Monday, January 20, 2025

Critics giving Josephus a precedence over Luke

by Damien F. Mackey “Josephus, supposedly, wrote his autobiography toward the end of his life, ca. the beginning of the second century CE. So the author of Luke, if he were emulating Josephus’s passage would, therefore, have written this passage later in the second century CE.!”. Michael Lockwood Following on from my perennial theme, recalled again in my recent article: Vespasian ‘becoming a god’ (8) Vespasian 'becoming a god' about scholars always, in knee-jerk reaction, giving chronological precedence to pagan legends over the (Hebrew) biblical texts, e.g: - Hammurabi’s Code supposed to have influenced Mosaïc Law; - Akhnaton’s Hymn to the Aten having influenced King David’s Psalm 104. - Etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam, I now find, too, that such-minded critics have long been suggesting that the later Josephus had influenced the earlier Luke. That’s right, it immediately fails the common sense, pub test! And even more so if Qumranic expert, Fr. Jean Carmignac, was correct in dating the Gospel of Luke to “… between 58 and 60 [AD] …. But the earliest dates are clearly more probable: … (Greek) Luke a little after 50 [AD]”. This is decades before Josephus wrote his major works some time after 70 AD! So why not argue things the other way around? It would make more (common) sense. There are various instances of thematic convergence between Josephus and Luke, with Josephus considered to have influenced Luke. That is the stance that Robinson Smith, for instance, took, as far back as 1913, as adjudged by his title “Fresh Light on the Synoptic Problem: Josephus a Lukan Source” (The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 17, No. 4 (Oct., 1913), pp. 614-621 (8 pages)). Now, more than a century later, Michael Lockwood is found pursuing the same theme, claiming that Luke’s fictitious, “mythical” account of the boy Jesus teaching in the Temple had its origins in Josephus’s own boyhood experience. Thus Lockwood wrote last year (2024), in his article: “Luke 2:41-50 Fictionally Imitates a Passage in Historian Josephus’s Autobiography”: Jesus, at age 12, goes into the Jerusalem Temple and enlightens the priests; With Josephus, age 14, high priests & others come out of the Temple to be enlightened by him! Luke 2:41-50: ¶ 41 Now it was the practice of his parents to go to Jerusalem every year for the Passover festival; 42 and when he was twelve, they made the pilgrimage as usual. 43 When the festive season was over and they started for home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know of this, 44 but thinking that he was with the party they journeyed on for a whole day, and only then did they begin looking for him among their friends and relations. 45 As they could not find him they returned to Jerusalem to look for him; 46 and after three days they found him sitting in the temple surrounded by the teachers, listening to them and putting questions; 47 and all who heard him were amazed at his intelligence and the answers he gave. 48 His parents were astonished to see him there, and his mother said to him, ‘My son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.’ 49 ‘What made you search?’ he said. ‘Did you not know I was bound to be in my Father’s house?’ 50 But they did not understand what he meant. – The New English Bible Josephus, The Life of Flavius Josephus, trans. William Whiston, p. 1: ¶ Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law. That Josephus, at the young age of fourteen, was commended for his love of learning would not be particularly extraordinary. But what follows, in this same passage taken from the beginning of his autobiography, certainly is extraordinary! That high priests of the Jerusalem Temple came to him often with the “principle” (i.e., most learned) men of the city to learn his opinion, mind you, on “points of law”, seems a great exaggeration! The “law”, here, stands for the whole of the Pentateuch, of course. Josephus, supposedly, wrote his autobiography toward the end of his life, ca. the beginning of the second century CE. So the author of Luke, if he were emulating Josephus’s passage would, therefore, have written this passage later in the second century CE. Employing Mimesis Criticism, the Luke passage, above, would be treated as hypertext (the passage which alludes in some way to another passage written earlier, the hypotext). The hypotext, above, would be the passage from Josephus’s ‘Autobiography’. Is this a clear example of fictionalized mimetic dependence of a passage in Luke’s gospel on the historical material written by Josephus? OR Did the notorious 3rd-4th century CE Christian historian, Eusebius, interpolate the wise-child episode into Josephus’s ‘Autobiography’, attempting to harmonize it with the mythical episode of Luke 2:41-50 ? ….

Vespasian ‘becoming a god’

