Posts by kepler

39

Josephus in "the Jewish War" remarks on the nature of eternal life

by kepler in

there is a corresponding topic on science and the immortal soul that reminded me of something that i had encountered in the 7th chapter of josephus's history of the roman campaigns in judea, "the jewish war".

one version of this is available in penguin classics, for example.

"among the jews are three schools of thought, whose adherents are called pharisees, sadducees and essenes respectively...".

kepler

There is a corresponding topic on science and the immortal soul that reminded me of something that I had encountered in the 7th chapter of Josephus's history of the Roman campaigns in Judea, "The Jewish War". One version of this is available in Penguin Classics, for example.

"Among the Jews are three schools of thought, whose adherents are called Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes respectively..."

There is a lot to say about each, but the discussion about immortality or the lack of it has some bearing for this forum, considering how much of the theological arguments are predicated or extrapolated from Jewish beliefs - and how practices or documents of the Essenes are cited in defense of positions taken by religious thinkers of our own day. For the sake of discussion, we will include residents of Brooklyn with large printing presses.

Now it is reported by Josephus as well that the Pharisees are "held to be the most authoritative exponents of the Law and count as the leading sect. They ascribe everything to Fate or to God: the decision whether or not to do right rests mainly with men, but in every action Fate takes some part. Every soul is perishable, but only the souls of good men pass into other bodies, the souls of bad men being subjected to eternal punishment.

"The Sadducees, the second order, deny Fate altogether and hold that God is incapable of eitehr committing sin or seeing it; they say that men are free to choose between good and evil , and each individual must decide which he will follow. the permanence of the soul, punishments in Hades and rewards they deny utterly."

Now back to the Essenes:

"It is indeed their unshakable conviction that bodies are corruptible and the material composing them impermanent, whereas souls remain immortal forever. Coming frort from the most rarefied ethe they are trapped in the prison house of the body as if drawn by one of nature's spells; but once freed from the bonds of the flesh, ais if released after years of slavery, they rejoice and soar aloft. Teaching the same doctrine as the sons of Greece, they declare that for the good souls there waits a home beyond the ocean, a place troubled by neither rain nor snow nor heat, but refreshed by the zephyr that blows from the ocean. Bad souls they consign to a darksome, stormy abyss, full of punishments that know no end. I think the Greeks had the same notion when they assigned to their brave men, whom they call heroes or demigods, the Islands of the Blessed, and to the souls of the wicked the place of the impious in Hades, where according to their stories certain people undergo punishment - Sisysphus and Tantalus... and the like. They tell these tales firstly because they believe souls to be immortal, and secondly, in the hope of encouraging virtue and discouraging vice, since the good become better in their lifetime in the hope of a reward after death, and the propensitites of the bad are restrained by the fear that, even if they are not caught in this life, after their dissoluiton they will undergo eternal punishment. This then is the religious teaching of the Essenes about the soul, providing an inescapable inducement to those who have once tasted their wisdom."

----

I would say that Josephus here gives us a minimum of three views of Jewish thought contemporary to Jesus with regard to eternal life and the immortality of the soul. There were probably more, but what is significant here is that NONE of the groups named put any stock in the idea of bodily resurrection and life on a paradise earth. In fact, here is Josephus suggesting that many of the ideas about this matter came from the Diaspora or else directly from the Greeks, perhaps arising over the century and a half of their rule after the reign of Alexander.

From my own view, the accounts in the OT of the immortality of the soul are infrequent. Hezekiah in Isaiah seems to ruminate about an afterlife, but it never seems to occur to Job something of that nature. Separate from that, the Egyptians were obsessed with bringing the existing order into eternal life, but the Mesopotamian people seemed sceptical.

The NT certainly is about eternal life, but there are mixed signals about its nature. Yet in Mark 12:18 and onward, Sadducees confront Jesus about what is supposed to happen in the afterlife, the afterlife in which, according to Josephus, the Sadducees do not belief. Jesus replies that they "do not understand the scriptures or the power of God. For when they rise from the dead, men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven."

Paul and the apostolic writers elaborate on Christian beliefs of the resurrection, of course, but to me the descriptions of the beliefs of the Essenes match the words of Jesus more closely than the other two principal belief systems.

Comments?

