Bishop George Berkeley – What, in God’s name, is an infinitesimal?

“These quantities seemed like ghosts, phantasms that were somehow necessary to calculate derivatives but vanished the moment they had served their purpose. Berkeley coined the phrase, “ghosts of departed quantities,” and it stuck”. Dr Colin WP Lewis For a realistic introduction to the great philosopher of science, and mathematician, George Berkeley, see my (Damien Mackey’s) article: Common sense philosophy of Irish Bishop George Berkeley (5) Common sense philosophy of Irish Bishop George Berkeley Meanwhile, Dr. Colin Lewis wrote this on George Berkeley in 2024: The Bishop Who Hated Infinitesimals (and Why It Matters) The Bishop Who Hated Infinitesimals (and Why It Matters) Bishop Berkeley and why we should fix AI’s Black Box …. Bishop Berkeley’s work is a strong reminder for AI developers and society. Many of us know about the Newton-Leibniz feud, that bitter quarrel of the calculus pioneers. Who invented it first, who borrowed from whom, and who ultimately deserved the glory. But behind this main act was a peculiar side story, one that features neither Newton's gravity-defying apple nor Leibniz's elegant notation. This is the story of George Berkeley, a philosopher-priest who … took direct aim at the very core of mathematics and may have asked a simple yet devastating question: What, in God’s name, is an infinitesimal? The answer, he implied, was that there really wasn't one, not in any meaningful, provable way. Who Was This Bishop, Anyway? George Berkeley was not, by any stretch, your typical critic of mathematics. He was a philosopher, first and foremost, and he wore the robe of an Anglican bishop in a corner of Ireland not exactly famous for producing math prodigies. Berkeley lived in a world shaped by the Enlightenment, an era where reason and empirical science were beginning to challenge religious and traditional authorities. Newtonian physics was rapidly becoming a kind of intellectual gospel, a framework through which one might explain both falling apples and the movement of stars. The rise of empirical methods and a mechanistic worldview presented a direct challenge to metaphysical and theological explanations, creating a cultural backdrop in which Berkeley's critiques took on profound significance. Yet Berkeley's own interests were less about the celestial and more about the nature of knowledge. He was deeply concerned with how we know what we know, not just the content of our knowledge. And when he took a long, hard look at Newtonian calculus, he saw a big, glaring problem. To Berkeley, calculus appeared to rest upon shaky conceptual ground. The mysterious infinitesimals, those infinitely small quantities that appear in the numerator or denominator only to vanish without a trace, bothered him. For example, in early calculus, one might consider the derivative of a function as the ratio of two infinitesimally small changes in variables, such as Δy/Δx, with Δ approaching zero. These quantities seemed like ghosts, phantasms that were somehow necessary to calculate derivatives but vanished the moment they had served their purpose. Berkeley coined the phrase, “ghosts of departed quantities,” and it stuck. He wanted mathematicians to explain, coherently and rigorously, how they justified their reliance on such specters. It wasn't until the introduction of the rigorous δ-ε (ε, δ) definition of limits by mathematicians like Cauchy and Weierstrass that calculus found a solid foundation. This approach allowed mathematicians to precisely define what it means for a function to approach a value, addressing Berkeley's concerns about the logical inconsistencies of infinitesimals. To Berkeley, these ghostly quantities were no better than a magician's sleight of hand, a trick where mathematicians pretended rigor while actually cutting corners. Damien Mackey’s comment: I doubt if George Berkeley would have been any more impressed by the Epsilon-Delta, δ-ε (ε, δ), ‘solution’ of Cauchy and Weierstrass. More mental artefacts. The question is asked at: real analysis - Does the epsilon-delta definition of limits truly capture our intuitive understanding of limits? - Mathematics Stack Exchange Does the epsilon-delta definition of limits truly capture our intuitive understanding of limits? …. I've been delving into the concept of limits and the Epsilon-Delta definition. The most basic definition, as I understand it, states that for every real number ϵ>0, there exists a real number δ>0 such that if 0<|x−a|<δ then |f(x)−L|<ϵ, where a is the limit point and L is the limit of the function f at a. While I grasp the formal definition, I'm grappling with the philosophical aspect of it. Specifically, I'm questioning whether this definition truly encapsulates our intuitive understanding of what a limit is. The idea of a limit, as I see it, is about a function's behavior as it approaches a certain point. However, the Epsilon-Delta definition seems to be more about the precision of the approximation rather than the behavior of the function. In the book "The Philosophy of Mathematics Today" by Matthias Schirn, on page 159, it is stated that: "At one point, Etchemendy asks: 'How do we know that