Revolution of Jesus not politically-based

by Damien F. Mackey “Love of one's enemy constitutes the nucleus of the "Christian revolution", a revolution not based on strategies of economic, political or media power: the revolution of love, a love that does not rely ultimately on human resources but is a gift of God which is obtained by trusting solely and unreservedly in his merciful goodness”. Pope Benedict XVI Anyone who reads the late pope Benedict XVI”s series on Jesus of Nazareth will appreciate just how pitifully weak is any argument attempting to make of Jesus Christ some sort of political revolutionary bent upon overthrowing the Romans. According to a 2011 review of his book: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/the-pope/8374056/Pope-Jesus-was-not-a-political-revolutionary.html In a new book, 'Jesus of Nazareth', Benedict XVI said Jesus comes to the world "with the gift of healing" and to reveal God's power as "the power of love". He wrote that Jesus "does not come as a destroyer. He does not come bearing the sword of a revolutionary." In the biography, Benedict also says that Jesus separated religion and politics "thereby changing the world: this is what truly marks the essence of his new path. "This separation ... of politics from faith, of God's people from politics, was ultimately possible only through the cross," he said. The 83-year old pontiff also speaks out against religious violence, following a wave of attacks on Christians in several parts of the Muslim world. …. [End of quote] How can one who promotes his “kingdom” as being one of “truth”, and of service - exemplified by the washing of his disciples’ feet - and who commands us to love even our enemies, be, at the same time, a sword-bearing militant? In 2007 (18th February), pope Benedict XVI had considered this matter in an Angelus address: http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/angelus/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_ang_20070218.html Dear Brothers and Sisters, This Sunday's Gospel contains some of the most typical and forceful words of Jesus' preaching: "Love your enemies" (Lk 6: 27). It is taken from Luke's Gospel but is also found in Matthew's (5: 44), in the context of the programmatic discourse that opens with the famous "Beatitudes". Jesus delivered it in Galilee at the beginning of his public life: it is, as it were, a "manifesto" presented to all, in which he asks for his disciples' adherence, proposing his model of life to them in radical terms. But what do his words mean? Why does Jesus ask us to love precisely our enemies, that is, a love which exceeds human capacities? Actually, Christ's proposal is realistic because it takes into account that in the world there is too much violence, too much injustice, and therefore that this situation cannot be overcome except by countering it with more love, with more goodness. This "more" comes from God: it is his mercy which was made flesh in Jesus and which alone can "tip the balance" of the world from evil to good, starting with that small and decisive "world" which is the human heart. This Gospel passage is rightly considered the magna carta of Christian non-violence. It does not consist in succumbing to evil, as a false interpretation of "turning the other cheek" (cf. Lk 6: 29) claims, but in responding to evil with good (cf. Rom 12: 17-21) and thereby breaking the chain of injustice. One then understands that for Christians, non-violence is not merely tactical behaviour but a person's way of being, the attitude of one who is so convinced of God's love and power that he is not afraid to tackle evil with the weapons of love and truth alone. Love of one's enemy constitutes the nucleus of the "Christian revolution", a revolution not based on strategies of economic, political or media power: the revolution of love, a love that does not rely ultimately on human resources but is a gift of God which is obtained by trusting solely and unreservedly in his merciful goodness. Here is the newness of the Gospel which silently changes the world! Here is the heroism of the "lowly" who believe in God's love and spread it, even at the cost of their lives. Dear brothers and sisters, Lent, which will begin this Wednesday with the Rite of Ashes, is the favourable season in which all Christians are asked to convert ever more deeply to Christ's love. Let us ask the Virgin Mary, docile disciple of the Redeemer who helps us to allow ourselves to be won over without reserve by that love, to learn to love as he loved us, to be merciful as Our Father in Heaven is merciful (cf. Lk 6: 36). With this in mind, I must have serious reservations about writer/director Lena Einhorn’s suggestion, in her admittedly intriguing article "Jesus and the Egyptian Prophet": http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Jesus-and-the-Egyptian-Prophet-12.11.25.pdf that Jesus may have been involved in a battle on Mount Olivet just prior to his arrest, enabling for Lena to make an association of Jesus with Josephus’s Egyptian prophet. This is how Lena introduces her article: ABSTRACT Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, John 18:3 and 18:12 state that Jesus on the Mount of Olives was confronted by a speira – a Roman cohort of 500 to 1,000 soldiers. This suggestion of a battle preceding Jesus’ arrest is reminiscent of an event described by Josephus in the 50s (A.J. 20.169-172; B.J. 2.261-263), involving the so called ‘Egyptian Prophet’ (or simply ‘the Egyptian’). This messianic leader – who had previously spent time “in the wilderness” – had “advised the multitude … to go along with him to the Mount of Olives”, where he “would show them from hence how, at his command, the walls of Jerusalem would fall down”. Procurator Felix, however, sent a cohort of soldiers to the Mount of Olives, where they defeated ‘the Egyptian’. Although the twenty-year time difference would seem to make all comparisons futile, there are other coinciding aspects: The preceding messianic leader named by Josephus, Theudas (A.J. 20.97-99), shares distinct characteristics with John the Baptist: Like John, Theudas gathered his followers by the river Jordan, and, like John, he was arrested by the authorities, and they “cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem”. Curiously, although the names of dignitaries may differ, comparing the New Testament accounts with Josephus’ accounts of the mid-40s to early 50s in several respects appears to be more productive than a comparison with his accounts of the 30s: It is in this later period, not the 30s, that Josephus describes the activity and crucifixion of robbers (absent between 6 and 44 C.E.), a conflict between Samaritans and Jews, two co-reigning high priests, a procurator killing Galileans, an attack on someone named Stephanos outside Jerusalem, and at least ten more seemingly parallel events. Importantly, these are parallels that, judging by Josephus, appear to be absent in the 30s. The significance of this will be discussed. [End of quote] In a reply to Lena Einhorn, I wrote in part: .... As I suspected, there is much of interest to be found in your intriguing article, “Jesus and the Egyptian Prophet”. One point that jumped to mind when reading of your discussion of the arrest of Jesus involving a battle, and a ‘speira’ of some 500-1000 soldiers, is that poor old Razis of 2 Maccabees, who wasn’t then part of a battle, had 500 soldiers sent to arrest him by Nicanor (14:39-40): “Wanting to show clearly how much he disliked the Jews, Nicanor sent more than 500 soldiers to arrest Razis, because he thought his arrest would be a crippling blow to the Jews”. A show of force rather than a battle. Razis is, in my historical reconstruction, the great Ezra (Ezras = Razes), a ‘Father of the Jews’, the same approximate appellation given to Razis. …. [End of exchange] For more on Ezra as Razis, see e.g. my four-part series: Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis beginning with: (4) Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis. Part One: Introductory section | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Shocking Culture of God “When the culture of God reaches us, the inevitable result is that it shakes our world; sometimes it is like a hurricane or an earthquake”. Fr. Nadim Nassar Fr. Nadim Nassar describes it as “shocking”, when “the culture of God” comes into contact with the “culture of the people”. He, the Church of England’s only Syrian priest, urges a theme in his recent book, The Culture of God (Hodder and Stoughton, 2018), that is also central to my own point of view: Fr. Nassar is “an outspoken advocate for Western Christians to recognise the Middle-Eastern roots of their faith”. Actually, this is nothing new. Eighty years before Fr. Nassar wrote his book, pope Pius XI, addressing a group of Belgian pilgrims (1938), asserted that: “Anti-Semitism is unacceptable. Spiritually, we are all Semites”. “When the culture of God reaches us, the inevitable result is that it shakes our world; sometimes it is like a hurricane or an earthquake”. (Nassar, p. 180) Jesus Christ, who had come to set all things right, was wont to say (e.g. Matthew 5:21, 22): ‘You have heard that it was said to the people long ago …. But I tell you …’. The first part of this statement refers to the received cultural view of long-standing. Fr. Nassar describes this as follows (p. 180): “For all of us, we organise our world around ourselves according to what we have been taught, with ‘in’ and ‘out’, friends and enemies, right and wrong, values and vices and so on”. He then goes on to describe the second part of Jesus’s statement: “What a shock when God breaks into our lives and sweeps our ordering of the world aside like a house of cards, and says to us, ‘This is not what I want from you’.” Whilst there is a meek and mild side to Jesus, he can also be, according to Fr. Nassar’s description, “a volcanic Jesus” (p. 10): In Matthew 23 Jesus launches a series of fierce attacks on [the Pharisees and scribes]: ‘But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. For you do not go in yourselves, and when others are going in, you stop them’. (23:13) Along with “volcanic” fury, Fr. Nassar also discerns a humour (“funny”) and irony (“ironic”) in this remark that he thinks Levantine people at least would pick up. He continues (pp. 10-11): This saying of Jesus belongs to the essence of the culture of God; here, Jesus is being both ironic and funny, and his audience would have laughed when they heard this. Jesus wanted to speak the truth that touches the people’s hearts on the one hand, and on the other, to really strike the leaders. This is how Jesus handled his earthly culture and the culture of God. Nobody now listens to this sentence and smiles – but in the Levant, you would immediately laugh at Jesus’ irony. Jesus then attacks the religious leaders for their flawed understanding of what is sacred: ‘Woe, to you, blind guides, who say, “Whoever swears by the sanctuary is bound by nothing, but whoever swears by the gold of the sanctuary is bound by the oath.” You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold or the sanctuary that has made the gold sacred?’ (23:16-17). Here, Jesus is not only using harsh words – this is also an exceptional way of speaking that Jesus used exclusively when he spoke to or about the religious leaders. He did it on purpose, to show without any doubt that the leadership they modelled does not belong in any way to the culture of God. Jesus is furious with the religious leaders because they place great weight on minor matters while ignoring what really counts; he calls them hypocrites, ‘For you tithe mint, dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith’ (23:23). Hypocrisy is especially loathed in the Levant, and an accusation of hypocrisy would stain someone’s character. On p. 183, Fr. Nassar contrasts the West and the Levant: The dilemma of the early Church is still in the Levant today. In the West, the secular world has also permeated Christian beliefs, especially the Enlightenment and its focus on reason, which pushed Christianity into becoming an intellectual exercise, losing the warmth of the heart. Spirituality is now left to those on the verges of faith. ….