14

Catholic priest condemns & blasts Watchtower Society...

by Newly Enlightened in

with english subtitles.

i found this interesting that the catholics are blasting wtbt$ and demanding the wtbt$ recall their misquoted information from the reasoning book under subheading of 'cross':.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxybtrrh53u&list=wlgr2qszwt6b2giou9xsths1r7q0qkc_mb.

kepler

I am not a practicing Catholic, but I did attend the oxymoronically named institution known as Catholic parochial schools. I became a Catholic after age 12 subject to circumstances of growing up. And then left with no bitterness other than to say that I thought I should think things out more than I had.

Prior to those five years culminating in high school graduation, I had been exposed to several Protestant traditions and in summer camp one year I read most of the Old Testament on my own. Mystifying.

For those five years in the midwest and the NE of the US, aside from the observing the WTBTS billboards off in Brooklyn from the Staten Island Ferry, on the streets and in the schools and in the churches, the society had ZERO impact on my life or as a topic of discussion - save for the following:

1. It was observed at the time that JW movement was growing very fast.

2. It was observed that the proselytizers on the street probably had a better command of Bible verse than the average Catholic.

Otherwise, no comment.

As far as our instructors in classes were concerned, our parish priests and our religious weeklies or monthlies were concerned, there were better things to do. There were our own personal struggles with grace, upholding our faith, supporting our missions, determining whether we had vocations, maintaining our way of live, conducting ourselves ethically in our faith, learning and upholding it in public and private. There was attending mass, preparing to receive communion.... Debating the war, the Kennedys... Preparing for life. Deciding whether one had a vocation to be a priest, nun or brother - or the obvious rites of spring. You name it. This was true in the midwest or the north east as far as I could tell.

In passing many of my friends growing up and some of my relatives did attend seminaries and some even took holy orders and assumed vows. Many of these were contemplative. My instructors in school were not as priests but as workers in poverty, chastity, obedience - often being assigned overseas to missions in places that are now off the JW yearbook map. Some are still there teaching in schools.

Growing up I was much more aware of the Muhammad Speaks as an evangelical movement. Accousted on the street, I actually paid 50 cents or so for the privilege of his rants. And before I was a Catholic, I was aware of their comic books ( Treasure Chest?) which were far more appealing than the JW equivalents I never saw until I actually became involved with an adherent.

The whole matter has given me much time to reflect on differences between various Christian sects and their heritage from Jewish traditions. And there is clearly enough guilt to go around when it comes to sins of commission. But what I do find in thenarrow band discussion of past atrocities performed by Catholicism or in the name of the Pope is largely a long stream of Anglo-Saxon rationalizations. How else could 19th century WASP society justify itself unless there was a Christian history that got off the rail within decades after Christ had died and then was recovered by a series of Protestant heroes in the 16th to 19th century? Especially if they spoke English.

Imagine looking at this heavenly entitlement for centuries from across the Irish Sea. Or as a native in 17th century New England having a Congregationalist explain what Joshua's exploits meant to them in the new promised land of their own.

We are left with the absurd notion that the Protestant tradition tiptoed across the world and never did any harm to non-European peoples, never worked hand in hand with imperialism or served as its hand maiden. And centuries after Luther when Anglo-Scot evangelism kicked off to share its vision with the world, they moved out into continents that had already learned something of Christ from 16th and 17th century missionaries whose stories I will spare you the details of. For an interesting perspective, see H. G. Wells "Outline of History".

For a tradition that presumes that it is so much more superior, it doesn't seem to leave a vestige in any area for any common hopes. A 21st century Catholic, when speaking of Popes, has the heritage of John XXIII, John Paul II and the prospects for Francis the I. A mythology if you will, but here goes: JP-II as a follower of Christ - and as a Pole - stands up to the Soviet Union and does more than armies to avert Armageddon - something that seems awaited avidly in other quarters with hopes of technicolor broadcast. And Francis, a Jesuit who shows up in Brazil of all places - and three million flock to see him. No coercion. No district convention. He's just there to talk. Bigger than futbol. A get together about half the size of the whole JW movement in one city Brazilian city.

