I'm probably not gonna do any major project here for Christmas. But I wanna link to some Christmas Relevant post I'd made in the past.
Pagan Winter Solstice Holidays linked to Christmas
http://tinyurl.com/PaganChristmas
http://preview.tinyurl.com/PaganChristmas
Hanukkah is a Biblical Holy Day
http://tinyurl.com/HanukkahIsBiblical
http://preview.tinyurl.com/HanukkahIsBiblical
A Hanukkah and Christmas relevant post from my SolaScripturaChristianLiberty BlogSpot blog
http://tinyurl.com/h8hyd58
http://preview.tinyurl.com/h8hyd58
Those are some of the older ones I still consider worth linking too.
https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2017/04/venus-could-be-star-of-bethlehem.html
https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2017/12/when-i-say-i-think-jesus-was-born-on.html
https://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2017/01/i-dont-think-jesus-was-born-on.html
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Pagan ideas compared to The Trinity
Inspiring Philosophy did a video addressing people accusing The Trinity of being Pagan called Is The Trinity Pagan?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAcDV270D_0
It’s a pretty good video, but I would say he slipped a bit in addressing the Hindu Trimurti comparison. Hinduism does have distinct personalities for Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva so saying it’s more like Modalism doesn’t really work.
The main failure of that analogy is that when you break it down, comparing Brahma to The Father and Vishnu who incarnated as Human Avatars to The Logos can make a little sense, but comparing the Holy Spirit to Shiva the God of Destruction makes no sense, their functions are literally the opposite.
And then there is the fact that this Trimurti idea developed late, I don’t think you can actually find it in the Rigveda, Ramayana or Mahabharata, and even some of those writings come after the Northern Tribes were dispersed Eastward. The Kurma Purana seems to be the earliest clear expression of it and it’s Eighth Century AD at the earliest. Christians had migrated to India from Persia at least as early as the 4th Century AD.
I also think the development of Hinduism and Buddhism may have been influenced by the Gnostics. The Manicheans had spread throughout Persia and further east. And the Mahabrahma is like the Gnostic Demiurge, a lesser creator who thinks he's the top god even though he isn't.
A closer Comparison to The Trinity would be Neo-Platonism’s concept of The One, The Intellect and the World Soul. A key distinction I’d make there is that it is mostly the Intellect emanating from The One and the World Soul emanating from The Intellect. While the Christian Trinity is much more Triangular in its relationship, in fact the Greek Orthodox would stress that the Holy Spirits proceeds from The Father not The Son.
But again, while Neo-Plaotnism draws on Plato, nothing this close to a Trinity is in Plato. Neo-Platonism is largely said to have began with Plotinus (204-270 AD) or his mentor Ammonius Saccas (175-242 AD). Tertullian (155-240 AD) had already laid out a doctrine of The Trinity pretty similar to the Nicene one before their careers started, and he was just inserting himself into a discussion Christians were already having. Theophilus of Antioch (died by 185 AD) was the first to use the term Trinity and defined it as The Father, The Logos and Sophia.
Porphyry, an Anti-Christian Neo-Platonist writer, said that Saccas’s parents had been Christians but he rejected their faith. So actually there is good reason to suspect that many similarities between Christian and Neoplatonic Philosophy came from Christians first. That said I do still believe reverence for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle has been a very bad influence on Church History.
Learning this about Saccas as I researched this post was quite interesting. It’s easy to assume Christian ides didn’t influence the secular world before Constantine, but what Constantine did was possible because Christianity was already becoming mainstream in many places. So this documentation of a Pre-Nicene Pagan writer with a Christian background is quite fascinating.
I suppose I should mention briefly the Zoka SanShin (Three Kami of Creation) from Shinto Mythology. Everything we know about Japanese mythology stems from the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki which were both early Eighth Century writings. If certain theories about the Hata Clan are true then Christians could have been an influence on Japan well before then. Though in its final form the Zoka SanShin is more like the Neoplatonist trinity then the Christian one, being more linear than triangular. And they are in no way defined as being Homusias.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/04/nestorianism-and-church-of-east.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAcDV270D_0
It’s a pretty good video, but I would say he slipped a bit in addressing the Hindu Trimurti comparison. Hinduism does have distinct personalities for Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva so saying it’s more like Modalism doesn’t really work.
