You know the most frequent comment about my book? And not just here but in general? "My, you certainly did a lot of research!" I'm not sure that this is a compliment. In fact, it's probably not.
What I did with my book, which I thought was new and controversial and oh-so-clever, was that instead of giving the characters Hebrew names (like Simon), I gave them Aramaic or Greek names, like Shlomo or Andreas. And instead of keeping the Latinized names of places, I restored the old Jewish names, like Arimathea became Ramathai. It is amazing what a change in name will do, because instead of having a white European vibe, it gives it a Middle Eastern one.
I also wrote in a style consistent with First Century literature. I have read First Century literature, mostly Roman, but since I don't speak Latin, I've read the translations, but still, I think the tone and syntax is there. This, however, makes for a difficult and clunky read unless one is willing to wade through the style. But what I wanted to do was write a book that actually seemed like it had originally been written in the First Century. A book for historians and intellectuals, as it were.
Furthermore, just to keep it consistent and true, I didn't quote the Bible. I quoted the Talmud, which was being compiled at the time. Jesus wouldn't have known squat about the New Testament, but he would have known what was going into the Talmud. (And this is not to say that I have studied the Talmud, but I do have a nifty little book entitled something like "The Wit and Wisdom of the Talmud.") I wrote several chapters regarding the different religious groups of the time, and history, and what passed for "current events" in the First Century. It was, in fact, extremely well-researched and historically accurate. Better than Josephus, because unlike Josephus, I wasn't kissing up to the new Emperor. And the book makes sense. I mean, it makes a lot of sense. It's an excellent read for people with common sense who want perspective and reject the fear-and-faith-based religions.
And so far, nobody has read it.
Okay, so that's not precisely true. My son James has read it, but he did the final editing, so he pretty much had to. My friend Dorothy has read it in one of its previous incarnation, before it reached its final form, but hasn't read it since. I sent my aunt a copy, and she hasn't read it. My other son David hasn't bothered to read it, and neither has my cousin, who was, to date, the last person to actually buy a copy. My mother sent the copy that I had given her to her cousin in England, who criticized it and since my mother hadn't read it, she wasn't able to defend my work against her cousin's criticisms, not that she would have, anyway. And of course the people who published it, XLibris, haven't read it because that's not what they do. Their job was to take my money and produce a book. The quality of book-making is good, and I got two books published for the price of one, but still....
So I am back in the salt mine again, and this time, I am dumbing down the book. Characters have their old names back, or maybe their gentrified nicknames. I haven't decided about changing the place-names back to the old familiar ones. But the plan is to eliminate most of the historical perspective and descriptions, and to change the title to one less likely to piss people off. For the moment, I have settled on Messiah.
It took me ten years to finish The Heretic's Gospel, and I have about a year and a half to get the revised and re-titled version up to speed so that I can publish it without getting into trouble with XLibris. It will be more readable, like The Reader's Digest is more readable than The New Yorker. God willing, The Heretic's Gospel will still be available somewhere if one just looks for it, and God willing, people will actually want to buy and read Messiah.
Friday, July 25, 2014
Wednesday, July 9, 2014
Of Gods and Men
So I was watching "Atlantis" on BBC America this morning, and the King, I noticed, seemed to think that he was a god. Now, the gist of this series is this: The hero of the story, whose name escapes me, has been transported back in time to Atlantis, which bears a passing resemblance to ancient Crete and the Minoan civilization, which only makes sense since Atlantis was supposed to have been an island in the Mediterranean or possibly the Atlantic Ocean. (I, personally, think that Plato made the whole story up, but that's a whole nuther issue.) And ancient Crete did bear a passing resemblance to a combination of ancient Phoenicia and ancient Egypt. And the ancient Egyptians and ancient Phoenicians did tend to think of their kings as gods, especially the ancient Egyptians. The Babylonians, Syrians, and other Middle Eastern sorts, also tended to have kings who thought of themselves as gods and demanded to be treated as such.
The ancient Greeks, however, did not think of their kings as gods. As a matter of fact, they made a big damn deal about it. If a king, prince, or just a mortal man thought of himself as a god, or tried to emulate the gods, or set himself up to be worshiped as a god, the real gods, according to the myths, went after him big time. Not even those few demigods who were promoted to full god-head were originally kings. Princes maybe. Illegitimate off-spring of gods and mortal women or semi-mortal women or Titanesses, usually. But not kings. And even those kings who were considered, or considered themselves, the offspring of gods or goddesses did not get promoted to full god-head and go to live on Olympus with the other immortal beings.
By the way, as near as I can figure (thanks, Wikipedia!), in Greek mythology, only three demigods were promoted to Olympus: Asclepius, Dionysus and Heracles. The rest of them, and there were probably hundreds of them, became constellations, founded cities, founded dynasties, had poems written about them, and/or had shrines erected to them, but none of them, besides the aforementioned three, were promoted to Olympus. Of these three sons of the gods Apollo and/or Zeus, two were princes and one was a commoner, but they were so uncommon that they became the gods of healing, wine and strength, respectively.
What is interesting to note about the Greek gods and goddesses is how very human they were, themselves. They got pissed off. They got jealous. They fell in love. They fell in lust. They did not want mortals honing in on their particular specialty. They were tender with some and vindictive with others. They did not respond well to ridicule. They liked to torment some people and loved others as one would love a pet. In short, they didn't pretend to be perfect, emotionless, and as immovable as stone.
Most importantly, you could blame the gods or goddesses or Fate for whatever happened to you that you didn't deserve, and the gods and goddesses would not punish you for assigning blame to them. Furthermore, if you said the right prayers and offered the right sacrifice, you felt as though you might be able to coax them into removing their curse. I bet that the ancient Greeks were not even half as guilt-ridden and neurotic as we modern folk are wont to be.
The ancient Greeks, however, did not think of their kings as gods. As a matter of fact, they made a big damn deal about it. If a king, prince, or just a mortal man thought of himself as a god, or tried to emulate the gods, or set himself up to be worshiped as a god, the real gods, according to the myths, went after him big time. Not even those few demigods who were promoted to full god-head were originally kings. Princes maybe. Illegitimate off-spring of gods and mortal women or semi-mortal women or Titanesses, usually. But not kings. And even those kings who were considered, or considered themselves, the offspring of gods or goddesses did not get promoted to full god-head and go to live on Olympus with the other immortal beings.
By the way, as near as I can figure (thanks, Wikipedia!), in Greek mythology, only three demigods were promoted to Olympus: Asclepius, Dionysus and Heracles. The rest of them, and there were probably hundreds of them, became constellations, founded cities, founded dynasties, had poems written about them, and/or had shrines erected to them, but none of them, besides the aforementioned three, were promoted to Olympus. Of these three sons of the gods Apollo and/or Zeus, two were princes and one was a commoner, but they were so uncommon that they became the gods of healing, wine and strength, respectively.
What is interesting to note about the Greek gods and goddesses is how very human they were, themselves. They got pissed off. They got jealous. They fell in love. They fell in lust. They did not want mortals honing in on their particular specialty. They were tender with some and vindictive with others. They did not respond well to ridicule. They liked to torment some people and loved others as one would love a pet. In short, they didn't pretend to be perfect, emotionless, and as immovable as stone.
Most importantly, you could blame the gods or goddesses or Fate for whatever happened to you that you didn't deserve, and the gods and goddesses would not punish you for assigning blame to them. Furthermore, if you said the right prayers and offered the right sacrifice, you felt as though you might be able to coax them into removing their curse. I bet that the ancient Greeks were not even half as guilt-ridden and neurotic as we modern folk are wont to be.
Monday, May 12, 2014
Judaism, Now and Then
Please note that I do not pretend to be an expert on Judaism. I'm just a knowledgeable amateur, an armchair historian and cultural anthropologist, as it were. I'm not even Jewish. I'm nominally Episcopalian, but for an Episcopalian, I am probably as close to being Jewish as any Gentile is likely to get without actually converting. I considered it because I think that Judaism is a lot more forgiving and less rigid than Christianity, but the way that Israel has been behaving toward the Palestinians, I could not, in all good conscience, throw my hat in with Israel, so there goes my conversion. Anyway....
I read an article in Yahoo News today about Jewish men in prison, written by a Jewish man who had gone to prison, so I guess he would know. And he talked, in this article, about the Lubavitchers, the Bobovers, the Sephardim, the Falasha, the Satmars and the Sabras, and I am thinking, "What the hell are those???"
So I looked them up. A Lubavitcher is a follower of a certain Orthodox Hasidic sect. They are, according to the Online Dictionary, formerly Eastern European, optimistic and hospitable missionaries who stress the importance of studying the Torah and/or the Talmud. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. A Bobover is a follower of another peaceful Hasidic sect who follow the teachings of a particular dynasty of rabbis from another Eastern European village. (I really should have written down which villages these sects came from, but I didn't, and my computer connection has been sketchy.) The Sephardim are Jews from Southern Europe. "Falasha" refers derogatorily to Ethiopian Jews. The Satmars follow the teachings of yet another strictly Orthodox Hasidic sect, from yet another rabbinic dynasty from yet another Eastern European village, and they tend to be very antagonistic toward other Jewish sects, anti-Zionists, and anti-assimilation.
While back in the day, two thousand years ago, there were the Sadducees (Tzaddikim), the Pharisees (Perushim), the Essenes (Hasidim), the Zealots (the Malkhut beit David), the followers of John the Baptist (Mandaeans), and the Nazarenes (Notzrim), today, there are other groups, as there are many streams that flow into the river that leads to God, and ever has it been thus. The Hasidim have changed considerably from the days when they were all New Age-y, environmentalist, and touchy-feely. Now, they are a distinctly clannish part of the Orthodox movement, which is kind of like being an extremist version of Evangelistic Christianity or radical Islam. There is also the Conservative movement, the Reform movement, the Reconstructionist movement and the Humanistic Judaism movement. All of these movements reflect certain philosophies that try to answer the question of God's existence, how people can best get close to and serve God, how to further the cause of civilization, and how to make the world a better place.
I read an article in Yahoo News today about Jewish men in prison, written by a Jewish man who had gone to prison, so I guess he would know. And he talked, in this article, about the Lubavitchers, the Bobovers, the Sephardim, the Falasha, the Satmars and the Sabras, and I am thinking, "What the hell are those???"
So I looked them up. A Lubavitcher is a follower of a certain Orthodox Hasidic sect. They are, according to the Online Dictionary, formerly Eastern European, optimistic and hospitable missionaries who stress the importance of studying the Torah and/or the Talmud. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. A Bobover is a follower of another peaceful Hasidic sect who follow the teachings of a particular dynasty of rabbis from another Eastern European village. (I really should have written down which villages these sects came from, but I didn't, and my computer connection has been sketchy.) The Sephardim are Jews from Southern Europe. "Falasha" refers derogatorily to Ethiopian Jews. The Satmars follow the teachings of yet another strictly Orthodox Hasidic sect, from yet another rabbinic dynasty from yet another Eastern European village, and they tend to be very antagonistic toward other Jewish sects, anti-Zionists, and anti-assimilation.
While back in the day, two thousand years ago, there were the Sadducees (Tzaddikim), the Pharisees (Perushim), the Essenes (Hasidim), the Zealots (the Malkhut beit David), the followers of John the Baptist (Mandaeans), and the Nazarenes (Notzrim), today, there are other groups, as there are many streams that flow into the river that leads to God, and ever has it been thus. The Hasidim have changed considerably from the days when they were all New Age-y, environmentalist, and touchy-feely. Now, they are a distinctly clannish part of the Orthodox movement, which is kind of like being an extremist version of Evangelistic Christianity or radical Islam. There is also the Conservative movement, the Reform movement, the Reconstructionist movement and the Humanistic Judaism movement. All of these movements reflect certain philosophies that try to answer the question of God's existence, how people can best get close to and serve God, how to further the cause of civilization, and how to make the world a better place.