37

HELP NEEDED for the book I'm writing!

by Terry in

i'm about 90% finished on a book i started nine years ago.

it will deal with jehovah's witness policy on conscientious objectors during war time.

from the 1800's through the end of the draft in the early 1970's.. i am also giving a personal biographical account of my own introduction to the religion, process of assimilation and ministry experience.. additionally, i'm working in timelines connecting the 2nd adventist teachings with russell, rutherford and mainstream watchtower doctrines.. .

kepler

Terry,

For about a year and a half now I have been reading and enjoying your well written entries on these topics. I for one will greatly look forward to whatever you manage to run the publication gauntlet with. And as either an aspiring or a frustrated writer myself, I share your sense of dilemma about what to include or what to leave for another volume. Because you indeed have enough material for not one but several more. Slimboyfat and others are right about staying on target. But what is it?

While I have read some of your accounts of your experience with "conscientious objection", for lack of better ready term, I am not sure if that is the best way to introduce a larger reading public to the issues of being a Jehovah's Witness. I am inclined to think it might work better expanded in a second book, a subject that is touched on or introduced in a first.

Taking a position against state policy is a larger issue to the general public. There are pros and cons about pacifism and resistance to "police actions", "interventions" etc. And they still are with us today as similar foreign policy issues arise in a world that does not seem headed for Armageddon but maybe millenia more of what State Department analyst Fukyama once dismissed as "history".

So let me tell a related story with a different slant.

A few years younger than you, but during the same period, I stepped out of line in a different smaller way. While most of us high schoolers were from lower middle class homes, we were working our tails off to get through parochial school and into college. There were only two of us in the whole graduating class that "shoved" the idea and I was one of them. I enlisted into service instead - which left me four years to contemplate that decision too. ... It wasn't that bad. It just put me in a holding tank where I went down a career path unanticipated, tempered by the realization of my own immaturity. Never mind for now, what was my state of mind or rationale, save that somewhere I too was making a statement. It was individual.

Now beside the obvious contrast of conscientious objection or refusal to serve with going in as a "volunteer", there is something else afoot. I was already in an institution that was pervasive and manipulative. And I revolted against it. And then I seethed for four years realizing I had jumped from frying pan into a fire. Where school had thought literacy was critical thinking, the military thought of it as the ability to follow written orders - and especially if you were not an officer and hadn't gone to college.

Now my adolescent decision is not as interesting as yours, but it is individual. Yours was made in part for you by an institution I would have fled.

What the reader should wonder:

Why would that institution have such a hold on you?

Why is it such a flat earth society?

Why are its adherents so ready to squeeze their eyes tight shut about any contrary evidence to what is proclaimed from a printing plant located somewhere in Brooklyn?

What could be so menacing below a bunch of billboards viewed from the Staten Island Ferry?

Why would anyone subscribe to a theology and human hatred akin to that of an H. G. Lovecraft horror story?

You have the credentials of having put out for it with a prison term. You took very good notes on your circumstances and your manipulation. You have examined the psychology of it from both sides, plus the origins and history of it. What's more, I think what you have to tell the world is more than the repeated Pugachev cossack revolt line claiming, "If only we could get word to the Tsar or Tsarina..." Or the Trotskij in exile talking about how much better it would be had he been able to replace or liquidate a bunch of Stalins. Because the roots of this cult are deep in the American system. You've looked at it too.

The introduction should not be the details of your stand-in for Rutherford's successors, but why it was done or how could this institution have stood as a viable alternative to you or others spending lifetimes in its sway.

Now get to work!

27

Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus

by kepler in

over a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.

it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".

since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.

kepler

G. C. McCaulay translation of Herodotus from the Greek - e.g., see Barnes and Noble edition, Donald Lateiner, editor.

Book VIII, paragraph 114.

During this time, while Mardonios was selecting his army and Xerxes was in Thessaly, there had come an oracle from Delphi to the Lacedemonians [Spartans], bidding them ask satisfaction from Xerxes for the murder of Leonidas and accept that which should be given to him. The Spartans therefore sent a heraldas quickly as possible , who having found the whole army still in Thessaly came into the presence of Xerxes a dn spoke these words:

"O KING OF THE MEDES, the Lacedemonians and the sons of Heracles of Sparta demand satisfaction for murder, because you killed their king, finding in defense of Hellas." He laughed and then kept silence some time.

Bobcat, Vidqun,

Did you happen to notice something?

Forget the scholarly opinion. Read Thucydides and Herodotus for yourself. In Greek if possible.

27

Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus

by kepler in

over a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.

it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".

since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.

kepler

Bobcat,

"I had posted a lengthy (by my typing standards) list of possible evidences that Darius the Mede was one and the same as Cyrus the Persian."

