submitted by doofgeek401 to AcademicBiblical [link] [comments] |
submitted by ralphmarionvicta to exIglesiaNiCristo [link] [comments] |
submitted by judeharte to Anthropology [link] [comments]
Over the last few years the question about methodology and understanding the composition of the Book of Mormon has come up in several threads by a handful of members of this group. One member in particular inverts that order by not focusing on the text itself but instead by asking questions about Joseph Smith's abilities. That approach is backwards if someone is trying to understand how the BoM itself was written. I don't post here very often but I've been wanting to make this clarification about methodology for those of you who are actually interested in understanding how scholars approach the study of composition and the dating of texts. My training covers a handful of fields. I have two HBA degrees in comparative literature and religious studies (University of Utah), an MA in history (Utah State University), and am now in the PhD program in English at IU Bloomington studying transatlantic literature of the long eighteenth century. I have studied classical Hebrew, ancient Greek, German, and I'm now taking an Old English course. I have read and engaged with literature in biblical studies, Renaissance and Enlightenment history and literature, and seventeenth through the nineteenth century English literature. All of my training deals with how texts are composed and when, focuses on what was going on historically at the time they were composed, and, blended with other literary-critical observations and tools, what all of that means for a twenty-first century academic understanding of the text. When you begin to study second temple Jewish pseudepigrapha, for example, the first realization is that, like the Hebrew Bible, most of the texts are anonymous (and/or pseudonymous). We do not know who wrote them. That does not stop us from understanding how they were written and during what period. Scholars in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, for example, were able to tell that 1 Enoch was written in Aramaic (not Hebrew), even though all that we had at the time were manuscripts in classical Ethiopic and some fragments in Greek and a few other languages. This was confirmed by the discovery of fragments of manuscripts of 1 Enoch at Qumran in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Scholars had also divided up the authorship and dating of the text into five major sections and one of those they dated last was not found in any of the caves at Qumran. In other words, when it comes to language and composition scholars can be very precise if the right kind of data all comes together even before they have strong manuscript evidence. An important takeaway from this: when you see people using the phrase "naturalistic approach" as a pejorative to describe how someone is approaching the composition of the Book of Mormon that person does not understand what they are describing. A "naturalistic approach" is an academic historical approach. It would be a major methodological flaw for me to attempt an argument about the composition of 1 Enoch by incorporating anything other than standard historical data, so a "naturalistic approach" is literally just a historical approach. With these points in mind, when I study the composition of the BoM I don't need to have anything other than the text itself to understand how and when it was written. I can focus on the narrative form, the sources it uses, the version(s) of those sources, when those date to, historical allusions (both portraying accurate and inaccurate information), and so on. A book as long as the BoM carries a ton of data that can be mined by scholars if they have the right tools and know how to properly use them. Starting off by asking questions about Joseph Smith's abilities goes nowhere precisely because it focuses on things we honestly can't know unless we have data from the historical record that completely confirms those abilities. As a friend of mine once said, that method functionally argues that we can't know whether or not Joseph Smith had diarrhea as a child because no interview or publication in the historical record confirms that he did. If one is going to approach the past seriously then it is necessary to expand one's tools if actually understanding the past is the goal because we have the information available to us to understand how and when texts like the BoM were written. It just takes time, patience, and attention to detail. So, if we are going to be responsible historians and literary critics, wanting not only to understand how the BoM was written and when as well as the variety of ways that it can be read and understood, then the focus has to be on the text itself. I have written hundreds of pages on this and related questions. I have shown how the BoM explicitly recognizes that the Nephites did not have Malachi on the brass plates and yet it is formally quoted by Nephi and other BoM authors, as well as a crucial part of the composition of several other verses throughout the book (https://www.dialoguejournal.com/.../Dialogue_V51N02_14.pdf). In my undergraduate thesis I argued that the author of the BoM did not know just a "brass plates" version of Genesis 2–4 but blended verses from those chapters with other parts of the Hebrew Bible and, even more importantly, a lot of New Testament texts. I also highlighted how much of the use of biblical phrases represents updated readings of these verses in the oral culture of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century (https://collections.lib.utah.edu/details?id=205723). In my master's thesis I argued that Smith, whether or not he was the author of the BoM, edited the version of Eden in the BoM into the first several chapters of the Bible only months after publishing the BoM. From my perspective he did this because throughout the text of the BoM the idea that Cain made a secret pact with Satan drives the narrative about secret combinations, and that leads to the destruction of the Nephites. Without that story in the Bible there is a strong tension between the two books. I also noted that while the connection to anti-Masonry in the BoM is warranted the focus on Masonry is too limiting. Anti-Jacobin literature of the early nineteenth century helps to better lay a foundation to understand the secret combinations and the trope about the council in heaven (https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/7681/). In my recent publications I have paid similar attention to the composition of the first six chapters of Smith's bible revision of Genesis (known as the Book of Moses in the LDS church), showing how Moses 1 is structurally dependent on Matthew 4, as well as the chapter and Moses 7 are both dependent on other New Testament texts (especially the gospel of John) for the way that they rewrite the story of Moses (https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/jmormhist.46.4.0045...). In another essay I questioned the idea that Smith had to know about the major English translation of the Book of Enoch in order to produce his expansion of Genesis 5 into the "Extract of the Prophecy of Enoch" and showed how broadly known and available information on 1 Enoch was in English sources between 1715–1830 (https://www.jstor.org/.../10.5406/dialjmormthou.53.3.0041...). All of this is to say that historians focus on the text when attempting to understanding how a book is written, not by asking tertiary questions about the supposed author's abilities. Once the composition history of the text is understood, if information about the author is known that information can be further help in understanding the text. But, it is not absolutely necessary to explain how the book was composed and when if you have a wealth of data within the text that has not yet been mined.EDIT: Spelling
O community of Muslims, how is it that you seek wisdom from the people of the book? Your book, brought down upon his prophet—blessings and peace of God upon him—is the latest report about God. You read a book that has not been distorted, but the people of the book, as God related to you, exchanged that which God wrote, changing the book with their handsAs many Muslims claim, and as the Hadith says, the Bible meant something else differently but Jews and Christians changed it over time. But archaeologists have found the earliest copy of the Bible in what is known as the Dead Sea scrolls. What did they find?
While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100That
Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there. — Saying 77, Gospel of Thomasfrom:
submitted by Gewdgawddamn to Judaism [link] [comments] |
Chronicles is … courageous and practical – a splendid achievement. But that high valuation depends on understanding that Chronicles is not what it appears to be. Anyone who supposes that it is a history of Judah, which its author wanted or expected his readers to accept as accurate, is almost certain to consider it for the most part dull and frequently incredible. That impression of its character is widely held, and in consequence these two great books [First and Second Chronicles] have become virtually deadwood in the Bible. They come alive when the real intentions of the Chronicler and the peculiar method which he used to make his purpose effective are apprehended… It is the only instance of Hebraic philosophy of history presented on an immense scale. It is theology, powerfully and persuasively inculcating three doctrines: that human life exists under the overruling of an immutable moral order ordained by God; that observance of rightful forms of worship is of paramount importance for the community; and that God’s revelation is given not only in the past time but in the present - a living word of truth. The Chronicler had to urge this philosophy and these doctrines, not by abstract argument, but by a method wholly strange to us although sufficiently clear to his contemporaries. The Chronicler taught by painting a picture of the past, in which sometimes he laid emphasis on the religio-moral causes and consequences of events that actually had happened and sometimes gave a freely imagine delineation of what ought to have happened. Even where he makes use of facts, his aim is to depict “truth of idea.” …The New Jerome Biblical Commentary - Robert North, S.J.Chr
The Chronicler’s pictorial method was, of course, dramatic… Chronicles is essentially a vast and moving drama, ranging from Adam to the destruction of the Judean kingdom. We should see in its first nine chapters a prelude, subtly inviting us to feel that human history from its commencement led up to the radiant morning of David’s reign and the noonday splendor of Solomon, culminating in his dedication of the glorious temple for the rightful worship of God. Thereafter the drama unfolds its grim sequel in the succession of those kings of Judah to whom so much had been entrusted, from whom came so seldom good, so often evil. Again and again light shines, only to be swiftly quenched in darkness. … Toward the end of the drama there are two periods (the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah) when it seems as if victory may rest with good; but they are transient. At the last, black night descends on the tragedy of Jerusalem: the city is captured and destroyed and its temple burned. Its kings and people had persisted in wickedness until there was no remedy. …
… But they knew that, although seemingly final night had fallen when the Davidic kingdom had been destroyed, light had arisen in darkness. Their people had rallied on a religion purified and ennobled by the thoughts of God and duty which the prophets had demanded. Jerusalem’s temple had been rebuilt; their national consciousness had not ceased. …
Unless the purpose and method of the Chronicler are thus realized, a modern reader – especially if he compares Chronicles with Samuel and Kings – is likely to be of the opinion that very little of intellectual and spiritual value would be lost if this strange work had been omitted from the Bible … Chronicles on a superficial view seems to be for the most part unnecessary, uninteresting, defective in comparison with Samuel and Kings, and in many matters incredible. …
Unnecessary: At least to the extent that fully half of Chronicles copies verbatim, or with some adaptations, parts of Genesis, Samuel, and Kings. What advantage is there in being able to ready the same words in two places in the Bible?
