 3, 2019
Hebrews part twelve
We are at Hebrews chapter ten. The Hebrews are told, "The law is only a shadow of things that are coming-- not the realities themselves." Here we go again with earthly things being shadows of perfect heavenly things. Again the author goes over the previous necessity of regular earthly sacrifices and how they were a shadow of christ's single sacrifice of himself.
In fact, the author claims christ said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. (Even though you mandated them.) Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll--I have come to do your will o god.'"
But Jesus never actually said that. Whoever wrote Psalm 40:6-8 did. My bible says it is a Psalm of David. Again, is the author of Hebrews suggesting Jesus is a reincarnation of David? Also, the author of Hebrews left out a few parts of the original Psalm. There it claims god pierced the speaker's ears. Ear piercing was a sign that you were someone's slave. In this case David would be claiming to be god's slave. That's not in the letter to the Hebrews. Another thing: in verse eight of that Psalm, the writer says to god, "your law is in my heart." He looks on the law as the will of god, not a shadow of a greater reality. Nowhere in the Psalm is it said that the speaker (Jesus or David?) will be literally sacrificing his own body. That is the personal interpretation of the Hebrews writer.
The author goes on to say that after the christ made his one time sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of god. Again we are told about enemies becoming (Jesus or David's?) footstools. Again we are told that the holy spirit spoke in Jeremiah 31:33-34, when god says he will put his law in the Jews' hearts and minds, and forget their sins. Since they are forgiven, "there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin."
So, now the brothers (Jews) get to enter the most holy place (the heavenly temple) by the blood of Jesus. Yay? Jesus's body has become the new living curtain into the holy place. Eww. The hearts of the faithful have been sprinkled (with Jesus's blood) to cleanse them from a guilty conscience. Is that invisible/metaphorical sprinkled blood? The author also mentions having their bodies washed with pure water. That seems to be a reference to actual water and bodies, so he must be referring to baptism. I think.
Next the readers are told to hold on to their faith, because of what they've been promised. They also need to "spur one another on to love and good deeds." (I'm sure it's figurative, but "spurring" sounds painful.) They also need to keep meeting together, even more as "the day" approaches. That day hasn't arrived yet, over 1,500 years later.
Also, no more sinning. (Define sin) If the readers keep sinning, jesus's sacrifice for sins will get used up and run out. That would make them enemies of god who will eventually be consumed by raging fire. After all, the law of Moses contained the death penalty, without mercy for sinners. How much worse should it be for those who "trample the son of god under foot?" This trampling of Jesus is obviously figurative, will the burning of sinners be as well? Sinners are treating the blood of the new covenant as unholy and insulting the spirit of grace. For shame! Uh, oh, don't forget, vengeance is god's and he will repay. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the lord." But don't worry, be happy.
Till next time.
In fact, the author claims christ said, "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. (Even though you mandated them.) Then I said, 'Here I am-- it is written about me in the scroll--I have come to do your will o god.'"
But Jesus never actually said that. Whoever wrote Psalm 40:6-8 did. My bible says it is a Psalm of David. Again, is the author of Hebrews suggesting Jesus is a reincarnation of David? Also, the author of Hebrews left out a few parts of the original Psalm. There it claims god pierced the speaker's ears. Ear piercing was a sign that you were someone's slave. In this case David would be claiming to be god's slave. That's not in the letter to the Hebrews. Another thing: in verse eight of that Psalm, the writer says to god, "your law is in my heart." He looks on the law as the will of god, not a shadow of a greater reality. Nowhere in the Psalm is it said that the speaker (Jesus or David?) will be literally sacrificing his own body. That is the personal interpretation of the Hebrews writer.
The author goes on to say that after the christ made his one time sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of god. Again we are told about enemies becoming (Jesus or David's?) footstools. Again we are told that the holy spirit spoke in Jeremiah 31:33-34, when god says he will put his law in the Jews' hearts and minds, and forget their sins. Since they are forgiven, "there is no longer any need for sacrifice for sin."
So, now the brothers (Jews) get to enter the most holy place (the heavenly temple) by the blood of Jesus. Yay? Jesus's body has become the new living curtain into the holy place. Eww. The hearts of the faithful have been sprinkled (with Jesus's blood) to cleanse them from a guilty conscience. Is that invisible/metaphorical sprinkled blood? The author also mentions having their bodies washed with pure water. That seems to be a reference to actual water and bodies, so he must be referring to baptism. I think.
Next the readers are told to hold on to their faith, because of what they've been promised. They also need to "spur one another on to love and good deeds." (I'm sure it's figurative, but "spurring" sounds painful.) They also need to keep meeting together, even more as "the day" approaches. That day hasn't arrived yet, over 1,500 years later.
Also, no more sinning. (Define sin) If the readers keep sinning, jesus's sacrifice for sins will get used up and run out. That would make them enemies of god who will eventually be consumed by raging fire. After all, the law of Moses contained the death penalty, without mercy for sinners. How much worse should it be for those who "trample the son of god under foot?" This trampling of Jesus is obviously figurative, will the burning of sinners be as well? Sinners are treating the blood of the new covenant as unholy and insulting the spirit of grace. For shame! Uh, oh, don't forget, vengeance is god's and he will repay. "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the lord." But don't worry, be happy.
Till next time.
Wednesday, March 6, 2019
Mark part twenty six
We are now in Mark 14:39. Jesus has gone off to pray twice; and he has gone back to rebuke Peter, James, and John, twice, for sleeping while they waited for him. Now he does the same sequence a third time.I have been impressed by the number of times three has cropped up in this story. We have three disciples dozing while waiting for Jesus. Three times Jesus prays. Three times he goes back to the three disciples to rebuke them. What are the odds more threes will occur in this story?
The third time Jesus rebukes the three, he also announces his betrayer is coming. So, somewhere in between the twelve arriving at the garden and this moment, Judas must have left. Judas now appears with what can be described as a mob, sent by the chief priests, teachers of the law, and the elders. (Three authority figures) These people are not said to be Roman soldiers. Remember, this is the night of Passover, a religious holy day. This should not have been happening. Back in 14:2, the chief priests said they didn't want to arrest Jesus during the Feast for fear of a riot. The feast of unleavened bread lasted a whole week. In the context of the story, it appears to be only the second day of the feast, Jewish time.