That would make sense in a way. If I were having a conversation over dinner with someone who called Cyrus, "Darius", I could say something like, "Do you mean Cyrus?" But we don't get that opportunity and the narrator continues to make strange claims. Others have suggested the advance man or general Gobyras. But Belshazzar was not necessarily at dinner in Babylon. He might have been killed or captured outside of the city earlier at Opis. Plus, he wasn't the son of Nebuchadnazzar or even Chaldean. His father was from an Assyrian town to the north.

Nice hearing from you as well. - Kepler.

Vidqun,

The bit about Nabonidus being an Assyrian would lend credence to dining room talk in his reign in Aramaic. Just like with the Assyrian court. But that does not necessarily make Aramaic "the official language" of Babylon. Akkadian was the official diplomatic language in the Mideast for centuries, maybe a millenium. And it originated in the Babylonian region. All indications - Nebuchadnazzar spoke Akkadian; not Aramaic. Since he and his father fought a war with the Assyrians, he probably despised it.

That language or writing cannot be dated by vocabulary... Really? We do it every day. I date myself by calling wheelcovers "hubcaps". If I place a zero before the first 9 dates of the month, I move my correspondence out of the 19th century. If I wrote an undated letter in English and speak of "sputnik? or the atomic bomb, I leave clues for historians. Should the author of Daniel speak satraps at the court of Nebuchadnazzar in Aramaic, or "Darius the Mede", he leaves in history's dust that even a tenderfoot can follow. "Darius" is a variation on the Greek Darieos, but the Persian is more like Daryvosh. Name another Mede named Darius. You may as well look for 19th century Brits named Washington or Jefferson. "Darius" was an enemy of the Mede state.

Phizzy, mP,...

Have enjoyed reading your comments on a number of topics. Sorry I haven't been around as much to exchange views. But so long as the target is still on the move, there are always more rich veins waiting to be mined.

Best regards,

Kepler

27

Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus

by kepler in

over a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.

it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".

since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.

kepler

Sorry. Resubmitted/edited for clarity.

Sounds like a lot of the contributors to this discussion have very similar ideas about the book of Daniel. At the very least, that it sounds credible that it was written as late as 160 BC. And one takes that as a starting hypothesis, there is not much that argues against it - unless you assume that it was really originally written in KJW or NWT (sic) English ( E.g., Daniel in a lion's pit going on about "the end of this system of things").

But I myself seem to learn from thesis and counter thesis in debate. And I see some possibilities with this statement here:

"Official Aramaic, an international language, was spoken in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Court. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, few Jews could converse in Hebrew. It was necessary for Jewish leaders to translate their holy writings in Aramaic, from there the Aramaic Targums (cf. Neh. 8:8)."

This might all be largely true, but one might still have to wonder why it is the case. So let's consider.

What happened to all those Hebrew speakers of the ten other tribes who were annexed into the Assyrian empire a century or more before the small kingdom of Judea fell?

What is "official Aramaic"?

Aramaic might have been a court language for the Assyrians since it originated among northern Mesopotamean peoples. But Akkadian was the official language associated with cuneiform. Chaldeans spoke Aramaic, but Chaldean records...?

In the case of the Behistun monument, carved sometime during the reign of Darius the Great who reigned between 525 and 486 BC, a guy whom Daniel claimed to have known, there are inscriptions in three texts:

three different cuneiform script languages: Old Persian, Elamite , and Babylonian (a later form of Akkadian ).

If Daniel were such a high official in Neo-Babylonia and Persia, you would think he would have practiced his Akkadian from time to time.

27

Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus

by kepler in

over a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.

it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".

since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.

kepler

Sounds like a lot of the contributors to this discussion have very similar ideas about the book of Daniel. At the very least, that it sounds credible that it was written as late as 160 BC. And one takes that as a starting hypothesis, there is not much that argues against it - unless you assume that it was really originally written in KJW or NWT (sic) English ( E.g., Daniel in a lion's pit going on about "the end of this system of things").

But I myself seem to learn from thesis and counter thesis in debate. And I see some possibilities with this statement here:

"Official Aramaic, an international language, was spoken in the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian Court. When the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile, few Jews could converse in Hebrew. It was necessary for Jewish leaders to translate their holy writings in Aramaic, from there the Aramaic Targums (cf. Neh. 8:8)."