Did Hadrian or Herod build the Wailing Wall?

by Damien F. Mackey “When you compare the temple mount walls with other projects we know for certain [Herod] did build, we find some major differences. First, most of Herod's projects used stones much smaller than the temple wall and most did not have the pillow cut border around each stone. These projects include: Masada, Herodian, Cypros and Jericho, the stones are small, rough and have no cut frames”. Steve Rudd Following on from my recent article: King Herod could not have built the Wall (7) King Herod could not have built the Wall | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu the gist of which is that the Wall was constructed later than the time of King Herod: …. But archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority now say diggers have found coins underneath the massive foundation stones of the compound's Western Wall that were stamped by a Roman proconsul 20 years after Herod's death. That indicates that Herod did not build the wall — part of which is venerated as Judaism's holiest prayer site — and that construction was not close to being complete when he died. …. I have come across this somewhat compatible piece on the subject by Steve Rudd (Biblical Archeologist): https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-jerusalem-temple-mount-threshing-floor-walls-stones.htm The temple mount walls are more likely "Hadrian" then "Herodian": 1. While most people refer to the border cut around the stones (embossed frames) as "Herodian", many of Herod's projects did not cut the "pillow border" into the stones. When Herod did cut the border onto the stones, the work was much sloppier than we see on the temple mount walls. This style was not unique to Herod being used between 700 BC - 1100 AD by many different builders. 2. A simple glance at the outer walls of the temple mount show that there have been multiple constructions over a thousand years. The wall has been destroyed several time, repaired and endured many earth quakes. The foundation level stones at the bottom of the wall were set it place by either Herod in 25 BC or Hadrian in 135 AD. In addition to the fact that the current size of the temple mount area is twice as large as what Josephus recorded in 70 AD is one piece of evidence that Hadrian, not Herod built the wailing wall. Only a small central section of the outer wall is considered to be built before Herod. 3. When you compare the temple mount walls with other projects we know for certain he did build, we find some major differences. First, most of Herod's projects used stones much smaller than the temple wall and most did not have the pillow cut border around each stone. These projects include: Masada, Herodian, Cypros and Jericho, the stones are small, rough and have no cut frames. 4. Herod's projects where he used the "embossed frame" include: David's Tower, Caesaria and Shomron. But workmanship is noticeably different since the cuts are rough and the stones are smaller than the temple mount walls. 5. The stones that compose the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron are of similar size, quality as the temple mount walls, they are "pillow cut". However these is no evidence in any literary sources that Herod actually built the structure. 6. The Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek, Lebanon, has a complex history with no one single builder. Augustus was said to start the project and Hadrian is said to have worked on the temple at Baalbek. It does have the "pillow cut" stones in one portion of the temple. Below is a photo of a man sitting on one set of stones, then the huge "Trilithon" stones, then directly above these on the corner, you can see the "embossed frame" cut stones that are similar in size and design to the wall at the temple mount. (Link to detailed view of the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek) 7. Both the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek are close matches in their stonework. More work needs to be done to determine exactly who built the Cave of the Patriarchs, which is almost universally ascribed to Herod. We know that Hadrian did not build Cave of the Patriarchs, so if not him or Herod then who? We need proof that it was Hadrian who laid the "pillow cut" stones in the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek. …. To complicate matters further, King Herod was, according to my revision, an actual contemporary, and sub-king, of/to the emperor Hadrian: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man (7) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Greco-Roman Glimmers of Jesus’s Death/Rising

Part One: Eponymous founder Romulus by Damien F. Mackey “The tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the senators suffered them not to search, or busy themselves about the matter, but commanded them to honour and worship Romulus as one taken up to the gods, and about to be to them, in the place of a good prince, now a propitious god”. Plutarch: Parallel Lives. Hugh J. Schonfield (d. 1988) is well known for his controversial book about Jesus, entitled The Passover Plot, which he wrote in 1965. According to the author, Jesus, desirous of saving his people, actually - and one must think, somewhat incredibly - orchestrated, as far as he could, his own manner of death, so as to accord with the ancient Messianic prophecies. “… the Crucifixion was part of a larger, conscious attempt by Jesus to fulfill the Messianic expectations rampant in his time, and that the plan went unexpectedly wrong”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_J._Schonfield I recently read Schonfield’s follow-up book to The Passover Plot, which, written in 1981, he had entitled After the Cross. On pp. 115-117 of this book the author introduced the Greek historian Plutarch’s piece about King Romulus, supposed first king of Rome, beginning with: Very few Christians would seem to be aware, however, of the strong similarity that exists between the image of the death and resurrection of Jesus and that of Romulus, the eponymous founder of Rome. The latter is set down in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. Plutarch was born in the reign of the Emperor Claudius (41-54 A.D.) and was a contemporary of the authors of the Gospels. The relevant passage is quoted in full from an old English translation, which gives the flavor of the Authorized Version of the Bible. …. Before quoting this passage (and I shall be using instead John Dryden’s translation), I should like to preface it by recalling, once again, that Greco-Roman mythology and pseudo-history is replete with appropriations and distortions of the original Hebrew biblical tales. I have written articles on this subject, including the Greek appropriation of King Solomon as Solon. Solomon and Sheba http://www.academia.edu/3660164/Solomon_and_Sheba And again, before becoming too absorbed with the conventional dating of Plutarch, one might like to pause to consider my article: Plutarch and Petrarch (3) Plutarch and Petrarch | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Anyway, here is the passage by Plutarch: http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/romulus.html … whereas Romulus, when he vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any remnant of his clothes to be seen. So that some fancied the senators, having fallen upon him in the temple of Vulcan, cut his body into pieces, and took each a part away in his bosom; others think his disappearance was neither in the temple of Vulcan, nor with the senators only by, but that it came to pass that, as he was haranguing the people without the city, near a place called the Goat's Marsh, [Comment: “… without the city” is appropriate, as is Goat. Recall the goat for sin offering] on a sudden strange and unaccountable disorders and alterations took place in the air; the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into night, and that, too, no quiet, peaceable night, but with terrible thunderings, and boisterous winds from all quarters; during which the common people dispersed and fled, but the senators [read Sanhedrin?] kept close together. The tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the senators suffered them not to search, or busy themselves about the matter, but commanded them to honour and worship Romulus as one taken up to the gods, and about to be to them, in the place of a good prince, now a propitious god. The multitude, hearing this, went away believing and rejoicing in hopes of good things from him; but there were some, who, canvassing the matter in a hostile temper, accused and aspersed the patricians, as men that persuaded the people to believe ridiculous tales, when they themselves were the murderers of the king. Things being in this disorder, one, they say, of the patricians, of noble family and approved good character, and a faithful and familiar friend of Romulus himself, having come with him from Alba, Julius Proculus [Comment: The wife of Pontius Pilate was Claudia Procula] by name, presented himself in the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; and he, being affrighted at the apparition, said, "Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?" and that he made answer, "It pleased the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should again return to heaven. But farewell; and tell the Romans, that, by the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus." This seemed credible to the Romans, upon the honesty and oath of the relater, and indeed, too, there mingled with it a certain divine passion, some preternatural influence similar to possession by a divinity; nobody contradicted it, but, laying aside all