Friday, May 2, 2014
On Beer and Urine and a Little Off-Topic
So there was an article on Yahoo News yesterday, which I finally got around to reading this morning, about how scientists think that they have discovered that the stones destined for the pyramids of Giza were moved because water was poured on the sand in front of them as they were hauled along, otherwise the sand would bunch up. (And for this bit of insight, they had to earn a PhD, first.)
Yeah, but water? Water is a little hard to come by in the desert, even one that was a little wetter some 3500 years ago.
Yeah, but water? Water is a little hard to come by in the desert, even one that was a little wetter some 3500 years ago.
On the other hand, you know what was easier to come by? Beer and its byproduct, urine. Those ancient Egyptian construction workers drank lots of beer, and even went on strike because they objected to being denied their quota. The resulting urine was free, easily internally-transported by individuals until needed, and could be gathered into pots and urns and poured out at some designated place. And the thousands of Egyptian workers would produce an almost infinite amount of urine, all for free. (And we have already determined that free is good, even 3500 years ago.)
So my questions de jour are: What are the chemical effects of beer on urine; are the sands of the Egyptian desert different in chemical composition from the sands of, say, your average beach; what are the chemical effects of urine on the sands of the Egyptian desert; and would beer-laced urine, poured onto Egyptian sand, produce any chemical changes that would improve one's ability to pull heavy objects across said sand, as compared to water? If, for instance, the ammonia crystals in the urine reacts to the silicon or kaolin of the sand, does this result in a temporary binding of the crystals which makes for a smoother road, at least until the ammonia has thoroughly evaporated? If so, this could solve the riddle that has plagued Egyptologists and other interested parties for ages.
So, one at a time.
1. What are the chemical effects of beer on urine?
2. Are the sands of the Egyptian desert different in chemical composition than other kinds of sand?
3. What are the chemical effects of urine on the sands of the Egyptian desert?
4. Would beer-laced urine, poured onto Egyptian sand, produce any chemical changes that would improve one's ability to pull heavy objects across it?
If anybody with knowledge of chemistry should happen to know the answers to these questions, I would be happy to hear from you in the comment section.
Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Questions, I get questions
So people ask me, "Gabe, what is so heretical about your book?" And so I give them the following reasons: (Spoiler Alert.) "In my book...."
1. Jesus was not conceived as the result of a union between God or an archangel or the Holy Spirit or some unknown Roman soldier and a virgin. He was conceived the old-fashioned way, as the result of a union between a lawfully married husband and wife. Yes, Joseph and Mary, who were Jewish, were married before Jesus was conceived, and he was the firstborn son of Joseph, not God, and he was Jewish, too. On the other hand, it is quite possible that he was conceived on the night that Joseph and Mary got married, and that up until the honeymoon, Mary was a virgin. That does happen sometimes, that women keep their virginity until after the wedding ring is securely on their fingers. But that does kind of takes the magic out of it, doesn't it?
2. Jesus was not an only child. (Actually, many Protestants already know this.) He had brothers and probably sisters, and all five brothers were named in the canonical gospels. Ergo, Mary did not stay a virgin after he was conceived. If there really were a real "Virgin Mary," it would be Miriam, Jesus' fiancee, who waited for thirteen years to marry him.
3. There was no Slaughter of the Innocents. King Herod had other troubles than with tiny peasant boys. Several of his grown sons tried hard to usurp his throne and he had to have them executed. There were factions that campaigned against him, and they had to be put down. Five would-be Messiahs rose up during his last few years on the throne, and they and their thousands of followers had to be executed. What were a handful of little peasant toddlers going to do to him, that he should call for their extermination?
4. Jesus was educated, had gone to school, knew how to read and write, and knew his scriptures and his Oral Law which was made into the Talmud. In fact, I have a little book called The Wisdom of the Talmud and many of the sayings written therein were things that Jesus was said to have quoted in the regular Bible. Since it is highly unlikely that Jewish scholars would have quoted Jesus, Jesus would have quoted them.
5. The Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes were actually Essenic hymns, not things that originated with Jesus. Actually, very little of what was written in the Bible are things that originated with Jesus. He was a great quoter.
6. Judah did not betray Jesus. Jesus asked him to turn him in to the Jewish authorities if the Romans were going to arrest him for treason, because he stood a better chance of getting a fair trial if he went before Jewish judges than Roman ones. Judah did what Jesus asked, and has taken the heat for the "betrayal" ever since.
7. It was not Jesus' intention to die for our sins. Judaism already had mechanisms in place for the expiation of sins. It was Jesus' intention to, if necessary, trade his life for the lives of his followers, friends, disciples and loved ones, since, if you cut off the head of a snake, the body will die. King Herod, when he was alive, had a nasty habit of executing all of the would-be Messiahs' followers, but by the time his son, Prince Antipas, came to rule Judea, dissidents were imprisoned, not executed, and he was still in power when Jesus rose to prominence. However, it was entirely possible that the thousands of people who followed Jesus would be put to death if he led an uprising against the Herodians, the Romans and the Status Quo, and Jesus wanted to avoid that. Therefore, since "it is better for one man to die for many, than for many to die for one man," Jesus was willing to offer his life, if he had to, to save the lives of thousands.
8. The Jews were not to blame for Jesus' death. They weren't even present at the time that Pilate ordered his execution. Pilate worked out of Antonia's Fortress, the Roman military headquarters in Jerusalem, a place where no decent Jewish person would go, because it was made for and inhabited by the Roman military who were pagans. The people who clamored for Jesus' death were, therefore, Romans.
9. Jesus did not suffer greatly after the trial. Whether he was God's biological son or not, he was God's favorite son, and God, as his spiritual father, simply would not allow his son to suffer, any more than you or I would allow our children to suffer.
10. Jesus did not die on the cross, nor were crucifixions nearly as gruesome as they have been made out to be. The object of a crucifixion was to make the felon serve as an example to the public, and let them die slowly. Jesus "died" way too quickly, which is why I say that he was knocked out and then, through a series of amazing events (thunderstorm, earthquake, the fortuitous presence of enough people to help him, who was unconscious, down from the olive tree) he was rescued and escaped. His disciples, being frightened little men, would not have known that he escaped, would have believed the prophesy about how the Messiah was supposed to be three days in the grave before arising from the dead, and they could only write what they believed was true, whether it was really true or not. And that is how the stories began.
So the question on the table is, do these heretical ideas warp, ruin and otherwise destroy the story of Jesus as the Son of God.? No. Even if Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God...and on the third day he rose again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom shall have no end, he was and continues to be the Son of God and God's favorite son. He might have died on the cross or olive tree, or he might have died in his sleep some thirty-three years later in Britain just before the Jewish Wars broke out. He might have bodily ascended into heaven from a mountaintop during Penacost, or his immortal soul might have floated gently up to be enveloped in the folds of the Aurora Borealis and thence become One with God on his 66th birthday. He might have been a blissed-out and benign demigod, or he might have been an average man who gives hope and divine forgiveness to other average men. We don't know. We cannot know. And that's all right. Even without the dog and pony show, the smoke and mirrors, and the ecumenical song and dance, he was and is still the spiritual Son of God and an inspiration to what we all should be.
1. Jesus was not conceived as the result of a union between God or an archangel or the Holy Spirit or some unknown Roman soldier and a virgin. He was conceived the old-fashioned way, as the result of a union between a lawfully married husband and wife. Yes, Joseph and Mary, who were Jewish, were married before Jesus was conceived, and he was the firstborn son of Joseph, not God, and he was Jewish, too. On the other hand, it is quite possible that he was conceived on the night that Joseph and Mary got married, and that up until the honeymoon, Mary was a virgin. That does happen sometimes, that women keep their virginity until after the wedding ring is securely on their fingers. But that does kind of takes the magic out of it, doesn't it?
2. Jesus was not an only child. (Actually, many Protestants already know this.) He had brothers and probably sisters, and all five brothers were named in the canonical gospels. Ergo, Mary did not stay a virgin after he was conceived. If there really were a real "Virgin Mary," it would be Miriam, Jesus' fiancee, who waited for thirteen years to marry him.
3. There was no Slaughter of the Innocents. King Herod had other troubles than with tiny peasant boys. Several of his grown sons tried hard to usurp his throne and he had to have them executed. There were factions that campaigned against him, and they had to be put down. Five would-be Messiahs rose up during his last few years on the throne, and they and their thousands of followers had to be executed. What were a handful of little peasant toddlers going to do to him, that he should call for their extermination?
4. Jesus was educated, had gone to school, knew how to read and write, and knew his scriptures and his Oral Law which was made into the Talmud. In fact, I have a little book called The Wisdom of the Talmud and many of the sayings written therein were things that Jesus was said to have quoted in the regular Bible. Since it is highly unlikely that Jewish scholars would have quoted Jesus, Jesus would have quoted them.
5. The Lord's Prayer and the Beatitudes were actually Essenic hymns, not things that originated with Jesus. Actually, very little of what was written in the Bible are things that originated with Jesus. He was a great quoter.
6. Judah did not betray Jesus. Jesus asked him to turn him in to the Jewish authorities if the Romans were going to arrest him for treason, because he stood a better chance of getting a fair trial if he went before Jewish judges than Roman ones. Judah did what Jesus asked, and has taken the heat for the "betrayal" ever since.
7. It was not Jesus' intention to die for our sins. Judaism already had mechanisms in place for the expiation of sins. It was Jesus' intention to, if necessary, trade his life for the lives of his followers, friends, disciples and loved ones, since, if you cut off the head of a snake, the body will die. King Herod, when he was alive, had a nasty habit of executing all of the would-be Messiahs' followers, but by the time his son, Prince Antipas, came to rule Judea, dissidents were imprisoned, not executed, and he was still in power when Jesus rose to prominence. However, it was entirely possible that the thousands of people who followed Jesus would be put to death if he led an uprising against the Herodians, the Romans and the Status Quo, and Jesus wanted to avoid that. Therefore, since "it is better for one man to die for many, than for many to die for one man," Jesus was willing to offer his life, if he had to, to save the lives of thousands.
8. The Jews were not to blame for Jesus' death. They weren't even present at the time that Pilate ordered his execution. Pilate worked out of Antonia's Fortress, the Roman military headquarters in Jerusalem, a place where no decent Jewish person would go, because it was made for and inhabited by the Roman military who were pagans. The people who clamored for Jesus' death were, therefore, Romans.
9. Jesus did not suffer greatly after the trial. Whether he was God's biological son or not, he was God's favorite son, and God, as his spiritual father, simply would not allow his son to suffer, any more than you or I would allow our children to suffer.
10. Jesus did not die on the cross, nor were crucifixions nearly as gruesome as they have been made out to be. The object of a crucifixion was to make the felon serve as an example to the public, and let them die slowly. Jesus "died" way too quickly, which is why I say that he was knocked out and then, through a series of amazing events (thunderstorm, earthquake, the fortuitous presence of enough people to help him, who was unconscious, down from the olive tree) he was rescued and escaped. His disciples, being frightened little men, would not have known that he escaped, would have believed the prophesy about how the Messiah was supposed to be three days in the grave before arising from the dead, and they could only write what they believed was true, whether it was really true or not. And that is how the stories began.