This might all be largely true, but one might still have to wonder why it is the case. So let's consider.

What happened to all those Hebrew speakers of the ten other tribes who were annexed into the Assyrian empire a century or more before the small kingdom of Judea fell?

What is "official Aramaic?

Aramaic might have been a court language for the Assyrians since it originated among northern Mesopotamean peoples. But Akkadian was the official language associated with cuneiform. Chaldeans spoke Aramaic, but Chaldean records...?

In the case of the Behistun monument, carved sometime during the reign of Darius the Great who reigned between 525 and 486 BC, a guy whom Daniel claimed to have known, there are inscriptions that are inscripted in three texts:

The inscription includes three versions of the same text, written in three different cuneiform script languages: Old Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian (a later form of Akkadian).

If Daniel were such a high official in Neo-Babylonia and Persia, you would think he would have practiced his Akkadian from time to time.

27

Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus

by kepler in

over a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.

it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".

since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.

kepler

RE: " Although being an Old Persian loanword, it is also found in cuneiform writings and Late Babylonian. So it does not constitute proof of second century writing for the book of Daniel. To the contrary, it rather points to an earlier date of authorship. These administrative terms are predominently Persian and not Greek. One would have expected Greek terms to dominate in a second century MS, while Persian loanwords are well attested in Aramaic papyri of the fifth century. "

----

The same word appears in a different alphabet ( Hebrew vs. Aramaic) in writings of what are clearly later periods than whatever the apocalyptic advocacy for Daniel would tend to be. Ezra was a contemporary of Persian king Artaxerxes circa 450 BC who recounts the decree of Cyrus allowing return to Jerusalem, re-establishment and construction of the Temple and subsequent waves of departure from Babylon over a period of 80 years. Esther is a much later document, possibly a 2nd century BC work itself, considering how many passages in it are only written in Greek. But there the only known historical character is king Artaxerxes or Ahasuerus.

Now if Daniel were written at an earlier date, why would it be written in Aramaic?

As I noted above, the use of satrap is formulaicly similar in all cases. Redundant in Daniel chapter 3 and downright odd, considering that Darius would be given credit for inventing them.

Evidently, with the clumsy kluge from Chapter 5 to Chapter 6 it was Darius the MEDE that had done so.

Whether "Persian loan words are well attested to in the Aramaic papyri" in the 5th century or not, the supposed 6th century narrative of Daniel is all over the place. Consider chapter 9, verse 1 -2.

"It was first year of Darius son of Artaxerxes a Mede by race who assumed the throne of Chaldea. In the first year of his reign I Daniel was studying the scriptures..."

The first Darius of the Battle of the Marathon, the Achaemenid carved his ancestral history on a mountain pass in Iran (Behistun) including his father who was not a Mede. Artaxerxes was succeeded by Xerxes II, but his son Darius II eventually followed as King.

When do you supppose that would place Daniel's first person chapter nine testimony? 423 BC.

At the end of the chapter, when the angel Gabriel explains the prophecy, he makes reference in verse to the "appalling abomination" in the temple. Antiochus IV had a statue of Zeus erected there.

There are other segments of Daniel which are later in origin that have left a more recognizable track.

In Chapter 14, which only exists in the Septuagint, it says "When King Astyages joined his ancestors, Cyrus of Persia succeeded him."

What happened to Darius the Mede?

Well, Astyages was the King of the Medes, the last one. And he is one of those people which sources such as Herodotus can give further authentication. But that chapter is thrown out.

My own inclination is that Christianity should be a philosophy that works whether the world shall continue for ten more minutes or a billion years. If Daniel is given primacy in Scripture, then Christianity appears to be something more like a Gothic radio serial in which believers are all issued secret decoder rings.

Still, even with all the evidence that points to the 2nd century and the strong suggestions of occupation resistance language...

I can at least imagine the Gospels and Epistles as documents in preparation. There is composition, some continuity and over-reaching themes. Matthew, Mark and Luke do not change person, language or re-write a miracle or vision several ways. Other books of the OT being compiled by scribes and editors over many years, the various editors (J, P, E, D) seem to explain much. But how does one imagine the writing of Daniel by Daniel? Did he write it all at once and send it in as is? Was there a presumed group of Bible editors who examined it and a chief who said ,"Take it and no amends"? What about that transition from chapter 5 to chapter 6? Wouldn't anyone have said, "Say, Daniel. Wait a minute..."