jealousies and detractions, they prayed to Quirinus and saluted him as a god. Romulus, Remus and Old Testament “The modern [sic] connection of Romulus and Remus would be the story of Cain and Abel. Remus is like Cain because they are the jealous brothers, and Abel is like Romulus because they are the good brothers. In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed [Abel] because he was jealous that God favored Abel’s offering more than Cain’s. But with Romulus and Remus, Remus was jealous of Romulus’s wall around the hill, so they argued and Romulus killed Remus. Both stories have a sibling rivalry and in the end, both stories have one brother killing the other. Also in both stories, jealousy is involved, but both for different reasons”. Like so many of the Greco-Roman myths - even the so-called history of ancient philosophy - the well-known characters were distorted, garbled versions of originally Egyptian, Hebrew and Near Eastern persons. These being cultures and civilisations far older than those of the Greeks and the Romans. Thus, for instance, in typical Greek fashion, a Hebrew prophet will be re-presented as a philosopher. We read earlier in this article that the absolutely unique accounts in the Gospels of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ were picked up (albeit messily) in the writings of the approximately contemporary (as is thought) Greek biographer and essayist, Plutarch, and applied to the legendary first king of Rome, Romulus. ‘Socrates’, the renowned, so-called Greek philosopher, I have argued, had no actual historical reality qua Socrates, but, rather, was a biblical composite. To consider just one of his biblical ‘manifestations’, Socrates, who is so often likened to Jesus Christ, will be found in Plato’s Meno doing what Jesus in fact did: writing on the ground (John 8:6, 8). But what will Socrates write? Not something ethical. In typically Greek fashion he will draw geometric figures in the ground. The mythological Romulus and Remus, too, are biblical composites. They are commonly compared with Cain and Abel, and also with Moses. And one could no doubt find other biblical manifestations of them as well (see e.g. previous comparisons with Jesus Christ and Romulus). Like Cain and Abel Romulus and Remus were twin brothers and their mother was princess Rhea Silvia. So, apparently, were Eve’s sons, Cain and Abel, twins: http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/articles_cainandabel.html Their Births It is a well-known fact that Jacob and Esau were twins, but what is not commonly known is that Cain and Abel were also twins. In the normal Hebraic accounting of multiple births the conception then birth of each child is mentioned such as we can see in Genesis 29:32-33 where it states that Leah conceived and bore a son, and then she conceived again and bore a son. Note that there are two conceptions and two births. But notice how it is worded in Genesis 4:1-2. Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain; And again, she bore his brother Abel. (RSV) Notice that there is only one conception, but two births. The Hebrew word for "again" is asaph, meaning to add something, in this case the birthing of Abel was added to the birthing of Cain. Cain and Abel were twins. And, further: https://sites.google.com/site/creationmythofromulsuandremus/ The modern [sic] connection of Romulus and Remus would be the story of Cain and Abel. Remus is like Cain because they are the jealous brothers, and Abel is like Romulus because they are the good brothers. In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed [Abel] because he was jealous that God favored Abel’s offering more than Cain’s. But with Romulus and Remus, Remus was jealous of Romulus’s wall around the hill, so they argued and Romulus killed Remus. Both stories have a sibling rivalry and in the end, both stories have one brother killing the other. Also in both stories, jealousy is involved, but both for different reasons. Both stories are involved with marks. Cain is marked so everyone knows he killed his brother, Abel. But in the Roman myth, Romulus marks Rome by naming it after himself. Similarly, at: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/cain-and-abel-were-twins.html The tradition of twins as the progenitors of tribal units or city builders is very well documented in Semitic and Indo-European cultures. When birth order is specified, the younger twin always receives the blessing over the first born brother. In the account of the sons of Adam, the first born twin is envious of the second and commits fratricide. There are many variations on this theme in other twin genesis accounts. Jacob is fearful that Esau will kill him, Romulus killed Remus and Gwyn and Gwythurin in Celtic tradition duel every May. The Gemini twins, Castor and Pollux, shared a mortal and an immortal existence. Castor was killed on a cattle raid but Pollux persuaded Zeus to allow the brothers to switch places periodically. The word Gemini comes from the PIE root *ym which means 'to pair'. This word is very similar to the Hebrew im mimation suffix but, of course, linguists say they are unrelated (sigh). …. Parallels to Moses Romulus and Remus, abandoned on the bank of the Tiber river, were famously suckled by a she-wolf. From whence did this pagan myth arise? We well know the Exodus (2:1-10) account of the birth of Moses and the forced abandonment of him due to the decree of the cruel Pharaoh – how the baby Moses was placed in a papyrus basket and set adrift on the river Nile (which the Romans inevitably replaced with their Tiber). Long before the Romans, I suggest, the ancient Egyptians had corrupted the legend of the baby Moses in the bulrushes so that now it became the goddess Isis who drew the baby Horus from the Nile and had him suckled by Hathor (the goddess in the form of a cow – the Egyptian personification of wisdom). In the original story, of course, baby Moses was drawn from the water by an Egyptian princess, not a goddess, and was weaned by Moses’s own mother (Exodus 2:5-9). The story evolved from the original Hebrew account, suckled by the mother, to the Egyptian version, suckled by the goddess in the form of a cow, to an entirely bestial suckler in the Roman account, a she-wolf. Part Two: Apollonius of Tyana “Presenting further evidence that Philostratus's biography of Apollonius is in many ways a replica of the life of Jesus, Cardinal Newman writes: The favour in which Apollonius from a child was held by gods and men; his conversations when a youth in the Temple of Aesculapius; his determination, in spite of danger to go up to Rome; the cowardice of his disciples in deserting him …”. The supposed C1st AD character, Apollonius of Tyana, is such a Jesus-like figure in many ways that some commentators would insist that the Gospels were based on the life of this Apollonius. Whereas, as I am arguing in this article, the precedence ought to be given to the Gospel version over the pagan one. And there are very good reasons, again, for claiming this to be correct, given the vagueness surrounding the author of the “Life of Apollonius”, the Greek sophist Philostratus, and that he wrote about Apollonius much later than the Gospels, in the C3rd AD. I favour Fr. Jean Carmignac’s compelling argument, as set out in his Birth of the Synoptics (1987), that the Synoptic Gospels were written by eyewitnesses at a very early date. Philostratus As I have often remarked, one of the most common phrases used by the conventional historians of ancient history is this one, “… little is known about …”. And that fully applies to Philostratus, who himself, I suspect, may not have been an actual historical character, but a ‘ghost’ based upon some previous person - perhaps upon one of the Evangelists. Thus we read of Philostratus: http://www.theodora.com/encyclopedia/p/philostratus.html Very little is known of his career. Even his name is doubtful. The Lives of the Sophists gives the praenomen Flavius, which, however, is found elsewhere only in Tzetzes. Eunapius and Synesius call him a Lemnian; Photius a Tyrian; his letters refer to him as an Athenian. It is probable that he was born in Lemnos, studied and taught at Athens, and then settled in Rome …. I rest my case. But furthermore: The Lives are not in the true sense biographical, but rather picturesque impressions of leading representatives of an attitude of mind full of curiosity, alert and versatile, but lacking scientific method, preferring the external excellence of style and manner to the solid achievements of serious writing. The philosopher, as he says, investigates truth; the sophist embellishes it, and takes it for granted. …. That appears to be a very shaky historical foundation, indeed, upon which to raise a life story of one who is considered by some to have been the exemplar for Jesus Christ himself. Apollonius of Tyana Most commentators simply presume the historicity of Philostratus when considering the Apollonius of Tyana of whom he wrote. Two such, who would regard Apollonius as being modelled upon Jesus Christ, were F. Bauer and Cardinal Newman: http://www.mountainman.com.au/Apollonius_the_Nazarene_3.htm Even as late as 1832, [F.] Bauer attempted to show that not only were there resemblances between the "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" and the Gospels, but that Philostratus deliberately modeled his hero on the type set forth by the Evangelists. He was followed in this view by Zeller, the celebrated Greek historian. Typical of latter nineteenth century views on the subject is that of Cardinal Newman, a Catholic apologist, who, admitting the identity of Apollonius and the Gospel messiah, considers the former an imitation of the latter, in spite