by Damien F. Mackey “Hence, when Vespasian was dying of dysentery, he quipped, “Oh dear, I think I’m becoming a god!”.” Bethany Williams The emperor Vespasian, considered to have been a pragmatic commoner who made good, appears to have been more down-to-earth and sensible - having a greater degree of common sense - than those moderns who think that this pagan’s life must have been a template for the Gospel accounts of Jesus Christ. As I have so often pointed out, whenever there is an ancient pagan legend that appears to have, to a greater or lesser extent, something in common with the Bible, the knee-jerk reaction, almost universally, is to say that the Hebrews borrowed from the pagans (be they Akkadians, Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians, Greeks, or Romans). This is largely a problem of chronology, as we shall now find. Thus, for instance, the Mosaïc Law was influenced by the great Hammurabi of Babylon and his famous Code. Except that it wasn’t. Moses pre-dated Hammurabi by half a millennium. See e.g. my article: Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon (7) Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon And The Hymn to Aten of pharaoh Akhnaton (Akhenaten) influenced King David’s Psalm 104. Except that it didn’t. King David well pre-dated Akhnaton. See e.g. my article: David and the Philistines (7) David and the Philistines And the legend of Sargon of Akkad as a baby afloat in a basket influenced the Exodus account of Moses. Here, at least, the pagan ruler clearly did pre-date the paralleled Hebrew incident. However, the legend itself did not, since it belonged in writing to the c. 600 BC time of Ashurbanipal, which is roughly a millennium after Moses. There are many other instances of this same pattern: A somewhat comparable pagan and Hebrew tale, with the former inevitably given the chronological precedence over the latter, but wrongly, since a properly revised chronology will determine it to be the other way around. Now, here we have Vespasian, a late contemporary of Jesus Christ by any estimate, and afflicted with dysentery no less, being re-cast by modern writers as a miracle-working messiah from whose life the Evangelists supposedly compiled their respective portraits of the true Messiah, Jesus Christ. John Nelson, for instance, has rushed in where angels might fear to tread with his (2024) article: Jesus and Vespasian: The Public Ministry Is the Markan Jesus distinctly Flavian? In the first century, there was a Son of God whose arrival brought ‘good news’ throughout the Roman world. He possessed miraculous powers, healing a blind man with spittle; he provided generous benefaction, feeding thousands; and he was indirectly responsible for the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE, following which he embarked on a triumphal procession, decked in kingly array. After his death, he underwent an apotheosis, and was deified. His name was Vespasian - and in 69 CE, his rise to power spelt an end to the rule of Julio-Claudian Emperors and the beginning of his own Flavian dynasty. Those interested in the Gospels will immediately note that Vespasian’s ascendancy overlaps with the conventional dating of Mark, around 70 CE. It would be no surprise, then, if Mark shaped his story with Vespasian to some degree in mind. Mackey’s comment: “It would be no surprise” only that this would be the typical academic knee-jerk reaction! A most enlightened biblical commentator, Qumranic scholar Fr. Jean Carmignac, however, had dated the Synoptic Gospels to an era decades before Vespasian’s floruit: Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early (8) Fr Jean Carmignac dates Gospels early “The latest dates that can be admitted are around 50 for Mark . . . around 55 for Completed Mark, around 55-60 for Matthew, between 58 and 60 for Luke. But the earliest dates are clearly more probable: Mark around 42, Completed Mark around 45, (Hebrew) Matthew around 50, (Greek) Luke a little after 50”. See also my related article: Carsten Peter Thiede on dating of New Testament (8) Carsten Peter Thiede on dating of New Testament John Nelson continues: Scholars have long noted parallels between Vespasian and Mark’s Jesus. But more recently, Adam Winn has gone further to argue that Vespasian’s life comprises a hermeneutical key in unlocking the Gospel. …. When we read the Gospel ‘under’ Caesar, various unusual aspects of Mark’s narrative are thrown into clear relief. In this series, we have seen how the evangelists drew upon familiar models in composing their stories. Luke drew upon aspects of the story of Aesop, John drew upon Dionysus, and both Matthew and Luke seem to have employed a familiar model in their infancy narratives, the sort told of Augustus and Alexander the Great. Mackey’s comment: As already said: “It would be no surprise” only that this would be the typical academic knee-jerk reaction! Did Mark also draw on aspects of Vespasian’s life to compose his story of Jesus? In this two-parter, we take a look at seven Vespasian-like features of Mark’s Jesus, beginning – in this post – with Jesus’ public ministry. 1. The Good News of God’s Son It does not take long before we stumble into imperial imagery in Mark. Note the incipit: ‘The beginning of the good news (euangelion) of Jesus Christ [Son of God]’. …. For those familiar with the Jewish Bible, these words would recall the ‘good news’ of Isaiah. But for all readers, the term ‘good news’ also had an imperial flavour. Compare, for example, the opening words of Mark with the Priene Calendar Inscription. The stone inscription, from 9 BCE, proclaims the birthday of the ‘god’ and ‘saviour’ Emperor Augustus as the ‘beginning of the good news for the world…’ …. Mackey’s comment: Yes, indeed, but does not the Book of Isaiah well pre-date “9 BCE” by any reasonable estimate? The term ‘good news’ was also used in reference to the accomplishments of later Emperors. For example, the Jewish historian Josephus notes that upon Vespasian’s accession to the throne, ‘every city celebrated the good news (euangelia) and offered sacrifices on his behalf’ (War 4.10.6 §618). From Mark’s opening sentence, it appears that Jesus, not the Emperor, is the one who brings good tidings to the world This counter-imperial claim could also be heard in Mark’s reference to Jesus as God’s son. Whether or not the words ‘Son of God’ in Mark’s incipit are original, Mark refers to Jesus as the Son of God at key moments throughout the text (e.g. 1:11; 9:7). This is significant, for the Emperor was also known as God’s son: divi filius. By announcing the good news of the Messiah – the saviour – who is God’s son, readers would immediately see that Jesus is being fashioned in imperial array. 2. Healing by Spittle The concept of the ‘good news’ about a salvific ‘Son of God’ may not tie Jesus to any particular Emperor. Yet in Jesus’ healing ministry, we find something more distinctly Vespasian-like. In his Life of Vespasian, Suetonius reports that Vespasian had healing powers. What is striking is the affinity Vespasian’s miracle bears to Jesus’ miracles in Mark: A man of the people, who was blind, and another who was lame, together came to [Vespasian] as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch with his heel. Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success… (7.2-3). For a long time, scholars have wondered why Mark’s Jesus heals a blind man using spittle. This is not his usual modus operandi when it comes to healing. If Mark is casting Jesus as a Vespasian-esque figure, however, it begins to make sense. According to Oxford biblical scholar Eric Eve, this story of Vespasian’s healing arose at the end of 69 or early 70 CE. …. At the time, it was used as propaganda to legitimate his ascension to the throne. Moreover, for Jewish ears, this scene could easily have sounded like a usurpation of traditional messianic hopes. Two elements of this context should prick our ears. First, many scholars date Mark just after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE. If this is correct, then Mark was written at just the right time to be influenced by the Vespasian episode. This Vespasian propaganda would have been floating around Mark’s setting. Second, if Vespasian’s healing of the blind might have sounded a little too close to the fulfilment of Messianic expectations, we can understand why Mark placed the healing episode where he does: at the start of his teaching block of material (chs. 8-10). For, as is well known, the gradual healing of the blind man, which opens this section, serves as a metaphor for the disciples’ realisation that Jesus is the Messiah. The big difference is the type of King that Vespasian and Jesus will be. While Vespasian inaugurated his rule through military victory, Jesus’ own kingship will be manifest in his own suffering and death. 3. Jesus’ Power over ‘Legion’ It is not as though Jesus is without his own conquest in Mark, however. Possible clues that Jesus is a counter-Vespasian are also left in another miracle-story: Jesus’ power over the demon named ‘Legion,’ which he chases into a herd of pigs. None of the Roman Emperors were thought to be exorcists. But several things about this story might make us think of Rome generally, and Vespasian in particular. To begin with, the term ‘legion’ denotes a cohort of 6,000 Roman soldiers. While this connection between the demonic forces and Rome may seem incidental, it is one that was also made in the first-century by John, in the book of Revelation. Strengthening this link, Mark uses war-like terminology to describe the legion of pigs. …. For example, he uses the verb ὁρμάω, a word which often denotes a military charge, to describe the rush of pigs into the sea. And he uses the term agele (άγέλη), which is often used of a military troop, to describe the ‘herd’ (5:13). None of this may seem especially Vespasian-like, beyond the general point that Vespasian’s claim to the throne was martial rather than hereditary. But a further detail may betray a connection to Vespasian: Vespasian was in charge of the Roman legion which destroyed Gerasa during the Jewish revolt. And the banner that the tenth legion carried as they destroyed the city was that of the bore - a pig! …. Early readers may therefore have seen here a thinly veiled anti-Vespasian critique. While Vespasian had control of physical legions, Jesus had total control of a ‘legion’ of demons which, in its location and symbolism, evoked Vespasian. 4. Nature Miracles A fainter set of imperial echos may also be heard in Jesus’ ‘nature miracles.’ Take, for example, Jesus’ ability to control the waves and walk on water. There are clear allusions here to YHWH’s distinct ability in the Hebrew Bible to control the sea. But some of the Roman Emperors were also believed to have ruled the waves. Caesar Augustus, for example, was said to have brought peace to the sea. As Philo writes, “This is the Caesar who calmed the torrential storms on every side... This is he who cleared the sea of pirate ships and filled it with merchant vessels” (Gaius, 145-46). ….7 …. The Roman Emperors were also known for their benefaction, supplying money and grain in times of need. As ‘Father of the Country’, Caesar Augustus claims in his Res Augusta to have given out generous supplies of grain in times of hunger (15.1-4; 18.1). Similarly, when Vespasian secured the throne, the city of Rome only had ten days of grain left. To save the population from starvation, the Emperor imported grain from Alexandria, a city regarded as his personal possession. …. Mackey’s comment: In some of this, John Nelson appears to me to be drawing a very long bow and to be desperately clutching at straws. Vespasian also laid a tax on urinals, causing no end of discomfort for Romans with weak bladders, and, should I say it, suffering from dysentery? For his harsh taxation, many have labelled Vespasian “autocratic”. While they do not provide a close parallel, some of these imperial actions may be faintly heard in Jesus’ own benefaction: his generous supply of fish and loaves to the masses in Mark’s feeding narratives. This affinity would be particularly apparent if the traditional authorship of Mark in Rome is correct, as Winn has argued at length. 5. The Messianic Secret Finally, the idea that Mark’s Jesus is Vespasian-like may also help to unravel a curious thread which runs through Mark: the so-called ‘messianic secret.’ This is the tendency of Jesus to keep his identity a secret and demand secrecy from others too. In recent scholarship, the Messianic secret has been read as less about secrecy and more as Jesus’ intentional resistance to receiving honour. …. There are a number of healing episodes, for example, in which Jesus stands as a patron would to a client. But instead of receiving honour for his benefaction – as one might expect of an ancient client – Jesus commands those he has healed to remain silent (e.g. 1:40-15; 7:31-37). This is an intriguing reading, but there is a problem with it: it is not sustained throughout the Gospel. While Jesus at times deflects honour, at others he embraces it (e.g. 1:21-28; 11:10). …. How can we explain this inconsistency? Winn has argued that seeing Jesus as an Emperor-type can help us. …. For like Jesus, the Emperor was regularly known to deflect honour, as well as to receive it. In a strategic move for the Princeps, the Emperor would give the impression to freedom-loving Romans that he was merely a “first among equals” by rejecting honour. Vespasian, for example, was hesitant to accept the title ‘Father of his Country’ or his tribunician powers (Vesp. 12). …. He also seems to have ended the traditional practice of Romans worshiping the guardian spirit, or “genius” of the living emperor, which had been instituted by Caligula. …. Some readers of Mark may therefore have understood Jesus’ refusal to accept honour as a Vespasian-esque move. …. Far from keeping his identity a total secret, Jesus – like the Emperor Vespasian – at times embraced and at others deferred the honour his elevated status entailed. …. Conclusion Vespasianic miracle legends are nothing more than appropriated pagan versions of the earlier Gospels recording the unrivalled life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Saturday, January 18, 2025