our semantic definition of consequence is extensionally correct?' He goes on to say: 'That [this question] now strikes us odd just indicates how deeply ingrained is our assumption that the standard semantic definition captures, or comes close to capturing, the genuine notion of consequence' (Etchemendy 1990, 4-5). I do not think that this diagnosis is correct for some people: for some logicians, the question is similar to: How do we know that our epsilon-delta definition of continuity is correct?". This quote resonates with my current dilemma. Does the Epsilon-Delta definition truly capture the essence of what we mean by a 'limit'? though the epsilon-delta definition is a mathematical construct, what evidence do we have that it accurately reflects our intuitive concept of a limit? How can we be sure it is not merely a useful formalism, but a true representation of the limit as a variable approaching some value? Are there alternative definitions or perspectives that might align more closely with our intuitive understanding of limits? I would appreciate any insights or resources that could help me reconcile these aspects of the concept of limits. Thank you in advance for your help. ________________________________________ Dr. Colin Lewis continues: How to Roast a Mathematician To be fair, Berkeley wasn’t against mathematics. He was against bad epistemology. He published his arguments in The Analyst (1734), ostensibly as a critique of calculus, but also, perhaps even primarily, as a jab at atheists who used calculus to boast about the superiority of scientific over religious reasoning. His work challenged both mathematicians and those who saw themselves as the new intellectual priests of a secular age. Mathematicians like Colin Maclaurin and others attempted to counter Berkeley's arguments by defending the practical success of calculus, even if the foundational rigor was lacking. Maclaurin, for instance, worked to justify Newton's methods and demonstrated that the results of calculus were not merely coincidental but systematically reliable, despite Berkeley's philosophical objections. Berkeley did what any good philosopher does, he got under everyone's skin. He asked, in essence, ‘If you’re so smart, why are you still relying on ideas you can’t even define properly?’ The result was irritation, sure, but also introspection. What Berkeley managed to do was shake the faith in the calculus as it then stood. Not because he proved it wrong, the answers calculus produced were undeniably correct, but because he revealed that no one was quite sure why they were right. Mathematicians had powerful tools but lacked a firm philosophical foundation. The power of Newton's fluxions or Leibniz's differentials was there for all to see, but Berkeley's critique revealed the scaffolding underneath was less than sturdy. How could they talk about “infinitely small quantities” and act as though these unseeable, untouchable entities had real, measurable existence? They couldn't, at least not without a clearer articulation of the concepts in play. The Mathematicians Respond Berkeley may have lacked mathematical training, but his philosophical training was sharp enough to provoke a substantial response. The very discomfort he caused led to a slow but monumental shift in mathematics. His critique highlighted the need for rigor. Mathematicians like Augustin-Louis Cauchy and later Karl Weierstrass set out to reframe calculus in terms that even a skeptic could accept. As I mentioned above, enter the “δ-ε definition or (ε, δ)” of limits, a notion that allowed mathematicians to rigorously define what they meant when they said something was approaching zero, but not quite there. It took roughly a century for calculus to shed the phantoms Berkeley had identified, but it did. The ‘rigorization’ of calculus became one of the crowning achievements of 19th-century mathematics. Moreover, in the 20th century, infinitesimals themselves were given a rigorous foundation in non-standard analysis, a branch of mathematics developed by Abraham Robinson. This new approach provided a formal way to work with infinitesimals, addressing Berkeley's concerns in a modern context. So, while Berkeley's critiques were valid in his time, mathematics has since evolved to address these issues comprehensively. The Irony of Berkeley's Victory There’s a twist in this story, though, which Berkeley might have appreciated. In questioning calculus, he paved the way for a stronger, more resilient mathematical framework, even if it meant giving legitimacy to the very secular science he so often combated. His critique indirectly led to developments that would ultimately make calculus indispensable in the very scientific worldview that was undermining religion's intellectual authority. He never got to see this outcome; Berkeley died in 1753, long before the mathematicians took his rebuke to heart. But his role as the gadfly of early calculus is, if not celebrated, certainly acknowledged by those who understand the history of mathematics. He forced math to grow up, to address its own inconsistencies, and to become what it is today: a field rooted in careful, precise definition. ….

An Astronomy that has meaning!