of the fact that he preceded him by three centuries (For the Jesus of the Gospels was evidently born in the year 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicea, rather than when the star appeared over Bethlehem). To support his view, Newman mentions certain typical examples, such as Apollonius's bringing to life a dead girl in Rome, which he considers as "an attempt, and an elaborate, pretentious attempt, to outdo certain narratives in the Gospels (Mark v. 29, Luke vii. John xi: 41-43, Acts iii: 4-6). This incident, is described by Philostratus. Presenting further evidence that Philostratus's biography of Apollonius is in many ways a replica of the life of Jesus, Cardinal Newman writes: The favour in which Apollonius from a child was held by gods and men; his conversations when a youth in the Temple of Aesculapius; his determination, in spite of danger to go up to Rome; the cowardice of his disciples in deserting him; the charge brought against him of disaffection to Caesar; the Minister's acknowledging, on his private examination, that he was more than man; the ignominious treatment of him by Domitian on his second appearance at Rome; his imprisonment with criminals; his vanishing from Court and sudden reappearance to his mourning disciples at Puteoli--these, with other particulars of a similar cast, evidence a history modelled after the narrative of the Evangelists. Expressions, moreover, and descriptions occur, clearly imitated "from the sacred volume." Reville, another Catholic apologist, thinks as does Newman that "the biography of Apollonius is in great measure an imitation of the Gospel narrative.'* (*Reville bases his argument on the similarity of the characters of Apollonius and Pythagoras (which is natural in view of Apollonius following Pythagoras as his example); and he seeks to prove that Apollonius, rather than Jesus, is a fictitious creation, rather than an historical character. Reville writes: "It is hard to say whether the Pythagoras of the Alexandrians is not an Apollonius of an earlier date by some centuries, or whether the Apollonius of Julia Domna, besides his resemblance to Christ, is not a Pythagoras endowed with a second youth. The real truth of the matter will probably be found to lie between the two suggestions." [End of quotes] Philostratus’s account of the life of Apollonius of Tyana is thought to have been written as late as the 220’s/230’s AD, which is obviously later than the Gospels. Wikipedia gives these: Similarities shared by the stories about Apollonius and the life of Jesus …. • Birth miraculously announced by God • Religiously precocious as a child • Asserted to be a native speaker of Aramaic • Influenced by Plato/ reflected Platonism (Jesus) • [Renounced/ denounced (Jesus)] wealth • Followed abstinence and asceticism • Wore long hair and robes • Was unmarried and childless • Was anointed with oil • Went to Jerusalem • Spoke in [metaphors/ parables] (Jesus) • Saw and predicted the future • Performed miracles • Healed the sick • Cast out evil spirits/ Drove out demons (Jesus) • Raised the daughter of a [Roman official/ Jewish official (Jesus)] from the dead • Spoke as a "law-giver" • Was on a mission to bring [Greek culture/ Jewish culture (Jesus)] to [the "barbarians"/ the " nations" (Jesus)] • Believed to be "saviors" from heaven • Were accused of being a magician • Were accused of killing a boy • Condemned [by Roman emperor/ by Roman authorities (Jesus)] • Imprisoned [at Rome/ at Jerusalem (Jesus)] • Was assumed into heaven/ Ascended into heaven (Jesus) • Appeared posthumously to a detractor as a brilliant light • Had his image revered [in temples/ in churches (Jesus)] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana#Comparisons_with_Jesus

Jesus Christ gives meaning to ancient history and geography

by Damien F. Mackey “After three days they found him in the Temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers”. Luke 2:46-47 Jesus, who even as a child of twelve was skilfully able to teach Jerusalem’s teachers, would later, as an adult, correct many misconceptions and false traditions on a whole range of issues. ‘You have heard that it was said … but I tell you …’ (e.g. Matthew 5:38). This was the voice of One who spoke words of unerring authority (Mark 1:21-22): “They went to Capernaum; and when the Sabbath came, he entered the synagogue and taught. They were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes”. Just as when he had been a boy of twelve, when his listeners were “amazed” (ἐξίσταντο) by his knowledge, so now, again, at Capernaum, were those who heard him “astounded” (ἐξεπλήσσοντο) by his authoritative speech. And Jesus continues today to teach us, through the Scriptures, and in prayer. For, in a mere two verses filled with meaning, Jesus will succinctly span BC history, from Creation down to his own approximate era, and will, in so doing, identify for us the location of the Garden of Eden (Luke 11:50-51): ‘Therefore this generation will be held responsible for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, this generation will be held responsible for it all’. Eden was the holy place to which Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, had brought their sacrifices, and in whose vicinity Cain slew Abel (by cutting his throat like a sacrifice?) (cf. I John 3:12). Jesus is telling us that the Jerusalemites who persecuted the prophets, and who even slew some of them (e.g., Zechariah son of Jehoiada and Urijah son of Shemaiah), including the last one, Zechariah son of Berechiah (cf. Matthew 23:35), were geographically of the same region as Cain and Abel had been, and were as well of the spirit of Cain, but not of the holy Abel. In other words, the long sought for location of Eden was the site of Jerusalem – obviously much altered topographically and greatly impoverished since the halçyon days prior to the Fall of Adam and Eve. This has many ramifications, including for the proper identification of the four rivers - generated by the one Edenic river (Genesis 2:10). Those four rivers, Pishon (פִּישׁוֹן), Gihon (גִּיחוֹן), Hiddekel (חִדֶּקֶל) and Perath (פְרָת), must have geographically en-framed Eden. Jesus, the Lord of History (and Geography), easily encompasses history from the beginning (Abel) until modern times (Zechariah) in two telling verses. In so doing, he helps us to know that this Zechariah was not the martyred Zechariah son of the High Priest, Jehoiada, since this Zechariah was not the most recent martyr. Urijah son of Shemaiah, for instance, had come after Zechariah son of Jehoiada. But even that was not so recent. Hence, Matthew 23:35 is not contradictory about Zechariah as many like to suggest. Jesus Christ is the Key to Knowledge and he is not about to contradict the Truth. That is done, instead, by the likes of the “experts”, the blind know-alls, the types who resisted Jesus and had him crucified (Luke 11:52): ‘Woe to you experts in the Law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering’. We lose all fine meaning, then, when we shift Eden, the central point of Genesis 2, from the region of Jerusalem to east of the Tigris (חִדֶּקֶל) and Euphrates (פְרָת) rivers, which easterly re-orientation seems to be the preferred location today for the ancient Garden of Eden. But: Ezekiel 5:5: “This is what the Sovereign LORD says: ‘This is Jerusalem, which I have set in the centre of the nations, with countries all around her’.” Editor Moses would have had only one place meaning in mind for “Cush”, when he wrote of the Gihon river that “it winds through the entire land of Cush” (Genesis 2:13). Moses is traditionally said to have led Egyptian armies into Nubia, or Cush (Ethiopia). That fixes the Gihon river as the Blue Nile. And the Tigris and Euphrates are well known. Those like Dr. David Rohl, who want to turn Moses’s “Cush” into the Kusheh Dagh in Iranian Azerbaijan: and search in vain for the vestiges of the Garden of Eden in that NE region of the ancient world, succeed only in emptying the Scriptures of their meaning and import. Some of the unhappy consequences of this are: • The authoritative words of Jesus Christ about Abel and Zechariah then become meaningless, and even unjust for his Jerusalemite “generation”. • The whole wonderful cosmic symmetry of the Fall of Man, and then the Redemption of Man, occurring in the same geographical location, is totally lost. “O God, who wonderfully created, and yet more wonderfully restored, the dignity of human nature: Grant that we may share the divine life of him who humbled himself to share our humanity, your Son Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen”. • All the Garden of Eden symbolism at the Fall, of the tree and thorns and pain and sweat, ceases to be reflected by the same Garden symbolism at the Passion and Redemption: It now becomes a case of poet John Donne’s And new philosophy calls all in doubt: “Tis all in pieces, all coherence gone, All just supply, and all relation; Prince, subject, father, son, are things forgot, For every man alone thinks he hath got To be a phoenix, and that then can be None of that kind, of which he is, but he.” And it is interesting that John Donne aimed this famous statement at the new philosophies, which were mathematically and science-based and anti-metaphysical, reflecting a world largely of a priori theory, rather than one of studied reality. The culmination of all of this would be a cosmography of models and numbers that has as much bearing upon reality as does the Kusheh Dagh location have for the Garden of Eden. Our models of Astronomy today are cosmographies lacking an inherent meaning, lacking what pope Benedict XVI called “a cosmology discerning the visible inner logic of the cosmos”.

