Podcasts about Hellenization

On todays show Texas Jim delved into the historical context of the New Testament, focusing on the fall of the northern kingdom, the rise of the Parthian Empire, and the impact of Alexander the Great's Hellenization. The conversation highlighted the divide between Gentiles and Jews, the influence of Antiochus IV's persecution, and the Maccabean revolt. The speakers also explored the messianic expectations among Jews, the role of Herod the Great, and the cultural clash between Greek and Jewish traditions. The conversation emphasized the radical nature of Paul's message to unite Jews and Gentiles under Christ, despite the strong Jewish resistance to Hellenization. The discussion explores the cultural and religious expectations surrounding Jesus' message. Speaker 3 notes that Jews anticipated a physical king, while Gentiles, accustomed to emperor worship, found the concept of a personal God revolutionary. Glenn Cox highlights the shift from a warrior God to a teacher who dies for sins, emphasizing the resistance to this change. Speaker 4 adds that both Greeks and Jews expected a military hero, not a crucified king. The conversation also touches on the honor-shame culture and the implausibility of the Jewish and Greek movements without the resurrection. The speakers agree on the importance of historical understanding and express interest in future discussions. While the rest of us try to keep up but still Fascinating talk, don't miss it!

Wo gingen die Menschen nach dem Kollaps der Palastzentren hin? In der Submykenische Periode finden wir Antworten. Eine Übergangszeit zwischen Ende der Bronzezeit und Beginn der Eisenzeit. Blieben Paläste für immer verlassen? Wo finden wir Spuren mykenischer Flüchtlinge? Und welche Orte nutzten das Machtvakuum für sich aus?Quellen & Lektüre:Alcock/Davis, Sandy Pylos (…), 1998Boyd, Excavatians at Kavousi, Crete, in 1900 (…), 1901Cardogan, Karphi (…), 1992Coulson, The Architecture (…), 1983Coulson/Day/Gesell, Kavousi 1983-84 (…), 1986Conant/Thomas, The Trojan War, 2005Day/Dierckx/Flint-Hamilton/Gesell (…), Kavousi (…), 2016Day/Glowacki, Kavousi IIB (…), 2012Day/Klein/Turner, Kavousi IIA (…), 2009Day/Liston, Kavousi IV (…), 2023Day/Snyder, The “Big House” at Vronda and the “Great House” at Karphi (…), 2004Demand, The Mediterranean context of early Greek history, 2011Desborough, The Last Mycenaeans and their Successors, 1964Driessen/Sarris/Soetens/Topouzi, The Minoan peak sanctuary landscape through a GIS approach (…), 2002Freeman, Egypt, Greece and Rome (…), 2014Gimatzidis/Weninger, Radiocarbon dating the Greek Protogeometric and Geometric periods (…), 2020Hayward Hall, Excavations in Eastern Crete (…), 1914Jones, Peak Sanctuaries and Sacred Caves in Minoan Crete, 1999Knapp, Bronze Age Cyprus and the Aegean (…), 2022Knodell, Societies in Transition in Early Greece (…), 2021Lacy, Greek Pottery in the Bronze Age, 2015Maran, Tiryns. Mauern und Paläste für namenlose Herrscher (…), 2000Mountjoy, Mycenaean Pottery (…), 2001Nowicki, The history and setting of the town at Karphi (…), 1987Orphanides, Late Bronze Age Socio-Economic and Political Organization, and the Hellenization of Cyprus, 2017Palaima, *Themis in the Mycenaean Lexicon and the Etymology of the Place Name ti-mi-to a-ko, 2000Popham/Sackett/Themelis, Lefkandi I. Iron Age, 1979Ruthowski, The temple at Karphi (…), 1987Salavoura, New opportunities in turbulent times (…), 2021Shelmerdine, Nichoria in Context (…), 1981Stein-Hölkeskamp, Fallstudie Nichoria (…), 2015Strange, Caphtor (..), 1980Tartaron, Maritime Networks in the Mycenaean World, 2013Widmann, Ain't no mountain high enough (…), 2014Zangger, Landscape Changes around Tiryns during the Bronze Age, 1994Zeman, Differing trajectories of collapse in the Late Bronze Age Argolid (…), 2021Zöller, Die Gesellschaft der frühen “Dunklen Jahrhunderte” auf Kreta (…),2005Karphi in erseus.tufts.eduPDF Dokument Lage Vrokastro http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/propylaeumdok/80/2/Zoeller_2.pdf#page=27Lefkandi in oxfordre.comZeit der Helden – Die “dunklen Jahrhunderte” Griechenlands 1200–700 v.Chr., 2008-2009Ausgrabungen in Nichoria PDF: https://www.ascsa.edu.gr/uploads/media/hesperia/147682.pdfArchäologisches Projekt Mitrou: https://web.archive.org/web/20080310022849/http://www.mitrou.org/http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/city/guzelyurt/gz-pigadhes.htmhttps://www.heritagedaily.com/2024/04/excavations-of-mount-ellanio-summit-reveals-mycenaean-refuge/151328https://www.thehistoryblog.com/archives/69913http://www.digiserve.com/mentor/minoan/karphi.htmlMusic by Pixabay (ArizonaGuide)

In this episode, Dr. Oord interacts with the work of Christopher Fisher who has compiled a 6 volume series entitled God is Open.  In volume 2 entitled "The Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church", Fisher and Edwin Hatch explore the cultural and theological changes which occurred when Christianity encountered the Hellenistic world. Christopher Fisher will  will be one of many authors in attendance at the upcoming ORTLine25 Open and Relational Online Conference which will be held February 20-22, 2025.  Registration is now open for this online conference featuring about 30 Open and Relational authors/books.

The volume of outrage in our world has hit a crescendo. All the time I hear questions like, “how can you bear to be around someone who voted like that?!” or “how can you stand working with people who are so anti-Zionist or who are so pro-Israel?” As if people who do not rage against those they disagree with are somehow condoning or supporting evil perspectives. Young people, already stressed by the pressures of their own lives, feel pressured to respond to hateful social media posts and/or to present content that will fight against what they see as evil lies. Everything is pitched as though the conversation is an existential battle between good and evil and each one of us is either fighting for good or conceding to forces of evil. We saw this so sharply this week. When Luigi Mangione murdered Brian Thompson in broad daylight, the story on the street and on social media wasn't about a horrific crime against humanity. People lionized Luigi, they asked him on dates, they offered to be his alibi, they fundraised for his legal costs, they even competed in dress-alike competitions. Why? Because they see him as someone willing to take decisive action against the evils of our world, never mind that he committed an atrocious crime and never mind that killing Brian Thompson does nothing to fix our broken health care system nor address the real pain of the American people. There's a word for this energy in our tradition: zealotry. Zealots are people who are inspired by passion, who take action without due process, and who force the world to align with their vision. The most famous zealots in our tradition arose in a tumultuous time in our history. Way back in the first century, during the Second Temple Period, our ancestors were fighting to build a life in the shadow of the Roman Empire. At the time, the future of Judaism and Jewish community was precarious and there were different groups that had different ideas about what should happen. Some groups fought for justice and against elitism and classism that they felt were destroying society. Some believed that the Roman Empire was the way of the future. They promoted assimilation and Hellenization and worked to try to suppress Jewish revolt against the occupying power. While others raged against Roman rule, encouraging resistance to Roman culture and strict adherence to Jewish cultic rites. According to the Talmud, the elders of the Jewish community wanted to mobilize their community thoughtfully. But the zealots didn't have the patience for this. They felt an existential threat and believed it was their duty to force the Jewish community into action. They provoked and attacked the Romans, trying to incite violence. And when their guerilla tactics worked and the Romans laid siege to Jerusalem, the zealots burned the granaries and food stores in the city so our ancestors would be forced to fight for their lives. When we tell this story, we focus on our survival. We focus on Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai's improbable escape in a coffin. We focus on his heroic journey to Yavne and the way he preserved the Judaism that he and the other rabbis believed in. But that leaves out a critical piece of our history. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai had to escape because of the zealots, because their radical ideology created a toxic culture of violence which threatened our very existence. Today, more than ever, we need to remember the zealots.

## Alexander the Great's Negative Impact on Israelites and Africans The sources describe the negative impacts of Alexander the Great and the subsequent Hellenistic period on Israelites in Africa, primarily through forced oppression, religious persecution, and cultural assimilation. However, the sources do not explicitly mention Alexander's direct impact on other African populations. * **Forced Oppression and Slavery:** The sources highlight the harsh treatment inflicted upon Israelites under Alexander's rule and the Hellenistic dynasties that followed. They were subjected to forced labor and slavery, resulting in the loss of their lands, economic independence, and personal freedoms. This oppression aimed to marginalize and control the Israelite community. * **Religious Persecution:** Alexander and his successors sought to suppress the Israelites' religious practices and beliefs. They prohibited temple worship, circumcision, and observance of holy day festivals, aiming to weaken the spiritual foundation of the Israelite community. The sources describe the desecration of Israelite temples, which were replaced with pagan sanctuaries dedicated to Greek deities. * **Cultural Assimilation:** A core objective of Hellenization was to assimilate conquered populations into Greek culture. This involved imposing Greek customs, language, education, clothing, and even introducing Greek deities and philosophies. This cultural assault aimed to erase the Israelites' distinct identity and enforce conformity to Greek norms. **The sources primarily focus on the Israelites' experiences, and while they mention Alexander's conquest of Egypt, they do not detail his impact on other African populations.** It's important to note that the sources present a specific perspective, potentially influenced by the authors' viewpoints and historical context. **Information outside the sources:** It's worth noting that Alexander's conquests and the subsequent Hellenistic period had significant and varied impacts across different African regions and populations. To fully understand the broader consequences of Alexander's actions in Africa, you might want to consult additional historical sources. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theforefront/support

Ai-Khanoum was an ancient Greek city located in the northern part of modern-day Afghanistan, near the border with Tajikistan. This city was notable for its Hellenistic architectural and cultural influence, and it served as a center of Greek culture and administration in the region. So what could this possibly have to do with Cyprus? The Cypriot philosopher, Clearchus of Soli, was said to have travelled there in order to assist in the Hellenization of the city by another compatriot of his, Stasanor, who served as a general under Alexander the Great and later became the satrap of Bactria. You heard right. The Ai Khanoum inscription (a maxim of the Delphic Oracle) is said to have been commissioned by Clearchus to honour the founder of the city. But just who was Clearchus? And how did Cypriot(s) (not just one!) make their way to Ancient Bactria/Afghanistan? Next month, I discuss Clearchus with Professor Gertjan Verhasselt from the University of Padova. **You may have noticed that this upload is a bit earlier than usual. And that's because there is something very special coming mid-month on The History of Cyprus Podcast that I am incredibly excited for. Stay tuned for an October 17th Special Episode!

Dr. Benjamin Laird, Associate Professor of Biblical Studies at Liberty University and co-author of the book 40 Questions about the Apostle Paul, joins the Bible and Theology Matters podcast to discuss the life of the Apostle Paul. What do we know for sure? What do we deduce from the biblical, and extra-biblical evidence? And, what is simply conjecture, regarding the life of the most influential theologian and writer of the 1st century? We will discuss this, and much more in this episode!

The era of Hellenization was fierce, both in terms of the oppression against the Jews, and with respect to the zealous faith of God's people who chose to fight for God, the law, and the Temple! Enjoy this sample from Lesson 1, "Introducing the Maccabees," from Dr. Nick's course, "1-2 Maccabees: Zealous For The Faith." Anyone can join our community of students and stream the entire audio lesson and full course (and other courses too!) whenever they wish.

Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts Let's face it the New Testament probably calls Jesus God (or god) a couple of times and so do early Christian authors in the second century. However, no one offers much of an explanation for what they mean by the title. Did early Christians think Jesus was God because he represented Yahweh? Did they think he was God because he shared the same eternal being as the Father? Did they think he was a god because that's just what they would call any immortalized human who lived in heaven? In this presentation I focus on the question from the perspective of Greco-Roman theology. Drawing on the work of David Litwa, Andrew Perriman, Barry Blackburn, and tons of ancient sources I seek to show how Mediterranean converts to Christianity would have perceived Jesus based on their cultural and religious assumptions. This presentation is from the 3rd Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference on October 20, 2023 in Springfield, OH. Here is the original pdf of this paper. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5Z3QbQ7dHc —— Links —— See more scholarly articles by Sean Finnegan Get the transcript of this episode Support Restitutio by donating here Join our Restitutio Facebook Group and follow Sean Finnegan on Twitter @RestitutioSF Leave a voice message via SpeakPipe with questions or comments and we may play them out on the air Intro music: Good Vibes by MBB Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) Free Download / Stream: Music promoted by Audio Library. Who is Sean Finnegan?  Read his bio here Introduction When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” (or “God”) what did they mean?[1] Modern apologists routinely point to pre-Nicene quotations in order to prove that early Christians always believed in the deity of Christ, by which they mean that he is of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father. However, most historians agree that Christians before the fourth century simply didn't have the cognitive categories available yet to think of Christ in Nicene or Chalcedonian ways. If this consensus is correct, it behooves us to consider other options for defining what early Christian authors meant. The obvious place to go to get an answer to our initial question is the New Testament. However, as is well known, the handful of instances in which authors unambiguously applied god (θεός) to Christ are fraught with textual uncertainty, grammatical ambiguity, and hermeneutical elasticity.[2]  What's more, granting that these contested texts[3] all call Jesus “god” provides little insight into what they might mean by that phrase. Turning to the second century, the earliest handful of texts that say Jesus is god are likewise textually uncertain or terse.[4] We must wait until the second half of the second century and beyond to have more helpful material to examine. We know that in the meanwhile some Christians were saying Jesus was god. What did they mean? One promising approach is to analyze biblical texts that call others gods. We find helpful parallels with the word god (אֱלֹהִים) applied to Moses (Exod 7.1; 4.16), judges (Exod 21.6; 22.8-9), kings (Is 9.6; Ps 45.6), the divine council (Ps 82.1, 6), and angels (Ps 8.6). These are texts in which God imbues his agents with his authority to represent him in some way. This rare though significant way of calling a representative “god,” continues in the NT with Jesus' clever defense to his accusers in John 10.34-36. Lexicons[5] have long recognized this “Hebraistic” usage and recent study tools such as the New English Translation (NET)[6] and the Zondervan Illustrated Bible Background Commentary[7] also note this phenomenon. But, even if this agency perspective is the most natural reading of texts like Heb 1.8, later Christians, apart from one or two exceptions appear to be ignorant of this usage.[8] This interpretation was likely a casualty of the so-called parting of the ways whereby Christianity transitioned from a second-temple-Jewish movement to a Gentile-majority religion. As such, to grasp what early postapostolic Christians believed, we must turn our attention elsewhere. Michael Bird is right when he says, “Christian discourses about deity belong incontrovertibly in the Greco-Roman context because it provided the cultural encyclopedia that, in diverse ways, shaped the early church's Christological conceptuality and vocabulary.”[9] Learning Greco-Roman theology is not only important because that was the context in which early Christians wrote, but also because from the late first century onward, most of our Christian authors converted from that worldview. Rather than talking about the Hellenization of Christianity, we should begin by asking how Hellenists experienced Christianization. In other words, Greco-Roman beliefs about the gods were the default lens through which converts first saw Christ. In order to explore how Greco-Roman theology shaped what people believed about Jesus as god, we do well to begin by asking how they defined a god. Andrew Perriman offers a helpful starting point. “The gods,” he writes, “are mostly understood as corporeal beings, blessed with immortality, larger, more beautiful, and more powerful than their mortal analogues.”[10] Furthermore, there were lots of them! The sublunar realm was, in the words of Paula Fredriksen, “a god-congested place.”[11] What's more, “[S]harp lines and clearly demarcated boundaries between divinity and humanity were lacking."[12] Gods could appear as people and people could ascend to become gods. Comprehending what Greco-Roman people believed about gods coming down and humans going up will occupy the first part of this paper. Only once we've adjusted our thinking to their culture, will we walk through key moments in the life of Jesus of Nazareth to hear the story with ancient Mediterranean ears. Lastly, we'll consider the evidence from sources that think of Jesus in Greco-Roman categories. Bringing this all together we'll enumerate the primary ways to interpret the phrase “Jesus is god” available to Christians in the pre-Nicene period. Gods Coming Down and Humans Going Up The idea that a god would visit someone is not as unusual as it first sounds. We find plenty of examples of Yahweh himself or non-human representatives visiting people in the Hebrew Bible.[13] One psalmist even referred to angels or “heavenly beings” (ESV) as אֱלֹהִים (gods).[14] The Greco-Roman world too told stories about divine entities coming down to interact with people. Euripides tells about the time Zeus forced the god Apollo to become a human servant in the house of Admetus, performing menial labor as punishment for killing the Cyclopes (Alcestis 1). Baucis and Philemon offered hospitality to Jupiter and Mercury when they appeared in human form (Ovid, Metamorphoses 8.26-34). In Homer's Odyssey onlookers warn Antinous for flinging a stool against a stranger since “the gods do take on the look of strangers dropping in from abroad”[15] (17.534-9). Because they believed the boundary between the divine realm and the Earth was so permeable, Mediterranean people were always on guard for an encounter with a god in disguise. In addition to gods coming down, in special circumstances, humans could ascend and become gods too. Diodorus of Sicily demarcated two types of gods: those who are “eternal and imperishable, such as the sun and the moon” and “the other gods…terrestrial beings who attained to immortal honour”[16] (The Historical Library of Diodorus the Sicilian 6.1). By some accounts, even the Olympian gods, including Kronos and Uranus were once mortal men.[17] Among humans who could become divine, we find several distinguishable categories, including heroes, miracle workers, and rulers. We'll look at each briefly before considering how the story of Jesus would resonate with those holding a Greco-Roman worldview. Deified Heroes Cornutus the Stoic said, “[T]he ancients called heroes those who were so strong in body and soul that they seemed to be part of a divine race.” (Greek Theology 31)[18] At first this statement appears to be a mere simile, but he goes on to say of Heracles (Hercules), the Greek hero par excellence, “his services had earned him apotheosis” (ibid.). Apotheosis (or deification) is the process by which a human ascends into the divine realm. Beyond Heracles and his feats of strength, other exceptional individuals became deified for various reasons. Amphiarus was a seer who died in the battle at Thebes. After opening a chasm in the earth to swallow him in battle, “Zeus made him immortal”[19] (Apollodorus, Library of Greek Mythology 3.6). Pausanias says the custom of the inhabitants of Oropos was to drop coins into Amphiarus' spring “because this is where they say Amphiarus rose up as a god”[20] (Guide to Greece 1.34). Likewise, Strabo speaks about a shrine for Calchas, a deceased diviner from the Trojan war (Homer, Illiad 1.79-84), “where those consulting the oracle sacrifice a black ram to the dead and sleep in its hide”[21] (Strabo, Geography 6.3.9). Though the great majority of the dead were locked away in the lower world of Hades, leading a shadowy pitiful existence, the exceptional few could visit or speak from beyond the grave. Lastly, there was Zoroaster the Persian prophet who, according to Dio Chrysostom, was enveloped by fire while he meditated upon a mountain. He was unharmed and gave advice on how to properly make offerings to the gods (Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 36.40). The Psuedo-Clementine Homilies include a story about a lightning bolt striking and killing Zoroaster. After his devotees buried his body, they built a temple on the site, thinking that “his soul had been sent for by lightning” and they “worshipped him as a god”[22] (Homily 9.5.2). Thus, a hero could have extraordinary strength, foresight, or closeness to the gods resulting in apotheosis and ongoing worship and communication. Deified Miracle Workers Beyond heroes, Greco-Roman people loved to tell stories about deified miracle workers. Twice Orpheus rescued a ship from a storm by praying to the gods (Diodorus of Sicily 4.43.1f; 48.5f). After his death, surviving inscriptions indicate that he both received worship and was regarded as a god in several cities.[23] Epimenides “fell asleep in a cave for fifty-seven years”[24] (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 1.109). He also predicted a ten-year period of reprieve from Persian attack in Athens (Plato Laws 1.642D-E). Plato called him a divine man (θεῖος ἀνήρ) (ibid.) and Diogenes talked of Cretans sacrificing to him as a god (Diogenes, Lives 1.114). Iamblichus said Pythagoras was the son of Apollo and a mortal woman (Life of Pythagoras 2). Nonetheless, the soul of Pythagoras enjoyed multiple lives, having originally been “sent to mankind from the empire of Apollo”[25] (Life 2). Diogenes and Lucian enumerate the lives the pre-existent Pythagoras led, including Aethalides, Euphorbus, Hermotimus, and Pyrrhus (Diogenes, Life of Pythagoras 4; Lucian, The Cock 16-20). Hermes had granted Pythagoras the gift of “perpetual transmigration of his soul”[26] so he could remember his lives while living or dead (Diogenes, Life 4). Ancient sources are replete with Pythagorean miracle stories.[27] Porphyry mentions several, including taming a bear, persuading an ox to stop eating beans, and accurately predicting a catch of fish (Life of Pythagoras 23-25). Porphyry said Pythagoras accurately predicted earthquakes and “chased away a pestilence, suppressed violent winds and hail, [and] calmed storms on rivers and on seas” (Life 29).[28] Such miracles, argued the Pythagoreans made Pythagoras “a being superior to man, and not to a mere man” (Iamblichus, Life 28).[29] Iamblichus lays out the views of Pythagoras' followers, including that he was a god, a philanthropic daemon, the Pythian, the Hyperborean Apollo, a Paeon, a daemon inhabiting the moon, or an Olympian god (Life 6). Another pre-Socratic philosopher was Empedocles who studied under Pythagoras. To him sources attribute several miracles, including stopping a damaging wind, restoring the wind, bringing dry weather, causing it to rain, and even bringing someone back from Hades (Diogenes, Lives 8.59).[30] Diogenes records an incident in which Empedocles put a woman into a trance for thirty days before sending her away alive (8.61). He also includes a poem in which Empedocles says, “I am a deathless god, no longer mortal, I go among you honored by all, as is right”[31] (8.62). Asclepius was a son of the god Apollo and a human woman (Cornutus, Greek Theology 33). He was known for healing people from diseases and injuries (Pindar, Pythian 3.47-50). “[H]e invented any medicine he wished for the sick, and raised up the dead”[32] (Pausanias, Guide to Greece 2.26.4). However, as Diodorus relates, Hades complained to Zeus on account of Asclepius' diminishing his realm, which resulted in Zeus zapping Asclepius with a thunderbolt, killing him (4.71.2-3). Nevertheless, Asclepius later ascended into heaven to become a god (Hyginus, Fables 224; Cicero, Nature of the Gods 2.62).[33] Apollonius of Tyana was a famous first century miracle worker. According to Philostratus' account, the locals of Tyana regard Apollonius to be the son of Zeus (Life 1.6). Apollonius predicted many events, interpreted dreams, and knew private facts about people. He rebuked and ridiculed a demon, causing it to flee, shrieking as it went (Life 2.4).[34] He even once stopped a funeral procession and raised the deceased to life (Life 4.45). What's more he knew every human language (Life 1.19) and could understand what sparrows chirped to each other (Life 4.3). Once he instantaneously transported himself from Smyrna to Ephesus (Life 4.10). He claimed knowledge of his previous incarnation as the captain of an Egyptian ship (Life 3.23) and, in the end, Apollonius entered the temple of Athena and vanished, ascending from earth into heaven to the sound of a choir singing (Life 8.30). We have plenty of literary evidence that contemporaries and those who lived later regarded him as a divine man (Letters 48.3)[35] or godlike (ἰσόθεος) (Letters 44.1) or even just a god (θεός) (Life 5.24). Deified Rulers Our last category of deified humans to consider before seeing how this all relates to Jesus is rulers. Egyptians, as indicated from the hieroglyphs left in the pyramids, believed their deceased kings to enjoy afterlives as gods. They could become star gods or even hunt and consume other gods to absorb their powers.[36] The famous Macedonian conqueror, Alexander the Great, carried himself as a god towards the Persians though Plutarch opines, “[he] was not at all vain or deluded but rather used belief in his divinity to enslave others”[37] (Life of Alexander 28). This worship continued after his death, especially in Alexandria where Ptolemy built a tomb and established a priesthood to conduct religious honors to the deified ruler. Even the emperor Trajan offered a sacrifice to the spirit of Alexander (Cassius Dio, Roman History 68.30). Another interesting example is Antiochus I of Comagene who called himself “Antiochus the just [and] manifest god, friend of the Romans [and] friend of the Greeks.”[38] His tomb boasted four colossal figures seated on thrones: Zeus, Heracles, Apollo, and himself. The message was clear: Antiochus I wanted his subjects to recognize his place among the gods after death. Of course, the most relevant rulers for the Christian era were the Roman emperors. The first official Roman emperor Augustus deified his predecessor, Julius Caesar, celebrating his apotheosis with games (Suetonius, Life of Julius Caesar 88). Only five years after Augustus died, eastern inhabitants of the Roman Empire at Priene happily declared “the birthday of the god Augustus” (ἡ γενέθλιος ἡμέρα τοῦ θεοῦ)[39] to be the start of their provincial year. By the time of Tacitus, a century after Augustus died, the wealthy in Rome had statues of the first emperor in their gardens for worship (Annals 1.73). The Roman historian Appian explained that the Romans regularly deify emperors at death “provided he has not been a despot or a disgrace”[40] (The Civil Wars 2.148).  In other words, deification was the default setting for deceased emperors. Pliny the Younger lays it on pretty thick when he describes the process. He says Nero deified Claudius to expose him; Titus deified Vespasian and Domitian so he could be the son and brother of gods. However, Trajan deified Nerva because he genuinely believed him to be more than a human (Panegyric 11). In our little survey, we've seen three main categories of deified humans: heroes, miracle workers, and good rulers. These “conceptions of deity,” writes David Litwa, “were part of the “preunderstanding” of Hellenistic culture.”[41] He continues: If actual cases of deification were rare, traditions of deification were not. They were the stuff of heroic epic, lyric song, ancient mythology, cultic hymns, Hellenistic novels, and popular plays all over the first-century Mediterranean world. Such discourses were part of mainstream, urban culture to which most early Christians belonged. If Christians were socialized in predominantly Greco-Roman environments, it is no surprise that they employed and adapted common traits of deities and deified men to exalt their lord to divine status.[42] Now that we've attuned our thinking to Mediterranean sensibilities about gods coming down in the shape of humans and humans experiencing apotheosis to permanently dwell as gods in the divine realm, our ears are attuned to hear the story of Jesus with Greco-Roman ears. Hearing the Story of Jesus with Greco-Roman Ears How would second or third century inhabitants of the Roman empire have categorized Jesus? Taking my cue from Litwa's treatment in Iesus Deus, I'll briefly work through Jesus' conception, transfiguration, miracles, resurrection, and ascension. Miraculous Conception Although set within the context of Jewish messianism, Christ's miraculous birth would have resonated differently with Greco-Roman people. Stories of gods coming down and having intercourse with women are common in classical literature. That these stories made sense of why certain individuals were so exceptional is obvious. For example, Origen related a story about Apollo impregnating Amphictione who then gave birth to Plato (Against Celsus 1.37). Though Mary's conception did not come about through intercourse with a divine visitor, the fact that Jesus had no human father would call to mind divine sonship like Pythagoras or Asclepius. Celsus pointed out that the ancients “attributed a divine origin to Perseus, and Amphion, and Aeacus, and Minos” (Origen, Against Celsus 1.67). Philostratus records a story of the Egyptian god Proteus saying to Apollonius' mother that she would give birth to himself (Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.4). Since people were primed to connect miraculous origins with divinity, typical hearers of the birth narratives of Matthew or Luke would likely think that this baby might be either be a descended god or a man destined to ascend to become a god. Miracles and Healing As we've seen, Jesus' miracles would not have sounded unbelievable or even unprecedent to Mediterranean people. Like Jesus, Orpheus and Empedocles calmed storms, rescuing ships. Though Jesus provided miraculous guidance on how to catch fish, Pythagoras foretold the number of fish in a great catch. After the fishermen painstakingly counted them all, they were astounded that when they threw them back in, they were still alive (Porphyry, Life 23-25). Jesus' ability to foretell the future, know people's thoughts, and cast out demons all find parallels in Apollonius of Tyana. As for resurrecting the dead, we have the stories of Empedocles, Asclepius, and Apollonius. The last of which even stopped a funeral procession to raise the dead, calling to mind Jesus' deeds in Luke 7.11-17. When Lycaonians witnessed Paul's healing of a man crippled from birth, they cried out, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men” (Acts 14.11). Another time when no harm befell Paul after a poisonous snake bit him on Malta, Gentile onlookers concluded “he was a god” (Acts 28.6). Barry Blackburn makes the following observation: [I]n view of the tendency, most clearly seen in the Epimenidean, Pythagorean, and Apollonian traditions, to correlate impressive miracle-working with divine status, one may justifiably conclude that the evangelical miracle traditions would have helped numerous gentile Christians to arrive at and maintain belief in Jesus' divine status.[43] Transfiguration Ancient Mediterranean inhabitants believed that the gods occasionally came down disguised as people. Only when gods revealed their inner brilliant natures could people know that they weren't mere humans. After his ship grounded on the sands of Krisa, Apollo leaped from the ship emitting flashes of fire “like a star in the middle of day…his radiance shot to heaven”[44] (Homeric Hymns, Hymn to Apollo 440). Likewise, Aphrodite appeared in shining garments, brighter than a fire and shimmering like the moon (Hymn to Aphrodite 85-89). When Demeter appeared to Metaneira, she initially looked like an old woman, but she transformed herself before her. “Casting old age away…a delightful perfume spread…a radiance shone out far from the goddess' immortal flesh…and the solid-made house was filled with a light like the lightning-flash”[45] (Hymn to Demeter 275-280). Homer wrote about Odysseus' transformation at the golden wand of Athena in which his clothes became clean, he became taller, and his skin looked younger. His son, Telemachus cried out, “Surely you are some god who rules the vaulting skies”[46] (Odyssey 16.206). Each time the observers conclude the transfigured person is a god. Resurrection & Ascension In defending the resurrection of Jesus, Theophilus of Antioch said, “[Y]ou believe that Hercules, who burned himself, lives; and that Aesculapius [Asclepius], who was struck with lightning, was raised”[47] (Autolycus 1.13). Although Hercules' physical body burnt, his transformed pneumatic body continued on as the poet Callimachus said, “under a Phrygian oak his limbs had been deified”[48] (Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis 159). Others thought Hercules ascended to heaven in his burnt body, which Asclepius subsequently healed (Lucian, Dialogue of the Gods 13). After his ascent, Diodorus relates how the people first sacrificed to him “as to a hero” then in Athens they began to honor him “with sacrifices like as to a god”[49] (The Historical Library 4.39). As for Asclepius, his ascension resulted in his deification as Cyprian said, “Aesculapius is struck by lightning, that he may rise into a god”[50] (On the Vanity of Idols 2). Romulus too “was torn to pieces by the hands of a hundred senators”[51] and after death ascended into heaven and received worship (Arnobius, Against the Heathen 1.41). Livy tells of how Romulus was “carried up on high by a whirlwind” and that immediately afterward “every man present hailed him as a god and son of a god”[52] (The Early History of Rome 1.16). As we can see from these three cases—Hercules, Asclepius, and Romulus—ascent into heaven was a common way of talking about deification. For Cicero, this was an obvious fact. People “who conferred outstanding benefits were translated to heaven through their fame and our gratitude”[53] (Nature 2.62). Consequently, Jesus' own resurrection and ascension would have triggered Gentiles to intuit his divinity. Commenting on the appearance of the immortalized Christ to the eleven in Galilee, Wendy Cotter said, “It is fair to say that the scene found in [Mat] 28:16-20 would be understood by a Greco-Roman audience, Jew or Gentile, as an apotheosis of Jesus.”[54] Although I beg to differ with Cotter's whole cloth inclusion of Jews here, it's hard to see how else non-Jews would have regarded the risen Christ. Litwa adds Rev 1.13-16 “[W]here he [Jesus] appears with all the accoutrements of the divine: a shining face, an overwhelming voice, luminescent clothing, and so on.”[55] In this brief survey we've seen that several key events in the story of Jesus told in the Gospels would have caused Greco-Roman hearers to intuit deity, including his divine conception, miracles, healing ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension. In their original context of second temple Judaism, these very same incidents would have resonated quite differently. His divine conception authenticated Jesus as the second Adam (Luke 3.38; Rom 5.14; 1 Cor 15.45) and God's Davidic son (2 Sam 7.14; Ps 2.7; Lk 1.32, 35). If Matthew or Luke wanted readers to understand that Jesus was divine based on his conception and birth, they failed to make such intentions explicit in the text. Rather, the birth narratives appear to have a much more modest aim—to persuade readers that Jesus had a credible claim to be Israel's messiah. His miracles show that “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power…for God was with him” (Acts 10.38; cf. Jn 3.2; 10.32, 38). Rather than concluding Jesus to be a god, Jewish witnesses to his healing of a paralyzed man “glorified God, who had given such authority to men” (Mat 9.8). Over and over, especially in the Gospel of John, Jesus directs people's attention to his Father who was doing the works in and through him (Jn 5.19, 30; 8.28; 12.49; 14.10). Seeing Jesus raise someone from the dead suggested to his original Jewish audience that “a great prophet has arisen among us” (Lk 7.16). The transfiguration, in its original setting, is an eschatological vision not a divine epiphany. Placement in the synoptic Gospels just after Jesus' promise that some there would not die before seeing the kingdom come sets the hermeneutical frame. “The transfiguration,” says William Lane, “was a momentary, but real (and witnessed) manifestation of Jesus' sovereign power which pointed beyond itself to the Parousia, when he will come ‘with power and glory.'”[56] If eschatology is the foreground, the background for the transfiguration was Moses' ascent of Sinai when he also encountered God and became radiant.[57] Viewed from the lenses of Moses' ascent and the eschaton, the transfiguration of Jesus is about his identity as God's definitive chosen ruler, not about any kind of innate divinity. Lastly, the resurrection and ascension validated Jesus' messianic claims to be the ruler of the age to come (Acts 17.31; Rom 1.4). Rather than concluding Jesus was deity, early Jewish Christians concluded these events showed that “God has made him both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2.36). The interpretative backgrounds for Jesus' ascension were not stories about Heracles, Asclepius, or Romulus. No, the key oracle that framed the Israelite understanding was the messianic psalm in which Yahweh told David's Lord to “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool” (Psalm 110.1). The idea is of a temporary sojourn in heaven until exercising the authority of his scepter to rule over earth from Zion. Once again, the biblical texts remain completely silent about deification. But even if the original meanings of Jesus' birth, ministry, transfiguration, resurrection, and ascension have messianic overtones when interpreted within the Jewish milieu, these same stories began to communicate various ideas of deity to Gentile converts in the generations that followed. We find little snippets from historical sources beginning in the second century and growing with time. Evidence of Belief in Jesus' as a Greco-Roman Deity To begin with, we have two non-Christian instances where Romans regarded Jesus as a deity within typical Greco-Roman categories. The first comes to us from Tertullian and Eusebius who mention an intriguing story about Tiberius' request to the Roman senate to deify Christ. Convinced by “intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity”[58] Tiberius proposed the matter to the senate (Apology 5). Eusebius adds that Tiberius learned that “many believed him to be a god in rising from the dead”[59] (Church History 2.2). As expected, the senate rejected the proposal. I mention this story, not because I can establish its historicity, but because it portrays how Tiberius would have thought about Jesus if he had heard about his miracles and resurrection. Another important incident is from one of the governor Pliny the Younger's letters to the emperor Trajan. Having investigated some people accused of Christianity, he found “they had met regularly before dawn on a fixed day to chant verses alternately amongst themselves in honour of Christ as if to a god”[60] (Letter 96). To an outside imperial observer like Pliny, the Christians believed in a man who had performed miracles, defeated death, and now lived in heaven. Calling him a god was just the natural way of talking about such a person. Pliny would not have thought Jesus was superior to the deified Roman emperors much less Zeus or the Olympic gods. If he believed in Jesus at all, he would have regarded him as another Mediterranean prophet who escaped Hades to enjoy apotheosis. Another interesting text to consider is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. This apocryphal text tells the story of Jesus' childhood between the ages of five and twelve. Jesus is impetuous, powerful, and brilliant. Unsure to conclude that Jesus was “either god or angel,”[61] his teacher remands him to Joseph's custody (7). Later, a crowd of onlookers ponders whether the child is a god or a heavenly messenger after he raises an infant from the dead (17). A year later Jesus raised a construction man who had fallen to his death back to life (18). Once again, the crowd asked if the child was from heaven. Although some historians are quick to assume the lofty conceptions of Justin and his successors about the logos were commonplace in the early Christianity, Litwa points out, “The spell of the Logos could only bewitch a very small circle of Christian elites… In IGT, we find a Jesus who is divine according to different canons, the canons of popular Mediterranean theology.”[62] Another important though often overlooked scholarly group of Christians in the second century was led by a certain Theodotus of Byzantium.[63] Typically referred to by their heresiological label “Theodotians,” these dynamic monarchians lived in Rome and claimed that they held to the original Christology before it had been corrupted under Bishop Zephyrinus (Eusebius, Church History 5.28). Theodotus believed in the virgin birth, but not in his pre-existence or that he was god/God (Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2). He thought that Jesus was not able to perform any miracles until his baptism when he received the Christ/Spirit. Pseudo-Hippolytus goes on to say, “But they do not want him to have become a god when the Spirit descended. Others say that he became a god after he rose from the dead.”[64] This last tantalizing remark implies that the Theodotians could affirm Jesus as a god after his resurrection though they denied his pre-existence. Although strict unitarians, they could regard Jesus as a god in that he was an ascended immortalized being who lived in heaven—not equal to the Father, but far superior to all humans on earth. Justin Martyr presents another interesting case to consider. Thoroughly acquainted with Greco-Roman literature and especially the philosophy of Plato, Justin sees Christ as a god whom the Father begot before all other creatures. He calls him “son, or wisdom, or angel, or god, or lord, or word”[65] (Dialogue with Trypho 61).  For Justin Christ is “at the same time angel and god and lord and man”[66] (59). Jesus was “of old the Word, appearing at one time in the form of fire, at another under the guise of incorporeal beings, but now, at the will of God, after becoming man for mankind”[67] (First Apology 63). In fact, Justin is quite comfortable to compare Christ to deified heroes and emperors. He says, “[W]e propose nothing new or different from that which you say about the so-called sons of Jupiter [Zeus] by your respected writers… And what about the emperors who die among you, whom you think worthy to be deified?”[68] (21). He readily accepts the parallels with Mercury, Perseus, Asclepius, Bacchus, and Hercules, but argues that Jesus is superior to them (22).[69] Nevertheless, he considered Jesus to be in “a place second to the unchanging and eternal God”[70] (13). The Father is “the Most True God” whereas the Son is he “who came forth from Him”[71] (6). Even as lates as Origen, Greco-Roman concepts of deity persist. In responding to Celsus' claim that no god or son of God has ever come down, Origen responds by stating such a statement would overthrow the stories of Pythian Apollo, Asclepius, and the other gods who descended (Against Celsus 5.2). My point here is not to say Origen believed in all the old myths, but to show how Origen reached for these stories as analogies to explain the incarnation of the logos. When Celsus argued that he would rather believe in the deity of Asclepius, Dionysus, and Hercules than Christ, Origen responded with a moral rather than ontological argument (3.42). He asks how these gods have improved the characters of anyone. Origen admits Celsus' argument “which places the forenamed individuals upon an equality with Jesus” might have force, however in light of the disreputable behavior of these gods, “how could you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?”[72] (3.42). Origen's Christology is far too broad and complicated to cover here. Undoubtedly, his work on eternal generation laid the foundation on which fourth century Christians could build homoousion Christology. Nevertheless, he retained some of the earlier subordinationist impulses of his forebearers. In his book On Prayer, he rebukes praying to Jesus as a crude error, instead advocating prayer to God alone (10). In his Commentary on John he repeatedly asserts that the Father is greater than his logos (1.40; 2.6; 6.23). Thus, Origen is a theologian on the seam of the times. He's both a subordinationist and a believer in the Son's eternal and divine ontology. Now, I want to be careful here. I'm not saying that all early Christians believed Jesus was a deified man like Asclepius or a descended god like Apollo or a reincarnated soul like Pythagoras. More often than not, thinking Christians whose works survive until today tended to eschew the parallels, simultaneously elevating Christ as high as possible while demoting the gods to mere demons. Still, Litwa is inciteful when he writes: It seems likely that early Christians shared the widespread cultural assumption that a resurrected, immortalized being was worthy of worship and thus divine. …Nonetheless there is a difference…Jesus, it appears, was never honored as an independent deity. Rather, he was always worshiped as Yahweh's subordinate. Naturally Heracles and Asclepius were Zeus' subordinates, but they were also members of a larger divine family. Jesus does not enter a pantheon but assumes a distinctive status as God's chief agent and plenipotentiary. It is this status that, to Christian insiders, placed Jesus in a category far above the likes of Heracles, Romulus, and Asclepius who were in turn demoted to the rank of δαίμονες [daimons].[73] Conclusion I began by asking the question, "What did early Christians mean by saying Jesus is god?" We noted that the ancient idea of agency (Jesus is God/god because he represents Yahweh), though present in Hebrew and Christian scripture, didn't play much of a role in how Gentile Christians thought about Jesus. Or if it did, those texts did not survive. By the time we enter the postapostolic era, a majority of Christianity was Gentile and little communication occurred with the Jewish Christians that survived in the East. As such, we turned our attention to Greco-Roman theology to tune our ears to hear the story of Jesus the way they would have. We learned about their multifaceted array of divinities. We saw that gods can come down and take the form of humans and humans can go up and take the form of gods. We found evidence for this kind of thinking in both non-Christian and Christian sources in the second and third centuries. Now it is time to return to the question I began with: “When early Christian authors called Jesus “god” what did they mean?” We saw that the idea of a deified man was present in the non-Christian witnesses of Tiberius and Pliny but made scant appearance in our Christian literature except for the Theodotians. As for the idea that a god came down to become a man, we found evidence in The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Justin, and Origen.[74] Of course, we find a spectrum within this view, from Justin's designation of Jesus as a second god to Origen's more philosophically nuanced understanding. Still, it's worth noting as R. P. C. Hanson observed that, “With the exception of Athanasius virtually every theologian, East and West, accepted some form of subordinationism at least up to the year 355.”[75] Whether any Christians before Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria held to the sophisticated idea of consubstantiality depends on showing evidence of the belief that the Son was coequal, coeternal, and coessential with the Father prior to Nicea. (Readers interested in the case for this view should consult Michael Bird's Jesus among the Gods in which he attempted the extraordinary feat of finding proto-Nicene Christology in the first two centuries, a task typically associated with maverick apologists not peer-reviewed historians.) In conclusion, the answer to our driving question about the meaning of “Jesus as god” is that the answer depends on whom we ask. If we ask the Theodotians, Jesus is a god because that's just what one calls an immortalized man who lives in heaven.[76] If we ask those holding a docetic Christology, the answer is that a god came down in appearance as a man. If we ask a logos subordinationist, they'll tell us that Jesus existed as the god through whom the supreme God created the universe before he became a human being. If we ask Tertullian, Jesus is god because he derives his substance from the Father, though he has a lesser portion of divinity.[77] If we ask Athanasius, he'll wax eloquent about how Jesus is of the same substance as the Father equal in status and eternality. The bottom line is that there was not one answer to this question prior to the fourth century. Answers depend on whom we ask and when they lived. Still, we can't help but wonder about the more tantalizing question of development. Which Christology was first and which ones evolved under social, intellectual, and political pressures? In the quest to specify the various stages of development in the Christologies of the ante-Nicene period, this Greco-Roman perspective may just provide the missing link between the reserved and limited way that the NT applies theos to Jesus in the first century and the homoousian view that eventually garnered imperial support in the fourth century. How easy would it have been for fresh converts from the Greco-Roman world to unintentionally mishear the story of Jesus? How easy would it have been for them to fit Jesus into their own categories of descended gods and ascended humans? With the unmooring of Gentile Christianity from its Jewish heritage, is it any wonder that Christologies began to drift out to sea? Now I'm not suggesting that all Christians went through a steady development from a human Jesus to a pre-existent Christ, to an eternal God the Son, to the Chalcedonian hypostatic union. As I mentioned above, plenty of other options were around and every church had its conservatives in addition to its innovators. The story is messy and uneven with competing views spread across huge geographic distances. Furthermore, many Christians probably were content to leave such theological nuances fuzzy, rather than seeking doctrinal precision on Christ's relation to his God and Father. Whatever the case may be, we dare not ignore the influence of Greco-Roman theology in our accounts of Christological development in the Mediterranean world of the first three centuries.    Bibliography The Homeric Hymns. Translated by Michael Crudden. New York, NY: Oxford, 2008. Antioch, Theophilus of. To Autolycus. Translated by Marcus Dods. Vol. 2. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Aphrahat. The Demonstrations. Translated by Ellen Muehlberger. Vol. 3. The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings. Edited by Mark DelCogliano. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022. Apollodorus. The Library of Greek Mythology. Translated by Robin Hard. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998. Appian. The Civil Wars. Translated by John Carter. London, UK: Penguin, 1996. Arnobius. Against the Heathen. Translated by Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell. Vol. 6. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Arrian. The Campaigns of Alexander. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 1971. Bird, Michael F. Jesus among the Gods. Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022. Blackburn, Barry. Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions. Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991. Callimachus. Hymn to Artemis. Translated by Susan A. Stephens. Callimachus: The Hymns. New York, NY: Oxford, 2015. Cicero. The Nature of the Gods. Translated by Patrick Gerard Walsh. Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008. Cornutus, Lucius Annaeus. Greek Theology. Translated by George Boys-Stones. Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018. Cotter, Wendy. "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew." In The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study. Edited by David E. Aune. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Cyprian. Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols. Translated by Ernest Wallis. Vol. 5. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Dittenberger, W. Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae. Vol. 2. Hildesheim: Olms, 1960. Eusebius. The Church History. Translated by Paul L. Maier. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007. Fredriksen, Paula. "How High Can Early High Christology Be?" In Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Edited by Matthew V. Novenson. Vol. 180.vol. Supplements to Novum Testamentum. Leiden: Brill, 2020. Hanson, R. P. C. Search for a Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007. Hart, George. The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005. Homer. The Odyssey. Translated by Robert Fagles. New York, NY: Penguin, 1997. Iamblichus. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Thomas Taylor. Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras. Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023. Justin Martyr. Dialogue with Trypho. Translated by Thomas B. Falls. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Laertius, Diogenes. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David R. Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Laertius, Diogenes. Lives of the Eminent Philosophers. Translated by Pamela Mensch. Edited by James Miller. New York, NY: Oxford, 2020. Lane, William L. The Gospel of Mark. Nicnt, edited by F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Litwa, M. David. Iesus Deus. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014. Livy. The Early History of Rome. Translated by Aubrey De Sélincourt. London, UK: Penguin, 2002. Origen. Against Celsus. Translated by Frederick Crombie. Vol. 4. The Ante-Nicene Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pausanias. Guide to Greece. Translated by Peter Levi. London, UK: Penguin, 1979. Perriman, Andrew. In the Form of a God. Studies in Early Christology, edited by David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022. Philostratus. Letters of Apollonius. Vol. 458. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006. Plutarch. Life of Alexander. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff. The Age of Alexander. London, UK: Penguin, 2011. Porphyry. Life of Pythagoras. Translated by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie. The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library. Edited by David Fideler. Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988. Pseudo-Clement. Recognitions. Translated by Thomas Smith. Vol. 8. Ante Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Pseudo-Hippolytus. Refutation of All Heresies. Translated by David Litwa. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. Pseudo-Thomas. Infancy Gospel of Thomas. Translated by James Orr. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903. Psuedo-Clement. Homilies. Translated by Peter Peterson. Vol. 8. Ante-Nicene Fathers. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897. Siculus, Diodorus. The Historical Library. Translated by Charles Henry Oldfather. Vol. 1. Edited by Giles Laurén: Sophron Editor, 2017. Strabo. The Geography. Translated by Duane W. Roller. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020. Tertullian. Against Praxeas. Translated by Holmes. Vol. 3. Ante Nice Fathers. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Tertullian. Apology. Translated by S. Thelwall. Vol. 3. Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003. Younger, Pliny the. The Letters of the Younger Pliny. Translated by Betty Radice. London: Penguin, 1969. End Notes [1] For the remainder of this paper, I will use the lower case “god” for all references to deity outside of Yahweh, the Father of Christ. I do this because all our ancient texts lack capitalization and our modern capitalization rules imply a theology that is anachronistic and unhelpful for the present inquiry. [2] Christopher Kaiser wrote, “Explicit references to Jesus as ‘God' in the New Testament are very few, and even those few are generally plagued with uncertainties of either text or interpretation.” Christopher B. Kaiser, The Doctrine of God: A Historical Survey (London: Marshall Morgan & Scott, 1982), 29. Other scholars such as Raymond Brown (Jesus: God and Man), Jason David BeDuhn (Truth in Translation), and Brian Wright (“Jesus as θεός: A Textual Examination” in Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament) have expressed similar sentiments. [3] John 20.28; Hebrews 1.8; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; Romans 9.5; and 1 John 5.20. [4] See Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians 12.2 where a manuscript difference determines whether or not Polycarp called Jesus god or lord. Textual corruption is most acute in Igantius' corpus. Although it's been common to dismiss the long recension as an “Arian” corruption, claiming the middle recension to be as pure and uncontaminated as freshly fallen snow upon which a foot has never trodden, such an uncritical view is beginning to give way to more honest analysis. See Paul Gilliam III's Ignatius of Antioch and the Arian Controversy (Leiden: Brill, 2017) for a recent treatment of Christological corruption in the middle recension. [5] See the entries for  אֱלֹהִיםand θεός in the Hebrew Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT), the Brown Driver Briggs Lexicon (BDB), Eerdmans Dictionary, Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, the Bauer Danker Arndt Gingrich Lexicon (BDAG), Friberg Greek Lexicon, and Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [6] See notes on Is 9.6 and Ps 45.6. [7] ZIBBC: “In what sense can the king be called “god”? By virtue of his divine appointment, the king in the ancient Near East stood before his subjects as a representative of the divine realm. …In fact, the term “gods“ (ʾelōhı̂m) is used of priests who functioned as judges in the Israelite temple judicial system (Ex. 21:6; 22:8-9; see comments on 58:1; 82:6-7).” John W. Hilber, “Psalms,” in The Minor Prophets, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, vol. 5 of Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary: Old Testament. ed. John H. Walton (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 358. [8] Around a.d. 340, Aphrahat of Persia advised his fellow Christians to reply to Jewish critics who questioned why “You call a human being ‘God'” (Demonstrations 17.1). He said, “For the honored name of the divinity is granted event ot rightoues human beings, when they are worthy of being called by it…[W]hen he chose Moses, his friend and his beloved…he called him “god.” …We call him God, just as he named Moses with his own name…The name of the divinity was granted for great honor in the world. To whom he wishes, God appoints it” (17.3, 4, 5). Aphrahat, The Demonstrations, trans., Ellen Muehlberger, vol. 3, The Cambridge Edition of Early Christian Writings (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2022), 213-15. In the Clementine Recognitions we find a brief mention of the concept:  “Therefore the name God is applied in three ways: either because he to whom it is given is truly God, or because he is the servant of him who is truly; and for the honour of the sender, that his authority may be full, he that is sent is called by the name of him who sends, as is often done in respect of angels: for when they appear to a man, if he is a wise and intelligent man, he asks the name of him who appears to him, that he may acknowledge at once the honour of the sent, and the authority of the sender” (2.42). Pseudo-Clement, Recognitions, trans., Thomas Smith, vol. 8, Ante Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [9] Michael F. Bird, Jesus among the Gods (Waco, TX: Baylor, 2022), 13. [10] Andrew Perriman, In the Form of a God, Studies in Early Christology, ed. David Capes Michael Bird, and Scott Harrower (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2022), 130. [11] Paula Fredriksen, "How High Can Early High Christology Be?," in Monotheism and Christology in Greco-Roman Antiquity, ed. Matthew V. Novenson, vol. 180 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 296, 99. [12] ibid. [13] See Gen 18.1; Ex 3.2; 24.11; Is 6.1; Ezk 1.28. [14] Compare the Masoretic Text of Psalm 8.6 to the Septuagint and Hebrews 2.7. [15] Homer, The Odyssey, trans., Robert Fagles (New York, NY: Penguin, 1997), 370. [16] Diodorus Siculus, The Historical Library, trans., Charles Henry Oldfather, vol. 1 (Sophron Editor, 2017), 340. [17] Uranus met death at the brutal hands of his own son, Kronos who emasculated him and let bleed out, resulting in his deification (Eusebius, Preparation for the Gospel 1.10). Later on, after suffering a fatal disease, Kronos himself experienced deification, becoming the planet Saturn (ibid.). Zeus married Hera and they produced Osiris (Dionysus), Isis (Demeter), Typhon, Apollo, and Aphrodite (ibid. 2.1). [18] Lucius Annaeus Cornutus, Greek Theology, trans., George Boys-Stones, Greek Theology, Fragments, and Testimonia (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2018), 123. [19] Apollodorus, The Library of Greek Mythology, trans., Robin Hard (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 1998), 111. [20] Pausanias, Guide to Greece, trans., Peter Levi (London, UK: Penguin, 1979), 98. [21] Strabo, The Geography, trans., Duane W. Roller (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge, 2020), 281. [22] Psuedo-Clement, Homilies, trans., Peter Peterson, vol. 8, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1897). Greek: “αὐτὸν δὲ ὡς θεὸν ἐθρήσκευσαν” from Jacques Paul Migne, Patrologia Graeca, taken from Accordance (PSCLEMH-T), OakTree Software, Inc., 2018, Version 1.1. [23] See Barry Blackburn, Theios Aner and the Markan Miracle Traditions (Tübingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr, 1991), 32. [24] Diogenes Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, trans., Pamela Mensch (New York, NY: Oxford, 2020), 39. [25] Iamblichus, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Thomas Taylor, Iamblichus' Life of Pythagoras (Delhi, IN: Zinc Read, 2023), 2. [26] Diogenes Laertius, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 142. [27] See the list in Blackburn, 39. He corroborates miracle stories from Diogenus Laertius, Iamblichus, Apollonius, Nicomachus, and Philostratus. [28] Porphyry, Life of Pythagoras, trans., Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Phanes Press, 1988), 128-9. [29] Iamblichus,  68. [30] What I call “resurrection” refers to the phrase, “Thou shalt bring back from Hades a dead man's strength.” Diogenes Laertius 8.2.59, trans. R. D. Hicks. [31] Laertius, "Lives of the Eminent Philosophers," 306. Two stories of his deification survive: in one Empedocles disappears in the middle of the night after hearing an extremely loud voice calling his name. After this the people concluded that they should sacrifice to him since he had become a god (8.68). In the other account, Empedocles climbs Etna and leaps into the fiery volcanic crater “to strengthen the rumor that he had become a god” (8.69). [32] Pausanias,  192. Sextus Empiricus says Asclepius raised up people who had died at Thebes as well as raising up the dead body of Tyndaros (Against the Professors 1.261). [33] Cicero adds that the Arcadians worship Asclepius (Nature 3.57). [34] In another instance, he confronted and cast out a demon from a licentious young man (Life 4.20). [35] The phrase is “περὶ ἐμοῦ καὶ θεοῖς εἴρηται ὡς περὶ θείου ἀνδρὸς.” Philostratus, Letters of Apollonius, vol. 458, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 2006). [36] See George Hart, The Routledge Dictionary of Egyptian Gods and Goddesses, 2nd ed. (Oxford, UK: Routledge, 2005), 3. [37] Plutarch, Life of Alexander, trans., Ian Scott-Kilvert and Timothy E. Duff, The Age of Alexander (London, UK: Penguin, 2011), 311. Arrian includes a story about Anaxarchus advocating paying divine honors to Alexander through prostration. The Macedonians refused but the Persian members of his entourage “rose from their seats and one by one grovelled on the floor before the King.” Arrian, The Campaigns of Alexander, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 1971), 222. [38] Translation my own from “Ἀντίοχος ὁ Θεὸς Δίκαιος Ἐπιφανὴς Φιλορωμαῖος Φιλέλλην.” Inscription at Nemrut Dağ, accessible at https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/mithras/display.php?page=cimrm32. See also https://zeugma.packhum.org/pdfs/v1ch09.pdf. [39] Greek taken from W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones Selectae, vol. 2 (Hildesheim: Olms, 1960), 48-60. Of particular note is the definite article before θεός. They didn't celebrate the birthday of a god, but the birthday of the god. [40] Appian, The Civil Wars, trans., John Carter (London, UK: Penguin, 1996), 149. [41] M. David Litwa, Iesus Deus (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014), 20. [42] ibid. [43] Blackburn, 92-3. [44] The Homeric Hymns, trans., Michael Crudden (New York, NY: Oxford, 2008), 38. [45] "The Homeric Hymns," 14. [46] Homer,  344. [47] Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, trans., Marcus Dods, vol. 2, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001). [48] Callimachus, Hymn to Artemis, trans., Susan A. Stephens, Callimachus: The Hymns (New York, NY: Oxford, 2015), 119. [49] Siculus,  234. [50] Cyprian, Treatise 6: On the Vanity of Idols, trans., Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [51] Arnobius, Against the Heathen, trans., Hamilton Bryce and Hugh Campbell, vol. 6, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995). [52] Livy, The Early History of Rome, trans., Aubrey De Sélincourt (London, UK: Penguin, 2002), 49. [53] Cicero, The Nature of the Gods, trans., Patrick Gerard Walsh (Oxford, UK: Oxford, 2008), 69. [54] Wendy Cotter, "Greco-Roman Apotheosis Traditions and the Resurrection Appearances in Matthew," in The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study, ed. David E. Aune (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 149. [55] Litwa, 170. [56] William L. Lane, The Gospel of Mark, Nicnt, ed. F. F. Bruce Ned B. Stonehouse, and Gordon D. Fee (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974). [57] “Recent commentators have stressed that the best background for understanding the Markan transfiguration is the story of Moses' ascent up Mount Sinai (Exod. 24 and 34).” Litwa, 123. [58] Tertullian, Apology, trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3, Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [59] Eusebius, The Church History, trans. Paul L. Maier (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 54. [60] Pliny the Younger, The Letters of the Younger Pliny, trans., Betty Radice (London: Penguin, 1969), 294. [61] Pseudo-Thomas, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, trans., James Orr (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Co., 1903), 25. [62] Litwa, 83. [63] For sources on Theodotus, see Pseduo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies 7.35.1-2; 10.23.1-2; Pseudo-Tertullian, Against All Heresies 8.2; Eusebius, Church History 5.28. [64] Pseudo-Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, trans., David Litwa (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016), 571. [65] I took the liberty to decapitalize these appellatives. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, trans. Thomas B. Falls (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 244. [66] Justin Martyr, 241. (Altered, see previous footnote.) [67] Justin Martyr, 102. [68] Justin Martyr, 56-7. [69] Arnobius makes a similar argument in Against the Heathen 1.38-39 “Is he not worthy to be called a god by us and felt to be a god on account of the favor or such great benefits? For if you have enrolled Liber among the gods because he discovered the use of wine, and Ceres the use of bread, Aesculapius the use of medicines, Minerva the use of oil, Triptolemus plowing, and Hercules because he conquered and restrained beasts, thieves, and the many-headed hydra…So then, ought we not to consider Christ a god, and to bestow upon him all the worship due to his divinity?” Translation from Litwa, 105. [70] Justin Martyr, 46. [71] Justin Martyr, 39. [72] Origen, Against Celsus, trans. Frederick Crombie, vol. 4, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003). [73] Litwa, 173. [74] I could easily multiply examples of this by looking at Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and many others. [75] The obvious exception to Hanson's statement were thinkers like Sabellius and Praxeas who believed that the Father himself came down as a human being. R. P. C. Hanson, Search for a Christian Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), xix. [76] Interestingly, even some of the biblical unitarians of the period were comfortable with calling Jesus god, though they limited his divinity to his post-resurrection life. [77] Tertullian writes, “[T]he Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son” (Against Praxeas 9). Tertullian, Against Praxeas, trans., Holmes, vol. 3, Ante Nice Fathers (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003).