So the question on the table is, do these heretical ideas warp, ruin and otherwise destroy the story of Jesus as the Son of God.? No. Even if Jesus was not the only begotten Son of God, born of the Virgin Mary, God from God, Light from Light, True God from True God...and on the third day he rose again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom shall have no end, he was and continues to be the Son of God and God's favorite son. He might have died on the cross or olive tree, or he might have died in his sleep some thirty-three years later in Britain just before the Jewish Wars broke out. He might have bodily ascended into heaven from a mountaintop during Penacost, or his immortal soul might have floated gently up to be enveloped in the folds of the Aurora Borealis and thence become One with God on his 66th birthday. He might have been a blissed-out and benign demigod, or he might have been an average man who gives hope and divine forgiveness to other average men. We don't know. We cannot know. And that's all right. Even without the dog and pony show, the smoke and mirrors, and the ecumenical song and dance, he was and is still the spiritual Son of God and an inspiration to what we all should be.
The Animals on the Roof
So I keep hearing that people in the Middle East like to put their animals on the flat roofs of their homes instead of, say, in a barn or corral. And I am thinking, "Why on earth would you want your chickens, ducks, geese, cows, goats, donkeys and sheep up on a roof? How would they get there? The stairs? And how would they get down? The goats, I can see, because they like to climb, but cows? And how would you get your ducks and geese to stay there? Chickens, I understand, flutter, but ducks and geese can fly. It just doesn't make sense." The only reason I can think of as to why one would keep one's domesticated animals on the roof was to keep them away from predators. But if cows, sheep and donkeys can climb stairs, so can wild animals who are meat-eaters.
In my book, Hezzie the donkey lived in the workshop on the first floor, presumably safe and sound and locked in a stall. But then again, I based the town of Parazah partly on the little Jewish eastern European villages and partly on big city ghettos where people live in apartments above their shops, and there is nothing to say that it wasn't like that at all. Apartments have been around for thousands of years, and the ancient Persians invented what are basically strip malls, and who is to say that people didn't live on the second floor?
Furthermore, Jesus' mother did not strike me as the kind of girl who was particularly adept at country life. She was from the more affluent town of Arimathea, and was a suburban princess, not someone who was accustomed to gathering eggs or milking cows. This is also why shops and marketplaces were invented, because not everyone makes cheese, beheads chickens or putters around in a vegetable garden if they can possibly avoid it. The one concession I made to the country life was that Mariyam made the family's beer, because back then, that's what women did, along with making bread. But otherwise, Jesus' families were townies, and speaking as a townie, we just don't do cows and chickens and vegetable gardens, as a general rule.
In my book, Hezzie the donkey lived in the workshop on the first floor, presumably safe and sound and locked in a stall. But then again, I based the town of Parazah partly on the little Jewish eastern European villages and partly on big city ghettos where people live in apartments above their shops, and there is nothing to say that it wasn't like that at all. Apartments have been around for thousands of years, and the ancient Persians invented what are basically strip malls, and who is to say that people didn't live on the second floor?
Furthermore, Jesus' mother did not strike me as the kind of girl who was particularly adept at country life. She was from the more affluent town of Arimathea, and was a suburban princess, not someone who was accustomed to gathering eggs or milking cows. This is also why shops and marketplaces were invented, because not everyone makes cheese, beheads chickens or putters around in a vegetable garden if they can possibly avoid it. The one concession I made to the country life was that Mariyam made the family's beer, because back then, that's what women did, along with making bread. But otherwise, Jesus' families were townies, and speaking as a townie, we just don't do cows and chickens and vegetable gardens, as a general rule.
Friday, April 18, 2014
When is a Gospel is not Gospel?
Now, I don't pretend to know anything about theology or religion. I didn't go to Hebrew School or a Bible college or some kind of seminary. I didn't even go to Sunday School. In religion, there is too much fuzziness, too much debate, too much that is unknown. That is why, when I wrote The Heretic's Gospel, I concentrated on the known: archaeology, history, politics, mythology and human nature. Things you can point to and look at and hold in your hand and quantify.
Besides, if you look at the word "Gospel," you would see that one of its meanings is "God's Word." And I know that's how, for most of my life, I viewed the New Testament. To me, it was the Truth, a factual record of the actual events that occurred some, now, two thousand years ago. Like most people, I took the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at face value, as gospel, as it were, as though it were dictated by God.
And then I began to think about it.
The oldest narrative, according to Wikipedia, is the Gospel According to Mark. Mark was a "companion" of Simon Peter, so he didn't know Jesus, but only knew what Simon Peter (Shlomo) had told him. The Gospel According to Mark was written, according to scholars, between 66 AD and 70 AD. Even if Mark had written it in his middle-age, and even if Jesus had died on a cross some thirty-three years before Mark wrote his book, we are talking about a thirty-three to thirty-seven year gap between Jesus' ministry and the telling of his story. This is the year 2014. Thirty-seven years ago, it was 1977. My son David was two years old in 1977. I was there, and I don't remember much. And if I had a friend who had a friend whom he had told all about me, I seriously doubt that my friend's friend would remember all of the niggling details of my life some thirty-seven years ago.
After that, we have the Gospel According to Matthew, written between 80 AD and 90 AD. I read somewhere that Matthew had written his gospel for money, and based his book on what he had read in The Gospel According to Mark. Matthew, if he did write that book, at least knew Jesus, whom Mark had never met. Still, he also would have been in his early old-age by the time he wrote it. I'm sixty, and I have trouble remembering stuff. Unless Matthew had a fantastic memory, he probably got stuff wrong, too, which is why there are such differences between the two gospels.
Directly after Matthew's book on Jesus was published, Luke published his own book, The Gospel According to Luke. Luke was a Gentile physician, according to the stories told of him, and a friend of Paul of Tarsus, who, like Mark, had never met Jesus. So we are talking at least three degrees of separation. And Luke was an educated man, well-versed in Greek mythology, and he put many mythic flourishes in his book, probably in order to enhance sales, to tell a better story, and to appeal to the Greek Gentiles. His book was written between 80 and 100 AD.
The last canonical gospel, The Gospel According to John, was written, according to Wikipedia, in 200 AD. Obviously, if Wikipedia is correct, John didn't write it, because he would have had to have been around 183 years old when he did. So it was written by somebody else and ascribed to him. And possibly, that person knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew John who knew Jesus. Six degrees of separation. On the other hand, some experts say that the book was written in 90 AD. However, considering that John was a half-mad recluse, and was probably thirteen years old when he hung around Jesus in the early thirties, he would have been in his early seventies when he wrote his book, if indeed he did, which would be a good reason why it reads as crazy as it does.
After that, we have The Gospel According to Mary (written between 120 and 180 AD), The Gospel According to James (written in 145 AD), The Gospel According to Philip (written no earlier than 150 AD), The Gospel According to Judah (circa 180 AD), The Gospel According to Thomas (circa 340 AD) and The Gospel According to Nicodemus (written in around 350 AD.) Many of these books were found with the Gnostics, a sect that competed with Roman Catholic Christianity, and since Roman Catholicism won, the influence and theology of the Gnostics all but vanished.
So, what happens when a bunch of people who view the same event are asked to write about said event? They tend to have different viewpoints that have been influenced by where they were standing at the time, what they heard, what they smelled, how they felt, and their previous experiences. For example, let's say that six people, a nurse, a lawyer, a mechanic, a barista, a homeless person and a politician, see a car accident between a Mercedes and a Ford on the corner of Sixth and Main. The nurse, who was outside of a medical clinic on the northwest corner, would have a different view of the accident, than the lawyer standing outside his office on the southeast corner. The mechanic on the northeast corner would see, smell, hear and perceive a different reality than the barista serving her customers on the southeast corner. The homeless person may have been sitting on the curb and he would see a different accident than the politician whose limo was next to the Mercedes in question. And of course, the Mercedes driver and the Ford driver would have two entirely different and conflicting stories to tell.
Furthermore, it is likely that blame would be assigned according to the witnesses' biases. The nurse, the lawyer and the politician may see the Mercedes driver as completely innocent, just because they all tend to be well-off. The mechanic, the barista and the homeless person may see the Ford driver as completely innocent, because they all tend to have limited means. And biases affect viewpoint and memory. Which is why the evidence is so important. Evidence is like Science, and Science (theoretically) doesn't care. And that is what the cops are for, to take witness statements, but also to gather evidence by measuring the tire-marks, gathering evidence of paint and then leaving it to the experts to know what happens when a Ford hits a Mercedes and when a Mercedes hits a Ford.
So what's the point? The point is that people wrote the Gospels, and people have flawed memories and biases and agendas. So really, there are no Gospels, since the Gospels, as well as the entire Bible, were written by people and not dictated word-for-word by God.
Besides, if you look at the word "Gospel," you would see that one of its meanings is "God's Word." And I know that's how, for most of my life, I viewed the New Testament. To me, it was the Truth, a factual record of the actual events that occurred some, now, two thousand years ago. Like most people, I took the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John at face value, as gospel, as it were, as though it were dictated by God.
And then I began to think about it.
The oldest narrative, according to Wikipedia, is the Gospel According to Mark. Mark was a "companion" of Simon Peter, so he didn't know Jesus, but only knew what Simon Peter (Shlomo) had told him. The Gospel According to Mark was written, according to scholars, between 66 AD and 70 AD. Even if Mark had written it in his middle-age, and even if Jesus had died on a cross some thirty-three years before Mark wrote his book, we are talking about a thirty-three to thirty-seven year gap between Jesus' ministry and the telling of his story. This is the year 2014. Thirty-seven years ago, it was 1977. My son David was two years old in 1977. I was there, and I don't remember much. And if I had a friend who had a friend whom he had told all about me, I seriously doubt that my friend's friend would remember all of the niggling details of my life some thirty-seven years ago.
After that, we have the Gospel According to Matthew, written between 80 AD and 90 AD. I read somewhere that Matthew had written his gospel for money, and based his book on what he had read in The Gospel According to Mark. Matthew, if he did write that book, at least knew Jesus, whom Mark had never met. Still, he also would have been in his early old-age by the time he wrote it. I'm sixty, and I have trouble remembering stuff. Unless Matthew had a fantastic memory, he probably got stuff wrong, too, which is why there are such differences between the two gospels.
Directly after Matthew's book on Jesus was published, Luke published his own book, The Gospel According to Luke. Luke was a Gentile physician, according to the stories told of him, and a friend of Paul of Tarsus, who, like Mark, had never met Jesus. So we are talking at least three degrees of separation. And Luke was an educated man, well-versed in Greek mythology, and he put many mythic flourishes in his book, probably in order to enhance sales, to tell a better story, and to appeal to the Greek Gentiles. His book was written between 80 and 100 AD.
The last canonical gospel, The Gospel According to John, was written, according to Wikipedia, in 200 AD. Obviously, if Wikipedia is correct, John didn't write it, because he would have had to have been around 183 years old when he did. So it was written by somebody else and ascribed to him. And possibly, that person knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew someone who knew John who knew Jesus. Six degrees of separation. On the other hand, some experts say that the book was written in 90 AD. However, considering that John was a half-mad recluse, and was probably thirteen years old when he hung around Jesus in the early thirties, he would have been in his early seventies when he wrote his book, if indeed he did, which would be a good reason why it reads as crazy as it does.
After that, we have The Gospel According to Mary (written between 120 and 180 AD), The Gospel According to James (written in 145 AD), The Gospel According to Philip (written no earlier than 150 AD), The Gospel According to Judah (circa 180 AD), The Gospel According to Thomas (circa 340 AD) and The Gospel According to Nicodemus (written in around 350 AD.) Many of these books were found with the Gnostics, a sect that competed with Roman Catholic Christianity, and since Roman Catholicism won, the influence and theology of the Gnostics all but vanished.
