Where exactly in Bethlehem was the Christ Child born?

“One would think that the New Testament would tell us precisely where the Messiah would be born “in Bethlehem.” It does not. Surprisingly, the Old Testament gives us the answer. An earlier verse in the book of Micah tells us exactly where to expect His birth”. Joseph Lenard Jesus’ Birth – The Case for Migdal Edar | Truth in Scripture Taken from the book by Joseph Lenard entitled Mysteries of Jesus’ Life Revealed—His Birth, Death, Resurrection, and Ascensions. For an overview and complete chapter listing of this fascinating study, click here. Jesus’ Birth – The Case for Migdal Edar Where Was Jesus Born? John the Baptist exclaimed, “Behold the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29, KJV). I believe he was making a statement which, among other things, pointed to a particular place in Bethlehem as the birthplace of Christ. How so? As we have seen many times, bits and pieces from Scripture, taken together, often provide a road map. In this case, I believe the road map supports my position that Jesus was actually born at a place called Migdal Edar (Heb. “Tower of the Flock”) in Bethlehem. In addition to the statement by John the Baptist referring to Jesus as “the Lamb of God,” these bits and pieces of Scripture come from diverse sources, from both the Old and New Testaments in the Bible. I believe all of the following will ultimately be shown to point to Migdal Edar as the birthplace of Jesus: The shepherds who – while “watching their flocks by night” – became aware of exactly where to find the newborn Messiah “in Bethlehem”. The special lambs born and raised in the fields of Bethlehem, to be used specifically as Temple sacrifices. The account of the death of Jacob’s wife Rachel, on the outskirts of Bethlehem Why is it that most of us have never heard of Migdal Edar, let alone in reference to the birth of Jesus? Once again, we have Emperor Constantine and his mother, Helena, to thank for the erroneous selection of the site of Jesus’ birth. The church was led astray in the 4th Century AD and has since steadfastly supported the traditional site of the cave under the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem as the birthplace of Jesus. Let’s see where key statements in the Old and New Testaments lead us in our search to confirm the actual birthplace of Jesus. I give credit to Cooper P. Abrams, III and his article Where Was the Birth Place of the Lord Jesus? for bringing together many of the details in support of the case for Migdal Edar. Old Testament Account – Micah’s Prophecy When the Magi from Persia came to Jerusalem in search of the Jewish Messiah, they called upon King Herod as a courtesy and inquired of him where the Messiah was to be born. Damien F. Mackey’s comment: Following a geographical revolution in recent years, the land of Persia had had to be significantly re-located. It is no longer “in the East”, hence the Magi could not have been from Persia. See e.g. these articles: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea (4) More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea The Magi and the Star that Stopped (4) The Magi and the Star that Stopped Joseph Lenard continues: The Jewish religious authorities gave their answer from an Old Testament passage from Micah: But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he [Messiah; Jesus] come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting” (Micah 5:2, KJV). In the Bible we find several other names for Bethlehem, including Ephratah (Micah 5:2) and Ephrath (Genesis 35:16, 19; 48:7). It should be noted that Ephrath (or Ephratah) was the ancient name for the area which later was called Bethlehem. Ephrath means “ash heap” and “place of fruitfulness,” and seems to refer to Isaiah 61:3, which mentions “beauty from ashes . . .” It is also widely known that the word “Bethlehem” means “house of bread.” This too may be a reference to Jesus, as He stated during the Seder (Last Supper) with His Disciples that He is the bread which is broken for each of us (Luke 22:19); and He had previously said that He is the true bread which came down from heaven (John 6:32–33) and that He is the bread of life (John 6:35). We know from Micah 5:2 that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. But where in Bethlehem? One would think that the New Testament would tell us precisely where the Messiah would be born “in Bethlehem.” It does not. Surprisingly, the Old Testament gives us the answer. An earlier verse in the book of Micah tells us exactly where to expect His birth: And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom [the Messiah shall bring the Kingdom] shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem [Mary the mother of Jesus].” (Micah 4:8, KJV) This “tower of the flock” mentioned in Micah 4:8 is in Hebrew “Migdal Edar” and literally means “watch tower of the flock.” Consequently, the Old Testament tells us that the Messiah, Jesus, would be born at Migdal Edar, in Bethlehem. What about the “watch tower of the flock?” Undoubtedly, this was a military tower used to watch over the valley at the edge of Bethlehem and to provide protection to the city. These types of towers were common and are mentioned in various Old Testament books (Judges 8:17; 9:46, 51; 2 Kings 9:17, 18:8; Nehemiah 3:1). Cooper P. Abrams III states in his article regarding Migdal Edar in Jerusalem: “This watch tower from ancient times was used by the shepherds for protection from their enemies and wild beasts. It was also the place ewes were safely brought to give birth to the lambs. In this sheltered building/cave the priests would bring in the ewes which were about to lamb for protection. These special lambs came from a unique flock that was designated for sacrifice at the temple in Jerusalem.” Abrams then states the following: Typically, “Migdal Edar”, (the tower of the flock) at Bethlehem is the perfect place for Christ to be born. He was born in the very birthplace of tens of thousands of lambs, which had been sacrificed to prefigure Him. God promised it, pictured it, and performed it at “Migdal Edar”. It all fits together, for that’s the place where sacrificial lambs were born! Jesus was not born behind an inn, in a smelly stable where the donkeys and other animals of travelers were kept. He was born in Bethlehem, at the birthing place of the sacrificial lambs that were offered in the Temple in Jerusalem which Micah 4:8 calls the “tower of the flock.” The Sheep and Shepherds of the Fields at Migdal Edar In his classic book, The Life and Times of Jesus The Messiah (1883; Latest Edition, 1993), Alfred Edersheim (1825 – 1889), a Messianic Jew, had great insights regarding the birth of Jesus from a Hebrew-Christian perspective. In his work, Edersheim referenced the Jewish Mishnah (The Mishnah was the first recording of the oral law and Rabbinic Judaism. The word in Hebrew means “repetition,” which means that it was memorized material. It is the major source of the rabbinic teachings of Judaism. After the Scriptures, the Mishnah is regarded as the basic textbook of Jewish life and thought and is traditionally considered to be an integral part of the Torah, as revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.) Edersheim also referenced the Targum (The Targum is an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanak), which was written during Israel’s seventy-year captivity in Babylon. Aramaic is one of the Semitic languages, an important group of languages known almost from the beginning of human history and including Arabic, Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Akkadian [ancient Babylonian and Assyrian]). Edersheim’s book was the result of a seven year effort. In it he states: “That the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem was a settled conviction. Equally so was the belief, that He was to be revealed from Migdal Eder, ‘the tower of the flock’. This Migdal Edar was not the watchtower for the ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to the town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah (Shekelim 7.4) leads to the conclusion that the flocks, which pastured there, were destined for Temple-sacrifices, and, accordingly, that the shepherds, who watched over them, were not ordinary shepherds.” In summary, we can state with some certainty that the flocks which were pastured around Migdal Edar were sheep destined for Temple sacrifices, and the shepherds who tended them were special shepherds, trained to take care of these sheep from birth until the time they were delivered to the Temple. I believe that Jesus was born in this same “Tower of the Flock,” and these shepherds went to see Jesus and His mother and father in that structure. New Testament Account of the Birthplace of Jesus Luke has the most complete account of the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, as recorded in Chapter 2: And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and linage of David) To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child. And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning this child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them. (Luke 2:4–20 KJV) We see from the New Testament Scripture that Jesus was, indeed, born in Bethlehem. But the New Testament does not state the exact place in Bethlehem where Jesus was born. Nativity scenes displayed at Christmas depict the birth of Jesus in a stable surrounded by donkeys, sheep, and cows. This is due to the tradition that there was no room for Joseph and Mary in the inn, so Jesus was born in the stable behind the inn, where the animals were kept. However, all that is stated in Scripture is that Mary gave birth to Jesus, that she laid Him in a manger, and that she wrapped Him in swaddling clothes. We know that these things occurred somewhere in the city of Bethlehem. But from Micah 4:8 we now know that He was actually born at “the Tower of the Flock” (Migdal Edar). The Terms “Manger” and “Swaddling Clothes” The account of the birth of Jesus in Luke includes the terms “manger” and “swaddling clothes.” What specifically are these referring to? And why are these items a “sign”, given to the shepherds by the angel as they tended their flocks in the field? The Greek word which is translated “manger” in our English Bibles is Yatnh phat-ne. It is defined as a “stall” where animals are kept, and in Luke 13:15 it is translated that way. In Proverbs 14:4, in the Septuagint [Greek translation of the Old Testament], the word means a “stall” or a “crib.” What, then, was the “stall” or “manger” referred to in the New Testament; and what kind of animals were fed or housed there? Is there a “logical” place where God would choose to have His Son born, one which would be described by the angel to the shepherds in the country as being “. . . a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger?” To be a “sign,” it would have to be distinctive, understandable, and unique. From the description of the “swaddling clothes” and the “manger,” the shepherds knew right where to go to find the babe. Where was that? My position is that they went to where the newborn lambs were typically wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger – in the “Tower of the Flock” (Migdal Edar), not far from where they were tending the sheep which birthed the lambs used for sacrifice in the Temple. The “Lamb of God,” as John the Baptist called Jesus, was born in the unique place where the other lambs used for sacrifice were born. Indeed, that was a unique “sign” to these shepherds – that this baby