Père M-J. Lagrange’s exegetical blancmange

by Damien F. Mackey “To take the Genesis account as historical information … its value is simply nil in informing us about what happened “in the night of times”.” M. Lagrange Dr. Dominque Tassot, writing an article, “The Influence of Geology on Catholic Exegesis”, for the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, tells us something about the opinions of M. Lagrange: http://kolbecenter.org/the-influence-of-geology-on-catholic-exegesis/ …. On June 30, 1909, the Pontifical Biblical Commission granted liberty to Catholic exegetes to consider the word “yom” either in its proper meaning or in a broader meaning (sensu improprio) of indeterminate duration (DS 2128). In 1896, Fr Lagrange (who had founded Jerusalem’s Biblical College in 1893) rejected “concordism”, considering that the hexameron days and geological periods did not correspond. The shaping of the Earth went on a long time after the appearance of life; plants and animals developed in parallel. But remains established the fact that the Earth took a considerable time to form. We renounced forever the historic precise duration of six 24 hours days. …. My comment: The ‘Six Days’ of Genesis One, real 24-hour days, have nothing whatsoever to do with the duration of God’s work of creation, and it is futile to attempt to make them fit so-called scientific views about origins, such as the ‘Big Bang’, or an evolutionary-based geology. On this, see e.g. my article: What exactly is Creation Science? Part One: Our Western obsession with ‘Science’ https://www.academia.edu/35676906/What_exactly_is_Creation_Science_Part_One_Our_Western_obsession_with_Science Some have observed that the ‘Six Days’ (Hexaëmeron) may be a revelation of a creation already effected. Dr. Tassot continues: The further influence of Lagrange on Catholic exegesis is indisputable: he devised the three main ways to render the presence of scientific errors in the Bible acceptable. These were set out in five lectures given at the Catholic Institute of Toulouse a century ago, in November 1902, later published under the title The Historical Method. I will not dispute Lagrange’s dedication to the Church and the Bible. But we will touch here upon the direct influence of geology on the exegesis of the 20th century through Lagrange’s ideas. When a schoolboy, Lagrange used to wander with his uncle, a geologist, in the foothills of the Alps, where he lived. Maybe this explains how readily and completely he accepted the long ages, not only for the earth but also for the history of Man. He wrote in the Biblical Review, which he founded: Mankind is older than one believed when piously collecting the wrecks of remembrances assumed to be primitive. (…) Humanly speaking, oral transmission from the beginning of the world is supremely unbelievable. (…) To take the Genesis account as historical information, … its value is simply nil in informing us about what happened “in the night of times.” So Lagrange invented a new and paradoxical concept: “Legendary primitive history.” The Fall, the Curse, the Flood are neither true history nor simple myth. Genesis gives an account based on a “generating fact” but inevitably distorted and downgraded by the transmission through thousands of generations. Another such concept is that of “historical appearances.” Here Lagrange tried to transpose to history what Leo XIIIth said in Providentissimus Deus about astronomy (the Galileo affair!), that the Bible speaks “according to appearances.” From a Thomistic perspective, our senses give a true path to knowledge. But in the Kantian perspective of that time, “appearance” meant the opposite of reality. In 1919, Lagrange abandoned his theory of “historical appearances,” but the idea remained that the Bible had to be confined to the sphere of religion, and this was indeed the most secure way to prevent any conflict with science. The third method proposed by Lagrange to explain supposed natural science errors in the Bible was the theory of “literary genres.” The idea underlying this explanation was that one does not deceive when simply asserting the false, but only when teaching it: All that the sacred writers teach, God also teaches and this is true. But what do the sacred writers really teach? What they affirm categorically. But—it has been said for a long time—the Bible is not a collection of categorical theses or affirmations. There are such literary genres where nothing is taught concerning the reality of the facts. They only serve as basis for a moral teaching.” …. [And further:] “It is impossible that God teaches errors. Of course [there are places in] the Bible, where everybody is speaking errors; but it is impossible that an intelligent examination of the Bible compels us to conclude that God taught errors.” …. It is obvious that an intelligent use of these three methods is sufficient to get rid of any difficult passage of the Bible. But the authority of the Sacred Writings disappears at the same time, divine inspiration and inerrancy being inseparable! [End of quotes] We could term this method of exegesis as emptying the Bible of all of its meaning. Père Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855-1938) was a Dominican (OP) priest and the Dominicans figure rather prominently in my life inasmuch as OP priests celebrate Masses at the University of Sydney (St. John Paul II) chapel and at Notre Dame University (St. Benedict’s), at both of which places I attend, or have frequently attended in the past. The day that a well-informed friend of mine queried, in an e-mail, the strange biblical views that have emanated from the École Biblique which père Lagrange himself founded in Jerusalem, I happened to attend a Mass at the University of Sydney chapel celebrated by a learned Dominican priest. I thought that I must tell him about the concerned e-mail letter that I had just received, I being particularly interested to get his (Dominican) reaction. He is a scholar, basically a theologian, who seems to flit effortlessly around Latin, Greek, Hebrew, and French for starters. It soon became clear to me, though, that the Scriptures were essentially, for him, about theology - fair enough - but that what my colleagues and I would consider to be historical accounts were written late, perhaps beginning “about 900 BC”, and that “Moses and Joshua could not personally have written about contemporary events, nor did they record dates”. He also made the typical comment that the early Scriptures would have been passed on by means of “oral tradition”. Also fair enough, but the written aspect always seems to get downplayed. Whilst some of this was starting to rub with me, especially that Moses and Joshua did not write down the biblical events of the time, I did not feel inclined to become argumentative or contrary with a man who has an easy-going, genial nature. But, at the same time, I tried to push home some bullet points, such as: - God told Moses and Joshua to “write”. - Moses, in Egypt, was already a learned man and a scribe. [Cf. Acts 7:22] “Yes”, he replied, “but he did not write in Hebrew, but in Egyptian”. Some of what the priest said here is, I believe, just plain wrong, and smacks of what I find that père Lagrange had written decades earlier. Deferring to the Numbers (Chronology) Men Whilst I (and apparently Monty Python) find accountancy, numbers, to be utterly BORING: Counsellor: (John Cleese) Ah Mr Anchovy. Do sit down. Anchovy: (Michael Palin) Thank you. Take the weight off the feet, eh? Counsellor: Yes, yes. Anchovy: Lovely weather for the time of year, I must say. Counsellor: Enough of this gay banter. And now Mr Anchovy, you asked us to advise you which job in life you were best suited for. Anchovy: That is correct, yes. Counsellor: Well I now have the results here of the interviews and the aptitude tests that you took last week, and from them we've built up a pretty clear picture of the sort of person that you are. And I think I can say, without fear of contradiction, that the ideal job for you is chartered accountancy. Anchovy: But I am a chartered accountant. Counsellor: Jolly good. Well back to the office with you then. Anchovy: No! No! No! You don't understand. I've been a chartered accountant for the last twenty years. I want a new job. Something exciting that will let me live. Counsellor: Well chartered accountancy is rather exciting isn't it? Anchovy: Exciting? No it's not. It's dull. Dull. Dull. My God it's dull, it's so desperately dull and tedious and stuffy and boring and des-per-ate-ly DULL. …. numbers appear to be greatly revered in modern times. Numbers seem to have replaced ideas. It probably has something to do with the power that measuring offers, and, even, of man’s seeking to be ‘the measure of all things’ (Protagoras). Mathematics makes a wonderful servant, but it can be a very cruel taskmaster. Chronologists are the powerful numbers men of (ancient) history. In Egyptology, historians and archaeologists deferred to the ‘superior wisdom’ of the numbers man, Berlin School chronologist, Eduard Meyer (c. 1906), and allowed him to create a chronology of dynastic Egypt that has little bearing on reality. See e.g. my: The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited https://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited Was Meyer, the numbers man, dull? “The late great Classical scholar Werner Jaeger once said that the only time the lectures of the immortal Eduard Meyer were really interesting and the only time he was ever able to fill his lecture hall at the University of Berlin was when he talked about the Mormons”. Enough said! Meyer’s artificial dating of the Egyptian dynasties did not fit the shorter histories of, say, the Greeks and the Hittites. So, to save the situation, a massive slice of ‘Dark Ages’ (1200-700 BC) had to be inserted into these histories in order to ‘make’ them align with Egypt. These ‘Dark Ages’ did not occur in real history, and their insertion has caused a disruption to the proper sequence of Greek and Hittite history. Henk Spaan tells briefly what happened and how Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had identified the problem: http://www.henkspaan2.nl/velikovsky/15darkages.php The history of ancient Greece is usually divided into several periods. The Archaic period is the time of ancient Hellas, that ran until about 1200 BC and ended shortly after the Trojan War. During this period Mycenae was the centre. Then followed a period of decline, the Greek Middle Ages, also called Dark Ages, when the country was invaded by primitive Dorians. The Greek heyday that we call Classical Greece, when Athens was the main centre, lasted from about 700 to 323 BC. Finally there is the Hellenistic period that begins with the conquests of Alexander the Great throughout the Middle East. In the Hellenistic period, Alexandria was the centre and the period lasted until the Roman conquest of Egypt. The part of Velikovsky's work dealing with "the dark ages of Greece" never appeared in print. Velikovsky worked on it in the last years of his life, but could not finish it. It is published in the Internet archive of his work entitled "The Dark Age of Greece". The Mycenaean civilization is closely linked to the 18th Dynasty of Egypt. During excavations in Mycenae, many objects from the 18th Dynasty were found and vice versa in Akhet-Aten, the city that Akhnaton had built, much Mycenaean pottery was found. This means that there must have been a period of more than 500 years between Archaic Greece that existed until 1200 BC and Classical Greece that began around 700 BC. This period is called a dark age because we know little or nothing about it and little remains of this period are found. Understanding those 500 years is difficult, because 500 years of human activity, however primitive, must have left traces above the remains of Mycenaean civilization and there must have been rulers, however barbaric, about whom people wrote of with fear or surprise. However, those traces are not there and neither are the stories. Of the Greek Middle Ages we know of no people like Vikings or Charlemagne of AD history. Yet, if we move the Mycenaean civilization to 500 years later, it will be closer in line with the rise of Classical Greece and we are then more in line with what, for example, Herodotus and other Greek historians thought about their past. Furthermore, many problems become easier. For example, the famous riddle: how could Homer write a detailed report of the Trojan War if the war took place more than 500 years before Homer wrote his work? [End of quote] Thus, when the likes of W.F. Albright, in close alliance with the École Biblique, attempted to date Joshua’s Jericho, the absence of any Mycenaean pottery at the site meant that - at least according to what Eduard Meyer had established chronologically about the Egypt of the same time, that it was to be dated to c. 1400 BC - the Jericho destruction would inevitably have to be shifted back centuries before this time. A major part in all of this was played by another (pottery-) chronologist (numbers man) and another Dominican, père Louis-Hugues Vincent, who joined the École Biblique only a year after it was founded. Of course, coming for a Lagrangian background, père Vincent was always going to be operating from a base of biblical fluidity. He, being a pottery-chronologist, was accorded a respect similar to that of the ‘expert’, Meyer. Consequently, we now find ourselves in the situation in which the biblical events have been separated from their right archaeology and history by many centuries – almost a millennium (c. C24th BC) in the case of the famous Jericho incident. One of my correspondent’s main concerns was that this - the Bible’s no longer fitting with the textbook history - was one of the reasons why many dismiss much of the Scriptures as being myth or fantasy, having little in the way of historical credibility. “Didactic fiction” is how one elderly Dominican in Sydney has described the Book of Jonah. Not that the Bible is essentially about history, or science, of course. For the Dominican priest to whom I spoke, it is really about “theology”. According to pope Francis, in Aperuit Illis, it is about “our salvation” (# 9): The Bible is not a collection of history books or a chronicle, but is aimed entirely at the integral salvation of the person. The evident historical setting of the books of the Bible should not make us overlook their primary goal, which is our salvation. It is clear from this, though, that the biblical books have an “evident historical setting”, contrary to Lagrange’s view that early Genesis is pre-historical, but also non-historical (see below). Dei Verbum even has “our first parents” Abraham, Moses, and so on. …. 3. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries. …. M. Lagrange, on the other hand, according to the following, denied early Genesis historicity: https://exhibitions.lib.cam.ac.uk/dominicans/artifacts/the-bible-in-context/ …. His major challenge, however, would be to establish for fellow Catholics the importance of the Bible’s literary and historical contexts while still proclaiming it to be the Word of God. To promote Catholic biblical scholarship Lagrange founded first the periodical Revue biblique which was to publish articles on exegesis by teachers at the Jerusalem school and elsewhere, and second Études bibliques, a series of commentaries which began with a study of Judges published in 1903. Church censorship was a continual possibility. Lagrange challenged in his lectures and articles the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and he denied the historicity (though not the truth) of the creation narrative in Genesis 1–11. As a result, he found himself forbidden to publish a commentary on Genesis. [End of quote] The Dominican priest to whom I spoke did not actually deny an Adam and an Eve, but said: “The first man and woman are called Adam and Eve in Genesis, but these would not have been their real names as they are Hebrew names”. I also advanced this bullet point: - The JEDP sources that scholars claim to identify in the Book of Genesis are not fundamentally the sources from which Genesis was compiled. These latter are the toledôt divisions, to be read as endings of family histories, the histories of the pre-Moses patriarchs. Whilst the Dominican priest was familiar with toledôt, he did not comment on my insistence that they were endings, not headings. He admitted to being uncomfortable with JEDP – “you can’t preach it”. I also recalled to him the case of the French Catholic physician, Jean Astruc, really a pioneer of the modern documentary sources, who had intuitively discerned that the Flood account in Genesis appeared to have been composed from more than one source. The toledôt perfectly accounts for that, of course, it having been written by Noah’s three sons. The next series, I said, was signed off only by Shem, who must by then have become separated from his brothers, Ham and Japheth. Furthermore, I said, scholars who deny the influence of Moses in the compilation of the Pentateuch may not have any expertise in the ancient Egyptian language, and are not able, therefore, to discern a prevailing Egyptian influence throughout much of those books - this being an indication that these books, in their original states (before later editing) were written at an early point in time when Israel had been in close contact with Egypt, and not written in a later Babylonian period as the documentists insist. I queried that, if the early Bible were not really historically or archaeologically relevant, why was it that there is a substantial archaeology underlying e.g. the Conquest when properly dated, and not dated according to the whims of the unreliable chronologists. The Middle Bronze I (MBI) people - the priest knew of them - basically trace the same geographical pattern as do the Exodus Israelites, and they are known to have been bearing Egyptian artefacts. But conventional historians (the more biblically-minded ones) tend to identify the partially nomadic MBI as belonging to the time of Abram (Abraham). Once we fix Abram to his right stratigraphical level, however, which is Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I, we can identify the destruction caused by the four invading kings as narrated in Genesis 14, Amraphel of Shinar and his confederacy. All of this is a real history, with a real underpinning archaeology. The Book of James considered today Clearly a farmer is not expected to be patient over a period of centuries for his crop to emerge. And that is the difficulty with any timetable that does not accord with the bald statements of Jesus Christ and the Apostles that that very generation would be experiencing his “coming”. The emptying of the meaning from the holy Scriptures, that has already been considered in relation to the Dominican founder of the École Biblique in Jerusalem, Pere Marie-J. Lagrange (1855-1938), seems to be a continuing phenomenon among Dominican priests, with one recently emphasising to Catholics at a Mass in Sydney (Notre Dame University), with regard to Genesis: “Whatever you do, don’t take any of this literally”. Then, a few days later (15th December, 2019), another Dominican priest, at the same venue, made some statements regarding the New Testament Book of James that I would consider to be emptying that book of some of its meaning, and to be implying that the Apostles were rather clueless about “the Second Coming”. First of all, the priest claimed that the Book of James was written about 90 AD. That is after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD (conventional dating). And James was already dead by then. The bald statements of James regarding Jesus’ imminent return (5:7-8): “Be patient, then, brothers and sisters, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits for the land to yield its valuable crop, patiently waiting for the autumn and spring rains. … the coming of the Lord is at hand” [literally, “has drawn near”]”, was an indication to the Dominican priest that the Apostles did not have any idea as to when the Second Coming was due to occur. But, still, he added, we need to await it patiently just as does a farmer for the land to yield its crop. Clearly a farmer is not expected to be patient over a period of centuries for his crop to emerge. And that is the difficulty with any timetable that does not accord with the bald statements of Jesus and the Apostles that that very generation would be experiencing his “coming”: • Romans 13:12: “The night is far gone; the day is at hand” [literally, “the day has drawn near”]. • Hebrews 10:25: “[Do not neglect] to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encourag[e] one another, and all the more as (because) you see the Day (already) drawing near.” • 1 Peter 4:7: “The end of all things is at hand” [“has drawn near”]. 70 AD, far from being a couple of decades before the Book of James was written, was the year when the prophesied “coming” would occur. For more on this, see e.g. my article: A Coming of Jesus before the Final Coming https://www.academia.edu/106150543/A_Coming_of_Jesus_before_the_Final_Coming Who was this James? The following article poses a similar question: Who Was James, the Brother of Jesus? It is no secret that the Catholic Church teaches, and has always taught, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was just that — a virgin — all the days of her life. This teaching does not come out of nowhere, but is based on a long tradition in Christian history. Despite this venerable Christian tradition, Mary’s perpetual virginity is one of the Catholic beliefs most often questioned by Protestants. It is interesting to note that most, if not all, Protestant denominations have no official teaching on whether or not Mary remained a virgin after giving birth to Jesus. Virtually all of the founding fathers of Protestantism (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, et al.) maintained a belief in Mary’s perpetual virginity. Luther preached that “Christ … was the only Son of Mary, and the Virgin Mary bore no children besides Him” (Sermons on John, ch 1–4). Zwingli wrote, “I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact virgin” (Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Berlin, 1905, v. 1, p. 424.). Most Protestants today, however, assume Mary and Joseph would have had normal marital relations resulting in other children. This is not based on any new historical data unavailable to those in the early Church. Rather it is based on an assumption that … well, that’s just what married people do, isn’t it? For many, the belief that Jesus had younger siblings seems supported by the Bible itself. After all, we have verses like this: “Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon?” (Mk 6:3). Isn’t this biblical proof that Mary had other children besides Jesus? Before we delve into this specific question, it is important to keep one thing in mind …. The Church has studied the scriptures for thousands of years. Yet the Church maintains that Mary remained a virgin all her life. Has the Church somehow remained unaware of Mk 6:3 all this time? Or is there more to the story? “Brethren of the Lord” There are several other passages that mention the “brethren” of Jesus (Mt 12:46, Jn 7:5, Acts 1:14, 1 Cor 9:5). “Brethren” in this context has always been taken to mean “cousin.” This is how Martin Luther interpreted its meaning in his Sermons on John quoted from above. The reason for this is simple. There was no word for “cousin” in Hebrew or Aramaic (the language Jesus most likely would have spoken). The term “brother” or “brethren” was used generically for any male relative, and this is how it is used in the Greek of the New Testament (even though Greek does have a word for “cousin”). …. Those who maintain that James, Joseph, Judas and Simon were other biological children of Mary and Joseph might say that this “cousin” explanation is a little too convenient. But it can be demonstrated as true in at least one case — the case of James, the most famous “brother of the Lord.” St. James was one of the Apostles, the first leader of the Church in Jerusalem, and a very prominent figure in the early Church. Was he, in fact, another son of Mary and Joseph? We do know that his mother was named Mary. The gospels give us that information. But they also tell us that she was not Mary, the mother of Jesus. We can tell this by comparing the different gospel accounts of the women standing at the foot of the cross. “Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of the sons of Zebedee” (Mt 27:56). “Among them were Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James the less and of Joseph, and Salome” (Mk 15:40). “And meanwhile his [Jesus’] mother, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene had taken their stand beside the cross of Jesus” (Jn 19:25). If we compare these three accounts, we see three women named Mary standing at the foot of the cross: Mary, the mother of Jesus; Mary Magdalene; and Mary, the wife of Cleophas who was also the mother of James and Joseph. So James’ mother was a Mary, but not the Mary (Mary is a very common name among 1st century Jewish women. I can’t cite it now, but I remember reading in one source that 25% of Jewish women of the era were named some version of “Mary”). What do we know of James’ father? In Mt 10:3, James is called the son of Alphaeus. It is worth noting that the Aramaic name for Alphaeus could be rendered in Greek as either Alphaeus or Clopas/Cleophas. Since James’ mother Mary is described as the “wife of Cleophas” in Jn 19:25, this is probably the same man described here. And what do we know of him? Not too much from the scriptures, but according to the 2nd century historian Hegesippus, he was the brother of Joseph, Jesus’ foster-father. This would make James the cousin of Jesus. However, even if Hegesippus is wrong about that detail, we still know from the gospel accounts that James is the son of Alphaeus/Cleophas and a different Mary, and not the son of Mary (mother of Jesus) and Joseph. In other words, James cannot be the biological brother of Jesus. Does this prove the perpetual virginity of Mary? No. But it does show the danger of challenging any long-held and well-established Christian teaching on the basis of one or two “proof texts” from the Bible. Benedict XVI - Bible “based on history” “The evident historical setting of the books of the Bible should not make us overlook their primary goal, which is our salvation”. Pope Francis In this article I have suggested that the ‘emptying Scripture of its meaning’ exegetical approach of Père Lagrange of the École Biblique appears to have been followed by contemporary Dominicans. From the recent exhortation by one to by no means take literally the content of the Book of Genesis, to another’s insisting that neither Moses nor Joshua wrote down contemporary records - biblical writing did not begin until “900 BC” - to another’s labelling the book of Jonah “didactic fiction”, to another’s uncertainty as to whether Daniel and his three friends were actual historical characters. And that is only a part of it. As a Christian, I found the last one, concerning the Book of Daniel, to be particularly disconcerting as the aged priest mentioned it in a sermon in which he also proposed that the courageous witness of Daniel and his three friends, in the face of fierce persecution, ought serve to strengthen us today as we face persecution and ridicule for our faith. Well, I don’t know how other Christians would feel about this, but if ISIS had a knife at my throat ordering me to renounce my faith, I would not find it terribly consoling to have that particular Dominican close, Book of Daniel in hand, urging me to remember the heroic witness of Daniel and his three friends. “But you said they may not have been real!!!” Far more refreshingly, I think, pope Benedict XVI had insisted that the Bible was “based on history” (as quoted by Greg Sheridan in “Christmas story still resonates down the ages”): The former Pope Benedict, in his magisterial, scholarly book, Jesus of Nazareth, explains the importance of historicity: “It is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories symbolising supra-historical truths, but is based on history, history that took place here on this Earth.” Benedict also explains the severe limits of the historical-critical method in trying to deconstruct the New Testament. Concerning biblical critical studies, which once in their wilder speculations did much to undermine religious faith, Benedict writes: “We have to keep in mind the limits of all our efforts to know the past: We can never go beyond the domain of hypothesis because we simply cannot bring the past into the present. To be sure, some hypotheses enjoy a high degree of certainty, but overall we need to remain conscious of the limit of our certainties”. And more recently pope Francis referred to, in “Aperuit Illis” (# 9): “The evident historical setting of the books of the Bible …”. First, recalling Paul’s encouragement to Timothy, Dei Verbum stresses that “we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures” (No. 11). Since the Scriptures teach with a view to salvation through faith in Christ (cf. 2 Tim 3:15), the truths contained therein are profitable for our salvation. The Bible is not a collection of history books or a chronicle, but is aimed entirely at the integral salvation of the person. The evident historical setting of the books of the Bible should not make us overlook their primary goal, which is our salvation. Everything is directed to this purpose and essential to the very nature of the Bible, which takes shape as a history of salvation in which God speaks and acts in order to encounter all men and women and to save them from evil and death. ….