So, what happens when a bunch of people who view the same event are asked to write about said event? They tend to have different viewpoints that have been influenced by where they were standing at the time, what they heard, what they smelled, how they felt, and their previous experiences. For example, let's say that six people, a nurse, a lawyer, a mechanic, a barista, a homeless person and a politician, see a car accident between a Mercedes and a Ford on the corner of Sixth and Main. The nurse, who was outside of a medical clinic on the northwest corner, would have a different view of the accident, than the lawyer standing outside his office on the southeast corner. The mechanic on the northeast corner would see, smell, hear and perceive a different reality than the barista serving her customers on the southeast corner. The homeless person may have been sitting on the curb and he would see a different accident than the politician whose limo was next to the Mercedes in question. And of course, the Mercedes driver and the Ford driver would have two entirely different and conflicting stories to tell.
Furthermore, it is likely that blame would be assigned according to the witnesses' biases. The nurse, the lawyer and the politician may see the Mercedes driver as completely innocent, just because they all tend to be well-off. The mechanic, the barista and the homeless person may see the Ford driver as completely innocent, because they all tend to have limited means. And biases affect viewpoint and memory. Which is why the evidence is so important. Evidence is like Science, and Science (theoretically) doesn't care. And that is what the cops are for, to take witness statements, but also to gather evidence by measuring the tire-marks, gathering evidence of paint and then leaving it to the experts to know what happens when a Ford hits a Mercedes and when a Mercedes hits a Ford.
So what's the point? The point is that people wrote the Gospels, and people have flawed memories and biases and agendas. So really, there are no Gospels, since the Gospels, as well as the entire Bible, were written by people and not dictated word-for-word by God.
The Gabriel Stone - A Sudden Insight
About fourteen years ago, well over 2000 years after the date in which it was written, archaeologists found a (roughly) three-foot high limestone tablet upon which was written, in ink, a prophesy about the death and resurrection of the Messiah. This was the "Gabriel Stone," also called the "Jeselsohn Stone," because it is currently owned by David Jeselsohn. But the hero of this Messianic tale is not Jesus of Nazareth, but Simon bar Yosef of Peraea, who, according to the story, was told by the Archangel Gabriel that he would be crucified and would die, and then would be resurrected after three days.
I won't go into the religious implications of this. Suffice it to say that, since it predates Jesus' death and resurrection, the Gabriel Stone has the potential to totally upend Christianity today. But then again, so would the realization that there were four failed Messiahs before Jesus and probably many more in the two thousand years, since. And I am talking "Messiahs" in the Jewish sense: A warrior-king and wise administrator who will rebuild the Temple, gather the people of Israel back to the Promised Land, restore Jerusalem as the center of the political and religious universe, and restore all of the treasures, including the lost Ark of the Covenant. Judaism already has mechanisms in place for the forgiveness of sins and admission into Paradise, and has had said mechanisms for over five thousand years. Only Christianity makes belief in Christ a condition for salvation. The Jews are much more open-minded.
But why was the story about Simon bar Yosef of Peraea written in ink on a piece of stone? Most stones that have come down to us were painted or carved, not written on in ink. Ink was used on paper or parchment. On the other hand, paper and parchment are relatively hard to manufacture, tend to rot, and are expensive compared to a relatively permanent slab of marble, limestone, sandstone or some other stone made by God. So why was the story of Simon bar Yosef written in ink on a piece of stone?
To answer that, we first have to travel back in time to First Century Israel. It is a bogus claim based on antisemitism and Gentile conceit that Jesus and the other Jewish people of First Century Israel were illiterate. Hebrew Schools, or Yeshivas, began some thirty years before Jesus was born, and those are just the public schools. The Jews as a people had been able to read the Torah and write in Hebrew for hundreds if not thousands of years before that. Jesus would have been no exception.
Furthermore, the Torah was not the only book around at the time. There were plenty of other books, most of which have probably been lost to Time. Nonetheless, we know about, and may have even read, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Argonautica, and the Metamorphosis by Ovid, and books by Seneca and Pythagoras and hundreds of other Greek and Roman authors. And what were the original books of the Old Testament, like Esther and Job and the Song of Songs, if not books?
So, let us mentally wander through the marketplaces of First Century Israel. There is a produce stand with baskets of oranges and apples and dates and strawberries. There is the stand with barrels of olives and bins of spices. There is the booth with bolts of fabric in vibrant colors. There is the Importer's booth with goods from Syria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon and Cyprus. And then there is the Book-Seller's booth with a wide selection of books, both new and used, both scrolls and a new type of book, the codex, which has pages of paper or parchment with words written on them that people can read.
But how do you know what book to read? It's possible that the book-seller has read them all and can tell you all about them, but this would take time and this is a busy and very crowded marketplace.
The answer is advertising.
Now, I have in my possession posters of my books. I don't know what to do with them, but they are advertising. They look like the shiny and colorful covers of my books, but they are made of paper. If I wanted to make my posters more permanent, I would back them with cardboard or put them in a frame. But First Century Israel didn't have cardboard or wooden frames, at least as far as we know. If one wanted permanence in the First Century, one could use stone, which could be adorned with paint or words written in ink and then leaned up against a wall as advertising. This actually makes good sense because wind doesn't usually blow away stone tablets, they're too large for a thief to slip them into his pocket, and stone tablets don't bend or tear apart.
What is more, according to Wikipedia, the Gabriel Stone contains a "series of short prophesies written in the first person," for a total of 87 lines. Most of the words are missing- ink is by no means a permanent medium. A translation of it can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4471612/Messiah-Stone-Translation. The first person, the speaker, is the Archangel Gabriel, and he is speaking to Simon bar Yosef of Peraea. Interestingly, it was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic, the mother-language of that time. And according to some of the rabbinic sages, Gabriel was the only one of the archangels who spoke Aramaic. If he had written it, which is highly unlikely, then why wouldn't he have written it in Aramaic instead of Hebrew? Obviously, it was written by a person to be read by all Jewish folk, not just the Aramaic-speaking ones, but the Greek ones, the Roman ones, the Egyptian ones and whoever else happened to be milling around the marketplace.
It would make sense to me that the Gabriel Stone is an advertised excerpt of a much larger book, a fictional account written by someone who knew Hebrew and about angels and archangels and resurrection and the spirit, the way that portions of a modern novel might be printed on a poster, in order to entice a potential customer into buying the entire book. I think that the actual book, of which the excerpt was only a part, was written by an Essene or Pharisee, since both of these sects believed in angels, resurrection and the spirit, and that it was written to be part propaganda and part novel, much like many Christian books nowadays predict Armageddon and the End of the World. And since Simon bar Yosef did not actually rise from the dead and fulfill his destiny as the Messiah, this book, which, in my book, I call Gabriel's Prophesy, was written before the crucifixion of Simon bar Yosef in roughly 4 BCE, perhaps as a way to drum up support for his cause.
I won't go into the religious implications of this. Suffice it to say that, since it predates Jesus' death and resurrection, the Gabriel Stone has the potential to totally upend Christianity today. But then again, so would the realization that there were four failed Messiahs before Jesus and probably many more in the two thousand years, since. And I am talking "Messiahs" in the Jewish sense: A warrior-king and wise administrator who will rebuild the Temple, gather the people of Israel back to the Promised Land, restore Jerusalem as the center of the political and religious universe, and restore all of the treasures, including the lost Ark of the Covenant. Judaism already has mechanisms in place for the forgiveness of sins and admission into Paradise, and has had said mechanisms for over five thousand years. Only Christianity makes belief in Christ a condition for salvation. The Jews are much more open-minded.
But why was the story about Simon bar Yosef of Peraea written in ink on a piece of stone? Most stones that have come down to us were painted or carved, not written on in ink. Ink was used on paper or parchment. On the other hand, paper and parchment are relatively hard to manufacture, tend to rot, and are expensive compared to a relatively permanent slab of marble, limestone, sandstone or some other stone made by God. So why was the story of Simon bar Yosef written in ink on a piece of stone?
To answer that, we first have to travel back in time to First Century Israel. It is a bogus claim based on antisemitism and Gentile conceit that Jesus and the other Jewish people of First Century Israel were illiterate. Hebrew Schools, or Yeshivas, began some thirty years before Jesus was born, and those are just the public schools. The Jews as a people had been able to read the Torah and write in Hebrew for hundreds if not thousands of years before that. Jesus would have been no exception.
Furthermore, the Torah was not the only book around at the time. There were plenty of other books, most of which have probably been lost to Time. Nonetheless, we know about, and may have even read, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Argonautica, and the Metamorphosis by Ovid, and books by Seneca and Pythagoras and hundreds of other Greek and Roman authors. And what were the original books of the Old Testament, like Esther and Job and the Song of Songs, if not books?
So, let us mentally wander through the marketplaces of First Century Israel. There is a produce stand with baskets of oranges and apples and dates and strawberries. There is the stand with barrels of olives and bins of spices. There is the booth with bolts of fabric in vibrant colors. There is the Importer's booth with goods from Syria, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Babylon and Cyprus. And then there is the Book-Seller's booth with a wide selection of books, both new and used, both scrolls and a new type of book, the codex, which has pages of paper or parchment with words written on them that people can read.
But how do you know what book to read? It's possible that the book-seller has read them all and can tell you all about them, but this would take time and this is a busy and very crowded marketplace.
The answer is advertising.
Now, I have in my possession posters of my books. I don't know what to do with them, but they are advertising. They look like the shiny and colorful covers of my books, but they are made of paper. If I wanted to make my posters more permanent, I would back them with cardboard or put them in a frame. But First Century Israel didn't have cardboard or wooden frames, at least as far as we know. If one wanted permanence in the First Century, one could use stone, which could be adorned with paint or words written in ink and then leaned up against a wall as advertising. This actually makes good sense because wind doesn't usually blow away stone tablets, they're too large for a thief to slip them into his pocket, and stone tablets don't bend or tear apart.
What is more, according to Wikipedia, the Gabriel Stone contains a "series of short prophesies written in the first person," for a total of 87 lines. Most of the words are missing- ink is by no means a permanent medium. A translation of it can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/4471612/Messiah-Stone-Translation. The first person, the speaker, is the Archangel Gabriel, and he is speaking to Simon bar Yosef of Peraea. Interestingly, it was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic, the mother-language of that time. And according to some of the rabbinic sages, Gabriel was the only one of the archangels who spoke Aramaic. If he had written it, which is highly unlikely, then why wouldn't he have written it in Aramaic instead of Hebrew? Obviously, it was written by a person to be read by all Jewish folk, not just the Aramaic-speaking ones, but the Greek ones, the Roman ones, the Egyptian ones and whoever else happened to be milling around the marketplace.
It would make sense to me that the Gabriel Stone is an advertised excerpt of a much larger book, a fictional account written by someone who knew Hebrew and about angels and archangels and resurrection and the spirit, the way that portions of a modern novel might be printed on a poster, in order to entice a potential customer into buying the entire book. I think that the actual book, of which the excerpt was only a part, was written by an Essene or Pharisee, since both of these sects believed in angels, resurrection and the spirit, and that it was written to be part propaganda and part novel, much like many Christian books nowadays predict Armageddon and the End of the World. And since Simon bar Yosef did not actually rise from the dead and fulfill his destiny as the Messiah, this book, which, in my book, I call Gabriel's Prophesy, was written before the crucifixion of Simon bar Yosef in roughly 4 BCE, perhaps as a way to drum up support for his cause.
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Jesus was Married!
http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/10/5600450/papyrus-gospel-of-jesus-wife-likely-wasnt-forged-scientists-claim
I have long said that Jesus was married, which puts a whole nuther spin on Christianity. But really, it only makes sense. Most young Jewish men in First Century Israel were married with children, and to not be married was to bring shame to the family. The only thing is that, unlike Dan Brown, I just don't think that Jesus' wife was Mary Magdalene because she was just not respectable enough, given that she was rumored to be demon-possessed, to be a preacher's or rabbi's wife. That role requires considerable decorum. I think that Jesus' wife was Mary (Miriam), the sister of Lazarus (Lazar.)