Or was it a series of broadsides posted anonymously during a dreadful occupation and ethnic cleansing? Was it not also ironically a distorted picture of Hebrew ancient history? Was it characterized by the transferred gaps in Greek knowledge about ancient Mesopotamia and also a literary tic, the Greek historicall convention of often calling the invading Persians "Medes"?

The author of Daniel was more Hellanized than he knew.

27

Beside reading Thucydides the author of Daniel read Herodotus

by kepler in

over a year ago, i engaged in a discussion on a similar topic.

it was titled, "has anyone read thucydides beside the author of daniel?".

since my annotated new jerusalem bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century bce to address events happening in that period ( the seleucid occupation and desecration of the temple), i was aware of a number of arguments for the case.

kepler

Over a year ago, I engaged in a discussion on a similar topic. It was titled, "Has anyone read Thucydides beside the author of Daniel?"

Since my annotated New Jerusalem Bible mentions a number of reasons why the text was probably written largely in the 2nd century BCE to address events happening in that period ( the Seleucid occupation and desecration of the Temple), I was aware of a number of arguments for the case. And then I had come to discover some others. Some did not necessarily agree with those of the editors. We parted company on the end of Daniel Chapter 5, verse 30, which slips into chapter 6 verse one.

"That same night, the Chaldean king Balshazzar was murdered and Darius the Mede received the kingdom, at the age of sixty two."

The next line, commencing chapter 6, the chapter where Daniel is consigned to the lion's pit, verse one, oddly enough begins:

"It pleased Darius to appoint a hundred and twenty satraps over his kingdom for the various parts..."

Wow. So already we've got Belshazzar who was never king, but the son of Nabonidus who was ( if we are talking about Neo-Babylonian times) and then we've got a transfer of power to what the editors of the NJB remark as follows:

"Darius the Mede is unknown to history and the Persian Cyrus had already conquered Media before he captured Babylon" If that was not enough, go back two hundred pages to the discussion of Daniel in the Introduction to the Prophets ( this is not a Jewish Bible - where Daniel is not included among them, but in the "writings").

Still, it is my contention that the editors are wrong about that. But let's talk a little more about the transition from chapter 5 to chapter 6.

How many chapters of the Bible trail off in mid sentence to become the beginning of the next chapter? Sure, there are plenty of continuity problems for this book that was supposedly written by its principal character. It changes narrative tense and language. The sequence of events is caprcious if it exists at all. But how can one imagine that the author of chapter 5 is the same as the author of chapter 6?

Now the word satrap is not used in the King James Bible. And "satrap" is not the original word for the Persian administrative functionary appointed by the king. But whatever it is, it is honored with two Hebrew Strong numbers: 323 and 324: 'achashdarpan It is spelled and accented identically for its respective use in Ezra& Esther and Daniel, the difference being that it is written in Hebrew (Ez &Esth) and Aramaic respectively (D).

In Daniel it is used as follows:

Daniel 3:2-3 Then Nebuchadnezzar the king sent word to assemble the satraps, the prefects and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates and all the rulers of the provinces to come to the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. 3 Then the satraps, the prefects and the governors, the counselors, the treasurers, the judges, the magistrates and all the rulers of the provinces were assembled for the dedication of the image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up; and they stood before the image that Nebuchadnezzar had set up.

Daniel 3:27 The satraps, the prefects, the governors and the king's high officials gathered around and saw in regard to these men that the fire had no effect on the bodies of these men nor was the hair of their head singed, nor were their trousers damaged, nor had the smell of fire even come upon them.

Daniel 6:1-4 Daniel Serves Darius

1 It seemed good to Darius to appoint 120 satraps over the kingdom, that they would be in charge of the whole kingdom, 2 and over them three commissioners (of whom Daniel was one ), that these satraps might be accountable to them, and that the king might not suffer loss. 3 Then this Daniel began distinguishing himself among the commissioners and satraps because he possessed an extraordinary spirit, and the king planned to appoint him over the entire kingdom. 4 Then the commissioners and satraps began trying to find a ground of accusation against Daniel in regard to government affairs ; but they could find no ground of accusation or evidence of corruption, inasmuch as he was faithful, and no negligence or corruption was to be found in him.

