And perhaps also his corresponding site for Golgotha, even though I had been hostile to it at first. But aspects of how he makes the argument are still wrong.
First because Zion the City of David was not Jerusalem at all but Bethlehem. But what that means is verses saying the Ark was taken out of the City of David when placed in the Temple are no longer against Cornuke's site. I do believe what we today call the Old City was Jebus, and perhaps remained the entirety of Jerusalem until the return from Captivity. Perhaps Nob and Gibeon were what we now call The Temple Mount?
Another argument against Cornuke's site is saying a threshing floor wouldn't be near a Spring because of contamination risks. But I have also argued that The Temple wasn't on the threshing floor, the threshing floor must be east of Jerusalem since Yahuah stopped there approaching Jerusalem. Maybe 1 Chronicles 3:1 is just saying aspects of the Construction began there, perhaps materials were built and ritually purified there before being moved into the city. Genesis 22 tells me that Moriah is the site of the Crucifixion not The Temple.
Stephen in Acts 7:44-50 says Solomon didn't follow David's intent for The Temple. I think the Eschatological Tabernacle will be Zion.
As far as if what we today call the Gihon Spring is the Biblical Gihon, well what the name Gihon refers to is the most confusing subject of all, since it's a River in Genesis 2. And if you don't think that's the same Gihon then you can't prove the Gihon associated with Solomon's coronation is the same one associated with Hezekiah either.
I still think it's possible the first and second Temples weren't on the same spot. If Cornuke's site is only one of them it's probably Solomon's. The thing is so much debate about The Temple focuses on what Mountain or Hill it was built on when I suspect Solomon's Temple wasn't on a mountain at all, I think when he was at the High Place at Gideon Yahuah made him realize the Tabernacle shouldn't be on a High Place.
I spent over a year being very interested in the theory that The Temple was were Justinian built the Nea Eklessia of the Theotokos, where now stands the Armenian Church of the Archangels and the Garden of the Resurrection. And I still think Justinian might have believed he was rebuilding The Temple. But there are some issues with this argument.
They use quotes from Medieval Rabbis saying the Gentiles never built on the site of The Temple, maybe the Nea had been forgotten by the Jews by that time, but it's also possible the "Market of the Jews" actually refereed to the Old City not what we now call the Jewish Quarter.
And the thing about the orientation of that first century synagogue is, I don't think the idea of needing to Pray in the direction of The Temple existed yet in the first century, neither Testament of The Bible alludes to such an idea. I think it's a post 70 AD Rabbinic custom that influenced the development of Islam.
I think maybe the next archeological mystery Cornuke should tackle is The Nativity, I don't think Jesus was born at the traditional site of the Nativity which was an Adonis Cave. I've talked about how the Church of St David by King David's Wells claims to be where David was buried, well right by it is a Church of St Joseph. I believe Jesus was born in a House Joseph owned. And Conruke could also look for the Migdol Eder while he's at it.
I don't agree with the traditional site of Kiriath-Jearim either, since it's too far north. As a city that like Jebus marked the border between Benjamin and Judah I think it was probably on close to the same latitude as the Old City. But since it's ultimately on Judah's side unlike Jebus which was on Benjamin's side, that makes it if anything a little south of the Old City.
If it was west of Jebus, then I think it may have been on what we today know as the Western hill, primarily south of the modern Zion Gate of Suiliman's Wall. But if it was East of Jebus, then perhaps the Ark once rested where Jesus was buried,. A possibility I consider symbolically interesting since one of the few times that Hebrew word for Ark is used in reference to something other then The Ark is also the first time it's used, in the last verse of Genesis where the KJV translates it "Coffin" referring to the burial of Joseph who was a type of Christ.
Friday, December 28, 2018
Thursday, December 6, 2018
There is also a Bethulah Pregnancy in The Hebrew Bible.
The Prophets of Ancient Israel refereed often to The Daughter of Zion.
In 2 Kings 19:22, Isaiah 37:22 and Lamentations 2:13 she is explicitly refereed to as a Bethulah, translated Virgin in the KJV.
But in Jeremiah 4:21 and Micah 4:10 she travails in childbirth.
Jeremiah specifically says both things.
So I've shown in the past that Almah implies Virginity, and I've shown that other objections to viewing Isaiah 7-8 as Messianic don't hold up. And now I've shown that there is an implied Bethulah Birth in Bible Prophecy as well.
