Jesus continues to heal the sick

by Damien F. Mackey ‘Go back and report to John [the Baptist] what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me’. Matthew 11:4-6 With these words, based on his miraculous actions, Jesus confirmed to the imprisoned John the Baptist, on behalf of John’s disciples, that He was indeed ‘the One who was to come’, the Messiah. And his healing work has not ceased to this day. With a new miracle (the 71st) now recorded at Lourdes, and with the feast of Our Lady of Lourdes occurring next week, 11th February (2025), I have decided to up-date this article. Caroline De Sury writes: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2024/12/10/lourdes-confirms-first-miracle-english-speaker-249449 Lourdes confirms 71st miracle—and the first for an English speaker Caroline De Sury — OSV News December 10, 2024 PARIS (OSV News) -- The list of miracles that have taken place at the French Marian shrine in Lourdes now includes, for the first time, an English-speaking soldier-patient. Archbishop Malcolm McMahon of Liverpool, a seaside British city, officially announced on Dec. 8 that the 71st miracle had been granted to a British soldier, wounded during World War I. John Traynor, a soldier in the Royal Navy, was hit by machine-gun fire in 1915 in present-day Turkey. He was cured at Lourdes during a pilgrimage for his diocese in 1923. “This is a very special case, since we simply searched the archives for the result of investigative work that had been carried out almost 100 years ago,” Fra’ Alessandro de Franciscis, the doctor in charge of the Lourdes Sanctuary’s Office of Medical Observations since 2009, told OSV News. “In reality, this healing had already been officially recognized at Lourdes in 1926,” the medical professional, who is also grand hospitaller of the Sovereign Order of Malta, said. [Millions of pilgrims travel to Lourdes each year. What made it such an important symbol of hope and healing?] According to details provided by the sanctuary, Traynor had undergone numerous surgical operations after his injuries, but to no avail. He had lost the use of his right arm and suffered from severe epileptic seizures. Attempts at medical treatment had resulted in partial paralysis of his legs. “He was living on a war pension,” de Franciscis said, “but in July 1923, he went to Lourdes on the occasion of the first pilgrimage of the Archdiocese of Liverpool, and he was cured on the third day, immediately, instantly, after being immersed in the sanctuary’s pools.” St. Bernadette Soubirous witnessed 18 Marian apparitions beginning on Feb. 11, 1858, and people of her time witnessed the first physical and spiritual healing miracles after visiting the shrine or drinking or washing in the spring Our Lady pointed Bernadette to in an apparition. To date, dozens of miracles have been confirmed by the special medical commission permanently working at the shrine, which de Franciscis leads. “When he returned home to the U.K., he was examined by the doctors,” the doctor said. “They were amazed.” “I would point out that his recovery was complete,” de Franciscis added. “Previously, he was almost paralyzed in his legs, and out of condition to have children. But after his recovery, he and his wife had several children,” he stressed. “Three doctors who were with him on the pilgrimage encouraged him to return to Lourdes to testify to his healing,” the head of Lourdes’ medical office recounted. “That is what he did in July 1926. The collegial investigation took place in Lourdes, according to the usual procedures. The conclusion was that this cure was truly inexplicable.” Everything was properly noted by the predecessors of doctors now working in Lourdes. “The sanctuary’s newspaper published in full, at the time, the minutes of the Office of Medical Observations doctors’ meeting, with the testimonies from the English doctors who had examined John Traynor before and after this cure.” Because of post-war turbulence in Europe, communications between Lourdes and Liverpool regarding conclusions of the inquiry were never forwarded to the Archbishop of Liverpool. “But this was the post-war era, and there were still organizational and communication dysfunctions at the shrine. ... In general, the healings recognized by the sanctuary in the 1920s and 1930s were most often not made public until the 1950s,” the lead Lourdes doctor said. “After his recovery, John Traynor became a member of the Hospitalité of Lourdes, where he went every year,” de Franciscis said, referring to the religious confraternity under the spiritual authority of the bishop of Tarbes and Lourdes, which is active in Lourdes during the main pilgrimage season, providing people to welcome pilgrims at … the sanctuary’s baths. “He was strong and healthy, and to English and Irish Catholics, it was obvious that there had been a miracle. But the official documents attesting to his recovery in Lourdes, before and after the miracle, were forgotten,” the doctor told OSV News. “On the occasion of the centenary of this first pilgrimage to Lourdes by the Archdiocese of Liverpool, we turned our attention back to his case,” de Franciscis explained. “We undertook a search of the archives, and found the documents. They prove beyond doubt that the Lourdes Bureau had made a definitive judgment on the unexplained nature of this cure. They are clear and unambiguous.” In recent months, Bishop Jean-Marc Micas of Tarbes and Lourdes, was able to forward a complete dossier to the Archdiocese of Liverpool, which led its archbishop to recognize the healing as a miracle, the doctor confirmed. Traynor, who died in 1943, is therefore the 71st recognized miraculous cure from Lourdes. The 70th person miraculously cured is still alive, de Franciscis said. She is a French woman religious, Sister Bernadette Moriau, now over 85. Her miraculous cure was recognized in 2018, after 10 years of investigation. "And John Traynor is the first case of healing of an English-speaking patient," de Franciscis said. "Most of the miracles are French. There are Italians too, a Belgian and a German. But there were not any English speakers yet." "I am personally sensitive to this," the doctor concluded with a smile. "I myself am Italian, born in Naples, but of an American mother, from Connecticut!" And we read in the article, “Is there a God?”, of the scientifically inexplicable healings there: http://www.is-there-a-god.info/life/lourdes/ Healings at Lourdes This page in brief Apparent divine healings are a challenge to our natural way of thinking. Are the stories true? Is the evidence reliable? Are the explanations we are given true? Do they prove God exists and heals, or is that only for the gullible? This is a brief summary of the apparent miracles at Lourdes, how they have been investigated and the conclusions of a medical commission, which found many apparent miracles had insufficient evidence to justify acceptance, but a small number seem to have no other explanation. A world-famous place of healing Lourdes is a village in southern France, close to the Pyrenees mountains and the Spanish border. Many healing miracles are reputed to have occurred there since 1858, when a 14 year old girl claimed to have ‘seen’ a beautiful lady that Roman Catholics believe was the mother of Jesus. Of the estimated 200 million people who have sought a cure there, millions claim to have been healed. Where possible, people claiming healing are examined on the spot by a medical bureau, and the information is reviewed by an international commission of medical specialists, independent of the Catholic Church and including sceptics. To be regarded as authentic, claims have to satisfy four requirements: • the illness and cure was well documented, • the illness was serious and was unable to be effectively treated, • the symptoms disappeared within hours, and • the healing lasted for sufficient time to ensure the ‘cure’ was not just a temporary remission (e.g. in the case of leukemia, 10 years is required). The miracles Most claims lack sufficient evidence to be verified, but 68 miracles have passed this stringent checking and have been proclaimed as authentic, while several thousand other remarkable cures have been documented. Some examples of claimed healings include: • Margerie Paulette, 22 years old, cured of tubercular meningitis in 1929. • Mademoiselle Dulot, cured of stomach and liver cancer in 1925. • Louise Jamain, cured in 1937 of tubercular peritonitis. • Jeanne Fretel, cured in 1949 of tubercular peritonitis. • Rose Martin, cured of cancer of the uterus in 1947. • Vittorio Micheli, cured of a malignant tumour of the hip in 1963. • Serge Francois, cured of a herniated disc in 2002. The stories of a few other ‘approved miracles’ are outlined below at Some stories. Doubts and questions These miracles which have passed the medical commission’s strict criteria are apparently sufficiently well documented to meet any reasonable requirement for evidence. If we are willing to be convinced by evidence, then the evidence is there that in each of these cases, something very unusual happened. Many atheists and rationalists are quite sure that miracles cannot occur, and thus may not be willing or able to be convinced by any evidence. Therefore they probably will not be convinced here, and will look for natural explanations or, despite the evidence, question the truth of the stories. Protestant christians may also be sceptical that God would heal via the Virgin Mary, and in a place where they may believe superstition is prevalent. But again, how can they explain the evidence? Some stories Jean-Pierre Bely Jean-Pierre Bely was paralysed with multiple sclerosis, and was classified by the French health system as a total invalid when he went to Lourdes in 1987. He received ‘the anointing of the sick’, and when he returned home he was able to walk. Subsequently, virtually all traces of the illness disappeared. Patrick Fontanaud, an agnostic physician who looked after Bely, said there is no scientific explanation for what occurred. Gabriel Gargam Gabriel Gargam was severely injured in a railway accident in 1900, in which he was almost crushed to death and was paralysed from the waist down by a crushed spine. A court ordered the railway to pay him compensation because he was a human wreck who would henceforth need at least two persons to care for him. His condition continued to deteriorate. He was not a religious person, but his mother persuaded him to go on pilgrimage to Lourdes, very weak, fed via a tube and lapsing into unconsciousness. But at Lourdes his paralysis disappeared and he was able to walk, although still very thin and weak. Within a short time, he was eating normally, able to resume work and he lived to 83. Serge Perrin Serge Perrin began to suffer neurological problems in 1964 at age 35, and was subsequently diagnosed with thrombosis in the left carotid artery, for which surgery was nor recommended. He visited Lourdes in 1969 as his condition worsened, but there was no improvement. His deterioration continued until 1970, when he was almost blind and unable to care for himself alone. At his wife’s insistence, he visited Lourdes as second time and received the anointing of the sick. By that afternoon, he could walk without the aid of a walking stick and could see without using spectacles. He returned home, fully cured, as was confirmed by a serious of medical tests. References o Wikipedia on Lourdes and Our Lady of Lourdes. o A description of all 68 approved miracles at Lourdes in The Miracle Hunter. o A Protestant Looks at Lourdes. o Scientific Evidence of Miracles at Lourdes in Doxa.