by Damien F. Mackey G. Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. Introduction As discussed previously, some laudable attempts have been made by scholars to identify the Nativity Star of the Magi. The complexity of such an enterprise is apparent from Frederick (“Rick”) A. Larson’s question: Could the star have been a meteorite; a comet; a supernova; a planet; or a new star? Whilst lawyer, Larson, will favour, for the Magi Star, the planet Jupiter, the two other scholars considered in my article: Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky (3) Solid attempts to interpret the biblical sky | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Bruce Killian and G. Mackinlay, have opted for the planet Venus. Though Venus, again, will even play a rôle in Larson’s view of a bright conjunction with Jupiter. Frederick Larson is nothing if not thorough. He has picked up what he has called “The Nine Points of Christ’s Star” that he believes to be the key pieces in the puzzle of the sacred text, and he says he will not be satisfied with a final scenario that does not accommodate all nine of these. https://youtu.be/HIrwQJpD_OA Such is Larson’s thoroughness that even eight points for him will not suffice. His major difficulty will be with the fact that the Magi Star had stopped. But then it occurred to him that the planets, due to the optical phenomenon known as “retrograde motion”, actually appear to stop. Mars does a loop; Venus does a backflip; Jupiter inscribes a shallow circle. Important Chronological Notes While Larson has his Nine Points, I have interlaced previous articles on this subject with four Chronological Notes, the most relevant one here being this first one, on retrocalculation: * A very important comment on chronology (D. Mackey): Studies on the Star of the Magi and on other archaeoastronomical issues, with their retrocalculations of the night skies back into BC time, assume that our AD time is fixed, and that we actually live, today, a little over 2000 years after the Nativity of Jesus Christ. Not until revisionists like Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky came along were the standard BC calculations and ‘Dark Ages’ seriously questioned, and that has led to scholars today also rigorously testing AD time and its ‘Dark Ages’. See, e.g., Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf and Jan Beaufort’s summary: http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/hollstein/hollstein0/beaufort/index.htm I, whilst not necessarily agreeing with all of what these writers have to say, think that there is enough in their theses, however, and that of those to whom they refer, to prompt one seriously to question the accuracy of the received AD dates. (I have since done this in various articles). Applying this note to Larson’s thesis, for instance, I have written: One of Larson’s nine points, his first in fact, has to do with this tricky subject of chronology. And this area of research may be his weak link, and may actually vitiate his whole argument. Larson has determined, based on an ancient version of the Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, that the Birth of the Messiah had occurred in relation to the reign of Herod in 3-2 BC (***). *** A third chronological note This all becomes quite irrelevant, however, if I am correct in my view of Judas Maccabeus belonging to the approximate time of the Nativity of Jesus Christ …. Next I introduced: Bruce Killian, Venus The Star Of Bethlehem, whilst warmly praising Larson’s effort, has offered his own criticisms of Larson’s “The Star of Bethlehem” (2021): http://www.scripturescholar.com/VenusStarofBethlehem.pdf …. Fredrick Larson is a lawyer and does an excellent job of selling the wrong identification of the Star of Bethlehem. He identifies the Star of Bethlehem as Jupiter. He also notes that Jupiter is the largest of the planets, but that was unknown to the ancients who would see Venus as the most important because it was the brightest. He sees the king of the Jews identified in a month long shallow loop of Jupiter near Regulus the king star in the constellation of Leo. It does not “crown” this star but loops near it as it appears to loop like a Spiro graph drawing continuously in the sky. He then observed a close conjunction of Venus and Jupiter to indicate the conception of Jesus and he claims these two stars coming together was the brightest star anyone had ever seen. The problem is that Venus at its inferior conjunction is brighter than these two stars together. Finally he saw a link between the woman in Revelation 12 giving birth, but he fails to mention this happens each year and that it was not visible because it was during the day. He further presents the star guiding the magi to Bethlehem when they already knew that was where they were to go, but not identifying which of the many boys in Bethlehem was the newborn king. The stopping of Jupiter is when it reverses and goes into retrograde motion, but this point really does not even point to Bethlehem because when do you determine that this has occurred, visually you can’t, and when during the night? A miracle—many believe the star that guided the magi was simply a miracle. A light clearly called a star. Today we live at a time that planes fly over head all the time, God could have done this but why say a star guided them rather than an angel. It is clear from the information presented in this article that God was able from the foundation of the world to use the lights He set in the sky to guide the magi. I believe that most who hold this view do not recognize the special attributes of the planet Venus. These stars could be seen by all, but were faint, one would only see them if they were paying close attention. .... [End of quote] Bruce Killian would agree with Frederick Larson, though, about the Divine use of easy-to-read star tableaux. Regarding Killian’s hard BC dates (days and months), I added, recall my earlier warning about retrocalculations. George Mackinlay’s major contribution By far the most important contribution of the three, though, so I believe, is that of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay, The Magi: How they recognized Christ's star (Hodder and Stoughton, 1907). He, too, had determined that the Star of Bethlehem was a planet, namely Venus in his case. He did not, back in his day, have the advantage of modern computer software, as has Larson, but was reliant on