So make no mistake, The Virgin Birth is rooted in The Hebrew Bible.
In 2 Kings 19:22, Isaiah 37:22 and Lamentations 2:13 she is explicitly refereed to as a Bethulah, translated Virgin in the KJV.
But in Jeremiah 4:21 and Micah 4:10 she travails in childbirth.
Jeremiah specifically says both things.
So I've shown in the past that Almah implies Virginity, and I've shown that other objections to viewing Isaiah 7-8 as Messianic don't hold up. And now I've shown that there is an implied Bethulah Birth in Bible Prophecy as well.
So make no mistake, The Virgin Birth is rooted in The Hebrew Bible.
Monday, December 3, 2018
The Mother of Harlots
The pastor I do not like to name did a sermon on the Whore of Babylon once. This sermon focused specifically on her being called the "Mother of Harlots". He views the Mother Whore as being the Roman Catholic Church (even though he's Futurist not Hisotricist), and the other Harlots as being other denominations of Christianity who broke off from Rome. He is one of those Independent Baptists who insists the Baptists have some secret independent Apostolic Succession and so does not descend from Rome the way mainline Protestants do.
The first daughter harlot in his little timeline was the Eastern Orthodox Church who he says broke off in 1054 AD. It fascinates me how much Protestant and Evangelical Christianity still has such a Western bias of Church History that in-spite of how much they hate the Catholic Church they'll still view what happened at the Great Schism from the Vatican's POV. The Ancient Imperial Church was built on viewing 4 (eventually 5) important Bishoprics as basically equal, one of them left the others and yet westerners insist on viewing the east, where Christianity started and where they spoke the same language the New Testament was written in, as the ones who left the existing Church to start a new one. Ryan Reeves on YouTube does some of the same kinds of things but understands more of the nuances then this nut. Reeves points out how the Bishops of Rome were technically subjects of the Eastern Emperors right up until the Schisim happened, you couldn't become Bishop of Rome without the Emperor's approval.
This Pastor also says the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine, because it suits him to give single individuals the credit for all denominations he rejects. It was Constantine who moved the Empire's Capital to Constantinople which he founded, so if any Bishopric was founded by him it's that one. Though the Bishops of Constantinople claim succession from Andrew who was traditionally Martyred in Greece near Corinth, and they have an alleged Pre-Nicene line. Is it possible Constantine just moved a Bishop there from somewhere else?
Most bad Catholic/Orthodox doctrines were already forming well before Constantine. Including the stuff about Church hierarchy and organization which they love to selectively quote Ignatius and Cyprian in support of. And the Bishops of Rome were already starting to act like they had some primacy over other Bishops.
Thing is, in-spite of all that, for the first over a century it looks to me like the most powerful Bishop in Nicene Christianity was actually the Bishop of Alexandria, often associated with the School of Alexandria. Who BTW were being called Popes already even before Constantine, while Rome didn't use the term Pope till awhile after. In the past I'd mistakenly refereed to Clement and Origen as Bishops of Alexandria, they were not, they were heads of the School (The Greek word for Bishop means overseer, so you could call the person overseeing the School a Bishop, but that's not what people mainly mean by the Bishop of Alexandria).
At the Council of Nicaea both sides were actually lead by Alexandrians, Arius founder of the Arian Heresy was an Alexandrian. But it was the position of the actual Bishop of Alexandria that prevailed, who was named Alexander at the time, Alexander of Alexandria, I'm sure that was never confusing.
Also present at the Council was Alexander's student and soon to be successor Athanasius of Alexandria, who was the chief defender of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity for much of the Fourth Century. The only threats to his power were when Emperors were sympathetic to Arianism, during which time an Arian Bishop of Alexandria was appointed in his place.
The next Nicene Bishop of Alexandria was Peter II (a Peter I is known in Egypt as the last of the martyrs), who is the Pope of Alexandria named in The Edict of Thessalonica which made Christianity the state Religion of the Empire. The Pontiff of Rome is named first, yet the language implies Peter is the real head of the new state religion.
After him came Timothy I who was a president at the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council.
Next was Theophilus of Alexandria, it was during his Bishopric that in 391 Paganism was fully outlawed and the Serapium was destroyed. I also support the theory that during this time the Tomb of Alexander The Great was turned into the Tomb of St Mark.