was, indeed, the “Savior, Christ the Lord,” the promised Messiah, as told to them by the angel which appeared to them, and as foretold by the Prophets of Israel. Note what is said of the shepherds: “And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.” They did not have to go around Bethlehem searching each and every stable for this newly born baby. The impression given is that they were able to go “with haste” because they knew from the description of the “wrapped in swaddling clothes” and “lying in a manger” exactly where to go – to the “Tower of the Flock,” Migdal Edar. It was not just any stable in Bethlehem. There was no need for the angel to give the shepherds directions to the place of Jesus’ birth – they already knew exactly where to find him! Key Statement by John the Baptist The father of John the Baptist was Zacharias, a priest who served in the Temple in Jerusalem. John the Baptist was the only son of Zacharias, and he was also of the priestly line. In a sense, John the Baptist was the first of several things: First Christian, first Christian witness, first Christian preacher, first Christian prophet, and first Christian martyr. He was also the first to baptize converts, and he might have even started the first “church” as the disciples of Jesus were initially following John before they were instructed to follow Jesus (John 1:35–37; Acts 1:15–26). Before we look at the famous statement by John the Baptist upon seeing Jesus, it is helpful to first review the problem of sin, which relates to the statement of John and gives us a better understanding of the context. The Bible teaches us that mankind has a sin problem. Sin is violation of God’s Word, a rebellion against God. This is a big problem with God and, consequently, with man. God is holy and He cannot have sin in His presence. Sin came into the world through Adam in the Garden of Eden, as presented in the early chapters of Genesis. Fortunately, God had His plan of redemption through Jesus, which He had established from the very foundations of the world (Romans 5:12–21; 1 Peter 1:18–20; Revelation 13:8; John 1:29). The need for a substitutionary sacrifice and shedding of innocent blood to atone for sin is well established in Scripture, beginning in Genesis 3:21, where God made use of animal skins to cover the nakedness and shame of Adam and Eve following their disobedience. A blood sacrifice is required by God, as presented in Leviticus: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). God’s ultimate plan of redemption is further seen in the account of Abraham’s willingness to offer his son, Isaac, on an altar at God’s command (Genesis 22). Abraham’s hand was stayed, and God provided a substitute sacrifice, just as He would provide in His Son, Jesus. Lastly, God’s ultimate plan of redemption is reflected in the Feasts of the Lord, which God established as yearly rehearsals by the people of Israel, beginning with the Feast of Passover and the shedding of the blood of an innocent lamb (Leviticus 23). My first book, The Last Shofar! – What the Fall Feasts of the Lord are Telling the Church (which I co-authored with Donald Zoller and which is also presented on this website) provides an excellent description of God’s plan of redemption in Jesus, as foreshadowed in the Feasts of the Lord. This background of the problem of sin and God’s remedy through the sacrifice of His one and only son, Jesus, offers us a better understanding of John the Baptist’s statement upon seeing Jesus approaching, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Jesus is the perfect lamb sacrifice, which God provided to pay for the sin debt of mankind. He is, indeed, “the Lamb of God, which takes away the sin of the world.” The lambs sacrificed daily in the Temple ceremonies – as well as the lamb sacrificed annually for the nation’s sins at Passover in the Temple – were but a foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice of Jesus, the perfect sacrifice of God. This sacrifice was meant to be sufficient to atone for the sin-debt of all mankind. John the Baptist likened Jesus to those lambs carefully chosen for sacrifice in the Temple. Rachel and Migdal Edar What does Rachel, the wife of Jacob, have to do with the birthplace of Jesus? It involves a veiled prophecy in Genesis, and it has to do with the first mention in Scripture of the term Migdal Edar, at the time of Rachel’s death. Let’s look at two passages in Genesis (Genesis 35:5–21 and Genesis 48:7): “And they journeyed: and the terror of the God was upon the cities that were round about them, and they did not pursue after the sons of Jacob. So Jacob came to Luz, which is in the land of Canaan, that is, Bethel [Heb. literally “House of God”], he and all the people that were with him. And he built there an altar, and called the place El-beth-el: because there God appeared unto him, when he fled from the face of his brother [Esau]. “But Deborah, Rebekah’s nurse, died, and she was buried beneath Bethel under an oak: and the name of it was called Allon-bachuth. And God appeared unto Jacob again, when he came out of Padan-aram, and blessed him. And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty, be fruitful and multiply: a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee will I give the land. And God went up from him in the place where he talked with him. And Jacob set up a pillar of stone: and he poured a drink offering thereon, and he poured oil thereon. “And they journeyed from Bethel; and there was a little way to come to Ephrath: and Rachel travailed, and she had hard labour. And it came to pass, when she was in hard labour, that the midwife said unto her, Fear not; thou shalt have this son also. And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Ben-oni: but his father called him Benjamin. And Rachel died, and was buried in the way to Ephrath, which is Bethlehem. And Jacob set a pillar upon her grave: that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day. 21 And Israel journeyed, and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar” [Heb. Migdal Edal: “Tower of the Flock”]. (Genesis 35:5–21) And the second passage: “And as for me, when I came from Padan, Rachel died by me in the land of Canaan in the way, when yet there was but a little way to come unto Ephrath: and I buried her there in the way of Ephrath; the same is Bethlehem.” (Genesis 48:7, KJV) Reflecting on these passages in Genesis regarding to the death of Rachel, it is easy to imagine Jacob’s anguish. After Jacob buried Rachel, he traveled on “. . . and spread his tent beyond the tower of Edar”. Jacob loved Rachel more than all his other wives, from the time he first laid eyes on her (Genesis 29:17–18, 30). When she died, he was heartbroken. But why would Moses record that Jacob pitched his tent at Migdal Edar at Bethlehem? What is significant about that place? We know that every word of Scripture has meaning (Deuteronomy 32:47), so there must be a reason. Although it is not known for certain, I can offer some thoughts which I believe have merit. We know now that the Tower of the Flock would be the birthplace of the Messiah, who would take away all death, heartache, and tears. Rachel and Jacob would one day weep no more, as both would share eternal life in the presence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I believe that God intended that from the place of Jacob’s greatest sorrow, where his beloved Rachel died, would later come the Messiah, who would bring eternal life and joy for all those who trust in Him. Did Jacob fully understand all of these things? Probably not. But he did understand that God was all-powerful and that He was good, holy, and righteous. I believe that Jacob trusted in God for redemption and that he knew God would eventually make all things right, including the removal of death and heartache. I concede that the evidence related to Rachel is not definitive in supporting the case for Migdal Edar. However, the other evidence provided here is strong; and I believe the case for confirming Migdal Edar as the birthplace of Jesus is compelling.

Esteemed ‘Fathers’ of religion, philosophy, law and literature largely of Hebrew inspiration

by Damien F. Mackey “… both the prophets and the sages are considered to be among the foundational figures for their respective civilizations as well as powerful defenders of the faith. Moreover, as transmitters of the Heavenly Law, the Confucian sages served in a capacity familiar to anyone knowledgeable in the position of the prophets within the Jewish tradition”. Dr. Youde Fu Introduction ‘Salvation is from the Jews’, declared the Lord of Salvation (John 4:22). Salvation, which involves the total inner transformation of the human being, even here on earth, a re-emerging from the womb, being re-born (3:3), affects human wisdom, philosophy, culture, ethics, science, and so on. In other words, it is wholly civilising. Thus it comes as no surprise to me that the great ‘Father’ thinkers, sages, philosophers, lawgivers, holy men, lauded in the text books – often names with barely a shred of biographical detail, or even preserved writings, or speech – turn out upon closer examination to be spectral figures with their basis in one or more famed biblical Hebrew person. ‘Fictitious non-historical composites’, or ‘intellectual hybrid fictions’, as I call them. Yet, these mere shadows of the underlying reality upon which they are based are often called Fathers, the presumed archetype - they being thought of, Dr Youde Fu has said, “among the foundational figures for their respective civilizations”. I am thinking of ‘archetypes’ such as Thales of Miletus (Father of Philosophy); the Buddha (Father of the Great Asian Religion); Solon of Athens; Socrates (Founder of Western Philosophy) and Plato; Herodotus (Father of History); Homer (Father of Epic Poetry); Aeschylus (Father of Tragedy); Lycurgus the Lawgiver (Father of the Spartan Constitution); Zoroaster; Confucius (Father of Chinese Philosophy); Mohammed; etc. The Hebrews (Israelites, Jews), though, do not hold the entire monopoly. For instance, the ancient admiral, Lysander – famous, though not really an archetype – and considered to have been a Spartan, may actually have been an Egyptian, Usanahuru (Udjahoressne[t]), the admiral son of pharaoh Tirhakah: Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian (7) Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian USAN[H]UR[U] AND [L]USAN[D]ER The point here being that Israel, Egypt, the ancient Near East, had the precedence over the later Greco-Roman traditions, which were at least third-hand removed from the cultural centre. Tertullian, an early Christian theologian, polemicist and moralist, had challenged, with a fair degree of justification: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides”. (Tertullian, Heretics, 7). Previously I have written on this subject, which might also be couched in the words of the prophet Zechariah 9:13: “I will rouse your sons, Zion, against your sons, Greece …”. The impact of the ancient Near East (particularly Israel) upon our western civilization has been enormously underestimated, with practically all the glory - except in religion - going to the Greeks and the Romans. It is typical for us to read in the context of our western upbringing and education, in favour of Greco-Roman philosophy … politics and literature, statements such as: “Our European civilization rests upon two pillars: Judeo Christian revelation, its religious pillar, and Greco-Roman thought, its philosophical and political pillar”. “The Iliad is the first and the greatest