Uninteresting: At least in part. Take a glance at the name lists which fill from end to end I Chr. [Chronicles], and at similar punctilious lists – most of them concerning ancestors of Levites serving the temple in various functions – which recur throughout the book. …
Defective: Chronicles is lopsided, an exclusive history of Judah which ignores the story of the northern kingdom of Israel, except for a few frowning side glances at times when the doings of certain kings of Israel affected Judah. … If we want to know fully about the Hebrew monarchies, who would not choose Samuel and Kings? … For example, in Samuel, David lives before us, an imperfect but very great and attractive personality. In Chronicles David is an almost perfect saint … there is in Chronicles a large number of passages – many complete chapters – purporting to give information not recorded in Samuel and Kings. … On scrutiny it appears indisputable that they furnish an absolute minimum (if any at all) of reliable new information about the kingdom of Judah. …
Incredible: Consider the unbelievable features in Chronicles. … For overwhelmingly strong reasons, based on other scriptures, what is related is not credible history. … the Chronicler exaggerates numbers and amounts out of all possibility … the Chronicler declares that between them they [David and Solomon] amassed for the building and decoration of a small temple treasure of such value that it would suffice to meet the modern world’s financial crises. … The Jews for whom the Chronicler wrote were shrewd men … they could, if they chose, compare Chronicles with the plain tale in Samuel and Kings. Obviously the Chronicler expected his readers to look beneath the surface and to perceive a deeper purpose than the attempt to write an accurate account of the past. …
Our initial difficulty in appreciating the purpose and value of Chronicles is that it is not history in our sense of the word at all. … he created a narrative so obviously idealized that his contemporaries could not fail to recognize it for what it was. … he is portraying the abiding meaning in human life – the reality of God and his righteousness, the continuity of the divine good purpose. …
…Here are the historical landmarks that would dwell in his own and his fellow’ thoughts. (a) In 721 B.C. the kingdom of Israel had come to an end when the Assyrians captured Samaria and removed into captivity some thirty thousand Israelites, replacing them by alien settlers. (b) In 586 ended the kingdom of Judah when the Babylonians sacked Jerusalem, broke down its walls, burned temple and palace, and departed to Babylonia its leading citizens and craftsmen, in number about thirty to fifty thousand persons. (c) In 538, when Cyrus the Persian conquered Babylon, he permitted Jews to go back to Palestine … (d) in 520-516 a substitute temple was built … (e) Thereafter for about 150 years nothing in particular happened, until in 384 – perhaps not 444, as used to be thought – Nehemiah, coming from Babylonia with authority from its Persian king, rebuilt Jerusalem’s walls. (f) Shortly afterward a caravan of some 1,800 Jews led by Ezra (if the event is not exaggerated) returned to Jerusalem from Babylonia …
…
… In conquered Israel the Assyrians in 721 B.C. had prohibited sacrifice to Yahweh at the Hebrew sanctuaries. … Some years after 721 the Assyrians permitted sacrifices to Yahweh, but at one place only in the occupied land, at Bethel. Meantime, many bold Israelites … had accepted an invitation from the Judean King Hezekiah to go to Jerusalem to keep the Passover …
When the kingdom of Judah was overthrown in 586 its inhabitants were stunned for a time. But in Judah, as earlier in Israel, the mass of the population – perhaps four out of every five Hebrews was left in Palestine. …
In all probability not very long after 586, and certainly long before 538, worship of Yahweh was resumed at the sacred area in Jerusalem. … As the city revived, and when in 520 the temple was rebuilt, increase of clergy was needed, for the daily ritual required many ministrants and large augmentation was necessary at the times of the three great religious festivals. … One can infer that the permanent staff in Jerusalem began to assert superiority against the ‘occasional’ Levites, especially if they were from Israelitish territory. Against that cruel, narrow-minded, vested interest attitude the Chronicler set his face. …
Opposed to that horrid, petty antagonism the Chronicler wrote, showing in a picture the goodness of brotherhood and reunion. He urged as the will of God that there should be one Hebrew people. …
…
The outcome of clerical tension in Jerusalem during the fifth century was that certain Levitical families who could claim descent from Levi through Zadok, or, more widely, through Aaron, established themselves as having exclusive sacerdotal rights: they alone were priests unto God,”: in contrast to all other Levites (musicians, singers, custodians, porters) whose status was that of “ministers unto their brethren the priests … The superiority of the Aaronite Zadokites was solemnly documented as carrying the authority of Moses by those portions of the Pentateuch which are termed the Priestly Code, and when the whole Pentateuch was promulgated – apparently not earlier than 450 nor later than 350 B.C. – a final settlement had been reached: this, and neither more nor less, was the law of God given by Moses.
Prevailing opinion has been that the Chronicler wrote during the succeeding century, 350-250 B.C. This conclusion would follow if he were the compiler of the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, but the reason assigned for that opinion is not cogent … Linguistic features (discussed below) are deemed to imply no earlier period than late in the fourth century. If so, we have to think of the Chronicler as one who lived a long while after the establishment of the system of ritual set forth in the Priestly Code, after the Aaronite Zadokites had attained their supremacy … But if so, how incomprehensible and naïve was the Chronicler’s mentality! … If he did pen such heterodoxy, hoping to induce the entrenched priests to contravene the word of God and admit to their privileges numbers of the inferior clergy, how naïve he was! … If, further, he was the author of the entire text of Chronicles as it now stands, how weakly he advanced his astonishing plea! For whenever he alludes to Levites and ritual in a way not incompatible with the earlier Deuteronomic standpoint, but incompatible with the ultimate orthodoxy of the Priestly Code – always there we find qualifying and contradictory phrases and verses to the effect that nevertheless orthodox procedure had been observed on the occasion. There is, however, virtual unanimity that these phrases and verses were not part of the Chronicler’s original writing, but are corrective additions inserted into this text at a later date. …
On the other hand, consider whether the Chronicler’s original work may be dated in the circumstances of the fifth century; or, say, 450-350 B.C. It would then have been very relevant, and we could credit him with fine qualities and with making a sensible endeavor … If he wrote before the Aaronite Zadokites had won complete victory, and before the law as it stands in the Pentateuch had been finally written and declared, then his mode of referring to Levites does not perplex. And his idealizing picture of the past was a moving plea to the Judeans and men of Jerusalem to treat all loyalist Israelites … as brethren. This conception of the Chronicler’s purpose and period has been powerfully advocated by A.C. Welch [1939], and, in general, it seems that a date in the latter part of the fifth century, or very little later, should be accepted. It gives naturalness to the ‘Chronicler’s mind, and the great and complex perplexities which otherwise confront us in the basic characteristics of Chronicles vanish.
A conspicuous problem of style, however, remains to be considered. Chronicles contains many and lengthy quotations from the books of Samuel and Kings. Those books are written in what may be termed “classical” Hebrew, whereas all else in Chronicles – that is, the Chronicler’s own composition – differs startlingly in details of vocabulary and syntax from the Hebrew of Samuel and Kings. … Evidently he wanted his readers to realize without difficulty just when they were reading quotations and when his own idealizing presentation of affairs. The Chronicler’s own diction must be that of ordinary contemporary use, and admittedly it is similar to that found in the latest Hebrew writings in the Old Testament.