Pushy deal leading to the colonisation of Palestine

“The author points out explicitly that ‘diverse documentary evidence shows that Zionists pushed’ for the US to enter the First World War on Britain’s side as part of the deal to gain ‘British support for their colonization of Palestine”. Magan Singodia This book review by Magan Singodia has been take from: https://balfourproject.org/against-our-better-judgment-the-hidden-history-of-how-the-us-was-used-to-create-israel/#:~:text=The%20author%20points%20out%20explicitly,for%20their%20colonization%20of%20Palestine'. By Magan Singodia ISBN149591092X (ISBN13: 9781495910920) This is a brilliant book for anyone trying to establish the truth of the political history of America’s unwavering support for Israel. It is an eye-opening account of the lengths the Zionists were and are prepared to go to … secure the claim to the land between River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea. The significant time period that the book concentrates on is from the last decades of the 19th century until the creation of the state of Israel in 1948. People around the world are staggered at the unconditional support of the US towards Israel, even at the cost of global democracy being undermined. The book traces the role of the United States in the creation of Israel. It highlights the early warnings against creating a Jewish state on land already inhabited by Palestinians, and against the long-term harm it might bring to the US and all Western interests in the region. Despite these warnings, President Truman supported establishing a Jewish state on land primarily inhabited by Muslims and Christians for many centuries past. Unfortunately, finds Weir, a majority of the American population do not know that the creation of modern-day Israel came about as a result of US politicians forcing through a policy which was opposed by top diplomatic and military experts at the time. The policy of creation of a Jewish state was influenced by a large pro-Israel lobby funded by powerful Zionist organizations working through an “elitist secret society” which had penetrated the inner workings of the political structures of the American government. The book, with thoroughly sourced evidence, exposes the truth, which differs from the prevailing narratives and shows that pro-Israel American Zionists over the years have influenced, some may go as far as saying dictated, US policy; and have also highjacked the media to promote the interests of Israel over the interests and ideals of America. For many, the thought of an unknown power manipulating governments through lobbying in America and Britain is a new perspective; and many who are aware of the phenomenon are frightened to challenge it. This book is essential reading for anyone interested in the Israel/Palestine conflict. It sets out to expose what it calls the illegalities of the past and the present. It is meticulously documented, and reveals what it claims to be evidence of the deceptive, illegal, and criminal behaviour of the Zionist movement in America, Europe and Palestine. The author has researched extensively the history of Zionism in the world in general, and in America in particular. The book’s strength is the absence of any antisemitic references, which makes it harder for pro-Israel sympathizers to object to Weir’s findings. The author points out explicitly that ‘diverse documentary evidence shows that Zionists pushed’ for the US to enter the First World War on Britain’s side as part of the deal to gain ‘British support for their colonization of Palestine’. The method used was devious. A Zionist leader who worked to persuade British officials at that time wrote that the Allied cause in 1916 had been convinced that ‘the best and perhaps the only way to persuade the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, enlist and mobilize the powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis’. In other words, an unnecessary war that had gone badly required America’s intervention in order to secure the support of the British government in establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. The author notes that the Americans had strongly opposed entering the war and that President Woodrow Wilson had won the presidency with the slogan ‘he kept us out of war’. The Zionist plot, writes Weir, becomes clearer, that from the start the creation of a Jewish state on land inhabited by non-Jews required the backing of a stronger power. This was provided by America and Britain in World War I to meet their goal of having British support for Zionism leading to the drafting of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The book spells out the rise in support for Zionism in America. It shows the roles of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and others in establishing, within the American hierarchy, Zionism ideology. At the same time, it was important to divert the American Jewish populations’ loyalty not just towards America. With the help of the Zionist lobby, Weir says, the movement succeeded in indoctrinating, cajoling and threatening American Jews to be loyal to the Zionist cause. Other Zionist groups set out to establish a firm grip on the American media. This has become a major manifestation of their success amongst the American public to date. The book quotes Professor Richard P. Stevens, who says ‘Zionists early on learned to exploit the essential nature of the American political system—that policies can be made and unmade through force of public opinion and pressure’. One main point the book makes is that Israel/Palestine history is known but has been kept hidden from the general public. The public has to rely on the mainstream media. Meanwhile, while historians are becoming almost exclusively dependent on their work being produced by small publishers–often of a scholarly bent, and read by only by a few. The author points out that those who have tried to bring the truth about Israel/Palestine to the general public have suffered both venomous verbal attacks and economic threats that quickly silence the message and often destroy the messenger. At the same time politicians have become alost totally dependent on the Israel lobby to secure their election. The American public, Weir concludes, must restore their position by insisting that their elected officials place the interests of the United States before those of Israel. This book is a must read in understanding the geo-political dilemma in which the US plays such a crucial part. Magan Singodia is a member of the Executive Committee, a Trustee, and Secretary of the Balfour Project. Now, this is interesting: https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2024/11/19/737517/FBI-raid-American-journalist-interview-Presstv FBI raids home of American journalist Alison Weir over her pro-Palestine work Tuesday, 19 November 2024 10:12 AM [ Last Update: Wednesday, 27 November 2024 1:16 PM ] Alison Weir, founder of If Americans Knew, an organization seeking to delegitimize US support for Israel. The FBI has raided the house of an American journalist over her pro-Palestine work amid the Israeli genocidal war on Gaza, a move seen as part of a broader pattern of opposing voices that shed light on the Gaza genocide and US backing of Israel. Alison Weir, an American journalist researching the Palestinian-Israeli issue for more than 20 years, in a post on X on Monday said that recently FBI agents have been making unexpected visits to her house, asking about a person unfamiliar to her. Weir revealed that the FBI's interest was sparked by her past interviews with Iran's English-language TV channel Press TV, which has interviewed her on various occasions over the years. “During my 20+ years writing and speaking about Palestine, I have taken as many opportunities as humanly possible to get the facts out via any traditional and alternative, domestic and international media outlets available. I don't attempt to vet media outlets and try to reach as many audiences in the US and around the world as I can with the facts about Palestine,” she wrote. The American activist further noted that it has come to light that other activists with a shared dedication to advocating for a just peace in Palestine and even Jewish activists have also been subject to similar visits by the FBI. “I understand the agency has been weaponized in the past to try to silence groups and people that some members of government oppose,” Weir added. The executive director of the think tank If Americans Knew, which provides information on the historical war on Palestine, hinted at a potential agenda to stifle dissent and silence voices critical of the US policies supporting Israel by linking them to Iran. “It would appear someone is now trying to set the stage to silence dissent on Israel-Palestine in the United States by trumping up connections with Iran," she said. Moment of Truth about Palestine In this episode of the program, we are going to talk to Alison Weir, an American journalist who has done research on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. The FBI's investigation into individuals linked to Press TV has sparked alarm among advocates for Palestinian rights, highlighting a growing debate over the limits of dissent and the implications of US government oversight on those exercising their free speech rights. As the narrative unfolds, questions arise about the implications of such investigations on freedom of expression and activism in the United States. In September, the United States Department of the Treasury added Press TV to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)'s Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List. The US government has enacted stringent sanctions against the Tehran-based news channel, which has been on air since 2007. Operating under the slogan "The Voice of the Voiceless," Press TV aims to highlight significant regional and global issues that are often overlooked or misrepresented by mainstream media. Observers say the US government's move to pull the plug on Press TV is part of Washington’s attempts to silence Iranian media because they "debunk US lies."

Josephus a key to the Book of Revelation

“Some of the parallels are so striking that a person would basically have to conclude that John borrowed from the earlier writings of Josephus, and then used the language of Josephus to prophesy of a much later war. We know, however, that John wrote his prophecies first, and Josephus wrote his works a decade or so later. John wrote before the Jewish-Roman War and Josephus wrote after the war”. Adam Maarschalk Adam Maarschalk told this of “Josephus and the Book of Revelation (9 Case Studies)” in a Conference of November, 2016: https://preteristconferencecalls.wordpress.com/2016/11/02/06-adam-maarschalk-josephus-and-the-book-of-revelation-9-case-studies/ In John Wesley’s commentary on Matthew 24 (1755), he said, “Josephus’s History of the Jewish War is the best commentary on this chapter…” I believe this is also true for the book of Revelation. The preterist movement is known for believing that the book of Revelation was written before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. This belief is backed by both external and internal evidence, that is, testimonies in early church history as well as (more importantly) evidence within the text. “The Wars of the Jews” by Josephus is another major source of evidence that Revelation was written before 70 AD. This work by Josephus was published in 75 AD, less than 15 years after Revelation was written. It contains seven books, most of which cover the Jewish-Roman War of 66-73 AD. In this message I want to present nine case studies showing parallels between the book of Revelation and “The Wars of the Jews.” As we look at these parallels, consider what they mean for the popular idea that John wrote Revelation around 95 AD. Some of the parallels are so striking that a person would basically have to conclude that John borrowed from the earlier writings of Josephus, and then used the language of Josephus to prophesy of a much later war. We know, however, that John wrote his prophecies first, and Josephus wrote his works a decade or so later. John wrote before the Jewish-Roman War and Josephus wrote after the war. In this presentation I’ve included the month and year of each event that Josephus referred to. This is based on dates that Josephus himself cited, as well as a helpful table in Ed Stevens’ book, “The Final Decade before the End” (p. 242) showing the modern equivalents of the months cited by Josephus. In the chart below, I’ve color-coded the case studies that feature the seal, trumpet, and bowl judgments: Case Study Reference by John Reference by Josephus Approximate Date(s) #1 Revelation 6:4 (2nd Seal) Civil War: Wars 4.3.2 Sword: Wars 2.18.3, 4.4.3, 4.5.3, and 5.8.1 August 66 AD; Feb./ March 68 AD; May 70 AD #2 Revelation 6:15-16 (6th Seal) Wars 6.7.3 August 70 AD #3 Revelation 8:7-9 (1st and 2nd Trumpets) Wars 3.4.1 Wars 3.9.3 Wars 3.10.9 March – August 67 AD #4 Revelation 9:13-16 (6th Trumpet) Wars 4.4.2 February 68 AD #5 Revelation 11:7-13 (6th Trumpet) Wars 4.4.5 Wars 4.5.1-2 February 68 AD #6 Revelation 16:3-6 (2nd and 3rd Bowls) Wars 4.7.5-6 April-May 68 AD #7 Revelation 16:19 (7th Bowl) Cities of the