Judas had arranged a signal to show the armed crowd who to capture. He went to Jesus, called him rabbi, and gave him a kiss. He was immediately arrested. Someone standing nearby cut off the ear of the chief priest's servant with a sword. The text does not name that person. It also does not say Jesus stuck the ear back on and miraculously healed it. Jesus verbally protests the necessity of the arrest, but says "the scripture must be fulfilled." Everyone deserted Jesus and ran away. Jesus was only with three other people at the time, unless all the other disciples decided to come see what the commotion was.
Next, an odd incident is included in the story, telling us that a young man, basically only dressed in his underwear or night clothes, tried to run off but was grabbed by the flimsy garment. He escaped by leaving the garment behind, in other words, buck naked. Since this seems such a non-sequitur, many bible readers through the ages have decided the purpose for including this story must be because the young man was the author, AKA Mark. There is no actual reason to believe this other than speculation.
They crowd took Jesus to the Jewish authority figures who had gathered, on Passover night. Peter followed them at a distance, to the high priest's courtyard, and sat with the guards (not said to be Roman) by the fire. The whole Sanhedrin was there, on Passover night. They had a religious trial, in the middle of the night. Unbelievable. They needed two or more witnesses who could agree and give evidence to any religious crimes Jesus had supposedly committed that would justify putting him to death. They didn't get what they needed. Some testified that Jesus said he "would destroy this manmade temple and in three days build another, not made by man." However, no two testimonies agreeed. (Many Christians believe the Temple referred to was a metaphor for Jesus's body.) Jesus refused to answer the charges against himself, instead remaining silent.
Then the high priest asked Jesus if he was the christ, the son of the blessed one. Jesus replied, "I am." In the old testament "I am" is what god calls himself, this would mean Jesus was making himself Equal to god. If that wasn't enough, he goes on to imply that he will sit at the right hand of god and appear with him in the clouds when he comes. This was clearly blasphemy, punishable by death. Jesus was condemned to die, spat upon, blindfolded, and beaten.
The third time Jesus rebukes the three, he also announces his betrayer is coming. So, somewhere in between the twelve arriving at the garden and this moment, Judas must have left. Judas now appears with what can be described as a mob, sent by the chief priests, teachers of the law, and the elders. (Three authority figures) These people are not said to be Roman soldiers. Remember, this is the night of Passover, a religious holy day. This should not have been happening. Back in 14:2, the chief priests said they didn't want to arrest Jesus during the Feast for fear of a riot. The feast of unleavened bread lasted a whole week. In the context of the story, it appears to be only the second day of the feast, Jewish time.
Judas had arranged a signal to show the armed crowd who to capture. He went to Jesus, called him rabbi, and gave him a kiss. He was immediately arrested. Someone standing nearby cut off the ear of the chief priest's servant with a sword. The text does not name that person. It also does not say Jesus stuck the ear back on and miraculously healed it. Jesus verbally protests the necessity of the arrest, but says "the scripture must be fulfilled." Everyone deserted Jesus and ran away. Jesus was only with three other people at the time, unless all the other disciples decided to come see what the commotion was.
Next, an odd incident is included in the story, telling us that a young man, basically only dressed in his underwear or night clothes, tried to run off but was grabbed by the flimsy garment. He escaped by leaving the garment behind, in other words, buck naked. Since this seems such a non-sequitur, many bible readers through the ages have decided the purpose for including this story must be because the young man was the author, AKA Mark. There is no actual reason to believe this other than speculation.
They crowd took Jesus to the Jewish authority figures who had gathered, on Passover night. Peter followed them at a distance, to the high priest's courtyard, and sat with the guards (not said to be Roman) by the fire. The whole Sanhedrin was there, on Passover night. They had a religious trial, in the middle of the night. Unbelievable. They needed two or more witnesses who could agree and give evidence to any religious crimes Jesus had supposedly committed that would justify putting him to death. They didn't get what they needed. Some testified that Jesus said he "would destroy this manmade temple and in three days build another, not made by man." However, no two testimonies agreeed. (Many Christians believe the Temple referred to was a metaphor for Jesus's body.) Jesus refused to answer the charges against himself, instead remaining silent.
Then the high priest asked Jesus if he was the christ, the son of the blessed one. Jesus replied, "I am." In the old testament "I am" is what god calls himself, this would mean Jesus was making himself Equal to god. If that wasn't enough, he goes on to imply that he will sit at the right hand of god and appear with him in the clouds when he comes. This was clearly blasphemy, punishable by death. Jesus was condemned to die, spat upon, blindfolded, and beaten.
Wednesday, February 20, 2019
Mark part twenty two
We are at mark 12:26. Jesus is speaking to the Sadducees who do not believe in resurrection. He gives them his reasoning as to why they are wrong: God told Moses, "I am the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob." Since Jesus's god is the god of the living, those people must be alive. If they are alive they must have been resurrected. Ta da! Logic. Unless, somebody made the whole thing up. Oops.
Next we have a teacher of the law watching and listening in on the argument. He asks Jesus which is the most important commandment of all. Jesus's reply is a Jewish ritual saying called the shema: "Hear o Israel, the lord our god, the lord is one (not three, not three in one). Love the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." The second greatest command is "love your neighbor as yourself." In Mark no one asks, "Who is my neighbor?" There also no story of the good Samaritan.
In verse thirty-five, Jesus is back in the temple courts teaching. He questions the teaching that the messiah/christ is the son of David. Jesus quotes Psalm 110, which was assumed to be the holy spirit speaking through David, about this messiah: The lord said to my lord: sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." If the person being spoken about is David's lord, Jesus asks, how can he be David's son? Good question. Apparently no one had an answer. This is interesting because Jesus seems to be implying that the messiah would not necessarily be the son of David, a phrase meaning a descendant of David. Yet, both Matthew and Luke attempt to establish Jesus's lineage from David. No other New Testament writer does. Matthew uses the phrase many more times than any other book.
In verses 38-40, Jesus insults the teachers of the law as being self important and hypocritical. In verses 41- 43, he draws the disciples' attention to a poor widow who put all the money she had to live on into the temple offering. He praises her for giving out of her poverty, and contrasts her with those who gave a lot out of their wealth. While it is true that the widow's offering was far more sacrificial, I would say it was a shame and a waste. Gods do not need money at any time. Poor widows do. She probably went home and died from starvation. It was also a shame and a waste for the rich to be donating pots of money to a god who didn't need it, when there were poor people like the widow who had barely enough to survive. Why didn't Jesus see the woman in need and have pity on her? What kind of god would make giving up your livelihood a good thing?