But even by the middle of the third century B.C. vernacular speech in Jerusalem had, it seems, ceased to be Hebrew and become Aramaic. Moreover, at about 400 B.C. a reference in Neh. [Nehemiah] 8:8 to a public reading from the Law probably signified that the people understood clearly only when they were given an interpretation in their everyday terms. It may reasonably be asked. How early did ordinary Hebrew diction begin to diverge from the “classical” literary idiom, and how rapid was the process of change? … Israelitish Hebrew differed in particulars from the Judean: there is evidence as far back as the compilation of the northern records concerning Elijah and Elisha. …
…
The view of the structure of Chronicles indicated above affords a consistent and reasonable criterion for distinguishing the original writing of the Chronicler from the numerous additions which, as all scholars are agreed, were in the course of time introduced into the manuscripts. When the final Law obtained, devout readers were sure to be distressed by passages and verses which conflicted with its provisions, or were ambiguous or perilously vague. … Attempts were therefore made to improve it. What seem to be the consequent corrections and amplifications will be pointed out in the Exegesis.
…
A subordinate and difficult problem is how far, if at all, the Chronicler for is new material availed himself of lost sources, and whether in consequence his work adds anything reliable to what Kings tells about the history of Judah,. In Chronicles there is a great parade of alleged sources, among them notably references to lost prophetic writings… But for the most part these references on investigation merge into one general question – whether the Chronicler had before him a large-scale document other than Kings about the history of Judah and Israel… If he did, it was an edifying rather than a historically trustworthy work; and he did not quote from it, as he does from Kings, but transmuted into his own style what he wanted to reproduce. Its existence is doubtful; its worth for reliable new information is certainly slender. Nevertheless, it is difficult not to feel that the Chronicler was able to avail himself of some written and oral minor sources of information other than Kings, and to some extent of pre-exilic date, which he used as a basis for numerous details regarding ancestors, places, building operations, and certain events and dates. And indeed, evidence to that effect has grown in recent years …
…
The text of Chronicles is in fairly good condition… we know that in the course of manuscript transmission the text in Chronicles was sometimes adjusted to that found in Samuel and Kings: sometimes the reverse process is to be detected.
…
The translators of the Septuagint placed Chronicles after Kings, and in consequence that is its position in our Bibles. But it was very nearly excluded from the Jewish scriptures and was set as the last book. … learned Jewish students would not miss the inner inconsistencies; and whereas Samuel and Kings were indispensable, Chronicles was highly debatable. When toward the end of the first century A.D. the rabbis at Jamnia reached decision as to which writings should be classed as sacred, there must have been anxious discussion about Chronicles. … (Elmslie, 1954, pp. III 341-348)
[Chronicles] is presumed to be the last book to be received into the Hebr [Hebrew] canon, since it is put after Neh [Nehemiah]… Not all Hebr mss. [manuscripts] assign this last place to Chr; the “Palestinian tradition” puts it immediately after the Psalms (whose organization it described) and puts Ezra-Neh at the end of the Writings… The LXX [the Septuagint, the ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible] preserves the natural order of Chr before Ezra … this may prove that Alexandrian Jewry had a canon in that order or that the notion of “canonicity” was of Christian origin before Jewish readers felt its need. Text study has been enriched by the discovery of Aleppo Codex 2 Chr 35:7-36:19 (M Beit-Arié … 1982 ) and of the masorah1 1 Chr 4-9 (G. Weil … 1984).FOOTNOTES
The Targum has been newly published and its editorial observation is that the theologizing and clarifying aims of the Targum continue those of Chr itself (R. Le Déut …). A special similarity of Chr with the Qumran Temple Scroll has been noted chiefly in the use of particles (T. Yohanan… 1983…). The Chronicles’ matres lectionis 2] stem not from its author but from the Maccabee period when Jews were showing more interest in the study of Hebrew (… Willi…).
…
There is … general agreement that the author of Chr is a Levite cantor whose own genealogy is probably that given in 1 Chr 3:19-24 … (Robert North, 1990, p. 364)
Nephilim (Giants) submitted by extriniti to conspiracy [link] [comments] Why is the Nephilim (Giants) hidden from modern day archaeology & history?The Nephilim /ˈnɛfɪˌlɪm/ (Hebrew: נְפִילִים, nefilim) were the offspring of the "sons of God" and the "daughters of men" before the Deluge, according to Genesis 6:1–4.When people began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that they were fair; and they took wives for themselves of all that they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh; their days shall be one hundred twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went in to the daughters of humans, who bore children to them. These were the heroes that were of old, warriors of renown.— Genesis 6:1–4, New Revised Standard Version The story of the Nephilim is further elaborated in the Book of Enoch. The Greek, Aramaic, and main Ge'ez manuscripts of 1 Enoch and Jubilees obtained in the 19th century and held in the British Museum and Vatican Library, connect the origin of the Nephilim with the fallen angels, and in particular with the egrḗgoroi (watchers). Samyaza, an angel of high rank, is described as leading a rebel sect of angels in a descent to earth to have sexual intercourse with human females: And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: "Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children." And Semjaza, who was their leader, said unto them: "I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin." And they all answered him and said: "Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing." Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. And they were in all two hundred; who descended in the days of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it ... In this tradition, the children of the Nephilim are called the Elioud, who are considered a separate race from the Nephilim, but they share the fate of the Nephilim. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephilim The Book of GiantsThe Book of Giants is an apocryphal Jewish book which expands a narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Its discovery at Qumran dates the text's creation to before the 2nd century BC.The Book of Giants is an antediluvian (pre-flood) narrative that was received primarily in Manichaean literature and known at Turpan. However, the earliest known traditions for the book originate in Aramaic copies of a Book of Giants in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Furthermore, references are found in: Genesis 6:1-4, 1 Enoch, and visions in Daniel 7:9-14. This book tells of the background and fate of these Nephilim in the flood. The Book of Giants consists of a group of Aramaic fragments. Because of the fragmentation of the Book of Giants, it is difficult to know the order of the content. This work is related to the 1 Enoch analogue, which tells a story of the giants that is far more elaborate. Further, the Qumran Book of Giants bore resemblance to the Manichaean Book of Giants that followed after it. The Book of Giants is an expansive narrative of the biblical story of the birth of giants in Genesis 6.1-4. In this story, the giants came into being when the sons of God had sexual intercourse with mortal women who birthed a hybrid race of giants. These giants partook in destructive and immoral actions, which devastated humanity. When Enoch heard of this, he was distressed and asked God to bring judgement to the giants. In his mercy, God chose to give the giants a chance to repent by transmitting dreams to two giants named Ohyah and Hahyah who relayed the dreams to an assembly of giants. The giants were perplexed with the dreams, so they sent a giant named Mahaway to Enoch’s abode. Enoch interceded on their behalf and gave tablets to the giants with the meaning of the dreams and God’s future judgement. When the giants heard this, many chose to act in defiance to God. While the Qumran fragments were incomplete at this point, the Manichaean fragments tell of the hosts of God subduing the race of giants through battle. Most of the content in the Book of Giants is derived out of 1 Enoch 7:3-6 . This passage sheds light on the characterizing features of the Giants. It reveals that the Giants were born of the sons of god and daughters of man. The giants began to devour the works of men and went on to kill and consume them. They also sinned against the birds and beast of the sky, creeping things and the fish of the sea. It also mentions that the giants devoured the flesh of one another and they drank the blood. This act of drinking blood would have horrified the people. There is further evidence of this in Leviticus 17:10-16. In this passage there are strict rules regarding the blood of the animal. In verse 10 and 11, it says, “I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood and I will cut them off from the people. For the life of the creature is in the blood.” The text relates how some giants, named Ohya, Hahya and Mahway, sons of the fallen angels, have some dreams that foresee the biblical Flood. A brief mention of one of these giants, "Ohya", is found in the Babylonian Talmud (Nidah, Ch 9), where it is said "סיחון ועוג אחי הוו דאמר מר סיחון ועוג בני אחיה בר שמחזאי הוו" ("Sihon and Og [from the Book of Numbers] were brothers, as they were the sons of Ohia the son of Samhazai [one of the leaders of the fallen angels in the Book of Enoch])". The version found at Qumran also describes the Sumerian hero Gilgamesh and the monster Humbaba. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_Giants ANNUNAKIIn his 1976 book The Twelfth Planet, Russian-American author Zecharia Sitchin claimed that the Anunnaki were actually a race of extraterrestrial beings from the undiscovered planet Nibiru, who came to Earth around 500,000 years ago in order to mine gold. According to Sitchin, the Anunnaki genetically engineered homo erectus to create modern humans to work as their slaves. Sitchin claimed that the Anunnaki were forced to leave Earth when Antarctic glaciers melted, causing the Flood of Noah, which also destroyed the Anunnaki's bases on Earth. These had to be rebuilt and the Nephilim, needing more humans to help in this massive effort, taught them agriculture. Ronald H. Fritze writes that, according to Sitchin, "the Annunaki built the pyramids and all the other monumental structures from around the world that ancient astronaut theorists consider so impossible to build without highly advanced technologies." Sitchin also claimed that the Anunnaki had left behind human-alien hybrids, some of whom may still be alive today, unaware of their alien ancestry. Sitchin expanded on this mythology in later works, including The Stairway to Heaven (1980) and The Wars of Gods and Men (1985). In The End of Days: Armageddon and the Prophecy of the Return (2007), Sitchin predicted that the Anunnaki would return to earth...Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anunnaki GIGANTISMIs a condition characterized by excessive growth and height significantly above average. In humans, this condition is caused by over-production of growth hormone in childhood resulting in people between 7 feet (2.13 m) and 9 feet (2.72 m) in height.It is a rare disorder resulting from increased levels of growth hormone before the fusion of the growth plate which usually occurs at some point soon after puberty. This increase is most often due to abnormal tumor growths on the pituitary gland. Gigantism should not be confused with acromegaly, the adult form of the disorder, characterized by somatic enlargement specifically in the extremities and face. The San Diego Giant Modern Day Nephilim Conspiracy Theories
The Kandahar GiantRather than the old skeletons, I'm more interested in 'The Kandahar Giant' conspiracy theory because it's about U.S. soldiers fighting & taking a 12' - 15' fair skinned, red haired giant, with 6 fingers & 6 toes, in Afghanistan.