also known as Cato the Censor and the Wise, was a Roman soldier, senator, and historian known for his conservatism and opposition to Hellenization. He was the first to write history in Latin with his Origines, a now fragmentary work on the history of Rome. Ryan reads from his book Lives of the Stoics: The Art of Living from Zeno to Marcus Aurelius to share the a fascinating historical figure from ancient Rome, admired for his unwavering virtue and commitment to the Roman Republic, and a famous vocal opponent of the leadership of Julius Caesar.✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

Hellenization

Hellenization

The history of the Holy Land is a tapestry of ancient civilizations, religious significance, and enduring conflicts.Prehistoric Inhabitants: The region was initially inhabited by prehistoric hunter-gatherers around 10,000 BCE, leaving behind evidence of early settlements and cultural development.Ancient Civilizations: The Holy Land saw the rise and fall of civilizations such as the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Canaanites, who established trade and cultural exchanges in the region.The Israelites and Biblical Times: The arrival of the Israelites, led by figures like Moses and King David, is central to the region's history. The construction of the First Temple in Jerusalem was a significant religious and political milestone.Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: The region came under Persian influence, then underwent Hellenization after the conquests of Alexander the Great. The Roman period included the life of Jesus and the construction of significant architectural marvels.Byzantine and Islamic Periods: Christianity spread throughout the region during the Byzantine era, while the Islamic conquest brought the construction of iconic religious structures such as the Dome of the Rock.Crusades and Medieval Period: The Crusades saw European attempts to capture Jerusalem, leaving lasting architectural and cultural influences.Ottoman Empire and Modern Times: The Ottoman Empire ruled for centuries, fostering a diverse cultural and religious landscape. The late 19th century witnessed Zionist immigration, leading to increased tensions.British Mandate and Israeli Independence: After World War I, the British Mandate governed Palestine. In 1947, the UN approved a partition plan, leading to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.Ongoing Conflict: The Arab-Israeli conflict has characterized the modern history of the Holy Land, marked by wars, peace negotiations, and disputes over borders, settlements, and the status of Jerusalem.The Holy Land remains a place of profound cultural, historical, and religious importance, with its history continuing to shape global affairs and influence the lives of millions.(commercial at 6:07)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5080327/advertisement

The history of the Holy Land is a tapestry of ancient civilizations, religious significance, and enduring conflicts.Prehistoric Inhabitants: The region was initially inhabited by prehistoric hunter-gatherers around 10,000 BCE, leaving behind evidence of early settlements and cultural development.Ancient Civilizations: The Holy Land saw the rise and fall of civilizations such as the Sumerians, Egyptians, and Canaanites, who established trade and cultural exchanges in the region.The Israelites and Biblical Times: The arrival of the Israelites, led by figures like Moses and King David, is central to the region's history. The construction of the First Temple in Jerusalem was a significant religious and political milestone.Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods: The region came under Persian influence, then underwent Hellenization after the conquests of Alexander the Great. The Roman period included the life of Jesus and the construction of significant architectural marvels.Byzantine and Islamic Periods: Christianity spread throughout the region during the Byzantine era, while the Islamic conquest brought the construction of iconic religious structures such as the Dome of the Rock.Crusades and Medieval Period: The Crusades saw European attempts to capture Jerusalem, leaving lasting architectural and cultural influences.Ottoman Empire and Modern Times: The Ottoman Empire ruled for centuries, fostering a diverse cultural and religious landscape. The late 19th century witnessed Zionist immigration, leading to increased tensions.British Mandate and Israeli Independence: After World War I, the British Mandate governed Palestine. In 1947, the UN approved a partition plan, leading to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.Ongoing Conflict: The Arab-Israeli conflict has characterized the modern history of the Holy Land, marked by wars, peace negotiations, and disputes over borders, settlements, and the status of Jerusalem.The Holy Land remains a place of profound cultural, historical, and religious importance, with its history continuing to shape global affairs and influence the lives of millions.(commercial at 6:07)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5003294/advertisement

The Romans, Pt 2 // Herod's rise to power was marked by ruthless actions such as executing Zealots and manipulating the Jewish Sanhedrin, along with his Hellenization policy and tumultuous personal life.

This podcast aims to shed light in the evils it Hellenization by the Greeks in Africa. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theforefront/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/theforefront/support

For this lecture we are going to look at--- Hellenization thesis -briefly--- God as Cause and First Principle-- Essentials of Christian Platonism

JESUS' ARRIVAL IS THE REDEMPTIVE TURNING POINT IN ALL OF HISTORY.Among those who seem to know nothing of the Bible, this is the verse that seems to be most popular. Yet most the people who quote this verse don't understand what Jesus said. They seem to think (or hope) that Jesus commanded a universal acceptance of any lifestyle or teaching. Just a little later in this same sermon (Matthew 7:15-16), Jesus commanded us to know ourselves and others by the fruit of their life, and some sort of assessment is necessary for that. The Christian is called to show unconditional love, but the Christian is not called to unconditional approval. We really can love people who do things that should not be approved of.DAVID GUZIKChristianity has been the driving force behind some of the major events of world history including the Christianization of Western and Central Europe and Latin America, the spreading of literacy and the foundation of the universities, hospitals, the development of art and music, literature, architecture, contributions to the scientific method, just war theory and trial by jury.Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important.C.S. LEWIS"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me"JOHN 14:6Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.JOHN 6:35For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.”JOHN 6:40If Jesus rose from the dead, then you have to accept all that He said; if He didn't rise from the dead, then why worry about any of what He said?TIM KELLER3 In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles[b] of the world. 4 But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, 5 to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.GALATIANS 4:3-6Pleroma: that which has been filled; a ship inasmuch as it is filled (i.e. manned) with sailors, rowers, and soldiersTHE FINE TUNE ARGUMENTWHAT MAKES JESUS' ARRIVAL THE FULLNESS OF TIME? FAILURE OF LEADERS, KINGS, AND FALSE IDOLS (rock-bottom)Israel could not produce its own Savior. Instead, Jesus is born of Mary as the result of God's gracious intervention into Israel's history through the creative action of the Holy Spirit. In the fullness of time God provided what human history by itself could not.DAVID HOLWERDAI can never escape from your Spirit!    I can never get away from your presence!If I go up to heaven, you are there;    if I go down to the grave, you are there.PSALM 139 HUNGER AND ANTICIPATION (truth-seeking) PROPHECY (God's word doesn't return void)24 “Seventy weeks[c] are decreed about your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.[d] 25 Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again[e] with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. 26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.DANIEL 9:24-26A century ago in his book The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson gave detailed calculations of the sixty-nine weeks, using ‘prophetic years,' allowing for leap years, errors in the calendar, the change from B.C. to A.D., etc., and figured that the sixty-nine weeks ended on the very day of Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem, five days before His death. Whether one uses this timetable or not, the point is that the timing of Christ's incarnation ties in with this detailed prophecy recorded by Daniel over five hundred years beforehand.GOT QUESTIONS ROMAN RULE (coincidence or fine-tuning?)Hellenization: “greekifying” of the whole world“It was a time when the pax Romana extended over most of the civilized earth and when travel and commerce were therefore possible in a way that had formerly been impossible. Great roads linked the empire of the Caesars, and its diverse regions were linked far more significantly by the all-pervasive language of the Greeks. Add the fact that the world was sunk in a moral abyss so low that even the pagan cried out against it and that spiritual hunger was everywhere evident, and one has a perfect time for the coming of Christ and for the early expansion of the Christian gospel.”BOICE28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[h] for those who are called according to his purpose. ROMANS 8:28JESUS' ARRIVAL BEGS THE QUESTION: “WHO DO YOU SAY THAT I AM?” AND “WILL YOU FOLLOW ME?” 