nations fell: Wars 3 (Galilee) Wars 4.7 (Perea) Wars 4.9 (Idumea & Judea) Jerusalem divided: Wars 5.1.1 and 5.1.4 (67 AD) (Spring 68 AD) Mid-68 AD – 69 AD December 69 AD #8 Revelation 16:21 (7th Bowl) Wars 5.6.3 May 70 AD #9 Revelation 17:12-17 Wars 2.20.3-4 Dec. 66 AD – Aug. 70 AD …. The more parallels we can nail down between the book of Revelation and the writings of Josephus, the better we can understand the structure of Revelation. For example, were the seals, trumpets, and bowls fulfilled chronologically? When Josephus made reference to them, did he do so in the same order John listed them? How much recapitulation (restating of events) actually exists in Revelation? Case Study #1 (Revelation 6:4) “And another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.” Revelation 6:4 describes the opening of the second seal. Here we see that peace would be taken from “the earth.” This phrase can also be translated as “land” (as it is in Young’s Literal Translation), a reference to “the promised land,” i.e. the land of Israel. A good example of this is Luke 21:23, where Jesus clearly spoke of Judea, yet some translations say “on the earth” and others say “in the land.” Here’s a description given by Josephus about the civil war among the Jews, which began outside of Jerusalem but spread to Jerusalem by the time the war began in August 66 AD (Wars 4.3.2): “But then it must be observed, that the multitude that came out of the country were at discord before the Jerusalem sedition began… There were besides disorders and civil wars in every city; and all those that were at quiet from the Romans turned their hands one against another. There was also a bitter contest between those that were fond of war, and those that were desirous for peace. At the first this quarrelsome temper caught hold of private families, who…began already to stand in opposition one to another; so that seditions arose everywhere… the barbarity and iniquity those of the same nation did no way differ from the Romans; nay, it seemed to be a much lighter thing to be ruined by the Romans than by themselves.” Josephus was describing the events of November 67 AD when he gave this summary. Josephus used phrases like “one against another”, “in opposition one to another”, “civil wars in every city,” and “barbarity.” This lines up well with John’s vision of people “killing one another” in the land. This domestic fighting was so significant that the approach of the Romans was seen as “a much lighter thing.” In John’s vision, he also saw “a great sword.” Numerous times Josephus spoke of the Zealots killing others with swords and cutting their throats (e.g. Wars 2.18.3, Wars 4.4.3, Wars 4.5.3, and Wars 5.8.1). Were these beheadings? These four instances of throat cutting took place in Galilee and Jerusalem in August 66 AD, February/March 68 AD, and May 70 AD. Case Study #2 (Revelation 6:15-16) “And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, ‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?’” (Revelation 6:15-17). This passage describes the sixth seal. Notice how Josephus described the attempts of the Zealots to save themselves when they were driven out of the lower city of Jerusalem in August 70 AD (Wars 6.7.3): “So now the last hope which supported the tyrants, and that crew of robbers who were with them, was in the caves and caverns underground; whither, if they could once fly, they did not expect to be searched for; but endeavored, that after the whole city should be destroyed, and the Romans gone away, they might come out again, and escape from them. This was no better than a dream of theirs; for they were not able to lie hid either from God or from the Romans.” So John saw a vision of commanders and other men [1] hiding in the caves and rocks and [2] attempting to hide from God. Josephus likewise described the Zealots [1] heading to the caves and caverns as their last hope and [2] being unable to hide from God and the Romans. These accounts are also parallel to an earlier prophecy given by Jesus on His way to Golgotha: And a great multitude of the people followed Him, and women who also mourned and lamented Him. But Jesus, turning to them, said, “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming in which they will say, ‘Blessed are the barren, wombs that never bore, and breasts which never nursed!’ Then they will begin ‘to say to the mountains, “Fall on us!” and to the hills, “Cover us!” (Luke 23:27-30) Jesus told those ladies that they and their children would personally see the day when people in Jerusalem would call upon the mountains to fall on them and hide them. About 40 years later it happened just as He said, just as John foretold, and as Josephus recorded it. See also Hosea 10:8. Case Study #3 (Revelation 8:7-9) “The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth; and a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up. Then the second angel sounded: And something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood; and a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.” This passage describes the first and second trumpet judgments. Notice that both judgments feature a mixture of fire and blood. Compare this with what Josephus said happened in Galilee in March/April 67 AD after he tried to fortify the city of Sepphoris, the capital and largest city of Galilee (see Wars 3.2.4): “By this means he [Josephus] provoked the Romans to treat the country according to the law of war; nor did the Romans, out of the anger they bore at this attempt, leave off, either by night or by day, burning the places in the plain, and stealing away the cattle that were in the country, and killing whatsoever appeared capable of fighting perpetually, and leading the weaker people as slaves into captivity; so that Galilee was all over filled with fire and blood; nor was it exempted from any kind of misery or calamity…” (Wars 3.4.1). Sepphoris was located halfway between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sea of Galilee, and only three miles away from Nazareth. Damien Mackey’s comment: I have tentatively proposed that Sepphoris was Nazareth: Nazareth may be Sepphoris, the “ornament of all Galilee” https://www.academia.edu/107781502/Nazareth_may_be_Sepphoris_the_ornament_of_all_Galilee_ Adam Maarschalk continues: In Wars 3.9.3 Josephus described what happened on the Sea of Galilee in June 67 AD to thousands of Jews who tried to escape from Joppa: “Now as those people of Joppa were floating about in this sea, in the morning there fell a violent wind upon them; it is called by those that sail there “the black north wind,” and there dashed their ships one against another, and dashed some of them against the rocks, and carried many of them by force, while they strove against the opposite waves, into the main sea; for the shore was so rocky, and had so many of the enemy upon it, that they were afraid to come to land… And much lamentation there was when the ships were dashed against one another, and a terrible noise when they were broken to pieces; and some of the multitude that were in them were covered with waves, and so perished, and a great many were embarrassed with shipwrecks. But some of them thought that to die by their own swords was lighter than by the sea, and so they killed themselves before they were drowned; although the greatest part of them were carried by the waves, and dashed to pieces against the abrupt parts of the rocks, insomuch that the sea was bloody a long way, and the maritime parts were full of dead bodies; for the Romans came upon those that were carried to the shore, and destroyed them; and the number of the bodies that were thus thrown out of the sea was four thousand and two hundred.” In Wars 3.10.9 Josephus also described what happened on the Sea of Galilee in August 67 AD to people from Tiberias and Taricheae: “Sometimes the Romans leaped into their ships, with swords in their hands, and slew them; but when some of them met the vessels, the Romans caught them by the middle, and destroyed at once their ships and themselves who were taken in them. And for such as were drowning in the sea, if they lifted their heads up above the water, they were either killed by darts, or caught by the vessels; but if, in the desperate case they were in, they attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands; …one might then see the lake all bloody, and full of dead bodies, for not one of them escaped. And a terrible stink, and a very sad sight there was on the following days over that country; for as for the shores, they were full of shipwrecks, and of dead bodies all swelled; and as the dead bodies were inflamed by the sun, and putrefied, they corrupted the air…” So John saw fire and blood, land being burned, and ships being destroyed. Josephus described those very things taking place throughout Galilee from March – August 67 AD. Case Study #4 (Revelation 9:13-16) “Then the sixth angel sounded: And I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, saying to the sixth angel who had the trumpet, ‘Release the four angels who are bound at the great river Euphrates.’ So the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released to kill a third of mankind. Now the number of the army of the horsemen was two hundred million, and I heard the number of them” (Revelation 9:13-16). This is a partial description of the sixth trumpet. Momentarily we’ll take a look at a quote from Josephus about four commanders who led a murderous army, but first here’s some background. During the winter of 67-68 AD, Ananus II, the former high priest in Jerusalem, urged the people of Jerusalem to oppose the lawless Jewish Zealots who had taken over the temple as “blood-shedding villains.” John Levi of Gischala had recently come to Jerusalem, and he pretended to be on the side of Ananus and was invited to be an ambassador to the Zealots (Wars 4.3.13). However, John quickly betrayed Ananus and falsely claimed that he had invited the Roman general Vespasian to conquer Jerusalem (Wars 4.3.14). In response, the Zealot leaders Eleazar ben Simon and Zacharias ben Phalek requested help from the Idumeans (Idumea was south of Judea). They told the Idumeans that “unless they would come immediately to their assistance… the city would be in the power of the Romans.” The Idumeans quickly prepared an army of 20,000 directed by four commanders (Wars 4.4.2): “Now these [Idumean] rulers were greatly surprised at the contents of the letter, and at what those that came with it further told them; whereupon they ran about the nation like madmen, and made proclamation that the people should come to war; so a multitude was suddenly got together, sooner indeed than the time appointed in the proclamation, and everybody caught up their arms, in order to maintain the liberty of their metropolis; and twenty thousand of them were put into battle-array, and came to Jerusalem, under four commanders, John, and Jacob the son of Sosas; and besides these were Simon, the son of Cathlas, and Phineas, the son of Clusothus.” What about the discrepancy between the numbers “200 million” and “20,000”? Earlier I quoted from the New King James Version. Like most versions, it gives some variation of the number “200 million.” Young’s Literal Translation says “two myriads of myriads.” The Interlinear translates this phrase as “twice ten thousand ten thousands.” The word “myriad” in Greek meant “10,000,” so two myriads was “20,000,” the same number that Josephus assigned to the Idumean army. A similar expression is used in Psalm 68:17 (“The chariots of God are twenty thousand, even thousands of thousands; The Lord is among them as in Sinai, in the Holy Place” –NKJV). This verse is far more often translated to say “20,000” than Revelation 9:16 is. The Interlinear for Psalm 68:17 translates this verse to say “even thousands, twenty thousand of God are the chariots.” When it comes to Revelation 9:16, it seems that most translations have unnecessarily squared the number “10,000” before doubling it, coming up with 200 million instead of 20,000. In any case, John and Josephus both described an army of 20,000 led by four commanders. The Idumeans came to Jerusalem in February 68 AD. We’ll hear more about them in the next section. Case Study #5 (Revelation 11:7-13) “Now when they [the two witnesses] finish their testimony, the beast that ascends out of the bottomless pit will make war against them, overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will see their dead bodies three and a half days, and not allow their dead bodies to be put into graves. And those who dwell on the earth will rejoice over them, make merry, and send gifts to one another, because these two prophets tormented those who dwell on the earth… In the same hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell. In the earthquake seven thousand men were killed, and the rest were afraid and gave glory to the God of heaven.” This vision is also part of the sixth trumpet, or at least it appears before the seventh trumpet sounds. This is the first passage in Revelation where “the beast” is mentioned, and it’s also where “the great city” is first mentioned and defined – as being the city where Jesus was crucified, i.e. Jerusalem. Josephus described a morning in February 68 AD when the city of Jerusalem woke up to find that 8,500 