"As we bent around this corner you could see the opening of the cave. And then I see a lot of rocks which is another oddity. And then bone matter. I’m not close enough to identify what kind of bones but I did see what I knew to be a piece of our communications equipment. So instantly we’re thinking ‘ambush,’ maybe animal, you know, could be anything. There was enough room in front of the cave, but it had a sheer drop-off; but there was enough room that we got into a decent dispersal in case of ambush."Not long after they had gotten into that dispersal formation, they saw something emerge from the cave that, despite their preparedness, caught them fully off guard. "It was a man at least 12 to 15 feet in height. This is a MONSTER. Red beard, with his hair–was longish, past his shoulders, a scarlet red. And Dan runs at him and starts shooting, which broke all of us into the reality–because it was surreal."Eventually, the giant was killed. Dan had been killed as well. And the patrol unit was soon visited by a helicopter that dropped some cargo netting. They were told they had to bundle up the giant in the netting, and soon after they were done, a larger helicopter came by, dropped a hook, and the giant was carried off. The soldier confirmed that the red-haired, fair-skinned giant had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. After they had submitted their after-action report, the soldier recounts that they were told by their top brass to re-write it in a particular fashion, presumably to remove any mention of a giant being. Although not an eyewitness, another special ops soldier in Afghanistan provides the following corroborating testimony: "We would come back to the base and started hearing this rumor about a unit that killed this, what they started calling this really tall person. At first I didn’t think anything of it, then come to find out that the person they killed was actually three times the size of a man, had extra digits on their hands, and extra digits on their feet, and had red hair, and a special unit had come in and wanted this target."Source: https://www.collective-evolution.com/2018/06/22/u-s-soldier-claims-to-have-shot-killed-a-12-foot-giant-in-afghanistan Then there's conspiracy theories about very tall super soldiers. Are they or have they weaponized giants for war? If they found the 'Fallen Angels' in Antarctica, they may want to control them, use them, or even weaponize them too IMO. Please let me know of any other modern day Nephilim Conspiracy Theories to add to the list. Are these just Conspiracy Theories or are they reality? If they're reality, why is it being covered up -- especially when it would prove the existence of GOD or even extra-terrestrials IMO. |
I know a person in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven…. And I know that such a person…was caught up into Paradise and heard things that are not to be told, that no mortal is permitted to repeat. (2 Cor. 12:2–4)One of Paul’s core teachings seems to be that Christ offers deliverance from the influence of cosmic entities and forces:
For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor archons nor powers … nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Rom. 8:39)Paul’s vocabulary of angels, archons and powers has cosmic meaning in both Jewish and philosophical texts (see below), and ‘height’ and ‘depth’ are drawn specifically from the astronomical vocabulary of the first century CE (see Lewis, p. 59 for references; Van Kooten, pp. 93ff.).
And just as he was coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, “You are my Son, the Beloved….” (Mark 1:10–11)This is, in fact, one half of an inclusio or “Markan sandwich”, because there is a second instance at Jesus’ death where something is similarly torn and a voice is heard declaring Jesus to be the Son of God: the tearing of the veil of the temple, which Ulansey (Ulansey 1991) points out must have been, for various reasons, the outer veil on which a panorama of the heavens was depicted.¹⁹ ... it seems reasonable to assume that Mark intends to portray Jesus’ entire ministry and death as an event that alters the cosmos. It also links baptism to Christ’s death as analogous events with cosmic meaning.