Here's the thing. Back then, children were betrothed to each other in arranged marriages. People didn't just "fall in love" and then marry the object of their affection the way that they do now because people fall in and out of love all the time, and basing a marriage on that is just too risky. Instead, one's parents or a paid matchmaker set the whole thing up. In fact, there was a First Century rabbi who was famous for being a perfect matchmaker, and so much so that even now, young women go to his tomb in Israel and ask him to find them a suitable husband. And we are talking two thousand years later! That is some impressive street cred!
But why Miriam? Because Miriam was respectable enough to be the wife of a preacher or rabbi. There was no taint of dishonor or demon-possession attached to her name. In fact, she doesn't get much of a mention at all in the canonical gospels, except that Jesus acknowledges that she had the better part, being able to sit at his feet and listen to his stories, as compared to her sister Martha, who was bitterly busy doing things.
Plus, Miriam was probably the true Virgin Mary. The alleged "Virgin Mary," Mariyam, who was Jesus' mother, was not a virgin. She was a married woman and mother of at least six sons and possibly additional daughters. (I gave Jesus three sisters.) And you don't have kids if you are a virgin. Well, maybe technically the first time, but certainly not by the second or third or fourth or fifth or sixth. And Mary Magdalene may not have been a virgin, either, given her reputation. I purposefully make that unclear in my book. But Miriam, the sister of Lazarus, if she were truly Jesus' fiancee, was probably was a virgin, and aside from Jesus and possibly Little John (John the Apostle), the only true virgin in the book.
Furthermore, as I have said before, one has to take into account the early Catholic Church. By closely editing, if not actually changing the content of, the canonical gospels and early letters in order to conform to their agenda, the founding fathers of the Catholic Church were able to affect the way that subsequent generations thought and felt about Jesus and his whole narrative and the way that we view Christianity today. The requirement over the passage of centuries is that we buy the whole New Testament lock, stock and barrel, unquestioningly, and take it on faith, and if we don't, well, the Catholic Church (and man Protestant churches) have a way of being extremely nasty about it. Even thinking something that went against the Church dogma was considered a sin. The Catholic Church has many fine qualities, but they do have a very long history of suppression, mind control and denial. And yes, since the Reformation, a multitude of other churches have sprung up, but the foundation for faith and the Christ Narrative was laid by the Catholic Church. They taught us what to think about the whole Jesus story.
It is like what the Board of Education in Texas was trying to do a few years back when they decided to demote, if not delete, the contributions that Thomas Jefferson made to the Cause of Independence. And when American textbooks failed to mention the contributions to American society made by women, native Americans, Jews, Catholics, blacks, Mexicans, Italians or the Asian communities. "If we don't mention it, it doesn't exist." Or even the more recent example of the Bush Wars, which were trumped up on the most fabricated of excuses, sold to the American public on false pretenses, cost us trillions of dollars and millions of lives, and if we didn't want to go to war or questioned the veracity of greedy psychopathic men, then we were branded "traitors." And that is now. Just imagine the power to control data and public opinion in a world where there is no Internet or Wikipedia or a society that celebrates the questioning of authority. And you really don't have to work hard to imagine it. There are plenty of places today that are ruled by people who tell their countrymen what to think, or face prison or the death penalty, so what makes anyone think that it have been any different over the past two thousand years?
I have long said that Jesus was married, which puts a whole nuther spin on Christianity. But really, it only makes sense. Most young Jewish men in First Century Israel were married with children, and to not be married was to bring shame to the family. The only thing is that, unlike Dan Brown, I just don't think that Jesus' wife was Mary Magdalene because she was just not respectable enough, given that she was rumored to be demon-possessed, to be a preacher's or rabbi's wife. That role requires considerable decorum. I think that Jesus' wife was Mary (Miriam), the sister of Lazarus (Lazar.)
Here's the thing. Back then, children were betrothed to each other in arranged marriages. People didn't just "fall in love" and then marry the object of their affection the way that they do now because people fall in and out of love all the time, and basing a marriage on that is just too risky. Instead, one's parents or a paid matchmaker set the whole thing up. In fact, there was a First Century rabbi who was famous for being a perfect matchmaker, and so much so that even now, young women go to his tomb in Israel and ask him to find them a suitable husband. And we are talking two thousand years later! That is some impressive street cred!
But why Miriam? Because Miriam was respectable enough to be the wife of a preacher or rabbi. There was no taint of dishonor or demon-possession attached to her name. In fact, she doesn't get much of a mention at all in the canonical gospels, except that Jesus acknowledges that she had the better part, being able to sit at his feet and listen to his stories, as compared to her sister Martha, who was bitterly busy doing things.
Plus, Miriam was probably the true Virgin Mary. The alleged "Virgin Mary," Mariyam, who was Jesus' mother, was not a virgin. She was a married woman and mother of at least six sons and possibly additional daughters. (I gave Jesus three sisters.) And you don't have kids if you are a virgin. Well, maybe technically the first time, but certainly not by the second or third or fourth or fifth or sixth. And Mary Magdalene may not have been a virgin, either, given her reputation. I purposefully make that unclear in my book. But Miriam, the sister of Lazarus, if she were truly Jesus' fiancee, was probably was a virgin, and aside from Jesus and possibly Little John (John the Apostle), the only true virgin in the book.
Furthermore, as I have said before, one has to take into account the early Catholic Church. By closely editing, if not actually changing the content of, the canonical gospels and early letters in order to conform to their agenda, the founding fathers of the Catholic Church were able to affect the way that subsequent generations thought and felt about Jesus and his whole narrative and the way that we view Christianity today. The requirement over the passage of centuries is that we buy the whole New Testament lock, stock and barrel, unquestioningly, and take it on faith, and if we don't, well, the Catholic Church (and man Protestant churches) have a way of being extremely nasty about it. Even thinking something that went against the Church dogma was considered a sin. The Catholic Church has many fine qualities, but they do have a very long history of suppression, mind control and denial. And yes, since the Reformation, a multitude of other churches have sprung up, but the foundation for faith and the Christ Narrative was laid by the Catholic Church. They taught us what to think about the whole Jesus story.
It is like what the Board of Education in Texas was trying to do a few years back when they decided to demote, if not delete, the contributions that Thomas Jefferson made to the Cause of Independence. And when American textbooks failed to mention the contributions to American society made by women, native Americans, Jews, Catholics, blacks, Mexicans, Italians or the Asian communities. "If we don't mention it, it doesn't exist." Or even the more recent example of the Bush Wars, which were trumped up on the most fabricated of excuses, sold to the American public on false pretenses, cost us trillions of dollars and millions of lives, and if we didn't want to go to war or questioned the veracity of greedy psychopathic men, then we were branded "traitors." And that is now. Just imagine the power to control data and public opinion in a world where there is no Internet or Wikipedia or a society that celebrates the questioning of authority. And you really don't have to work hard to imagine it. There are plenty of places today that are ruled by people who tell their countrymen what to think, or face prison or the death penalty, so what makes anyone think that it have been any different over the past two thousand years?
Friday, March 28, 2014
Mary Magdalene - Feminist and Heroine, Part One
Not much is actually known about Mary Magdalene. She wrote a gospel, which ended up in the Apocrypha or was otherwise excluded from the canonical Bible, possibly because it was so fragmented as to be unusable. She hung around with Jesus and the other disciples. For centuries, she was assumed to have been the adulteress whom Jesus saved from the mud pit, and a prostitute, and there are those who speculate that she was actually Jesus' wife. So there are a couple of speculative points that I would like to make because Mary figures prominently in Book Two.
In First Century Israel, as in most centuries before the first century in Israel, people were known by their first name and the name of their father. Simon Peter was actually "Shelomon bar Yonas," or "Solomon the son of Jonas." The Virgin Mary would have been "Miriam beth Issac" or possibly "Miriam beth Joseph" to show that she was of the House of Issac or the House of Joseph, just as Queen Esther was originally Hadassah beth Avigail. And, for the sake of argument, Jesus was "Yeshua bar Yosef," or "Jesus the son of Joseph," or "Jesus bar Abbas," as in "Jesus the Son of God." The "bar," ben" and "beth" conferred legitimacy.
But what if one were illegitimate? There would be no father's name to attach at the back of one's first name, because that father was unknown. This was the case when it came to Leonardo DaVinci, who was illegitimate and came from the town of Vinci. He was, basically, "Leonardo of Vinci." The town of Vinci was adopted as his last name.
Now, there are several disciples who didn't have last names, and one could assume from this that they were illegitimate. Philip did not have a last name. Neither did whichever disciple it was who had a twin. (I would look it up, but I'm lazy.) And neither did Mary. The name "Magdalene" refers to the town in which she lived - Magdala, which is either Greek or Latin. If she had been legitimate, she would have been listed as "Mary beth _____" (fill in the father's name there) as Matthew was listed as "Matthias ben Alphaeus."
Mary was also for years and years assumed to have been a prostitute. This assumption started, I understand, rather belatedly in the Middle Ages, when the chauvinistic Catholic Church was at its prime. (The Catholic Church also conveniently forgot that there were other Jewish women's names than just "Mary," and don't even get me started on the whole mishegoss about the Virgin Mary.) In my book, however, Mary is a working girl who makes a living in the fish market making garum, a very stinky precursor of Worchestershire Sauce. (Look it up. Worchestershire Sauce has anchovies.)
Now, I used to live near National City, California, at a time when one of their biggest employers was the tuna industry. Tuna boats went out, fishermen caught tuna, brought their haul back to port, and it was made into Bumble Bee Tuna or maybe Chicken of the Sea. But aside from providing jobs to National City, what the tuna industry mostly contributed to the general ambiance of the town was the overpowering smell of fish. I am sure that the fishermen and the people who turned it into cans of tuna absolutely reeked of fish, morning, noon and night, even after a hot bath and layers of cheap perfume, because fish is oily and the oil can get into the skin. Since Magdala was a major fishing town on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, it would be fair to assume that it, too, reeked of fish. Probably even a tower of fish. (Magdala's real name, in Aramaic, was Migdal Nunaiya, which means "Tower of Fish.")
And what does fish smell like? Well, I don't mean to be indelicate here, and meaning no disrespect, but fish can smell like certain women's private parts. Hence, the mythic and historical connection between sailors, fishermen, the Sea and the Goddess of Love and her surrogates, the prostitutes.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem that Mary was married, because she seems to have had the time to wander throughout Galilee and Judaea with Jesus and his other disciples, and she couldn't have done that if she were married, much less married with children. And single women, especially of a certain age, are suspected of all sorts of immorality and indecent behavior, even now, when idiot male politicians seem to think that women in general are incapable of knowing what is best for themselves and their own bodies. And a single woman, especially one who doesn't have a father, doesn't have to ask any man for permission to do anything. Therefore, if Mary wanted to wander around the countryside with thirteen men to whom she was not related, well, she could, but people, being as nasty-minded then as they are now, would assume that she was sexually servicing those same men. Therefore, even without smelling like fish, it would naturally be assumed that Mary was a prostitute, or at least a very easy lay.
In my book, however, Mary is more of a nun. Her mother was a prostitute, which is why Mary doesn't have a legitimate last name, but in my book, Mary defied the assumed and degrading course laid out for her and worked at the fish market instead of on the streets. This would also explain why Mary doesn't hold men in particularly high regard, but considers herself equal to them, or better, and she especially doesn't want to be sold into marriage or in any way beholden to a man. She is proudly independent, self-sufficient, brilliant, ambitious, and testy, as any woman with half of a brain would be testy given such an repressive and chauvinistic environment. Additionally, while I don't know if Mary was originally called "Mary of Migdal Nunaiya" and that this was shortened to "Mary the Nun," but it is interesting to speculate. Regrettably, I did not include this insight in my book because I just thought of it and the book has been out for months.