people had died during the night due to an earthquake and a slaughter carried out by the Idumeans. Here’s how he described the earthquake in the midst of a great storm (Wars 4.4.5): “[F]or there broke out a prodigious storm in the night, with the utmost violence, and very strong winds, with the largest showers of rain, with continued lightnings, terrible thunderings, and amazing concussions and bellowings of the earth, that was in an earthquake… anyone would guess that these wonders foreshowed some grand calamities that were coming.” And here’s how he described the slaughter carried out by the Idumeans that same night, after they managed to saw through the gates and break into the city (Wars 4.5.1): “The zealots also joined in the shouts raised by the Idumeans; and the storm itself rendered the cry more terrible; nor did the Idumeans spare anybody; for as they are naturally a most barbarous and bloody nation, and had been distressed by the tempest, they made use of their weapons against those that had shut the gates against them… Now there was at present neither any place for flight, nor any hope of preservation; but as they were driven one upon another in heaps, so were they slain… And now the outer temple was all of it overflowed with blood; and that day, as it came on, they saw eight thousand five hundred dead bodies there.” Recall that John said “in the earthquake seven thousand men were killed.” Josephus didn’t distinguish between how many died in the earthquake and how many were killed by the sword, so it’s possible that the earthquake killed 7000 and the Idumeans killed 1,500. The next day the Idumeans, working on behalf of the Zealots, hunted down and killed a couple of former high priests, Ananus and Jesus, who had long tormented the Zealots by opposing their war and working for peace. Here’s how Josephus described their deaths in Wars 4.5.2: “[The Idumeans] sought for the high priests, and…went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial… I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city… He…preferred peace above all things; …he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war… And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.” So John and Josephus both described two individuals in Jerusalem who were hated, killed, and not allowed to be buried. If we go back to Rev. 11:5-6, they also both describe a couple of men who could not be taken down by their enemies until this particular time. And they describe this happening at the same time as an earthquake that coincided with the deaths of at least 7000 people. …. One thing we should note here in Revelation 11 is the fact that the beast oversees the deaths of the two witnesses in Jerusalem. If this indeed happened in 68 AD, the beast could not have been Roman. From August 66 AD until April 70 AD the Romans were not in Jerusalem, except for a few days in November 66 AD when Cestius Gallus led a failed attack on the city. If the events of Revelation 11 took place anytime between late 66 AD and the spring of 70 AD, the beast that overcame the two witnesses was Jewish, not Roman. And based on the four case studies we’ve already looked at, and the next four that we’re about to look at, it’s very fitting that the events of Revelation would have taken place in early 68 AD. Case Study #6 (Revelation 16:3-6) “Then the second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it became blood as of a dead man, and every living creature in the sea died. Then the third angel poured out his bowl on the rivers and springs of water, and they became blood. And I heard the angel of the waters saying: ‘You are righteous, O Lord, the One who is and who was and who is to be, because You have judged these things. For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, and You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.’” This is a description of the second and third bowl judgments. Josephus described how, in the spring of 68 AD, Vespasian prepared for the eventual siege on Jerusalem by marching “against Gadara, the metropolis of Perea” (Wars 4.7.3) and the rest of Perea as well (Wars 4.7.6). Perea was the region east of the Jordan River, just next to Judea and Jerusalem. Some of the Jews who fled from Gadara joined with others and “got in great numbers together and fled to Jericho” (Wars 4.7.5) with Placidus, Vespasian’s assistant, chasing them. Placidus drove the whole multitude to the riverside, along the Jordan River. Then things really took a tragic turn (Wars 4.7.5-6): “They then extended themselves a very great way along the banks of the river, and sustained the darts that were thrown at them, as well as the attacks of the horsemen, who beat many of them, and pushed them into the current. At which fight, hand to hand, fifteen thousand…were slain, while the number of those that were unwillingly forced to leap into Jordan was prodigious… and Jordan could not be passed over, by reason of the dead bodies that were in it, but because the lake Asphaltiris was also full of dead bodies, that were carried down into it by the river. And now Placidus… put his soldiers on board the ships, and slew such as had fled to the lake…” Lake Asphaltiris [Asthaltites] was the Greek name for the Dead Sea. So John saw a sea that “became blood as of a dead man” (Rev. 16:3) and he saw that “every living creature in the sea died.” Josephus said that the Dead Sea was “full of dead bodies” and that Placidus killed everyone else who fled to the Dead Sea. John saw rivers and springs of water turn to blood, and that those who shed the blood of saints and prophets were given “blood to drink.” Josephus said that a multitude of Jews was pushed into, and “unwillingly forced to leap into,” the current of the Jordan River. That river was so full of dead bodies that no one could pass over it. Some of them drank the bloody water as they drowned. Case Study #7 (Revelation 16:19) “Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath.” This is from John’s description of the seventh bowl. “The great city,” as we already saw, was Jerusalem. The Cities of the Nations Fell The downfall of the nation of Galilee in 67 AD can be seen mostly in The War of the Jews, Book 3. In the previous section we saw that Vespasian subdued the entire nation of Perea in the spring of 68 AD. Then in the summer of 68 AD Vespasian was at Caesarea, ready “to march directly to Jerusalem” when he learned that Nero had died (in June 68 AD). So Vespasian waited there for almost a year (Wars 4.9.2). In the meantime, though, another nation fell. That was the nation of Idumea, but it was at the hands of Simon Bar Giora, a Jewish Zealot leader. He first “laid waste the whole country” of Idumea, attacking Hebron, ravaging cities and villages, and making Idumea like a desert (Wars 4.9.7). Then he “compelled a great number of [the Idumeans] to retire to Jerusalem; he followed them himself also to the city.” Josephus said he “was a greater terror to the people than the Romans themselves,” but the Zealots in Jerusalem were even “more heavy upon” the people than Simon and the Romans (Wars 4.9.10). So, amazingly, Simon was invited into Jerusalem. The people “made joyful acclamation to him, as their savior and their preserver,” thinking he would save them from the madness of the Zealots. However, Simon Bar Giora looked upon them all as his enemies (Wars 4.9.11). In April 69 AD Simon “got possession of Jerusalem” (Wars 4.9.12). Soon the stage would be set for Jerusalem to be divided into three factions, but first we’ll take note of more cities that fell. In May-June 69 AD Vespasian “marched against those places of Judea which were not yet overthrown,” sparing only Herodium, Masada, Macherus, and Jerusalem which were controlled by the Zealots (Wars 4.9.9). He paused his campaign again, however, when he learned that Vitellus had become emperor of Rome (Wars 4.10.2). In December 69 AD he was named emperor of Rome (Wars 4.11.4-5) and his son, Titus, was dispatched to besiege Jerusalem (Wars 4.11.5 and Wars 5.1.1). Here’s a simple table of nations that fell from 67 AD to mid-69 AD. This is not exhaustive: Nations that Fell Time Period Conqueror Galilee 67 AD Vespasian and Titus (Romans) Perea Spring 68 AD Vespasian Idumea Late 68 AD – Early 69 AD Simon Bar Giora (Jewish Zealot) Judea (most of it) May/June 69 AD Vespasian Jerusalem Divided Into Three Parts In Wars 5.1.1 and Wars 5.1.4 Josephus described the conditions in Jerusalem in December 69 AD: “[T]he sedition at Jerusalem was revived, and parted into three factions, and that one faction fought against the other… one should not mistake if he called it a sedition begotten by another sedition, and to be like a wild beast grown mad, which for want of food from abroad, fell now upon eating its own flesh.” “And now there were three treacherous factions in the city, the one parted from the other. Eleazar [ben Simon] and his party, that kept the sacred first-fruits, came against John [Levi of Gischala] in their cups. Those that were with John plundered the populace and went out with zeal against Simon [Bar Giora].” So this is a very clear fulfillment of John’s words that the great city, Jerusalem, “was divided into three parts” (Revelation 16:19). It’s also a flashback to Jerusalem’s earlier destruction in 586 BC. In Ezekiel 5:1-12 we see that Ezekiel was required to shave his head and divide it into three parts, and God told him, “This is Jerusalem” (verse 5). One third of his hair was burned, one third was chopped up by the sword, and the last third was scattered into the wind. Case Study #8 (Revelation 16:21) “And great hail from heaven fell upon men, every hailstone about the weight of a talent. And men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great.” This is also from John’s description of the seventh bowl. Compare this to the following description of large stones catapulted over the wall in Jerusalem by the tenth Roman legion in May 70 AD (Wars 5.6.3): “The engines, that all the legions had ready prepared for them, were admirably contrived; but still more extraordinary ones belonged to the tenth legion… Now the stones that were cast were of the weight of a talent, and were carried two furlongs and further. The blow they gave was no way to be sustained, not only by those that stood first in the way, but by those that were beyond them for a great space. As for the Jews, they at first watched the coming of the stone, for it was of a white color, and could therefore not only be perceived by the great noise it made, but could be seen also before it came by its brightness; accordingly the watchmen that sat upon the towers gave them notice when the engine was let go, and the stone came from it, and cried out aloud, in their own country language, ‘THE STONE COMETH,’ so those that were in its way stood off, and threw themselves down upon the ground; by which means … thus guarding themselves, the stone fell down and did them no harm. But the Romans contrived how to prevent that by blacking the stone, who then could aim at them with success, when the stone was not discerned beforehand, as it had been till then; and so they destroyed many of them at one blow.” So John saw hailstones weighing a talent falling from the sky over Jerusalem, and Josephus describes white stones weighing a talent being catapulted into the city. A talent was 75 – 100 pounds. According to William Whiston’s famous translation of the works of Josephus, the watchmen shouted, “THE SON COMETH,” rather than “THE STONE COMETH.” J. Stuart Russell, in his 1878 book The Parousia (p. 482), pointed out that it was only eight years before this, in 62 AD, that as James was being martyred he cried out that “the Son of Man was about to come in the clouds of heaven.” So Russell speculated that the watchmen gave this cry “in mockery of the Christian hope of the Parousia.” These large stones were actually discovered in an archaeological dig during the last year. See here and here for articles on this find, including photos of the stones. Case Study #9 (Revelation 17:12-16) “And the ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as of yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast. These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them… And the ten horns which you saw on the beast, these will hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire.” As I mentioned earlier, until a few months ago I believed that the beast in Revelation was Rome and Nero. I assumed that the 10 horns must have been the 10 Senatorial Provinces of Rome working with Nero to persecute Christians and to capture and burn Jerusalem in 70 AD. When I started to rethink this subject, one thing I discovered is that when Titus overthrew Jerusalem in 70 AD he did not have leaders or representatives of those 10 provinces with him. He didn’t even have 10 legions with him. Instead he had four legions – the 5th, 10th, 12th, and 15th legions (Wars 5.1.6). Then I was surprised to discover that Josephus listed exactly 10 high priests and religious leaders in Israel who were given authority as generals in December 66 AD. Three of them were even killed by the Zealots in early 68 AD, fulfilling Daniel 7:8, 20, 24. Here’s a quick summary of what led up to the selection of those 10 generals. (More details can be seen in this article.) Josephus