Thursday, January 16, 2025

Habakkuk’s solar imagery highly compatible with Akhnaton’s Aten

“Your glory was like the sunrise. Rays of light flashed from your mighty hand. Your power was hidden there”. Habakkuk 3:4 Nili Shupak, of the University of Haifa, has detected what appears to be a definite influence from Akhnaton’s Atenism imagery upon chapter 3 of the Book of Habakkuk. I refer to Shupak’s article, “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakkuk 3:3–7”. Before proceeding to some of Nili Shupak’s comparisons, I need to say who I (at least) consider both pharaoh Akhnaton (Akhenaten) and Habakkuk to have been. Taking Habakkuk first, although he post-dated Akhnaton, I merely repeat my summary of the prophet, as to his alter egos, from my article: Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers (4) Magi were not necessarily astronomers or astrologers …. In what follows it will become clear why I strongly favour this, albeit poorly known, tradition. But, for this to be facilitated, it is necessary for the prophet Job to be fully identified. Firstly, Job was Tobias son of Tobit of the (Catholic) Book of Tobit. This connection imposed itself forcefully upon my mind on this very same day (1st January, Solemnity of the Mother of God) some decades ago. Secondly Tobias (Job), who lived in neo-Assyrian captivity - and on into the Chaldean and Medo-Persian eras - and who must therefore also have had a foreign name, was the prophet Habakkuk (an Akkadian name). Thirdly, the Jews must have shortened the unfamiliar name Habakkuk to Hakkai (or Haggai). [End of quote] In sum: The prophet Habakkuk, abbreviated to (Hakkai) Haggai, was the famous prophet Job, as well as Tobias, son of Tobit. He was a righteous and very pure man who had received angelic visitation (cf. Job 16:19; Tobit 5:4-12:22; Daniel 14:34-36). As for Akhnaton, he I have variously identified in e.g. my article: Syrian Kingmaker in Ancient Egypt (DOC) Syrian Kingmaker in Ancient Egypt as the biblical leper, Na’aman and Hazael the Syrian, as El Amarna’s Syrian, Aziru (according to Dr. I. Velikovsky’s Ages in Chaos, I), but also - most importantly for my Syrian-Egyptian connection - as the Arsa (Irsu), or Aziru, of the Great Harris Papyrus, a Syrian who took control of Egypt and its gods. Akhnaton, prior to his becoming pharaoh, was the legendary Amenhotep son of Hapu, dutifully serving Amenhotep ‘the Magnificent’, whom I have identified also as the biblical Ben-Hadad, a veritable master king. Now, coming to consider what Nili Shupak has written, concerning the influence of Atenist imagery upon Habakkuk 3, I need firstly to recall the fact that Akhnaton was, in a properly revised (Velikovskian-based) El Amarna, influenced by King David. The pharaoh’s famous Hymn to the Aton has often been compared to David’s Psalm 104. See e.g. “Parallelism between “The Hymn to Aten” and Psalm 104”: https://projectaugustine.com/biblical-studies/ancient-near-east-studies/parallelism-between-the-hymn-to-aten-and-psalm-104/ Typically, though, but wrongly, Akhnaton is given the chronological precedence over King David. Nili Shupak writes: file:///C:/Users/Damien%20Mackey/Downloads/janes_28_shupak_nili_the_god_from_teman_and_the_egyptian_sun_god%20(4).pdf …. A new explanation in the Egyptian setting a. Amarna religion The problematic verse may be resolved in light of the perceptions and beliefs prevalent in Egypt in the fourteenth century b.c.e., [sic] known as the Amarna or the Aten religion. This religion extraordinary in the history of Egypt, was introduced by Amenhotep IV, Akhenaten, who ascended the throne in 1351 and reigned until 1334. Some regard the religious reform of this king as the first attestation of monotheism in the world. But whether it was a true monotheism or not, it is clear that Amarna religion was belief in one god, the god Aten. A new iconographic symbol was given this god, a sun disc with radiating rays each terminating in human hands imparting signs of life (‘nh) and strength (w·s) to the king and his family (see figure 1). The idea expressed in this symbol, namely, the god bestowing grace upon the king, is represented both in the art of the period—i.e., in the wall decorations of buildings and tombs—and in the inscriptions of the king and his high officialdom. For instance, in the inscription from the tomb of a courtier named Tutu, it is said: [When you are shining] you light up (˙q.k) the two countries (i.e., Egypt) and your rays (stwt.k) are (shining) upon your beloved son, your hands carry life (‘nh) and power (w·s). In the boundary stelae of Amarna, the new capital built by Akhenaten, the king declares that when Aten shines in Akhetaten (Amarna) he fills it with “his fair and loving rays, which he casts upon me, consisting of life (‘nh) and dominion (w·s) forever and ever.” The main source of our knowledge of the new religion is the Hymn to the Aten, which was probably composed by the king himself. As it appears from this hymn, one of the main features of the Amarna religion is the concept of the Aten as a universal god—no longer a national god of Egypt alone but the god who created all people and all languages, the god who bestows life and nurtures all of humankind. The Aten is the god of Egypt’s neighbors in north and south, Syria and Nubia—in the words of the hymn: The lands of Hor and Kush The land of Egypt, You set every man in his place, You supply their needs; Everyone has his food His lifetime is counted . . . You made Nile (Hapy) in the netherworld You bring him when you will, To nourish the people . . . All distant lands, you make them live, You made a heavenly Nile (Hapy) descend to them (The Hymn to the Aten, ll. 8–9). Another innovation in Amarna religion is the ritual of light. The emphasis is not on worshiping the sun as a physical body that projects heat, but the adoration of the sun as a celestial luminary, the origin of light.18 Already in the very beginning of Akhenaten’s reign, when the sun god was still called by his old name, Re-Harakhti, and depicted in the traditional image of a man with a falcon’s head wearing a sun disc, it was said that he rejoices in the horizon “in his name Shu (the god of light) which is in (or from) the Aten (the sun disc)” (The Hymn to the Aten, l.1). Light is the source of life on earth: “You are indeed one, but millions of lives (are) inside you to make them life” (The Short Hymn to the Aten).19 The terminology and expressions accompanying the description of the god Aten are usually associated with the semantic field of light: to illuminate (ssp, s’˙d, psd), to shine (wbn), rays (stwt), brilliance (t˙n).20 The opposite of this light is night’s darkness (kkw), which symbolizes death: “When you set in western horizon, Earth is in darkness as if in death” (The Hymn to the Aten, l. 3).21 Another element which distinguishes the new religion is the abstraction of the god’s image. The god Aten, unlike more ancient gods, is not presented as a sculpted or painted image. The concept is that the heavenly image of the god cannot be rendered as an earthly materialization (theomorphism). This concept is expressed in the following saying of the king: “(God is) the one who built himself with his own hands, and no craftsman knows him.”22 The only tangible embodiment of the god Aten, then, is on the one hand, the sun disc in the sky—“You alone, shining in your forms of Aten” (The Hymn to the Aten, l. 1123)—and on the other, the king, the earthly embodiment of the celestial god: There is no other who knows you, Only your son, Neferkheprure, Wa-ni-Re (The Hymn to the Aten, l. 12).24 The Aten religion, then, was essentially universal, focused on the celestial light, the sun, which exists anywhere on earth, unlinked to any particular theomorphic materialization. Therefore, it may well have been more apt for propagation among the neighboring cultures than any Egyptian religious concept that preceded it. - 18. Cf. J. Assmann, “Die ‘Häserie’ des Echnaton. Aspekte der Amarna-Religion,” Saeculum 23 (1972), 116–18; D. B. Redford, “The Sun Disc in Akhenaten’s Program: Its Worship and Antecedents, I,” JARCE 13 (1976), 47–56; J. P. Allen, “The Natural Philosophy of Akhenaten,” in W. K. Simpson, ed., Religion and Philosophy in Ancient Egypt (New Haven, 1989), 89–101; E. Hornung, Echnaton, Die Religion des Lichtes (Zürich, 1995), 61–62. 19. In addition to the “Hymn to the Aten” found in the tomb of Ay, the Commander of Chariotry, theAmarna tombs also contained a shorter version of the hymn which is named here “The Short Hymn to the Aten.” Sandman, Texts, 15, lines 4–9; Lichtheim, Literature, 2.90–92; Murnane, Texts, 159. 20. The perception of the Aten (the physical sun disc) as a source of light is perhaps also reflected inthe musicians’ custom in the Amarna period of tying a white band over their eyes; L. Manniche, “Symbolic Blindness,” Cd’E 53 (1978), 13–21. 21. See n. 17 above. 22. W. Helck, Urkunden der 18 Dynastie (Berlin, 1958–71), 22.12–13. 23. See n. 17 above. 24. See n. 17 above. b. Interpreting Hab. 3:4 on the basis of Amarna religion Difficult terminology and expressions that are supposedly ambiguous and obscure in Hab. 3:4 may be clarified and explained in view of the Egyptian belief in the god Aten. hZo[U ˆ/yb}j< µv…w]÷/l /dY;mI µyin'r]q'÷hy,h}TI r/aK" hg'now is a literal description of the Egyptian god’s symbol. hy,h}TI r/aK" Hg'now. The primary meaning of Hg'no is “brilliance” or “brightness” deriving from light, and it is often borrowed to describe the appearance of God (see, e.g., Ezek. 1:4, 13, 27; 10:4 [in reference to God’s glory]; Ps. 18:13; 2 Sam. 22:13). r/a here means sunlight, so the meaning of hy,h}TI r/aK" Hg'now is that the brilliance and brightness, accompanying an epiphany of God, are like sunlight. In the two remaining cola of the verse the Hebrew God seems to carry the image of the Egyptian sun god, the Aten. /l /dY;mI µyin'r]q'. In /dY;mI the mem (“from”), as the prefix of the word, should be deleted, as dittography of the mem that is the suffix of the previous word µyin'r]q'. /l should be interpreted as genitive lamed, meaning rays (are) his own hands. The difficulty in this explanation is in the repetition of the possessive indication wdy, “his hand,” and /l, “his.” It would be preferable to apply hy,h}TI in the first colon to the second colon also: wl (hyht) wdy µynrq, “his hand will be rays.” Be that as it may, the meaning of the verse is, God’s rays are his hands. hZo[U ˆ/yb}j< µv…w]. µv…w] indicates the hands, or the rays shaped like hands, where God’s power is hidden. hZo[U, his power, refers to the hieroglyphic sign w·s (Gr. S40), the symbol of power and dominion bestowed upon the king and his royal family by the god Aten (see figure 2). Hence, the interpretation of the verse in light of the Egyptian parallel is: the epiphany of God resembles the rising sun, accompanied by intense light, and in his rays, which are his hands, his charismatic power lies hidden. Hab. 3:4 is therefore a literal description of the Egyptian icon. The symbol of the Egyptian sun god from the Amarna period was borrowed to describe the appearance