How C.S. Lewis made me a Christian – Barney Zwartz

“I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else”. C.S. Lewis My son has just finished reading the seven Narnia books to my grandchildren, aged six and five. I am delighted by this because as a child I was addicted to these books, reading them over and over (and again as an adult). Every good communicator knows the power of a story, and Narnia author C.S. Lewis – a great literary critic and explainer of Christianity whose influence is as strong today 60 years after his death – certainly did. The first published, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, is the most perfect allegory of Christianity but, growing up in a household in which religion was utterly irrelevant, I did not understand this. The power of the story worked on its own terms. Only after I became a Christian in my mid-20s did I understand how important an influence Lewis was on my journey. He showed me that we live in an ineluctably moral universe, in which personal responsibility really matters. He helped shape my understanding of good and bad as real rather than constructs – without in any way being “preachy”. Lewis wrote of his Narnia books that such stories could bypass the inhibitions wrought on so many by the religiosity of much Christianity. “Why did one find it so hard to feel as one was told one ought to feel about God or the sufferings of Christ? I thought the chief reason was that one was told one ought to. An obligation to feel can freeze feelings. “But suppose that by casting all these things into an imaginary world, stripping them of their stained-glass and Sunday school associations, one could make them for the first time appear in their true potency? Could one not thus steal past those watchful dragons? I thought one could.” I have always had my share of watchful dragons, but Lewis’ priorities and values resonated and silently took root. Speaking of Lewis, theologian Alister McGrath noted: “Stories are not simply things to entertain us, they are things that are there to convey meaning, to open up newer imaginative possibilities. Here is a new way of seeing things, and if you enter into this way of seeing things the world is a very different place. “This rediscovery of the imagination in human truth-seeking and truth-telling is really very important. Lewis played a very important role in doing that.” What Lewis showed me in the Narnia books, though I understood this only much later, is well summarised in another of his famous lines: “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else.” Barney Zwartz is a senior fellow of the Centre for Public Christianity.

That ‘Nineveh’ anachronism again: Apollonius, Mohammed, Heraclius

by Damien F. Mackey “… Nineveh was so laid waste that it was considered a total myth of the Bible throughout most of the recent centuries, that is until it was discovered by Sir Austen Layard in the nineteenth century”. Archaeology of Ancient Assyria Poor old Nineveh! That ancient city gets dragged into various pseudo-histories purportedly belonging to AD time. And so I could not help exclaiming at the beginning of my article: Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh (8) Heraclius and the Battle of Nineveh | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu What! What! What! The Byzantine emperor, Heraclius (reign, 610 to 641 AD), fighting a “Battle of Nineveh” in 627 AD! And here I am mistakenly under the impression that the city of Nineveh was completely destroyed in c. 612 BC, and that it lay hopelessly dead and buried until it was archaeologically resurrected by Layard in the mid-C19th AD. …. Again, I found that the Prophet Mohammed, a supposed contemporary of Heraclius - the latter being suspiciously, I thought, “A composite character to end all composites” - was likewise supposed to have had various associations with the (presumably long dead) city of Nineveh. See e.g. my article: Prophet Jonah, Nineveh, and Mohammed https://www.academia.edu/30409779/Prophet_Jonah_Nineveh_and_Mohammed Now I find that Apollonius of Tyana, supposedly of the C1st AD, was guided in his extensive travels - somewhat reminiscent of those of Tobias and the angel Raphael in the Book of Tobit (including “Nineveh”, “Tigris” and “Ecbatana”): A Common Sense Geography of the Book of Tobit https://www.academia.edu/8675202/A_Common_Sense_Geography_of_the_Book_of_Tobit by one, Damis, said to have been a native of Nineveh. And this Apollonius of Tyana is thought by many to have been the real model for Jesus Christ. I would have to agree with the following comment: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/puppets-should-not-give-homilies “The case of Apollonius of Tyana is not comparable with the evidence we have for Jesus. We have multiple sources for the life of Jesus, while we only have one source for Apollonius. This source, Philostratus, claims to have recorded what eyewitnesses said about Apollonius, but your professor probably neglected to mention that the only eyewitness Philostratus mentions is one Damis from Nineveh. This city didn’t even exist in the first century (which means Damis probably did not exist, either). …”. If Nineveh did not then exist, and Damis “probably did not exist”, then I think it would be safe to say that neither did Apollonius of Tyana probably exist, but was a fictitious Greek appropriation of Jesus Christ whom Apollonius occasionally resembles quite remarkably. For the reason why this is, see my article: Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction (3) Apollonius of Tyana, like Philo, a fiction | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In the amusingly entitled: “APOLLONIUS CREED VS. JESUS THE ROCK”, David Marshall writes: One of the supreme principles of modern thought is that there must be no great inexplicable "gaps" in Nature. This is the source of controversy in biology, where proponents of Intelligent Design claim that life reveals micro-machinery that naturalistic evolution cannot explain. Critics of ID reply that no, all such "gaps" can in principle be explained, and the more we understand the story of life, the more such gaps have and will continue to close. Likewise, those who affirm miracles say that events such as the Resurrection of Jesus, or the sudden healing of a loved one after prayer, cannot easily be displayed on naturalistic grounds. Skeptics again beg to differ: "Nothing to see here, move along, folks. We may not have all the details, but nothing has happened that cannot in principle be explained by deceit, inattention, cognitive dissonance, the Will to Believe, confused reporting, or perhaps a timely group hallucination or two. These are all events that happen commonly in the natural world, and as Hume explained, prosaic explanations are therefore infinitely more likely than a miracle." Which sounds like begging the question to believers. The same debate has now raged for two centuries over the person of Jesus, and reports about his life. Here, it appears, lies a God-sized gap in Nature if ever there was one. A man who healed the blind! Who spoke with a voice of thunder, casting traders out of the temple as if the place belonged to him! Who fed thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and raised the dead! Who claimed to be "one with the Father," and spoke as if all of Israel's history, indeed all world history, would somehow be consummated by his mission, which involved his own sacrifice and then ultimate conquest of that ultimate boogeyman, death! All skeptical "historical Jesus" scholarship can be seen as a Herculean attempt to plug this gap in the universe. That includes the most famous and popular such attempts in our day, such as the work of scholars like Bart Ehrman and Paula Fredrikson, populists like Reza Aslan, the writings of the famous (or infamous) Jesus Seminar (and stars emerging from that constellation like John Crossan, Marcus Borg, Robert Funk, and John Spong), and the more radical writings of people like Richard Carrier and less-educated fellows on the "Jesus mythicist" fringe. I believe Christians should look on their colossal effort to "plug the gap" as an act of kindness. Opponents of the Christian faith are doing wonderful work for truth: they sift ancient writings over hundreds of years (Thomas Jefferson was already part of the game), turning every stone along the Sea of Galilee, sifting every play, drama, epic and farce out of Athens, tunneling under the pyramids of Egypt, knocking on the doors of forest mystics along the Ganges, climbing the Tibetan plateau, in the world's greatest scholarly manhunt. Our skeptical friends (atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, New Agers, nominal Christians) have been searching high and low for centuries, to locate their "missing man:" someone, anyone, who faintly resembles Jesus of Nazareth. Or, to put the matter another way, those who find the Jesus of the gospels both attractive and threatening would dearly like to find a genuine "Fifth Gospel." (A term that has been used for both the so-called "Gospel of Thomas" and for Fyodor Dostoevsky's masterpiece, The Brothers Karamazov). To summarize what I think is the true state of affairs, the actual results of this massive manhunt, let me begin autobiographically. Then let's take a brief look at one of the most popular ancient comparisons to Jesus. I have argued in three books that this search for a credible analogy to Jesus of Nazareth has utterly failed. (Or, from the Christian perspective, succeeded wildly, by showing just how huge the gap is between Jesus and all those the world would compare to him). I first set this argument down in a book called Why the Jesus Seminar can't find Jesus, and Grandma Marshall Could. After detailing twelve fatal errors committed by Jesus Seminar fellows, I described 50 characteristics that define the gospels, and make them unique. (Having to do with setting, style and literary qualities, character, moral teachings, pedagogy, social qualities, and theology). I then analyzed some works that are often compared to the gospels, including the "Gospel" of Thomas and Apollonius of Tyana, and found that when analyzed objectively, at best these supposed "closest parallels" only resemble the real gospels on 6-9 out of 50 characteristics. (The closest parallel I have found so far is The Analects of Confucius, which is our best source for the life of Confucius – though it lacks many of internal qualities that demonstrate the general historicity of the gospels). Later, for a Harvest House book called The Truth About Jesus and the "Lost Gospels" I analyzed all extant Gnostic "gospels." In doing that research, I found myself in for an even greater shock. It turned out that eminent scholars, having searched the ancient world high and low, offered up ancient "parallels" to the gospels that were as different from them in almost every meaningful way as a sea slug is from a falcon. "Great scholars" like Ehrman, Crossan, and Elaine Pagels had clearly fooled themselves, and their followers, to a monumental degree, seeing what just was not there, and missing what was. As C. S. Lewis memorably put it (so I quote roughly, from memory), "They claimed to see fern seed, and overlook an elephant standing fifty yards away in broad daylight." Finally, in a chapter of Faith Seeking Understanding called "The Fingerprints of Jesus," I focused on five qualities that the gospels share: his aphorisms or sayings, how he treated