There is one last reason why Mary might have been considered a prostitute, quite aside from the fishy smell and her tendency to hang out with a bevy of unrelated men. She was beautiful. Drop dead gorgeous. With the kind of body that just naturally made men think of sin. I'm thinking Sophia Loren-like, a statuesque and very curvy beauty. This was both a blessing and a curse, because no matter how moral and upright and saintly a woman is, if she is built, and I am talking built, then men will naturally assume that she is just as interested in having sex with them, as they are in having sex with her. Especially a gorgeous woman who wanders around the countryside with a bevy of men, unchaperoned. And onlookers will see her and think that she is in some way sexually active and predatory, whether she really is or not. This happens now, and since people haven't changed in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, it is very probably that they thought so, then.
There has been some suggestion, by those who have read my book, that Mary was gay. Now, that would be an interesting twist, and one that would turn the Catholic Church and the evangelists on their ear. And I did suggest that, at the time, the people who met this very independent, self-sufficient, testy woman thought that she was a prostitute, a Sapphic (a lesbian), a witch and possessed by seven demons because she refused to conform to the norms of the time (get married, have kids, be a perfect cook and housewife, etc..) And she does get chummy, in my book, with Martha the sister of Lazarus. But I don't come right out and say that she is gay, any more than I say that she has a sexual history with men. Some secrets are meant to be kept.
To be continued.
In First Century Israel, as in most centuries before the first century in Israel, people were known by their first name and the name of their father. Simon Peter was actually "Shelomon bar Yonas," or "Solomon the son of Jonas." The Virgin Mary would have been "Miriam beth Issac" or possibly "Miriam beth Joseph" to show that she was of the House of Issac or the House of Joseph, just as Queen Esther was originally Hadassah beth Avigail. And, for the sake of argument, Jesus was "Yeshua bar Yosef," or "Jesus the son of Joseph," or "Jesus bar Abbas," as in "Jesus the Son of God." The "bar," ben" and "beth" conferred legitimacy.
But what if one were illegitimate? There would be no father's name to attach at the back of one's first name, because that father was unknown. This was the case when it came to Leonardo DaVinci, who was illegitimate and came from the town of Vinci. He was, basically, "Leonardo of Vinci." The town of Vinci was adopted as his last name.
Now, there are several disciples who didn't have last names, and one could assume from this that they were illegitimate. Philip did not have a last name. Neither did whichever disciple it was who had a twin. (I would look it up, but I'm lazy.) And neither did Mary. The name "Magdalene" refers to the town in which she lived - Magdala, which is either Greek or Latin. If she had been legitimate, she would have been listed as "Mary beth _____" (fill in the father's name there) as Matthew was listed as "Matthias ben Alphaeus."
Mary was also for years and years assumed to have been a prostitute. This assumption started, I understand, rather belatedly in the Middle Ages, when the chauvinistic Catholic Church was at its prime. (The Catholic Church also conveniently forgot that there were other Jewish women's names than just "Mary," and don't even get me started on the whole mishegoss about the Virgin Mary.) In my book, however, Mary is a working girl who makes a living in the fish market making garum, a very stinky precursor of Worchestershire Sauce. (Look it up. Worchestershire Sauce has anchovies.)
Now, I used to live near National City, California, at a time when one of their biggest employers was the tuna industry. Tuna boats went out, fishermen caught tuna, brought their haul back to port, and it was made into Bumble Bee Tuna or maybe Chicken of the Sea. But aside from providing jobs to National City, what the tuna industry mostly contributed to the general ambiance of the town was the overpowering smell of fish. I am sure that the fishermen and the people who turned it into cans of tuna absolutely reeked of fish, morning, noon and night, even after a hot bath and layers of cheap perfume, because fish is oily and the oil can get into the skin. Since Magdala was a major fishing town on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, it would be fair to assume that it, too, reeked of fish. Probably even a tower of fish. (Magdala's real name, in Aramaic, was Migdal Nunaiya, which means "Tower of Fish.")
And what does fish smell like? Well, I don't mean to be indelicate here, and meaning no disrespect, but fish can smell like certain women's private parts. Hence, the mythic and historical connection between sailors, fishermen, the Sea and the Goddess of Love and her surrogates, the prostitutes.
Furthermore, it doesn't seem that Mary was married, because she seems to have had the time to wander throughout Galilee and Judaea with Jesus and his other disciples, and she couldn't have done that if she were married, much less married with children. And single women, especially of a certain age, are suspected of all sorts of immorality and indecent behavior, even now, when idiot male politicians seem to think that women in general are incapable of knowing what is best for themselves and their own bodies. And a single woman, especially one who doesn't have a father, doesn't have to ask any man for permission to do anything. Therefore, if Mary wanted to wander around the countryside with thirteen men to whom she was not related, well, she could, but people, being as nasty-minded then as they are now, would assume that she was sexually servicing those same men. Therefore, even without smelling like fish, it would naturally be assumed that Mary was a prostitute, or at least a very easy lay.
In my book, however, Mary is more of a nun. Her mother was a prostitute, which is why Mary doesn't have a legitimate last name, but in my book, Mary defied the assumed and degrading course laid out for her and worked at the fish market instead of on the streets. This would also explain why Mary doesn't hold men in particularly high regard, but considers herself equal to them, or better, and she especially doesn't want to be sold into marriage or in any way beholden to a man. She is proudly independent, self-sufficient, brilliant, ambitious, and testy, as any woman with half of a brain would be testy given such an repressive and chauvinistic environment. Additionally, while I don't know if Mary was originally called "Mary of Migdal Nunaiya" and that this was shortened to "Mary the Nun," but it is interesting to speculate. Regrettably, I did not include this insight in my book because I just thought of it and the book has been out for months.
There is one last reason why Mary might have been considered a prostitute, quite aside from the fishy smell and her tendency to hang out with a bevy of unrelated men. She was beautiful. Drop dead gorgeous. With the kind of body that just naturally made men think of sin. I'm thinking Sophia Loren-like, a statuesque and very curvy beauty. This was both a blessing and a curse, because no matter how moral and upright and saintly a woman is, if she is built, and I am talking built, then men will naturally assume that she is just as interested in having sex with them, as they are in having sex with her. Especially a gorgeous woman who wanders around the countryside with a bevy of men, unchaperoned. And onlookers will see her and think that she is in some way sexually active and predatory, whether she really is or not. This happens now, and since people haven't changed in tens or hundreds of thousands of years, it is very probably that they thought so, then.
There has been some suggestion, by those who have read my book, that Mary was gay. Now, that would be an interesting twist, and one that would turn the Catholic Church and the evangelists on their ear. And I did suggest that, at the time, the people who met this very independent, self-sufficient, testy woman thought that she was a prostitute, a Sapphic (a lesbian), a witch and possessed by seven demons because she refused to conform to the norms of the time (get married, have kids, be a perfect cook and housewife, etc..) And she does get chummy, in my book, with Martha the sister of Lazarus. But I don't come right out and say that she is gay, any more than I say that she has a sexual history with men. Some secrets are meant to be kept.
To be continued.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
9,000 Year-Old Stone Judaean Masks
http://news.yahoo.com/ancient-masks-display-jerusalem-160209806.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory
Interesting story about eleven stone masks, dating from 7000 BCE, found in the Judaean desert. These eleven human faces, graven in stone, varying in their appearance, seem to have holes at the base so that sticks can be inserted. What the article did not say was how much these masks weigh. They look fairly heavy, so it is unlikely, in my opinion, that they would be hand-held during rituals, but might have been put on sticks and propped up as part of the scenery or background, although the scientist who found them did not seem to think so. They do not have the megaphone mouths of later Roman or Greece mask design and appear to have been unpainted. (Neolithic people had access to natural pigments and were prolific colorists.)
Given that these masks date from 7,000 BCE, these masks were made at roughly the same time that small figurines were made of the white clay in the area later known as the District of Galilee. They pre-date the prohibition of the making of "graven images."
Interesting story about eleven stone masks, dating from 7000 BCE, found in the Judaean desert. These eleven human faces, graven in stone, varying in their appearance, seem to have holes at the base so that sticks can be inserted. What the article did not say was how much these masks weigh. They look fairly heavy, so it is unlikely, in my opinion, that they would be hand-held during rituals, but might have been put on sticks and propped up as part of the scenery or background, although the scientist who found them did not seem to think so. They do not have the megaphone mouths of later Roman or Greece mask design and appear to have been unpainted. (Neolithic people had access to natural pigments and were prolific colorists.)
Given that these masks date from 7,000 BCE, these masks were made at roughly the same time that small figurines were made of the white clay in the area later known as the District of Galilee. They pre-date the prohibition of the making of "graven images."
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Foods Never to Eat
http://travel.yahoo.com/ideas/8-animals-eaten-alive-around-232347504.html
And of course, none of these are kosher.
And of course, none of these are kosher.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Once More into the Breeches, My Friends!
So you know how, in all of the religious movies and pictures, Jesus and his friends are all wearing ankle-length tunics and an open coat or sometimes a toga? In my book, however, Jesus and his working-class friends, with the exception of Mary of Magdala, wear short tunics and cotton breeches. Pants, in other words. Short pants, long pants, puffy pants, Bermuda shorts, or whatnot, but pants. "Pants?" you might ask? "Why pants?"
Well, there are many reasons here. First off, togas. Togas, those things that drape over the shoulder like a bed-sheet, were worn by the Romans, usually Roman citizens and senators. Slaves, provincials and non-citizens were not allowed to wear togas. Some of the Jewish aristocracy, aka Sadducees, wore togas, but only if they were Roman citizens, which was something that was conferred upon them after the payment of many shekels, like getting a knighthood bestowed upon one by the Queen because one has contributed to the glory of the British Empire, or because one has paid a ton in taxes. So, since Jesus and his friends were not Roman citizens or senators, they didn't wear togas. Couldn't. Weren't allowed. Doing so might result in their arrests if for no reason than on suspicion of putting on airs.
Secondly, the Persian Empire had conquered Israel several hundred years before Jesus' time, and those people wore pants. Puffy pants, but pants. Check out the pictures of ancient Persians. (Or for that matter, cavemen and the people who inhabited Britannia. Pants have been around for a very long time. They're not hard to make.) Probably even the Hittites and the Sumerians wore pants. Pants are infinitely more masculine and modest than skirts or long tunics. Ask any Scotsman and he will tell you that this is true, especially in a high wind. Furthermore, many of the Persian kings and emperors were friendly toward the Jewish people, the Book of Esther notwithstanding. And the Jewish people were very modest. The Romans, not so much. So it is entirely possible that the Jewish people adopted the Persian habit of wearing pants, and why not? They had more ethnically in common with the Persians than they did with the Romans, who were the enemy de jour, after all.
Thirdly, there are no pictures of First Century Jewish people in Israel, at least not that have been dug up so far. Mosaic Law forbade Jewish people from painting pictures or carving statues or engraving images of people lest they be worshiped as gods. Major no-no. And Jesus was Jewish. So the earliest pictures that we have of First Century Jewish folk came about through Christian artists after Jesus' death, usually by several hundred years. And all that the artists of that time had to go on, when it came to fashion, were pictures of First Century Romans, slaves and Gentiles, all dressed in Roman garb with nary a pair of pants in the bunch. Therefore, it is entirely possible that First Century Jewish men wore pants since there is no proof that they did not. And if they did, then probably Jesus did, at least most of the time.