of the Hebrew God. The advantage of this explanation is in the fact that it leaves the Masoretic text intact, except for a minor emendation, namely, omission of the mem to correct an error of dittography. Additional Egyptian features in Hab. 3:3–7 Further support for this interpretation is provided by the following details, which appear in the first part (vv. 3–7) of Habakkuk 3, there too revealing a certain contact with Egypt. a. On the one hand, the image of Yhwh as depicted in this part of the chapter differs from the image that follows in the second part (vv. 8ff.), but, on the other hand, it is close to the description of the god Aten in the Amarna writings. b. The portrayal of Yhwh arriving from south (vv. 3–7) is clearly related to the biblical tradition of the Israelites’ origin being in the south, in Egypt. c. Additional motifs in vv. 3–7 may be explained against the Egyptian background, and not necessarily—as they have generally been interpreted until now—as a product of contact with Canaanite or Mesopotamian mythology. We shall discuss these matters in detail. a. Yhwh is portrayed in vv. 3–7 as an abstract, ethereal image. His glory and fame, his brilliance and power, are mentioned (vv. 3–4). His revelation, we are told, shatters the forces of nature and causes dread among people (vv. 6–7). However, nothing is said about Yhwh’s emotions. The absence of reference to this is remarkable by comparison with the second part of the hymn, where we are told about God’s “wrath” (vv. 8, 12), his “anger” (v. 8), and his “rage” (v. 12). The deity, as described in the first part of Habakkuk 3 then, is cold and calculating, devoid of emotions such as anger, mercy, and forgiveness. These characteristics are typical of the Egyptian god Aten; as Redford has put it: But the new concept of deity that Akhenaten produces is rather cold. His disc created the cosmos and keeps it going; but he seems to show no compassion to his creatures. He produces them with life and sustenance, but in a rather perfunctory way. No text tell us he hears the cry of the poor man, or has compassion on the sick, or forgives the sinner. This portrayal of the god Aten is quite different from the image of the Hebrew God as he is usually described in the Bible. The latter is a deity of mercy and grace, who responds to the suffering and misfortune of the individual and the community; this is a god who repents and regrets what he has done, but also a god who can be vengeful and resentful; a god that becomes enraged, and vents his wrath upon his enemies (Gen. 6:6–7; Exod. 34:6–7; Num. 14:18–20; Deut. 32:11, 21–24, 41–43, etc.). b. The arrival of God from the south, and his appearance, are described in vv. 3–7: God came from Teman, a/by; ˆm:yTEmI H"/la” the Holy One from Mount Paran. Selah. hl:s< ˆr;aP: rh"mE ç/dq:w] His Glory covered the heavens, wdwh µymç hsk and the earth was full of his praise. . . . . . . ≈rah halm /tL:hIt}W He stopped and shook the earth; he looked and made the nations tremble. The eternal mountains were shattered. d[" yrer]h" wxx}Pøt}yw' the everlasting hills sank low . . . . . . µl:w[ t/[b}Gi wjvæ I saw the tents of Cushan under affliction; ˆç…Wk ylEh’a: ytIyaIr; ˆw,a: tj"T" the tent curtains of the land of Midian trembled (NRSV). ˆy;d]mI ≈r,a, t/[yriy] ˆWzGr]yi The tradition concerning the arrival of God from the south recurs in three other poetic passages, usually considered among the earliest compositions in the biblical literature: Judg. 5:4–5; Ps. 68:8–9; and Deut. 33:2. These three passages, as well as the aforementioned section from Habakkuk, belong to the literary pattern of theophany, and resemble each other, in structure and content, as shown by Jeremias. The uniform structure includes the mentioning of God, a verb or verbs referring to his arrival, and a place name, preceded by the preposition min/m (from). The common content is the description of God’s arrival, the effect of his appearance on natural forces—earth, sky, mountains and hills, and the names of the places: Seir, Mount Paran (parallel to Sinai in Deuteronomy 33), Field of Edom, and Teman. Hab. 3:3– 7 describes God as he arrives from Teman and Mount Paran. He casts his wrath and dread upon mountains and hills, as well as on human beings residing in the areas near the site of the apparition, Kushan, Midian, and perhaps also On (see discussion below). Of the three parallel passages, the closest to Habakkuk is Deut. 33:2: The LORD came from Sinai, and dawned from Seir wml ry[çm jrzw ab ynysm òh upon them; he shone forth from Mount Paran. With him were çdqø tbøbrm htaw ˆrap rhm [ypwh myriads of holy ones; at his right, a host of his own (NRSV). wml tD;v‘aE wnymym The arrival of God is indicated here by the verb jrz, meaning to rise up, to shine, associated with the sun, like µynrq in Hab. 3:4; and, perhaps, also by the word tD;v‘aE, which some scholars suggested to explain on the basis of Aramaic and Syriac, as outpouring, diffusion of light, namely an abundance of light to the right side of God. Thus, in Deuteronomy 33, as well as in Habakkuk 3, the description of God arriving from the south is tinted with solar elements. In Habakkuk the names Teman and Mount Paran indicate the stations in God’s passage in his travel from the south. Teman is not mentioned in the parallel passages, but it appears in the Bible as a synonym or in reference to Edom and Seir, as in Judges 5 or Deuteronomy 33.36 Mount Paran, which in Hab. 3:3 stands in parallelism with Teman, is identified as a region south of Canaan, east or west of the Arabah.37 Even though these names originally indicated some specific areas, they appear to refer to the southern region in general when used in the literary pattern of theophany. Likewise, Kushan and Midian in verse 7 should not be understood as specific regions but as the general wandering area of the nomadic tribes, the Kushites and Midianites. It extends from the southern part of Transjordan in the east to the Egyptian border in the west.38 As mentioned, the tradition reflected in these passages on the arrival of God from the south is an archaic heritage, and from recent archaeological discoveries, it seems to have been well known in Israel in the First Temple period. These discoveries include inscriptions from the 9th–8th centuries b.c.e., discovered at Kuntillet Ajrud in the northern Sinai, a site which served as a stage for caravans on their way south to Elat. In these inscriptions the name YHWH Tmn appears several times, and in one of them the verb zr˙ is used to describe the appearance of God, exactly as in Deuteronomy 33: mrh nsmyw . . . la jrzbw meaning, “when God shines forth . . . the mountains melt.”39 As in the biblical passages dealing with the theophany, the phrase YHWH Tmn should also be understood here as a reference to God’s arrival from the south, and not as an indication of a local god. Travelers heading south would pray to this god to assure them a safe and sound journey. Reigned over the Israelites,” in A. Hurvitz, E. Tov, S. Japhet, eds., Studies in Biblical Literature (Jerusalem, 1992), 191, and by Avishur, Studies, 163. This meaning is also maintained by Cassuto, “Deuteronomy Chapter XXXIII and the New Year in Ancient Israel,” Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem, 1973), 1.50. 36. Teman is the name of Esau’s grandson (Gen. 36:11) and a region of Edom (Gen. 36:34 = 1 Chron.1:53); it stands in parallelism with Edom and Seºir (Obad. 8–9, Jer. 49:7, 20). 37. For the location of Mountain Paran and its references in the Bible see Hiebert, God, 86–88. 38. The Midianites are depicted in the Bible as nomads wandering in the southern marches of Israel,which include the Sinai peninsula as far as southern Transjordan (Gen. 25:4–6; 36:35; Num. 10:29–31, etc.; Josh. 13:21; Judg. 6:3, 33, 7:12, 1 Kgs. 11:18). As to Kusan, Albright was the first to identify it with the Kusu who appear in the Egyptian sources as early as the second millennium b.c.e. (in the Execration Texts [Posener E50–51] and in the Tale of Sinuhe, l. 220). These sources show that Kusan was one of the nomadic tribes that lived in the deserts located in the south and southwest of Israel. The close relation between the Midianites and the Cushites is evident from the fact that Zipporah, Moses’ wife, is at times called a Midianite (Exod. 2:16–21) and at times a Cushite (Num. 12:1) (supposing that the two passages refer to the same woman). Scholars assume that these two tribes were blended into one national identity. See Hiebert, God, 88–89; B. Mazar, “Cushan,” Encyclopaedia Biblica (Jerusalem, 1962), 4.70–71; idem, Canaan and Israel (Jerusalem, 1974), 17–18, n. 15 [in Hebrew]. 39. The complete text is as follows: . . . µ(Ni)nub}G' ˆKUd'yw ÷µrih: ˆSUm"yw ÷ . . . la j"rzbW hm:j:l}mI µyoB} laE µv´l} ÷hmjlm µyoB} l["B" ˚reb:l} See S. A˙ituv, Handbook of Ancient Hebrew Inscriptions (Jerusalem, 1992), 160–61 [in Hebrew]; M. Weinfeld, “Recent Publications 3: Further Remarks on the Ajrud Inscriptions,” Shnaton 6–7 (1978– 79), 238 [in Hebrew]; idem, “Kuntillet ºAjrud Inscriptions and Their Significance,” Studie Epigrafici e Linguistici 1 (1984), 126. The tradition of the southern origin of the Hebrew God, which recurs in the Bible and in extra-biblical sources, has an apparently historical basis. Support for this may be found in the Egyptian sources. In topographical lists from the time of Amenhotep III, Akhenaten’s father [sic], and in copies of these lists from the period of Ramesses II (13th century b.c.e.), [sic] there is a region named t· s·sw Yhw, “ land of the Shasu Yehu.” Since this region is followed in the list by “the land of Shasu Seir” we assume that we are dealing here with a region named after Yehu, a local god who was worshiped in the land of Seir, the wandering area of the tribes of Midian and Kushan mentioned in Habakkuk 3. Finally the difficult phrase at the beginning of verse 7 ytIyaIr; ˆw,a: tj"T" has been emended to read ar;ytIw] ˆ/a tj"TE “On will fear and be frightened.” This emendation is supported by the fact that at least in one other reference in the Bible the spelling of the Egyptian town On is ˆw,a: (Ezek. 30:17; cf. Gen. 41:45, 50, etc.; and perhaps also Ps. 78:51). According to this version the city On, Iwn in the Egyptian sources, which was located in the northern part of present-day Cairo, should be added to the list of landmarks on God’s journey from the south. This detail is significant to our discussion since that city was an important center of sun worship in Egypt, from the Old Kingdom period to the late period, as attested by its Greek name Heliopolis, the sun city. Furthermore, Akhenaten was brought up and raised in On, and also served as the “First Prophet” of the local god Re-Harakhti. An additional argument seems to exist here in support of understanding Habakkuk 3 in light of the Amarna period in Egypt. In sum, whether the city of On is connoted in Hab. 3:7 or not, there is no doubt that Hab. 3:3–7, as well as Deut. 33:2 and the inscriptions from Kuntillet Ajrud, all reflect a tradition that uses solar elements vividly to depict God’s arrival from the south. ….