Theophilus was succeeded by his nephew Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril basically turned his monastic order into a Gang and used them like Storm Troopers in a power struggle with Orestes the Prefect and became the de facto Pharaoh of Egypt. He had Hypatia Murdered during that struggle. Later he waged war against Nestorius orchestrating the sham that was the Council of Ephesus. He also really hated The Jews.
He was succeeded by Dioscorus who orchestrated the even more obviously a shame Second Council of Ephesus. However the downfall of the Alexandrian Bishopric's power within the Empire came at the Council of Chalcedon where Dioscorus was deposed and the Miaphysite Schism happened. From then on the majority of the Coptic Church was Miaphsyte and so Alexandria usually had two Bishops neither of which was able to wield that much power. But thanks to their influence the Churches of Nubia and Ethiopia are at least nominally Miaphysite.
Miaphysite Christianity would wield political Power in the Empire one last time during the reign of Justinian through his wife Theodora. But even during this time John of Ephesus and Jacob Baradaeus were more influential then the Bishops in Egypt.
It's interesting that the Book of Acts gives us shockingly little information on the Early Church's History in Egypt and Alexandria. Acts 2 says Diaspora Jews of Egypt were at Pentacost, but most places alluded to here still have additional Apostolic Missions to them later. Only Egypt lacks any later references to Christians there, any Turkish regions not mentioned later in Acts are covered by the first verse of Peter's Epistle, and Peter himself was in Babylon/Mesopotamia. Simon of Cyene took care of Cyrene and the rest were eventually visited by Paul.
Most references to Egypt in the New Testament are referencing back to the Old Testament, and Acts later has one offhand reference to an Egyptian false prophet also described in Josephus. Apollos is called an Alexandrian, but there is no clear evidence he ever returned to Alexandria after his conversion, and we can't even be certain he was from the Alexandria of Egypt, Asia Minor had two Alexandrias, one was pretty close to Ephesus.
Traditionally Mark the Evangelist founded the Alexandrian Church. But there are contradictory claims about when he arrived, and the Eastern Traditions distinguish him from John Mark and Mark the Cousin of Barnabas. Interestingly there was an early proto-gnostic heretic named Marcus.
Platonism and Gnsoticism flourished in Egypt, Clement of Alexandria and Origen opposed the Gnostics yet showed Platonic influences themselves. Clement even seems to have used material from the above mentioned Heretic Marcus in Stormata.
All this was just an excuse to show how the history of Organized Christianity is more complicated then many Protestants want to make it sound. I ultimately believe there is only one Symbolic Woman in Revelation and she's Israel, Christianity itself is an offshoot of an older religion, Judaism. But Israel was born by coming out of Egypt, Ezekiel 23 emphasizes Mizraim as where Israel's Harlotry began.
The first daughter harlot in his little timeline was the Eastern Orthodox Church who he says broke off in 1054 AD. It fascinates me how much Protestant and Evangelical Christianity still has such a Western bias of Church History that in-spite of how much they hate the Catholic Church they'll still view what happened at the Great Schism from the Vatican's POV. The Ancient Imperial Church was built on viewing 4 (eventually 5) important Bishoprics as basically equal, one of them left the others and yet westerners insist on viewing the east, where Christianity started and where they spoke the same language the New Testament was written in, as the ones who left the existing Church to start a new one. Ryan Reeves on YouTube does some of the same kinds of things but understands more of the nuances then this nut. Reeves points out how the Bishops of Rome were technically subjects of the Eastern Emperors right up until the Schisim happened, you couldn't become Bishop of Rome without the Emperor's approval.
This Pastor also says the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Constantine, because it suits him to give single individuals the credit for all denominations he rejects. It was Constantine who moved the Empire's Capital to Constantinople which he founded, so if any Bishopric was founded by him it's that one. Though the Bishops of Constantinople claim succession from Andrew who was traditionally Martyred in Greece near Corinth, and they have an alleged Pre-Nicene line. Is it possible Constantine just moved a Bishop there from somewhere else?
Most bad Catholic/Orthodox doctrines were already forming well before Constantine. Including the stuff about Church hierarchy and organization which they love to selectively quote Ignatius and Cyprian in support of. And the Bishops of Rome were already starting to act like they had some primacy over other Bishops.