literary achievement of Greek civilization - an epic poem without rival in the literature of the world, and the cornerstone of Western culture”. “Virgil's Aeneid, inspired by Homer and inspiration for Dante and Milton, is an immortal poem at the heart of Western life and culture”. Nor do we, even as followers of Jesus, tend to experience any discomfort in the face of the above claims. After all, Jesus only said ‘salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22) - not philosophy, not literature, not politics. But is not ‘salvation’ also wholly civilizing? Yes, it most certainly is. And it will be the purpose of this article to show that philosophy and other cultural benefits are also essentially from the Jews, and that the Greeks, the Romans and others appropriated these Jewish-laid cornerstones of civilization, claiming them as their own, but generally corrupting them. [End of quote] What makes a Jew? Owing to the faith of Father Abraham – a characteristic that needs to be underlined – the Hebrews (Israelites, Jews) were the Chosen People of God. The land of Canaan was to be theirs – but only for so long as they continued to be children of Abraham in faith. This has become a hot button issue today, with the Israeli Zionists claiming a right to the entire land and seeking to erase the Palestinians entirely from Gaza. But, for one, who, today, is ethnically a Jew? Considering the Apocalypse (Book of Revelation) and the total destruction of Israel and “Babylon” (Jerusalem) by the Gentile armies, the mass slaughter and captivity of the inhabitants, any certain connection of would-be Jews with the Twelve Tribes of Israel can be hanging by only a very slender thread. Secondly, Judaïsm itself was brought to a shuddering halt, with ‘the old stone Temple’ (Benedict XIV) completely destroyed, ‘not one stone left upon another’ (Luke 21:6). The would-be Jews of today are thus forced to cling desperately to the Wailing Wall as being a last vestige of the magnificent Temple of Yahweh - whereas this Wall is actually an impressive piece of a Gentile fort. “This was the work of the Lord, it is a marvel in our eyes” (Psalm 118:23). Jesus foretold to his closest disciples that, with his return within that very generation, the old Judaïc system would be completely swept away. The Temple would be reduced to nothing because he was the new Temple - a spiritual Temple made of living stones that can never be destroyed (John 2:18-19, 21-22): The Jews then responded to him, ‘What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?’ Jesus answered them, ‘Destroy this Temple, and I will raise it again in three days’. … the Temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken. Zionism’s desire for a third temple, for another Messiah, is therefore completely futile. The Book of Revelation was, in part, a bill of divorce (Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.). The once-beloved bride, Judaïsm, had gone bad, turned into a whore, yea, even worse than a whore (cf. Ezekiel 16:33). And so Judaïsm would have to undergo the fate of a whore, being stoned and burned. The once-beloved bride had long ceased to walk faithfully in the ways of Abraham and the prophets, whom it killed, culminating with the murder of the Prophet of Prophets: Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject (2) Theme of Apocalypse – the Bride and the Reject The way of Abraham, on the other hand, was predicated upon this Jesus, who described the Jews, claiming to be children of Abraham, as children of the Devil (John 8:44): ‘You belong to your father, the Devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies’. Saint Paul, in Galatians, makes it abundantly clear that the vital connection with Abraham is only through Jesus Christ, the “seed” of Abraham (Galatians 3:29): “And if you be Christ’s, then are you Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise”. See my article: Covenant between God and Abram wonderfully foreshadows the immolation of Jesus Christ (8) Covenant between God and Abram wonderfully foreshadows the immolation of Jesus Christ Jesus came to take the new Bride, the Church: Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom (8) Jesus Christ came as Bridegroom Greco-Roman wisdom and literature As clever as some of it may be, in itself, the Greco-Roman appropriations of the Hebrew literature do not have anywhere near the impact of the originals. For, as said above, “… the Greeks, the Romans and others appropriated these Jewish-laid cornerstones of civilization, claiming them as their own, but generally corrupting them”. Homer (whoever he really may have been) clearly borrowed for his mythological epic, The Odyssey, from the historico-biblical Books of Tobit and Job: Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit (2) Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit St Jerome saw resemblance of Tobit to Homer’s ‘The Odyssey’ (2) St Jerome saw resemblance of Tobit to Homer's 'The Odyssey' What is historical in the case of the Hebrews, becomes myth at the hands of the Greeks. And Plato (whoever he really may have been) appears also to have been influenced by the Book of Job. The tradition referred to by Saint Ambrose (Ep., 34) needs to be recalled here, that Plato was educated in Hebraïc letters by Jeremiah in Egypt. This would make Jeremiah’s scribe, Baruch, who was in Egypt with him (Jeremiah 43:6-7), a strong candidate for a Hebrew matrix for Plato, particularly considering that Baruch was said, by some authors, to have been another of those guru type Fathers, Zoroaster: Morris Jastrow, Jr. - JewishEncyclopedia.com “The Arabic-Christian legends identify Baruch with Zoroaster …”. Thus Plato, in The Republic and Protagoras, will (so I think) manage to water down a passionate biblical dialogue from the Book of Job, a matter of life and death, turning it into a relatively amiable discussion amongst gentlemen. There can be a similarity in thought between Plato and the Jewish sages, but not always a similarity in tone. Compared with the intense atmosphere of the drama of the Book of Job, for instance, Plato’s Republic, and his other dialogues, such as Protagoras, artful as they may be, come across sometimes a bit like gentlemen’s discussions over a glass of port. “… mere shadows of the underlying reality upon which they are based …”. W. Guthrie may have captured something of this general tone in his Introduction to Plato. Protagoras and Meno (Penguin, 1968), when he wrote (p. 20): … a feature of the conversation which cannot fail to strike a reader is its unbroken urbanity and good temper. The keynote is courtesy and forbearance, though these are not always forthcoming without a struggle. Socrates is constantly on the alert for the signs of displeasure on the part of Protagoras, and when he detects them, is careful not to press his point, and the dialogue ends with mutual expressions of esteem. …. [End of quote] Compare this gentlemanly tone with e.g. Job’s ‘How long will you torment me, and break me in pieces with words? These ten times you have cast reproach upon me; are you not ashamed to wrong me?’ (19:1-3), and Eliphaz’s accusations of the holy man: ‘Is not your wickedness great? There is no end to your iniquities [which supposed types of injustice on the part of Job Eliphaz then proceeds to itemise]’ (22:5). In Plato’s dialogues, by contrast, we get pages and pages of the following sort of amicable discussion taken from the Republic (Bk. 2, 368-369): [Socrates] ‘Justice can be a characteristic of an individual or of a community, can it not?’ [Adeimantus] ‘Yes’. [Socrates] ‘And a community is larger than an individual?’ [Adeimantus] ‘It is”. [Socrates] ‘We may therefore find that the amount of justice in the larger entity is greater, and so easier to recognize. I accordingly propose that we start our enquiry …’. [Adeimantus] ‘That seems a good idea’, he agreed. …. Though Protagoras is a famous Sophist, whose maxim “Man is the measure of all things, of those that are that they are, and of those that are not that they are not” (Plato’s Theaetetus 152), I have often quoted in a philosophical context, this Protagoras may actually be based upon - according to my new estimation of things - the elderly Eliphaz of the Book of Job, at least in part. Whilst Eliphaz was by no means a Sophist along the Greek lines, he was, like Protagoras with Socrates, largely opposed to his opponent’s point of view. And so, whilst the God-fearing Eliphaz would never have uttered anything so radical or atheistic as “man is the measure of all things”, he was, however, opposed to the very Job who had, in his discussion of wisdom, spoken of God as ‘apportioning out by measure’ all the things that He had created (Job 28:12, 13, 25). Now, whilst Protagoras would be but a pale ghost of the biblical Eliphaz, some of the original (as I suspect) lustre does still manage to shine through - as with Protagoras’s claim that knowledge or wisdom was the highest thing in life (Protagoras 352C, D) (cf. Eliphaz in Job 22:1-2). And Guthrie adds that Protagoras “would repudiate as scornfully as Socrates the almost bestial type of hedonism advocated by Callicles, who says that what nature means by fair and right is for the strong man to let his desires grow as big as possible and have the means of everlastingly satisfying them” (op. cit., p. 22). Eliphaz was later re-invented (so I think) as Protagoras the Sophist from Abdera, as a perfect foil to Socrates (with Job’s other friends also perhaps emerging in the Greek versions re-cast as Sophists). Protagoras stated that, somewhat like Eliphaz, he was old enough to be the father of any of them. “Indeed I am getting on in life now – so far as age goes I might be the father of any one of you …” (Protagoras 317 C). That Eliphaz was old is indicated by the fact that he was the first to address Job and that he also referred to men older than Job’s father (Job 15:10). Now, just as Fr. R. MacKenzie (S.J.) in his commentary on “Job”, in The Jerome Biblical Commentary, tells of Eliphaz’s esteem for, and courtesy towards, Job (31:23): Eliphaz is presumably the oldest of the three and therefore the wisest; he is certainly the most courteous and the most eloquent. He has a genuine esteem for Job and is deeply sorry for him. He knows the advice to give him, the wisdom that lays down what he must do to receive relief from his sufferings … so does W. Guthrie, reciprocally (I suggest), say: “Protagoras – whom [Socrates] regards with genuine admiration and liking” (op. cit., p. 22). But, again, just as the righteous Job had scandalised his friends by his levity, according to St. Thomas Aquinas (“Literal Exposition on Job”, 42:1-10), “And here one should consider that Elihu had sinned out of inexperience whereas Job had sinned out of levity, and so neither of them had sinned gravely”, so does W. Guthrie use this very same word, “levity”, in the context of an apparent flaw in the character of Socrates (ibid., p. 18): There is one feature of the Protagoras which cannot fail to puzzle, if not exasperate, a reader: the behaviour of Socrates. At times he treats the discussion with such levity, and at other times with such unscrupulousness, that Wilamowitz felt bound to conclude that the dialogue could only have been written in his lifetime. This, he wrote, is the human being whom Plato knew; only after he had suffered a martyr’s death did the need assert itself to idealize his character. Job’s tendency towards levity had apparently survived right down into the Greek era. Admittedly, the Greek version does get much nastier in the case of Thrasymachus, and even more so with Callicles in the Gorgias, but in the Republic, at least, it never rises to the dramatic pitch of Job’s dialogues with his three friends. Here is that least friendly of the debaters, Thrasymachus, at his nastiest (Republic, Bk. I, 341): [Socrates] Well, said I, ‘so you think I’m malicious, do you Thrasymachus?’ [Thrasymachus] ‘I certainly do’. [Socrates] ‘You think my questions were deliberately framed to distort your argument?’ [Thrasymachus] ‘I know perfectly well they were. But they won’t get you anywhere; you can’t fool me, and if you don’t you won’t be able to crush me in argument’. [Socrates] ‘My dear chap, I wouldn’t dream of trying’, I said …. Socrates and Plato are similarly (like the Sophists) watered down entities by comparison with the Middle Eastern originals. Such is how the Hebrew Scriptures end up when filtered through the Greeks, [and, in the case of Plato, perhaps through the Egyptians and Babylonians before the Greeks, hence a double filtering]. Even then, it is doubtful whether the finely filtered version of Plato that we now have could have been written by pagan Greeks. At least some of it seems to belong clearly to the Christian era, e.g. “The just man … will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned … and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified” (Republic, Bk. 2, 362). I submit that this statement would not likely have been written prior to the Gospels. Socrates The era in which ‘Socrates’ is thought to have emerged pertains to c. 600-300 BC, known as “The Axial Age”. It is considered to have been a time of some very original characters and religio-philosophical founding fathers: Socrates, Plato, Confucius, Buddha and Zoroaster. This age has been defined as, e.g.: http://history-and-evolution.com/LFM/ch1_page2.htm “… the enigmatic synchronous emergence of cultural innovations and advances across Eurasia in the period of the Classical Greeks and early Romans, the Prophets of Israel, the era of the Upanishads and Buddhism in India, and Confucius in China”. It was during this approximate period of ancient history that the Jews (Israelites) were being scattered amongst the nations due to their apostasies. Some outstanding Jewish men and women arose in those times, into high positions, Tobit, Ahikar, Job, Jeremiah, Ezra, Daniel, Queen Esther, Mordecai, all of whose fervent Judaïsm would certainly have influenced the pagan peoples around about. There is something quite bizarre about Socrates, thought to have been (with Plato) the Founder of Western Philosophy. His thoughts, as transmitted by Plato, can attain to the very heights of Theology, yet can then quickly spiral into base pagan immorality (e.g. pederasty: The Symposium). This is because, while drawing from much that is scriptural, hence highly enlightened, the Dialogues themselves are firmly rooted in a pagan culture. In various ways, Socrates is thought to resemble the Hebrew prophets (Jeremiah, Zechariah, Malachi). The C18th Enlightenment intellectual, George Hamann, saw Socrates as a virtual Christian believer, even as a type of Jesus Christ. I discussed this in my article: ‘Socrates’ as a Prophet (3) ‘Socrates’ as a Prophet …. Hamann finds a foreshadowing of Christ in Socrates’ notorious ugliness. Greeks, like the Jews of Jesus’ day, were “offended that the fairest of the sons of men was promised to them as a redeemer, and that a man of sorrows, full of wounds and stripes, should be the hero of their expectations.” Even the Spirit is evident in the life of Socrates. In an oblique reference to the Spirit’s role in the conception of Jesus, Hamann compares the spirit or genius that inspired Socrates to the “wind” that allowed “the womb of a pure virgin” to become fruitful. …. Martyrdom Further bizarre: The Trial of Socrates The trial and execution of Socrates in Athens in 399 B.C.E. puzzles historians. Why, in a society enjoying more freedom and democracy than any the world had ever seen, would a 70-year-old philosopher be put to death for what he was teaching? The puzzle is all the greater because Socrates had taught--without molestation--all of his adult life. What could Socrates have said or done that prompted a jury of 500 Athenians to send him to his death just a few years before he would have died naturally?” The answer to this apparent conundrum is that the martyrdom of Socrates was not a real historical occurrence, but was another of those pale Greek appropriations of life-and-death Hebrew realities. Perhaps the death by martyrdom in the Old Testament (Catholic) Scriptures that most resembles that of Socrates, is that of the venerable and aged Eleazer in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31. The two accounts of martyrdom have sufficient similarities between them for the author of the apocryphal 4 Maccabees to consider: Eleazer as a “New Socrates” … the archetype of the semi-voluntary intellectual martyr: he is a νομικός in the royal Court (4 Macc 5:5) … he is implicitly compared with Socrates by the metaphor of the pilot (4 Macc 7:6) … young people regard him as their “teacher” (4 Macc 9:7)”. Ancient China The Chinese do not have a propitious pedigree, having arisen, as the Sinites, from the cursed stock of Canaan, son of Ham (Genesis 9:24-25): “When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, he said, ‘Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers’.” Cf. Genesis 10:15, 17: “Canaan was the father of … Hivites, Arkites, Sinites …”. What’s more, the country lies far distant from the centre of culture. If the Greco-Romans were approximately third-hand recipients of Hebrew and ancient Near Eastern wisdom and insights, then the Chinese were well further removed even than that. That is why Chinese culture still preserves very ancient vestiges such as hieroglyphic writing, instead of the alphabet. The Greeks and Romans liked to boast of their inventions and innovations. So do the Chinese, judging by Chinese people with whom I have worked, who were wont to claim that the Chinese were the inventors of many surprising things. Or, did they appropriate inventions just like the Greco-Romans? For instance, Dr. Stephanie Dalley has shown that the screw pump, accredited to Archimedes (c. 250 BC, conventional dating), was being used by the ancient Assyrians roughly half a millennium earlier. And, as I noted in my article: Solomon and Sheba (6) Solomon and Sheba …. Much has been attributed to the Greeks that did not belong to them - e.g. Breasted [119] made the point that Hatshep¬sut's marvellous temple structure was a witness to the fact that the Egyptians had developed architectural styles for which the later Greeks would be credited as originators. …. In that article, I also explored the possibility that the famous (so-called) Athenian sage and statesman, Solon, was merely a Greek appropriation of Israel’s King Solomon. “Given the Greeks' tendency to distort history, or to appropriate inven¬tions, one would not expect to find in Solon a perfect, mirror-image of King Solomon”. And I think that something very similar may be said, but with even more conviction, for the Chinese philosopher and sage, Confucius, in whom Dr. Youde Fu recognised a likeness to the Hebrew prophets: “… the Confucian sages served in a capacity familiar to anyone knowledgeable in the position of the prophets within the Jewish tradition”. “Dr. Fu began by exploring the similarities between the prophets and the Confucian sages. He explained how both the prophets and the sages served as intermediaries between the divine and the people. In the case of the prophets, they alone were considered to possess the ability to comprehend and disseminate the will and words of God. Similarly, the Confucian sages, who represented the pinnacle of human knowledge and morality in traditional Chinese culture, communicated the mandate of Heaven to the people”. Like Socrates and Plato, but even more distantly removed, Confucius (Kong Qiu) embodies some exalted Hebrew concepts about God and Heaven, and morality. Sadly, the modern Chinese ‘Canaanites’, the heathen Communists, use the name to promote their barbaric propaganda: Confucius says … well whatever Communist China wants him to (6) Confucius says … well whatever Communist China wants him to The rightful Father of Philosophy can only be God the Father through whose Word, incarnated as Jesus Christ, He has made all things (John 1:1-5). Saint Bonaventure was perfectly correct, then, when he nominated Jesus Christ as “the metaphysician par excellence”. Of the famed ‘archetypes’ of philosophy, wisdom, ethics, law, invention, that I listed at the beginning of this article, perhaps none of these was, in actual realty, an historical person. I have already discussed Socrates and Plato, Solon, Homer, Zoroaster, and Confucius. And I have written a fair amount, by now, on Thales of Miletus as a Western appropriation of Joseph of Egypt (Imhotep). See, for example, my article: Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy (6) Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy Thales: “Not much is known about the philosopher’s early life, not even his exact dates of birth and death”. Based on Moses were the Buddha: Buddha partly based on Moses (6) Buddha partly based on Moses but only in his beginnings (there is a lot of the influence of Jesus Christ also in there). The Buddha for Beginners “For over 2,000 years, people across cultures have been inspired by the Buddha’s life. But who was he, really?” Good question. And the same (Moses connection) goes for the supposed Spartan Lawgiver, Lycurgus: Moses and Lycurgus (6) Moses and Lycurgus “The historical figure of Lycurgus, the legendary lawgiver of Sparta, is shrouded in mystery and legend”. Lycurgus - Wikipedia “As a historical figure, almost nothing is known for certain about him, including when he lived and what he did in life. The stories of him place him at multiple times. Nor is it clear when the political reforms attributed to him, called the Great Rhetra, occurred”. And Aeschylus, the supposed Father of Tragedy, appears to have been based upon that most fascinating of Jewish prophets, Ezekiel - as others have noted as well: Ezekiel and Aeschylus (6) Ezekiel and Aeschylus Aeschylus – Arthistory.net “Little is known of the life of Aeschylus”. The Prophet Mohammed, about whose non-historicity I have no doubts whatsoever, is an extremely complex mix, having elements of Moses, Jephthah, Tobit and Tobias (captives in Nineveh) - especially the latter, Tobias, whose parents’ Hebrew names, when converted into Arabic, are the very names of Mohammed’s parents. Hence, too, all Mohammed’s anachronistic associations with Nineveh. Again, there is much of the New Testament (including Jesus) in the fictitious life of Mohammed – e.g. ascending to heaven from Jerusalem. Archaeological fact proves to be a great obstacle for Mohammed and Islam. For sure proof that Mohammed could not possibly have existed, see e.g. my article: Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate (6) Oh my, the Umayyads! Deconstructing the Caliphate The Essence of Culture and Civilisation No one, in the course of my lifetime, has embodied culture (“the culture of life”) and civilisation (“the civilisation of love”) as did Saint (Pope) John Paul II ‘the Great’. There is much talk today abut one’s “culture” – which often amounts to things as banal as what foods its people eat, and how they dress. John Paul was a true philosopher, a Marian being, who clearly understood that the perfect interface with the Divine Mediator is Mary the Immaculata.