Dr. Robert M. Price: https://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ The Pharisees The most important of the three were the Pharisees because they are the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a belief in an Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah. The Torah, or Written Law, was akin to the U.S. Constitution in the sense that it set down a series of laws that were open to interpretation. The Pharisees believed that God also gave Moses the knowledge of what these laws meant and how they should be applied. This oral tradition was codified and written down roughly three centuries later in what is known as the Talmud. The Pharisees also maintained that an after-life existed, and that God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous in the world to come. They also believed in a messiah who would herald an era of world peace. Pharisees were in a sense blue-collar Jews who adhered to the tenets developed after the destruction of the Temple; that is, such things as individual prayer and assembly in synagogues. They accepted Hellenization and Platonist ideas. The Sadducees The Sadducees were elitists who wanted to maintain the priestly caste who adhered to strict Torah Observance. They were thought to be the Sons of Zadok & Aaron, the Levites and Priestly class. The Sadducees rejected the idea of the Oral Law and insisted on a literal interpretation of the Written Law; consequently, they did not believe in a bodily resurrection, since it is not mentioned in the Torah. The focus of Sadducee life was rituals associated with the Temple. The Sadducees disappeared around 70 A.D., after the destruction of the Second Temple. None of the writings of the Sadducees has survived, so the little we know about them comes from their Pharisaic opponents. These two “parties” served in the Great Sanhedrin, a kind of Jewish Supreme Court made up of 71 members whose responsibility was to interpret civil and religious laws. The Essenes A third faction, the Essenes, emerged out of disgust with the other two. This sect believed the others had corrupted the city and the Temple. They moved out of Jerusalem and lived a monastic life in the desert, adopting strict dietary laws and a commitment to celibacy. The Essenes are particularly interesting to scholars because they are believed to be an offshoot of the group that lived in Qumran, near the Dead Sea. In 1947, a Bedouin shepherd stumbled into a cave containing various ancient artifacts and jars containing manuscripts describing the beliefs of the sect and events of the time. The most important documents, often only parchment fragments that had to be meticulously restored, were the earliest known copies of the Old Testament. The similarity of the substance of the material found in the scrolls to that in the modern scriptures has confirmed the authenticity of the Bible used today. #Pharisees #Sadducees #Essenes #RobertMPrice #GnosticInformant --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/gnosticinformant/message

Here it is, Season 3, kicking off a new series on Between the Testaments! Have you ever paused and asked: what happened during the time between the end of Old Testament writings, but before the Gospels? During this era known as the Intertestamental period, many fascinating and important events transpired. Part of this story begins with the Hasmonean Dynasty, which finds its eventual culmination in the rule and reign of Herod (and the "other" Herods that come later). In this episode Heather introduces this new series with a brief historical overview of the time of the Hasmoneans, and what led into the time of the Hellenization of the ancient world, and how much pressure the Jewish people were under to conform to the Greek way of life. Join us at www.firstcenturyyouthministry.comBecome part of our growing Facebook community Join our "closed" group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/firstcenturyouthministryLike our fan page! https://www.facebook.com/FirstCenturyYouthMin

An introduction to the New Testament, covering its Old Testament background and the history of the Intertestamental Period. This lesson focuses on the Old and New Testaments, supercessionism, the Age of Empires, Hellenization, worldly influences, the end of the prophets, apostasy and priestcraft, faithful martyrs, the Maccabean revolt, Hanukkah, help from heaven, and more. 0:00 Introduction to Unshaken 9:42 Scripture Study 17:11 The New Testament's Old Testament Roots 28:11 Supercessionism 32:51 Glorious Old & Glorious New 35:35 Jewish & Christian Inheritance 42:46 Old Testament Survey 48:05 Old Testament Figures to Remember in the NT 59:40 The Age of Empires 1:07:30 Hellenization 1:19:23 The Influence of Worldly Empires 1:26:25 The End of the Prophets 1:35:02 Apostasy in Israel 1:40:36 Priestcraft & Corruption 1:45:26 Making Sense of Suffering 1:54:05 Faithful Martyrs 1:58:15 Resurrection, Eternal Family, & Work for the Dead 2:02:13 Mattathias & His Sons 2:09:42 Judah the Hammer 2:15:10 Hanukkah 2:21:18 The Battles Continue 2:26:17 Help from Heaven 2:32:51 Hope for the Prophets' Return 2:35:32 Conclusion

Check out what I'm up to this summer and fall and see if you can learn some Greek and Latin with me.Full Show Notes Available at https://plutarch.life/alexanderSeason 4 is brought to you by Hackett Publishing - Use the coupon code PLUTARCH for 20% off and free shipping at hackettpublishing.comKey Virtues and Vices Generosity (μεγαλόδωρος) - When his wealth becomes nearly infinite his generosity keeps pace with it. Many examples given of Alexander's largesse as he builds his empire. Justice (δική) - When founding and running a empire this big, justice has to be a key concern. Alexander tries to balance respect for the current Persian customs as he finds them and the Hellenization of the Persian peoples. While he doesn't walk that line as well as he could have, many of his Macedonians treat the Persians far worse and Alexander is often left picking up the pieces. Friendship (φιλία)- Plutarch, like Aristotle, sees philosophy as the foundation of a life of powerful and lasting friendships. Alexander lives this virtue in many ways but, when he falls short, he fails in impressive ways (cf. Clitus the Black). Ambition (φιλοτιμία) - This one cuts both ways. Aristotle uses the same word to describe the virtue as he does to describe its excess (what we still today call “overly-ambitious”). Alexander's ambition means the only things that slow him down or change his course are mutiny or death. Important Places Thebes - Not just in Plutarch's backyard, but the city punished for revolting after Philip's death. It is burned to the ground and 30,000 of its inhabitant are sold into slavery. Plutarch thinks this must anger the god Dionysius, who was born close to Thebes. The Battle of Granicus River - Alexander's first battle against the Persian army. Is he reckless or bold? Do we judge him by the consequences?Battle of Issus - Alexander's second major battle against the Persian host, and the first in which Darius is present. Darius flees and Alexander chose better terrain than he realized. The Siege of Tyre - This strategic city gives Alexander an excuse to take care of the Persian Navy so that his supply lines are not disrupted as he traverses into the heart of the Persian Empire. Alexandria - Alexander, under the guidance of Homer, founds a city at the mouth of the Nile that will prosper for the next thousand years. Acting as the Greek and Roman capital of Egypt, Alexandria is still the second-most populous city in Egypt after Cairo today. The Battle of Gaugamela - The last decisive battle to put Darius on the run. Alexander claims that Greece has been avenged and uses the title King of Persia after this. The Battle of Hydapses - Moving beyond the frontiers of the Persian Empire, Alexander crosses the Indus River and defeats King Poros, only to return his kingdom to him because of respect for a worthy enemy. Shortly after this his men mutiny and Alexander must turn back home. Babylon - Before he makes it home, the whole army has a prolonged victory feast in Babylon. Perhaps complications from drinking cause Alexander to fall into a fever from which he does not recover and he dies in Babylon at the age of 33, having conquered the Greeks and the Persian Empire. What if he'd managed to conquer himself? How far does Plutarch think he could have gone? Support the show

Reconnecting with your true Christian heritage starts with language, context and facts. And for the last 1,600 years you've been fed a thin gruel indeed of all three. In today's episode we open up the spiritual menu and order in a second language that should come to you pretty easily. Hellenization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hellenization Why Study the Koine Greek Language with Peter Watts https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmHvn66p_Ww I Corinthians reading in Greek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzYeBa6LJLo First Bible 'vindicated' after Vatican release shows Epistles based on Marcionite scripture https://www.prlog.org/12829026-first-bible-vindicated-after-vatican-release-shows-epistles-based-on-marcionite-scripture.html 1st century uncial Greek fonts http://individual.utoronto.ca/atloder/uncialfonts.html Song of Seikilos - Oldest complete musical composition https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIFcIE23Su4 Koine Greek Utilities https://www.koinegreek.com/greek-audio-reader The Oldest Inscription Bearing Jesus' Name (and why you never heard of it) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8dFJ_1UbOY FirstNews Video Headlines https://www.news.firstbiblenetwork.com The Very First Bible https://www.theveryfirstbible.org Marcionite Christian Church https://www.marcionitechurch.org --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/firstbiblenetwork/message

EP334 Hellenization of Christianity Thesis Overview by Christopher Fisher

Week Five: Greek and Hebrew clash. Foundations for cultural conflict. Foundation for Pharasee's Sadducees, Antiochus Epiphanies. Hellenization is a major problem for the Jews.

Dr. Jenkins dives into the murky and fraught waters of the question of the relationship of Greek thought and the early Church, discussing the history of the question, why it's important, and gives some thoughts on how we should think about it. Shownotes at luxchristi.wordpress.com

Dr. Jenkins dives into the murky and fraught waters of the question of the relationship of Greek thought and the early Church, discussing the history of the question, why it's important, and gives some thoughts on how we should think about it. Shownotes at luxchristi.wordpress.com

Dr. Jenkins dives into the murky and fraught waters of the question of the relationship of Greek thought and the early Church, discussing the history of the question, why it's important, and gives some thoughts on how we should think about it. Shownotes at luxchristi.wordpress.com

We lay the foundations for cultural conflict and the foundations for Pharasees Sadducees, Antiochus Epiphanies. Hellenization is a major problem for the Jews.

We provide a brief introduction to Greek philosophy and the importance of the polis, we discuss The Iliad. We introduce the idea of Hellenization and how it influenced the culture and the world.

In this episode, Michele discusses the true miracle of Chanukah. She gives a brief overview of the Chanukah story and then details the miracle of being true to self. Lots of personal story is shared. Parshah for the week: Miketz. Key Takeaways: The Chanukah story has real life meaning despite the questionability of some aspects. The Hellenization of the Jews and the Maccabean Revolt are definitely true. The Hasmonean family and their supporters fought for what they believed in. Embracing our true selves- no matter what it is- is the real miracle of Chanukah. Links: The Revolt of the Maccabees: https://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/the_revolt_of_the_maccabees/ This podcast: https://anchor.fm/michele-lefler My YouTube Channel: https://bit.ly/YouTubeLivingMoonMed Let's Be Social: Jewitch Torah Study: https://www.facebook.com/groups/jewitchtorahstudy Instagram: www.instagram.com/livingmoonmeditation Facebook: www.facebook.com/livingmoonmeditation Bad Witch Society: My Free Online Community: https://www.facebook.com/groups/badwitch Support the Podcast: Michele's New Moon Guide: https://livingmoonmeditation.gumroad.com/l/VOYIQ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/jewishmagicpodcast Communing With Your Ancestors Visualization: https://livingmoonmeditation.gumroad.com/l/dXHWy 5782 Planner: https://livingmoonmeditation.gumroad.com/l/goMLT Other Shop Items: https://livingmoonmeditation.gumroad.com Complete Jewitch Wheel of the Year: https://bit.ly/CompleteJewitchWheel My Other Courses: https://livingmoonmeditation.mn.co Other ways to work with me: https://livingmoonmeditation.com/services/ Theme Music Credits: Music from Uppbeat (free for Creators!): https://uppbeat.io/t/danijel-zambo/sunshine License code: B7MNECYULL2NZY89 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/michele-lefler/message

Chanukah is fast approaching as I record this episode. We're all familiar with the Maccabees fighting the Seleucids over forced Hellenization, but how many of us remember that the dividing lines were also between Jews who adopted Hellenism and those who opposed it. Within a generation, even descendants of the Maccabees had Greek names. We can see this dividing line in the New Testament itself between Hebrews and Hellenists and this friction may represent a key to understanding the divergent paths which may have eventually contributed to the rise of Christianity we know in later centuries. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/juan-marcos-gutierrez0/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/juan-marcos-gutierrez0/support

The Forefront Explores the Hellenization or Assimilation of the Black Hebrews into the Greek Empire by slavery. www.theforefrontexpress.com --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/c4challenge/message

Episode 121 – Perfectly Quiet – The Intertestamental Period 7 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: (Bible quotes from the God’s Word Translation) Gabriel [said] "Seventy sets of seven time periods have been assigned for your people and your holy city. ... from the time the command is given to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the anointed prince comes .... Jerusalem will be restored and rebuilt with a city square and a moat during the troubles of those times. But after the sixty-two sets of seven time periods, the Anointed One will be cut off and have nothing. Daniel, Chapter 9, verses 21 through 26, God’s Word Translation ******** VK: Hello. I’m Victoria K. Welcome to another episode of Anchored by Truth. Today we are continuing our look at “The Intertestamental Period” - the 400-plus year period between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. I’m in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and Founder Crystal Sea Books. RD, today we’re going into our 7th episode in this series. Last time we talked about how the formation of the Pharisees and the Sadducees during the intertestamental period influenced the religious environment which Jesus confronted during His earthly ministry. Today we want to talk at some length about why we have called this series on the intertestamental period Perfectly Quiet. But before we get to that, RD, how about doing a brief refresher on why we’re so interested in helping listeners understand more about the Sadducees and Pharisees? RD: Greetings to all the Anchored by Truth listeners. We really appreciate you taking some time to be with us for this episode. We know that you are with us because you have a genuine desire to understand scripture more thoroughly. We also know that it might seem a little odd to focus as much attention as we have on a time period when no new books of the Bible were being added to the canon. But the truth is that having some familiarity with the intertestamental period is essential to a thorough understanding of both the Old and New Testament such as how the Sadducees and Pharisees developed and became instrumental in the story that would unfold in the four Gospels. Neither the Sadducees nor the Pharisees were mentioned at all in the Old Testament yet during in the Gospels the two parties had become so influential that they comprised the Jewish ruling council that was called the Sanhedrin. VK: But, of course, the trial itself was illegal according to Jewish law and the trial did not conform to Jewish law. So, it’s probably not fair to really call it a trial. But whatever label you want to put on it, the Sanhedrin was the group that held it. And the Sanhedrin was comprised of Sadducees and Pharisees which were two of the most important religious and political bodies of the day. Many scholars believe that at the time of Jesus’ trial there were more Sadducees on the Sanhedrin and many scholars believer that the high priest at the time was a Sadducee. RD: Right. So, we talked about the differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees and the possibilities for the factors during the intertestamental period that gave rise to their formation and influence. The main point we emphasized was that the fact that the Greek Empire and its successor empires had controlled Palestine for almost 200 years during the intertestamental period. And even after the Jews revolted and obtained their independence in 142 B.C. the Greek influence didn’t vanish. The leaders of the revolt founded the Hasmonean Dynasty that ruled Israel for several decades and the Hasmoneans seemed to have perpetuated the incorporation of Greek ideas and culture into the nation. So, even though the Hasmoneans were Jews, they were Jews who were comfortable with the Greek culture and ways of life. VK: And the Sadducees seemed to have been comfortable with the continued Greek influence, or Hellenization, but the Pharisees weren’t. The Pharisees were committed to retaining or returning to the traditional Jewish ways of life and religious practices. So, this would partially explain why the Sadducees were so threatened by Jesus. Jesus was the promised Messiah who had been predicted to come. Jesus was the very embodiment of the Jews’ hopes and aspirations. RD: Yes. And, of course, the Sadducees would have been even angrier at Jesus after he so decisively refuted their contention that there was no such thing as the resurrection. I think that the Sadducees held that opinion because Greek philosophy had a very low opinion of the “body” as opposed to the “spirit” and the Sadducees had readily embraced Greek ideas and thought. So, knowing that the Greeks controlled Palestine during the intertestamental period is very helpful in understanding the situation confronting Jesus. So, studying the intertestamental period gives us insight into the background of the New Testament. But studying the intertestamental period also helps us get a much clearer understanding of key portions of the Old Testament and today we want to talk about another very important implication of this. VK: Which is what? RD: The length of the intertestamental period. We’ve spent a lot of time during our series talking about what went on during the intertestamental period – such as the changes in empires that controlled Palestine. VK: So, just to set the stage. In our Bibles the last book of the Old Testament is Malachi which most scholars believe was written sometime between 430 B.C. and 458 B.C. The Persian Empire was in control of Palestine at that time and remained in control until around 332 B.C. when Alexander the Great entered Jerusalem having conquered the Persians. Alexander died in 323 B.C. and about 20 years later his empire was split among four of his generals including Ptolemy and Seleucus. A successor of Ptolemy or Seleucus controlled Palestine until 142 B.C. when the Jews regained their independence. The Romans took control of Palestine in 63 B.C. when the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem. RD: Right. So, we’ve talked a lot about the changes in empires during the intertestamental period. We’ve talked about which foreign power controlled Palestine and we’ve talked about the impact those changes had – one of which was to actively spread their language and culture in the territories they controlled. During the lifetimes of Jesus and the Apostles Greek was the international language of commerce and trade. The most common version of the Old Testament in circulation among the dispersed Jews was the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. Even though the Romans were in control politically and militarily Greek influences were everywhere. VK: The Greek language was so pervasive Roman youth were taught it. In fact, one of the most famous Roman statesmen and philosophers, Cicero said, "The Greek language is spoken in almost all nations; the Latin is confined to our comparatively narrow borders." And one of the most famous of the Roman historians, Tacitus, lamented that, "An infant born now is committed to a Greek nurse." So, despite the fact that the Roman Empire had displaced the Greek Empire the Greek influence continued to be felt both in and out of Palestine. RD: Correct. But, the Greek language was being used to communicate in a Roman empire and the Romans controlled trade, commerce, politics, and travel. One upside of Roman control was that Romans ensured that their roads and seaways were safe to it was easy to move around within the Roman Empire. So, we’ve talked about the changes in empires and how those changes affected Palestine. But up to this point we haven’t talked about why the intertestamental period lasted as long as it did. VK: Which was a period of over 400 years. You know that does seem to be a very long time during which God did not make any new revelations. RD: To our contemporary minds which are so used to instant responses from phones and computers 400 to 450 years is an eternity. But hundreds of years are of no consequence to an eternal God. VK: Which the Apostle Peter made plain in 2 Peter 3:8 and 9 where he wrote, “But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.” RD: Exactly. God was being “quiet” insofar as new special revelations were concerned, but God was never inactive. During the intertestamental period God’s prophetic and redemptive time clocks were continuing to tick away. So, let’s make sure we have our time frames firmly established because today’s discussion is all about time. And establishing the beginning and ending points of the prophecy Daniel recorded in chapter 9 is crucial. So, first of all let’s note that Daniel received his vision around 539 B.C. At the time Daniel received the prophecy we heard in our first scripture Daniel himself had been in captivity close to 70 years. In all probability, he was part of the first group of Jews to be deported when the Babylonians conquered Jerusalem around 605 B.C. At that time the Babylonians didn’t destroy Jerusalem. They just installed a vassal king and collected taxes. VK: Ultimately, though, after continued rebellions the Babylonians did completely destroy the city. Then, the remaining population, except for a very few of the poorest people, either went into exile or were scattered. At the time Daniel received the vision he recorded in chapter 9 Jerusalem had been a heap of rubble for decades. So, when the angel Gabriel told Daniel that Jerusalem was to be rebuilt would have been as astonishing as it was welcome. In the ancient world conquerors didn’t go around rebuilding cities and nations they had destroyed. RD: But, of course, Jerusalem had a special role to play in God’s plan of redemption so God was going to be sure that it was rebuilt. It didn’t matter how pagan emperors might ordinarily behave. Kings and empires are all going to do whatever God tells them to. So, when the Medo-Persian confederation conquered Babylon the Persian emperor, Cyrus, gave the first of four decrees that ultimately would result in Jerusalem’s complete restoration. Cyrus’s initial decree was given in 538 B.C. That decree allowed the Jews to return to their homeland but primarily concerned the rebuilding of the temple. That decree really did not say anything about rebuilding the city. Over the next not-quite 100 years three more decrees from Persian emperors concerning Jerusalem followed. The final of the four decrees came in 444 B.C. from the Persian emperor Artaxerxes. VK: Well, how can we be sure which of those four decrees started the prophetic time clock ticking and exactly what time period we are concerned with? RD: To answer your question we’re going to rely heavily on chapter 6 of Dr. Harold Hoehner’s book, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. I would highly recommend that book for anyone who is serious about developing their faith. So, let’s take the second part of your question first. Commentators are pretty much universally agreed that when the angel Gabriel, who delivered the prophecy to Daniel, referred to “Seventy sets of seven time periods” he was referring to 70 seven-year periods. Some translations refer to 70 “weeks” but for a variety of reasons, which Dr. Hoehner covers thoroughly, most commentators agree the prophecy concerns a total period 490 years or 70 seven-year periods. VK: But the 490 year time period was not one continuous period of 490 years. The total period is broken into 3 smaller periods: a 49-year period (7 times 7), a 434-year period (62 times 7), and one final seven-year period for a total of 70 seven year periods. And it was to be after the end of first two of those periods that the Anointed One, or Messiah, will be cut off. Before that happens, two of the three prophesied periods will have elapsed. The 49 year period and the 434 year period will have ended. That’s a total of 483 years. In other words, 483 years were prophesied to elapse between the decree issued to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and the cutting off of the Messiah? So, to evaluate the prophecy’s accuracy we need to know which of those four Persian decrees started that 483 year time clock ticking. RD: Right. As Dr. Hoehner discusses in his book, only one of those decrees, the last of the four, really meets the criteria given in Daniel chapter 9. That was the decree which is discussed in Nehemiah, chapter 2, verses 1 through 8. The first three decrees either had to do with rebuilding the temple or the ratification of the first decree when local opposition arose to rebuilding the temple and some surrounding locals tried to get it stopped. Only the Nehemiah decree talked about rebuilding the city’s walls which would have been an essential part to having a safe city which is implied in the prophecy’s discussion of the city square and moat. The “city square” implies a broad open place that is protected within the city and the moat would be a supplement to the defensive fortification a wall provides. According to Dr. Hoehner’s calculations Artaxerxes issued his decree, based on our calendar, on either March 4th or 5th of 444 B.C. VK: So that takes care of the start of the time clock and how long the clock would run, right? RD: Well, not quite. Remember that the ancient Jews did not use the Gregorian calendar which is the one we use. The Gregorian and Julian calendar both use a 365 day period for a year based on the solar cycle – the earth’s period of revolution around the sun. Now, of course, every 4th year in the Gregorian calendar is a so-called “leap year” to account for the fact that the solar cycle is actually slightly longer than 365 days. The ancient Hebrews used a calendar for a year that consisted of twelve even periods of 30-days. So, our current solar calendar year is not identical to the ancient Jewish calendar’s year. VK: In other words the ancient Jews year was 360 days long and not 365 days like ours. So, to make our calculation correctly we have to convert the years to days. So, 483 years times the 360 days the ancient Jews used for their calendar comes out to 173,880 days. So according to the prophecy 173,880 days would elapse between issuing the decree to restore Jerusalem and the Messiah being “cut off.” Are we just about ready to check Daniel’s accuracy? RD: Just about – one more detail. Today we actually know that the solar year is actually slightly longer than 365 and a quarter days. The solar year is actually 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 45.975 seconds. VK: And 45.975 seconds? Yeah. Don’t want to forget those. RD: No you don’t because God didn’t. If we didn’t make an adjustment for those extra hours and seconds when you translate the Hebrew calendar days into the Gregorian calendar you would be off by 3 days. But the bottom line is that when you add those 173,880 days to March 5th of 444 B.C. and translate that result to our Gregorian calendar you come out to March 30th of 33 A.D. That is the day that we call Palm Sunday – the day Jesus made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem that we read about in scripture. Palm Sunday occurred just before Jesus’s crucifixion. Naturally, being crucified is a pretty dramatic way of being “cut off” and “having nothing.” A great many New Testament commentators agree that it was on Palm Sunday when Jesus’s role as the Messiah, the Anointed One became most visible during his pre-resurrection lifetime. On Palm Sunday Jesus visibly fulfilled a number of Old Testament prophecies including Zachariah 9:9 which prophesied that the Messiah would come to his people riding on the foal of a donkey. VK: This is starting to be another one of those moments that, when you think about it very much, gives you a headache. Let’s review for just a second. Sometime around 539 B.C. the angel Gabriel visited Daniel who was still in exile and far outside his homeland. Gabriel told Daniel that at some point in the future a decree would be issued that would allow the Jews to rebuild their city including the walls that would permit it to have a safe city square and interior. Gabriel told Daniel that 483 of their years later, after the issuance of that decree, the Jewish Messiah would appear to the people only to be “cut off and have nothing.” RD: Exactamundo, as I sometimes say to Jerry. VK: And we now know from history that all that unfolded exactly as Gabriel told Daniel that it would. Almost 100 years after Gabriel visited Daniel the Persian emperor Artaxerxes issued a decree that is recorded in Nehemiah chapter 2 and for which secular history provides confirmation. Then another 173,880 days later – which is 476 or so of our years - the prophecy was fulfilled on the exact day that was foretold. And this prophetic fulfillment accounts for the fact that the solar year actually contains not only 365 days we typically think about but also an additional 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 45.975 seconds. That’s not amazing. That’s mind boggling in the most literal meaning of the term. RD: That’s God. He is mind boggling – literally. So, this explains why the intertestamental period lasted as long as it did. Chronologically speaking, the book of Nehemiah, which contains the information we need to date the start of the prophetic time clock may be the last book of the Old Testament. It is certainly one of the last 3. But with the completion of the book of Nehemiah the world had all the information from the Jewish scriptures, our Old Testament, needed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah when He came. We even had the beginning of an exact time schedule. So, all that awaited was for the time to elapse to bring God’s plan of redemption to fruition. VK: So, what you’re saying is that God paused in His special revelation once He had given the world all the information it would need to know the Messiah when He came. So, just as God did with the 7 days of creation, God completed His work and then rested. That’s kind of an amazing thought. God treats time the way we treat distance. God measured out 173,880 days along the plane of history for a specific part of His plan of redemption. Then, God sent Gabriel to Daniel to tell Daniel about what He was planning. About 100 years later God put the plan into motion. And 173,880 days after that God completed His plan to reveal His Messiah at a specific point in earth’s history. Only an all-knowing, all-powerful God could do that. RD: But there’s one more thought I want to cover that is almost even more amazing than the prophetic precision we’ve just been talking about. VK: Not sure we can take much more. What we’ve already learned is a lot. You’ve already given us enough to meditate about for days. RD: Well, I think one more aspect of this prophecy needs to be emphasized. Clearly, only an omniscient and omnipotent God could give such a prophecy to one of His people and then orchestrate the events to bring it about. So the prophecy and its fulfillment alone illustrate that the Bible has a supernatural origin. But think about this. When Daniel heard about the prophecy, his world didn’t even know that the earth revolved around the sun much less know its orbital period. But God did and so do we. That means we can see the amazing accuracy of God’s activity within history that Daniel couldn’t. For that matter, from our vantage point within redemptive history, we have evidence of God’s existence, power, and faithfulness that even Jesus’s disciples didn’t possess. VK: Oh. I think I see where you’re going with this. Sometimes, Christians in our era will say to themselves how much stronger their faith would be if they had only seen Jesus turn the water into wine or feed 5,000 people with only a few loaves and fish. But, in an oddly ironic way, we have evidence to support our faith that even the people who lived alongside Daniel or Jesus didn’t possess. RD: Precisely. The Bible is so commonplace in our society that sometimes we miss the amazing attributes it possesses. Jesus’s audiences had access to the Old Testament so they could verify His claims about being the Messiah from the prophecies contained in it. But on Palm Sunday – the day He actually entered Jerusalem as the foretold Messiah – there probably wasn’t anyone in the crowd, including his own disciples, who had the same degree of information we have about the amazing display of prophetic perfection that was occurring right before their very eyes. But we have that – if we will take the time to get to know the Bible and to do a little bit of investigation about the astounding evidence that the Bible contains that it is the very word of God. The Bible not only tells about God and Jesus but properly studied, used, and understood it helps provide confirmation for its claims and our faith. In other words, contrary to some modern believers’ contentions, we have evidence that supports our faith that can be just as compelling as those who witnessed the water turning to wine or the loaves and fishes being multiplied. In an odd way we may have better evidence. VK: I see what you’re saying. Even if you had been standing next to Jesus and saw the water being poured into the barrel and then saw the lid being lifted and the wine drawn out – that would have been a single experience. It would have been a powerful experience, to be sure, but over time memories fade. Many of the witnesses to Jesus’s miracles might have had only that single experience with him. With the passage of time even the power of their experience might start to dim. But we have the Bible with us all the time and we can go to it daily or even multiple times a day. And every time we do we can have our faith reinforced not only by the comforting passages – like the fact that God will never leave us or forsake us. But by the fact that the Bible displays in every book the fact that God has given us evidence and reason to support and sustain our belief in Him. Sounds like a great time for a prayer. How about if today we pray a prayer of adoration for the Holy Spirit who is the one who attests, in our hearts, that Jesus came to bring us salvation. ---- PRAYER OF ADORATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT VK: We’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.” If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quotes from the God’s Word Translation) Daniel, Chapter 7, verses 2 through 7, God’s Word Translation https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/1293/the-arrival-of-the-king