Wednesday, January 15, 2025

Trump’s Golf War

by Damien F. Mackey Al Bundy has called Donald Trump “a lunatic” and more. Although I was not a huge fan, nor a frequent watcher, of the TV Series, Married With Children, I have to admit to finding its leading male character, Al Bundy (Ed O’Neill), to be at times hilarious, owing to his unbridled lack of political correctness. This was as a breath of fresh air during those years of woke socio-political squeeze and Covid totalitarianism. Al Bundy, a shoe salesman, was forever getting himself into hot water with women owing to his rude and misogynistic service of, and comments about, them, in the shoe store. “A fat woman clip-clopped into the shoe store today and said, “I need something I’d be comfortable in.” I said, “try Wyoming”.” More recently, I have recalled Al Bundy’s rudeness, misogyny, and macho boastfulness in the context of Donald Trump. Some of what Trump has had to say about women is classic Bundyism: On Rosie O'Donnell "Can you imagine the parents of Kelli ... when she said, 'Mom, Dad, I just fell in love with a big, fat pig named Rosie?'" [Dec. 29, 2006] "We're all a little chubby but Rosie's just worse than most of us. But it's not the chubbiness — Rosie is a very unattractive person, both inside and out." [2006] "Rosie's a person who's very lucky to have her girlfriend and she better be careful or I'll send one of my friends over to pick up her girlfriend. Why would she stay with Rosie if she had another choice?" [2006] "If I were running 'The View,' I'd fire Rosie O'Donnell. I mean, I'd look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I'd say, 'Rosie, you're fired.'" [2006] On Vice President Kamala Harris "Do you want to lose your life savings because we put a weak and foolish woman in the White House?" [November 2, 2024] "She is slow and lethargic in answering even the easiest of questions." [October 13, 2024] "Lyin' Kamala, who is being exposed as a 'dummy' every time she does a show." [October 8, 2024] "Kamala is mentally impaired." [September 29, 2024] "Retarded." [September 29, 2024] "They put her in, and she somehow — a woman — somehow she's doing better than [President Joe Biden] did." [September 18, 2024] "She's a Marxist. Everybody knows she's a Marxist." [September 10, 2024] "I am much better looking than Kamala Harris." [August 17, 2024] "She was a bum three weeks ago. She was a bum. A failed vice president in a failed administration." [July 27, 2024] On "The View" co-host Whoopi Goldberg "She was so filthy, dirty, disgusting. She was so dirty. Every word was filthy, dirty. What a loser she is." [October 9, 2024] On 2024 presidential candidate and GOP nomination rival Nikki Haley "Nimbra doesn't have what it takes" [Jan. 19, 2024] "Birdbrain doesn't have the TALENT or TEMPERAMENT to do the job" [Sept. 29, 2023] And on and on it goes. This begs the question: What would Al Bundy have thought about Donald Trump? Well, the question has sort of been answered insofar as Ed O’Neill, who played the rôle of Al Bundy, has spoken about Trump in a video. And it is far from flattering. 'Al Bundy' Actor Tears Donald Trump to Shreds in Blistering Beatdown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8_lvlBqlh0 We read about it at: https://www.nickiswift.com/1647012/no-love-lost-between-modern-family-ed-oneill-donald-trump/ …. During a YouTube interview with David Pepper in September 2022, O'Neill went scorched earth when discussing how the former president would have been treated in O'Neill's hometown of Youngstown, Ohio. "You got a pretty good idea of what this guy [Trump] was like pretty fast, which is all bulls***," he said. The "Married... with Children" star said nobody would get along with Trump in Youngstown. "They'd just laugh at him, you know for being the braggart, the arrogant liar," O'Neill said. The character assault on the one-time POTUS did not stop there. "Taken care of by his daddy. A guy who never really worked hard in his life," O'Neill added. O'Neill's incendiary words led to some people supporting him in the comment section, while pro-Trumpsters voiced their displeasure. That was only part of the actor's character assassination of the former president, as O'Neill also brought up an embarrassing fact about one of Trump's golf courses. Ed O'Neill called out this fake claim …. During his YouTube interview with David Pepper in September 2022, Ed O'Neill mentioned a plaque on the course of Donald Trump's Northern Virginia Trump National Golf Club which claimed to be the site of the civil war Blood River Battle, and was signed by Trump himself. "Only one problem; there was never any such battle. He made it up …. "It's the smallest things that tip you off as to [how] this guy is nuts." The inaccuracies of the plaque O'Neill referred to have been well-documented. In November 2015, The New York Times ran a piece investigating the golf course plaque which was located between holes 14 and 15. "The casualties were so great that the water would turn red and thus became known as 'The River of Blood,'" the plaque read. Contrary to those lofty claims, experts disagreed that the battle described even took place. "No. Uh-uh. No way. Nothing like that ever happened there," Richard Gillespie, the executive director of the Mosby Heritage Area Association told the outlet. When Trump was presented with the plaque's incongruences by The Times he decided to double down. "[I]f people are crossing the river, and you happen to be in a civil war, I would say that people were shot," he told the publication. Trump also bashed the history experts. "How would they know that? Were they there?" …. Read More: https://www.nickiswift.com/1647012/no-love-lost-between-modern-family-ed-oneill-donald-trump/

Tuesday, January 14, 2025

Jumpin’ Ji-had!