Well, there are many reasons here. First off, togas. Togas, those things that drape over the shoulder like a bed-sheet, were worn by the Romans, usually Roman citizens and senators. Slaves, provincials and non-citizens were not allowed to wear togas. Some of the Jewish aristocracy, aka Sadducees, wore togas, but only if they were Roman citizens, which was something that was conferred upon them after the payment of many shekels, like getting a knighthood bestowed upon one by the Queen because one has contributed to the glory of the British Empire, or because one has paid a ton in taxes. So, since Jesus and his friends were not Roman citizens or senators, they didn't wear togas. Couldn't. Weren't allowed. Doing so might result in their arrests if for no reason than on suspicion of putting on airs.
Secondly, the Persian Empire had conquered Israel several hundred years before Jesus' time, and those people wore pants. Puffy pants, but pants. Check out the pictures of ancient Persians. (Or for that matter, cavemen and the people who inhabited Britannia. Pants have been around for a very long time. They're not hard to make.) Probably even the Hittites and the Sumerians wore pants. Pants are infinitely more masculine and modest than skirts or long tunics. Ask any Scotsman and he will tell you that this is true, especially in a high wind. Furthermore, many of the Persian kings and emperors were friendly toward the Jewish people, the Book of Esther notwithstanding. And the Jewish people were very modest. The Romans, not so much. So it is entirely possible that the Jewish people adopted the Persian habit of wearing pants, and why not? They had more ethnically in common with the Persians than they did with the Romans, who were the enemy de jour, after all.
Thirdly, there are no pictures of First Century Jewish people in Israel, at least not that have been dug up so far. Mosaic Law forbade Jewish people from painting pictures or carving statues or engraving images of people lest they be worshiped as gods. Major no-no. And Jesus was Jewish. So the earliest pictures that we have of First Century Jewish folk came about through Christian artists after Jesus' death, usually by several hundred years. And all that the artists of that time had to go on, when it came to fashion, were pictures of First Century Romans, slaves and Gentiles, all dressed in Roman garb with nary a pair of pants in the bunch. Therefore, it is entirely possible that First Century Jewish men wore pants since there is no proof that they did not. And if they did, then probably Jesus did, at least most of the time.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
The Passion of the Christ
https://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-news/10-things-might-not-known-passion-christ-011942797.html
Movies like "The Passion of the Christ," "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and "The Son of God," which I think is the title of the movie being released by Roma Downey and her husband, are precisely the reason I wrote "The Heretic's Gospel." Those movies show a very European Jesus, a god-man completely without a sense of humor or imperfections of any kind. Perpetually calm, sanctimonious, ethereal, and not the sort of man that I, personally, can relate to. Call me an iconoclast, but I like the idea that Jesus is more down-to-earth, more like the Common Man, more indicative of the fact that God exists in all of us. I can't relate to someone who believes with all of his heart that he is God's gift to the world, who is so above-it-all that he can't possibly relate to me and the things that I have gone through. But someone who has lived this life, made mistakes, gets angry and embarrassed, has doubts, and tries to make amends, that is the sort of person I can get behind with all my heart. THAT is the sort of person that I can believe in.
Movies like "The Passion of the Christ," "The Greatest Story Ever Told," and "The Son of God," which I think is the title of the movie being released by Roma Downey and her husband, are precisely the reason I wrote "The Heretic's Gospel." Those movies show a very European Jesus, a god-man completely without a sense of humor or imperfections of any kind. Perpetually calm, sanctimonious, ethereal, and not the sort of man that I, personally, can relate to. Call me an iconoclast, but I like the idea that Jesus is more down-to-earth, more like the Common Man, more indicative of the fact that God exists in all of us. I can't relate to someone who believes with all of his heart that he is God's gift to the world, who is so above-it-all that he can't possibly relate to me and the things that I have gone through. But someone who has lived this life, made mistakes, gets angry and embarrassed, has doubts, and tries to make amends, that is the sort of person I can get behind with all my heart. THAT is the sort of person that I can believe in.
Monday, February 24, 2014
Measurements
In my book, I used "stones" as a source of weight measurement. Those of us from the U.S. don't use "stones" to measure human weight, but they do in England and Ireland. A "stone" is about fourteen pounds, so a person who weighs about 140 pounds would weigh about ten stones. Yeshua, for instance, might have weighed about ten stones, and Shlomo might have weighed more in the region of twenty, or 280 pounds, because he was a large man.
For those who are interested, a "span" is about nine inches, or the length of the King's hand from his longest fingertip to his wrist. A "cubit"is about eighteen inches, or the length of the King's hand and arm from his longest fingertip to his elbow. A "stadia" is about six hundred feet, a "hectare" is the old Greek land measurement equaling about two-and-a-half acres, and a Roman mile is about 1620 yards or 4860 feet. Now you know, and can win game shows.
For those who are interested, a "span" is about nine inches, or the length of the King's hand from his longest fingertip to his wrist. A "cubit"is about eighteen inches, or the length of the King's hand and arm from his longest fingertip to his elbow. A "stadia" is about six hundred feet, a "hectare" is the old Greek land measurement equaling about two-and-a-half acres, and a Roman mile is about 1620 yards or 4860 feet. Now you know, and can win game shows.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
Was Simon Peter (aka "Shlomo") Mentally Challenged?
So people ask me, "Gabe, why did you make Shlomo be such a retard?" Okay, so that is politically incorrect, but that is what they ask. The answer is this: The Gospel According to Mark, which is the oldest canonical gospel, was theoretically written by Mark as told to him by Simon Peter (Shlomo) while they were in prison in Rome, and he (Mark) later went on to have his book published in Alexandria. It was an instant hit, because Christianity was just beginning to spread across the Roman world and curiosity about Jesus (Yeshua) was at an all-time high, at least for the period. Subsequently, Matthew and John came out with their own books about Jesus, as did Thomas, Jude, Mary, Philip and several others whose names I have forgotten. At least, this is the theory. The Gospel According to Luke, on the other hand, was written by a Greek physician, a Gentile who was friends with Paul of Tarsus, who never met Jesus except maybe on that road to Damascus.
Anyway, at the time, formal Hebrew schools (Yeshivas) had been around in Israel, and probably Alexandria, Babylon and Rome, for roughly a hundred years, and all little Jewish boys were given the opportunity to obtain an education so that they could study the Torah. Shlomo would also have been given the opportunity. So why didn't he write his own Gospel? Why did he tell Mark his stories about Jesus, instead? Maybe he couldn't read or write. Maybe he was dyslexic, and maybe the best that he could do was dictate letters and editorials. That would explain why it's "The Gospel According to Mark" instead of "The Gospel According to Peter."
And look at the things that Shlomo did, according to the canonical gospels. He saw Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee and he jumped right into the water with the intention of walking on the Sea, himself. I know what the churches have to say about this "leap of faith," but that was a profoundly stupid thing for him to do. He could have easily drowned. He also believed that the Archangel Raphael dangled his toes in the water of the Pools of Bethesda, which is also very naive, since Greek scientists had long ago made huge strides in uncovering the laws of nature. The Jews, who have been an educated and enlightened people for thousands of years, would have known about tidal fluctuations and whatnot, too.
Besides, Jesus loved whoever who followed him and believed in him, even if that person were dyslexic or mentally challenged or disabled. And that's an important thing to know.
Anyway, at the time, formal Hebrew schools (Yeshivas) had been around in Israel, and probably Alexandria, Babylon and Rome, for roughly a hundred years, and all little Jewish boys were given the opportunity to obtain an education so that they could study the Torah. Shlomo would also have been given the opportunity. So why didn't he write his own Gospel? Why did he tell Mark his stories about Jesus, instead? Maybe he couldn't read or write. Maybe he was dyslexic, and maybe the best that he could do was dictate letters and editorials. That would explain why it's "The Gospel According to Mark" instead of "The Gospel According to Peter."
And look at the things that Shlomo did, according to the canonical gospels. He saw Jesus walking on the Sea of Galilee and he jumped right into the water with the intention of walking on the Sea, himself. I know what the churches have to say about this "leap of faith," but that was a profoundly stupid thing for him to do. He could have easily drowned. He also believed that the Archangel Raphael dangled his toes in the water of the Pools of Bethesda, which is also very naive, since Greek scientists had long ago made huge strides in uncovering the laws of nature. The Jews, who have been an educated and enlightened people for thousands of years, would have known about tidal fluctuations and whatnot, too.
Besides, Jesus loved whoever who followed him and believed in him, even if that person were dyslexic or mentally challenged or disabled. And that's an important thing to know.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Nicknames in the First Century
According to Wikipedia, nicknames started around 1303 a.d., but as usual, history was written by the victors, or in this case, yet again, the Gentiles. The Tetrarch Herod Antipater was called "Antipas" for short, Joseph ben Caiaphas was mockingly called "Ha-Koph," which means "the Monkey," and Nicodemus ben Gurion was affectionately referred to as "Buni." "Shlomo" has been around forever as a nickname for "Shelomon," which is Aramaic for "Solomon" and you can bet that the name "Saul" was yet another nickname for "Solomon." Even our hero, Yehoshua bar Yosef, was nicknamed "Yeshua," or "Jesus" for short. Nowadays, the name "Yehoshua," which is Aramaic for "Joshua" would be shortened to a simple "Josh." Can you imagine "Josh the Savior?" (By the way, the early Catholic Church substituted the Gentile names "Paul" and "James" for the very Hebrew-sounding names "Solomon" and "Jacob" as a way of distancing their saints from their Jewish roots. But that's the subject for a whole new rant.)
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Launched the New Website!
Thanks to taking money that I should have spent on my exorbitant electric bill, the website for The Heretic's Gospel is now up and running! It can be found at www.hereticsgospel.com, I think. (I am a Luddite when it comes to technical things.) I have also, I think, launched my Twitter account. Not sure how that thing works, though. Anyway, like I said, the website is up and running! Yay!
Sunday, January 26, 2014
The Synagogue of the Freedmen
In my book, I talk about the diverse ethnic neighborhoods, or ghettos, in First Century Jerusalem and about the Synagogue of the Freedmen. I've done a little research in this area (some would say, "Very little,") and I think that I can make the following deductions.
1. In or around 63 BCE (that would be "Before the Common Era"), Pompey the Great freed a great number of Jewish slaves who had been culled from the Roman Provinces of Libya, Egypt and the various smaller provinces in Asia Minor. My guess is that Pompey would not have granted these people land and honors along with their freedom, and so, lacking anything else to do or anywhere else to go, they returned to their ancestral Promised Land, settled in Jerusalem, utilized their own skills and started their own little shops and businesses in the Lower City where real estate was cheap.
2. Then, as now, most large cities probably had little ethnic neighborhoods in the low-rent parts of town. Even now, Jerusalem has its own sub-sections based on religion and ethnicity. It is also logical to assume that, over two thousand years ago, the Jewish folks who returned to the Promised Land from different countries would set up their own little ethnic neighborhoods where the food, goods and languages were all the same from this block to the next: Little Persia, Little Egypt, Little Ethiopia, Little Phoenicia, Little Rome and Little Greece. (Little Rome would be where the married Roman soldiers lived because it is unlikely that their wives and children would be allowed to reside in the Roman barracks.)