We are now in chapter 13. Jesus and the disciples are leaving the temple and one exclaims at the magnificent stone construction. Jesus replies that all those stones will be thrown down. This appears to be a prophecy of the destruction of the temple. The temple was destroyed in 70CE. This makes it clear in my mind that the book of Mark must have written after that, more than 40 years after the events depicted, and even after Paul's preaching to the gentiles. Mark has put the words of already fulfilled prophecy in the mouth of Jesus.
They were sitting on the sitting on the Mount of Olives when Peter,James, John, and Andrew privately asked Jesus when the previously mentioned event (the destruction of the temple) would happen and what would signal the coming of that event. Then Jesus gives a long prophetic speech, which makes it even more clear that Mark was written after 70CE. This prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem is often taken out of context and used by christians to describe the last days. We will explore the speech next time.
Next we have a teacher of the law watching and listening in on the argument. He asks Jesus which is the most important commandment of all. Jesus's reply is a Jewish ritual saying called the shema: "Hear o Israel, the lord our god, the lord is one (not three, not three in one). Love the lord your god with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." The second greatest command is "love your neighbor as yourself." In Mark no one asks, "Who is my neighbor?" There also no story of the good Samaritan.
In verse thirty-five, Jesus is back in the temple courts teaching. He questions the teaching that the messiah/christ is the son of David. Jesus quotes Psalm 110, which was assumed to be the holy spirit speaking through David, about this messiah: The lord said to my lord: sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet." If the person being spoken about is David's lord, Jesus asks, how can he be David's son? Good question. Apparently no one had an answer. This is interesting because Jesus seems to be implying that the messiah would not necessarily be the son of David, a phrase meaning a descendant of David. Yet, both Matthew and Luke attempt to establish Jesus's lineage from David. No other New Testament writer does. Matthew uses the phrase many more times than any other book.
In verses 38-40, Jesus insults the teachers of the law as being self important and hypocritical. In verses 41- 43, he draws the disciples' attention to a poor widow who put all the money she had to live on into the temple offering. He praises her for giving out of her poverty, and contrasts her with those who gave a lot out of their wealth. While it is true that the widow's offering was far more sacrificial, I would say it was a shame and a waste. Gods do not need money at any time. Poor widows do. She probably went home and died from starvation. It was also a shame and a waste for the rich to be donating pots of money to a god who didn't need it, when there were poor people like the widow who had barely enough to survive. Why didn't Jesus see the woman in need and have pity on her? What kind of god would make giving up your livelihood a good thing?
We are now in chapter 13. Jesus and the disciples are leaving the temple and one exclaims at the magnificent stone construction. Jesus replies that all those stones will be thrown down. This appears to be a prophecy of the destruction of the temple. The temple was destroyed in 70CE. This makes it clear in my mind that the book of Mark must have written after that, more than 40 years after the events depicted, and even after Paul's preaching to the gentiles. Mark has put the words of already fulfilled prophecy in the mouth of Jesus.
They were sitting on the sitting on the Mount of Olives when Peter,James, John, and Andrew privately asked Jesus when the previously mentioned event (the destruction of the temple) would happen and what would signal the coming of that event. Then Jesus gives a long prophetic speech, which makes it even more clear that Mark was written after 70CE. This prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem is often taken out of context and used by christians to describe the last days. We will explore the speech next time.
Tuesday, February 12, 2019
Mark part twenty
We are at Mark 11:18. We are told that after Jesus upset the temple businesses, the chief priests and the teachers of the law began to look for a way to kill him "because they feared him." I find this patently ridiculous. They have all the power and privilege. They could have arrested him for what he did, or at least have thrown him out. I would guess that he was more of an annoyance than a fear. If they did fear him, maybe it was because they thought him mentally unstable. Besides that, Jesus has not spent any time in the Jerusalem area, until now, in the book of Mark. He cannot have been that well known. Not only that, the failed triumphal entry and the following days' events may be proof that he was totally unfamiliar with the temple and its practices.
At evening, the disciples went out of the city, unmolested by the authorities. As they were walking along the next morning, they saw the fig tree Jesus had cursed and it was "withered from the roots." Let me tell you about fig trees. I have one in my back yard. At the time Jesus and his disciples were walking along, it was supposedly early spring, before passover. In early spring, fig plants are beginning to leaf out. They don't produce ripe fruit til the end of summer, which is why the plant had no fruit and Jesus "cursed" it. Early spring can be an unstable weather period. Hard frosts might still occur. If a hard frost happens after a fig has leafed out, it will die back. However, the great thing about figs is the roots do stay alive. The plant will start growing back as soon as the temperatures get warm again. The person who wrote this book obviously did not know this about figs, or it didn't occur to him to question the legend.
In the story, Peter makes a big deal about the fig tree withering after Jesus cursed it. Jesus uses this event to tell the disciples to have faith that "whatever you ask for in prayer, if you believe that you have received it....it will be yours." He says that anyone who does not doubt in his heart, but believes what he says, could even tell a mountain to throw itself into the sea and it would be done. That is pretty specific. The fact that it's never been done must mean there has never been someone with enough faith. This also lays the blame for unanswered prayers squarely at the feet of the one who prayed. You didn't get what you prayed for? Tsk, tsk.
The disciples are heading back into Jerusalem. Bethany must have been their home base. This is the third day they went into the city from Bethany. The first was the "triumphal" entry that fell flat. The second was the fracas in the temple. Now, on the third day, Jesus is back at the temple. The chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders ask Jesus "By what authority are you doing these things?" What things is Jesus doing now to get that question? Why didn't they confront him the day before? Jesus then says if they answer his question, he will answer theirs. And they take that impertinence from him, a nobody? Are these men or mice?
Then Jesus asks them if John's baptism was from men or god, a trick question which makes the leaders look bad no matter how they answer, because everyone thought John was a prophet, except them. Frankly, John the baptist was probably more well known than Jesus. In fact, his life is better attested to in Josephus's writings than Jesus is anywhere outside the bible. This whole gospel of Mark seems to hang on the existence of John, and Jesus's revelation of the holy spirit while being baptized by him. No John, no Jesus. John is dead, so he cannot testify to Jesus's veracity, plus Jesus's ministry did not begin till after John's death, according to the book of Mark.
Now that Jesus's authority is being questioned, he deflects attention to the question of John's authority. The leaders won't answer his question, so Jesus says he won't answer theirs. Now we also do not know from where he gets his authority. More mystery.