says that the Jewish/Roman War officially began in August 66 AD when Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, “who was at that time governor of the Temple, persuaded those that officiated in the divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner.” They used this new law to reject “the sacrifice of Caesar” (Wars 2.17.2). They also massacred a Roman garrison stationed at the Antonia Fortress on the east side of Jerusalem (Wars 2.17.7). In November 66 AD Cestius Gallus brought the 12th Legion to put down the Jewish rebellion. Surprisingly, his army suffered about 5,700 deaths, his weapons and supplies were stolen during an ambush, they retreated on November 22nd, and the Jewish rebels chased and killed many of them over the next five days. The Jewish temple leaders knew that a full-scale Roman revenge was inevitable. So they “got together in great numbers in the temple, and appointed a great many generals for the war.” Here’s a list of the territories they were to oversee in preparation for war with Rome (Wars 2.20.3-4): 1. Joseph, the son of Gorion (Governor of Jerusalem) 2. Ananus, the high priest (Governor of Jerusalem) 3. Jesus, the son of Sapphias, one of the high priests (Idumaea) 4. Eleazar, the son of Ananias, the high priest (Idumaea) 5. Niger, the then governor of Idumea (Idumaea) 6. Joseph, the son of Simon (Jericho) 7. Manasseh (Perea) 8. John, the Esscue (toparchy of Thamna; “Lydda was also added to his portion, and Joppa, and Emmaus”) 9. John, the son of Matthias (toparchies of Gophnitica and Acrabattene) 10. Josephus, the son of Matthias (both the Galilees; “Gamala also, which was the strongest city in those parts, was put under his command”) The three generals who were killed by the Zealots in fulfillment of Daniel 7:8, 20, 24 were [1] Ananus ben Ananus [2] Niger of Perea, and [3] Joseph ben Gorion. Their deaths are recorded in Wars 4.5.2 and Wars 4.6.1. How did these horns make war with the Lamb? In a nutshell, Jesus made war against the harlot/great city, Jerusalem, and He used the Roman army as His instrument (see Matthew 22:7). The Zealots and those who were aligned with them fought desperately to maintain power over Jerusalem and to gain independence for Israel. This question is addressed further here. How did they turn on the harlot, make her desolate, eat her flesh, and burn her with fire? They were assigned to Idumea, Jericho, Perea, Galilee, Jerusalem, etc. During the Jewish-Roman War, Jerusalem became more and more isolated as Rome captured Galilee, Perea, and other places. Many people made their way to Jerusalem, and presumably these generals did the same. Josephus, of course, was captured. We already saw the quote from Wars 5.1.1 where Josephus described “the sedition” in Jerusalem, and the civil war between the Zealot factions, as “a wild beast grown mad, which, for want of food from abroad, fell now upon eating its own flesh.” Josephus also repeatedly blamed the Jews, especially the Zealots, for the fire that burned Jerusalem and the temple. In Wars 6.4.5 he said, “[T]hese flames took their rise from the Jews themselves, and were occasioned by them.” In Wars 6.6.2 he records a speech given by Titus in which he said to the Zealots, “You…have set fire to your holy house with your own hands.” Josephus made similar statements in Wars 5.4.4, Wars 6.2.9, and other places. ….

Solomonic archaeology must surely be found at the Late Bronze II level

by Damien F. Mackey “So if we assume that this is an authentic artifact from the Temple of Solomon, then how is it that the inscription is from the Iron Age II but the pomegranate itself is dated to the Late Bronze Age?” Stuart Zachary Steinberg Archaeologists really need to dig deeper. As far as the Old Testament goes, archaeologists are invariably digging in the wrong place at the wrong time. Too shallow. And that goes for Israeli archaeologists as well. Professor Israel Finkelstein of Tel Aviv university, after digging interminably in the Iron Age II level for evidence of King Solomon and his wondrous realm, ignominiously declared in a National Geographic article by Robert Draper, “Kings of Controversy” (December 2010, p. 85): “Now Solomon. I think I destroyed Solomon, so to speak. Sorry for that!” Archaeologically speaking, Israel Finkelstein had not even come near King Solomon. Daniel Lazare came up with a similar pronouncement, as we read in Dr. David Down’s article, “False history—‘Out with David and Solomon!’” (2002): https://creation.com/false-history-out-with-david-and-solomon …. Facts against the Bible? Concerning Solomon’s building activities, 1 Kings 9:17–19 says, ‘And Solomon built Gezer, and Beth-horon the lower, and Baalath, and Tadmor in the wilderness, in the land. And he built all the store-cities which Solomon had, and cities for his chariots, and cities for his horsemen, and that which Solomon desired to build in Jerusalem, and in Lebanon, and in all the land of his dominion.’ Also, the Bible describes Solomon’s economy as being on an enviable scale. ‘And the king made silver and gold at Jerusalem like stones, and he made cedar trees as plentiful as the sycamore trees in the valley’ (2 Chronicles 1:15). But the architectural remains from Iron Age I and early Iron Age II reveal that this was a period of pitiful poverty, few people and scant building activity. This is why the critic Lazare could write, ‘Not one goblet, not one brick, has ever been found to indicate that such a reign existed.’ …. Thanks to Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky’s vital biblico-historical synchronism as argued in Volume I of his Ages in Chaos (1952) series, however, we can align King Solomon, as an older contemporary, with pharaoh Thutmose III of Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty, as the biblical “Shishak King of Egypt” (I Kings 14:25-26). And, thanks to Dr. John Bimson with his important article, “Can There be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?” (S.I.S. Review Journal of the Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, Vol. VI Issues 1-3, 1978), we can correlate the archaeology of Thutmose III with that of King Solomon: to Late Bronze II (LB II). Thus Dr. Bimson wrote: Bronze Age and the Reign of Solomon …. I also suggested briefly that the transition to LB I B belonged in the reign of Solomon [13]. Research carried out since that article was written has led me to modify that view. Although an exhaustive study of the LBA contexts of all scarabs commemorating Hatshepsut and Thutmose III would be required to establish this point, a preliminary survey suggests that objects from the joint reign of these two rulers do not occur until the transition from LB I to LB II, and that scarabs of Thutmose III occur regularly from the start of LB II onwards, and perhaps no earlier [14]. Velikovsky’s chronology makes Hatshepsut (with Thutmose III as co-ruler) a contemporary of Solomon, and Thutmose III’s sole reign contemporary with that of Rehoboam in Judah [15]. Therefore, if the revised chronology is correct, these scarabs would suggest that Solomon’s reign saw the transition from LB I to LB II, rather than that from LB I A to LB I B. Placing the beginning of LB II during the reign of Solomon produces a very good correlation between archaeological evidence and the biblical record of that period. It is with this correlation that we will begin. In taking the LB I – II transition as its starting-point, the present article not only takes up the challenge offered by Stiebing, but also continues the revision begun in my previous articles, and will bring it to a conclusion (in broad outline) with the end of the Iron Age. Though KENYON has stated that the LB I – II transition saw a decline in the material culture of Palestine [16], ongoing excavations are now revealing a different picture. LB II A “was definitely superior to the preceding LB I”, in terms of stability and material prosperity; it saw “a rising population that reoccupied long abandoned towns” [17]. Foreign pottery imports are a chief characteristic of the period [18]. According to the biblical accounts in the books of Kings and Chronicles, Solomon’s reign brought a period of peace which saw an increase in foreign contacts, unprecedented prosperity, and an energetic building programme which extended throughout the kingdom [19]. I Kings 9:15 specifically relates that Solomon rebuilt Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer. In the revised stratigraphy envisaged here, the cities built by Solomon at these sites would therefore be those of LB II A. More specifically, these three Solomonic cities would be represented by Stratum VIII in Area AA at Megiddo [20], by Stratum XVI at Gezer, and by Stratum XIV of the Upper City at Hazor (= Str. Ib of the Lower City) [21]. The wealth and international trade attested by these levels certainly reflect the age of Solomon far more accurately than the Iron Age cities normally attributed to him, from which we have “no evidence of any particular luxury” [21a]. The above-mentioned strata at Megiddo and Gezer have both yielded remains of very fine buildings and courtyards [22]. The Late Bronze strata on the tell at Hazor have unfortunately not produced a clear picture, because of levelling operations and extensive looting of these levels during the Iron Age; but the LB II A stratum of the Lower City has produced a temple very similar in concept to the Temple built by Solomon in Jerusalem, as described in the Old Testament [23]. Art treasures from these cities not only indicate the wealth of the period, but reflect contacts with Egypt and northern Mesopotamia [24]. These contacts are precisely those we would expect to find attested during Solomon’s reign, the Bible records Solomon’s trade with Egypt and his marriage to the Pharaoh’s daughter [25], and says (I Kings 4:24) that his kingdom extended as far to the north-east as Tiphsah, which is probably to be identified with Thapsacus, “an important crossing in the west bank of the Middle Euphrates … placed strategically on a great east-west trade route” [26]. …. Further indication for an LB II location for the Solomonic realm comes from this piece by Stuart Zachary Steinberg (2024): https://medium.com/@stuartz2727/the-inscribed-ivory-from-the-temple-of-solomon-and-the-late-bronze-age-0af65e9b26da The Inscribed Pomegranate from the Temple of Solomon and the Late Bronze Age One of the only existent artifacts from the Temple of Solomon is the inscribed pomegranate. It is a small pomegranate made out of ivory with an an inscription in Hebrew of לבי ( )ה קדש כהנים The world renowned epigrapher Andre Lemaire who considers this artifact authentic proposed the following reading לבית יהוה קדש כהנים which translates as Belonging to the Temple of YHWH , holy to the priests. However some scholars have disagreed with Lemaire and the authenticity of the pomegranate. A paper was published with a number of scholars titled “ Re-examination of the inscribed Pomegranate of the Israel Museum.” They conclude in their paper that the pomegranate and its inscription is not authentic. They conclude: “The combined results of this study indicate that the ivory pomegranate is ancient, its surface covered by a naturally-formed patina. It probably dates from the Late Bronze Age. The letters of the inscription are well executed (with the exception of the problematic mem).In contrast to the antiquity of the pomegranate itself, the inscription and the patina-like material on the inscription and around it are a recent forgery.” However in 2015 the late editor of BAR Hershel Shanks brought a number of scholars to examine various artifacts that had controversy surrounding their authenticity. One of the artifacts was this inscribed pomegranate. One of the expert paleographers who examined it was Ava Yardeni. She wrote “Following my new examination of the tiny pomegranate with the microscope, I am now convinced and agree with André Lemaire that there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the pomegranate [inscription] … I have to admit that at my latest examination of the pomegranate under the microscope, I missed the angle at which I should have looked at the object in order that I could clearly see the crucial part of the fragmentary left stroke of taw at the break. Thanks to the guidance of Robert Deutsch, who showed me where and how I should look at the old break from the left upper angle, I was able to see clearly that the protrusion was lower than the old break … Many thanks and warmest regards.” In addition Professor Yitzhak Roman of Hebrew University in late 2008 and examined this artifact with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and he found that there were no signs that it was a forgery. The lines of the letters went into the ancient break which showed it was written before the ancient break existed. Also the patina in the letters was natural. (1) So if we assume that this is an authentic artifact from the Temple of Solomon, then how is it that the inscription is from the Iron Age II but the pomegranate itself is dated to the Late Bronze Age? One explanation as proposed by the authors of the above cited paper was that the scribe wrote on an ancient Canaanite pomegranate from the Late Bronze Age. However is it really reasonable that the scribe living in the Iron Age II would have had a pomegranate from the Late Bronze Age nearly three hundred years earlier? Also would the priests use something that had been made by Canaanites who were idol worshippers in the Holy Jerusalem Temple? Furthermore would they inscribe a religious sentence on a pomegranate which was impure from Canaanite culture and religion? Everything we know from Israelite religion and culture this seems very highly unlikely. The more reasonable explanation is that the pomegranate was made from scratch on which the scribe wrote. Also just as the pomegranate has been dated to the Late Bronze Age so should the inscription be dated to the Late Bronze Age, specifically the Late Bronze Age II. The implication is that the Temple of Solomon was contemporary with the Late Bronze Age II and not the Iron Age II where it is conventionally placed. This would require lowering the Late Bronze Age II from around 1300 BCE to around 1000–950 BCE as proposed by David Rohl and his colleagues regarding the New Chronology. (1) Biblical Archaeological Review special report, December 16, 2008 https://web.archive.org/web/20100115025132/http://www.bib-arch.org/news/news-ivory-pomegranate.asp