When Kirsten and the bishop had returned to the Bay Area — not permanently but, rather, to deal with Jeff's death and the prob- lems raised by it — I could upon seeing them again notice a change in both of them. Kirsten looked worn and wretched, and this did not seem to me to emanate from the shock of Jeff's death alone. Obviously she was in ill health in purely physical terms. On the other hand, Bishop Archer seemed even more an- imated than when I had last seen him. He took complete charge of the situation regarding Jeff; he selected the burial spot, the kind of gravestone; he delivered the eulogy and all other rites, wearing full robes, and he paid for everything. The inscription on the gravestone came as a result of his inspiration. He chose a phrase which I found quite acceptable; it is the motto or ba- sic statement of the school of Heraclitus: NO SINGLE THING ABIDES; BUT ALL THINGS FLOW. I had been taught in philos- ophy class that Heraclitus himself invented that, but Tim ex- plained that this summation came after Heraclitus, by those of his school who followed him. They believed that only flux, which is to say change, is real. They may have been right. The three of us joined together after the graveside service; we returned to the Tenderloin apartment and tried to make our- selves comfortable. It took a while for any of us to say anything. Tim talked about Satan, for some reason. Tim had a new the- ory about Satan's rise and fall that he apparently wanted to try out on us, since we — Kirsten and I — were the closest people at hand. I presumed at the time that Tim intended to include his theory in the book he had begun working on. "I see the legend of Satan in a new way. Satan desired to know God as fully as possible. The fullest knowledge would come if he became God, was himself God. He strove for this and achieved it, knowing that the punishment would be perma- nent exile from God. But he did it anyhow, because the mem- ory of knowing God, really knowing him as no one else ever had or would, justified to him his eternal punishment. Now, who would you say truly loved God out of everyone who ever existed? Satan willingly accepted eternal punishment and ex- ile just to know God — by becoming God — for an instant. Fur- ther, it occurs to me, Satan truly knew God, but perhaps God did not really know or understand Satan; had He understood him, He would not have punished him. That is why it is said that Satan rebelled — which means Satan was outside God's control, outside God's domain, as if in another universe. But Satan did I think welcome his punishment, for it was his proof to him- self that he knew and loved God. Otherwise he might have done what he did for the reward . . . had there been a reward. 'Better to rule in hell than to serve in heaven' is an issue, here, but not the true one: which is the ultimate goal and search to know and be: fully and really to know God, in comparison to which all else is really very little." "Prometheus," Kirsten said absently. She sat smoking and gazing. Tim said, "Prometheus means 'Forethinker.' He was involved in the creation of man. He was also the supreme trickster among the gods. Pandora was sent down to Earth by Zeus as a pun- ishment to Prometheus for stealing fire and bringing it to man. In addition, Pandora punished the whole human race. Epi- metheus married her, he was Hindsight. Prometheus warned him not to marry Pandora, since Prometheus could foresee the consequences. This same kind of absolute foreknowledge is or was considered by the Zoroastrians to be an attribute of God, the Wise Mind." "An eagle ate his liver," Kirsten said remotely. Nodding, Tim said, "Zeus punished Prometheus by chain- ing him and sending an eagle to eat his liver, which regenerated itself endlessly. However, Hercules released him. Prometheus was a friend to mankind beyond any doubt. He was a master craftsman. There is an affinity to the legend of Satan, certainly. As I see it, Satan could be said to have stolen — not fire — but true knowledge of God. However, he did not bring it to man, as Prometheus did with fire. Perhaps Satan's real sin was that upon acquiring that knowledge he kept it to himself; he did not share it with mankind. That's interesting . . . by that line of reasoning, one could argue that we could acquire a knowledge of God by way of Satan. I've never heard that theory put forth before." He became silent, apparently pondering. "Would you write this down?" he said to Kirsten. "I'll remember." Her tone was listless and drab. "Man must assault Satan and seize this knowledge," Tim said, "and take it from him. Satan does not want to yield it up. For concealing it — not for taking it in the first place — he was punished. Then, in a sense, human beings can redeem Satan by wrestling this knowledge from him." I said, "And then go off and study astrology." Glancing at me, Tim said, "Pardon?" "Wallenstein," I said. "Off casting horoscopes." "The Greek word which our word 'horoscope is based on," Tim said, are 'hora,' which means 'hour,' and 'scopos,' which means one who watches.' So 'horoscope' literally means 'one who watches the hours.' " He lit a cigarette; both he and Kirsten, since their return from England, seemed to smoke constantly. "Wallenstein was a fascinating person." "So Jeff says," I said. "Said, I mean." Cocking his head alertly, Tim said, "Was Jeff interested in Wallenstein? Because I have —" "You didn't know?" I said. Looking puzzled, Tim said, "I don't think so." Kirsten regarded him steadily, with an inscrutable expres- sion. "I have a number of good books on Wallenstein," Tim said. "You know, in many ways Wallenstein resembled Hitler." Both Kirsten and I remained silent. "Wallenstein contributed to the ruin of Germany," Tim said. "He was a great general. Friedrich von Schiller, as you may know, wrote three plays about Wallenstein, whose titles are: Wallenstein's Camp, The Piccolominis and The Death of Wal- lenstein. They are profoundly moving plays. This brings up, of course, the role of Schiller himself in the development of West- ern thought. Let me read you something." Setting his cigarette down, Tim went over to the bookcase for a book; he found it after a few minutes of hunting. "This may shed some light on the subject. In writing his friend — let me see; I have the name here — in writing to Wilhelm von Humboldt, this was to- ward the very end of Schiller's life, Schiller said, 'After all, we are both idealists, and should be ashamed of having said that the material world formed us, instead of being formed by us.' The essence of Schiller's vision was, of course, freedom. He was naturally absorbed in the great drama of the revolt of the Low- lands — by that I mean Holland — and —" Tim paused, thinking, his lips moving; he gazed absently off into space. On the couch, Kirsten sat in silence, smoking and staring. "Well," Tim said fi- nally, leafing through the book he held, "let me read you this. Schiller wrote this when he was thirty-four years old. Perhaps it sums up much of our aspirations, our most noble ones." Peering at the book, Tim read aloud. " 'Now that I have begun to know and to employ my spiritual powers properly, and illness unfor- tunately threatens to undermine my physical ones. However, I shall do what I can, and when in the end the edifice comes crashing down, I shall have salvaged what was worth preserv- ing.' " Tim shut the book and returned it to the shelf. We said nothing. I did not even think; I merely sat. "Schiller is very important to the twentieth century," Tim said; he returned to his cigarette, stubbed it out. For a long time, he stared down at the ashtray. "I'm going to send out for pizza," Kirsten said. "I'm not up to fixing dinner." "That's fine," Tim said. "Ask them to put Canadian bacon on it. And if they have soft drinks —" "I can fix dinner," I said. Kirsten rose, made her way to the phone, leaving Tim and me alone together. Earnestly, Tim said to me, "It is really a matter of great impor- tance to know God, to discern the Absolute essence, which is the way Heidegger puts it. 'Sein' is his term: Being. What we have uncovered at the Zadokite Wadi simply beggars description." I nodded. "How are you fixed for money?" Tim said, reaching into his coat pocket. "I'm fine," I said. You're working, still? At the real estate —" He corrected himself. "You're a legal secretary; you're still with them, then?" "Yes," I said. "But I'm just a clerk-typist." "I found my career as a lawyer taxing," Tim said, "but re- warding. I'd advise you to become a legal secretary and then perhaps you can use that as a jumping-off platform and go into law, become an attorney. It might even be possible for you to be a judge, someday." "I guess so," I said. Tim said, "did Jeff discuss the anokhi with you?" "Well, you wrote to us. And we saw newspaper and magazine articles." "They used the term in a special sense, a technical sense — the Zadokites. It could not have meant the Divine Intelligence be- cause they speak of having it, literally. There is one line from Document Six: 'Anokhi dies and is reborn each year, and upon each following year anokhi is more.' Or greater; more or greater, it could be either, perhaps lofty. It's extremely puzzling but the translators are working on it and we hope to have it during the next six months . . . and, of course, they're still piecing together the fragments, the scrolls that became mutilated. I have no knowledge of Aramaic, as you probably realize. I studied both Greek and Latin — you know, 'God is the final bulwark against non-Being.' " "Tillich," I said. "Beg pardon?" Tim said. "Paul Tillich said that," I said. "I'm not sure about that," Tim said. "It was certainly one of the Protestant existential theologians; it may have been Re- inhold Niebuhr. You know, Niebuhr is American, or rather was; he died quite recently. One thing that interests me about Niebuhr —" Tim paused a moment. "Niemöller served in the German navy in World War One. He worked actively against the Nazis and continued to preach until 1938. The Gestapo arrested him and he was sent to Dachau. Niebuhr had been a pacifist originally, but urged Christians to support the war against Hit- ler. I feel that one of the most significant differences between Wal- lenstein and Hitler — actually it is a very great similarity — lies in the loyalty oaths that Wallenstein —" Excuse me," I said. I went into the bathroom, opened the medicine cabinet to see if the bottle of Dexamyls was still there. It was not; all the medicine bottles were gone. Taken to Eng- land, I realized. Now in Kirsten's and Tim's luggage. Fuck. When I came out I found Kirsten standing alone in the liv- ing room. "I'm terribly, terribly tired," she said in a faint voice. "I can see that," I said. "There is no way I am going to be able to keep down pizza. Could you go to the store for me? I made a list. I want boned chicken, the kind that comes in a jar, and rice or noodles. Here; this is the list." She handed it to me. "Tim'll give you the money." "I have money." I returned to the bedroom, where I had put my coat and purse. As I was putting on my coat, Tim appeared from behind me, anxious to say something more. "What Schiller saw in Wallenstein was a man who colluded with fate to bring on his own demise. This would be for the Ger- man Romantics the greatest sin of all, to collude with fate, fate regarded as doom." He followed me from the bedroom, down the hall. "The whole spirit of Goethe and Schiller and — the others, their whole orientation was that the human will could overcome fate. Fate would not be regarded as inevitable but as something a person allowed. Do you see my point? To the Greeks, fate was 'ananke,' a force absolutely predetermined and impersonal; they equated it with Nemesis, which is retributive, punishing fate." "I'm sorry," I said. "I have to go to the store." "Aren't they bringing the