Antony Flew right out of Atheism’s Cuckoo’s Nest

“How far away are you, then, from accepting this Being as a person rather than a set of characteristics, however accurate they may be?” Dr. Benjamin Wiker Dr. Benjamin Wiker wrote of his interview with a now differently-minded Antony Flew: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind : Strange Notions How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind …. EDITOR'S NOTE: For the last half of the twentieth century, Antony Flew (1923-2010) was the world's most famous atheist. Long before Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris began taking swipes at religion, Flew was the preeminent spokesman for unbelief. However in 2004, he shocked the world by announcing he had come to believe in God. While never embracing Christianity—Flew only believed in the deistic, Aristotelian conception of God—he became one of the most high-profile and surprising atheist converts. In 2007, he recounted his conversion in a book titled There is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind. Some critics suggested Flew's mental capacity had declined and therefore we should question the credibility of his conversion. Others hailed Flew's book as a legitimate and landmark publication. A couple months before the book's release, Flew sat down with Strange Notions contributor Dr. Benjamin Wiker for an interview about his book, his conversion, and the reasons that led him to God. Read below and enjoy! ________________________________________ Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial ... to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'" Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over. No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion. Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e., as far as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden of proof lies with the theist. Given that you believe that you only followed the evidence where it led, and it led to theism, it would seem that things have now gone the other way, so that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn't exist. What are your thoughts on that? Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary. Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet you remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through "experiments and equations," but rather, "through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map." Could you explain? Does that mean that the evidence that led you to God is not really, at heart, scientific? Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence. Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward—or perhaps even demonstrates—a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair assessment of your position? Flew: Yes, indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data. Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Thomas Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God. As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization, and the existence of the Universe. Wiker: You point out that the existence of God and the existence of evil are actually two different issues, which would therefore require two distinct investigations. But in the popular literature—even in much of the philosophical literature—the two issues are regularly conflated. Especially among atheists, the presumption is that the non-existence of God simply follows upon the existence of evil. What is the danger of such conflation? How as a theist do you now respond? Flew: I should clarify that I am a deist. I do not accept any claim of divine revelation though I would be happy to study any such claim (and continue to do so in the case of Christianity). For the deist, the existence of evil does not pose a problem because the deist God does not intervene in the affairs of the world. The religious theist, of course, can turn to the free-will defense (in fact I am the one who first coined the phrase free-will defense). Another relatively recent change in my philosophical views is my affirmation of the freedom of the will. Wiker: According to There is a God, you are not what might be called a "thin theist," that is, the evidence led you not merely to accept that there is a "cause" of nature, but "to accept the existence of a self-existent, immutable, immaterial, omnipotent, and omniscient Being." How far away are you, then, from accepting this Being as a person rather than a set of characteristics, however accurate they may be? (I'm thinking of C. S. Lewis' remark that a big turning point for him, in accepting Christianity, was in realizing that God was not a "place"—a set of characteristics, like a landscape—but a person.) Flew: I accept the God of Aristotle who shares all the attributes you cite. Like Lewis I believe that God is a person but not the sort of person with whom you can have a talk. It is the ultimate being, the Creator of the Universe. Wiker: Do you plan to write a follow-up book to There is a God? Flew: As I said in opening the book, this is my last will and testament.

‘Socrates’ as a Prophet

by Damien F. Mackey I put ‘Socrates’ in inverted commas here because I suspect that he, as is the case with the Prophet ‘Mohammed’, had no real historical existence, but is basically a biblical composite. Based on Hebrew Old Testament For the substance of this article to be fully appreciated, one needs to be aware of the essential thrust of (but preferably to have read) my article: Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy (5) Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy basing myself on the Fathers of the Church who had “appreciated at least the seminal impact that the Hebrews had had upon Greco-Roman thinking, though without their having taken the extra step that I took there of actually recognising the most famous early western (supposedly) philosophers as being originally Hebrew”. And, for ‘Mohammed’, see e.g. my article: Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History (5) Biography of the Prophet Mohammed (Muhammad) Seriously Mangles History In the first of these articles, “Re-Orienting to Zion …”, I had made so bold as to re-identify several of the most prominent pre-Socratic philosophers, in their true origins, as Israelites (Hebrews). For instance, Pythagoras as Joseph of the Book of Genesis (who was, in turn, the genius Imhotep of 3rd dynasty Egyptian history). The matter could not be left there with the pre-Socratics, though, for as I stated (emphasis added): My purpose in this article will be to try to restore the original in relation to [certain pre-Socratic philosophers] {leaving aside at this stage the more important Socratics, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, whose proper identities will really need to be established}, and thereby to uncover the original artisans of wisdom, giving the precedence to Hebrew Hochmah (Wisdom) over Greek Sophia (from whence we get our word philosophy). The Socratics In other words, to complete this radical work of historico-philosophical re-orientation, one would need to be able to mount a case also for that most famous trinity of ‘Greek’ philosophy, SOCRATES, PLATO AND ARISTOTLE, to have been, originally, famous biblical characters. My argument here will be that the ‘Socrates’ of whom we now know may have arisen largely from a combination of famous Old Testament characters, prophets in fact - though also including some New Testament influence. And this is what I have found also to have been the case with ‘Mohammed’, who, however, has been mysteriously projected into presumed AD ‘time’. Regarding ‘Mohammed’ as a composite mix of famous historical persons, I have previously written: … something is seriously wrong with many aspects of the received AD history. I, trying to make some sense of this, looking to find a reliable golden thread, so to speak – and especially interested in the case of Mohammed who had begun to seem to me like something of a composite Israelite (or Jewish) holy man (traces there of Moses; Tobit; Job; Jeremiah; and Jesus Christ) – nearly fell off my chair when I read for the first time that there was a “Nehemiah” contemporaneous with the Prophet Mohammed. OK, no big deal with that, insofar as there are, even today, people named “Nehemiah”. But a “Nehemiah” doing just what the biblical Nehemiah had done? …. ‘Socrates’ is also, as I shall be arguing along most similar lines, a composite figure of notable Israelites (Jews). Presumed Era The era in which ‘Socrates’ is thought to have emerged pertains to c. 600-300 BC, known as “The Axial Age”. It is thought to have been a time of some very original characters and religio-philosophical founding fathers: Socrates, Confucius, Buddha and Zoroaster. Era of ‘Socrates’ The era of history in which Jeremiah, Daniel (prophets) and, supposedly, ‘Socrates’, emerge, pertains to the most active phase (c. 600-300 BC) of what is known as “The Axial Age”. This age has been defined as, e.g. http://history-and-evolution.com/LFM/ch1_page2.htm “… the enigmatic synchronous emergence of cultural innovations and advances across Eurasia in the period of the Classical Greeks and early Romans, the Prophets of Israel, the era of the Upanishads and Buddhism in India, and Confucius in China”. It is my contention, however, that this cultural phenomenon was basically the fructifying scattering of Israelite wisdom (Yahwism), permeating both east and west due to disruption caused by wars and exiles, but especially as a result of the Babylonian Captivity (c. 600 BC, conventional dating) at the time of great sapiential minds such as the prophets Jeremiah and Daniel. The conventional dates for Jeremiah are c. 650-570 BC. Those for Socrates are, in round figures, c. 470-400 BC. {These figures will probably need to be lowered significantly once a full revision of Persian and Greco-Roman history has been achieved} But we learned in “Re-Orienting to Zion …” just how flimsy are the facts and dates pertaining to the so-called Greek (Ionian) philosophers. And indeed there is an ancient tradition that Plato (c. 430-350 BC, conventional dating), the disciple of Socrates, had encountered the prophet Jeremiah in Egypt. Thus Saint Ambrose (Ep. 34) suggested that Plato was educated in Hebraïc letters in Egypt by Jeremiah. And along similar lines we read of a Jewish tradition, in Galus Unechama http://parsha.blogspot.com.au/2009/08/yirmeyahu-and-plato-but-not-in-egypt.html When Jeremiah returned to Jerusalem from the Babylonian exile and saw the ruins of the Holy Temple, he fell on the wood and stones, weeping bitterly. At that moment, the renowned philosopher Plato passed by and saw this. He stopped and inquired, "Who is that crying over there?" "A Jewish sage," they replied. So he approached Jeremiah and asked, "They say you are a sage. Why, then, are you crying over wood and stones?" Jeremiah answered, "They say of you that you are a great philosopher. Do you have any philosophical questions that need answering? "I do," admitted Plato, "but I don't think there is anyone who can answer them for me." "Ask," said Jeremiah, "and I will answer them for you." Plato proceeded to pose the questions that even he had no answers for, and Jeremiah answered them all without hesitation. Asked the astonished Plato, "Where did you learn such great wisdom?" "From these wood and stones," the prophet replied. One difference in this English story is that Plato also asked what the purpose was for crying about the past, and Yirmeyahu [Jeremiah] replies that this is a very deep matter which Plato will not succeed in understanding, for only a Jew is able to understand the depth of the matter of crying about the past. …. [End of quote] Whilst, however, from a comparison of the above conventional dates, it would have been quite impossible for Plato to have met, and been taught by, the prophet Jeremiah, I suspect that the story actually holds some truth. That Plato really was a younger contemporary of Jeremiah, who, interestingly, was in Egypt with the younger Baruch, his scribe. Baruch, in turn, is thought by some to have been the famous ‘eastern’ prophet Zoroaster himself (possibly, then, another of those “Axial” connections). Thus: “The Arabic-Christian legends identify [the biblical] Baruch with the eastern sage, Zoroaster, and give much information concerning him”. http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2562-baruch