Zakir Naik’s apologetical tactic meant to embarrass Christians

by Damien F. Mackey “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me,’ in those exact words?” Muslim apologetics According to Christian apologist Dr. Jay Smith: “Dr. Zakir Naik is probably the most dangerous man in the world today to Christianity because he brings hundreds of thousands of people to Islam”. However, Dr. Zakir Naik’s simple but ingenious tactic, that he is teaching to his followers to use to confront Christians, has recently been exposed, and the word is now that Dr. Naik and his followers are avoiding debate with certain astute Christians. His methodology is like that of his renowned colleague, Sheikh Ahmed Deedat: force your opponent to answer a question that has been carefully framed. Dr. Zakir Naik, for instance, will press the question: “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me,’ in those exact words?”, knowing that “those exact words” are not to be found anywhere in the Bible. Astute Christians such as David Wood American evangelical apologist David Wood is an American evangelical apologist, philosopher and YouTube personality, who is the head of the Acts 17 Apologetics ministry, which he co-founded with Nabeel Qureshi. He also runs Foundation for Advocating Christian Truth, which is the organization behind AnsweringMuslims.com. Wood is known for his criticism of Islam, particularly Islamic views on theology and morality, as well as the Quran in general, hadith, sīrah and Muhammad. Answering Dr. Zakir Naik on Where did Jesus say 'I am God, worship me' … David Wood https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsHdhvDB6qc and Sam Shamoum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pLshDsK-Vw Zakir Naik Is RUNNING From Debating Sam Shamoun on Islam and Christianity have seen right through this apologetical sleight-of hand so that now Moslems who have been schooled in using this approach are reluctant to engage with the pair. Sam Shamoum has also written on the subject (2012): http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2011/06/where-did-jesus-say-i-am-god-worship-me.html Where Did Jesus Say, "I Am God, Worship Me"? The Qur’an commands Christians to judge by the Gospel: Qur’an 5:47—“Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.” Thus, when Christians present their beliefs, it makes sense for Muslims to ask, “Could you show us where the Bible says that?” Christians should therefore be eager to present evidence from the Gospel, because Muslims cannot condemn us for doing what the Qur’an commands. Indeed, since the Qur’an affirms not only the Gospel, but also the Torah (Qur’an 5:43), Muslims cannot ignore what the Bible says without thereby rebelling against Islam. Muslims around the world are being trained to ask Christians, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am God, worship me,’ in those exact words?” However, if Muslims are suggesting that Jesus could only claim to be God by uttering a specific sentence, we may reply by asking, “Where did Jesus say, ‘I am only a prophet, don’t worship me,’ in those exact words?” The unreasonable demand for a particular statement, if applied consistently, would thus force Muslims to reject their own view! Fortunately, we have a simple way to examine what Jesus said about himself. According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, there are certain claims that only God can truly make. For instance, God alone can correctly state that he created the universe. Of course, a mere human being can pronounce the words, “I created the universe,” but the statement would be false coming from anyone other than God. Hence, if Jesus said things that can only truly be said by God, we must conclude that Jesus claimed to be God. Interestingly, Jews, Christians, and Muslims agree on many of the claims that cannot be properly made by (or about) mere human beings. Let us consider a few of these. THE FIRST AND THE LAST Surah 57:3 of the Qur’an refers to Allah as “the First and the Last, the Most High and the Most Near.” The Old Testament agrees that God is the “First and the Last,” as we read in the Book of the prophet Isaiah: Isaiah 44:6—Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me.” When “LORD” is written in all capitals in the Old Testament, the term refers to Yahweh, the creator of the universe. Since both the Bible and the Qur’an give the title “the First and the Last” to God, it should be quite shocking for Muslims to open the New Testament and read Revelation 1:17-18, where Jesus says: “Do not be afraid; I am the first and the last, and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.” Would a mere prophet claim to be the “First and the Last”? WHO FORGIVES SINS? While one human being may sin against another human being, there is a sense in which all sin is rebellion against God. Similarly, while you and I may forgive one another for the wrongs we commit, only God can offer ultimate forgiveness. Thus, the prophet David could say to God, “Against You, You only, I have sinned and done what is evil in Your sight” (Psalm 51:4), and the Prophet Daniel could declare, “To the Lord our God belong compassion and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against Him” (Daniel 9:9). The Qur’an agrees that ultimate forgiveness belongs to God, for it asks, “Who can forgive sins except Allah?” (3:135). It might surprise Muslims to learn that, in the New Testament, Jesus claims the ability to forgive sins. In Mark 2, a paralyzed man is brought to Jesus in order to be healed. Jesus’ response leads the religious leaders to accuse him of blasphemy: Mark 2:5-7—And Jesus seeing their faith said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts, “Why does this man speak that way? He is blaspheming; who can forgive sins but God alone?” The scribes correctly recognized that only God can forgive sins. Yet Jesus (who referred to himself as the “Son of Man”), knowing their thoughts, replied that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Mark 2:10). He then healed the paralytic, proving that his claims were true. THE LIGHT In Psalm 27:1, the prophet David proclaims: “The LORD is my light and my salvation.” Similarly, the Qur’an declares that “Allah is the light of the heavens and the earth” (24:35). Yet Jesus tells his listeners that he is “the Light”: John 8:12—“I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life.” THE TRUTH The prophet David refers to Yahweh as the “God of Truth” (Psalm 31:5). According to the Qur’an, “Allah is the Truth” (22:6). Jesus, however, applies this as a title for himself: John 14:6—Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” How can a mere human being claim to be “The Truth”? THE FINAL JUDGE In Chapter 3 of the Book of the prophet Joel, Yahweh declares that the nations will be gathered and that he “will sit to judge all the surrounding nations” (v. 12). According to the prophet David, “the LORD abides forever; He has established His throne for judgment, and He will judge the world in righteousness” (Psalm 9:7-8). The Qur’an maintains that Allah will judge the world, rewarding believers and punishing unbelievers: Qur’an 22:56-57—The kingdom on that day shall be Allah’s; He will judge between them; so those who believe and do good will be in gardens of bliss. And (as for) those who disbelieve in and reject Our communications, these it is who shall have a disgraceful chastisement. So why, we may wonder, would Jesus tell his followers that he will be the final judge of all people? Matthew 25:31-32—“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.” Jesus goes on to say that he will admit certain people to heaven and cast others into hell. Isn’t this something only God can do? THE RESURRECTION The Bible and the Qur’an agree that God is the one who will raise the dead. 1 Samuel 2:6—The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up. Qur’an 22:7—Allah will resurrect those who are in the graves. Since God will raise the dead at the resurrection, why would a mere prophet tell his followers that he will resurrect the dead? John 5:25-29—“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.” John 11:25—Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies.” GOD’S GLORY The Qur’an tells us that “Whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth glorifies Allah” (57:1). In the Old Testament, we find that Yahweh will not share his glory with anyone. Isaiah 42:8—“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another.” (Cf. Isaiah 48:11—“My glory I will not give to another.”) Yet Jesus claimed, not only that he would be glorified with the Father, but that he had glory with the Father before the world was created! John 17:5—“Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.” How can anyone see this as anything other than a claim to deity? FURTHER EVIDENCE In Mark 2:28, Jesus calls himself the “Lord of the Sabbath.” In Matthew 22:41-45, he proves that he is the Lord of the prophet David. In John 8:39-58, Jesus says that he has seen the prophet Abraham. In Matthew 12:6, Jesus claims to be greater than God’s Temple. Jesus tells us that he has an absolutely unique relationship with the Father (Matthew 11:27), that he can answer prayers (John 14:13-14), that he is present wherever his followers are gathered (Matthew 18:20), that he has “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18), and that he is with his followers forever (Matthew 28:20). He even makes the startling declaration that “All things that the Father has are Mine” (John 16:15). According to Jesus, all people must honor him just as we honor the Father: John 5:21-23—“For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” Since one of the ways we honor the Father is by worshiping him, it should come as no surprise that Jesus’ followers worshiped him on numerous occasions. Indeed, the Gospel tells us that Jesus was worshiped throughout his life: shortly after his birth (Matthew 2:11), during his ministry (Matthew 14:33, John 9:38), after his resurrection (Matthew 28:17), and after his ascension to heaven (Luke 24:52). Jesus’ disciple Thomas even addressed him as “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). ASSESSMENT Where did Jesus say, “I am God, worship me”? As we have seen, Jesus claimed to be the First and the Last, the forgiver of sins, the Light, the Truth, the Final Judge, and the Resurrection. Jesus proclaimed that he had glory with the Father before the world was created, that he is the Lord of the Sabbath and of King David, that he had seen Abraham, and that he is greater than God’s Temple. Jesus has a unique relationship with the Father, he can answer prayers, he is with his followers no matter where they are, he has total authority on earth and in heaven, he is with his followers forever, and he owns everything. Jesus even demanded that he be honored just as the Father is honored. Clearly, these are not the claims of a mere human being. They are not even the claims of a mighty prophet. These are claims only God can truly make. This is why Christians believe that Jesus is God. POSTSCRIPT: THE ISLAMIC DILEMMA Since the Bible obviously supports the Christian view of Jesus, Muslims who want to deny the deity of Christ will have to argue that the Gospel has been corrupted. But if the Gospel has been corrupted, why does the Qur’an command Christians to judge by the Gospel? By commanding us to judge by what we find in the Gospel, the Qur’an has inadvertently ordered Christians to reject Islam! But it gets worse for Muslims. The Qur’an affirms the inspiration and reliability of the Christian Scriptures (3:3-4, 5:47, 5:66, 7:157, 10:94), as well as man’s inability to corrupt God’s Word (6:114-115, 18:27). Muslims therefore cannot reject what the Gospel says, which leaves them with quite a dilemma. If the Gospel is reliable, Islam must be false, since the Gospel presents Jesus as God. Alternatively, if the Gospel is unreliable, Islam must be false, because the Qur’an tells us that the Gospel is the Word of God. Either way, Islam is false, and anyone who is searching for the truth will never find it in the Qur’an.