astronomical charts to put a date to the circumstances of Venus that he had determined had pertained to the chronology of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay - like Larson and others, relying heavily on the Scriptures - showed just how significant Venus was as “the morning star” and “the evening star”, and he quoted texts from the prophet Micah; including that fateful text without which King Herod (the Godfather of today’s abortionists) would never have condemned to death the children of Bethlehem. George Mackinlay also showed through Micah that the Baptist was symbolised as the morning star, heralding as it does the dawn (Christ). He was able to determine an internal chronology of Jesus Christ, and the Baptist, based on the periods of shining of the morning star, all this in connection with historical data, seasons and Jewish feasts. As said, the inherent weakness in such reconstructions as Larson’s, and even Mackinlay’s, is their presuming that the conventional dates for Herod and Jesus Christ are basically accurate - just as 539 BC is now wrongly presumed to be a certain date for King Cyrus of Persia - and that it is, therefore, simply a matter of finding an astronomical scenario within that conventional period and then being able to refine the dates using sophisticated modern scientific data. Happily, though, neither Larson’s nor Mackinlay’s scenario has that odd situation of the shepherds watching their sheep out in the open, in winter, that critics seem to latch on to every Christmas in order to ridicule St. Matthew’s account. Whilst I do not accept that Larson, Killian, or Mackinlay have managed, despite their valiant attempts, to identify the Magi Star, the contribution of Mackinlay on the chronological importance of the planet Venus I consider to be ground-breaking. Neither Killian’s nor Larson’s efforts - worthwhile though they assuredly are - can, I believe, match the coherent consistency of Lieutenant-Colonel G. Mackinlay’s model, that shows a Divine plan at work in every major phase of the life of Jesus Christ. Mackinlay was able to demonstrate how perfectly the eight year cycles of Venus wrap around the events of the life of Christ (who is also the “Sun of righteousness”), shining throughout the joyful occasions, but hidden during episodes of sadness and darkness. But not only does the Divine artist make use of the planet Venus in this regard. The Moon, too, in its various phases, and also the seasons (reflecting now abundance, now paucity), as Mackinlay has shown, also serve as chronological markers. Mackinlay’s harmonious theory has, to my way of thinking, the same sort of inherent consistency as has Florence and Kenneth Wood’s explanation, in Homer’s Secret ‘Iliad’ (http://www.amazon.com/Homers-Secret-Iliad-Night-Decoded/dp/0719557801), that the battles between the Greeks and Trojans as described in The Iliad mirror the movements of stars and constellations as they appear to fight for ascendancy in the sky. Since George Mackinlay’s thesis is far too detailed to do justice to it here, with all of its diagrams and detailed astronomical explanations always interwoven with the Scriptures, the interested reader is strongly advised to read the entire book. Mackinlay commences with the example of Saint John the Baptist and his association also with the morning star. (This symbolism has an Old Testament precedent, too, in Joseph’s astronomical dream, Genesis 37:9-10, according to which people are represented by heavenly bodies). Let us begin. Simile of St. John the Baptist to the Morning Star The figurative use of the morning star in reference to the Baptist is evident from the prophet Malachi’s description of the Christ’s forerunner: “My messenger, and he shall prepare the way before Me” (Malachi 3:1); because, as noted by Mackinlay (p. 39), “the same figure of speech is supported by Malachi 4:2, where the Christ is spoken of as the Sun of righteousness, who shall arise with healing in His wings”. That this definitely is the right association of scriptural ideas is shown by the reference made by Zechariah, the father of St. John the Baptist (Luke 1:76), to these two passages in the Old Testament. Thus, on the occasion of St. John’s circumcision, Zechariah prophesied of him: “You shall go before the face of the lord”, and, two verses later, he likens the coming of the Christ to “the Dayspring [or Sunrising] from on high”, which shall visit us. We note further that this same passage from Malachi, with reference to the Baptist, was quoted also by Mark the Evangelist (1:2); by the angel of the Lord who had appeared to Zechariah before his son’s birth (Luke 1:17); by the Baptist himself (John 3:28); by Jesus during his ministry (Matthew 11:10; Luke 7:27); and by the Apostle Paul at Antioch (Acts 13:24-25). These quotations are all the more remarkable because they were made at considerable intervals of time the one from the other. Jesus used the words more than three decades after they had been spoken to Zechariah by the angel, announcing that Christ’s forerunner would be born. And St. Paul referred to the very same passage in the Book of Malachi some fourteen years after Jesus had spoken them. St. John the Evangelist wrote of the Baptist: “The same came for a witness, that he might bear witness to the Light, that all might believe through him. He was not the Light, but came that he might bear witness to the Light” (John 1:7, 8). George Mackinlay, commenting on this passage (p. 41), says that “The Light par excellence is the Sun, and the Morning Star, which reflects its light, is not the light itself, but is a witness of the coming great luminary”. All four Evangelists record the Baptist as stating that the Christ would come after him: a statement in perfect harmony with the comparison of himself to the morning star (see e.g. Matthew 3:2; Mark 1:7; Luke 3:16 and John 1:15). On three memorable occasions St. John the Baptist preceded and also testified to Jesus: viz. some months before Jesus’s birth (Luke 1:41, 44); shortly before Jesus’s public ministry (Matthew 3:11); and by his violent death at the hands of Herod, about a year before the Crucifixion (Matthew 14:10). Alluding to the Baptist’s martyrdom, Jesus said: “Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer” (Matthew 17:12, 13). The figure of St. John the Baptist as the morning star is therefore a most appropriate one. Object of Reference Always Present George