Eusebius of Caesarea, moreover, believed that Plato had been enlightened by God and was in agreement with Moses: http://www.gospeltruth.net/gkphilo.htm Anyway, such legends open up some intriguing possibilities for the identification of Plato, too, as a (probably composite, as well) Israelite sage. And that, in turn, would relieve the following sorts of tensions with which the likes of Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian had had to grapple regarding Plato: “According to Clement [of Alexandria], Plato plagiarized revelation from the Hebrews; this gave the Athenian’s highest ideas a flavor of divine authority in the estimation of Clement”. (http://www.gospeltruth.net/gkphilo.htm). Tertullian: “… free Jerusalem from Athens and the church of Christ from the Academy of Plato”. (De praescriptione, vii) To be able to confirm Socrates and Plato (and perhaps Aristotle as well) as originally biblical characters, would also serve to relieve tensions relating to the supposed pagan Greek (with all of its corruptions, e.g. pederasty) foundations of much of Christian philosophy (e.g. Thomism). A Composite Figure Was ‘Socrates’ a prophet? The question may not be as silly as it might at first appear. The Evolution of ‘Socrates’ Though the prototypal Socrates, and indeed Mohammed, are (according to my view) composites, based chiefly upon persons belonging to the previously mentioned “Axial Age”, in which era the conventional Socrates, but not Mohammed, is considered to have existed, ‘they’ underwent a considerable literary-historical evolution, thereby picking up aspects of other characters and eras not truly belonging to ‘them’. Striking Christian aspects, for instance, such as the Prophet Mohammed’s supposed ascension from Jerusalem into the seventh heaven. Frequent claims that Mohammed copied from Judaïsm and Christianity - such as e.g. the Christian Apocryphal source “The Infancy Gospel” and Gnostic Christians about the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ - would need to be modified substantially, according to my reconstructions, so as not to include the “Axial Age” ‘Mohammed’ as a copier - since ‘he’ was originally, anyway, a composite of BC Israel. No, these borrowings from Christianity must have occurred instead, I believe, during the long evolution of the system known today as ‘Islam’. Likenesses to Hebrew Holy Men Socrates and Jeremiah were alike in many ways. Both, called to special work by oracular or divine power, reacted with great humility and self-distrust. And, whenever Socrates or Jeremiah encountered any who would smugly claim to have been well instructed, and who would boast of their own sufficiency, they never failed to chastise the vanity of such persons. Again, the Book of Jeremiah can at times employ a method of teaching known as ‘Socratic’: “Then came the word of the Lord unto Jeremiah, saying, Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?” - Jeremiah 32:26, 27. THIS method of questioning the person to be instructed is known to teachers as the Socratic method. Socrates was wont, not so much to state a fact, as to ask a question and draw out thoughts from those whom he taught. http://www.sermonindex.net/modules/mydownloads/scr_index.php?act=bookSermons&book=Jeremiah&page=6 Similarly in the case of Zechariah, as we read in another place, “God used what we today call the Socratic method to teach Zechariah and the readers of this book”: http://www.muslimhope.com/BibleAnswers/zech.htm The name Socrates looks to me like a Grecised version of the Hebrew name, Zechariah. And perhaps to none of the Old Testament prophets more than Jeremiah would apply the description ‘gadfly’, for which Socrates the truth-loving philosopher is so famous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_gadfly The term "gadfly" (Ancient Greek: μύωψ, mýops[1]) was used by Plato in the Apology[2] to describe Socrates's relationship of uncomfortable goad to the Athenian political scene, which he compared to a slow and dimwitted horse. The Book of Jeremiah uses a similar analogy as a political metaphor. "Egypt is a very fair heifer; the gad-fly cometh, it cometh from the north." (46:20, Darby Bible) Could this last be the actual prompt for the ‘Socratic’ gadfly concept? The Hebrew prophet Malachi has been called “the Hebrew Socrates”. Thus we read: http://www.backtothebible.org/index.php/component/option,com_devotion/qid,3/task,show/resource_no,34/ .... Although little or nothing is known of the personal life of Malachi the prophet, nonetheless he has given us one of the most interesting books in the Bible. Not only is this the last book of the Old Testament, it is also the last stern rebuke of the people of God, the last call for them to repent, and the last promise of future blessing for Israel. In Malachi's day the people had become increasingly indifferent to spiritual matters. Religion had lost its glow and many of the people had become skeptical, even cynical. The priests were unscrupulous, corrupt, and immoral. The people refused to pay their tithes and offerings to the Lord and their worship degenerated into empty formalism. While the people had strong male lambs in their flocks, they were bringing blind and lame animals to be offered on the altars of Jehovah. Malachi was commissioned by God to lash out against the laxity of the people of God. This prophecy is unique for it is a continuous discourse. In fact, Malachi has been called "the Hebrew Socrates" because he uses a style which later rhetoricians call dialectic. The whole of this prophecy is a dialogue between God and the people in which the faithfulness of God is seen in contrast to the unfaithfulness of God's people. Thus Malachi is argumentative in style and unusually bold in his attacks on the priesthood, which had become corrupt. …. [End of quote] Socrates and Jeremiah were very humane individuals - Jeremiah’s constant concern for the widow and orphan - men of profound righteousness, always trying to do all that was good for the people. Both Socrates and Jeremiah were hated for having challenged the gods of the society; Jeremiah, of course, being a loyal Yahwist. Socrates, like Jeremiah, had followers or disciples who also were inspired by him and were willing to go into exile and defy the government for him. Might not, perhaps, the Greek name ‘Socrates’, or ‘Sokrates’ (Σωκρατης) have originated with the phonetically like Hebrew name ‘Zechariah’ (זְכַרְיָה) - of which ‘Sokrates’ is a most adequate transliteration (allowing, of course, for a typically Greek ending to have replaced the typically Hebrew one)? Martyrdom But can the prophet Jeremiah also have been a martyr, as the philosopher Socrates so famously is thought to have been? There appears to be much uncertainty about how and when Jeremiah actually died. According to one tradition, the great prophet was martyred by stoning whilst an exile in Egypt: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8586-jeremiah The Christian legend (pseudo-Epiphanius, "De Vitis Prophetarum"; Basset, "Apocryphen Ethiopiens," i. 25-29), according to which Jeremiah was stoned by his compatriots in Egypt because he reproached them with their evil deeds, became known to the Jews through Ibn Yaḥya ("Shalshelet ha-Ḳabbalah," ed. princeps, p. 99b); this account of Jeremiah's martyrdom, however, may have come originally from Jewish sources. Jeremiah’s life was so full of suffering and persecution, however, that we shall discover in The Jerome Biblical Commentary (19:98), for instance, the designation of the substantial block of Jeremiah 36:1-45:5, as the “Martyrdom of Jeremiah”. Perhaps the death by martyrdom in the Old Testament (Catholic) Scriptures that most resembles that of Socrates, is that of the venerable and aged Eleazer in 2 Maccabees 6:18-31. And this may be where it becomes necessary once again to invoke our composite theory. The two accounts of martyrdom have sufficient similarities between them for the author of the apocryphal 4 Maccabees to consider Eleazer as a “New Socrates” … the archetype of the semi-voluntary intellectual martyr: he is a νομικός in the royal Court (4 Macc 5:5) … he is implicitly compared with Socrates by the metaphor of the pilot (4 Macc 7:6) … young people regard him as their “teacher” (4 Macc 9:7)”. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=4rP118zc8e4C&pg=PA119&lpg=PA119&dq George Hamann saw Socrates as a type of Jesus “Far from being an eighteenth-century rationalist, Hamann argued, Socrates was virtually a Christian believer, a prophet, even a type of Christ”. Peter J. Leithart Peter J. Leithart writes as follows about the completely unusual Enlightenment thinker, George Hamann: http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/the-hemlock-and-the-cross In early July 1759, three friends met at an inn called the Windmill outside the German city of Königsberg, for what might be called an “evangelistic” or “counseling” session. Intellectuals all, the three friends had earlier been cobelligerents in the cause of rationalism and the Enlightenment, but one had gone apostate. He had become a Christian of the most fervent and unenlightened sort, and his friends were intent on restoring him to the true fold, Enlightenment, and the good shepherd, Reason. One of the two evangelists, Johann Christoph Berens, is long forgotten. The other was a thirty-five-year-old philosophy professor who had a few years earlier anonymously published a book on the Natural History and Theory of the Heavens, pushing Newtonian science to the conclusion that all the operations of the world could be reduced to mechanical laws: “Give me matter and I will show you how a world should arise from it.” So wrote the young, and dogmatically slumbering, Immanuel Kant. The “apostate” was Johann Georg Hamann, until recently a promising Francophile rationalist. Hamann had translated the French economists, read Voltaire and Montesquieu, and defended the merchant classes against their detractors. His outlook changed during a trip to London in 1757, the precise purpose of which is still unknown. In London, Hamann had fallen into what he later described as an “irregular” way of life, been swindled out of his money, and apparently discovered that his London host was involved in a homosexual relationship. Shocked by this revelation, sick and desperate, he moved in with a respectable family in February 1759, closed himself in with his books, including a Bible, and began to read. According to his later account, over the next few months Hamann read the Old Testament once, the New Testament twice, and then the whole Bible again. In the end, he said, “I forgot all my books in so doing; I was ashamed of ever having compared them with God’s book, of ever having placed them on the same level with it, indeed of ever having preferred another book to it. I found the unity of the divine will in the redemption of Jesus Christ; I recognized my own crimes in the history of the Jewish people; I read the record of my own life, and thanked God for His forbearance with this His people, because nothing but such an example could entitle me to such a hope.” It was a conversion that turned Hamann into the man described by Isaiah Berlin as the century’s “most passionate, consistent, extreme, and implacable enemy of the Enlightenment,” a “pioneer of antirationalism in every sphere.” Despite the meeting at the Windmill and a second meeting a few weeks later, Hamann came through the debate unscarred and unmovable. In a letter written to Kant shortly after the meeting, he expressed his bemusement “at [Berens’] choice of a philosopher to try to change my mind,” adding “I look upon the finest logical demonstration the way a sensible girl regards a love letter.” The whole exchange permanently damaged Hamann’s relations with his erstwhile patron Berens, who allegedly threatened violence, but Hamann continued corresponding with Kant for years afterward. Not long after, Kant proposed that the two collaborate on a children’s physics textbook (!), and some years later Kant helped Hamann, frequently unemployed, to obtain a job. Hamann, for his part, wrote an eccentric response to Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason whose trenchant insight into the problems of Kantianism has only recently begun to be recognized. At their initial meeting, Kant had suggested that Hamann should translate some articles from the French