Thing is, in-spite of all that, for the first over a century it looks to me like the most powerful Bishop in Nicene Christianity was actually the Bishop of Alexandria, often associated with the School of Alexandria. Who BTW were being called Popes already even before Constantine, while Rome didn't use the term Pope till awhile after. In the past I'd mistakenly refereed to Clement and Origen as Bishops of Alexandria, they were not, they were heads of the School (The Greek word for Bishop means overseer, so you could call the person overseeing the School a Bishop, but that's not what people mainly mean by the Bishop of Alexandria).
At the Council of Nicaea both sides were actually lead by Alexandrians, Arius founder of the Arian Heresy was an Alexandrian. But it was the position of the actual Bishop of Alexandria that prevailed, who was named Alexander at the time, Alexander of Alexandria, I'm sure that was never confusing.
Also present at the Council was Alexander's student and soon to be successor Athanasius of Alexandria, who was the chief defender of the Nicene understanding of the Trinity for much of the Fourth Century. The only threats to his power were when Emperors were sympathetic to Arianism, during which time an Arian Bishop of Alexandria was appointed in his place.
The next Nicene Bishop of Alexandria was Peter II (a Peter I is known in Egypt as the last of the martyrs), who is the Pope of Alexandria named in The Edict of Thessalonica which made Christianity the state Religion of the Empire. The Pontiff of Rome is named first, yet the language implies Peter is the real head of the new state religion.
After him came Timothy I who was a president at the Council of Constantinople, the Second Ecumenical Council.
Next was Theophilus of Alexandria, it was during his Bishopric that in 391 Paganism was fully outlawed and the Serapium was destroyed. I also support the theory that during this time the Tomb of Alexander The Great was turned into the Tomb of St Mark.
Theophilus was succeeded by his nephew Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril basically turned his monastic order into a Gang and used them like Storm Troopers in a power struggle with Orestes the Prefect and became the de facto Pharaoh of Egypt. He had Hypatia Murdered during that struggle. Later he waged war against Nestorius orchestrating the sham that was the Council of Ephesus. He also really hated The Jews.
He was succeeded by Dioscorus who orchestrated the even more obviously a shame Second Council of Ephesus. However the downfall of the Alexandrian Bishopric's power within the Empire came at the Council of Chalcedon where Dioscorus was deposed and the Miaphysite Schism happened. From then on the majority of the Coptic Church was Miaphsyte and so Alexandria usually had two Bishops neither of which was able to wield that much power. But thanks to their influence the Churches of Nubia and Ethiopia are at least nominally Miaphysite.
Miaphysite Christianity would wield political Power in the Empire one last time during the reign of Justinian through his wife Theodora. But even during this time John of Ephesus and Jacob Baradaeus were more influential then the Bishops in Egypt.
It's interesting that the Book of Acts gives us shockingly little information on the Early Church's History in Egypt and Alexandria. Acts 2 says Diaspora Jews of Egypt were at Pentacost, but most places alluded to here still have additional Apostolic Missions to them later. Only Egypt lacks any later references to Christians there, any Turkish regions not mentioned later in Acts are covered by the first verse of Peter's Epistle, and Peter himself was in Babylon/Mesopotamia. Simon of Cyene took care of Cyrene and the rest were eventually visited by Paul.
Most references to Egypt in the New Testament are referencing back to the Old Testament, and Acts later has one offhand reference to an Egyptian false prophet also described in Josephus. Apollos is called an Alexandrian, but there is no clear evidence he ever returned to Alexandria after his conversion, and we can't even be certain he was from the Alexandria of Egypt, Asia Minor had two Alexandrias, one was pretty close to Ephesus.
Traditionally Mark the Evangelist founded the Alexandrian Church. But there are contradictory claims about when he arrived, and the Eastern Traditions distinguish him from John Mark and Mark the Cousin of Barnabas. Interestingly there was an early proto-gnostic heretic named Marcus.
Platonism and Gnsoticism flourished in Egypt, Clement of Alexandria and Origen opposed the Gnostics yet showed Platonic influences themselves. Clement even seems to have used material from the above mentioned Heretic Marcus in Stormata.
All this was just an excuse to show how the history of Organized Christianity is more complicated then many Protestants want to make it sound. I ultimately believe there is only one Symbolic Woman in Revelation and she's Israel, Christianity itself is an offshoot of an older religion, Judaism. But Israel was born by coming out of Egypt, Ezekiel 23 emphasizes Mizraim as where Israel's Harlotry began.
Sunday, December 2, 2018
Different spellings of Jerusalem.