Mackinlay, following through Isaac Newton’s principle that the Jewish teachers frequently made figurative allusions to things that were actually present, suggested (p. 56) that “other allusions” unspecified by Newton, “such, for instance, as the comparison of the Baptist to the shining of the Morning Star”, must also indicate that the object of reference was present. “We may reasonably conclude”, he added, “that the planet was then to be seen in the early morning before sunrise”. Mackinlay realised that if Newton’s principle really worked in this instance, it would enable him to “find an indication of the dates of the ministries of Christ and of John, and consequently of the crucifixion”. Making use of calculations made by expert astronomers at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, Mackinlay, himself a professional observer, drew up a chart recording the periods when Venus appeared as the morning star for the period AD 23-36 – “a period which covers all possible limits for the beginning and ending of Christ’s ministry”. {One will need to refer to Mackinlay’s own chart reproducing the astronomical data that he had received. I have already listed various chronological precautions that I believe must seriously affect dating methods, including Mackinlay’s}. From Mackinlay’s diagram we learn that the morning star shines continuously on the average for about seven and a half lunar months at the end of each night, giving at least an hour’s notice of sunrise; but if we include the period when it is still visible, but gives shorter notice, the time of shining may be lengthened to about nine lunar months. An eight years’ cycle containing five periods of the shining of the morning star - useful for practical purposes - exists between the apparent movements of the sun and Venus, correct to within a little over two days. The morning star is conventionally estimated (see previous comment on chronology) to have begun to shine at the vernal equinox, AD 25, and eight years afterwards, viz. in AD 33, it began again its period of shining at the same season of the year; and so, generally, at all years separated from each other by eight years, the shinings of the morning star were during the same months. From the historical data available, it is conventionally agreed that the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ occurred between the years AD 28 – 33. Of necessity, then, the three and a half years’ ministry (Mackinlay is of the view that Christ’s public ministry lasted “the longer period” of between three and four years, whilst he also discusses “the shorter period” of less than three years) would have begun in one of the years AD 24-29 (conventional dating). We shall proceed now to examine in more detail those passages in the Gospels that refer to St. John the Baptist as the morning star. (a) Beginning of the Baptist’s Ministry At the very beginning of his ministry, the Baptist referred to the prophecy in Malachi 3:1, in which he himself is likened to the morning star, when he said: “He who comes after me is mightier than I” (Matthew 3:2, etc.). Now, according to Isaac Newton’s principle of scriptural interpretation, that figures are taken from things actually present, the morning star would have been shining when the Baptist began his ministry; thus the witness in the sky, and the human messenger, each gave a prolonged heralding of the One who was to come. If we refer to the Gospel of Matthew (3:8, 10 and 12), we find St. John the Baptist using three figures of speech at the beginning of his ministry: 1. “Now is the axe laid to the root of the trees” – presumably to mark the unfruitful trees to be cut down (see also Matthew 7:19). 2. “Every tree that does not bring forth good fruit is cut down …”. 3. “His winnowing fork is in his hand, and He will clear his threshing floor, and gather his wheat into the granary, but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire”. As Mackinlay has noted (p. 60), these three figures used by St. John all refer to the time of harvest, which would have taken place within the month of the Passover, “as the place where John began his ministry was the deep depression ‘round about Jordan’ (Luke 3:3), where the harvest is far earlier than on the Judaean hills”. Now, according to Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star was shining during the month after the Passover (April or May) only in the years AD 24, 25 and 27, in the period AD 24-29. Hence we conclude that St. John the Baptist began his ministry in one of these three years. (b) Beginning of Jesus’s Ministry The Baptist again bore witness just before the beginning of Jesus Christ’s public ministry, when he proclaimed to the people: “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, for He was before me’” (John 1:15); and he repeated that statement the next day (John 1:30) – again bearing out the simile of the morning star and the rising sun. George Mackinlay, analysing what time of year this was, is certain that it must have been a good deal later than the beginning of St. John’s own ministry; “probably at least four or five months, to allow time for the Baptist to be known and to attract public attention”, he says (p. 61). It could not have been earlier than the latter part of August, he goes on; and “it must also have been long before the following Passover”, for several events in Jesus’s ministry “occurred before that date”. Mackinlay suggests that Jesus Christ most likely began his public ministry, “which we must date from the marriage in Cana of Galilee”, before November, “because there would have been leaves on the fig tree” when Nathanael came from under it (John 1:47, 48) (pp. 61-62). Jesus approvingly called Nathanael “an Israelite indeed” (John 1:47). Unlike the hypocrites who loved to pray so as to be seen by men (Matthew 6:5), Nathanael had carefully hidden himself for quiet prayer under cover of his fig tree, and so he was greatly surprised that Jesus had seen him there. In Scripture, the state of the vegetation of the fig tree is used to indicate the seasons of the year (see Matthew 24:32). We are informed that when the branch of the fig tree “becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near”. From the Song of Songs (2:13), we read of the season when “the fig tree puts forth her green figs”; and the fading of the leaf of the fig tree is mentioned in Isaiah 34:4. From this scriptural detail, relating to seasons, Mackinlay