the weak, the cultural transcendence of his teachings, his revolutionary attitude towards women, and the particular character of his miracles. I made the case that like fingerprints, "These traits help the gospels grip the mind of the reader and mark them as unique. They are not the sorts of things a disciple would add intentionally, or in some cases even could invent." This "forensic" argument for Jesus and the gospels is distinct from, but I think complements, traditional and more purely historical arguments. (Such as those made by Craig Blomberg in his excellent "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels"). In the gospels, I argue, we meet a unique person, a person whose personality has imprinted itself powerfully on the minds of those who recorded the strange and wonderful events that took place in Palestine. Skeptics OUGHT to easily find numerous real parallels to the gospels. Again and again they seem to have persuaded themselves that they have succeeded and found this unholy "holy grail." But all such parallels have turned out to be mirages, a room full of grails as fake as those in Indiana Jones. (But much more obvious!) Every such attempt collapses upon sober analysis, as Lewis again noticed decades before the Jesus Seminar was yet a twinkle in Robert Funk's eyes: “I have been reading poems, romances, vision literature, legends and myths all my life. I know what they are like. I know that not one of them is like this.” Space and time being limited, I cannot give a very full argument here. I will, therefore, focus briefly on one of the most popular alleged parallels: The Life of Apollonius of Tyana. Apollonius is mentioned again and again by skeptics who hold him up as proudly as a fourth-grader with a five-pound trout. About 300 AD, the Roman governor Hierocles already compared the "god-like" Apollonius favorably to Jesus in his Lover of Truth. Like Jesus, Apollonius was said to have done miracles and to be "divine." Harvard Jesus scholar Paula Fredriksen likewise wrote that Apollonius "had numerous miracles attributed to him: spectacular healings, exorcisms, even once raising someone from the dead," showing that Jesus' miracles were not "unprecedented or unique." Funk also advised us to compare stories about Jesus with "what was written about other teachers and charismatic figures of his time," placing Apollonius at the top of her list: "It is revealing to know that there are other stories of miraculous births, that other charismatic figures healed people of their afflictions and exorcised demons." In my debates with Robert Price and Richard Carrier, both similarly pointed to Apollonius as a strong parallel to the life of Jesus. Carrier said, "Now everything he says about the gospels is true of all kinds of faith literature in all religions . . . There are other examples that look more like the gospels, for example, the Book of Tobit. Or Plutarch's biography of Romulus. Or Philostratus' biography of Apollonius of Tyana. There are a lot of these examples of faith literature that look more like the gospels. And if you wanted me to sit down and research and find the most similar example, I could. But it's not necessary. There's plenty of examples like this that have all the characteristics of the gospels . . . " This "gap" in the universe has thus, in their eyes, been completely filled. Until, that is, you take the time to actually read the Life of Apollonius, or any of these works. (The ones he gives here are quite ridiculous. Another, perhaps even more comical parallel Carrier gave elsewhere in the debate was The Golden Ass – the story of a man who accidentally bewitched himself and turned into a donkey until he ate some roses and turned back into a man). When one stops laughing, one has to shake one's head. The sober historian will begin by reminding skeptics that not only did Apollonius live after Jesus, his "life" was written up some 150 years after the gospels. In fact, it was written by one Philostratus, for the Empress Julia Domna, an early 3rd Century patroness of the arts and opponent of Christianity. The story tells how a popular 1st Century philosopher journeyed (like Hercules) to exotic locales, from Africa to India. The author claimed to work from (among other sources) letters his subject wrote to kings and philosophers, and from the diary of his Boswell and most famous disciple, one Damis of Ninevah. (A city which, unfortunately, did not actually exist at the time of the diarist's alleged birth, however). As I reminded Dr. Price, if you want parallels to Jesus to show that Jesus is really not so special, it is best to find some that are credibly independent of the gospels. If Apollonius were at all like Jesus, if his "miracles" were at all like the ones worked in the gospels, one very plausible hypothesis would be that Philostratus prettied him up to match his competitor. (A common tactic in religious entrepreneurship). Given that the book was sponsored by an opponent of Christianity, this hypothesis seems even more credible. And Philostratus may indeed have intended that at times. But one need not stress this point too much, because if you read the two sets of writings, what cries out to the heavens, the "elephant" in the room, is that in fact, Apollonius is nothing at all like Jesus. Not even his miracles, ripped off as some likely were from the gospels, are much like those of Jesus. I found that in fact, Apollonius of Tyana only shared six of 50 characteristics with the gospels fairly strongly, three weakly. Most of what they shared was not very important to historicity: that like Jesus, Apollonius was a teacher, and used a Q&A format to teach, and that the book tells stories. Let me briefly detail eight points of difference that are historically relevant: 1. The gospels were written within the plausible life-times of Jesus' first followers. Apollonius was written some 150 years after most the events it allegedly records. Such a gap is of deep significance to historicity. 2. Jesus carries out a remarkable, and unique, dialogue with the Hebrew tradition. He is Jewish from head to foot, steeped in the traditions and faith of his people. But he also challenges that tradition to the core, citing and fulfilling a plethora of prophecies and types and images from the ancient Hebrew world. One cannot do justice to this unique quality of the gospels, to which I know of no parallels, in a few words. Apollonius is not a dialogue with tradition, it is a monologue. In some ways a typical tourist, Apollonius floats dreamily across the world on a cushion of Greek arrogance. He is pleased to find his hosts in Babylon and India speak Greek. (This often happens in Greek novels, which center on lucky coincidences in far-away places). He visits all the sights, and takes the proper verbal snapshots, like backdrops to a James Bond flick. He is warmly welcomed by foreign priests, whom he instructs in superior (Greek, presumably) ritual. Why does this matter to those who want to know whether the gospels are telling the truth about Jesus or not? Apollonius is the kind of work a moderately clever writer could produce from his veranda, in pajamas and slippers. The gospels are not: they record an earthshattering encounter with a unique historical person who challenged his beloved tradition to its core. 3. The gospel writers relate many details about places correctly. Dozens of facts have been confirmed independently from Luke's description in Acts of the Apostles, for instance. By contrast, Philostratus sends us a series of post-cards from prominent cities on the edges of the ancient world. He describes how the citizens of Tarsus congregate by the river "like so many waterfowl," a tunnel under the Euphrates River, and a city in India hidden by what Star Trek fans might call a cloaking device. His account of geography and customs bare a relation to reality so long as his guru sticks to ground trampled by Macedonian army boots. But when he ranges past the conquests of Alexander the Great, Damis proves an "errant story teller:" "His description of the country between the Hyphasis and the Ganges is utterly at variance with all known facts regarding it . . . Damis, in fact, tells nothing that is true about India except what has been told by writers before him." (JW MCrinkle, quoted in Phillimore, Apollonius of Tyana, preface) Apollonius also describes special Indian fauna: griffins, phoenix, apes that cultivate pepper trees, sluggish, 30 cubit marsh dragons, and lively alpine dragons: "there is not a single ridge without one." 4. The Gospel narrative is mostly understated, "Just the facts, Ma'am" in a style that contrasts sharply with the words of Christ. Everyone else is a straight man, not because the disciples lack personality, but by contrast to the unforgettable central figure. "Master, master, we are perishing." "Are you the one, or should we look for someone else?" This distinguishes the gospels from Job, Bhagavad Gita, Candide, or most ancient novels or plays, in which the animating genius appears not as a figure within the text, but the literary puppet-master who brings all characters to life. All the characters in Job, for example, speak with the same gusto, even God. But in the gospels, the "spice" comes from the words of Jesus, not from Mark or even (usually) John. This, too, reflects the fact that the gospel writers were talking about a real, memorable person, not merely telling pretty stories. But Philostratus is telling stories. Apollonius contains much dialogue, in easy, colloquial tones, full of phrases like "But tell me," "By Zeus!" and the idiom of informal philosophical discourse: "So then . . . " "And what else could it be?" "We may rather consider this to be the case." The words of Apollonius do not much stand out from the text, in my opinion. 5. The gospels are full of realistic details, as even A. N. Wilson pointed out, when he was still a skeptic. It is often said that novelists can easily make up such details. But did they? Philostratus wants us to know his subject was remarkable, and tries to show this through the reaction of onlookers. At one point, Apollonius took a vow of silence. But when he entered a town in conflict, he shamed it into making peace by a gesture and the look on his face. Another time, the sages discussed how boiled eggs keep a child from alcoholism. "They were astonished at the many-sided wisdom of the company." It is hard to believe anyone was so impressed by such folklore, even in the 1st Century. One rare realistic touch comes when the sage talks to an Indian king through an interpreter. But this is spoiled by an earlier claim that he spoke all languages without studying. (As Eusebius already pointed out 1700 years ago). Besides crested dragons, spice-loving panthers (an addiction that proved their downfall), and 400 year-old elephants that shoot at enemies with their trunks, the hero's surprising fame in India, and his inane observations, which little justify that fame, allow the text to "work" for a modern audience only as a farce. Imagine the following dialogue between Steve Martin as Apollonius, and Bill Murray as a customs official, who at first takes Apollonius for a spirit: Bill Murray: "Whence comes this visitation?" Steve Martin: "I come of myself, if possible to make men of you, in spite of yourselves! All the earth is mine, and I have a right to go all over it and through it." Murray: "I will torture you, if you don't answer my questions." Martin (baring teeth): "I hope that you will do it with your own hands, so that you may catch it well, if you touch a true man." Murray (batting eyes): "By the gods, who are you?" Martin (with a magnanimous flourish): "Since you have asked me civilly this time and not so rudely as before, listen . . . I am Apollonius of Tyana . . . I shall be glad to meet your king." Subdued, the official offers gold, which the sage refuses. Then he suggests a barbecue, but recalls with horror that Apollonius is a vegetarian. Finally he offers vegan hors d'ouvres -- unfortunately not organic: Murray: "You should have leavened bread and huge dates as yellow as amber. And I can offer you all the vegetables that grow in the garden of the Tigris." Martin: "Wild, natural vegetables are more tasty than the forced and artificial!" The unintended comedy of Philostratus' work makes me rather glad that skeptics often appeal to it as a parallel to the gospels: I would have missed the fun of reading this unconsciously silly book otherwise. One wonders, though, how so many brilliant, highlyeducated skeptics can seriously claim Apollonius as some sort of parallel to Jesus. They are none so blind. 