Daniel 6:6-7 Then these commissioners and satraps came by agreement to the king and spoke to him as follows : "King Darius, live forever ! 7 "All the commissioners of the kingdom, the prefects and the satraps, the high officials and the governors have consulted together that the king should establish a statute and enforce an injunction that anyone who makes a petition to any god or man besides you, O king, for thirty days, shall be cast into the lions' den.

In Ezra and Esther, it is used as follows:

Ezra 8:36 Then they delivered the king's edicts to the king'ssatraps and to the governors in the provinces beyond the River, and they supported the people and the house of God.

<< Ezra 8:35Ezra 8:36Ezra 9:1 >>

Bible VersionsNASEsther 3:12; Esther 8:9; Esther 9:3

Esther 3:12 Then the king's scribes were summoned on the thirteenth day of the first month, and it was written just as Haman commanded to the king's satraps, to the governors who were over each province and to the princes of each people, each province according to its script, each people according to its language, being written in the name of King Ahasuerus and sealed with the king's signet ring.

Esther 8:99 So the king's scribes were called at that time in the third month (that is, the month Sivan ), on the twenty-third day; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded to the Jews, the satraps, the governors and the princes of the provinces which extended from India to Ethiopia, 127 provinces, to every province according to its script, and to every people according to their language as well as to the Jews according to their script and their language.

It is odd that the enumeration of officials is so similar in Daniel and the others, even when the narrator is speaking of the court of the Nebuchadnezzar, decades before the Persian king invented the office.

But back to Darius the Mede. According to Thucydides he was the king that reigned over the forces that Athenians took on at Marathon. In his "History of the Peloponnesian Wars", it was brought to my attention that Thucydides kept calling the Persians "Medes". When I went to a close translation of the Greek text, I discovered he does this about 50 times.

In "The Landmark Thucydides, A Comprehensive Guide to the Peloponnesian War, edited by Robert Strassler, book I, paragraph 18, it reads:

"Not many years after the deposition of the tyrants, the battle of Marathon was fought between the Medes and the Athenians. Ten years afterwards the barbarians returned with the armada for the subjugation of Hellas."

A footnote explains: "The battle of Marathon was fought in 490 BC. The Greeks regularly referred to the Persians as the "Medes", and to the Persian wars as the Median wars though the Medes and Persians were distinct peoples .

Many English translations of Thucydides do not pay attention to this oddity. My Penguin edition did not; hence, the edition cited above.

Well what about Herodotus?

The Histories are an enjoyable account of the 5th century world. Herodotus seems to have more salesmen stories than Carter had pills. He describes Egypt, Babylon and Persia as best he can. He provides basic world geography, Hellenic perceived history and numerous stories or legends of people who tempted Fate. Perhaps he decided finally to write the story of over-reaching Persian King Xerxes as a tragedy.

...I was starting to wear out my copy of Herodotus, and I was enjoying reading it much more than Thucydides. But I was confused about many things, especially his geographic labels and who was the son of whom. People must have had a better mind for that back then... So before the Penguin copy I was reading blew off with the four winds, I bought a more literal translation with more footnotes and picked up the narration in one of the later books.

I came across the following in book

104. The Cyprians too, excepting those of Amathus, were added voluntarily to their alliance; for these also had revolted from the Medes in the following manner:--there was one Onesilos, younger brother of Gorgos king of Salamis, and son of Chersis, the son of Siromos, the son of Euelthon. This man in former times too had been wont often to advise Gorgos to make revolt from the king, and at this time, when he heard that the Ionians had revolted, he pressed him very hard and endeavoured to urge him to it. Since however he could not persuade Gorgos, Onesilos watched for a time when he had gone forth out of the city of Salamis, and then together with the men of his own faction he shut him out of the gates. Gorgos accordingly being robbed of the city went for refuge to the Medes, and Onesilos was ruler of Salamis and endeavoured to persuade allthe men of Cyprus to join him in revolt. The others then he persuaded; but since those of Amathus were not willing to do as he desired, he sat down before their city and besieged it.

105. Onesilos then was besieging Amathus; and meanwhile, when it was reported to king Dareios that Sardis had been captured and burnt by the Athenians and the Ionians together, and that the leader of the league for being about these things was the Milesian Aristagoras, it is said that at first being informed of this he made no account of the Ionians, because he knew that they at all events would not escape unpunished for their revolt, but he inquired into who the Athenians were; and when he had been informed, he asked for his bow, and having received it and placed an arrow upon the string, he discharged it upwards towards heaven, and as he shot into the air he said: "Zeus, that it may be granted me to take vengeance upon the Athenians!" Having so said he charged one of his attendants, that when dinner was set before the king he should say always three times: "Master, remember the Athenians."