Encyclopedia as a kind of therapy. Instead, Hamann wrote the letter to Kant that was to become one of the most famous letters in German intellectual history, and followed with a published response entitled Socratic Memorabilia, dedicated to “the two.” (For what it was worth, “the two” were not impressed, and Hamann suspected that they were behind an attack review published in a Hamburg journal.) In part, the treatise continued the highly dramatized self-defense begun in Hamann’s letter to Kant. Placing himself in the position of Socrates, he implicitly positioned Kant and Berens as enforcers of orthodoxy, or, worse, as shrewish Xanthippes. A servant of the truth, Hamann knew that he could expect nothing better than “hunger and thirst . . . the gallows and the wheel.” More broadly, the Socratic Memorabilia was Hamann’s effort to turn one of the Enlightenment’s own idols - indeed, the patron saint of the eighteenth century - against the Enlightenment. Some, such as Joseph Priestly, who wrote a treatise on Socrates and Jesus Compared, insisted on the superiority of Jesus. For many, however, Socrates was a weapon to be used against Christianity; like the philosophes themselves, Socrates was a free inquirer standing courageously before, and ultimately crushed beneath, the entrenched forces of intolerance, superstition, and ignorance. This time around, the philosophes hoped, things would turn out differently. Hamann was as devoted to Socrates as his friends, but his account of Socrates’ life and teaching was very different. For starters, Hamann recognized that Socrates’ philosophical “method” was not that of modern rationalists. Socrates did not intend to offer irrefutable logical demonstrations. Rather, “analogy constituted the soul of his reasoning, and he gave it irony for a body”; later in the treatise Hamann added that Socrates “preferred a mocking and humorous exhibition to a serious investigation.” Critics complained of Socrates’ “allusions, and censured the similes of his oral discourse at one time as being too farfetched and at another time as vulgar,” but such criticisms were wrongheaded. Hamann discerned a similarity between Socrates’ “poetic” mode of investigation and the parabolic shape of Christian revelation, for, as he wrote elsewhere, “the Scriptures cannot speak with us as human beings otherwise than in parables because all our knowledge is sensory, figurative.” In this introductory comment on Socratic method, Hamann already indicates that he is prepared to view Socrates, as he viewed everything else, Christocentrically. While presenting this theological perspective, Hamann’s aim was to write “about Socrates in a Socratic manner,” that is, with irony, allusion, humor, and, above all, through indirection. His success is indicated by one striking fact: Hamann wrote a treatise presenting a Christological view of Socrates without ever once naming Christ. In contrast to the hubris of modern systematizers who want to get the heavens into their heads, Socrates surpassed all other Greeks in wisdom because “he had advanced further in self-knowledge than they, and knew that he knew nothing.” In Socrates’ profession of ignorance, Hamann detected a hint of Paul’s later statement that “if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he does not yet know as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2). Socrates was an ancient evangelist who urged Athenians to turn “away from the idol-altars of their pious and politically shrewd priests to the worship of an unknown God.” Socrates’ “impetuosity” in debate with sophists and priests “compelled him to pull out his hair sometimes in the marketplace and to act as if beside himself.” That “beside himself” echoes the charge made against Jesus, but Hamann makes the analogy more explicit by adding, “Was not the teacher of mankind, gentle and lowly in heart, forced to utter one denunciation after the other of the scribes and pious ones among his people?” If anyone would deny Socrates a place among the prophets, he “must be asked who the Father of Prophets is and whether our God has not called Himself and shown Himself to be a God of the Gentiles.” Hamann finds a foreshadowing of Christ in Socrates’ notorious ugliness. Greeks, like the Jews of Jesus’ day, were “offended that the fairest of the sons of men was promised to them as a redeemer, and that a man of sorrows, full of wounds and stripes, should be the hero of their expectations.” Even the Spirit is evident in the life of Socrates. In an oblique reference to the Spirit’s role in the conception of Jesus, Hamann compares the spirit or genius that inspired Socrates to the “wind” that allowed “the womb of a pure virgin” to become fruitful. Most of all, Socrates’ relentless pursuit of truth and irritating habit of pointing out the ignorance of others led to his death, and in this he foreshadowed the life and death of Jesus. And this made it perfectly obvious that when God became man he “would not escape from the world as well as a Socrates, but would die a more ignominious and cruel death” even than Saint Louis, “the most Christian king.” Accepting the hemlock rather than submitting to exile, Socrates proved that he shared both the mission and the “final destiny of the prophets and the righteous.” Far from being an eighteenth-century rationalist, Hamann argued, Socrates was virtually a Christian believer, a prophet, even a type of Christ. …. Peter J. Leithart teaches theology and literature at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho.

Confucius says … well whatever Communist China wants him to

“Concerns have also mounted regarding the institutes’ alleged involvement in intellectual property theft, surveillance of Chinese and Hong Kong students, espionage, and the suppression of academic freedoms”. Dominika Urhová We read at: The Demise of Confucius Institutes: Retreating or Rebranding? – chinaobservers The Demise of Confucius Institutes: Retreating or Rebranding? Dominika Urhová September 5, 2024 Education and student exchanges have long been central to the West’s engagement with China, with hundreds of thousands of Chinese students studying in Western institutions each year. In parallel, China has actively sought to engage overseas institutions and students through initiatives like Confucius Institutes (CIs). However, as tensions between the United States and China have intensified in recent years, suspicion toward academic collaboration with Beijing, particularly concerning the CIs, has grown. In response, China has initiated a rebranding exercise to mitigate rising concerns while shifting its focus to more receptive regions, including, to a certain extent, Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) and the Western Balkans. Confucius Institutes function as nonprofit public institutions and are a flagship of China’s cultural soft power. The institutes are usually found at universities or colleges, nonprofit organizations, and occasionally at K-12 schools (i.e. the educational system that includes kindergarten, elementary, middle and high schools). The CIs are a collaborative initiative between a host institution, a Chinese organization (mainly universities), and, until recently, the Office of Chinese Language Council International (Hanban). Since their inception, CIs have been operated and funded by Hanban, a branch of China’s Ministry of Education. The number of CIs worldwide has increased rapidly since 2004, with China aiming to set up 1,000 institutes by 2020. Though this goal has not materialized, by 2023, China had established and maintained 496 Confucius Institutes and 757 Confucius Classrooms (CCs) in over 160 countries. However, following a series of scandals in the 2010s, Beijing has faced a global backlash over the alleged use of CIs as tools of Chinese propaganda. In recent years, growing national security concerns and fears of China’s influence campaigns penetrating host societie shave pushed the issue of Confucius Institutes higher up the political agenda. Growing Suspicions As tensions between the United States and China have intensified, CIs have faced growing criticism for their role in shaping the narrative through which China is depicted and perceived abroad. Accusations have surfaced that CIs censor discussions on issues sensitive to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), including the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Cultural Revolution, and human rights abuses in China, Tibet, and Taiwan. Concerns have also mounted regarding the institutes’ alleged involvement in intellectual property theft, surveillance of Chinese and Hong Kong students, espionage, and the suppression of academic freedoms. A statement by Li Changchun, a former head of CCP propaganda, who in 2009 described CIs as “an important part of China’s overseas propaganda setup,” has fueled these fears and lent credibility to accusations that CIs are a tool of China’s propaganda apparatus. The Crackdown Begins The United States has led the charge against Confucius Institutes, with the Trump administration adopting a particularly hardline stance. During his tenure, President Trump signed a defense bill prohibiting the Department of Defense from funding Chinese language instruction by CIs or any institution hosting a CI. In 2020, the State Department designated the Washington-based Confucius Institute US Center as a “foreign mission” of China, requiring the center to report its activities and operations to the US government. The Trump administration also pushed for colleges and universities to publicly disclose their financial ties and contracts with CIs, partly in response to a 2019 Senate subcommittee report revealing that nearly 70% of institutions receiving over $250,000 from Hanban had failed to report it to the federal government. Although the Biden administration later withdrew this proposal, Trump’s crackdown resulted in 104 of the 118 CIs in the US being shut down or in the process of closing by 2023. Rebranding for Influence Despite international efforts to close down Confucius Institutes, Beijing has found new ways to maintain its influence over educational institutions.According to a report by the National Association of Scholars (NAS), many of the 104 CIs that reportedly closed in the US have not entirely disappeared. Instead, most have either rebranded their CIs or entered into new agreements with their former Chinese partners, often replicating the original CI model with similar, if not identical, issues. In mid-2020, in response to the growing international backlash and as part of China’s efforts to conceal CIs’ close connection to the government, Hanban rebranded itself as the new Ministry of Education Center for Language Exchange and Cooperation (CLEC). It also established a nongovernmental organization, the Chinese International Education Foundation (CIEF), that now funds and oversees CIs including their replacements. CLEC is supervised by China’s Ministry of Education and receives funding from the Chinese government, thus remaining closely linked to the CCP. The rebranding extended to the CIs themselves. NAS research indicates that many universities replaced their CIs with similar partnerships involving the same Chinese universities, opening new centers operated and staffed by the same personnel and funded by Hanban, now known as CLEC or CIEF. Some universities maintained existing CIs but relocated them to different host organizations, while others continued their partnerships with Chinese counterparts outside of the CI framework. On a geopolitical level, education has traditionally served as a confidence-building measure between China and the United States, helping to manage tensions as their relationship ebbs and flows. A crackdown on educational cooperation, however, signals growing suspicion and escalating tensions. Notably, at the summit between US President Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in San Francisco in November 2023, education cooperation featured prominently on the list of deliverables. Yet, while much of the experts’ and politicians’ attention has centered on the closure of Confucius Institutes in the West and China’s superficial rebranding efforts, Beijing has increasingly redirected its focus to more receptive regions. This strategic shift includes expanding influence in countries across Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. ….