At evening, the disciples went out of the city, unmolested by the authorities. As they were walking along the next morning, they saw the fig tree Jesus had cursed and it was "withered from the roots." Let me tell you about fig trees. I have one in my back yard. At the time Jesus and his disciples were walking along, it was supposedly early spring, before passover. In early spring, fig plants are beginning to leaf out. They don't produce ripe fruit til the end of summer, which is why the plant had no fruit and Jesus "cursed" it. Early spring can be an unstable weather period. Hard frosts might still occur. If a hard frost happens after a fig has leafed out, it will die back. However, the great thing about figs is the roots do stay alive. The plant will start growing back as soon as the temperatures get warm again. The person who wrote this book obviously did not know this about figs, or it didn't occur to him to question the legend.
In the story, Peter makes a big deal about the fig tree withering after Jesus cursed it. Jesus uses this event to tell the disciples to have faith that "whatever you ask for in prayer, if you believe that you have received it....it will be yours." He says that anyone who does not doubt in his heart, but believes what he says, could even tell a mountain to throw itself into the sea and it would be done. That is pretty specific. The fact that it's never been done must mean there has never been someone with enough faith. This also lays the blame for unanswered prayers squarely at the feet of the one who prayed. You didn't get what you prayed for? Tsk, tsk.
The disciples are heading back into Jerusalem. Bethany must have been their home base. This is the third day they went into the city from Bethany. The first was the "triumphal" entry that fell flat. The second was the fracas in the temple. Now, on the third day, Jesus is back at the temple. The chief priests, teachers of the law, and elders ask Jesus "By what authority are you doing these things?" What things is Jesus doing now to get that question? Why didn't they confront him the day before? Jesus then says if they answer his question, he will answer theirs. And they take that impertinence from him, a nobody? Are these men or mice?
Then Jesus asks them if John's baptism was from men or god, a trick question which makes the leaders look bad no matter how they answer, because everyone thought John was a prophet, except them. Frankly, John the baptist was probably more well known than Jesus. In fact, his life is better attested to in Josephus's writings than Jesus is anywhere outside the bible. This whole gospel of Mark seems to hang on the existence of John, and Jesus's revelation of the holy spirit while being baptized by him. No John, no Jesus. John is dead, so he cannot testify to Jesus's veracity, plus Jesus's ministry did not begin till after John's death, according to the book of Mark.
Now that Jesus's authority is being questioned, he deflects attention to the question of John's authority. The leaders won't answer his question, so Jesus says he won't answer theirs. Now we also do not know from where he gets his authority. More mystery.
Thursday, February 7, 2019
Mark part nineteen
We are at Mark 10:41. The other ten disciples have heard about James' and John's request to be Jesus's top men. They were miffed. Jesus again tells them that unlike the governing gentile authorities of the day (Romans), whoever wants to be great among them must be a servant. "Whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the son of man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." I feel it is important here to mention that son of man literally means a human being, not a divine being. Plus, even though that is capitalized in the NIV, (meant to Indicate reverence to god) it was not done so in the ancient Greek.
Let's talk about ransom. That's what you pay a kidnapper to get back your child, right? Or a foreign villain to get back your VIP. Or an abductor to get back your beloved. Or a ruler to set his captives free. You pay so the person you value doesn't get harmed or dead, right? So who is the bad guy that's being paid off here? Who are the many who have been captured and are being threatened? Oh my. Did Jesus think his death would free the Israelites from the power of Rome?
The last location given for Jesus and the disciples was "on the way to Jerusalem." Now they have come to Jericho. There, Jesus heals a blind man named Bartimaeus, who then follows Jesus. They next came to Bethany and the Mount of Olives. Jesus sent two of his disciples to fetch a young never ridden colt tied up at the entrance to the village. If this happened, it is likely that this was prearranged. The disciples were to tell anyone who questioned them that "the lord needs it and will send it back shortly." Lord is capitalized in my NIV bible, but remember, it would not have been in the ancient Greek. Also, though "lord" is often used to refer Yahweh, it is also used to refer to a master, ruler, or slave owner.
The colt was found and brought to Jesus and he got on it. On the way into Jerusalem, people spread their cloaks on the road, as well as branches cut in the fields. What kind of branches grow in fields? Maybe its stalks from some kind of grain. It certainly doesn't sound like palm branches. People walked in front of Jesus and behind him shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! In this way, he travelled to the temple. When he got there, he looked around, but it was already late, so he went back to Bethany with the disciples.
Wait. What?!! That's a very anti-climactic end to his triumphal ride. Jesus rode into Jerusalem accompanied by people shouting, but when he gets there, nothing happens! It's late so there probably is no crowd to witness his grand entrance and the people he wants to impress have probably gone home to dinner. So, he turns around and goes back??? This doesn't sound like any Jesus story I've heard before. Where are the witnesses to this non-event? Again, it seems that Mark is subtlely explaining why no one seems to have known about it.
The next day, they left Bethany again, apparently on foot. Jesus was hungry and spied a fig tree without fruit, because it was out of season for figs. So, he cursed the fig tree. He must have been "hangry." When he gets to the temple area, Jesus begins driving out those who were buying and selling, and exchanging currency. He turned over the tables of the business people and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. These businesses were a convenience to the worshipper and the business of the temple. They provided a way for travellers to purchase animals for the required sacrifices, so they didn't have to cart animals long distances.
The text says Jesus used this as a teaching moment, reciting Isaiah 5:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." He adds that instead it has been made a den of robbers. Earlier, in Isaiah 56:6, Yahweh talks talks about foreigner's burnt offerings and sacrifices being accepted. How can they make burnt offerings without animals? How can they get animals without buying them?
How can they buy them with local money, if they don't exchange the money they brought with them?
There probably were inflated prices and graft, but hey, isn't this a kind of example of supply and demand economics?
Let's talk about ransom. That's what you pay a kidnapper to get back your child, right? Or a foreign villain to get back your VIP. Or an abductor to get back your beloved. Or a ruler to set his captives free. You pay so the person you value doesn't get harmed or dead, right? So who is the bad guy that's being paid off here? Who are the many who have been captured and are being threatened? Oh my. Did Jesus think his death would free the Israelites from the power of Rome?