The main failure of that analogy is that when you break it down, comparing Brahma to The Father and Vishnu who incarnated as Human Avatars to The Logos can make a little sense, but comparing the Holy Spirit to Shiva the God of Destruction makes no sense, their functions are literally the opposite.
And then there is the fact that this Trimurti idea developed late, I don’t think you can actually find it in the Rigveda, Ramayana or Mahabharata, and even some of those writings come after the Northern Tribes were dispersed Eastward. The Kurma Purana seems to be the earliest clear expression of it and it’s Eighth Century AD at the earliest. Christians had migrated to India from Persia at least as early as the 4th Century AD.
I also think the development of Hinduism and Buddhism may have been influenced by the Gnostics. The Manicheans had spread throughout Persia and further east. And the Mahabrahma is like the Gnostic Demiurge, a lesser creator who thinks he's the top god even though he isn't.
A closer Comparison to The Trinity would be Neo-Platonism’s concept of The One, The Intellect and the World Soul. A key distinction I’d make there is that it is mostly the Intellect emanating from The One and the World Soul emanating from The Intellect. While the Christian Trinity is much more Triangular in its relationship, in fact the Greek Orthodox would stress that the Holy Spirits proceeds from The Father not The Son.
But again, while Neo-Plaotnism draws on Plato, nothing this close to a Trinity is in Plato. Neo-Platonism is largely said to have began with Plotinus (204-270 AD) or his mentor Ammonius Saccas (175-242 AD). Tertullian (155-240 AD) had already laid out a doctrine of The Trinity pretty similar to the Nicene one before their careers started, and he was just inserting himself into a discussion Christians were already having. Theophilus of Antioch (died by 185 AD) was the first to use the term Trinity and defined it as The Father, The Logos and Sophia.
Porphyry, an Anti-Christian Neo-Platonist writer, said that Saccas’s parents had been Christians but he rejected their faith. So actually there is good reason to suspect that many similarities between Christian and Neoplatonic Philosophy came from Christians first. That said I do still believe reverence for Socrates, Plato and Aristotle has been a very bad influence on Church History.
Learning this about Saccas as I researched this post was quite interesting. It’s easy to assume Christian ides didn’t influence the secular world before Constantine, but what Constantine did was possible because Christianity was already becoming mainstream in many places. So this documentation of a Pre-Nicene Pagan writer with a Christian background is quite fascinating.
I suppose I should mention briefly the Zoka SanShin (Three Kami of Creation) from Shinto Mythology. Everything we know about Japanese mythology stems from the Kojiki and the Nihon Shoki which were both early Eighth Century writings. If certain theories about the Hata Clan are true then Christians could have been an influence on Japan well before then. Though in its final form the Zoka SanShin is more like the Neoplatonist trinity then the Christian one, being more linear than triangular. And they are in no way defined as being Homusias.
https://solascripturachristianliberty.blogspot.com/2018/04/nestorianism-and-church-of-east.html
Monday, October 15, 2018
Dinosaurs and Dragons
You don't have to be a Six-Day Young Earth Creationist to see a connection between Dinosaurs and mythical creatures like Dragons. You can hold the mainstream view of the age of the Earth and still think a few small patches survived to Ancient or even modern times. Or you could say Ancient people stumbled upon Dinosaur fossils which helped inspire those myths, but the later option doesn't explain eye witness accounts.
However opposition to Young Earth Creationism is the only explanation I can think of for why so many insist on denying any connection exists or could exist, insisting it must be just a coincidence that man imagined Dragons and then we found the bones of creatures that fit exactly the definition of what a Dragon is. Because they love being able to casually mock Creationists with "if the Earth is only 6000 years old how come humans never saw Dinosaurs", then countless accounts of people seeing things like Dinosaurs are pointed out to them and they go "no, but..." and move the goal posts.