Vespasian and Constantine

by Damien F. Mackey Constantine was a Flavian just like Vespasian was, Titus Flavius Vespasianus. Parallel Lives Having detected some fairly striking parallels between the ancient historians: Josephus and Eusebius (1) Josephus and Eusebius let us see now how well may compare the emperors whom they so faithfully served and admired, Vespasian in the case of Josephus, and Constantine in the case of Eusebius. For Constantine, here, I am simply (for the main part) taking my information from Wikipedia’s account of him, in its article “Constantine the Great”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great and then comparing this with the life of Vespasian, taken mainly from UNRV.com. Name and religious tolerance Constantine I … (Latin: Flavius Valerius Constantinus … also known as Constantine the Great, was …the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity. …. My comment: Well, well, well, Constantine was a Flavian just like Vespasian was, Titus Flavius Vespasianus. I learned that only today (21st January, 2025). https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15379a.htm Still more important to the subsequent progress of civilization was the period of tranquility for the infant Church which began in [Vespasian’s] reign. The official classes of Rome then regarded the Christians vaguely as a Jewish sect, and as such the latter was subject to the impost of half a shekel for rebuilding the Capitoline temple, which had been destroyed when Rome was stormed for Vespasian; but this tax does not seem to have been the occasion of any general harsh treatment. Tertullian (Apologia) and Eusebius (Church History) agree in acquitting Vespasian of persecution. Military career (Including Britannia) …. Constantine was the son of Flavius Constantius, a Roman army officer …. https://oxfordre.com/classics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199381135.001.0001/acrefore-9780199381135-e-6751#acrefore-9780199381135-e-6751 [Vespasian’s] father, Flavius Sabinus … was a tax-gatherer …. …. Constantine served with distinction under the Roman emperors Diocletian and Galerius. He began his career by campaigning in the eastern provinces (against the Persians) before being recalled in the west … to fight alongside his father in the province of Britannia. https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php Though much of the details of Vespasian's youth are unknown, it is widely accepted that his path followed the cursus honorum, and therefore a direct line into the Senate. By the reign of Caligula, Vespasian had been a Military Tribune, a Quaestor, an Aedile and a Praetor, in which capacity he impressed Caligula by calling for games to honor his 'victories' in Germania. …. When Claudius looked to Britannia for imperial expansion, Vespasian, with his imperial ties, became a natural choice as a Legate in the campaign. He was first sent to Argentoratum along the Rhine to take command of Legio II Augusta, which was to be one of four Roman legions making the crossing to Britain. Proclaimed emperor …. After his father's death … Constantine was proclaimed as augustus (emperor) by his army at Eboracum (York, England). He eventually emerged victorious in the civil wars against emperors Maxentius and Licinius to become the sole ruler of the Roman Empire …. https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php On 22 December 69 AD, Vespasian was afforded full imperial honors, matching those of the predeceasing Julio-Claudians. Governmental reform (gold coins) Upon his ascension, Constantine enacted numerous reforms to strengthen the empire. He restructured the government, separating civil and military authorities. To combat inflation, he introduced the solidus, a new gold coin that became the standard for Byzantine and European currencies for more than a thousand years. Vespasian likewise produced gold coins. https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php Immediately upon his Senatorial confirmation as 'Emperor' in December of 69 AD, Vespasian moved with extreme purpose on several fronts, but perhaps none more so than to legitimize his reign. …. With a strong presence, Vespasian could not only restore Roman glory, but secure his position from the pitfalls of recent imperial rivals. Though he risked angering supporters and the Senate alike, Vespasian clearly marked his eldest son, Titus, as his heir, making him a partner in administrative affairs and naming him Caesar in 71 AD. This designation (marking the first use of the name "Caesar" clearly as a title) angered the Senate, who certainly wished to avoid the Caligulas and Neros of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, but they had little choice in the matter. Additionally, Vespasian openly promoted various omens that predicted his rise, assuming the Consulship on several occasions. He also tied his own legitimacy to the Julio-Claudians through Claudius, by erecting a temple in his honor on the Caelian Hill. While Vespasian undertook several building projects, none are as noteworthy as the Flavian Ampitheatre. The Colosseum, so named for the nearby Colossus of Nero, was not only a grand legacy to the culture of Roman 'bread and circuses', but was intended as a showcased gift from the Flavians to the Roman people. Reforming the army The Roman army was reorganised to consist of mobile units (comitatenses), often around the Emperor, to serve on campaigns against external enemies or Roman rebels, and frontier-garrison troops (limitanei) which were capable of countering barbarian raids, but less and less capable, over time, of countering full-scale barbarian invasions. Constantine pursued successful campaigns against the tribes on the Roman frontiers—such as the Franks, the Alemanni, the Goths, and the Sarmatians—and resettled territories abandoned by his predecessors during the Crisis of the Third Century with citizens of Roman culture. https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php Perhaps Vespasian's greatest contribution was the reformation of the Roman army. It was not a reformation in the sense of massive change, but in restoring its sense of imperial loyalty. (After Vespasian, the legions would remain relatively loyal to the reigning emperor until the death of Commodus some 120 years later). He did punish Vitellius' men by dismissing many from service, but for the most part left the legions intact from their previous positions. In Britannia, more northern territory was brought under Roman rule, and there were considerable pacification efforts in the Rhine and Danube regions. He increased the number of legions in the east, in part to help Titus finish the capitulation of Judaea, and to stop 'barbaric' invasions into Cappadocia. Admirers Eusebius and Flavius Josephus Constantine was a ruler of major importance and has always been a controversial figure.[7] The fluctuations in his reputation reflect the nature of the ancient sources for his reign. These are abundant and detailed,[8] but they have been strongly influenced by the official propaganda of the period[9] and are often one-sided;[10] no contemporaneous histories or biographies dealing with his life and rule have survived.[11] The nearest replacement is Eusebius's Vita Constantini—a mixture of eulogy and hagiography[12] written between 335 and c. 339[13]—that extols Constantine's moral and religious virtues.[14] The Vita creates a contentiously positive image of Constantine,[15] and modern historians have frequently challenged its reliability.[16] The fullest secular life of Constantine is the anonymous Origo Constantini,[17] a work of uncertain date[18] which focuses on military and political events to the neglect of cultural and religious matters.[19] https://www.unrv.com/early-empire/vespasian.php Flavius Josephus, the great Jewish historian, was originally a Roman captive following Vespasian's campaigns in Judaea. He eventually became such an ardent supporter of Vespasian and Titus that he took the name 'Flavius' in their honor. Alexandria (Egypt) https://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-25/ Following the Council of Nicaea, the emperor sent a letter to the congregation in Alexandria proclaiming what had been decreed at the council. He declares that Arius and his heresy had been rejected and urges the Alexandrians to renounce any adherence or favor towards Arianism and to accept wholeheartedly the Nicene Council’s decrees. Constantine adds that he will soon visit Alexandria personally and rejoice with them on account of the victory over heresy. …. https://www.sullacoins.com/post/vespasian-in-alexandria#:~:text=Vespasian%20was%20in%20Alexandria%20in,in%20Rome%20when%20h Vespasian was in Alexandria in the Fall of 70 and returned home to Rome … October.