The last location given for Jesus and the disciples was "on the way to Jerusalem." Now they have come to Jericho. There, Jesus heals a blind man named Bartimaeus, who then follows Jesus. They next came to Bethany and the Mount of Olives. Jesus sent two of his disciples to fetch a young never ridden colt tied up at the entrance to the village. If this happened, it is likely that this was prearranged. The disciples were to tell anyone who questioned them that "the lord needs it and will send it back shortly." Lord is capitalized in my NIV bible, but remember, it would not have been in the ancient Greek. Also, though "lord" is often used to refer Yahweh, it is also used to refer to a master, ruler, or slave owner.
The colt was found and brought to Jesus and he got on it. On the way into Jerusalem, people spread their cloaks on the road, as well as branches cut in the fields. What kind of branches grow in fields? Maybe its stalks from some kind of grain. It certainly doesn't sound like palm branches. People walked in front of Jesus and behind him shouting, "Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the lord! Blessed is the coming kingdom of our father David! In this way, he travelled to the temple. When he got there, he looked around, but it was already late, so he went back to Bethany with the disciples.
Wait. What?!! That's a very anti-climactic end to his triumphal ride. Jesus rode into Jerusalem accompanied by people shouting, but when he gets there, nothing happens! It's late so there probably is no crowd to witness his grand entrance and the people he wants to impress have probably gone home to dinner. So, he turns around and goes back??? This doesn't sound like any Jesus story I've heard before. Where are the witnesses to this non-event? Again, it seems that Mark is subtlely explaining why no one seems to have known about it.
The next day, they left Bethany again, apparently on foot. Jesus was hungry and spied a fig tree without fruit, because it was out of season for figs. So, he cursed the fig tree. He must have been "hangry." When he gets to the temple area, Jesus begins driving out those who were buying and selling, and exchanging currency. He turned over the tables of the business people and would not allow anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts. These businesses were a convenience to the worshipper and the business of the temple. They provided a way for travellers to purchase animals for the required sacrifices, so they didn't have to cart animals long distances.
The text says Jesus used this as a teaching moment, reciting Isaiah 5:7, "My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations." He adds that instead it has been made a den of robbers. Earlier, in Isaiah 56:6, Yahweh talks talks about foreigner's burnt offerings and sacrifices being accepted. How can they make burnt offerings without animals? How can they get animals without buying them?
How can they buy them with local money, if they don't exchange the money they brought with them?
There probably were inflated prices and graft, but hey, isn't this a kind of example of supply and demand economics?
Friday, April 20, 2018
High priest Joshua, wrap up
We will not move on in the book of Zechariah. Chapters 9-14 are completely different and seem to have no connection to the previous chapters in style or content. In chapters 1-8, we saw two different types of text, one first person, one third person point of view. The portions of the text written in third person are harsher in tone and do not flow with the rest of the text. If I was to guess, I would assume the first person portions of the text to be authentic. It seems to have been written just before the building of the second temple. It also appears to be predicting a wonderful future for the Israelites returning to their homeland. God will return to them, everyone will prosper, the nations around will be envious.
The high priest Joshua will be given a supreme position of honor and authority, for god will have cleansed him of any sin that he incurred before he arrived in Jerusalem. He will be responsible for the construction of the new temple, with the help of other returning exiles, after Zerubbabel has laid the foundation. When it is finished, Zerubbabel will set in the capstone. All the sin present in Jerusalem will be packed up and carried off to Babylonia. Exiles from the four corners of the earth will return. People will live to old age, and children will play safely in the streets. Yahweh will save them and make them a blessing. It's a very pleasant and optimistic prophecy, very much like a pep talk for the first waves of returning exiles.
We know that optimism was misplaced. Ezra-Nehemiah, writing later and looking back, outlined the many troubles the exiles had rebuilding the temple and the city walls. It also details the poor relations the Jews maintained with the locals, which was the cause of most of the trouble. No wonder. We are told that the Jews refused their help in rebuilding the temple, scorned their worship of yahweh, and eventually instituted a policy of separation and segregation. They even insisted on divorcing wives who were locals, and what became of their children? Can we blame the locals for sabotage and enmity in those circumstances?
Just as the book of Haggai does not mention Zechariah, Zechariah does not mention Haggai. Zechariah's tone is gentler and more optimistic than book of Haggai. Zechariah was also far more inclusive and ecumenical. I imagine that first half of the book of Zechariah could have formed the basis of a hope for the Jews after the destruction of the second temple and the new diaspora that resulted. Maybe there would be another High Priest Joshua to rebuild the temple. It happened before, why not again?
If we look back at the book of Jude, it does not use Zechariah as a basis for optimism. Jude cherry picks verses from Zechariah 3 and other old testament books to prove his own point, which appears to be that he thinks ungodly men are trying to corrupt Judaism (Christianity, if you believe Jude is a christian book). Jude sounds very much like a fundamentalist sounds today. He sees people of his tribe doing and saying non-traditional things. He is throwing up his hands in horror at their audacity and proclaiming them condemned men. He is telling his friends to strengthen their faith and remain loyal to it.
Someone very likely did not like the name Joshua/Jesus included in the passage about the archangel and Satan, in Jude 1:9. So, they changed Joshua to Moses. If it had remained Joshua, it would automatically have been associated with the high priest Joshua, who was proclaimed The Branch by Zechariah. This may have thrown doubt on the christian claim that a first century Jesus/Joshua was the one the branch the prophesies of old were referring to, not a post exile high priest.
The high priest Joshua will be given a supreme position of honor and authority, for god will have cleansed him of any sin that he incurred before he arrived in Jerusalem. He will be responsible for the construction of the new temple, with the help of other returning exiles, after Zerubbabel has laid the foundation. When it is finished, Zerubbabel will set in the capstone. All the sin present in Jerusalem will be packed up and carried off to Babylonia. Exiles from the four corners of the earth will return. People will live to old age, and children will play safely in the streets. Yahweh will save them and make them a blessing. It's a very pleasant and optimistic prophecy, very much like a pep talk for the first waves of returning exiles.
We know that optimism was misplaced. Ezra-Nehemiah, writing later and looking back, outlined the many troubles the exiles had rebuilding the temple and the city walls. It also details the poor relations the Jews maintained with the locals, which was the cause of most of the trouble. No wonder. We are told that the Jews refused their help in rebuilding the temple, scorned their worship of yahweh, and eventually instituted a policy of separation and segregation. They even insisted on divorcing wives who were locals, and what became of their children? Can we blame the locals for sabotage and enmity in those circumstances?