I no longer believe The Beloved Disciple who wrote the Fourth Gospel is John Son of Zebedee. But I've also considered that it was also a different John who wrote Revelation. And so I've ironically opened myself to the possibility that all five traditional John books do have the same author, just not who we've traditionally thought. However this post isn't even mainly about that but something I noticed while looking into all that.
One of the arguments against Revelation and the Fourth Gospel having the same author is their using different spellings for Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem has two different entries in the Greek Strongs Concordance that aren't even right next to each other. The Fourth Gospel uses 2414 while Revelation uses 2419. Thing is, it's only the books attributed to John that strongly go either/or on how to spell Jerusalem in Greek, the Synoptics, Acts, and Galatians use both of them. So if anything the way the John books are selective about using these spellings could be evidence of their continuity.
The core difference between the two spellings I feel is the Revelation spelling much better fits the presumed connection to Salem, while the Fourth Gospel spelling looks more like it wants us to think the city was named after Solomon. Hence forth I shall refer to the Revelation spelling as Ierousalem and the Fourth Gospel spelling as Ierosolum.
Revelation only uses the name Ierousalem when referring to New Jerusalem, Old or Terrestrial Jerusalem is never refereed to by name, even if it's a positive reference like the Beloved City in Revelation 20. The Fourth Gospel however is solely about Terrestrial Jerusalem where Jesus preached and was Crucified. Now other Biblical Authors definitively do use Ierousalem of the terrestrial city, so this distinction could ultimately be one only this Author wanted to make and even then only if they had the same author.
Mark uses Ierousalem only in 11:1. Mark and Matthew don't mention Jerusalem by name in their Olivte Discourse but Luke does and uses Ierousalem. Matthew uses Ierousalem only in Matthew 23:37, a poetically eschatological passage that comes soon before the Olvite Discourse, Luke 19:11 also uses Ierousalem. Hebrews 12:22 uses Ierousalem as does Galatians 4:25-26.
Luke 23:28 is the only time any Gospel uses Ierousalem during a Passion narrative. In that verse Luke refers to "Daughters of Ierousalem" so it is being poetic. The only time Ierosolum is used in the Passion narrative is Luke 23:7 saying that Herod Antipas was there for the Passover.
If Matthew was mainly copying Mark in their parallel passages as mainstream scholars claim, and both were originally in Greek, then it's odd that Matthew 21:1 uses a different spelling then Mark 11:1 even though Matthew uses that spelling elsewhere and so clearly wasn't opposed to it.
What if the two spelling are in some way distinct in what they geographically refer to? Two different places both probably within the city limits of modern Jerusalem, or one being a broader district within which the other is a more specific area? Could it be one refers to the "Old City" and the other Nehemiah/Herod's Jerusalem? In such cases both would still equally be where the above Matthew/Mark parallel implies, west of Bethany, Bethphage and the Mt of Olives.
Ierosolum definitely includes wherever The Temple was since it's always used of the Cleansing of The Temple, and Jesus presentation at the Temple in Luke 2:22. Though three verses later Simeon is identified as a man in or of Ierousalem. Later Anna spoke of Jesus Birth to "all them that looked for redemption in Ierousalem".
In the other Nativity narrative, Matthew 2:1-3 uses Ierosolum of the city the Magi arrived in when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Actually Luke may be the only writer seemingly using them interchangeably, which could be a product of him being the only one who's native language wasn't Semitic, or that he was compiling this from many different older records and eye witness accounts.
Paul uses Ierosolum in Galatians 1 and 2 about his time in contemporary Jerusalem even though Luke uses Ierousalem in Acts 15:2-4, yet Paul uses Ierousalem in Galatians 4 when speaking more poetically/eschatologically. Paul uses Ierousalem of contemporary Jerusalem only when he seems to be identifying the Church there, not when it's simply a location where events happened.
So with all those nuances in mind. This spellings of Jerusalem issues maybe doesn't tell us one way or the other if Revelation and The Fourth Gospel could have the same author.
Does the Septuagint also use these two different spellings? I don't trust the Septuagint but I'm still curious.
The Hebrew Bible also has two different spellings. The Aramaic form Yerusalem which Ierousalem is clearly a Hellenic transliteration of, they are the basis for the modern English standard Jerusalem. However Hebrew Daniel and the pre-Captivity Prophets and the original History of David and Solomon and the references that exist in Joshua and Judges all use Yerushalaim.