Josephus and Eusebius

by Damien F. Mackey Eusebius used Josephus’ works extensively as a source for his Historia Ecclesiastica. Parallel Lives Amongst my various historical identifications for the patriarch Joseph is Den: Joseph also as Den, ‘he who brings water’ (2) Joseph also as Den, 'he who brings water' Joseph, son of Jacob, must thus have been, unlike Moses, a veritable Pharaoh. Moses, for his part, was Vizier and Chief Judge in Egypt, but the ruler still had the power of life and death over him: Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty (3) Joseph in Egypt’s Eleventh Dynasty, Moses in Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty Now, Den’s various names are most instructive for Joseph: - He was Usaphais (Manetho), that is Yusef/Yosef, Joseph. - He was Khasti, “foreigner”. - He was Den (Udimu), “he who brings water”. In other words, he was Joseph, the Foreigner, who Brings Water (to a Parched Egypt). Think, for instance, of the Bahr Yusef canal, still flowing today. Now, Manetho’s Greek name for Joseph, Usaphais, reminds me of the name Eusebius. - And that is my first comparison between Josephus and Eusebius, the like names. - The second comparison is that Josephus and Eusebius hailed from Palestine. Josephus is thought to have been raised in Jerusalem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus While the precise origins of Eusebius are unknown: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusebius “Most scholars date the birth of Eusebius to some point between AD 260 and 265.[10][13] …. Nothing is known about his parents”. “He was most likely born in or around Caesarea Maritima.[10][14]” - My third comparison is that Josephus and Eusebius greatly admired, and became attached to, a victorious emperor - Josephus famously in the case of Vespasian, even to adopting the name Flavius, and Eusebius in the case of Constantine. - My fourth comparison is the contiguity of their historical writings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus “Eusebius, who used Josephus’ works extensively as a source for his own Historia Ecclesiastica”. - Finally (so far), my fifth comparison concerns the famous reference in Josephus to Jesus, known as the Testimonium Flavium. Ken Olson, for instance, thinks that Eusebius actually wrote it: https://historicaljesusresearch.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-testimonium-flavianum-eusebius-and.html Tuesday, August 13, 2013 The Testimonium Flavianum, Eusebius, and Consensus (Guest Post) - Olson …. Some years ago, I wrote a paper (“Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” 1999) in which I argued that Eusebius, the fourth century Bishop of Caesarea who is the first person to quote the passage, was its actual author. There are striking parallels in both language and content between the Testimonium and Eusebius’ works. In particular, I was skeptical about the method employed in John Meier’s well-known reconstruction from A Marginal Jew (1991) that distinguishes between a Josephan “core” text and three “Christian interpolations.” Meier’s linguistic analysis is premised on the assumption that an early Christian writer would have followed the language of the New Testament when writing about Jesus. I was certain that Eusebius does not do this and don’t know of any early Christian authors who did. Meier, in fact, does not claim that his linguistic analysis consistently finds Josephan language in the “core text” and New Testament language in the “Christian interpolations.” He acknowledges that some examples go the other way, and that his main argument is from content (see the end of note n. 42 p.83) The theory of Eusebian authorship has been criticized by James Carleton Paget (2001) and dismissed by Alice Whealey (2007), but has now also been advocated by Louis Feldman. In his 2012 review article on the Testimonium, Feldman comes to the conclusion that Eusebius is likely to be the author of the extant text: “In conclusion, there is reason to think that a Christian such as Eusebius would have sought to portray Josephus as more favorably disposed toward Jesus and may well have interpolated such a statement as that which is found in the Testimonium Flavianum.” (p. 28). More recently, I’ve published another paper, “A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum,” in which I’ve tried to bring out more clearly what the text means in the context of Eusebius work and what his purpose was in writing it. In this post, I’ll try to make clear why I am skeptical toward common scholarly claims about what an early Christian writer would or would not have written in a brief passage about Jesus. Here is my own translation of the Testimonium (I’ve placed the three sections considered to be Christian interpolations by Meier and others in italics and adapted it a bit to make the discussion of Robert Van Voorst’s comments which follow comprehensible): About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man, for he was a worker of amazing deeds, a teacher of human beings who receive the truth with pleasure, and he won over both many Jews and also many from the Gentiles. This one was the Christ. And although, on the accusation of the first men among us, Pilate condemned him to the cross, those who first loved [or “adhered”] did not cease, for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets had spoken these and myriads of other wonders about him. And still to this day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not failed. In Jesus Outside the New Testament, Robert Van Voorst draws together six arguments from internal evidence that scholars have commonly given in support of the theory that the text of the Testimonium has an authentic Josephan core. I’ve chosen to use Van Voorst here because I think, with the possible exception of his fifth point, he has given a reasonably good representation of the common scholarly arguments. 1) The passage calls Jesus a “wise man,” which while complimentary is not what one might expect a Christian interpolation to say, because the label was not at all a common Christian one. 2) That Jesus is said to have been a “worker of amazing deeds” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) may be a positive statement, but the wording is not likely to come from a Christian. The phrase “amazing deeds” is itself ambiguous; it can also be translated “startling/controversial deeds,” and the whole sentence can be read to mean simply that Jesus had a reputation as a wonder-worker. 3) According to the passage, Jesus was a teacher of people who accept the truth with pleasure.” Christian writers generally avoid a positive use of the word “pleasure” (hēdonē), with its connotation of Hedonism. 4) The statement that Jesus won over “both Jews and Greeks” represents a misunderstanding perhaps found among non-Christians like Lucian. However, anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition knows that Jesus did not win over “many Greeks” to his movement, even though “Greeks” here means Gentiles. 5) The sentence “Those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]” is characteristically Josephan in style, and points to the continuance of Christianity after the death of its founder. It implies that the love of Jesus’ followers for him, not Jesus’ resurrection appearances to them, was the basis for Christianity’s continuance. 6) Calling Christians a “tribe” (phylon) would also be unusual for a Christian scribe; a follower of a missionizing faith would be uncomfortable with the more narrow particularistic implications of the word. [All quoted from Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament (2000) pp. 89-90]. Every one of the six premises Van Voorst gives is wrong. Or, rather, they would be wrong except that the qualified way they are stated (in terms of what is usual, general or common) allows them to accommodate an unspecified number of exceptions. But if such exceptions are made, the reasons lose their force. Eusebius of Caesarea is an exception to each case. 1) Eusebius calls Jesus (identified as “our Savior and Lord”) a wise man (sophos anēr) in the Prophetic Eclogues (PG 22, 1129), which shows at least he has no aversion to applying the term to Christ. In the particular context of the Testimonium, however, Eusebius is most probably responding to pagan claims made by the philosopher Porphyry and the oracles of Apollo and Hecate that Jesus was a “wise man” who had mistakenly been taken to be a god by the Christians. The Christian response to this, as found also in Augustine’s City of God 19.23 and Lactantius’ Divine Institutes 4.13.11-17 was to allow that the oracles may have spoken the truth insofar as saying that Christ was a wise man, but to insist that he was far more than that. 2) The wording “worker of amazing deeds” (paradoxōn ergōn poiētēs) is found only in the Testimonium in the works of Josephus, but occurs several times elsewhere in Eusebius works to describe Christ or God. The claim that the phrase is “ambiguous” points to a larger problem of interpretation. The phrase “worker of amazing deeds” might sound ambiguous to modern interpreters who imagine it coming from the non-Christian Jew Josephus. But the same interpreters probably would not find the phrase so ambiguous when Eusebius applies it to the Logos of God in the Ecclesiastical History 1.2.23 or to God in the Life of Constantine 1.18.2. Eusebius certainly did not avoid using the term out of fear that it could be misinterpreted (is there even such a thing as language that can’t be misinterpreted?). The same argument applies to those scholars who edit out the most obviously Christian parts of the Testimonium and find the remainder “too restrained” to be the work of a Christian. The fact that a Christian uses the language to describe Christ elsewhere shows that it’s not “too restrained” for a Christian to use to describe Christ. 3) Eusebius, like other Greek writers, recognized both good and bad forms of pleasure. He praises Christian Martyrs who received death with pleasure in the Martyrs of Palestine 6.6 and In Praise of Constantine 17.11 and describes the happy state of the righteous in the afterlife who rejoice in pleasure in the divine presence in his comment on Psalm 67 (PG 23, 684). Additionally, the term “teacher of human beings” (didaskalos anthrōpōn, with the peculiar placement of the recipients of the teaching in the genitive) is not found in Josephus’ works outside the Testimonium, but is used to describe Christ elsewhere in Eusebius’ Demonstratio (3.6.27; 9.11.3). The theme that the Christ was sent into the world to teach the truth about the One God to all human beings willing to receive it is the central point in Eusebius’ theology of the incarnation (see especially Praeperatio Evangelica 1.1.6-8). Previously Christ, the Logos of God, had taught this truth, consisting of the knowledge of the One God and reverence for him alone, among the pre-Mosaic Hebrew nation. Later, through Moses and the prophets, the Logos had also taught their descendants the Jews about the One God, but his teaching was in the form of the types and symbols of the Mosaic law, which most of them were able to understand only in the material, rather than the spiritual, sense. Finally, as the prophets foretold, Christ became incarnate as the man Jesus to re-teach the earlier true religion to all nations (for a concise discussion of Eusebius’ Christology, see Frances M. Young, From Nicaea to Chalcedon 2nd edition 2010, 1-24, especially 10-11). 4) Van Voorst’s claim concerning “anyone remotely familiar with the Gospel tradition” seems to presuppose that all ancient Christians read the Gospels the way modern historical critics do. In fact, in many cases there was a tendency for later Christians to increase Jesus’ contact with Gentiles during his ministry (see Walter Bauer, Das Leben Jesu, 1909, 344-345). In the Demonstratio, Eusebius says that the fact that Jesus brought under his power myriads of both Jews and Gentiles can be established both from the witness of his disciples and apart from it (3.5.109), that he freed all who came to him from the polytheistic error (4.10.14), and that he revealed the power of his divinity to all equally whether Greeks or Jews (8.2.109). In retelling the story of King Abgar in the Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius says that Jesus miraculous’ powers became so well known that myriads from foreign lands far remote from Judea were led to him seeking healing (1.13.1). To be sure, Eusebius also says that Jesus sent his disciples to all the nations after his resurrection, but this does not negate what he says about Jesus himself attracting Gentiles during his ministry. 5) Van Voorst’s claim that the sentence is characteristically Josephan is unusual in scholarship on the issue and is not discussed further or footnoted. Most commentators have found the fact that it is not clearly stated what Jesus adherents ceased to do, but leaves the reader to infer it from context, is unusual in Josephus. (To be fair, it’s probably unusual in most writers, including Eusebius). Van Voorst’s second claim that the passage makes the love of Jesus followers rather than Jesus’ resurrection appearances the reason for the continuation of his following is based on an incomplete reading of the text that sets up a false dichotomy. The Testimonium explicitly gives Jesus’ resurrection appearance as the reason for his followers not ceasing in their “love” (or “adherence”). This is a Eusebian argument. Eusebius elsewhere ranks Christ’s desire to give his followers visual proof of life after death so that they would continue in and spread his teaching as one of the major reasons for the resurrection (Demonstratio 4.12). 6) As Van Voorst himself notes (p. 90 n. 39): ‘the exception that proves the rule is Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.3.3, “the Christian tribe.”’ In fact, Eusebius uses ethnic terms (including genos, laos and ethnos) and concepts in describing Christianity (see especially the discussion in Aaron Johnson, Ethnicity and Argument in Eusebius’ Praeperatio Evangelica, 2006). In summary, the six arguments against Christian authorship of some elements of the Testimonium that Van Voorst has culled from the scholarly literature do not hold with respect to Eusebius. At the very least, this should remind us to be wary of arguments from authority. The fact that one or more scholars has endorsed a particular argument does not mean it is sound. Even if one were to reject the overall conclusion that Eusebius wrote the text, it would not change the fact that these six arguments are based on false premises about what a Christian writer would or would not have written. Arguments about what a generic Christian writer is likely to have done always need to be checked against the actual practices of real Christian authors. ….