Episode 120 – Perfectly Quiet – The Intertestamental Period 6 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: How can a grown man be born again?” Nicodemus asked. “He certainly cannot enter his mother's womb and be born a second time!” “I am telling you the truth,” replied Jesus, “that no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit. A person is born physically of human parents, but is born spiritually of the Spirit. Do not be surprised because I tell you that you must all be born again.” The Gospel of John, chapter 3, verses 4 through 7, Good News Translation ******** VK: Hello. I’m Victoria K. Welcome to another episode of Anchored by Truth. Today we are continuing our look at “The Intertestamental Period.” The intertestamental period is the 400 to 450 year period that elapsed between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. It’s a very important period in overall Biblical history but we suspect it’s one of the least studied. I’m in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and Founder Crystal Sea Books. RD, why do you think the intertestamental period receives so little attention even from people who are faithful students of the Bible? RD: Greeting to all the Anchored by Truth listeners. If you are joining us here today for the first time we’d like thank you and invite you to keep checking us out. If you’ve heard Anchored by Truth before, thank you for coming back. We know that your continuing interest in our show marks you as someone who is serious in knowing the Bible. Much of the material that we discuss on Anchored by Truth requires thought and concentration and we know that in today’s hectic world that’s not always easy to come by. VK: Amen. RD: Anyway, I think you’re right that the intertestamental period may be the period of Biblical history that receives the least attention today. The biggest reason it doesn’t is because no books were being added to the canon of scripture during that time – between the testaments. And even for those who accept the Apocrypha as canonical there was still a gap during which no new material was being added to scripture. Because we normally focus our time on scripture itself we tend not to think very much about what happened outside of scripture, especially since we’re talking about events that all occurred over 2,000 years ago. VK: But you believe that those events that happened over 2,000 years ago are still important in our lives today. Why is that? RD: Well, let me answer that question with a question. What is God’s will for every one of his children? VK: That’s an easy one. God wants us all to be holy. 1 Peter 1:16 says “the Scriptures say, ‘You must be holy because I am holy.’” I know a lot of people spend a lot of time wondering what God’s will is for their lives. Usually, they’re thinking about what to study in school, what job to take, or whether to get married. And those are important questions. But, when it comes down to it, the only goal that scripture states for all of our lives is for us to be holy. RD: Very good answer. VK: Thank you. RD: And the next question is how do we go about becoming holy? VK: Well, I suppose two verses spring to mind. The Gospel of Mark, chapter 12 verses 30 and 31 where Jesus says, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.” RD: Again, that’s a very good answer. And I might add John 4:24. “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” In Mark Jesus is talking to someone who is referred to as a “scribe” or “a teacher of the law” – in other words a religious expert at the time. In Mark 12:28, the scribe has asked Jesus which of the commandments is the most important and, after reminding the scribe that there is only one God, Jesus replies with the commandment to love that God with all your heart, soul, strength, and mind. A lot of people today forget about the “mind” part. Then in John 4:24 Jesus in talking with the Samaritan woman at the well Jesus says that we must worship God in “spirit and in truth.” It would be hard to know the truth if we don’t use our minds. The point of all this is that for us to be holy (which is God’s will for all of our lives) we have to use not only our hearts and strength, but also our minds. Well, one of the things we need to be doing with our minds is not only reading scripture but doing our best to understand what we are reading. VK: So, your point is that there are many events that happened over 2,000 years ago that affected, or directly applied to, the content of our current Bibles. Some of those events occurred during the intertestamental period. So, if we don’t have some understanding of those periods historically we are automatically placing limits on our understanding of some parts of scripture. RD: Right. I’m not saying we have to turn everyone into a Bible historian. I’m certainly not. But I am saying that as we progress through our Christian lives, in order to be obedient to Christ’s command to the scribe and the Samaritan woman, we need to grow in our understanding of not only the Bible, but also the times in which the Bible was set. VK: And we need to do that because our times and cultures are quite different from the times and cultures that in which the Bible was written. The Bible tells us not be “unequally yoked” but very, very few modern Bible readers have ever had to put a yoke on themselves or an animal, for that matter. But we at least need to have a basic understanding of how yokes were used in Biblical times for us to see how that commandment should apply in our own lives. RD: Once again, that’s a great illustration. VK: And again, thank you. So, one of the biggest reasons we have undertaken this series on the intertestamental period is to make it a little easier for our listeners, who truly do want to improve their understanding of the Bible, achieve their goal. We’re doing the research and putting the research into a package that they can consume easily and share easily. RD: Exactly right. Back to the verse from 1 Peter where Peter starts off the encouragement part of his letter by reminding his readers of Leviticus 11:44 and Leviticus 19:2. Peter is writing his letter to a widely separated group of believers – believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia. Those are regions in modern day Turkey and they cover a lot of territory. Peter intends for his letter to be widely circulated. So, after some introductory comments Peter starts off by reminding his readers that God’s will for their lives, for all our lives, is for them to be holy. This is particularly important to remind them because Peter’s readers are being subjected to a great deal of persecution. VK: Like many believers are today. RD: Like many believers are today - and Peter doesn’t want them to give up their faith. Peter wants them, and us, to persevere. So, he starts off his encouragement by reminding them that God wants them to persistent in their efforts to be holy and he reminds them that the basis for this admonition is because God Himself is holy. VK: But, in reminding his readers of God’s holiness, Peter is actually reminding them that God is on their side. He’s not trying to act as some sort of “conduct policeman.” What Peter is actually reminding his readers, is that God is on their side. God is so much on their side that God wants them to be clearly identified with Him through their lives and behavior. Right? RD: Right. Peter is reminding his readers, and all of us, that God is very well aware of all the temptations and persecutions that come into their lives. But God doesn’t abandon them in those temptations and persecutions. God remains with His people and because God is with His people He knows how tempting it can be for us to give up “fighting the good fight.” VK: There is no more foundational comfort for a Christian than Deuteronomy 4:31 where God tells us that He will never leave us or forsake us. RD: I agree. So, the foundation for God telling His people to “be holy” and to love Him will their hearts, souls, strength, and minds is that His people belong to Him and not to the world or the forces of the world. This, not coincidentally, is a lesson that we can see clearly from God’s supernatural preservation of His people during the 450 years of the intertestamental period. VK: I like how you brought our discussion back to the intertestamental period we’ve been talking about. RD: Thank you. I try. VK: What you’re saying is that the Jews in Palestine during the intertestamental period would have had every reason to be discouraged. They had just endured decades of exile from their homeland. Even after the exile ended and some returned home, they returned home to an impoverished and desolate set of cities, towns, and fields. Even back in their homeland they were surrounded by hostile actors who would happily have destroyed them if they could. When Nehemiah arrived to lead an effort to restore the walls of Jerusalem, the workers were constantly harassed. They were threatened so much they had to keep their weapons with them at all times. And even after they rebuilt the walls and the temple, neither had the grandeur they had known formally. The truth was it would have been very easy for the Jews of that time to give up and leave or at least give up what made them distinctive – their faith. But they didn’t give up their faith. And neither should we during times of trial. RD: Exactly. But while the Jews had not given up their faith during the intertestamental period, as Jesus exchange with Nicodemus in our opening scripture illustrates errors had crept into the Jews understanding and practice of their faith. This was also illustrated by the exchange Jesus had with the Sadducees that we talked about in our last episode of Anchored by Truth. VK: Last time we discussed the incident where the Sadducees tried to trick Jesus with the woman-married-to-seven-brothers question that is related in Matthew, chapter 22, verses 25 through 28 and in Mark, chapter 12 and Luke, chapter 20. The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection so they had developed this trick question about a woman who was married to 7 different brothers in accordance with the Jewish requirement that a younger brother marry the widow of an older brother. The Sadducees tried to illustrate that believing in the resurrection created questions that were impossible to answer - like whose wife the widow would be after the resurrection. RD: Right. But, of course, the Sadducees couldn’t trick Jesus. Instead Jesus pointed out that their own scriptures proved that the resurrection was real by quoting the scripture that described Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush. So, both the exchange with the Sadducees and Jesus’ exchange with Nicodemus showed that, even though the Jews had preserved their faith during the intertestamental period, errors had crept into their understanding of the content of their faith. In the case of the Sadducees they had begun to deny a fundamental doctrine of their faith – that there was life after death and that the life after death would be physical not merely spiritual. VK: And we don’t really know why the Sadducees had come to reject the doctrine of the resurrection do we? RD: Not precisely, no. But I think we can make some informed speculation. Let’s remember that the Sadducees and the Pharisees were kind of like political parties that had arisen during the intertestamental period. For over 200 years during the intertestamental period Palestine had been ruled by one group of Greeks or another. The Greeks actively promoted their language, culture, and ideas in the territories they controlled. This process was called “Hellenization.” Well, one of the ideas that pervaded Greek philosophy was the idea that the immaterial part of human beings, the spirit or soul, was far superior to the fleshly part. The Greeks largely thought of the spirit as good and the body as evil. So, to the Greeks the spirit needed to be liberated from the body and for some they thought of death as accomplishing this liberation. VK: The notion that the spirit is good but the body is evil is completely foreign to the Christian faith, isn’t it. When God had finished His creative activity on the 6th day he pronounced everything He had created “very good.” So, this pronouncement included both man’s body and spirit. Christianity and Judaism regard human beings as body-spirit unities with both parts having been originally created good. Right? RD: Right. And the Christian hope of resurrection is a physical resurrection just as Jesus was physically resurrected after he had been in the tomb. Jesus walked around, interacted with His disciples, ate and cooked food, and invited Thomas to touch His body to cure his doubts. The Christian faith believes in a physical resurrection though not in bodies that have been corrupted by sin, but in glorified, physical bodies like the one Jesus obviously possessed after He walked out of the tomb. Well, during the intertestamental period the Sadducees may have been heavily influenced by the Greeks ideas that were circulating in Palestine as a result of the Hellenization. The Sadducees as a party seemed to have been much more willing to embrace the process of Hellenization than the Pharisees like Nicodemus. VK: The Pharisees seem to have been the party within Israel that resisted Hellenization. The Pharisees seemed to have been far more interested in preserving their original culture and religion. As such, the Pharisees embraced the entire body of what we call the Old Testament as scripture whereas the Sadducees only believed that the first five books of the Old Testament were authoritative. So, after the intertestamental period when Jesus was conducting His earthly ministry the Pharisees did believe in the resurrection. But based on the exchange between Nicodemus and Jesus apparently some errors had crept into their understanding also. It’s just that their errors were different from the errors of the Sadducees. RD: Yes. The Sadducees were wrong about the existence of life after death, especially physical life. Since they didn’t believe in the resurrection at all they had no interest or questions in how such a resurrection could be accomplished. The Pharisees, such as Nicodemus, did believe in the resurrection but apparently even a Pharisee as knowledgeable as Nicodemus had questions. In particular, Nicodemus seems to have wondered about the means by which the resurrection would be achieved. Nicodemus seemed to have a good understanding of the ends but not the means. So, wisely, he brought his questions to Jesus because as Nicodemus acknowledged at the beginning of their interview Nicodemus knew Jesus had come from God. VK: So, we get some great lessons from this exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus. First, we learn that even people who are respected leaders and mature in their faith can still have questions and that’s ok. It’s okay to have questions and when we do it makes sense to go find people we think can help us find answers. We also learn that God is willing to provide us with teachers if we are sincere in wanting to grow in our understanding. Throughout church history there have been skilled teachers and preachers who have thought carefully about matters that are of concern to all of us. Thankfully, they have left behind an abundance of resources that are available to us today. So, even though we can’t go physically to Jesus we can go to a source of revelation more complete than Nicodemus had. Nicodemus had ready access to the Old Testament but we have ready access to both the Old and the New Testaments. RD: Those are both valuable observations. But we get learn even more when we contrast Jesus’ exchange with Nicodemus and His exchange with the Sadducees. VK: Like what? RD: Nicodemus was an honest questioner. He had some sincere questions about certain things that were part of his faith. But when Nicodemus approached Jesus he made no attempt to trick Jesus. The Sadducees did attempt to trick Jesus. The Sadducees had just as much information about Jesus as Nicodemus did, but rather than availing themselves of the opportunity to learn from him they attempted to defend their flawed understanding. They tried to trick Jesus with their supposedly-impossible-question. They probably used that question regularly in their debates with the Pharisees about whether the resurrection was real. It probably worked with the Pharisees but it didn’t work with Jesus. So, a lesson we learn when we compare the two encounters is that we need to recognize opportunities to learn from skilled and knowledgeable believers when they arrive. And we need to be honest about our questions and open to their teaching. VK: But we do need to be discerning about who we accept as teachers. We need to be sure that people we look to for help in growing in our faith are people who are solidly grounded in the understanding of the Bible. We need to be sure their desire is to elevate the Bible rather than their own ideas. RD: Yes. That’s a good caveat to keep in mind. Another lesson we pick up when we compare Jesus’ encounter with Nicodemus as opposed to his encounter with the tricky Sadducees is to see how Jesus responded. With the Sadducees Jesus first corrected their misunderstanding but then he added what I would characterize as a mild rebuke. But he didn’t go any further. But with Nicodemus, who was both open and teachable, Jesus went beyond just trying to answer a question or explain a basic point regarding the content of his faith. VK: Well in John’s account of the encounter John doesn’t really record Nicodemus asking Jesus a question before Jesus told him that he had to be born again. RD: That’s true. So, we’re not sure whether there was a preliminary discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus before Jesus told Nicodemus that he had to be born again. As a reporter John tends to focus on the material which is most relevant to John’s basic purpose of demonstrating that Jesus is the son of God. So, it’s possible that Nicodemus asked a question which John didn’t bother reporting or it’s possible that Jesus already knew what Nicodemus wanted to ask. VK: Jesus was a prophet, after all. In fact, Jesus was the greatest prophet of all time. He constantly displayed the ability to know things about the people he was talking to without having been told. The encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well comes to mind. RD: Exactly. Nicodemus may have asked a question or the two may have had an initial discussion which John doesn’t bother to report or Jesus may have just known what was bothering Nicodemus. It’s quite possible that Nicodemus, a Pharisee who believed in the resurrection – and who had had lots of debates through the years with the Sadducees on the resurrection – just wanted to be sure he understood the subject of life after death clearly. A lot of people today have similar questions. At any rate, Jesus did not just go about addressing the basic question he went on to provide Nicodemus with additional information – likely information Nicodemus didn’t even know he needed but which has been a cornerstone of the Christian faith. VK: You’re thinking of John 3:16 – possibly the most well-known verse out of the entire Bible. “For God so loved the world that he gave His only begotten son that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.” (King James Version with slight edits) RD: Right. In response to Nicodemus’ honest question or question Jesus proceeds to give us one of the most famous expositions in the Bible. Jesus assures Nicodemus that not only is the resurrection real but that he was face-to-face with the instrument by which God would accomplish resurrection for everyone who believed. Jesus goes on in his discussion to a verse (18) which is less well-known but just as important. “There is no judgment against anyone who believes in him. But anyone who does not believe in him has already been judged for not believing in God’s one and only Son.” (New Living Translation) Jesus ratifies that there will be a resurrection but notes that the resurrection will include a separation between the believers and unbelievers. I’m sure that must have been both comforting and distressing to Nicodemus. VK: Comforting because it reassured Nicodemus of the security of his individual destination. After years, or perhaps decades, of being told by the Sadducees that there was no such thing as the resurrection Nicodemus would have been comforted to know that he had been right all along. But he would have been distressed to know that many of his colleagues and perhaps friends were in eternal danger because he knew they did not believe that Jesus had been sent from God the way he did. I think that’s a sentiment many of us today would share. RD: Exactly. And so this goes back to the reason it’s a good idea for us to have some understanding of what life was like in Israel while Jesus was performing His earthly ministry. Debates had raged for decades on questions that are basic and essential to our faith. It can help us immensely to not see Nicodemus and the others Jesus encountered, pro or con, as real people with lives and histories just like ours. They had concerns just like we do and we share many of those concerns 2,000 years later – like how to help our friends avoid eternal judgment. Improving our understanding of scripture and how Jesus ministered during his life is invaluable to helping our friends. VK: Amen. This sounds like a great time for a prayer. Jesus’ ministry while He was on this earth was all about saving those who are lost spiritually. The need for doing that continues today. So, today let’s listen to a prayer for our nation – knowing that God continues to want to provide His light to any and all who are genuinely open to receiving answers to sincere questions: ---- PRAYER FOR THE NATION (MARCUS). We hope you’ll be with us next time and we hope you’ll take some time to encourage some friends to tune in too, or listen to the podcast version of this show. If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New International Version) Daniel, chapter 8, verses 5 through 8 and 20 and 21, New International Version