Ignatius of Antioch reads like a Maccabean martyr

by Damien F. Mackey If Ignatius of Antioch was martyred by the emperor Trajan, as according to tradition, then this, I believe, would place him in the Maccabean, rather than the Christian, era. Since, as according to my recent article: Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian (5) Hadrianus Traianus Caesar – Trajan transmutes to Hadrian Trajan was the Grecophilic Hadrian, a Seleucid king of the Maccabean era - during the childhood of Jesus Christ - then Ignatius of Antioch, who is reputed to have been martyred by said Trajan, could not possibly have been, as is said, a disciple of the Apostles, John and Peter. We know only a little about his life: Saint Ignatius of Antioch | Biography, Writings, & Martyrdom | Britannica “Although St. Ignatius was an influential church leader and theologian, he is known almost entirely from his own writings. There is no record of his life prior to his arrest ...”. Let us firstly read what is thought to be known of him: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: St. Ignatius of Antioch St. Ignatius of Antioch Also called Theophorus (ho Theophoros); born in Syria, around the year 50; died at Rome between 98 and 117. More than one of the earliest ecclesiastical writers have given credence, though apparently without good reason, to the legend that Ignatius was the child whom the Savior took up in His arms, as described in Mark 9:35. It is also believed, and with great probability, that, with his friend Polycarp, he was among the auditors of the Apostle St. John. If we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third Bishop of Antioch and the immediate successor of Evodius (Eusebius, Church History II.3.22). Theodoret ("Dial. Immutab.", I, iv, 33a, Paris, 1642) is the authority for the statement that St. Peter appointed Ignatius to the See of Antioch. St. John Chrysostom lays special emphasis on the honor conferred upon the martyr in receiving his episcopal consecration at the hands of the Apostles themselves ("Hom. in St. Ig.", IV. 587). Natalis Alexander quotes Theodoret to the same effect (III, xii, art. xvi, p. 53). All the sterling qualities of ideal pastor and a true soldier of Christ were possessed by the Bishop of Antioch in a preeminent degree. Accordingly, when the storm of the persecution of Domitian broke in its full fury upon the Christians of Syria, it found their faithful leader prepared and watchful. He was unremitting in his vigilance and tireless in his efforts to inspire hope and to strengthen the weaklings of his flock against the terrors of the persecution. The restoration of peace, though it was short-lived, greatly comforted him. But it was not for himself that he rejoiced, as the one great and ever-present wish of his chivalrous soul was that he might receive the fullness of Christian discipleship through the medium of martyrdom. His desire was not to remain long unsatisfied. Associated with the writings of St. Ignatius is a work called "Martyrium Ignatii", which purports to be an account by eyewitnesses of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius and the acts leading up to it. In this work, which such competent Protestant critics as Pearson and Ussher regard as genuine, the full history of that eventful journey from Syria to Rome is faithfully recorded for the edification of the Church of Antioch. It is certainly very ancient and is reputed to have been written by Philo, deacon of Tarsus, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian, who accompanied Ignatius to Rome. It is generally admitted, even by those who regarded it as authentic, that this work has been greatly interpolated. Its most reliable form is that found in the "Martyrium Colbertinum" which closes the mixed recension and is so called because its oldest witness is the tenth-century Codex Colbertinus (Paris). Now he has his famous encounter with the emperor Trajan (loc. cit.): According to these Acts, in the ninth year of his reign, Trajan, flushed with victory over the Scythians and Dacians, sought to perfect the universality of his dominion by a species of religious conquest. He decreed, therefore, that the Christians should unite with their pagan neighbors in the worship of the gods. A general persecution was threatened, and death was named as the penalty for all who refused to offer the prescribed sacrifice. Instantly alert to the danger that threatened, Ignatius availed himself of all the means within his reach to thwart the purpose of the emperor. The success of his zealous efforts did not long remain hidden from the Church's persecutors. He was soon arrested and led before Trajan, who was then sojourning in Antioch. Accused by the emperor himself of violating the imperial edict, and of inciting others to like transgressions, Ignatius valiantly bore witness to the faith of Christ. If we may believe the account given in the "Martyrium", his bearing before Trajan was characterized by inspired eloquence, sublime courage, and even a spirit of exultation. Incapable of appreciating the motives that animated him, the emperor ordered him to be put in chains and taken to Rome, there to become the food of wild beasts and a spectacle for the people. That the trials of this journey to Rome were great we gather from his letter to the Romans (par. 5): "From Syria even to Rome I fight with wild beasts, by land and sea, by night and by day, being bound amidst ten leopards, even a company of soldiers, who only grow worse when they are kindly treated." Despite all this, his journey was a kind of triumph. News of his fate, his destination, and his probable itinerary had gone swiftly before. At several places along the road his fellow-Christians greeted him with words of comfort and reverential homage. It is probable that he embarked on his way to Rome at Seleucia, in Syria, the nearest port to Antioch, for either Tarsus in Cilicia, or Attalia in Pamphylia, and thence, as we gather from his letters, he journeyed overland through Asia Minor. At Laodicea, on the River Lycus, where a choice of routes presented itself, his guards selected the more northerly, which brought the prospective martyr through Philadelphia and Sardis, and finally to Smyrna, where Polycarp, his fellow-disciple in the school of St. John, was bishop. The stay at Smyrna, which was a protracted one, gave the representatives of the various Christian communities in Asia Minor an opportunity of greeting the illustrious prisoner, and offering him the homage of the Churches they represented. From the congregations of Ephesus, Magnesia, and Tralles, deputations came to comfort him. To each of these Christian communities he addressed letters from Smyrna, exhorting them to obedience to their respective bishops, and warning them to avoid the contamination of heresy. These, letters are redolent with the spirit of Christian charity, apostolic zeal, and pastoral solicitude. While still there he wrote also to the Christians of Rome, begging them to do nothing to deprive him of the opportunity of martyrdom. From Smyrna his captors took him to Troas, from which place he dispatched letters to the Christians of Philadelphia and Smyrna, and to Polycarp. Besides these letters, Ignatius had intended to address others to the Christian communities of Asia Minor, inviting them to give public expression to their sympathy with the brethren in Antioch, but the altered plans of his guards, necessitating a hurried departure, from Troas, defeated his purpose, and he was obliged to content himself with delegating this office to his friend Polycarp. At Troas they took ship for Neapolis. From this place their journey led them overland through Macedonia and Illyria. The next port of embarkation was probably Dyrrhachium (Durazzo). Whether having arrived at the shores of the Adriatic, he completed his journey by land or sea, it is impossible to determine. Not long after his arrival in Rome he won his long-coveted crown of martyrdom in the Flavian amphitheater. The relics of the holy martyr were borne back to Antioch by the deacon Philo of Cilicia, and Rheus Agathopus, a Syrian, and were interred outside the gates not far from the beautiful suburb of Daphne. They were afterwards removed by the Emperor Theodosius II to the Tychaeum, or Temple of Fortune which was then converted into a Christian church under the patronage of the martyr whose relics it sheltered. In 637 they were translated to St. Clement's at Rome, where they now rest. The Church celebrates the feast of St. Ignatius on 1 February. The character of St. Ignatius, as deduced from his own and the extant writings of his contemporaries, is that of a true athlete of Christ. The triple honor of apostle, bishop, and martyr was well merited by this energetic soldier of the Faith. An enthusiastic devotion to duty, a passionate love of sacrifice, and an utter fearlessness in the defense of Christian truth, were his chief characteristics. Zeal for the spiritual well-being of those under his charge breathes from every line of his writings. Ever vigilant lest they be infected by the rampant heresies of those early days; praying for them, that their faith and courage may not be wanting in the hour of persecution; constantly exhorting them to unfailing obedience to their bishops; teaching them all Catholic truth; eagerly sighing for the crown of martyrdom, that his own blood may fructify in added graces in the souls of his flock, he proves himself in every sense a true, pastor of souls, the good shepherd that lays down his life for his sheep. The conversation between Ignatius and Trajan is set out as follows: Bishop Ignatius of Antioch's Showdown with the Roman Emperor Trajan Emperor Trajan: "Who are you, wicked wretch, who settest yourself to transgress our commands, and persuadest others to do the same, so that they should miserably perish?" St. Ignatius of Antioch: "No one ought to call Theophorus wicked; for all evil spirits have departed from the servants of God. But if, because I am an enemy to these [spirits], you call me wicked in respect to them, I quite agree with you; for inasmuch as I have Christ the King of heaven [within me], I destroy all the devices of these [evil spirits]." Trajan: "And who is Theophorus?" Ignatius: "He who has Christ within his breast." Trajan: "Do we not then seem to you to have the gods in our mind, whose assistance we enjoy in fighting against our enemies?" Ignatius: "You are in error when you call the dæmons of the nations gods. For there is but one God, who made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that are in them; and one Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, whose kingdom may I enjoy." Trajan: "Do you mean Him who was crucified under Pontius Pilate?" Ignatius: "I mean Him who crucified my sin, with him who was the inventor of it, and who has condemned [and cast down] all the deceit and malice of the devil under the feet of those who carry Him in their heart." Trajan: "Do you then carry within you Him that was crucified?" Ignatius: "Truly so; for it is written, 'I will dwell in them, and walk in them.'" (2 Corinthians 6:1) Trajan: "We command that Ignatius, who affirms that he carries about within him Him that was crucified, be bound by soldiers, and carried to the great [city] Rome, there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people." Ignatius: "I thank you, O Lord, that You have vouchsafed to honour me with a perfect love towards You, and have made me to be bound with iron chains, like Your Apostle Paul." Having spoken thus, he then, with delight, clasped the chains about him; and when he had first prayed for the Church, and commended it with tears to the Lord, he was hurried away by the savage cruelty of the soldiers, like a distinguished ram the leader of a goodly flock, that he might be carried to Rome, there to furnish food to the bloodthirsty beasts. …. This very much smacks of the different encounters between various resolute Maccabean leaders and martyrs, on the one hand, and king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and his minions, on the other.