Just as the book of Haggai does not mention Zechariah, Zechariah does not mention Haggai. Zechariah's tone is gentler and more optimistic than book of Haggai. Zechariah was also far more inclusive and ecumenical. I imagine that first half of the book of Zechariah could have formed the basis of a hope for the Jews after the destruction of the second temple and the new diaspora that resulted. Maybe there would be another High Priest Joshua to rebuild the temple. It happened before, why not again?
If we look back at the book of Jude, it does not use Zechariah as a basis for optimism. Jude cherry picks verses from Zechariah 3 and other old testament books to prove his own point, which appears to be that he thinks ungodly men are trying to corrupt Judaism (Christianity, if you believe Jude is a christian book). Jude sounds very much like a fundamentalist sounds today. He sees people of his tribe doing and saying non-traditional things. He is throwing up his hands in horror at their audacity and proclaiming them condemned men. He is telling his friends to strengthen their faith and remain loyal to it.
Someone very likely did not like the name Joshua/Jesus included in the passage about the archangel and Satan, in Jude 1:9. So, they changed Joshua to Moses. If it had remained Joshua, it would automatically have been associated with the high priest Joshua, who was proclaimed The Branch by Zechariah. This may have thrown doubt on the christian claim that a first century Jesus/Joshua was the one the branch the prophesies of old were referring to, not a post exile high priest.
Tuesday, April 17, 2018
High priest Joshua, part 3
We left off in Zechariah chapter 2. This chapter does not mention the high priest Joshua, but I am doing a summary of Zechariah so we can see where Joshua fits in the book. Last time I mentioned I wanted to explore something about this particular chapter. I was confused at the way the angel's speech to Zechariah was worded in the NIV. It seemed as if there were two "Lords" speaking, the plain lord and the lord almighty. Plus, an angel was speaking on behalf of the lord, as though he was the lord. It was confusing and I needed to get it straight in my head. I'm still confused. In verses 8-13, all the words "lord" are from the word yahweh, but yahweh appears to be talking about himself in the third and first person at the same time. It is a grammatical horror. I decided to compare the Christian version of Zechariah 2 with the Jewish version. They are quite different in grammatical structure, but I am no more enlightened than I was before. So, we will move on to chapter three.
Zechariah is telling what else happened in his vision. The angel who was speaking to him showed him Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the lord. The angel of the lord in these kinds of situations usually appears to physically represent the lord and speak for him, almost as if he is the lord, but he is not. It can get confusing. This angel of the lord was thought to be the archangel Michael, as seen in Jude. Satan is standing at Joshua's right side to accuse him. This is not the Christian version of Satan, but the Jewish version. He is kind of like a prosecuting attorney, trying to prove the defendant guilty. The lord (actually the angel) said to Satan, "the lord rebuke you, Satan," then the angel requested that Joshua's filthy clothes, representing sin, be taken away, and rich garments be put on him. Zechariah told the angel to put a clean turban on Joshua's head, and it was done.
Next, the angel of the lord commissioned Joshua to govern the temple, if Joshua would walk in Yahweh's ways. Then he would be given a place among the angels. He told Joshua that he and his associates were symbolic of things to come. Yahweh was going to bring his servant, the Branch. This refers to prophecies in Ezekiel 17 and Isaiah 4, about Yahweh restoring Jerusalem,and maybe the monarchy, with a descendant of the old monarchy. My study bible calls it a messianic prophecy, but I think the author is just referring to the restoration of Jerusalem. The chapter goes on to predict an ideal future for the land. It should be noted that this was probably written before the Greeks and Romans came to conquer the holy land. There was no need for a savior. Things were going to be fixed. The Jews were migrating back to their homeland and rebuilding their city as well as their relationship with Yahweh. Later jews looking for a savior may have tried to find hope of a messiah in this passage, but I doubt that was the original purpose. Funny that the prophet Zechariah did not foresee the future conquests.
In chapter 4, the angel of the lord wakes Zechariah up, only to find himself in another symbolic vision with lamp stands, lights, olive trees, etc. this is supposed to represent the word of the lord about Zerubbabel laying the foundation of the temple and completing it. The two olives trees represent two who are anointed to serve the lord of all the earth. It could be the new king and the new high priest. My study bible says it could be another messianic vision of a future combination priest-king. However, these are two separate and distinct olive trees.
In chapter 5, Zechariah does a double take and sees a flying scroll. It is a curse against all thieves and liars. Then the angel draws his attention to a basket. It was a measuring basket, inside the basket was a woman. She represented wickedness. (Ugh, it would be a woman.) the basket has a lead cover which was pushed down over the top. It was lifted up by two other women with wings who carried it away to Babylon.
We will continue on next time.
Zechariah is telling what else happened in his vision. The angel who was speaking to him showed him Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the lord. The angel of the lord in these kinds of situations usually appears to physically represent the lord and speak for him, almost as if he is the lord, but he is not. It can get confusing. This angel of the lord was thought to be the archangel Michael, as seen in Jude. Satan is standing at Joshua's right side to accuse him. This is not the Christian version of Satan, but the Jewish version. He is kind of like a prosecuting attorney, trying to prove the defendant guilty. The lord (actually the angel) said to Satan, "the lord rebuke you, Satan," then the angel requested that Joshua's filthy clothes, representing sin, be taken away, and rich garments be put on him. Zechariah told the angel to put a clean turban on Joshua's head, and it was done.
Next, the angel of the lord commissioned Joshua to govern the temple, if Joshua would walk in Yahweh's ways. Then he would be given a place among the angels. He told Joshua that he and his associates were symbolic of things to come. Yahweh was going to bring his servant, the Branch. This refers to prophecies in Ezekiel 17 and Isaiah 4, about Yahweh restoring Jerusalem,and maybe the monarchy, with a descendant of the old monarchy. My study bible calls it a messianic prophecy, but I think the author is just referring to the restoration of Jerusalem. The chapter goes on to predict an ideal future for the land. It should be noted that this was probably written before the Greeks and Romans came to conquer the holy land. There was no need for a savior. Things were going to be fixed. The Jews were migrating back to their homeland and rebuilding their city as well as their relationship with Yahweh. Later jews looking for a savior may have tried to find hope of a messiah in this passage, but I doubt that was the original purpose. Funny that the prophet Zechariah did not foresee the future conquests.
In chapter 4, the angel of the lord wakes Zechariah up, only to find himself in another symbolic vision with lamp stands, lights, olive trees, etc. this is supposed to represent the word of the lord about Zerubbabel laying the foundation of the temple and completing it. The two olives trees represent two who are anointed to serve the lord of all the earth. It could be the new king and the new high priest. My study bible says it could be another messianic vision of a future combination priest-king. However, these are two separate and distinct olive trees.