is able to narrow even further the choice of years (from AD 24-29) for the beginning of the two ministries. “We must reject AD 24, for the morning star definitely was not shining between the months August to November of that year”, he writes (p. 63). This leaves us with only two options, viz. AD 25 and 27. At this stage Mackinlay makes a further assumption – previously he had asked the reader to assume for the time being that “the shorter period’ choice for the length of Jesus’s ministry be put aside – in relation to the date AD 27. Whilst admitting that AD 27 would fulfil the necessary conditions given above “if we suppose that Christ began His ministry within a month or six weeks from the time of John’s first appearance”, Mackinlay elected to put aside this date for reasons that would become apparent later on. “He must increase, but I must decrease”. The next reference to St. John the Baptist under the figure that we are considering is: “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). According to F. Meyer, the Baptist “knew that he was not the Light, but sent to bear witness of it, not the Sun, but the Star that announces the dawn …” (Life and Light of Men, p. 42). St. John’s words may have foreshadowed his imprisonment as well, as Mackinlay thinks, for “they were uttered after the first Passover, which took place, according to the assumption which we have just made, in AD 26, but before the Baptist was cast into prison” (pp. 63-64). Consequently, he adds, we may assume that St. John the Baptist spoke these words about the beginning or the middle of April. Meyer may not have been correct, however, in concluding his otherwise beautiful metaphor above by saying that “the Star”, which represents the Baptist, and which “announces the dawn”, also “wanes in the growing light” of the Sun. The waning of a celestial body appears to be the scriptural symbolism for the destruction of wickedness. The seeming annihilation of the stars caused by the rising of the sun, was an ancient figure of speech used to typify the triumph of good over the powers of darkness and evil. George Mackinlay suggests that this may be the image intended by St. Paul when he spoke of “The lawless one, whom the Lord shall bring to nought by the manifestation (in Greek, “shining forth”) of His coming” (II Thessalonians 2:8); and he adds that the figure of the rising sun extinguishing the light of the stars “is associated with conflict, punishment and judgment, which certainly did not represent the relationship between Christ and His forerunner John” (p. 65). Undoubtedly, rather, the impression that the Evangelist was intending to convey in this instance was one of the morning star decreasing in the sense of its non-appearance in the sky at the end of each night, as the increasing power of the sun’s heat and light became manifest. The planet Venus moves further and further away from its position as morning star, and increases its angular distance on the other side of the sun as the evening star. According to Mackinlay, in the year 26 AD Venus began to appear as the evening star “shortly before midsummer” (p. 64). Interestingly, George Mackinlay’s chart indicates that it is the more probable explanation of the non-appearance of Venus in the sky at the end of the night as being the more appropriate figure to depict the decreasing of St. John the Baptist, which is fulfilled in the circumstance under consideration. Imprisonment of St. John the Baptist It is likely, as W. Sanday has noted (Outlines from the Life of Christ, p. 49), that the imprisonment of the Baptist took place after the Passover, and before the harvest of AD 26 (John 4:35); and soon after St. John had stated that “He must increase, but I must decrease”. Sanday considered that the events surrounding the Passover (of John 2:13-4:45) did not occupy more than three or four weeks, and when Jesus arrived in Galilee (see Matthew 4:12) the impression of his public acts at Jerusalem was still fresh. Sanday thought that his estimation of the date of the Baptist’s imprisonment was “somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Synoptic Gospels record no events after Christ’s Baptism and before John was delivered up, except the Temptation (Matthew 4:12; Mark 1:14 see also Luke 4:14); and because the Apostle Paul said that “as John was fulfilling his course, he said, ‘What do you suppose that I am? I am not He. No, but after me One is coming, the sandals of whose feet I am not worthy to untie’.” (Acts 13:25)”. These words tend to place the end of the Baptist’s career rather early, because the message here referred to was proclaimed by him when he announced the Messiah, in autumn of AD 25 (John 1:26, 27). Following George Mackinlay (p. 64), we therefore estimate that St. John the Baptist was imprisoned about the middle or end of April, AD 26, when, as is apparent from Mackinlay’s chart, the morning star, appropriately, was not shining. “He was a burning and shining lamp” The next reference to St. John the Baptist under this simile is a very striking one. Jesus speaks of him as “a burning and shining lamp; and you were willing to rejoice for a season in his light”. (John 5:35). Mackinlay has suggested that, because the definite article is used twice in the Greek version of this passage, “it therefore seems to indicate some particular light” (p. 67). Though St. John was in prison, Jesus said of him at this time: “You sent to John, and both was and still is a witness to the truth” (John 5:33). Regarding the phrase “to rejoice for a season in his light”, Dr. Harpur tells of a custom in the East for travellers by night to sing songs at the rising of the morning star because it announces that the darkness and dangers of the night are coming to an end (as referred to by Mackinlay, p. 68). In effect, then, Jesus was saying that the disciples of the Baptist were willing to rejoice in the light of the herald of day, which shines only by reflecting the light of the coming sun; but should rejoice now ever more since the sun itself had arisen – since “the Light of the World” had actually come. This interpretation harmonises with Jesus’s statement recorded a few verses on (John 5:39) that “you search the Scriptures … which bear witness of Me”; the inference again being – now that I have come, you ought to receive Me. All through this conversation, Mackinlay notes, “the subject is that of bearing witness” – by his own works; by the Father; by