pizza?" "Kirsten's not feeling well." Standing close to me and speaking in a low voice, Tim said, "Angel, I'm concerned about her. I can't get her to go to a doctor. Her stomach — either that or her gall bladder. Maybe you can convince her to undergo a multiphasic. She's afraid of what they'll find. You know, don't you, that she had cervical cancer a number of year ago." "Yes," I said. "And a hysterocleisis." "What is that?" "A surgical procedure; the month of the uterus is closed. She has so many anxieties in this area, that is, pertaining to this topic; it's impossible for me to discuss it with her." "I'll talk to her," I said. "Kirsten blames herself for Jeff's death." "Shit," I said. "I was afraid of that." "Coming from the living room, Kirsten said to me, "Add gin- ger ale to the list I gave you. Please." "Okay," I said. "Is the store —" "Turn right," Kirsten said. "It's four blocks straight and then one block left. It's a Chinese-run little grocery store but they have what I want." "Do you need any more cigarettes?" Tim said. "Yes, you might pick up a carton," Kirsten said. "Any of the low-tar brands; they all taste the same." "Okay," I said. Opening the door for me, Tim said, "I'll drive you." The two of us made our way down the sidewalk to his rented car, but, as we stood, he discovered that he did not have the keys. "We'll have to walk," he said. So we walked together, saying nothing for a time. "It's a nice night," I said finally. "There's something I've been meaning to discuss with you," Tim said. "Although technically it's not within your province." "I didn't know I had a province," I said. "It's not an area of expertise for you. I'm not sure who I should talk to about it. These Zadokite Documents are in some respects —" He hesitated. "I would have to say distressing. To me personally, is what I mean. What the translators have come across is many of the Logia — the stings — of Jesus predating Jesus by almost two hundred years." "I realize that," I said. "But that means," Tim said, "that he was not the Son of God. Was not, in fact, God, as the Trinitarian requires us to believe. That may pose a problem for you, Angel." "No, not really," I agreed. "The Logia are essential to our understanding and appercep- tion of Jesus as the Christ; that is, the Messiah or Anointed One. If, as would now seem to be the case, the Logia can be severed from the person Jesus, then we must reevaluate the four Gos- pels — not just the Synoptics but all four . . . we must ask our- selves what, then, we indeed do know about Jesus, if indeed we know anything at all." "Can't you just assume Jesus was a Zadokite?" I said. That was the impression I had gotten from the newspaper and mag- azine articles. Upon the discovery of the Qumran Scrolls, the Dead Sea Scrolls, there had been an enormous flurry of spec- ulation that Jesus came from or was in some way connected with the Essenes. I saw no problem. I could not see what Tim was concerned about, as the two of us walked slowly along the sidewalk. "There is a mysterious figure," Tim said, "mentioned in a number the Zadokite Documents. He's referred to by a He- brew word best translated as 'Expositor.' It is this shadowy per- sonage to whom many of the Logia are attributed." "Well, then Jesus learned from him, or anyhow they were derived from him," I said. "But then Jesus is not the Son of God. He is not God Incar- nate, God as a human being." I said, "Maybe God revealed the Logia to the Expositor." "But then the Expositor is the Son of God." "Okay," I said. "These are problems over which I've agonized — although that is rather a strong term. But it bothers me. And it should bother me. Here we have many of the parables related in the Gospels now extant in scrolls predating Jesus by two hundred years. Not all the Logia are represented, admittedly, but many are, many crucial ones. Certain cardinal doctrines of resurrec- tion are also present, those being expressed in the well-known 'I am' utterances by Jesus. 'I am the bread of life.' 'I am the Way.' 'I am the narrow gate.' These simply cannot be separated from Jesus Christ. Just take the first one: 'I am the bread of life. Any- one who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in him.' Do you see my point?" "Sure," I said. "The Zadokite Expositor said it first." "Then the Zadokite expositor conferred eternal life, and specifically through the Eucharist." "I think that's wonderful," I said. Tim said, "It was always the hope, but never the expectation, that we would someday unearth Q, or unearth something that would permit us to reconstruct Q, or parts of Q; but no one ever dreamed that Ur-Quelle would manifest itself predating Je- sus, and by two centuries. Also, there are peculiar other —" He paused. "I want to obtain your promise not to discuss what I'm going to say; not to talk about it with anyone. This part hasn't been released to the media." "May I die horribly." "Associated with the 'I am' statements are certain very pe- culiar additions not found in the Gospels and apparently not known to the early Christians. At least, no written record of their knowing these things, believing these things, has passed down to us. I —" He broke off. "The term 'bread' and the term used for 'blood' suggest literal bread and literal blood. As if the Zadokites had a specific bread and a specific drink that they pre- pared and had that constituted in essence the body and blood of what they call the anokhi, for whom the Expositor spoke and whom the expositor represented." "Well," I said. I nodded. "Where is this store?" Tim looked around. "Another block or so," I said. "I guess." Tim said earnestly, "Something they drank; something they ate. As in the Messianic banquet. It made them imortal, they believed; it gave them eternal life, this combination of what they ate and what they drank. Obviously, this prefigures the Eu- charist. Obviously it's related to the Messianic banquet. Anokhi. Always that word. They ate anokhi and they drank anokhi and, as a result, they became anokhi. They became God Himself." "Which is what Christianity teaches," I said, "regarding the Mass." "There are parallels found in Zoroastrianism," Tim said. "The Zoroastrians sacrificed cattle and combined this with an intoxicating drink called 'haoma.' But there is no reason to as- sume that this resulted in a homologizing with the Deity. That, you see, is what the Sacraments achieve for the Christian com- municant: he — or she — is homologized to God as represented in and by Christ. Becomes God or becomes one with God, uni- fied with, assimilated to, God. An apotheosis, is what I'm say- ing. But here, with the Zadokites, you get precisely this with the bread and the drink derived from anokhi, and of course the term 'anokhi' itself refers to the Pure Self-Awarenress, which is to say, Pure Consciousness of Yahweh, the God of the Hebrew people." "Brahman is that," I said. "I beg your pardon? 'Brahman'?" "In India. Brahmanism. Brahman possesses absolute, pure consciousness. Pure consciousness, pure being, pure bliss. As I recall." "But what," Tim said, "is this anokhi that they ate and drank?" "The body and blood of the Lord," I said. "But what is it?" He gestured. "It's one thing to say glibly, 'It's the Lord,' because, Angel, that is what in logic is called a hys- teron proteron fallacy: what you re trying to prove is assumed in your premise. Obviously, it's the body and blood of the Lord; the word 'anokhi' makes that clear; but it doesn't —" "Oh, I see," I said, then. "It's circular reasoning. In other words, you're saying that this anokhi actually exists." Tim stopped and stood, gazing at me. "Of course." "I understand. You mean it's real." "God is real." "Not really real," I said. "God is a matter of belief. It isn't real in the sense that that care —" I pointed to a parked Trans- Am — "is real." "You couldn't be more wrong." I started to laugh. "Where did you ever get an idea like that?" Tim said. "That God isn't real?" "God is a —" I hesitated. "A way of looking at things. An in- terpretation. I mean, He doesn't exist. Not in the way objects ex- ist. You couldn't, say, bump into Him, like you can bump into a wall." "Does a magnetic field exist?" "Sure," I said. "You can't bump into it." I said, "But it'll show up if you spread iron filings across a piece of paper." "The hieroglyphs of God lie all about you," Tim said. "As the world and in the world." "That's just an opinion. It's not my opinion." "But you can see the world." "I see the world," I said, "but I don't see any sign of God." "But there cannot be a creation without a creator." "Who says it's a creation?" "My point," Tim said, "is that if the Logia predate Jesus by two hundred years, then the Gospels are suspect, and if the Gospels are suspect, we have no evidence that Jesus was God, very God, God Incarnate, and therefore the basis of our religion is gone. Jesus simply becomes a teacher representing a partic- ular Jewish sect that ate and drank some kind of — well, what- ever it was, the anokhi, and it made them immortal." "They believed it made them immortal," I corrected him. "That's not the same thing. People believe that herbal remedies can cure cancer, but that doesn't make it true." We arrived at the little grocery store and stood momentarily. "I take it you're not a Christian," Tim said. "Tim," I said, "you've known that for years. I'm your daughter-in-law." "I'm not sure I'm a Christian. I'm now not sure there in fact is such a thing as Christianity. And I've got to get up and tell peo- ple — I have to go on with my ministerial and pastoral duties. Knowing what I know. Knowing that Jesus was a teacher and not God, and not even an original teacher; what he taught was the aggregate belief-system of an entire sect. A group product." I said, "It could still have come from God. God could have revealed it to the Zadokites. What else does it say about the Expositor?" "He returns in the Final Days and acts as Eschatological Judge." "That's fine," I said. "That's found in Zoroastrianism also," Tim said. "So much seems to go back to the Iranian religions . . . the Jews developed a distinct Iranian quality to their religion during the time . . ." He broke off; he had turned inward, mentally, oblivious, now, to me, to the store, our errand. I said, trying to cheer him up, "Maybe the scholars and trans- lators will find some of this anokhi." "Find God," he echoed, to himself. "Find it growing. A root or a tree." "Why do you say that?" He seemed angry. "What would make you say that?" "Bread has to be made out of something. You can't eat bread unless it's made from something." Jesus was speaking metaphorically. He did not mean literal bread." Maybe he didn't, but the Zadokites apparently did." "That thought crossed my mind. Some of the translators are proposing that. That a literal bread and a literal drink is sig- nified. 'I am the gate of the sheepfold.' Jesus certainly did not mean he was made of wood. 'I am the true vine, and my father is the vinedresser. Every branch in me that bears no fruit he cuts away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes to make it bear even more.' " "Well, it's a vine, then," I said. "Look for a vine." "That's absurd and carnal." "Why?" I said. Tim said savagely, "'I am the vine, you are the branches.' Are we to assume that a literal plant is referred to? That this is a physical, not a spiritual, matter? Something growing in the Dead Sea Desert?" He gestured. "'I am the light of the world.' Are we to assume you could read a newspaper by holding it up to him? Like this streetlight?" "Maybe so," I said. Dionysos was a vine, in a manner of speaking. His worshippers got drunk and then Dionysos pos- sessed them, and they ran over the hills and fields and bit cows to death. Devoured whole animals alive." "There are certain resemblances," Tim said. Together, we continued on into the little grocery store.