In chapter 5, Zechariah does a double take and sees a flying scroll. It is a curse against all thieves and liars. Then the angel draws his attention to a basket. It was a measuring basket, inside the basket was a woman. She represented wickedness. (Ugh, it would be a woman.) the basket has a lead cover which was pushed down over the top. It was lifted up by two other women with wings who carried it away to Babylon.
We will continue on next time.
Saturday, April 14, 2018
The High Priest Joshua, part 2
Now let us look at what Haggai and Zechariah have to say about the priest Joshua/Jeshua. They were supposedly present at the rebuilding of the second temple in Jerusalem.
Haggai 1:1 tells us Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, was the high priest in the second year of King Darius. At that Time, Haggai was prophet to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah. The book speaks of Haggai completely in third person but its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Haggai. This seems to be a common practice in the Bible. To me it is clear that the true author/authors are unknown, especially when the book itself makes no authorship claims. The time period that the events are to have taken place is fairly easy to figure out because there is secular history of Darius and the Persian Empire.
In verses 1:12&14, we are told that the high priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel listened to and obeyed Haggai because he was god's messenger and delivered "the voice of the lord." So Haggai was kind of telling everyone what to do and claiming it was god's will. Haggai's message from the Lord was "I am with you." This made them all anxious to build god a house, the temple.
In chapter 2, Haggai continues to tell Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor what god is saying. Why can't god speak to them directly? That is so weird, and suspicious. Anyway, they are told god's spirit will stay with them and they are not to be afraid. The new temple they build for him will be greater than the previous one. "The silver and the gold is mine," declares the lord. Ha! Even more suspicious. Then god tells them that they were defiled before, now they will be blessed. Plus, Zerubbabel will be like god's chosen king. That's pretty much it. Nothing different or earth shattering. The word of the lord came from Haggai in the second year of Darius, on the sixth, seventh and ninth months. He does not mention Zechariah.
Let's look at Zechariah. This book begins in third person with a kind of introduction. It says the word of the lord came to Zechariah in the second year, on the eighth and eleventh months. How convenient, another mouthpiece of god, one who can speak for god on the months when Haggai doesn't. The word of the lord is a little more harsh in tone coming from the introduction to Zechariah. He tells the people they need to turn from their evil ways and repent. If they return to him, he will return to them.
Starting in verse 1:8, the narrative switches to first person and appears to be coming directly from Zechariah. He is having visions. These visions have elements and symbols that are common to other apocalyptic writings. You've got horsemen on horses of different colors riding through the earth, and angels talking with "the lord" and Zechariah. (Move over Revelation.) But these horsemen said they rode through the earth and found peace. When does Jerusalem get a piece of it? The lord says he is going to return to Jerusalem. His house will be rebuilt and prosperity will return. Then he speaks of four horns that scattered Judah and four craftsmen who will throw down the horns. This predicts a defeat of Israel's enemies.
In chapter two we read Zechariah's continuing vision of the coming glory of the new Jerusalem. It won't have exterior walls because the lord himself will be a wall of fire around it. Well. That didn't happen. According to Ezra-Nehemiah, walls were built. Zechariah continues with a theme of the Jews returning to Jerusalem and "the lord" returning to live with them. There is something going on in this 2nd chapter that I want to explore next time. Till then.
Haggai 1:1 tells us Joshua, the son of Jehozadak, was the high priest in the second year of King Darius. At that Time, Haggai was prophet to Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah. The book speaks of Haggai completely in third person but its authorship is traditionally ascribed to Haggai. This seems to be a common practice in the Bible. To me it is clear that the true author/authors are unknown, especially when the book itself makes no authorship claims. The time period that the events are to have taken place is fairly easy to figure out because there is secular history of Darius and the Persian Empire.
In verses 1:12&14, we are told that the high priest Joshua and the governor Zerubbabel listened to and obeyed Haggai because he was god's messenger and delivered "the voice of the lord." So Haggai was kind of telling everyone what to do and claiming it was god's will. Haggai's message from the Lord was "I am with you." This made them all anxious to build god a house, the temple.
In chapter 2, Haggai continues to tell Joshua the high priest and Zerubbabel the governor what god is saying. Why can't god speak to them directly? That is so weird, and suspicious. Anyway, they are told god's spirit will stay with them and they are not to be afraid. The new temple they build for him will be greater than the previous one. "The silver and the gold is mine," declares the lord. Ha! Even more suspicious. Then god tells them that they were defiled before, now they will be blessed. Plus, Zerubbabel will be like god's chosen king. That's pretty much it. Nothing different or earth shattering. The word of the lord came from Haggai in the second year of Darius, on the sixth, seventh and ninth months. He does not mention Zechariah.
Let's look at Zechariah. This book begins in third person with a kind of introduction. It says the word of the lord came to Zechariah in the second year, on the eighth and eleventh months. How convenient, another mouthpiece of god, one who can speak for god on the months when Haggai doesn't. The word of the lord is a little more harsh in tone coming from the introduction to Zechariah. He tells the people they need to turn from their evil ways and repent. If they return to him, he will return to them.
Starting in verse 1:8, the narrative switches to first person and appears to be coming directly from Zechariah. He is having visions. These visions have elements and symbols that are common to other apocalyptic writings. You've got horsemen on horses of different colors riding through the earth, and angels talking with "the lord" and Zechariah. (Move over Revelation.) But these horsemen said they rode through the earth and found peace. When does Jerusalem get a piece of it? The lord says he is going to return to Jerusalem. His house will be rebuilt and prosperity will return. Then he speaks of four horns that scattered Judah and four craftsmen who will throw down the horns. This predicts a defeat of Israel's enemies.
In chapter two we read Zechariah's continuing vision of the coming glory of the new Jerusalem. It won't have exterior walls because the lord himself will be a wall of fire around it. Well. That didn't happen. According to Ezra-Nehemiah, walls were built. Zechariah continues with a theme of the Jews returning to Jerusalem and "the lord" returning to live with them. There is something going on in this 2nd chapter that I want to explore next time. Till then.