3. The former slaves of Pompey's army would have settled in Little Egypt and Little Phoenicia, and would have built a relatively large synagogue, the Synagogue of the Freedmen. Given its name, its construction may have been funded fully by the former slaves of Pompey instead of at the order and expense of Herod the Great. There may also have been other smaller synagogues in Jerusalem, but since we know for a fact that there was a Synagogue of the Freedmen, we're going to stick with that. It would have been finished, in all likelihood, sometime around 60 BCE. However, in around 20 BC, the eastern edge of the Mediterranean (the "Great Sea,") suffered a horrendous earthquake, and it is likely that the Synagogue of the Freedmen would have been damaged and would have needed to have been rebuilt, possibly by the children of the former Jewish slaves of Pompey.
4. Since most of the Jewish population, even those from foreign countries, were Pharisees at the time, this rebuilt synagogue would have looked a lot like the rather plain synagogues in Capernaum and in Ostia outside of Rome: A plain stone building, lined with benches, with a raised platform in the center and a pulpit from which to read the Torah and give sermons. There the Jewish folk from the Lower City could gather, study, debate, pray and probably hold Bar Mitzvah ceremonies, including, in all likelihood, the Bar Mitzvah ceremony of Jesus, a.k.a. Yeshua bar Yosef.. It may have had four columns in front that held up the roof to the archway front door and was probably built of limestone, and if it were not destroyed by the Romans when they sacked Jerusalem in 66 CE, then it was probably destroyed by the many earthquakes in the area in the years since.
5. The Synagogue of the Freedmen is mentioned in the New Testament, Book of Acts, when the first official martyr, Stephen, tried to preach to the assembly there that Jesus/Yeshua was the Messiah, the Son of God and the Risen Christ. They would have been the ones to have reported him to the Beth Din, which led to his being stoned to death for blasphemy in the mud pits of Golgotha.
1. In or around 63 BCE (that would be "Before the Common Era"), Pompey the Great freed a great number of Jewish slaves who had been culled from the Roman Provinces of Libya, Egypt and the various smaller provinces in Asia Minor. My guess is that Pompey would not have granted these people land and honors along with their freedom, and so, lacking anything else to do or anywhere else to go, they returned to their ancestral Promised Land, settled in Jerusalem, utilized their own skills and started their own little shops and businesses in the Lower City where real estate was cheap.
2. Then, as now, most large cities probably had little ethnic neighborhoods in the low-rent parts of town. Even now, Jerusalem has its own sub-sections based on religion and ethnicity. It is also logical to assume that, over two thousand years ago, the Jewish folks who returned to the Promised Land from different countries would set up their own little ethnic neighborhoods where the food, goods and languages were all the same from this block to the next: Little Persia, Little Egypt, Little Ethiopia, Little Phoenicia, Little Rome and Little Greece. (Little Rome would be where the married Roman soldiers lived because it is unlikely that their wives and children would be allowed to reside in the Roman barracks.)
3. The former slaves of Pompey's army would have settled in Little Egypt and Little Phoenicia, and would have built a relatively large synagogue, the Synagogue of the Freedmen. Given its name, its construction may have been funded fully by the former slaves of Pompey instead of at the order and expense of Herod the Great. There may also have been other smaller synagogues in Jerusalem, but since we know for a fact that there was a Synagogue of the Freedmen, we're going to stick with that. It would have been finished, in all likelihood, sometime around 60 BCE. However, in around 20 BC, the eastern edge of the Mediterranean (the "Great Sea,") suffered a horrendous earthquake, and it is likely that the Synagogue of the Freedmen would have been damaged and would have needed to have been rebuilt, possibly by the children of the former Jewish slaves of Pompey.
4. Since most of the Jewish population, even those from foreign countries, were Pharisees at the time, this rebuilt synagogue would have looked a lot like the rather plain synagogues in Capernaum and in Ostia outside of Rome: A plain stone building, lined with benches, with a raised platform in the center and a pulpit from which to read the Torah and give sermons. There the Jewish folk from the Lower City could gather, study, debate, pray and probably hold Bar Mitzvah ceremonies, including, in all likelihood, the Bar Mitzvah ceremony of Jesus, a.k.a. Yeshua bar Yosef.. It may have had four columns in front that held up the roof to the archway front door and was probably built of limestone, and if it were not destroyed by the Romans when they sacked Jerusalem in 66 CE, then it was probably destroyed by the many earthquakes in the area in the years since.
5. The Synagogue of the Freedmen is mentioned in the New Testament, Book of Acts, when the first official martyr, Stephen, tried to preach to the assembly there that Jesus/Yeshua was the Messiah, the Son of God and the Risen Christ. They would have been the ones to have reported him to the Beth Din, which led to his being stoned to death for blasphemy in the mud pits of Golgotha.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Quiz No. 1
Quiz No. 1:
1.) According to The Heretic's Gospel, Jesus/Yeshua was not, at any time, a/an _________?
a.) Nazarene
b.) "Christian"
c.) Essene
d.) Pharisee
e.) Mandaean
f.) Sadducee
2.) Match the character to the canonical name:
a.) Yehoshua 1.) John the Baptist
b.) Uncle Yossi 2.) James the Greater
c.) Cousin Yanni 3.) Jesus
d.) Shlomo 4.) Joseph of Arimathea
e.) Yacob 5.) Thomas
f.) Teo 6.) Simon Peter
3.) Where was Jesus/Yeshua born?
a.) Bethlehem
b.) Parazah
c.) Beth Mizzeh
d.) Jerusalem
e.) Nazareth
4.) What language or languages did Jesus/Yeshua speak fluently?
a.) Greek
b.) Latin
c.) Farsi
e.) Aramaic
d.) Egyptian
e.) Hebrew
5.) According to The Heretic's Gospel, Mary of Migdal Nunaiya worked as a ________?
a.) Prostitute
b.) Salesclerk
c.) Baker
d.) Garum-maker
e.) Amateur herbalist
f.) Nursemaid
6.) Name all thirteen of Jesus'/Yeshua's disciples.
7.) What did Prince Herod Antipater, Prince Aristobulus the Fourth, and Prince Alexander have in common?
8.) According to The Heretic's Gospel, which bonafide miracles or miracles did Jesus/Yeshua really perform?
a.) Turned water into wine.
b.) Walked across the Sea of Galilee.
c.) Fed four thousand people on no more than a few fish and loaves of bread.
d.) Healed tens of thousands of sickly people.
e.) All of the above.
f.) None of the above.
9.) Which archangel spoke Aramaic?
a.) Michael
b.) Azrael
c.) Gabriel
d.) Raphael
e.) Uriel
f.) Hanael
10.) According to The Heretic's Gospel, which name was not ascribed to Jesus/Yeshua?
a.) Yehoshua bar Yosef
b.) Jesus bar Abbas
c.) The Moshiach
d.) The Son of Man
e.) The next King of Israel
f.) Jesus Christ
g.) Brother Joshua
h.) Rabbi Yeshua
i.) The Son of God
1.) According to The Heretic's Gospel, Jesus/Yeshua was not, at any time, a/an _________?
a.) Nazarene
b.) "Christian"
c.) Essene
d.) Pharisee
e.) Mandaean
f.) Sadducee
2.) Match the character to the canonical name:
a.) Yehoshua 1.) John the Baptist
b.) Uncle Yossi 2.) James the Greater
c.) Cousin Yanni 3.) Jesus
d.) Shlomo 4.) Joseph of Arimathea
e.) Yacob 5.) Thomas
f.) Teo 6.) Simon Peter
3.) Where was Jesus/Yeshua born?
a.) Bethlehem
b.) Parazah
c.) Beth Mizzeh
d.) Jerusalem
e.) Nazareth
4.) What language or languages did Jesus/Yeshua speak fluently?
a.) Greek
b.) Latin
c.) Farsi
e.) Aramaic
d.) Egyptian
e.) Hebrew
5.) According to The Heretic's Gospel, Mary of Migdal Nunaiya worked as a ________?
a.) Prostitute
b.) Salesclerk
c.) Baker
d.) Garum-maker
e.) Amateur herbalist
f.) Nursemaid
6.) Name all thirteen of Jesus'/Yeshua's disciples.
7.) What did Prince Herod Antipater, Prince Aristobulus the Fourth, and Prince Alexander have in common?
8.) According to The Heretic's Gospel, which bonafide miracles or miracles did Jesus/Yeshua really perform?
a.) Turned water into wine.
b.) Walked across the Sea of Galilee.
c.) Fed four thousand people on no more than a few fish and loaves of bread.
d.) Healed tens of thousands of sickly people.
e.) All of the above.
f.) None of the above.
9.) Which archangel spoke Aramaic?
a.) Michael
b.) Azrael
c.) Gabriel
d.) Raphael
e.) Uriel
f.) Hanael
10.) According to The Heretic's Gospel, which name was not ascribed to Jesus/Yeshua?
a.) Yehoshua bar Yosef
b.) Jesus bar Abbas
c.) The Moshiach
d.) The Son of Man
e.) The next King of Israel
f.) Jesus Christ
g.) Brother Joshua
h.) Rabbi Yeshua
i.) The Son of God
Answers to Quiz No. 1
Answers to Quiz No. 1:
1.) f.) Jesus was not a Sadducee or a "Christian."
2.) a.) 3 Yehoshua was the formal Aramaic name for Jesus.
b.) 4 Uncle Yossi was Joseph of Arimathea
c.) 1 Cousin Yanni was John the Baptist
d.) 6 Shlomo was Simon Peter
e.) 2 Yacob was James the Greater
f.) 5 Teo was Thomas
3.) a.) Jesus/Yeshua was born in Bethlehem.
4.) e.) Jesus/Yeshua spoke fluent Aramaic.
5.) d.) Mary of Migdal Nunaiya worked as a garum-maker and as an amateur herbalist.
6.) Shlomo, Andreas, Yacob, Little John, Matthias, Phil, Nate, Jude, Jake, Teo, Simon, Judah and Mary, otherwise known as Simon Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, John the Apostle, Matthew, Philip, Nathanael, Judah, James the Lesser, Thomas, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene.
7.) They were all executed for treason against their father, King Herod the Great.
8.) f.) None of the above.
9.) c.) Gabriel was the only archangel who spoke Aramaic. The others probably spoke Hebrew or Babylonian.
10.) f.) Jesus Christ.
1.) f.) Jesus was not a Sadducee or a "Christian."
2.) a.) 3 Yehoshua was the formal Aramaic name for Jesus.
b.) 4 Uncle Yossi was Joseph of Arimathea
c.) 1 Cousin Yanni was John the Baptist
d.) 6 Shlomo was Simon Peter
e.) 2 Yacob was James the Greater
f.) 5 Teo was Thomas
3.) a.) Jesus/Yeshua was born in Bethlehem.
4.) e.) Jesus/Yeshua spoke fluent Aramaic.
5.) d.) Mary of Migdal Nunaiya worked as a garum-maker and as an amateur herbalist.
6.) Shlomo, Andreas, Yacob, Little John, Matthias, Phil, Nate, Jude, Jake, Teo, Simon, Judah and Mary, otherwise known as Simon Peter, Andrew, James the Greater, John the Apostle, Matthew, Philip, Nathanael, Judah, James the Lesser, Thomas, Simon the Zealot, Judas Iscariot and Mary Magdalene.
7.) They were all executed for treason against their father, King Herod the Great.
8.) f.) None of the above.
9.) c.) Gabriel was the only archangel who spoke Aramaic. The others probably spoke Hebrew or Babylonian.
10.) f.) Jesus Christ.
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
The "Gay Gospel"
So people ask me, "Gabe, why are there so many gay people in your books?" Well, the answer is simple arithmetic. Human behavior remains consistent over time, and if in the year 2014, ten percent of the population is gay, then the odds are that, two thousand years ago, at least one and possibly two of the fourteen members of the original God Squad (Yeshua, Mary, Shlomo, Andreas, Yacob, Little John, Matthias, Phil, Nate, Jake, Jude, Teo, Simon and Judah) were gay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)