DESCRIPTION Episode 119 – Perfectly Quiet – The Intertestamental Period 5 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: Then Jesus was approached by some Sadducees—religious leaders who say there is no resurrection from the dead. But now, as to whether the dead will be raised—haven’t you ever read about this in the writings of Moses, in the story of the burning bush? Long after Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had died, God said to Moses, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ So he is the God of the living, not the dead. You have made a serious error. “ The Gospel of Mark, chapter 12, verses 18 and 26 and 27, New Living Translation ******** VK: Hello. I’m Victoria K. Welcome to another episode of Anchored by Truth. Today we are continuing our look at “The Intertestamental Period” - the 400-plus year period between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. I’m in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and Founder Crystal Sea Books. RD, today we’re going into our 5th episode in this series. Last time we talked a bit about the conflict between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids for the control of Palestine during the intertestamental period. So, to set the stage for today’s discussion how about giving us a bit of a review of what we’ve been discussing. RD: Hello to all the Anchored by Truth listeners. We really appreciate you taking some time to be with us for this episode. The intertestamental period is probably the period of Biblical history that receives the least attention today. Most people are very familiar with the accounts of Jesus’ birth, life, and resurrection. Most are pretty familiar with some of the most popular episodes from the Old Testament such as Noah and the ark, Daniel in the lions’ den, or Elijah battling the prophets on Mt. Carmel. But even people who are regular Bible readers often pay little attention to the hundreds of years that elapsed between Malachi and Matthew. But we should because there were a great number of events that occurred during that period that are very important to us having a well-developed understanding of both the Old and New Testaments. And those events include the protracted conflict between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids that occurred between around 300 B.C. and 160 B. C. VK: And, as a refresher Ptolemy and Seleucus had both been generals in Alexander the Great’s army. After Alexander’s death his empire was carved into four territories. Ptolemy became the king of the Egyptian portion and Seleucus became the king of the Syrian portion. Israel, obviously, was between those two. So, when conflicts occurred between these two dynasties – which was pretty much all the time – Israel was always caught in the conflict. One of the most important prophetic chapters in the Old Testament has got to be chapter 11 of the book of Daniel. The entire chapter is devoted to the conflict between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. It’s so detailed that it could almost read like a historical report of the conflict but it was written over 200 years before the first events of the struggle. RD: Right. And that’s a very good reason for looking at the intertestamental period. In the intertestamental period we see the fulfillment of a large number of prophecies contained in the Old Testament such as those in Daniel, chapter 11. See those prophecies fulfilled in such fine granularity cannot do anything but enhance our confidence in the Bible. Fulfilled prophecy is one of the strongest lines of evidence of the Bible’s supernatural inspiration. But beyond just seeing the prophetic fulfillment that occurred during the intertestamental period we also see the foundation for many of the events that we read about in the New Testament. For instance, there is no mention of the Sadducees or Pharisees at all in the Old Testament. But both groups were prominent in Israel in the first century A.D. VK: And since our contemporary calendar is dated according to Jesus’ life this is the period during which Jesus lived and performed his earthly ministry. Jesus frequently encountered both the Sadducees and the Pharisees during that ministry – though unfortunately most references to them are not positive ones. RD: Unfortunately, they are not. At any rate, both the Sadducees and Pharisees arose sometime during the intertestamental period though scholars are not exactly sure when. But it can be helpful to our understanding of Israel during the time of Jesus’ earthly ministry to try to understand some of the forces that gave rise to them. VK: So, what is some of the thinking behind what gave rise to these two groups and why they became so prominent? RD: Well, as we have already mentioned after Alexander the Great died his empire was divided among four of his generals. Initially Palestine came under the rule of Ptolemy who also ruled Egypt. Under Ptolemy the Jews seemed to have retained a large measure of self-rule and were able to have their own high priest. Traditionally, the high priest had just a religious function but in the absence of a Jewish king the high priest also became a major source of political influence. Under the Ptolemies the Jews also flourished in Egypt and as we’ve noted the Greek version of the Old Testament, the Septuagint was eventually produced by the Jewish colony in Alexandria. The Ptolemies controlled Palestine from about 300 B.C. to 198 B.C. VK: But in 198 B.C. the Seleucids were finally able to get control of Palestine. There had been frequent conflicts between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids but this was the first time the Seleucids actually were able to directly rule Palestine. The Seleucid rulers normally went by the title of Antiochus. In 175 B.C. Antiochus IV (the 4th) came to power. This turned out to be a very bad thing for the Jews. RD: Correct. Antiochus IV also was known as Antiochus Epiphanes (god manifest). Well, Antiochus Epiphanes began to feel pressure from the Romans who were already beginning their expansion to the east. Macedonia, which is the northern part of the Greek peninsula actually fell to Rome in 146 B.C. but even before that Rome’s expanding territorial ambitions were becoming obvious. Antiochus Epiphanes saw this so in an attempt to strengthen his control Antiochus stepped up the process of Hellenizing his empire. VK: Hellenization referred to the process of importing the Greek language and culture into the territories Alexander had conquered. It had always occurred at some pace within the territories the Greeks controlled but not at the same rate everywhere. Evidently, Antiochus felt that if his empire were thoroughly Hellenized the people would be more resistant to the Romans. So, part of what Epiphanes did was to try to get the Jews to change their culture and even give up their religion. This produced a terrible period of persecution for the Jews. Not unpredictably it spawned a revolt. RD: Right. In 167 B.C. Antiochus set up a statue of Zeus in the temple and slaughtered pigs as a sacrifice to it. Many of the Jews thought that this event was what the prophet Daniel had referred to when he spoke of the “abomination of desolation.” It’s hard to imagine doing anything that would inflame faithful Jews more. Right after this desecration the Maccabean Revolt broke out. The revolt was led by Judas Maccabeus or Judas the “Hammer.” VK: And the revolt was successful. In 164 B.C. the Jews were able to regain control of Jerusalem and they cleansed the temple. This event is still celebrated among the Jews as Hannukah. All this history was recorded and is part of the book known as 1 (first) Maccabees. RD: And the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees are part of the group of books known as the Apocrypha which we talked about in the first episode of this series. The Apocrypha are thought by Roman Catholics and the Orthodox branches of Christianity to be part of a second canon or “deuterocanonical.” VK: So, after the Ptolemies lost control of Palestine there was a lot going on during the next 4 decades. How did all this lead to the formation of the Sadducees and Pharisees? RD: Let’s remember that both the Ptolemies and the Seleucids were Greek. They may have been fighting for control of territory but they were both part of the original Greek empire. So, Hellenization was present under both. It’s just that Antiochus Epiphanes had taken it to a whole new level. Well, after the Jews regained their religious freedom they also wanted political freedom. It took another 2 decades but in 142 B.C. the Jews finally regained their independence. VK: And this is hard for us to grasp but when the Jews regained their independence it was the first time in over 400 years. The first Babylonian deportation of the Jews to Babylon had taken place around 600 B.C. Even after the Jews returned to Palestine around 70 years later they still weren’t independent. They were just a vassal state of the Persian Empire and then part of the Greek Empire. That must have been an amazing period for the Jews – to finally have their freedom after over 450 years of foreign rule. RD: Undoubtedly. But of course even at that point the Jews had been subject to Greek influence for over 150 years. So, the process of Hellenization had been going on a long time. And as with any large cultural movement some Jews had welcomed the changes the Greeks had brought with them. But many did not. Even after the Jews under the Maccabeans gained their political independence they did not return to their traditional priestly line of governance. Instead, the Maccabees founded the Hasmonean Dynasty – named for one of their ancestors, Hashmon – and continued their control of the country. This was fine with some Jews but not with others. The Hasmonean rulers dominated the priesthood, even though they weren’t from the priestly line of Aaron, and continued to adopt Greek ways of life. VK: And the Sadducees appear to have been a group that supported them in this plan. The Sadducees were an aristocratic group that seemed to have prized political stability above everything else. I suppose we could think of them as being the “establishment” of their day? RD: Yes. Religiously, the Sadducees only recognized the first five books of the Old Testament, the Pentateuch, as being canonical. They saw the rest of the books of the Old Testament as having lesser authority. This is one of the reasons they rejected the doctrine of the resurrection which Jesus confronted them about. VK: We heard that in our opening scripture today from Mark, chapter 12. There’s a parallel account of the same confrontation in Matthew, chapter 22, verses 22 through 33. So, it’s fair to say that the Sadducees had embraced the process of Hellenization far more than some other groups within Israel at the time. RD: Yes. VK: Then where do the Pharisees fit in? RD: The Pharisees seemed to have arisen as one of the groups that opposed the loss of the traditional Jewish culture and laws. They were not primarily a political group but they seemed to have begun to function as a cultural, religious, and political counterweight to the Sadducees and the Hellenizing intentions of the Hasmoneans. The Pharisees did accept the entire body of scripture we call the Old Testament so the Pharisees did accept the doctrine of resurrection and life after death. VK: And the Apostle Paul was a Pharisee. He famously invoked this religious difference when he was arrested in Jerusalem in Acts, chapter 23. This was a bit of clever lawyering on Paul’s part wasn’t it. RD: Yes. Paul’s trial before the Sanhedrin was around 60 A.D. So, it was about 200 years later than the events we’ve been describing. As we mentioned, we’re not sure exactly when the Sadducees and Pharisees formed as identifiable groups but they are first mentioned by the historian Josephus in connection with a Hasmonean ruler named John Hyrcanus I who ruled from 134 to 104 B.C. VK: So, sometime between the latter part of the 2nd century B.C. and the opening of the New Testament period the Sadducees and the Pharisees had become so well established and prominent that together they became the ruling group within Israel. Both groups had longevity. They persisted for well over 150 years. And we know that both groups had influence and power in Jesus’ day. RD: Yes. While we don’t know the exact origin of either group we do know that both groups have their roots in the intertestamental period and I think we can see how the Greek control of Palestine was a significant factor in shaping the Israel in which Jesus appeared. VK: What are you thinking about? RD: The Roman general Pompey occupied Jerusalem in 63 B.C. VK: Which put an end to the Jews’ independence. So, they were independent for less than 100 years? RD: Yes. So, let’s think about this. Between 300 B.C. and 142 B.C. the Jews were subject to Greek rule by either the Ptolemies or the Seleucids. And even after they became politically independent there were still factions within Israel that had supported the increasing Hellenization of their culture. The Greeks actively sought to transmit and spread their ideas. The Greeks were replaced by the Romans but the Romans did not make a corresponding effort to change the cultures, languages, or religious practices of the people they conquered. VK: The Romans were a very practical people. They were interested in stability within their far flung empire. They wanted control over economies, taxes, the military, and what we might term “infrastructure.” But the Romans didn’t have any particular interest in the religions or worship practices of their subject provinces provided those practices didn’t disrupt the Roman governance or the peace and stability of their empire. In fact the Romans afforded the Jews a fair amount of self-rule even during Jesus’ day didn’t they? The Jews had their own ruling council comprised of the Sadducees and Pharisees. The high council was permitted to make judgments about civil and criminal matters, although only the Romans could pronounce a death sentence. The Jews selected their own high priest. They were permitted to regulate the activities of the temples and synagogues. And even some of the high ranking Jews became friends with very senior Romans including members of Caesar’s family. RD: Right. As you mentioned, the Romans were very practical and this made them very capable builders and administrators. While it’s painting with a very broad brush you might say that Romans were builders while the Greeks had been thinkers. Alexander took an entire contingent of Greek scientists and philosophers along with his Army. The Greeks not only sought knowledge but they actively spread their knowledge and culture. During Jesus’ time, even after the Roman Empire had displaced the Greek Empire, Greek was the most common language used in international commerce and affairs. Even today the names of Greek philosophers are household names. Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are still well known in our day and time. VK: So, there are Greek philosophers that are well known in our day and time - but there are still Roman public facilities in use in our day and time. Aqueducts and roads built by the Romans have survived and some are still functioning after 2,000 years. The Romans were masters at construction including pouring and curing concrete under water to build very sophisticated ports and harbors. Naturally, the Roman military prowess is legendary because they were masters of metallurgy and military design. So, what you’re saying is that the differences in these two empires was significant in God’s preparation of the world for the arrival of Jesus. RD: Exactly. While we’ll talk more about this in a future episode the Romans made it safe for the first evangelists to travel throughout the Roman Empire and spread the gospel. But the Greeks had made it possible for the evangelists to speak with the people wherever they went. VK: But you are also saying that the impact of the Greek and Roman Empires on the preparation for Jesus’ arrival wasn’t just limited to the world outside Palestine. There were also impacts within Palestine. This was especially true of the Greeks whose had been present in Palestine in one form or another for 300 years. And part of that impact was reflected in the presence and differences between the Sadducees and Pharisees. RD: Yes. The Sadducees seem to have followed the Hasmonean practice of embracing the Hellenization that had been brought to Israel. The Pharisees did not. In fact, the Pharisees seem to have actively resisted attempts to change their culture. This meant that the Sanhedrin, the Jews’ ruling council at the time of Jesus was split religiously and philosophically. The one thing they did agree on, though, was on a desire to maintain their own power and influence. VK: Well just about anyone who has read the Gospels or listened to a sermon on Jesus’ life has heard about the Sadducees and Pharisees. But what are you thinking about when you talk about their presence being important insofar as the arrival of Jesus in the world is concerned. RD: As you said just anyone who has ever read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John – or heard a sermon about them – has heard of the Sadducees and Pharisees. Part of the reason we’ve all heard about them is because it was often encounters between Jesus and a Sadducee or Pharisee that provided us with some of the clearest statements we have on major issues that pertain to salvation. VK: Such as? RD: Let’s look at the encounter we heard about in our opening scripture. This same encounter is described in Matthew and Mark. A group of the Sadducees were trying to trip Jesus up by asking, what was to them, a standard question they used in their debates with the Pharisees about whether there would be a physical resurrection. Remember the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection but the Pharisees did. So the Sadducees posed the famous married-to-seven-different-brothers question. VK: Let’s listen to the question from Matthew, chapter 22, verses 25 through 28. The Sadducees said, “Well, suppose there were seven brothers. The oldest one married and then died without children, so his brother married the widow. But the second brother also died, and the third brother married her. This continued with all seven of them. Last of all, the woman also died. So tell us, whose wife will she be in the resurrection? For all seven were married to her.” RD: Right. The basis for the question was the Levirate requirement for a younger brother to marry the widow of an older brother. Then the first son of that union would be reckoned as the son of the older brother. At any rate, it was a trick question. VK: Like the philosophy professor who asks the Christian student “If God is all powerful can God make a rock so big God can’t lift it?” RD: Exactly like that. It was a trick question but of course it couldn’t trick Jesus. Jesus quickly pointed out that even the part of the Old Testament that the Sadducees did accept, the Pentateuch, stated clearly that there was life after death. Jesus quoted from Moses’ encounter with God at the burning bush. That encounter is described in Exodus, the 2nd book of the Bible. Jesus pointed out that God had used the present tense when he was speaking with Moses indicating clearly that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive with God even though all 3 had died physically decades before the encounter. So, we can see from this exchange with the Sadducees that Jesus often used his contact with either the Sadducees or Pharisees, or both, to clarify much of the confusion that existed at that time about major issues that pertained to faith and salvation. VK: So, you’re saying that the presence of the Sadducees and Pharisees in Israel during Jesus’ lifetime was actually helpful in Jesus getting out His message. The Sadducees and Pharisees were the leaders of society in their day. People listened to them just as they listen to various kinds of leaders and celebrities in our day. People would follow what the Sadducees and Pharisees said and did. And people would have been particularly interested if anyone confronted them. So, when Jesus had a debate or exchange with one the report would spread far more widely and quickly than it would otherwise. And, of course, we need to know something about the intertestamental period to know why that was true. If we don’t know anything about the intertestamental period the Sadducees and Pharisees appear in the Bible just like Dorothy dropping in from Kansas. RD: I like that visual. Next time we’ll take a little more about how some of Jesus’ exchanges with the Sadducees and Pharisees produced some of the clearest and most important teaching we have in the Bible. This is particularly important because so many of the things we learn pertain directly to our salvation and eternal life. Just as we heard in the scripture today Jesus Himself has affirmed that the resurrection is real. And since all things were made for Him and through Him when it comes to knowing how things work He is the most trustworthy voice possible. Now, I’m not saying that God or Jesus couldn’t have made these important revelations if the Sadducees and Pharisees didn’t exist. But I am saying that God chose to use the Sadducees and Pharisees as part of His plan of revelation. As such I think we need to take some time and understand how their arrival on the scene is part of the grand saga of redemption. VK: Amen. This sounds like a great time for a prayer. Jesus’ ministry while He was on this earth was all about saving those who are lost spiritually. The need for doing that continues today. So, today let’s listen to a prayer for the spiritually lost – knowing that God has promised that as we diligently and faithfully present our petitions He will respond with grace and mercy: ---- PRAYER FOR THE SPIRITUALLY LOST (JERRY). We hope you’ll be with us next time and we hope you’ll take some time to encourage some friends to tune in too, or listen to the podcast version of this show. If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not famous but our Boss is!” (Bible Quote from the New International Version) Daniel, chapter 8, verses 5 through 8 and 20 and 21, New International Version

The conquest of Egypt by Alexander and establishment of the Ptolemaic dynasty differed from previous foreign invaders like the Hyksos or the Persians. While the Ptolemies would very much present themselves as traditional pharaohs, they would bring thousands of Greek immigrants, founded poleis, and imported Greek culture en masse. For the indigenous Egyptians, Ptolemaic rule required them to live with two "faces": those like Manetho, an Egyptian priest of Amun-Ra who composed an influential history of Egypt in Greek known as the "Aegyptiaca", would continue to work under the new regime. Others were able to exploit "Hellenization" as a means of advancement, seen in the archives of the mixed Greco-Egyptian military family of Dryton and Senmonthis-Apollonia, revealing the complexities of ethnic and cultural identity. But we also can see the tensions between the Greek and Egyptian communities, which could explode in bouts of violence and rebellion. In this episode we look to see how the Egyptians responded to the arrival of a new political, social, and cultural elite. Show Links Episode Notes: (https://hellenisticagepodcast.wordpress.com/2021/08/01/062-ptolemaic-egypt-egyptians-in-a-greek-land/) Episode 062 Transcript: (https://hellenisticagepodcast.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/062-ptolemaic-egypt-egyptians-in-a-greek-land-transcript.pdf) The History of Africa Podcast Website (https://historyofafricapodcast.blogspot.com/) Social Media: Twitter (https://twitter.com/HellenisticPod) Facebook (www.facebook.com/hellenisticagepodcast/) Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/hellenistic_age_podcast/) Twitch (https://www.twitch.tv/hellenisticagepodcast) Show Merchandise: Etsy (https://www.etsy.com/shop/HellenisticAgePod) Redbubble (https://www.redbubble.com/people/HellenisticPod/shop?asc=u) Donations: Ko-Fi (https://ko-fi.com/hellenisticagepodcast) Amazon Book Wish List (https://tinyurl.com/vfw6ask)