Given my theory that the return from Captivity re-built the City on the modern "Temple Mount" and Western Hill even though they were never part of Solomonic Jerusalem, this difference in spelling I think could actually mean more then just the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. Especially since Salem does exist in Hebrew on it's own.
Ierosolum doesn't work as well as a direct transliteration of Yerushalaim. But since Ierosolum looks like it could cryptically have the meaning of being the original Solomonic city, it as equivalent to Yerushalaim works.
One of the arguments against Revelation and the Fourth Gospel having the same author is their using different spellings for Jerusalem. Indeed Jerusalem has two different entries in the Greek Strongs Concordance that aren't even right next to each other. The Fourth Gospel uses 2414 while Revelation uses 2419. Thing is, it's only the books attributed to John that strongly go either/or on how to spell Jerusalem in Greek, the Synoptics, Acts, and Galatians use both of them. So if anything the way the John books are selective about using these spellings could be evidence of their continuity.
The core difference between the two spellings I feel is the Revelation spelling much better fits the presumed connection to Salem, while the Fourth Gospel spelling looks more like it wants us to think the city was named after Solomon. Hence forth I shall refer to the Revelation spelling as Ierousalem and the Fourth Gospel spelling as Ierosolum.
Revelation only uses the name Ierousalem when referring to New Jerusalem, Old or Terrestrial Jerusalem is never refereed to by name, even if it's a positive reference like the Beloved City in Revelation 20. The Fourth Gospel however is solely about Terrestrial Jerusalem where Jesus preached and was Crucified. Now other Biblical Authors definitively do use Ierousalem of the terrestrial city, so this distinction could ultimately be one only this Author wanted to make and even then only if they had the same author.
Mark uses Ierousalem only in 11:1. Mark and Matthew don't mention Jerusalem by name in their Olivte Discourse but Luke does and uses Ierousalem. Matthew uses Ierousalem only in Matthew 23:37, a poetically eschatological passage that comes soon before the Olvite Discourse, Luke 19:11 also uses Ierousalem. Hebrews 12:22 uses Ierousalem as does Galatians 4:25-26.
Luke 23:28 is the only time any Gospel uses Ierousalem during a Passion narrative. In that verse Luke refers to "Daughters of Ierousalem" so it is being poetic. The only time Ierosolum is used in the Passion narrative is Luke 23:7 saying that Herod Antipas was there for the Passover.
If Matthew was mainly copying Mark in their parallel passages as mainstream scholars claim, and both were originally in Greek, then it's odd that Matthew 21:1 uses a different spelling then Mark 11:1 even though Matthew uses that spelling elsewhere and so clearly wasn't opposed to it.
What if the two spelling are in some way distinct in what they geographically refer to? Two different places both probably within the city limits of modern Jerusalem, or one being a broader district within which the other is a more specific area? Could it be one refers to the "Old City" and the other Nehemiah/Herod's Jerusalem? In such cases both would still equally be where the above Matthew/Mark parallel implies, west of Bethany, Bethphage and the Mt of Olives.
Ierosolum definitely includes wherever The Temple was since it's always used of the Cleansing of The Temple, and Jesus presentation at the Temple in Luke 2:22. Though three verses later Simeon is identified as a man in or of Ierousalem. Later Anna spoke of Jesus Birth to "all them that looked for redemption in Ierousalem".
In the other Nativity narrative, Matthew 2:1-3 uses Ierosolum of the city the Magi arrived in when Jesus was born in Bethlehem.
Actually Luke may be the only writer seemingly using them interchangeably, which could be a product of him being the only one who's native language wasn't Semitic, or that he was compiling this from many different older records and eye witness accounts.
Paul uses Ierosolum in Galatians 1 and 2 about his time in contemporary Jerusalem even though Luke uses Ierousalem in Acts 15:2-4, yet Paul uses Ierousalem in Galatians 4 when speaking more poetically/eschatologically. Paul uses Ierousalem of contemporary Jerusalem only when he seems to be identifying the Church there, not when it's simply a location where events happened.
So with all those nuances in mind. This spellings of Jerusalem issues maybe doesn't tell us one way or the other if Revelation and The Fourth Gospel could have the same author.
Does the Septuagint also use these two different spellings? I don't trust the Septuagint but I'm still curious.