the Baptist; by the Scriptures and by Moses – “the whole pointing to the necessity of receiving the One to whom such abundant witness had been borne”. The time when Jesus made this particular statement about the Scriptures bearing witness to Him was just after the un-named feast of John 5:1, and before the Passover of John 6:4. It is often assumed, George Mackinlay informs us, that this un-named feast was Passover – but some have opted for naming it the feast of Purim, fixed several centuries earlier by the command of Queen Esther (Esther 9:32); or even the feast of Weeks at the beginning of June (p. 69). This does not affect our chronological scheme, however, for we learn from Mackinlay’s chart that the morning star was appropriately shining on each one of these feasts in AD 27. The Crucifixion But when we come to the last Passover, in the year AD 29, the herald of the dawn had just disappeared. George Mackinlay shows (p. 81) that the disappearance of the planet Venus harmonises perfectly with the record of the complete isolation of Jesus Christ at his Crucifixion, given as follows: (1) The disappearance of the witness John by death (Matthew 14:10). The forsaking of Our Lord by all his disciples (Matthew 26:56; Psalm 38:11; 49:20). (3The absence of any record of a ministry of angels, as after the Temptation (Matthew 4:11). The hiding of God’s face, when Christ uttered the cry: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46; Psalm 22:1). (5) In nature, the Sun’ light failed (Luke 23:45). (6) Being daytime, the Paschal Full Moon was, of course, below the horizon. Most relevant to our subject also is the following chapter from George Mackinlay’s book: Chapter Three: “A Star … out of Jacob” Mackinlay commences by establishing “the greater probability” of the following two facts: (a) That the Nativity of Jesus Christ was at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star, and (b) That the Nativity was at a Feast of Tabernacles (p. 140). Firstly, we consider Mackinlay’s reason for believing that the Lord’s Nativity was: (a) Five months after a period of shining. To begin with, we must consider what reason there is for supposing that the morning star was shining at all when Jesus Christ was born. In Malachi 3:1, as we have seen already, St. John the Baptist is referred to under the figure of the morning star, as the forerunner of the Christ. But the morning star itself may be called “My messenger who shall prepare the way before Me”. It is not unusual for inanimate objects thus to be spoken of in Scripture, for instance in Psalm 88:38 we have “the faithful witness in the sky”, and in Psalm 148:3 the sun, moon and stars of light are exhorted to praise God. Consequently, as George Mackinlay has explained it (p. 141), “we can reasonably suppose that the Morning Star was shining at the Nativity”. Furthermore, he adds, if the morning star were the herald of the coming One, it is fitting to imagine that a somewhat prolonged notice should be given; for “it would be more dignified and stately for the one to precede the other by a considerable interval, than that both should come almost together”. We shall find Mackinlay’s supposition of a prolonged heralding by the morning star borne out by the following inference. According to the principle of metaphors being taken from things present, we could infer that the morning star was actually shining when Jesus Christ (in Matthew 11:10), quoting Malachi 3:1, spoke of the Baptist as “My messenger … before My face”. Consistently following the same line of thought, we may reasonably infer that the morning star was also shining more than thirty years earlier when Zechariah quoted the same scriptural verse– i.e. Malachi 3:1 – at the circumcision of his son, John (Luke 1:76). Even had this appropriate passage not been quoted at the time, Mackinlay suggests (p. 142), “we might have inferred that the herald in the sky would harmoniously have been shining at the birth of the human herald”. George Mackinlay further suggests from his inference that both Jesus and John were born when the morning star was shining, that “both must have been born during the same period of its shining”. [He shows this in his charts]. The Annunciation to Mary was made by the angel Gabriel in the sixth month after the announcement to Zechariah (Luke 1:13, 24, 26); and so it follows that the Baptist was born five to six months before Jesus. Since Mackinlay’s charts indicate that the periods of shining are separated from each other by intervals of time greater than six months, then both Jesus and his herald must have been born during the same period of shining. Consequently Jesus Christ was born at least five months after the beginning of a period of shining of the morning star. It will be noticed that some years in Mackinlay’s charts are omitted – this is due simply to lack of space – but no events recorded in the Gospels took place in these omitted years, nor were any of them enrolment (see below) or Sabbath years. (b) At a Feast of Tabernacles The Law, we are told by St. Paul, has “a shadow of the good things to come” (Hebrews 10:1). The various ordinances and feasts of the Old Testament, if properly understood, are found, according to George Mackinlay, “to refer to and foreshadow many events and doctrines of the New Testament” (p. 143). Again, A. Gordon had remarked that: “Many speak slightingly of the types, but they are as accurate as mathematics; they fix the sequence of events in redemption as rigidly as the order of sunrise and noontide is fixed in the heavens” (The Ministry of the Spirit, p. 28). The deductions drawn from Gospel harmonies attest the truth of his statement. We have already observed that the Sabbath Year began at the Feast of Tabernacles; the great feasts of Passover and Weeks following in due course. Jesus’s death took place at the Passover (Matthew 27:50), probably, George Mackinlay believes, “at the very hour when the paschal lambs were killed”. “Our Passover … has been sacrificed, even Christ” (1 Corinthians 5:7); the great Victim foretold during so many ages by the yearly shedding of blood at that feast. The first Passover at the Exodus was held on the anniversary of the day when the promise –accompanied by sacrifice – was given to Abraham, that his seed would inherit the land of Canaan (Exodus 12:41; Genesis 15:8-18). Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the day after the Sabbath after the Passover (John 20:1); the day on which the sheaf of first fruits, promise of the future harvest, was waved before God (Leviticus 23:10, 11). Hence we are told by Saint Paul that as “Christ the first-fruits” (1 Corinthians 15:20. 23) rose, so those who believe in him will also rise afterwards. This day was the anniversary of Israel’s crossing through the “Sea of Reeds” (Exodus 12-14), and, as in the case of the Passover, it was also a date memorable in early history, being the day when the Ark came to rest on the mountains of Ararat (Genesis 8:4). The month Nisan, which had been the seventh month, became the first at the Exodus (Exodus 12:2). Thus Christ’s Resurrection was heralded by two most beautiful and fitting types, occurring almost – possibly exactly – on the same day of the year; by the renewed earth emerging from the waters of the Flood, and by the redeemed people emerging from the waters of the “Sea of Reeds”. Mackinlay proceeded to search for any harmonies that there may be between the characteristics of this Feast of Tabernacles and the events recorded in connection with the Nativity. As we have noticed previously, he says (p. 146), there were two great characteristics of the Feast of Tabernacles: 1. Great joy and 2. Living in booths (tents). 1. Great joy. The Israelites were told at this feast, “You shall rejoice before the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:40), and “You shall rejoice in your feast … you shall be altogether joyful” (Deuteronomy 16:14, 15). King Solomon dedicated his Temple on a Feast of Tabernacles, and the people afterwards were sent away “joyful and glad of heart” (1 Kings 8:2, 66; 2 Chronicles 7:10). There was no public rejoicing at the Nativity of Jesus Christ, however; on the contrary, as George Mackinlay notes, “shortly afterwards Herod was troubled and all Jerusalem with him” (Matthew 2:3). But though He was rejected by the majority, we find the characteristic joy of Tabernacles reflected in the expectant and spiritually-minded souls. Before the Nativity both the Virgin Mary and Elizabeth rejoiced in anticipation of it (Luke 1:38, 42, 44, 46, 47). At the Nativity an angel appeared to the shepherds and brought them good tidings of great joy; and then “suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, ‘Glory to God in the highest’.” The shepherds then came to the infant Saviour and returned “glorifying and praising God” (Luke 2:9-20). Forty days after the Nativity, at the Purification, Simeon, who had been waiting a long time for the consolation of Israel, and the venerable Anna who was a constant worshipper, joined in with their notes of praise and gladness (Luke 2:22-38). And lastly the wise men from the East “rejoiced with exceeding great joy” when they saw the star indicating where the Saviour was, and they came into the house, saw the young Child with his Mother, and presented the gifts that they had brought (Matthew 2:9-11). This “Mother”, the Virgin Mary, is the ultimate “Star” pointing to Jesus Christ, her Son. John Paul II’s encyclical, Redemptoris Mater (1987), is full of allusions to the Blessed Virgin Mary as ‘our fixed point’, or star ‘of reference’. To quote just this one example (# 3): …. The fact that she “preceded” the coming of Christ is reflected every year in the liturgy of Advent. Therefore, if to that ancient historical expectation of the Saviour we compare these years which are bringing us closer to the end of the second Millennium after Christ and to the beginning of the third, it becomes fully comprehensible that in this present period we wish to turn in a special way to her, the one who in the “night” of the Advent expectation began to shine like a true “Morning Star” (Stella Matutina). For just as this star, together with the “dawn,” precedes the rising of the sun, so Mary from the time of her Immaculate Conception preceded the coming of the Saviour, the rising of the “Sun of Justice” in the history of the human race. 2. Living in booths. According to George Mackinlay (pp. 147-148), the living in booths finds a parallel in the language of the Apostle John, when he wrote concerning the Birth of Jesus, “The Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us” (John 1:14); and Our Lord himself used a somewhat similar figure when he spoke of his body thus “Destroy this Temple, and in three days I shall raise it up” (John 2:19) – words misunderstood by his enemies and afterwards quoted against him (Matthew 26:61; 27:40). It was at the Feast of Tabernacles that the glory of God filled the Temple that King Solomon had prepared for Him (2 Chronicles 5:3, 13, 14), and it would seem to have been at the beginning or first day of the feast, the fifteenth day of the month. Consequently, in Mackinlay’s opinion (p. 148) “it would appear to be harmonious that the Advent of the Lord Jesus in the body divinely prepared for him (Hebrews 10:5) should also take place at the same feast and most suitably on the first day of its celebration”. It will be noticed that the glory of God did not cover the tent of meeting when the Israelites were in the wilderness, and did not fill the tabernacle, at the Feast of Tabernacles. But it did so on the first day of the first month of the second year after the departure from Egypt (Exodus 40:17, 34, 35). We must remember that there was no Feast of Tabernacles in the wilderness, nor was the Sabbath Year kept at this stage; but both of these ordinances were to be observed when the Israelites entered into the Promised Land (Exodus 34:22). No agricultural operations were carried out during the forty years of wandering in the wilderness. As the Feast of Tabernacles inaugurated the Sabbath Year, Mackinlay judged (p. 149) that the glory of God filled the temple on the first day of the feast, “as that would be in harmony with what happened in the tabernacle in the wilderness when the glory of the Lord filled it on the first day of the only style of year then observed”. A. Edersheim, writing about the Feast of Tabernacles, says (The Temple, note on p. 272): “It is remarkable how many allusions to this feast occur in the writings of the prophets, as if its types were the goal of all their desires”. For further reading, see my articles: The Magi and the Star that Stopped (3) The Magi and the Star that Stopped and: Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers (3) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers

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.