106. When he had given this charge, he called into his presence Histiaios the Milesian, whom Dareios had now been keeping with him for a long time, and said: "I am informed, Histiaios, that thy deputy, to whom thou didst depute the government of Miletos, has made rebellion against me; for he brought in men against me from the other continent and persuaded the Ionians also,--who shall pay the penalty to me for that which they did,--these, I say, he persuaded to go together with them, and thus he robbed me of Sardis.Now therefore how thinkest thou that this is well? and how without thy counsels was anything of this kind done? Take heed lest thou afterwards find reason to blame thyself for this." Histiaios replied: "O king, what manner of speech is this that thou hast uttered, saying that I counselled a matter from which it was likely that any vexation would grow for thee, either great or small? What have I to seek for in addition to that which I have, that I should do these things; and of what am I in want? for I have everything that thou hast, and I am thought worthy by thee to hear all thy counsels.

-----------

This is Darius, king of the Medes.

Now this is Xerxes in Book 7:

8. (a) "Persians, I shall not be the first to establish this custom in your nation, but having received it from others I shall follow it: for as I am informed by those who are older than myself, we never yet have kept quiet since we received this supremacy in succession to the Medes, when Cyrus overthrew Astyages; but God thus leads us, and for ourselves tends to good that we are busied about many things. Now about the nations which Cyrus and Cambyses and my father Dareios subdued and added to their possessions there is no need for me to speak, since ye know well: and as for me, from the day when I received by inheritance this throne upon which I sit I carefully considered always how in this honourable place I might not fall short of those who have been before me, nor add less power to the dominion of the Persians: and thus carefully considering I find a way by which not only glory may be won by us, together with a land not less in extent nor worse than that which we now possess, (and indeed more varied in its productions), but also vengeance and retribution may be brought about. Wherefore I have assembled you together now, in order that I may communicate to you that which I have it in my mind to do.

Moral of the story? If someone comes to your door and tries to spin a cosmology and eschatology based on the Book of Daniel, just try to imagine the Judeans who were struggling with world history

both in the streets and when they were composing their scrolls.

53

What exactly was going on after Jesus was put to death and no longer around?

by Terry in

the jesus believers were meeting in people's homes.

members of that community would take turns using private homes to gather.

thus, they went house to house.. these footstep tracers of jesus (they called themselves akolouthontes "followers" or some called themselves mathetai or "learners.

kepler

Terry,

Greetings!

It's been a while since I've made an entry to JWN, but I still read the topics and discussions. And I certainly pay close attention to what you have to say, whether I'm all in agreement or not. Thanks for all that examination and output.

The matter of Eusebius and Papias did pull me out of my corner observer table though. I had come across the two earlier, along with some commentary by Bart Ehrman. And in the above passages we have Eusebius first branded as a liar by a critic in our time ( after all, he passed on reports of miraculous survivals in the circus ring of centuries before) and then he is used as a source for Papias's recollections of the writers of the Gospels.

Eusebius was sceptical of Papias, but evidently he was willing to swallow the story of martyrs being swallowed whole by beasts. Now was the picture of Judas from Papias any more reliable than the reports of Christian martyrs also recorded by Eusebius? All I can say is that he recorded them both.

Are we to presume that anyone that Eusebius finds fault with is intrinsically reliable or that you have to be pretty bad to make the alarm bells go off for someone as naive as Eusebius?

Much of what I read in the Papias wikipedia entry was rather sceptical of Papias's stories. And as to whether Papias was talking about Jewish authors ( Mark and Matthew) writing in Hebrew or writing in Aramaic or writing in a regional dialect of Greek, there was no consensus.

Lately have been reading other classical writers - and I do see some resemblance to others, including Herodotus who began historical narrative writing with as many sidebars.

What must infuriate many critics of Eusebius is that he also had the temerity to say that many of the books in the canon were questioned by a number of contemporaries. He cites arguments against against Revelations, Jude, Peter and others - though he stands neutral on the matter himself.

He also refers to Papias as a bishop.