The Hebrew Bible also has two different spellings. The Aramaic form Yerusalem which Ierousalem is clearly a Hellenic transliteration of, they are the basis for the modern English standard Jerusalem. However Hebrew Daniel and the pre-Captivity Prophets and the original History of David and Solomon and the references that exist in Joshua and Judges all use Yerushalaim.
Given my theory that the return from Captivity re-built the City on the modern "Temple Mount" and Western Hill even though they were never part of Solomonic Jerusalem, this difference in spelling I think could actually mean more then just the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. Especially since Salem does exist in Hebrew on it's own.
Ierosolum doesn't work as well as a direct transliteration of Yerushalaim. But since Ierosolum looks like it could cryptically have the meaning of being the original Solomonic city, it as equivalent to Yerushalaim works.
Update April 2022: Since I originally wrote this I've changed my mind on that Temple Mount skepticism I alluded to, I do believe Solomon's Temple was on the Temple Mount just probably not the Dome of the Rock specifically.
I've also learned as far as Archeological Inscriptions go which Hebrew variant is actually older is the opposite of what simply looking at the Masoretic Text implies, Yerushalaim seems to be a Hasmonean era development that simply how these books were copied over time. It could be Aramaic Danile and Post-Captivity texts maintained the older form more often because there were the ones written in Aramaic Script originally rather then Paleo Hebrew.
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Shepherds In Winter
The only real Biblical argument against a winter birth for Jesus is a claim that Shepherds would not have had their flocks outdoors in winter. These people are forgetting that Israel does not have the climate of Northern Europe or America.
James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
But also as shown in my Magi and the Census post, I think it's a wrong assumption that they traveled to Bethlehem just before Mary gave birth, I think they had been there for months already.
Genesis 31:38-40: "This twenty years have I been with thee; thy ewes and thy she goats have not cast their young, and the rams of thy flock have I not eaten. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night. That which was torn of beasts I brought not unto thee; I bare the loss of it; of my hand didst thou require it, whether stolen by day, or stolen by night. Thus I was; in the day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night; and my sleep departed from mine eyes. "Jacob was at this time much further north then Bethlehem, yet he was engaged in Shepherding during the winter. So using the no shepherds in winter argument calls Scripture a liar.
James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.Also there is Canon H.B Tristram
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months (James Kelso, An Archaeologist Looks At The Gospels, p. 23-24).
“A little knoll of olive trees surrounding a group of ruins marks the traditional site of the angels’ appearance to the shepherds, Migdol Eder, ‘the tower of the flock’. But the place where the first ‘Gloria in excelsis’ was sung was probably further east, where the bare hills of the wilderness begin, and a large tract is claimed by the Bethlehemites as a common pasturage. Here the sheep would be too far off to be led into the town at night; and exposed to the attacks of wild beasts from the eastern ravines, where the wolf and the jackal still prowl, and where of old the yet more formidable lion and bear had their covert, they needed the shepherds’ watchful care during the winter and spring months, when alone pasturage is to be found on these bleak uplands“. Picturesque Palestine Vol 1 page 124Also note this excerpt from Messianic Jewish Scholar Alfred Edersheim:
“That the Messiah was 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.I've also seen it claimed by some that Israel is "impassable" during winter, and Mary and Joseph couldn't have traveled south at this time. But John 10:21-22 tells us Jesus traveled to Jerusalem to keep the feast of the Dedication/Hannukah. Indeed I take from this passage that Hanukkah while not one of the required pilgrimage days became an unofficial additional one, since it was intimately about Jerusalem and The Temple.
This Migdal Eder, was not the watch tower for ordinary flocks which pastured on the barren sheep ground beyond Bethlehem, but lay close to town, on the road to Jerusalem. A passage in the Mishnah 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, no ordinary Shepherds. The latter were under the ban of Rabbinism on the account of their necessary isolation from religious ordinances, and their manner of life, which rendered strict legal observances unlikely, if not absolutely impossible.
The same Mishnic also leads us to infer, that these flocks lay out all year round , since they are spoken of as in the fields thirty days before Passover- that is, in the month of February, when in Palestine the average rainfall is nearly greatest. Thus Jewish traditions in some dim manner apprehended the first revelation of the Messiah from Migdal Eder, where Shepherds watched the Temple flocks all year round. Of the deep symbolic significance of such a coincidence, it is needless to speak -The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah By Alfred Edersheim
But also as shown in my Magi and the Census post, I think it's a wrong assumption that they traveled to Bethlehem just before Mary gave birth, I think they had been there for months already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)