6. Jesus noticed and cared about individuals. Where the disciples noticed a "Samaritan" "woman," Jesus saw a hurting individual with a history of failed relationships who hungered for God. He often noticed individuals – a lady who had endured much from doctors, a woman about to be stoned, a man of faith, Zaccheus the Short – where others saw members of a class – tax collector, blind beggar, guide. Jesus possessed a quality rare in the healing profession, of looking a patient in the eye. With the sick, too, he saw not just a condition to attend, but a mother or brother or friend. If we possessed divine healing powers, would we think to ask a blind beggar who called on us, "What do you want?" Jesus did not dispense medicine to a procession of charity cases: he met and cared for human beings. Richard Carrier claimed that "Apollonius of Tyana notices individuals," as Jesus does. In fact, the disciples of Apollonius seem a nebulous lot. In his early days, the sage gathered seven, of whom nothing is said, apart from this parting shot when the philosopher set off for India: "I have taken council of the gods, and I have told you of my resolve . .. Since you are so soft, fare you well, and be true to your studies. I must go my way where Science and a higher Power guide me." But Apollonius' servants are forced to accompany him. Damius, whom he meets later in Ninevah, is probably no more than a rhetorical device. He serves two rhetorical purposes: to chronicle his master's adventures, and as foil to allow Philostratus to comment on sights along the way. When needed, extras appear, like the servants. They are just props. When confronted by two men with rival claims to buried gold, Apollonius judges their claims from universal principles: "I cannot believe that the gods would deprive the one even of this land, unless he was a bad man, or that they would, on the other hand, bestow on the other even what was under the land, unless he was better than the man who sold it." With pompous disinterest in real people like that, no wonder Apollonius became a wandering sage. So no, Apollonius does not really notice individuals – he's too busy preening and offering "wisdom." As for that alleged wisdom: 7. Jesus' teachings were surprising, shocking, paradoxical, and challenging. They were always original and surprising in form or context. G. K. Chesterton explained: "A man reading the gospel sayings would not find platitudes. If he had read even in the most respectful spirit the majority of ancient philosophers and of modern moralists, he would appreciate the unique importance of saying that he did not find platitudes. It is more than can be said of Plato. It is much more than can be said of Epictetus or Seneca or Marcus Aurelius or Apollonius of Tyana. And it is immeasurably more than can be said of most of the agnostic moralists and preachers of the ethical societies; with their songs of service and their religion of brotherhood." The gospels startle a reader by "strange claims that might sound like the claim to be the brother of the sun and moon," "startling pieces of advice," "stunning rebukes," and "strangely beautiful stories." An objective reader: "Would see some very gigantesque figures of speech about the impossibility of threading a needle with a camel or the possibility of throwing a mountain into the sea. He would see a number of very daring simplifications of the difficulties of life; like the advice to shine upon everybody indifferently as does the sunshine or not to worry about the future any more than the birds. He would find on the other hand some passages of almost impenetrable darkness, so far as he was concerned, such as the moral of the parable of the Unjust Servant. Some of these things might strike him as fables and some as truths; but none as truisms." By contrast, Apollonius of Tyana is choked with platitudes: "Is there any form of consumption so wasting as (falling in love)?" "Blessed are you then in your treasure, if you rate your friends more highly than gold and silver." Apollonius says little that is unique, and is often simplistic, making raids into the inane. But Philostratus is supposed to be one of the more clever writers of his time. Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John (according to our skeptics) are all anonymous writers, except maybe for Luke. Even on the traditional account, Jesus' disciples were a motley and mostly low-class crew. So why do the sayings of Jesus shine so much brighter than those of the "great sage," as transcribed by a "leading writer?" (And why do his words stand out from everyone else in the gospels?) The simplest explanation is clearly the best: the words of Jesus truly do trace to one unique genius, and represent a genuine, early memory of the actual teachings of our Lord. 8. But what about miracles? Isn't Apollonius proof that the miracles of Jesus were nothing special? Actually, I think such claims are proof, again, that some of our skeptical friends need to visit the eye doctor. The uber skeptic, Morton Smith, argued that miracles appear in the gospels because, indeed, Jesus did such things: "All major strands of the gospel material present Jesus as a miracle worker who attracted his followers by his miracles. All of them indicate that because of his miracles he was believed to be the Messiah and the son of a god. Anyone who wants to deny the truth of these reports must try to prove that within 40 to 60 years of Jesus' death all the preserved strands of Christian tradition had forgotten, or deliberately misrepresented, the most conspicuous characteristic of the public career of the founder of the movement." (Jesus the Magician: Charlatan or Son of God?, 4) Smith's own solution was to conflate "miracle" with "magic," which as I argue in Jesus and the Religions of Man, shows a failure in critical observation in itself. (Another way Smith dealt with Jesus was by inventing a saying of Mark to make Jesus look gay, probably as a gag). But this observation is accurate: Thomas Jefferson aside, one can't credibly take the miracles out of the gospels, anymore than one can de-bone a horse and still ride it. Glenn Miller has shown in a detailed summary that for two and a half centuries before the time of Jesus, miracle workers were essentially absent from the Roman world. ("Copy-Cat Savior" at ChristianThinktank.com). Skeptics like John Crossan often point to alleged parallels like Honi the CircleDrawer and Hanina ben Dosa, who strictly speaking, did no miracles at all. One prayed for rain, and rain came in a timely manner. But even that was reported long after the fact, and after the writing of the gospels. The desperation on the part of those who would make Jesus less lonely, is palpable. It is stunning that such seem to be the closest parallels skeptics can find, after an epic canvassing of ancient records. The search for an historical person who parallels Jesus on these points – the character and fact of his miracles – should convince us not that miracle workers were common, but exceedingly rare. No one seems to have found any records in the ancient world that parallel the realism, piety, practicality, and historicity of the miracle stories of Jesus. So what about Apollonius' "miracles?" Philostratus begins his work by reminding us that a philosopher can dabble in magic without tainting his credibility, as he says Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Anaxagoras all did. For the most part, he prefers to describe Apollonius as philosopher rather than magician. Occasionally, though, his hero disappears or foretells the future. The Hindu gurus also practice levitation, for which a metaphysical explanation is given. The secret to virtue is not magic, but "science." Often, when called on to cure people of an illness, Apollonius chose to rebuke them of sin, instead, and let them know they had what came to them, coming to them. Often this looks like blaming the victim. Anthropologist Rene Girard even used Apollonius as a case study of scape-goating. When the people of Ephesus asked the good sage to save them from a plague, he did so by having them stone a beggar to death. Beaten to a bloody pulp, the beggar's eyes glowed red, thus revealing him to be a demon. Girard reacted to this "horrible miracle" by noting, "Jesus is poles apart from Apollonius. Jesus doesn't instigate stonings; rather, he does all he can to prevent them." (Girard, I See Satan Fall Like Lightening, 54) Philostratus also raised a girl from apparent, but possibly misdiagnosed death. Even those at the scene "could not decide" whether or not she had been alive. So while Philostratus, writing long after the gospels and probably aware of them, claimed his sage did miracles, too, they were infrequent, and of a totally different character from those of Jesus. Parallels with Christ's miracles are therefore superficial, and this "proof text" is the exception that proves the rule. There simply are no serious parallels to Jesus in the ancient world, on this, as on many traits, or the sum total of those traits, even less. For two thousand years, skeptics have tried to find some parallel to the life of Jesus, so as to render it less unique, and, if possible, dismiss it as "just another tall tale." This attempt has utterly failed, revealing Jesus as unique indeed. Apollonius of Tyana is a dreadful choice as a parallel Christ. It is about someone whose career mostly occurred after the life of Jesus, was written up hundreds of years later, perhaps purposely in order to compete with or undermine Christianity. Yet even so, read these two sets of ancient writings, and no comparison could be more incongruous. No one could be less like Jesus than the cocky, banal, self-satisfied, inane, and ridiculous Apollonius, who has nothing much to say that has not been said better on Saturday Night Live. Why is that? Philostratus is supposed to the more cosmopolitan and clever writer. Something obviously much deeper and more remarkable is going on in the Gospels than mere literary cleverness. It says something about the gospels that so many skeptics have spent so much time looking for parallels, yet the best they can come up with is something like Apollonius of Tyana. Divine fingerprints rest upon the gospels, of a visitation to which no remote parallel has yet been found. ….