Tuesday, April 10, 2018
Jude afterthoughts, the High Priest Joshua
I got to thinking about that High Priest Joshua guy from Zecariah 3 and I thought it would be a shame
not to explore who he was while he was fresh in our minds. First of all, let's remember that the name Joshua = Yeshua= Jesus. It's the same name, but not necessarily the same person. However, I would like to consider the possibility that the myth and cult surrounding Jesus might have had an origin in the mythic tradition surrounding the high priest Joshua that Jude was probably referring to. In fact one possibility is that the only word in Jude that was changed is the word Jesus (Yeshua) into the word Moses in verse 9. The other Jesus phrases may have been in the original text, actually referring to the high priest of Zechariah, not the Jesus of Nazareth. There is no way to know, but, to me, these speculations make more sense than that Jude was written by a christian worshipper of the New Testament Jesus. That Jesus can't be found in the book of Jude.
First let's note that the high priest Joshua is called Jeshua the son of Jozadak in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. He is called Joshua son of Josedech in Haggai and Zechariah. They are considered the same person.
In Ezra 2:2, we see Jeshua was a Babylonian exile, returning to Jerusalem. In Ezra 3:2, we see Jeshua is a priest. Seven months after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests build the altar of god to burn sacrifices. In Ezra 3:8, two years after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests and Levites supervise the building of the new temple. In Ezra 4:3, the people who were living in the land when the exiles returned wanted to help build the new temple because they had also been worshipping Yahweh. Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel refused their help. The locals resented that and set about trying to sabatoge the building. Eventually, after multiple complications, the building came to a stop. In Ezra 5:2, Haggai and Zechariah were prophets, the ones who later supposedly wrote about Joshua/Jeshua. They were helping Jeshua try to rebuild the temple. They finished the temple in Ezra 6. In Ezra 7, many more exiles returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, including Ezra, supposedly the writer of this book, even though it refers to him in the third person. They brought many levites and lots of treasure for the temple with them. When the new group got to Jerusalem, they had a great sacrifice to god. Later, they were told that the previous group of returned exiles had intermarried with the locals. Ezra was appalled. After a lot of weeping, wailing, and repenting, all the men who had married "foreign" women were required to "put away" their wives, which probably meant to divorce them. Then they had to each sacrifice a ram as a guilt offering. This included descendants in Jeshua's family.
I always think its funny how the bible calls the locals of that land foreigners. Technically, the returning Israelites themselves were the foreigners by that time.
In Nehemiah, we have an account of later events. Ezra had left Babylon for Jerusalem in Artaxerxes 7th year. Nehemiah left Babylon in the 20th year. He left because he heard that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and its gates burnt. He wants to help rebuild. After the walls have been rebuilt and guards appointed, Nehemiah wants to register everyone. He finds the genealogical records of the first group of returned exiles. Jeshua's name is included in Nehemial 7:7, 12:1, 7, 10 (there we learn names of one of Jeshua's sons and some of his grandsons.) In this book Jeshua's son is called Joiakim. Joiakim served "in the days of Nehemiah the governor and Ezra the priest and scribe." The name Jeshua is repeated a few times in the book of Nehemiah, but it is unclear if it always the same Jeshua.
That's pretty much it for Jeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah. The only definite claim to fame in these books is that he was a levite priest and one of the first exiles to return. He was supposed to be instrumental in building the new temple, aka "the house of god."
Next we look at what the books of Haggai and Zechariah have to say about him.
not to explore who he was while he was fresh in our minds. First of all, let's remember that the name Joshua = Yeshua= Jesus. It's the same name, but not necessarily the same person. However, I would like to consider the possibility that the myth and cult surrounding Jesus might have had an origin in the mythic tradition surrounding the high priest Joshua that Jude was probably referring to. In fact one possibility is that the only word in Jude that was changed is the word Jesus (Yeshua) into the word Moses in verse 9. The other Jesus phrases may have been in the original text, actually referring to the high priest of Zechariah, not the Jesus of Nazareth. There is no way to know, but, to me, these speculations make more sense than that Jude was written by a christian worshipper of the New Testament Jesus. That Jesus can't be found in the book of Jude.
First let's note that the high priest Joshua is called Jeshua the son of Jozadak in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. He is called Joshua son of Josedech in Haggai and Zechariah. They are considered the same person.
In Ezra 2:2, we see Jeshua was a Babylonian exile, returning to Jerusalem. In Ezra 3:2, we see Jeshua is a priest. Seven months after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests build the altar of god to burn sacrifices. In Ezra 3:8, two years after the return, Jeshua and his fellow priests and Levites supervise the building of the new temple. In Ezra 4:3, the people who were living in the land when the exiles returned wanted to help build the new temple because they had also been worshipping Yahweh. Jeshua and the rest of the heads of the families of Israel refused their help. The locals resented that and set about trying to sabatoge the building. Eventually, after multiple complications, the building came to a stop. In Ezra 5:2, Haggai and Zechariah were prophets, the ones who later supposedly wrote about Joshua/Jeshua. They were helping Jeshua try to rebuild the temple. They finished the temple in Ezra 6. In Ezra 7, many more exiles returned to Jerusalem from Babylon, including Ezra, supposedly the writer of this book, even though it refers to him in the third person. They brought many levites and lots of treasure for the temple with them. When the new group got to Jerusalem, they had a great sacrifice to god. Later, they were told that the previous group of returned exiles had intermarried with the locals. Ezra was appalled. After a lot of weeping, wailing, and repenting, all the men who had married "foreign" women were required to "put away" their wives, which probably meant to divorce them. Then they had to each sacrifice a ram as a guilt offering. This included descendants in Jeshua's family.
I always think its funny how the bible calls the locals of that land foreigners. Technically, the returning Israelites themselves were the foreigners by that time.
In Nehemiah, we have an account of later events. Ezra had left Babylon for Jerusalem in Artaxerxes 7th year. Nehemiah left Babylon in the 20th year. He left because he heard that the wall of Jerusalem was broken down and its gates burnt. He wants to help rebuild. After the walls have been rebuilt and guards appointed, Nehemiah wants to register everyone. He finds the genealogical records of the first group of returned exiles. Jeshua's name is included in Nehemial 7:7, 12:1, 7, 10 (there we learn names of one of Jeshua's sons and some of his grandsons.) In this book Jeshua's son is called Joiakim. Joiakim served "in the days of Nehemiah the governor and Ezra the priest and scribe." The name Jeshua is repeated a few times in the book of Nehemiah, but it is unclear if it always the same Jeshua.
That's pretty much it for Jeshua in Ezra and Nehemiah. The only definite claim to fame in these books is that he was a levite priest and one of the first exiles to return. He was supposed to be instrumental in building the new temple, aka "the house of god."
Next we look at what the books of Haggai and Zechariah have to say about him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)