Episode 118 – Perfectly Quiet – The Intertestamental Period 4 Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life." The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God. Script: "Some years later an alliance will be formed between the king of the north and the king of the south. The daughter of the king of the south will be given in marriage to the king of the north to secure the alliance, but she will lose her influence over him, and so will her father. She will be abandoned along with her supporters. But when one of her relatives becomes king of the south, he will raise an army and enter the fortress of the king of the north and defeat him." Daniel, chapter 11, verses 6 and 7, New Living Translation ******** VK: Hello. I'm Victoria K. Welcome to another episode of Anchored by Truth. Today we are continuing our look at "The Intertestamental Period" - the 400-plus year period between the close of the Old Testament and the beginning of the New Testament. I'm in the studio today with RD Fierro, author and Founder Crystal Sea Books. RD, today we're going into our 4th episode in this series. Can you give us a brief recap of where we are and why we are talking about a period of history when no new books were being added to the Bible? RD: Greetings to all the Anchored by Truth listeners. Let's start with the second question first. The reason we thought it was important to take a close look at the intertestamental period is the same reason we do everything on Anchored by Truth – to help increase listeners' understanding and confidence in the Bible. The Bible contains the content of the Christian faith. The Bible contains God's special revelation to the world. We can know that God exists and that God is a God of immeasurable power and wisdom by looking at the created order but the amount of information we can derive about God just by looking at the created order is going to, of necessity, be limited. VK: Theologians call the knowledge we get about God by our observations of the created order "general revelation." This knowledge is general in that is available to everybody but it also general in its content. By looking at galaxies and stars we can know that Whoever created them is a being of immense power and strength. We can look at the unmatched complexity of a cell and see that the Creator must have unimaginable wisdom and precision. But we won't know that God sent His only begotten Son to die for our sins just by staring at the stars or looking through a microscope. In order to know that God has a special plan and purpose for His creation we need His special revelation – and that is contained in the Bible. RD: Right. It's not too strong a statement to say that if someone doesn't know what the Bible says any faith they possess is going to be incomplete. At a minimum it will not be the faith that God wants His children to have. VK: The Good News Translation of the Bible says," faith comes from … hearing the Good News about Christ." Today, we only hear the Good News about Christ by either reading or listening to the revelation that comes from the Bible. RD: Yes. So, we need to read and meditate on the Bible in order to develop our faith. But just about any honest reader will tell you that the first time they read the Bible there were lots of things that they read that they didn't understand. VK: Quite possibly things such as our opening scripture. In our opening scripture we heard about the king of the north and the king of the south and them trying to form an alliance. We also heard about the king of the south sending his daughter to marry the king of the north but then the daughter gets abandoned. I don't think it's much of a stretch for many of us to wonder what all that has to do with coming to salvation through Christ. I'm sure you're going to say that's why we're doing this series. RD: I don't have to say it because you just did. We're doing this series on the intertestamental period for two reasons. First, because studying that period helps us make sense of scripture passages like the one we heard from Daniel, chapter 11. Let's remember that the Bible is all about the grand saga of creation, fall, and redemption. In the Bible creation and the fall occur within the first 3 chapters of Genesis which is the first book of the Bible. So, the rest of the Bible is about the unfolding saga of redemption. And because that saga occurred during the real history of the world, to understand the saga we need to understand some of that history. Second, studying the history of the intertestamental period can actually help increase our confidence that the Bible is the word of God because many of the prophecies that were made in the Old Testament were actually fulfilled during the intertestamental period. VK: Fulfilled prophecy helps demonstrate that the Bible truly has a supernatural origin. So, that's part of what we want to do during this study of the intertestamental period. We want to show that there were numerous prophecies made in the Old Testament period that were fulfilled during this time. We believe that seeing the precision of the prophecies and the precision of the fulfillment should increase our confidence in the fact that the Bible is the Word of God. RD: Correct. The seemingly mundane facts of history connect to the Bible's spiritual messages about salvation and heaven in a very direct way. By reading the Bible and studying history we can see that the Bible contains a large volume of prophecies, hundreds of which have been fulfilled. This solidifies our confidence that the Bible is God's word so that it can be trusted in matters that are supernatural. VK: So, where are we then in our intertestamental series? Obviously, today you want to talk about the specific prophecy that's contained in Daniel 11:6 and 7. How does that fit it with what we have covered so far in our series? RD: Well, in our first episode in this series we saw that there is a gap of hundreds of years between the close of Old Testament canon and the writing of the first book of the New Testament. In our second episode, we saw that at the start of the intertestamental period the Jews had returned to their ancestral homeland after an extended period of exile. But we also saw that at that time they were not an independent kingdom. At the start of the intertestamental period the Jews were a vassal state of the Persian Empire. Notwithstanding that they weren't truly independent though, we saw that the Jews had considerable reasons for hope because everything they had experienced had been consistent with prophecies they had been given. Therefore, they had reason to be hopeful because they also had prophecies of coming deliverance. In our third episode we saw as the intertestamental period progressed more and more prophecies they had been given also continued to come true. VK: Now during the intertestamental period they Jews did not know that that was the period they were in. At that point the Jews had no idea that someday the arrival of the Messiah would inaugurate an entirely new part of God's special revelation. But what you're saying is that the Jews could still continue to maintain a hopeful expectancy. Because even though there were no new prophets giving them additional messages from God, they could still see that God was active in their nation fulfilling prophecies He had already given. So, what is the significance of the discussion in Daniel, chapter 11 of the kings of the north and the south? RD: We covered last time that the Jews had been in exile at Babylon but they were allowed to return back to Palestine after the Babylonian Empire was conquered by the Medes and the Persians. The Persian Empire, in turn, fell to the Greeks who were led by Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great died fairly young at age 32. He had sons but they were far too young to take over for him and in the ensuing power struggle none of Alexander's relatives took power. After 20 years or so, 4 of Alexander's former generals divided his empire: Ptolemy, Seleucus, Cassander, and Lysimachus. The Bible is really only concerned with Ptolemy and Seleucus. VK: Because Ptolemy took over Egypt and Seleucus took over Syria – and Palestine of course lies between Egypt and Syria. Because the Bible always designates its directions using Israel as the point of reference Ptolemy and his successors would become the kings of the south. Egypt is south of Israel. Seleucus and his successors would become the kings of the north. Syria is north of Israel. So, in our passage when it refers to the king of the south we're really talking about an Egyptian ruler. And when it refers to the king of the north we're talking about a Syrian ruler. Right? RD: Right. So, chapter 11 of Daniel is devoted to a description of the struggle that would occur between Egyptian rulers and Syrian rulers over the territory of Israel. And all of chapter 11 of Daniel occurs chronologically during the intertestamental period. VK: Again, just as a quick refresher the last book of the Old Testament Malachi was written around 450 B.C. Alexander the Great conquered the Persian Empire in 334 B.C. So, it was more than 100 years after Malachi wrote that the Jews saw many of the events of the prophecies of the book of Daniel come true. RD: And, since Daniel had written his book about 100 years earlier than Malachi wrote, a total of more than 200 years elapsed between Daniel receiving his prophecy and the inauguration of the events that are described in chapter 11. But as we're going to see the precision of the prophecy is amazing and it would certainly defy the ability of any human being to make it unless that human had received a supernatural revelation from God. VK: Ok. Let's get started and see how our amazingly God is able to act sovereignly through both prophecy and history. For purposes of this exposition we're going to use the Good News Translation version of the same scripture. In the Good News Translation Version the first line of verse 6 says "After a number of years the king of Egypt will make an alliance with the king of Syria…" What is this all about? RD: The "after a number of years" means that the events of verses 6 and 7 did not occur during the lives of Ptolemy or Seleucus who had taken over immediately after Alexander, but during the reign of their successors: Ptolemy Philadelphus and Seleucus's successor, Antiochus Theos. "An alliance will be formed" means that these two successor kings would make an attempt to unite the two kingdoms more closely by a marriage between the royal families. All of Alexander's former generals had seen a bitter power struggle in the wake of Alexander's death and there were already tensions between these two royal families over which would control the boundary territory between the two kingdoms. VK: And that boundary territory included the territory of Israel. So, in an attempt to head off a protracted war these two kings decided to try to form an alliance. It was and is common among monarchies to try to create such alliances by intermarrying with one another. There have been some pretty famous attempts at such alliances – Henry the VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon springs to mind. Those attempts didn't always turn out so well. It certainly didn't for Catherine. RD: Yes. And as we will see it didn't turn out all that well in this case for the bride either. VK: In this case the bride was the daughter of the king of Egypt. Our text says the king of Egypt will give the king of Syria "his daughter in marriage." Who was the daughter? RD: The daughter was Berenice, the daughter of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt. Philadelphus agreed that Berenice would marry Antiochus Theos, king of Syria. Ptolemy agreed to the marriage in order to bring a war in which they were engaged to an end. Philadelphus not only hoped to restore immediate but also hoped to establish a permanent peace and an alliance between the two kingdoms. One of the conditions of this alliance was, that Antiochus would divorce his former wife Laodice, and that the children of that former wife would be excluded from the line of succession. Ptolemy hoped that the kingdom of Syria might become part of Egypt, if Berenice had any children with Antiochus. VK: But that didn't work out, did it? Our scripture goes on to say "But the alliance will not last, and she, her husband, her child, and the servants who went with her will all be killed." This is starting to sound an awful lot like Henry's marriage to Catherine. Henry abandoned Catherine for Anne Boleyn. RD: And in the case of our scripture Ptolemy Philadelphus died two years after this marriage. When Philadelphus died, Antiochus returned to his former wife, Laodice, and put Berenice away. But that didn't work out so well for Antiochus because after he returned to Laodice she murdered him because she didn't want to risk being dismissed again. By then she obviously knew Antiochus was a fickle husband. VK: Let me guess what happened next. Laodice wasn't all that fond of the woman who had replaced her so she decided to get rid of her as well. RD: As they say, "Bingo!" The Syrian court officers conspired to plan the death of Berenice and her children. But Berenice got wind of the plan and fled with her children to the city of Daphne. But the officers caught up with her there and killed her and her children. And notice that the text also says that the servants who went with her will all be killed. It was common when a bride was sent from one royal family to marry into another that the bride would take along the servants who had been taking care of her. In some cases they had cared for her almost since birth. Not only would these familiar faces make settling into the new life and country easier but the bride knew she could trust them. VK: And sometimes those servants included one or more who would send reports back to the king or royal family of the country she had left. A set of highly placed eyes and ears in the country to which the bride had been sent. And, of course, as we will see next the old queen killing the new queen, her child, and her servants didn't end of the matter. Verse 7 of Daniel 11 says, "Soon afterward one of her relatives will become king. He will attack the army of the king of Syria, enter their fortress, and defeat them." So, what is this verse about? RD: Berenice was not the only child of Ptolemy Philadelphus. She had a brother called Ptolemy Euergetes. As soon as he heard of what was happening to his sister, he gathered an army together and went north to rescue her. Euergetes was too late to save he, but, in connection with an army which he had recruited from Asia Minor as part of the rescue, he decided to avenge her death. He not only conquered Syria but he also took over other territories that had been under Seleucid control including Israel. In fact, if Euergetes had not had to return home to put down a revolt he probably would have conquered all of the Seleucid controlled territory. VK: But he didn't and the war between the Ptolemies and the Seleucids would continue for another hundred or so years with Israel caught in between. Ultimately, a particularly evil Syrian king would come to throne who would desecrate the Jewish temple which is sometimes referred to as the "abomination that causes desolation." Some commentators believe this "Abomination of Desolation" might pre-figure the anti-Christ who will appear just before Jesus' return. RD: Yes. This Syrian king is known in history as Antiochus Epiphanes. Epiphanes means "god manifest" Well, the Jews were so outraged by the behavior of Antiochus Epiphanes that they revolted and eventually were able to throw off all foreign rule for a period of several decades. But despite this period of self-rule it's important to note that by that time Israel had been under Greek control for almost 2 centuries. Remember that even though the Ptolemies and Seleucids were warring for control both sides in the war were Greek. When Alexander had conquered the Mideast he didn't just bring his soldiers he also had brought the Greek language and culture. You will often hear people refer to "Hellenism" or "Hellenization." During this period while these struggles were going on the Greek culture and language were being spread throughout the Mideast and western Asia. VK: And this Hellenization dramatically affected life within Israel didn't it? So, that's part of what we would like to talk about in our next episode of Anchored by Truth. But what do you want to emphasize as we close out for today? RD: In our previous episodes on Anchored by Truth in this series we have seen some important truths. God wasn't providing additional special revelation during the intertestamental period but that doesn't mean that God wasn't active in superintending the unfolding of history to achieve His purposes. VK: So, this tells us that even during the seasons of our lives when we may feel like we don't see a lot happening God is still in control. As the Apostle Paul wrote to the Philippians in Philippians 1:6 "I am sure that God, who began this good work in you, will carry it on until it is finished on the Day of Christ Jesus." God continues to work with us, in us, for us even in those times it seems like He is being very quiet in our lives. RD: Exactly. God never sleeps or slumbers and He never leaves His children. During the intertestamental period there was a lot going on that affected the Jews and most of it was beyond their control. Empires were changing. Kings were coming and going. Palace intrigues were transpiring that would affect their lives. But God was directing it all in such a way that He preserved His people. The Jews during the intertestamental period could be assured of this because they could continue to see that prophecies that had been given to them uniquely were still coming true. Decades, even centuries, had passed but then they saw another prophecy fulfilled exactly as it had been given. VK: In our last episode of Anchored by Truth we saw that God sometimes gave prophecies that affected entire empires and regions of the world. God is the God of the seemingly big and important. But today we saw that God also gave prophecies that pertained to specific individuals – in this case the daughter of an ambitious king and her brother. God isn't just the God of empires and world history. He is also the God for individual people and individual destinies. RD: Yes. God knows each of us personally and, even though it seems trite to say it, He has a plan for each of us personally. God can work through anybody regardless of their station, status, age, or place. The key is whether we want to see God's will come to fruition in our lives – or be like Adam and Eve in the garden when the Bible tells us the first sin occurred because they desired to be like God. There can only be one Lord in anyone's life. It can be God Almighty or it can be a lesser being like us. That's one of the lessons that comes to us powerfully by watching prophecies continuing to be fulfilled during the intertestamental period. VK: God can rule in our lives or we can. God is not going to share His throne with anyone. The tragic part is when we think that we can do a better job than God. And it's not that God wants to take away our free will. Far from it. God wants to enable us to experience His best. But as you say in our Christmas epic poem The Golden Tree: Komari's Quest God can only help us when we set our own power aside. The question ultimately is whether we want to experience all that we can provide or all that God can provide. RD: Absolutely. And that's what we see so clearly as we study the Bible and history. The Jews went into captivity because they refused to honor God's commandments especially the first commandment to have no other gods before Him. During captivity a great many faithful Jews learned the lesson and, as promised, God returned them to their homeland. Also as God promised, God punished the nation that had exiled the Jews and ultimately God used a succession of world powers to continue to prepare the world for the arrival of Jesus. Chapter 11 of the book of Daniel was written about 200 years before any of the events it describes occurred. But in time they did occur exactly as prophesied. God, as only God can do, just recorded them 200 years ahead of time. This is a powerful confirmation of the supernatural origin of the Bible. The Bible's character is no different today than it was when any of the various human authors first prepared their records. It's just that today we have a complete revelation and that revelation clearly tells us that just as Jesus came to earth 2,000 years ago, He is coming again. It's just that the first time He came as the suffering servant. Next time He is coming as the conquering lion. VK: Amen. This sounds like a great time for a prayer. Since all of us have sinned and fallen short of God's perfect plan for our lives, today let's listen to a prayer of corporate confession – knowing that God has promised that as we confess our sins God is faithful and just to forgive them: ---- PRAYER OF CORPORATE CONFESSION (MARCUS). We hope you'll be with us next time and we hope you'll take some time to encourage some friends to tune in too, or listen to the podcast version of this show. If you'd like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where "We're not famous but our Boss is!" (Bible Quote from the New International Version) Daniel, chapter 8, verses 5 through 8 and 20 and 21, New International Version

Today I am joined by Dr Paul Gavrilyuk from the University of St Thomas. We are looking at impassibility and the so-called Hellenization Thesis. The Hellenization thesis is often used to dismiss classical theism, but Paul argues that this thesis is not historically accurate. Paul and I chat about different schools of thought within ancient Greek philosophy in order to get a better grasp on the classical Christian understanding of divine impassibility. We consider the emotional life of the classical God, and then discuss the relevance for the doctrine of the incarnation. Credits: Host: R.T. Mullins (PhD, University of St Andrews) is a senior research fellow at the University of Helsinki's Collegium for Advanced Studies. Guest: Paul Gavrilyuk (PhD, Southern Methodist University) is the Aquinas Chair of theology and philosophy at the Univeristy of St Thomas. Scientific Adviser and Show Manager: Ema Sani (PhD, University of Glasgow) is a postdoctoral fellow in biology at the University of Edinburgh. Music by Rockandmetal_domination – Raising-questions rtmullins.com

Dr. Andrew Davison is a lecturer in the Divinity Faculty of the University of Cambridge, and a fellow at Corpus Christi College, where he is also the Dean of Chapel. He is a regular contributor to Church Times and the Times Literary Supplement. Since 2014, he has been the Canon Philosopher of St Albans Cathedral. We had one wonderful conversation and touch on a bunch of different topics including. - how one relates to the tradition - how a person doubts and questions versus a tradition doubting and questioning - the task of preaching within an academic community - exploring the concept of “participation” - contesting Harnack's Hellenization thesis - how to be a metaphysical realist - the nature of the “gift” & being constituted as receivers - Aristotle's four causes and contemporary science - the extended evolutionary synthesis - role of philosophy for theologians - materialism without disenchantment - virtue ethics and participation - participation and atonement - intra-finite participation - how to be a “particularity mystic” - quantitative and qualitative finitude Davison recommends these two books -  The Human Wisdom of St. Thomas and An Augustine Synthesis. Books from Dr. Davison Participation in God: A Study in Christian Doctrine and Metaphysics The Love of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy for Theologians Why Sacraments? Imaginative Apologetics: Theology, Philosophy and the Catholic Tradition Blessing (Faith Going Deeper) Amazing Love: Theology for Understanding Discipleship, Sexuality and Mission Follow the podcast, drop a review, send feedback/questions or become a member of the HBC Community. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Hellenization of the Church

In this episode, we will be looking at two regions of Asia Minor and the Black Sea: the first is Galatia, home to the descendants of the Celtic tribes who marauded their way through Greece before being settled in central Anatolia, remaining an enclave of Celtic culture while serving as mercenaries (and foes) to the Hellenistic kingdoms. The second is the Odrysian Kingdom of Thrace, a formerly powerful entity along the Bosporus which, underneath the reign of the ambitious King Seuthes III (~330 – 300/295), would attempt to restore their previous greatness during the Wars of the Diadochi. Using these two case studies, we'll explore the nature of self-identity, what it means to be a “barbarian”, and the successes and failures of Hellenization. Title Theme: Seikilos Epitapth with the Lyre of Apollo, played by Lina Palera (https://soundcloud.com/user-994392473) Show Links Website/Episode Notes: (https://hellenisticagepodcast.wordpress.com/2020/08/17/049-barbarians-of-the-black-sea-the-galatians-odrysian-thrace/) Episode 049 Transcript: (https://hellenisticagepodcast.files.wordpress.com/2020/08/049-barbarians-of-the-black-sea-transcript.pdf) Ancient History Hound Podcast Website: (http://www.ancientblogger.com/) Podcast: (https://ancientblogger.libsyn.com/) Twitter: (https://twitter.com/ancientblogger) Social Media: Twitter (https://twitter.com/HellenisticPod) Facebook (www.facebook.com/hellenisticagepodcast/) Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/hellenistic_age_podcast/) Show Merchandise: Etsy (https://www.etsy.com/shop/HellenisticAgePod) Donations: Ko-Fi (https://ko-fi.com/hellenisticagepodcast) Amazon Book Wish List (https://tinyurl.com/vfw6ask)

www.torahlifeministry.com In Greek history, Plato and his student, Aristotle, the founder of the school of philosophy, are responsible for advancing the Greek Worldview. This Greek worldview was advanced through the entire world by Aristotle's student, Alexander the Great. Part of Alexander's teaching to the world was that the deities made their wishes known through oracles. This is why, in Acts 14:12, Paul and Barnabas were called Jupiter and Mercury. These were the Roman names for the Greek gods (Zeus and Hermes). Classical Greek thought became known as “Hellenism”. To the Hebrew mind, reality is the handiwork of a single all-knowing, all-powerful, and Supreme Creator who has personally revealed Himself to key individuals in human history. Hellenization affected the Jews as much as other people groups Example: Hellenistic Judaism, sought to syncretize Hebraic-Jewish religious tradition with the culture and language of the Greeks. The major literary product of the contact of Judaism and Hellenistic culture was the Septuagint (LXX). If you want a more deeper teaching, subscribe to our FREE newsletter at www.torahlifeministry.com

JEWISH SECTS Introduction ➢ Related Scriptures: ➢ Pharisees (Matt. 3:7; 5:20; 12:38; 15:12; 16:1-6; 19:3; 23:13-39; Luke 7:36-50; 15:1-9; Acts 15:5; 23:6) ➢ Sadducees (Matt. 3:7-10; 16:6-12; 22:23-32; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-38; Acts 4:1-3; 5:17-18) • A notable development during the time of 2nd Temple Judaism was the emergence of identifiable religious sects. • The historical circumstances were conducive to the start of these groups. • Each sect meticulously erected walls around itself to separate its members from the other sects. Different Sects • Hassidim • Name means “pious ones”. They were concerned primarily with religious reform, organized during the 4th and 3rd centuries. • Pharisees • Surfaced as a religious and political party during the second temple period (516 B.C. – A.D. 70) briefly after the Maccabean revolt. Pharisee may be from the Hebrew stem that means “to be separated”. Their roots can be traced to the Hasidim of the second century B.C. • Important Points • Along with the Torah, they accepted as equally inspired and authoritative all the commands set forth in the oral traditions preserved by the rabbis. • On free will and determination, they held to a mediating view that did not allow either human free will or the sovereignty of God to cancel out the other. • They accepted a rather developed hierarchy of angels and demons. • They believed in the immortality of the soul and in reward and retribution after death. • They believed in the resurrection of the dead. • The main emphasis of their teaching was ethical rather than theological. • Sadducees • Name may have developed from Zadok, the high priest in the days of David (2 Sam. 8:17; 15:24) and Solomon (1 Kings 1:34-35). Ezekiel 40:46; 43:19; 44:10-15 shows this family worthy to control the temple. This is the party of the high priests and aristocratic families. • Important Points • They considered only the books of Moses to be canonical Scripture, denying that the oral law was authoritative and binding. • They were very exacting in Levitical purity. • They attributed everything to free will. • They argued that there is neither resurrection of the dead nor a future life. • They rejected the idea of a spiritual world, including belief in angels and demons. • Zealots • Some think they were active from 37 B.C.-A.D. 70. Some think they can be traced back to the Hassidim. They originated during the reign of Herod the Great c. 6 B.C.. A group of zealots were among the last defenders against the Romans at Masada in A.D. &3. • Important Points • They opposed payment of taxes to a pagan emperor because they believed that allegiance was due to God alone. • They were fiercely loyal to Jewish tradition. • They endorsed the use of violence if it accomplished a good end. • They were opposed to the influence of Greek pagan culture in the Holy Land. • Essenes • Started in the Maccabean times, later half of second temple period. They probably originated among the Hasidim (see 1 Maccabees 2:42; 7:13) • Important Points • They strictly observed the purity laws of the Torah. • They practiced communal ownership of property. • They had a strong sense of mutual responsibility. • Daily worship was an important feature along with daily study of their sacred scriptures. • Solemn oaths of piety and obedience had to be taken. • Sacrifices were offered on holy days and during sacred seasons, but not at the temple, which they considered to be corrupt. • They attributed to fate everything that happened. • Sicarii • This was an extreme Zealot group that arose to oppose Roman rule. Their name comes from the Greek word for “daggerman” who would stab those friendly to Roman. • Herodians • They supported Herod and the Herodian dynasty; accepted Hellenization and foreign rule; probably wealthy and had political influence Response to Imperial Roman Oppression • Zealots said “the reason we are oppressed is that we are passive and cowardly” • Herodians said “to rebel is suicide. Resistance is futile. Make the best of the situation.” • Essenes said “the only way to please God is to leave the corrupt religious and political systems” • Pharisees said “the Lord would send the Messiah if we would just become purer” • Jesus said “change your way of thinking. The kingdom of God is available to all. Believe the good news. The empire of God is here now”.