Nabonassar also called Shalmaneser

by Damien F. Mackey “[Copernicus] seems to identify Nabonassar with the biblical Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, whom, following Eusebius, he calls Salmanassar, king of the Chaldeans”. N. M. Swerdlow, O. Neugebauer Having tradition supply an extra name for a potentate can sometimes serve to change the order of things. Thus, thanks to the Chronicle of John [of] Nikiu (supposedly C7th AD), I learned that Cambyses had the other name of Nebuchednezzar (Nebuchadnezzar), thus enabling me to associate the mad, Egypt-conquering Cambyses with the mad, Egypt-conquering Nebuchednezzar. See e.g. my six-part series: Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar beginning with: (5) Cambyses also named Nebuchadnezzar? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, now, the above information opens the door to the possibility that Nabonassar may have been an Assyrian king, “Shalmaneser”. This could be very helpful, because, whilst Nabonassar is now well-known by name: https://referenceworks.brillonline.com/entries/brill-s-new-pauly/nabonassar-e815690 “(Ναβονάσσαρος; Nabonássaros). Graecised form of the Babylonian royal name Nabû-nāṣir. N.'s reign (747-734 BC) is not marked by any spectacular events. His fame is due to the fact that Claudius Ptolemaeus (Cens. 21,9) chose the beginning of the first year of N.'s reign (calculated to 26 February 747 BC) as the epoch for his astronomical calculations (‘Nabonassar Era’; in the ‘Ptolemaic Canon’, a continuous list of the kings ruling over Babylonia until Alexander [4] the Great, then continued by the rulers of Egypt …” he is otherwise quite poorly known, as is apparent from what William W. Hallo wrote (in The Nabonassar Era and other Epochs in Mesopotamian Chronology and Chronography, 1988, p. 189): The numerous innovations thus associated with Nabonassar stand in sharp contrast to the actual circumstances of his reign. Whatever high hopes he may have harbored at its outset, they were very soon dashed on the rocks of hard political reality. We have no royal inscriptions of the fourteen-year reign, and two private inscriptions of the time may be regarded as evidence of the relative strength of private dignitaries and corresponding weakness of the monarchy …. Only three years after Nabonassar’s accession in Babylonia, there occurred that of Tiglatpileser III in Assyria. He was a truly heroic figure, destined to lay the foundations of the neo-Assyrian empire. He too tampered with traditional historiographic conventions, reviving the age-old concept of the bala (in its Akkadian guise of palû) to date and count his annual campaigns, but beginning these with his accession year instead of waiting, like his predecessors, for the first full year of his reign. …. [End of quote] Some queries, and some suggestions, are immediately necessary here, I find. That so apparently innovative and substantially reigning a king, of such a well-documented era as that of the neo-Assyrians, could have left “no royal inscriptions”, can only mean that - as according to my custom - an alter ego for him needs to be identified. And the most obvious candidate for this would be the likewise innovative, and contemporaneous, king, Tiglath-pileser so-called III, who is known to have ruled Babylon - and that under a non-Assyrian name. Especially if Tiglath-pileser was also named - as Nabonassar is said to have been - “Shalmaneser”. And that I have often argued to have been the case, for instance: King Tiglath-pileser was Tobit’s “Shalmaneser” (8) King Tiglath-pileser was Tobit’s “Shalmaneser” | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu So, it was the innovative Tiglath-pileser who had presumably, under his adopted name “Nabonassar”, as ruler of Babylon, inaugurated a new chronological era. Tiglath-pileser was multi-facetted This Tiglath-pileser was too larger-than-life a character for him not to have absorbed various alter egos, apart from Nabonassar. In I Chronicles 5:26, he is also called Pul (or Pulu) in a waw consecutive construction: So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, that is, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria. He carried the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh into captivity. He took them to Halah, Habor, Hara, and the river of Gozan to this day. And Tiglath-pileser so-called III was also Tiglath-pileser so-called I, according to my reconstructions, such as: Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria (8) Tiglath-pileser King of Assyria | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, with the necessary folding of the Middle Assyrian era of the c. C12th BC into the Neo Assyrian era of the c. C8th BC: Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings (8) Folding four ‘Middle’ Assyrian kings into first four ‘Neo’ Assyrian kings | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu as further reinforced by a repetition of Middle and Neo Elamite Shutrukid kings: Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids (8) Horrible Histories: Suffering Shutrukids | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then Shalmaneser so-called I must likewise be folded into Neo kings “Shalmaneser”. Was Nabonassar’s Assyrian alter ego an innovator? “Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B.C.E.) introduced a new era in the history of the ancient Near East. He is the ruler who laid the firm foundations of the Neo-Assyrian empire, developing new methods of military occupation, political organisation and communications throughout his vast, subjugated territories. It is not by chance”. Bustanay Oded To find the historical prophet Jonah - and also to fill him out biblically (a task upon which I was able to focus without much distraction during the period of lockdown) - I had to turn upside down, and inside out, the conventional sequence of Assyro-(Babylonian) kings. See e.g. my article: De-coding Jonah (DOC) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Whilst I did not then come to the further conclusion that Nabonassar may have been a powerful Assyrian king who had ruled the city of Babylon, my Assyrian reconstruction around the prophet Jonah has important bearing upon the “Shalmaneser” of whom it was said that he was Nabonassar. Without going back here through all of the complicated details, let me simply summarise the extent of the composite king, Shalmaneser – Tiglath-pileser. My revised neo-Assyrian succession relevant to Jonah is as follows: 1. Adad-Nirari [I-III]; 2. Tiglath-pileser [I-III]/Shalmaneser [I-V]; 3. Tukulti-ninurta [I-II]/Sargon II-Sennacherib; 4. Ashurnasirpal-Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal-Nebuchednezzar. According to my Jonah article, the last of these kings, my enlarged king 4., was Jonah 3:6’s repentant “king of Nineveh”. Now, was this Assyrian king [no. 2 above] in any way the inaugurator of a new outlook, or a new era?’ (as would seem to befit Nabonassar) Bill Cooper, who has favoured (my potential Nabonassar) this same king 2. above - in his guise as Tiglath-pileser III - as Jonah’s Ninevite king, has written of this king as if he had indeed inaugurated a new sort of era (which Cooper himself would attribute, mistakenly, I believe, to the Jonah effect). Thus he wrote (“The Historic Jonah”, p. 112): https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j02_1/j02_1_105-116.pdf): …. Almost overnight, it seems, the empire underwent a total revival. Where defeat had so recently been staring them in the face, the Assyrians were now enjoying decisive victories. Where there had been economic collapse, there was now available wealth and a reasonable stability. Political turmoil and civil unrest now quietened down. In other words, the disaster-prone empire that Tiglath-pileser III had ‘inherited’ … was almost unrecognisable after the inauguration of his reign. Shortly after he took over the rule of the empire, something dramatic, almost disturbing happened to turn on its head Assyria’s forthcoming and imminent destruction. …. Be that as it may, Tiglath-pileser (so-called III) – {who would also be, in my reconstruction, the enlightened “Shalmaneser” of Tobit 1, Tobit’s royal patron} - is definitely considered by Assyriologists to have inaugurated something of “a new era”. Thus, for example, Bustanay Oded writes (“The Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III: Review Article” (Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 47, No. 1/2 (1997), pp. 104-110): “Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 B.C.E.) introduced a new era in the history of the ancient Near East. He is the ruler who laid the firm foundations of the Neo-Assyrian empire, developing new methods of military occupation, political organisation and communications throughout his vast, subjugated territories. It is not by chance”. And again, Shigeo Yamada, “The Reign and Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, an Assyrian Empire Builder (744-727 BC)” https://journals.openedition.org/annuaire-cdf/1803 “… it has become fully apparent that [T-P III’s] reign marked the beginning of the imperial phase of Assyria, and that this period of time should be regarded as a watershed in the history of the ancient Near East”.