“The Armenian genocide, beginning in 1915, resulted in the death of around one and a half million Armenians, 700,000 Greeks, and 275,000 Assyrians. Says Spencer: “Christian communities that had existed since the beginning of Christianity were wiped out. Constantinople, fifty percent Christian even in 1914, is today 99.99 percent Muslim…. Adolf Hitler was impressed with the brutal efficiency of how the Turks answered their ‘Armenian question’.” Robert Spencer Robert Spencer, a clear and incisive speaker with a better-than-most understanding of Islam, has written some controversial books, such as this one, “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDeXrbqHeDk The following is taken from a 2018 review of another of his books: https://billmuehlenberg.com/2018/11/21/a-review-of-the-history-of-jihad-by-robert-spencer/ A Review of The History of Jihad. By Robert Spencer. Posted onNov 21, 2018 Bombardier Books, 2018. Robert Spencer is a leading authority on Islam and the challenges and risks it poses to the free West – and the rest of the world. He has written numerous important volumes on Islam, creeping sharia, and Muslim terrorism. In his newest book he offers us a panoramic view of 14 centuries of Islamic bloodshed and killing. As he says in the introduction to his book: There is no period since the beginning of Islam that was characterized by large-scale peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. There was no time when mainstream and dominant Islamic authorities taught the equality of non-Muslims with Muslims, or the obsolescence of jihad warfare. There was no Era of Good Feeling, no Golden Age of Tolerance, no Paradise of Proto-Multiculturalism. There has always been, with virtually no interruption, jihad. Strong claims. But Spencer spends 400 pages documenting this in great detail. And all this is due to the life and teachings of Muhammad as recorded in the Qur’an, the hadiths, and the sira. Indeed, both of the major schools of Islam, Sunni and Shi’ite, fully affirm the need to kill the infidel if they refuse to convert or be subjugated. Islamic terror goes back to day one of Islam. As Muhammad said on his deathbed: “I have been made victorious with terror.” Spencer remarks, “It was a fitting summation of his entire public career.” Thus the first chapter of this vital book looks carefully at the role jihad played in the life of Islam’s founder. It is not a pretty read. Damien Mackey’s comment: It needs to be noted that Robert Spencer has, in his book, “Did Muhammad Ever Exist?”, queried the very historical existence of Mohammed, writing, there is "considerable reason to question the historicity of Muhammad." I, myself, have zero belief in the historical reality of Mohammed who was, as I have argued, a fictitious composite. See my various articles on the subject, including: Firmly standing by my opinion on Mohammed (5) Firmly standing by my opinion on Mohammed Robert Spencer continues: And since Muhammad is regarded as the perfect example for all Muslims to follow, his bloodthirsty ways were carefully emulated by his devout adherents ever since. Spreading the faith by the edge of the sword was forever to be standard Muslim practice. Thus by the end of the seventh century, just decades after Muhammad’s death, authoritarian Muslim control extended from North Africa to Central Asia. And the spread of Islam continued apace over the next few centuries. The conquest of Spain and India followed, and the body count continued to mount up. Damien Mackey’s comment: Some of the supposed ‘history’ that follows, needs to be, I think, subjected to some serious forensic scrutiny. Robert Spencer continues: So too did slavery, destruction, bloodshed and dhimmitude. The gory details of ruthless Islamic oppression in these and other regions are carefully related by Spencer, usually relying on accounts written during the time. And the many stories of the enslavement and persecution and pogroms against Christians and Jews make up a big part of all this. While the phrase ‘streets running with rivers of blood’ may involve some poetic license, more than once we read of this being the outcome of Islamic slaughter and carnage. For example, Spencer cites historian Steven Runciman regarding the fall of Constantinople in May of 1453: The Muslims “slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit.” Or consider one contemporary Muslim account of the jihad against Hindus in India in the 14th century. Some 100,000 men had taken refuge on an island along with their families. The Muslims transformed “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers…. Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service at the house of every soldier.” The Islamic warlord Tamerlane, who actually penned an autobiography, spoke of his dilemma as to what to do with a large horde of Hindu prisoners. He went with an easy option, saying this: “One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.” Moving to more recent times, consider the treatment of the Christian Armenians. Late in 1894 a massacre lasting 24 days wiped out 25 villages. People were burned alive, and pregnant women were ripped open and their babies torn to pieces. But much worse was to come. The Armenian genocide, beginning in 1915, resulted in the death of around one and a half million Armenians, 700,000 Greeks, and 275,000 Assyrians. Says Spencer: “Christian communities that had existed since the beginning of Christianity were wiped out. Constantinople, fifty percent Christian even in 1914, is today 99.99 percent Muslim…. Adolf Hitler was impressed with the brutal efficiency of how the Turks answered their ‘Armenian question’.” He also looks at the Islamic war against Israel. He recounts how the Soviet KGB invented the fiction of the Palestinian people (there long had been a region known by the name of Palestine, but never a people or an ethnicity). The Soviets also helped to form the PLO and carefully mentored Arafat to do their bidding. Spencer quotes a PLO leader who said in 1977, “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state was only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.” He also discusses the formation of Hamas in 1988 and its determination to wipe Israel off the map. He brings things right up to date, looking at Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and September 11. And he reminds us how harmful policies of appeasement and Islamophilia have been in the West. For example, the Catholic church which was once on “the forefront of resistance to the jihad for centuries” has begun to cave, especially under the current Pope, who has become an avid defender of Islam and the Qur’an. And of course leaders like Obama were committed to being apologists for Islam, seeking to advance their cause at home and abroad. Thankfully today much of this is being turned around. As Spencer reminds us, “at its height, the Islamic State controlled a territory larger than Great Britain… [But] within a year of the beginning of the Trump presidency, the Islamic State had lost ninety-eight percent of its territory.” All up this book makes for sickening and gruesome reading. Here we have example after example of 1400 years of bloodshed, murder, rape, pillaging, enslavement and terror – all proudly and decidedly done in the name of Islam. The simple truth is this: the history of Islam is the history of jihad. When Muslim jihadists screaming “Allahu Akbar” mow down innocent men, women and children on the streets and sidewalks of Nice or London, or stab them to death in Brussels or Melbourne, they are simply doing what Islam has always done. Their acts of terrorism are simply a continuation of what Muhammad began, and what has always been the MO of the political ideology known as Islam. We all owe Robert Spencer a debt of gratitude for bringing together in one volume this stomach-turning but necessary story of what Islam really is all about. Just as there were countless “useful idiots” who promoted and made excuses for godless, totalitarian communism, so too there are also plenty of apologists for, and clueless defenders of, the deadly political ideology of Islam. Hopefully this book will help to change that to some extent.

Monday, January 13, 2025

Jimmy Carter carried off with John Lennon’s empty sky song

by Damien F. Mackey “Imagine is not just sentimental waffle. It is dangerous sentimental waffle. It asks nothing from us. The song allows us to feel morally superior while doing absolutely nothing. Nobody sensible believes any of it. We get to imagine a world of harmony with others where we don’t have to change”. Michael Jensen Some decades ago I perchanced to walk in to a concelebrated (five priests at the altar) Requiem Mass for a deceased nun at St. Patrick’s, Sydney. The Mass concluded with the popular John Lennon song, “Imagine”, which I had always considered to be an atheistic anthem, “no heaven”, “no hell”, “no religion”, hence, presumably, no God. Now I began to wonder if I had heard the lyrics correctly. Perhaps I was missing out on something. Well, if the reverend Michael Jensen is correct, in his article for The Daily Telegraph (January 14, 2025, Opinion 13), “Carter was a good man, but Imagine was an awful song”, my first instincts about John Lennon’s son were perfectly correct. Here is what Michael Jensen, the rector at St. Mark’s Anglican Church, Darling Point, has written about it: I admire former President Jimmy Carter as a man who exemplified what it is to be a follower of Jesus. He gave himself in humble service. He taught Sunday school until well into his 90’s. But I have to say I was completely flummoxed by the choice of John Lennon’s Imagine as one of the “hymns” for his funeral service in Washington’s National Cathedral. According to some reports, it was Carter’s own choice. It’s a weird choice for the overt believer Carter was. Imagine is a song of yearning for a world without religion and an afterlife. It is not quite an atheist fantasy, but it is close. It’s sadly become a staple of secular seasonal singalongs for when we’ve run out of songs about reindeer and obese guys dressed in red. But that’s not what gets up my nose about Imagine. Imagine is not just sentimental waffle. It is dangerous sentimental waffle. It asks nothing from us. The song allows us to feel morally superior while doing absolutely nothing. Nobody sensible believes any of it. We get to imagine a world of harmony with others where we don’t have to change. We get to imagine a world of no consequences. Certainly, you don’t see people singing the song and then giving up the idea of national borders or giving away all their possessions. John Lennon himself didn’t believe it. He was a man who mocked disabled people, mistreated his wives, neglected his son, and had an airconditioning system for his fur coats in his vast apartment in New York. Imagine no possessions? Yeah, right. Easy if you try. Living life in peace? He couldn’t even keep four guys from Liverpool together. [End of quote] The Beatles featured the infamous British arch-Satanist, Aleister Crowley (d. 1947), “the wickedest man in the world”, on the cover of their Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album, and there are rumours that John Lennon himself had dedicated his soul to the devil in order to achieve serious fame and success. Crowleyism was a huge fad at the time, as David Bowie has pointed out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zX0ZVQhEnEc Michael Jensen concludes his article: Taken literally, Imagine is the kind of insipid vision for world peace that leads to totalitarian mass murder At the time Lennon was writing this hymn to an empty sky, the authoritarian atheistic regimes of the left in the USSR, Eastern Europe, and China held millions of people under the jackboot in the name of ‘the brotherhood of man’ [a quote from Imagine]. It was obvious even in 1970 that Communism was the kind of guff only a Western intellectual would think was a good idea. That’s not to say that military dictatorships, rampant unchecked capitalism, colonialism and theocracies don’t also have blood on their hands. But the real flaw in Imagine I that it confuses a political problem with a spiritual one. It is ludicrous to suppose that if we just change political structures, we’ll live in peace and harmony. What we need to imagine is a world in which we ourselves are changed. We don’t do this by imagining God into non-existence, but by turning to him – as Jimmy Carter himself would no doubt have agreed.