In 2004 Azzan Yadin suggested that the armor described in 1 Samuel 17 is typical of Greek armor of the sixth century BC rather than of Philistines armor of the tenth century. . .Yadin also suggested that the designation of Goliath as a איש הביניים, “man of the in-between” (a longstanding difficulty in translating 1 Samuel 17) appears to be a borrowing from Greek “man of the metaikhmion (μεταίχμιον)”, i.e. the space between two opposite army camps where champion combat would take place.(Edit: Flubb has some insightful comments on the Yadin article and other things here)
WHAT I REMEMBER most, in the first newspaper articles to come out, the first intimation we had, anybody beyond the translators had, that this was an even more important find than the Qumran scrolls, was (the article said) a particular Hebrew noun. They spell it two different ways; sometimes it showed up as 'anokhi' and sometimes as 'anochi.' The word shows up in Exodus, chapter twenty, verse two. This is a terribly moving and important section of the Torah, for here God Himself speaks, and He says: "I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." The first Hebrew word is anokhi or anochi and it means "I"—as in "I am the Lord thy God." Jeff showed me what the of- ficial Jewish commentary is on this part of the Torah: "The God adored by Judaism is not an impersonal Force, an It, whether spoken of as 'Nature' or 'World-Reason.' The God of Israel is the Source not only of power and life, but of consciousness, personality, moral purpose and ethi- cal action." Eve for me, a non-Christian — or I should say a non-Jew, I guess — this shakes me; I am touched and changed; I am not the same. What is expressed here, Jeff explained to me, is, in this single word, one letter of the English alphabet, the unique self- consciousness of God: "As man towers above all the other creatures by his will and self-conscious action, so God 'rules over all as the one completely self-conscious Mind and Will. In both the vis- ible and invisible realms, He manifests Himself as the absolutely free personality, moral and spiritual, who allots to everything its existence, form and purpose.' " That was written by Samuel M. Cohen, quoting Kaufmann Kohler. Another Jewish writer, Hermann Cohen, wrote: "God answered him thus: 'I am that which I am. So shalt thou say to the children of Israel: "I am" has sent me to you.' There is probably no greater miracle in the history of the spirit than that revealed in this verse. For here, a primeval language which is as yet without any philos- ophy, emerges and haltingly pronounces the most pro- found word of all philosophy. The name of God is 'I am that which I am.' This signifies that God is Being, that God is the I, which denotes the Existing One." And this is what turned up at the wadi in Israel, dating from 200 B.C.E, the wadi not far from Qumran; this word lay at the heart of the Zadokite Documents, and every Hebrew scholar knows this word, and every Christian and Jew should know it, but there at that wadi the word anokhi was used in a different way, a way no living person had ever seen it employed before. And so Tim and Kirsten stayed in London twice as long as they had intended to stay, because the very core of something had been located, the core in fact, of the Decalogue, as if the Lord had left tracings in his own autograph, which is to say, his own hand. While these discoveries took place — in the translating stage — Jeff wandered around U.C. Berkeley campus learn- ing about the Thirty Years War and Wallenstein, who had cut himself off progressively from reality during the worst war, per- haps of all wars, except for the total wars of this century; I am not going to say that I have ascertained which particular drive killed my husband, which thrust from the mix got him, but one did or they all did in chorus — he is dead and I wasn't even there at the time, nor did I expect it. My expectation came ini- tially when I learned that Kirsten and Tim had gotten involved in an invisible affair. I said what I had to say then; I took my best shot — I visited the bishop at Grace Cathedral and found my- self outargued with little effort on his part: little effort and pro- fessional skill. It was an easy verbal victory for Tim Archer. So much for that. If you intend to kill yourself you don't require a reason, in the usual sense of the term; just as, to the contrary, when you intend to stay alive, no verbal, articulated, formal reason is necessary, one you can seize on if the issue comes up. Jeff had been left out. I could see that his interest in the Thirty Years War really had to do with Kirsten; his mind, or some portion of it, had noted her Scandinavian origin, and another part of his mind had per- ceived and recorded the fact that the Swedish army was the vic- tor and heroic power of that war; his emotional pursuits and his intellectual pursuits wove together, which was, for a time, to his advantage, and then when Kirsten flew to England he found himself wrecked by his own cleverness. Now he had to confront the fact that he didn't really give a good goddamn about Tilly and Wallenstein and the Holy Roman Empire; he was in love with a woman his mother's age who was sleeping with his fa- ther—and doing that eight thousand miles away, and above and beyond everything else the two of them, to his exclusion, par- ticipated in one of the most exhilarating archeological theology discoveries in history, on a day-to-day basis as the translations became available, as the documents got patched and pasted to- gether and the words emerged, one by one, and again and again the Hebrew word 'anokhi' manifested itself, on unusual con- texts, baffling contexts: new contexts. The documents spoke as if anokhi were present at the wadi. It or he was referred to as here, not there, now, not then. Anokhi was not something the Zadokites thought about or knew about; it was something they possessed. It is very hard to read your library books and listen to a Donovan record, no matter how good, when a discovery of that magnitude is going on in another part of the world, and if your father and his mistress, both of whom you love and at the same time furiously hate, are involved in that unfolding discov- ery — what drove me frantic was Jeff playing and replaying Paul McCartney's first solo album; he liked "Teddy Boy" in partic- ular. When he left me to go live alone in the hotel room — the room where he shot himself — he took the album with him, al- though he had, it turned out, nothing to play it on. He wrote me a number of times, telling me that he was still active in antiwar happenings. Probably he was. I think, though, by and large he just sat alone in the hotel room trying to figure out how he felt about his father and, even more important, how he felt about Kirsten. So that would be 1971, since the McCartney album came out in 1970. But see, that left me alone, too, in our house. I got the house; Jeff died. I told you not to live alone but I am speaking, really, to myself. You can do any goddamn thing you want but I am never going to live alone again. I'll take in street people before I let that happen to me, that isolation. Just don't play any Beatles albums around me. That's the main thing I ask. I can take Joplin, because I think it's funny that Tim thought Joplin was alive and black instead of dead and white, but I do not want to hear the Beatles because they are linked to too much pain in me, inside me, in my life, in what happened. I am not quite rational myself when it comes down to it, to spe- cifically, my husband's suicide. I hear in my mind a mélange of John and Paul and George — with Ringo thumping away in the rear somewhere — with fragments of tunes and their words, critical terms pertaining to souls suffering a great deal, al- though not in a way I can pin down except, of course, for my husband's death — but I suppose that is enough. Now, with John Lennon shot, everyone is pierced as I have been, so I can fuck- ing well stop feeling sorry for myself and join the rest of the world, no better off than they are, no worse off either. Often, when I look back to Jeff's suicide, I discover that I rearrange dates and events in sequences more syntonic to my mind; that is, I edit. I condense, cut bits out, do a fast number myself so that — for example — I no longer recall viewing Jeff's body and identifying it. I have managed to forget the name of the hotel where he stayed. I don't know how long he stayed there. As near as I can make out, he didn't hang around the house very long after Tim and Kirsten flew to London; one early letter came from them, typed: signed by both of them but almost cer- tainly written by Kirsten. Possibly Tim dictated