Pat continues talking about where the Bible came from, slowly walking toward answering the question of figuring out where the Canon came from. This episode features Silas the Great and Hellenization. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Meta Versions! So many versions. The best version of the film: The Ultimate Cut. Setting the scene Ancient Greece after 300. The Peloponnesian War (which Ryan is in the middle of on his show!). The rise of Philip. Olympias. Philip Putting Macedon at center stage in ancient Greece. Technical and logistical innovations. Planning the invasion of Persia right before his suspiciously untimely death. The purge Alexander and Olypmias. Purging royal competition in the ancient world. Plutarch and gossip about “powerful women” in antiquity. Sources The loss of contemporary sources and the reliability of what remains. Plutarch’s gossip column. “The Great” What makes an historical figure “The Great,” instead of “The Terrible” or just forgotten? So many Alexandrias! Conquest, culture, and Hellenization. Manly love “Homosexuality” in the ancient world and different norms of power and masulinity. Alexander and Hephaestion. Achilles and Patroclas. Death Heavy Macedonian drinking and Alexander’s downward spiral. Conflicting reports and also modern interpretations of possible causes of death. Indeterminate succession. Alexander’s body floating around for centuries. Ryan's Show!: The History of Ancient Greece Podcast Support the show!

“I'm simply mad about my flat.” Context matters! Why is everyone confused about the Messiah? The Crises of the Maccabees The “crises” of Maccabees was that of Hellenization. God's People had existed peacefully under other Greek rulers like Alexander and the Ptolemies of Egypt. However, there arose a…

Join us as we continue parsing Daniel's vision of Gentile world rule. Here, he describes the battle between a goat and a two-horned ram for supremacy. This imagery describes world rule being transitioned from the Medo-Persian to the Greek empire. It's describes the beginning of the end-times thrust of the Hellenization of the world. The modern world we live, in its final phase before the end of the Age, is very heavily based on this transition. What is Hellenism? Why is it considered the fulcrum point of world governance history? Hellenization is the historical spread of ancient Greek culture, religion, and, to a lesser extent, language over peoples conquered by the Greeks, or brought into their sphere of influence, particularly during the Hellenistic period following the campaigns of Alexander the Great in the fourth century BC. The result of Hellenization was that elements of Greek origin combined in various forms and degrees with local elements, and these Greek influences spread from the Mediterranean basin as far east as modern-day Pakistan. In modern times, Hellenization has been associated with the adoption of modern Greek culture and the ethnic and cultural homogenization of Greece - and the world. Prophetically, the Hellenization of the world set the stage for the final act before the end. What is the final act? It is the crescendo of the Times Of The Gentiles through the follow-on Roman culture, and then it's rapid crash and destruction under the final Antichrist - who will be an export of this Hellenization/Roman system - when he comes on the scene. The stage has been set. The curtain has risen. The play continues... Make no mistake: YOU and I are alive and in this theater by God's will, for such a time as this. We ARE witnessing the end of the Age and how it comes about. We ARE that terminal generation, And we have been assigned front-row seats! Keep you eyes open and keep watch! Christians are commanded to do so! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/biblestudyweekly/message

We introduce the podcast and then explain why the Bishop of Alexandra, an Egyptian, would speak Greek. The required a brief overview of the Achaemenid, Macedonian, and Seleucid Empires, and the Ptolemaic Kingdom, as well as what Hellenism is and how the Hellenization process worked.Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia(ancientkingdom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptolemaic_Kingdom Music from https://filmmusic.io "Tabuk" by Kevin MacLeod (https://incompetech.com) License: CC BY (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

From Alexandria to Ai-Khanoum, the Hellenistic period would give rise to some of the most impressive cities in the world as the royal dynasties sought to make their mark on the landscape with ambitious building projects and military settlements. We'll trace the path of a Hellenistic city from foundation to megalopolis, what exactly makes them "Hellenistic",  and look at a variety of topics including their impacts on disease and human health and their overall legacy in the lands they were built upon. Title Theme: Seikilos Epitapth with the Lyre of Apollo, played by Lina Palera (https://soundcloud.com/user-994392473) The Partial Historians Website: (https://partialhistorians.com/) iTunes: (https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-partial-historians/id637226647) Show Links Website/Episode Notes: (https://hellenisticagepodcast.wordpress.com/2019/12/10/036-hellenistic-cities-colonization-urbanization-hellenization/) Social Media: Twitter (https://twitter.com/HellenisticPod) Facebook (www.facebook.com/hellenisticagepodcast/) Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/hellenistic_age_podcast/) Discord (https://discord.gg/VJcyUcN) Show Merchandise: Etsy (https://www.etsy.com/shop/HellenisticAgePod) Donations: Ko-Fi (https://ko-fi.com/hellenisticagepodcast)

How did minorities fit into the new Greek state during the country’s transition from imperial rule to national sovereignty? How did the relationship between Greece and its Jewish minorities, in particular, shift as definitions of national belonging expanded, shrunk, and transformed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? These are the questions that Dr. Evdoxios Doxiadis, Associate Professor in History at Canada’s Simon Fraser University, seeks to answer in his new book, State, Nationalism, and the Jewish Communities of Modern Greece (Bloomsbury Academic, 2019). Grounding his arguments in Greek political and popular sources, as well as material from the local and international Jewish press, Doxiadis shows that the Greek state’s treatment of their Jewish minorities was anything but predictable. Rather, he paints a notably ambivalent picture of a state whose policies did not necessarily conform to the desires of the popular majority, and that treated Jews and other minorities differently depending on their perceived ability to conform to national goals of Hellenization and homogenization. Geographically centered in the Balkans, Doxiadis’ book has broader significance, and speaks to the larger issues surrounding statehood, identity, and the age of nationalism that historians are commonly grappling with today. Robin Buller is a PhD Candidate in History at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did minorities fit into the new Greek state during the country’s transition from imperial rule to national sovereignty? How did the relationship between Greece and its Jewish minorities, in particular, shift as definitions of national belonging expanded, shrunk, and transformed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? These are the questions that Dr. Evdoxios Doxiadis, Associate Professor in History at Canada’s Simon Fraser University, seeks to answer in his new book, State, Nationalism, and the Jewish Communities of Modern Greece (Bloomsbury Academic, 2019). Grounding his arguments in Greek political and popular sources, as well as material from the local and international Jewish press, Doxiadis shows that the Greek state’s treatment of their Jewish minorities was anything but predictable. Rather, he paints a notably ambivalent picture of a state whose policies did not necessarily conform to the desires of the popular majority, and that treated Jews and other minorities differently depending on their perceived ability to conform to national goals of Hellenization and homogenization. Geographically centered in the Balkans, Doxiadis’ book has broader significance, and speaks to the larger issues surrounding statehood, identity, and the age of nationalism that historians are commonly grappling with today. Robin Buller is a PhD Candidate in History at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did minorities fit into the new Greek state during the country’s transition from imperial rule to national sovereignty? How did the relationship between Greece and its Jewish minorities, in particular, shift as definitions of national belonging expanded, shrunk, and transformed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? These are the questions that Dr. Evdoxios Doxiadis, Associate Professor in History at Canada’s Simon Fraser University, seeks to answer in his new book, State, Nationalism, and the Jewish Communities of Modern Greece (Bloomsbury Academic, 2019). Grounding his arguments in Greek political and popular sources, as well as material from the local and international Jewish press, Doxiadis shows that the Greek state’s treatment of their Jewish minorities was anything but predictable. Rather, he paints a notably ambivalent picture of a state whose policies did not necessarily conform to the desires of the popular majority, and that treated Jews and other minorities differently depending on their perceived ability to conform to national goals of Hellenization and homogenization. Geographically centered in the Balkans, Doxiadis’ book has broader significance, and speaks to the larger issues surrounding statehood, identity, and the age of nationalism that historians are commonly grappling with today. Robin Buller is a PhD Candidate in History at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did minorities fit into the new Greek state during the country’s transition from imperial rule to national sovereignty? How did the relationship between Greece and its Jewish minorities, in particular, shift as definitions of national belonging expanded, shrunk, and transformed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? These are the questions that Dr. Evdoxios Doxiadis, Associate Professor in History at Canada’s Simon Fraser University, seeks to answer in his new book, State, Nationalism, and the Jewish Communities of Modern Greece (Bloomsbury Academic, 2019). Grounding his arguments in Greek political and popular sources, as well as material from the local and international Jewish press, Doxiadis shows that the Greek state’s treatment of their Jewish minorities was anything but predictable. Rather, he paints a notably ambivalent picture of a state whose policies did not necessarily conform to the desires of the popular majority, and that treated Jews and other minorities differently depending on their perceived ability to conform to national goals of Hellenization and homogenization. Geographically centered in the Balkans, Doxiadis’ book has broader significance, and speaks to the larger issues surrounding statehood, identity, and the age of nationalism that historians are commonly grappling with today. Robin Buller is a PhD Candidate in History at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did minorities fit into the new Greek state during the country’s transition from imperial rule to national sovereignty? How did the relationship between Greece and its Jewish minorities, in particular, shift as definitions of national belonging expanded, shrunk, and transformed in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? These are the questions that Dr. Evdoxios Doxiadis, Associate Professor in History at Canada’s Simon Fraser University, seeks to answer in his new book, State, Nationalism, and the Jewish Communities of Modern Greece (Bloomsbury Academic, 2019). Grounding his arguments in Greek political and popular sources, as well as material from the local and international Jewish press, Doxiadis shows that the Greek state’s treatment of their Jewish minorities was anything but predictable. Rather, he paints a notably ambivalent picture of a state whose policies did not necessarily conform to the desires of the popular majority, and that treated Jews and other minorities differently depending on their perceived ability to conform to national goals of Hellenization and homogenization. Geographically centered in the Balkans, Doxiadis’ book has broader significance, and speaks to the larger issues surrounding statehood, identity, and the age of nationalism that historians are commonly grappling with today. Robin Buller is a PhD Candidate in History at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the first part of this study we conclude a historical walk-through of "king" and "kingdom" found in the Old Testament up to the coming of the true Davidic King, Jesus Christ. Each kingdom is distinguished based upon the subjects of the kingdom and the governance of the kingdom. In the second part of this study we examine the kingdom of power.  The subjects of the kingdom of power include all things: believers and unbelievers, good and evil angels, and irrational creature and the inanimate creation. The Triune God governs this kingdom of power by His omnipotence and omnipresence. At the incarnation, "all authority in heaven and earth" was given to the human nature of Jesus, while His divine nature always possessed it. Here is a summary of the history (in the first part): The Prophet Daniel (Chapters 2, 7 and 8) foretold of four world powers: Babylonia, Medo-Persia, Greece(including the Ptolemies and the Seleucids, Maccabees and Hasmoneans), and Rome. Last week we concluded with the Jewish return to Jerusalem under Cyrus the Persian.  When the Old Testament draws to a close (apx. 400 B.C.), Judea had been province of Persia for 138 years. Although the exiles were allowed to return to Canaan in order to rebuild the Temple, only a small number of Jews actually returned. The exiled Jews had set down roots and were scattered over 128 provinces. The religious practices of Judaism began to change, as they lived apart from the Jerusalem temple, and without the nation of Israel or a Davidic king. Scribes grew in importance, as the Jews retained their identity by clinging to the Word. Emphasis was placed on personal prayer, Sabbath observance, and justice(morality). As the people adopted Imperial Aramaic for their language instead of Hebrew, there was the need for a Methurgeman (interpreter) to paraphrase the readings for the people. Even those Jews who returned were not free.  They were a vassal state of one country and then another.  Sometimes they enjoyed a mild rule and were allowed to practice their faith.  Other times they were severely persecuted.  The Jewish reactions were varied, as seen by Pharisees, Sadducees, and zealots. Alexander the Great conquered the world and spread Greek language and culture wherever he went.  After the death of Alexander, the kingdom split into four parts and fighting for power ensued.  In 320 B.C. Ptolemy took over Egypt and Jerusalem without resistance.  The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into the Greek language in the 3rd century B.C. Although many rulers were kind to the Jews, Antiochus IV Epiphanes sought to make all people devotees of Greek culture.  The Jews objected to this Hellenization program on religious grounds and were severely persecuted.  This persecution caused the Hasmodian period of Independence with the Maccabean revolt by Mattathias and his five sons.  Though they had some success, the Jews always returned to a vassal state.  In 63 B.C. Pompey conquered the city of Jerusalem with the killing 12,000 Jews. When Jesus arrives, Herod The Great had been ruling since 37 B.C.  Although he ruled with an iron fist, it was during his reign that the Temple had been restored.  This concludes the history of "king" and "kingdom" until the coming of Jesus Christ. Handout: Kingdoms-Definitions.pdf Handout 2: King-Chart-Throughout-Time.pdf Overhead 1: Persian.pdf

Professor Emeritus Moshe Fischer presents Greece and Rome in Jerusalem: Some Aspects of Cultural Interactions.(Note, the presentation that accompanies this recording is also posted in iTunes.) This fascinating event offers an abridged overview of main events regarding interactions between Judaism and the Greco-Roman culture in the Land of Israel, as reflected by literature, archaeology and art. The event will cover the Return of the Israelites from Babylon to Zion (end of the 6th cent. BCE), the Hellenization of the Orient after Alexander the Great (end of 4th cent. BCE), the establishments of the Hasmonean kingdom and the Herodian kingdom, the final Roman occupation (135 CE), and the revival of the Jewish civilization (3rd- 7th cent. CE). Moshe Fischer received his PhD from Tel Aviv University and has been Professor of Classical Archaeology at the Department of Classics and of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University for the past 45 years. He has conducted numerous archaeological excavations and publication projects including the En Boqeq (Dead Sea Area), Upper Galilee Temple at Qedesh, and in last 20 years the harbor city of Yavneh-Yam (south of Tel Aviv).

This is the presentation for Professor Emeritus Moshe Fischer presents Greece and Rome in Jerusalem: Some Aspects of Cultural Interactions. (Note, the audio podcast is also posted in iTunes.) This fascinating event offers an abridged overview of main events regarding interactions between Judaism and the Greco-Roman culture in the Land of Israel, as reflected by literature, archaeology and art. The event covers the Return of the Israelites from Babylon to Zion (end of the 6th cent. BCE), the Hellenization of the Orient after Alexander the Great (end of 4th cent. BCE), the establishments of the Hasmonean kingdom and the Herodian kingdom, the final Roman occupation (135 CE), and the revival of the Jewish civilization (3rd- 7th cent. CE). Moshe Fischer received his PhD from Tel Aviv University and has been Professor of Classical Archaeology at the Department of Classics and of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University for the past 45 years. He has conducted numerous archaeological excavations and publication projects including the En Boqeq (Dead Sea Area), Upper Galilee Temple at Qedesh, and in last 20 years the harbor city of Yavneh-Yam (south of Tel Aviv).

We head back to the Endless Knot Cocktail Bar to talk about the history of the Mai Tai, the Tiki craze, Polynesian mythology, cultural appropriation, and World's Fairs. And then we turn to Rome's relationship to Greece, and discuss whether Horace wrote the Exotica music of the ancient world!Show NotesMai Tai Video@AllEndlessKnot on TwitterMai Tai RecipePolynesian Lexicon Project OnlineWallace-Hadrill, A. “To Be Roman, Go Greek Thoughts on Hellenization at Rome.” Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies. Supplement, no. 71, 1998, pp. 79–91.Our Patreon pageiTunes linkStitcher linkGoogle Play Music linkThis podcast episode on YouTubeThis podcast is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License

Can you recommend an order in which to read your books? Why is the Bible THE fundamental text of Western Civilization and culture, its themes, stories, and values permeating our moral codes, our artistic expressions, and indeed our shared consciousness? The story of the modern creation of â??Saint Odysseus.â?? How credible do you find the notion that Marcion's gospel might have been a version of the Gospel of Mark? Isnâ??t the negative treatment of Peter in Mark inconsistent with the tradition that Mark got his Could you recommend a work/s dealing with the theme of 'conflict resolution' passages in the New Testament: refutations of so-called heretical ideas by having someone, typically Jesus, say something that refutes a given idea? What does it mean to say that something is 'taught in the Bible'? Is something that is extrapolated from the text, for instance trinitarianism, to be seen as 'bible sanctioned' given it does not appear explicitly in the text? Is there any link between the Nazarenes of the New Testament and the Nazirite tradition of the Old Testament? What events in the history of Christianity (or religious history in general) could have easily turned out differently, with big implications? Mark often seems to borrow OT texts, only to split them and reverse the halves. Furthermore, these passages are always associated with his â??sandwichesâ?? (the intercalation of two Jesus stories originally separate). Is Mark calling attention to his having derived the Jesus versions via Spirit-inspired esoteric reading of scripture disclosing, originally, events undergone by Jesus as he descended through the celestial spheres to earth? How long did Adam and Eve live in the Garden? Why are so many Biblical characters renamed?  Was this the result of the ancient writers trying to fuse two characters together? And is Saul becoming Paul really a renaming, or is Paul just a Hellenization of Saul? If evangelicals are so keen on "eyewitness testimony," shouldnâ??t they accept Mormonism, since the Book of Mormon begins with "The Testimony of the Three Witnesses" and "The Testimony of the Eight Witnesses" who supposedly saw the golden plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon? Why would Mark make sure to include both â??feeding the multitudeâ?? stories seeing they are so much alike? Was there really such a huge fan base of the Feeding of the Four Thousand which would have compelled "Mark to include it?

Sovereign Grace Bible Church of Ada, OK

In this podcast I discuss the state of early 1st Century religion. I talk about the various Jewish and Greek sects. I also touch briefly on the Hellenization of Christianity.

Hanukkah tells us how G-d delivered His people and prepared the world for the Messiah. Download Sermon Outline (pdf) Download Outline Fill-In (pdf)

Explore the Intertestamental Period and consider a timeline of the Intertestamental Period. In 539 BC, the Jews were finally back home from the exile. John the Baptist in Matthew 11:3 asks, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” Jesus answered them, “Go tell John what you hear and see: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have good news proclaimed to them.” (Matthew 11:4-5) The Elephantine Papyri speaks of a colony in which an alternate temple was built and other gods were worshipped along with YHWH. The Samaritans had an idea of a different kind of temple. The great historical debate was which temple was really the temple of God. Consider that when Alexander the Great died in 323 BC, control of his empire was fought over by the Diadochi (successors). To the north of Israel, the Seleucids gained control. To the south of Israel, the Ptolemies gained control. Many battles between the Seleucids and Ptolemies took place on Israel’s soil. Consider that Hellenization was seen in linguistic terms – everyone was to learn common Greek. The New Testament was written in Greek because it was the language of that day. Hellenism was also a Greek worldview and went against some of the basic elements of Judaism – circumcision, the food laws, and the Sabbath. Non-assimilation by some led to the controversy in the New Testament.

Hanukkah tells us how G-d delivered His people and prepared the world for the Messiah. Download Sermon Outline (pdf)

Hanukkah tells us how G-d delivered His people and prepared the world for the Messiah.

Over two decades ago, Max King suggested that the reason why the Christians after AD 70 did not mention the Parousia, was because they had been confused by the Hellenizers into misplacing the eschaton. Twenty years ago, Dr. Charles Hill debunked that idea historically. Here in this lesson, we look at some of the biblical evidence which further refutes King's Hellenization theory, to show that an actual rapture of the Elect saints is the best explanation for the silence of the Christians about the Parousia after AD 70. If you wish to have the PDF lesson outline that is available for this podcast, simply email us to request it (preterist1@preterist.org). Be sure to mention the date of the podcast for which you would like to receive the PDF.Support the show (https://www.preterist.org/donate/credit-card-donations/)

Tue, 19 Mar 2013 22:35:17 GMT https://edge.apus.edu/access/content/group/221623/Podcasts/Hellenization%20of%20Christianity.m4a

Hanukkah tells us how G-d delivered His people and prepared the world for the Messiah.

"What you think will save you"?, Caesar = Apotheos + principas civitas + emperator, US President has same functions, United States: A democracy within a republic, Did God create the government?, It's all about the benefits, Keeping you weak, Darius = office; not the man, Agustus = savior of Rome, Christ's activites as king, Free bread and circuses, Modern churches make you feel good, First century church met actual needs, The Hellenization of Judea, Life after Pentecost, Golden calves, Bhudda, Brahman, Seeking first the Kingdom and His righteousness, Belong to a church? or belong to God?, Kingdom of Heaven = Free souls under God, Heaven is not a socialist state, Fascism, Agustus' plan, Lady Godiva's accomplishments, Taxes illustrated, Who will be a Christian?, Abraham's altars, Setting your neighbor free, "Idiotes", Where are the pious?, No coveting allowed, Electing good Caesars?, Life as a Human Resource, Solthful should be under tribute, God's ministers = public servants, Q: PCM frustration, Q: Where you go when you die, Why is that important?, Fulfilment of the Kingdom, God of the living, Not worrying about tomorrow, Heaven = ouranos = world?, Walking on water, How "Israel" is Israel?, Threskia, No covenants with false worshippers, James 1:27 "visit" = take care of, Making the word of God TO effect, Only one church!, "Unspotted from the world", All societies need religion, Helping with unbelief, Stepping out of the boat.

Of the four kingdoms that arose after Alexander's death, those of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies are most pertinent to an understanding of the New Testament. Especially important is the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who forced the issue of Hellenism in Jerusalem by profaning the temple. Jews were not alike in their reaction to Hellenization, but a revolt arose under the leadership of the Mattathias and his sons, who would rule in the Hasmonean Dynasty. After the spread of Roman rule, the Judea was under client kings and procurators until the Jewish War and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Revolt was only one Jewish response to foreign rule, another was apocalypticism, as we see in Daniel and also in the Jesus' teaching and the early Christian movement.

Of the four kingdoms that arose after Alexander's death, those of the Seleucids and the Ptolemies are most pertinent to an understanding of the New Testament. Especially important is the rule of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, who forced the issue of Hellenism in Jerusalem by profaning the temple. Jews were not alike in their reaction to Hellenization, but a revolt arose under the leadership of the Mattathias and his sons, who would rule in the Hasmonean Dynasty. After the spread of Roman rule, the Judea was under client kings and procurators until the Jewish War and the destruction of the temple in 70 CE. Revolt was only one Jewish response to foreign rule, another was apocalypticism, as we see in Daniel and also in the Jesus' teaching and the early Christian movement.