it. The first hint of the magnitude of the find showed up in the letter. I didn't recognize what the news implied but Jeff did. So, perhaps, he left right after that. What surprised me most was to grasp, all at once, that Jeff had wanted to go into the priesthood, but what point was there, in view of his father's role? But this left a vacuum. Jeff did not want to do anything else either. He could not become a priest; he did not care about any other profession. So he re- mained what we in Berkeley called a "professional student"; he never stopped going to Cal. Maybe he left and came back. Our marriage hadn't been working for some time; I have blank spots back to 1968, perhaps a full year missing in all. Jeff had emo- tional problems that I later repressed any knowledge of. We both repressed it. There is always free psychotherapy in the Bay Area and we took advantage of it. I don't think Jeff could be called — could have been called — mentally ill; he simply wasn't terribly happy. Sometimes it is not a drive to die but a failure of a subtle kind, a failing of the sense of joy. He fell out of life by degrees. When he came across someone he genuinely wanted she became his father's mistress, whereupon they both flew to England, leaving him to study a war he didn't care about, leaving him stranded back where he had started from. He started out not caring; he wound up not caring. One of the doctors did say he believed that Jeff started taking LSD during that period after he left me and before he shot himself. That is only a theory. However, unlike the homo- sexual theory, it may have been true. Thousands of young people kill themselves in America each year, but it remains the custom, by and large, to list their deaths as accidental. This is to spare the family the shame at- tached to suicide. There is, indeed, something shameful about a young man or woman, maybe an adolescent, wanting to die and achieving that goal, dead before in a certain sense they ever lived, ever were born. Wives get beaten by their husbands; cops kill blacks and Latinos; old people rummage in garbage cans or eat dog food — shame rules, calling the shots. Suicide is only one shameful event out of a plethora. There are black teenag- ers who will never get a job as long as they live, not because they are lazy but because there are no jobs — because, too, these ghetto kids possess no skills they can sell. Children run away, find the strip in New York or Hollywood; they become prosti- tutes and wind up with their bodies hacked apart. If the impulse to slay the Spartan runners reporting the battle results, the out- come at Thermopylae, rises in you, by all means slay them. I am those runners and I report only three deaths, but three more than were necessary. This is the day John Lennon died; you wish to slay those who report that, too? As Sri Krishna says when he as- sumes his true form, his universal form, that of time: "All these hosts must die; strike, stay ' your hand — no matter. Seem to slay. By me these men are slain already." It is an awful sight. Arjuna has seen what he cannot believe exists. "Licking with your burning tongues, Devouring all the worlds, You probe the heights of heaven With intolerable beams, O Vishnu." What Arjuna sees was once his friend and charioteer. A man like himself. That was only an aspect, a kindly disguise. Sri Krishna wished to spare him, to hide the truth. Arjuna asked to see Sri Krishna's true form and he got to see it. He will not now be as he was. The spectacle has changed him, changed him for- ever. This is the true forbidden fruit, this kind of knowledge. Sri Krishna waited a long time before he showed Arjuna his actual shape. He wanted to spare him. The true shape, that of uni- versal destroyer, emerged at last. I would not want to make you unhappy by detailing pain, but there is a crucial sort of difference between pain and the nar- ration of pain. I am telling you what happened. If there is vi- carious pain in knowing, there is actual peril in not knowing. In aversion lies colossal risk.
The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa a) is one of the original seven Dead Sea Scrolls discovered in Qumran in 1947. It is the largest (734 cm) and best preserved... more » The Dead Sea Scrolls, which include the oldest known biblical manuscripts in existence, have been digitized and are now accessible online. The discovery of the scrolls allowed a rare first-hand glimpse of the lives of those pietists, through the “Rule” literature that governed their lives. This literature, later to evolve in a Christian monastic context, is unknown in the Bible, and its discovery at Qumran represents the earliest testimony to its existence. Since the discovery of the dead Sea Scrolls, and under the influence of scrolls research, several new movements in Johannine studies have developed. first, given the light/darkness dualism of the community rule, the War Scroll, and other Qumran writings, Johannine dualism is seen to be perfectly at home within Palestinian Judaism. as a result, the Jewishness of John has been recog- nized, even to the extent that c. K. barrett has come to view John as the most Jewish of all the Gospels.3 The Discovery. The first Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered by two Bedouin in 1946-1947 in a cave just east of the ancient site of Qumran. The scrolls were located in caves northwest of the Dead Sea in the arid Judean wilderness, many of which were found in large clay storage jars. Discovery of the scrolls Explorers first came across Qumran in the 19th century, and the site took on new importance with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The discovery. Between November 1946 and February 1947 some bedouin shepherds discovered the first seven scrolls. These Bedouin teenagers while shepherding their goats and sheep near the ancient settlement of Qumran in the West Bank, lost a sheep from the flock. Qumran Caves Scrolls The Qumran Caves Scrolls contain significant religious literature. They consist of two types: “biblical” manuscripts—books found in today’s Hebrew Bible, and “non-biblical” manuscripts—other religious writings circulating during the Second Temple era, often related to the texts now in the Hebrew Bible. The Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library offers an exceptional encounter with antiquity. Using the world's most advanced imaging technology, the Digital Library preserves thousands of scroll fragments, including the oldest known copies of biblical texts, now accessible to the public for the first time. Full-scale excavations of Qumran began after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the late nineteen forties. In the winter of 1946-7, Bedouin shepherd Muhammed Edh-Dhib went into a cave near Qumran and emerged with 7 ancient scrolls. The war that broke out in the years that followed made it impossible to explore the cave until February 1949. First Discovery in Over 60 Years! Lynchburg resident and Liberty University professor Dr. Randall Price has just made history! During the month of January he co-directed an excavation of a cave at Qumran, site of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, and discovered the first scroll cave in over 60 years.
[index] [5903] [7874] [5371] [2958] [6617] [8629] [772] [7393] [4850] [1758]
Twelfth Cave Discovered at Qumran The Dead sea Cave scrolls - video, new video The Times of Israel reports that researchers from Hebrew University and the Israel Antiquities Authority have found a ... Part 3 of the 4 episode Dead Sea mini-series. This time we are exploring the Qumran caves site, where archeologists had discovered 2000 year old Hebrew Bible... This aerial drone footage is available for purchase on Pond5 and ShutterStock. Visit Jeffrey's website for more photos and info: http://www.JeffreyWorthingto... Playlist for The Dead Sea Scrolls (found at Qumran, now at Shrine of the Book), click on: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1rMNQPlbR7aGr4Tet17hlNJ3nUQ... Siegal Lifelong Learning Fall 2017 Dead Sea Caves: New Archaeological Discoveries Oren Gutfeld, Archaeologist and Researcher at the Hebrew University’s Ins... The Dead Sea Scrolls is one of the most incredible archaeological finds ever. Find out more about them and the people who wrote them in this educational mini... Unearthed between 1947 and 1956 in eleven caves in and around the Wadi Qumran. The texts are of great religious and historical significance, as they are prac... Qumran is a small settlement on the west shore of the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea Scrolls were found nearby. The archaeology of this settlement sheds light on the...
Copyright © 2024 m.betingtop.shop