I'm not desperate to convert anyone to Creationism any more since I'm an Evangelical Universalist now. I just want people to know that the existence of Dinosaurs is not a sufficient reason to doubt The Bible.
Dinosaurs weren't the only things to inspire these ancient myths, they're often also allegories of more abstract things like Greed. Same as Godzilla was not inspired only by Dinosaurs but was first and foremost an allegory for the destructive power of Nuclear Weapons. Even Jurassic Park is about more then just Dinosaurs, it's also another re-imagining of Frankenstein as well as being about the evils of Capitalism.
A lot of why people feel so confident they can mock the idea of a connection is because the modern default idea of what a Dragon looks like is much more specific then what it actually used to mean, being basically Smaug and Charizard. But even in Tolkien not all Dragons looked like Smaug, Smaug represents a specific sub group, the winged Fire Drake. And the really specific look of Smaug I don't think was even precedented much before Tolkien, even Beowulf's dragon is not described quite like that in the original text. There were actually medieval bestiaries describing many different kinds of Dragons, not all of which could even be described as gigantic in size.
Yes, a lot of the images Creationists point to don't look exactly perfectly like a specific Dinosaur, just as Bugs Bunny doesn't look that much like a real bunny rabbit. Artistic depictions take liberties and oral traditions can obscure the details even when they're trying to be perfectly accurate.
http://creationwiki.org/Ancient_dinosaur_depiction
The 12th century Ta Prohm Temple near Angkor Wat in Cambodia has a carving which resemblance to a Stegasaur is way to close to be coincidental.
But for something that's a personal hypothesis of mine that takes a bit more room for interpretation, let's talk about the Tarasque.
First of all it's said to originally come from Galatia, which fits the fact that the earliest Christian Community of Southern France were people who came there from Ephesus in the 2nd Century. Now I'm not convinced Martha or the other Bethany siblings actually went to Asia Minor either, I suspect their remains are among those found at the Dominus Flevit Church on the Mont of Olives.
The most peculiar detail of the Tarasque is that it's not a Turtle but is described as having a turtle shell on it's back. I think this animal was inspired by an Ankylosaurus (the same type of Dinosaur that inspired Anguirus). This creature doesn't have a Turtle Shell on it's back but one can easily see how it might look that way to an ancient observer.
I no longer share the hostility other Creationists have to the idea of Feathered Dinosaurs. I don't think Dinosaurs evolved into modern Birds, but God could easily have created creatures that would seem to us like Lizard/Bird hybrids, just as an Ankylosaur could have been mistaken to be a hybrid of a Turtle and something else.
And once we acknowledge Feathered Dinosaurs we can realize that only adds to the amount of evidence of them being known to the Ancients. From Mesoamerican gods depicted as feathered serpents to the European examples of the Cockatrice and Basilisk. Both words have been used in translations of The Bible. Now I don't think the Hebrew word tsepha' was likely to be referring to the same thing as either of those European terms. But if you're a radical KJV onlyist like Kent Hovind, you can't then deny that what Cockatrice meant to a 1611 English speaker is something The King James Bible is claiming exists (it's right in the etymology of Cockatrice that it resembles a Rooster in some fashion). I remember watching one Kent Hovind debate where his opponent brought up the Cockatrice and Hovind just ignored it.
And now we've transitioned into talking about Dinosaurs in The Bible. I believe Seraphim was a term for Pterodactyls aka Ropens. And I mostly stand by my past speculation that Jonah was swallowed by a Sea Dinosaur. Reem (Unicorn in the KJV) however I do not think refers to a Dinosaur but probably an Auroch.
Now the big two when it comes to Dinosaurs in The Bible speculation are Behemoth and Leviathan. It boggles my mind every time someone tells me that in context' it's clearly describing a demonic creature and not a natural animal. No, it's context in Job 38-41 is as the climax of a list of normal animals, yet people keep getting away with saying it's the opposite.
Yes there are extra Biblical Jewish legends turning Behemoth and Leviathan into cosmic horrors not compatible with any real animals. That's why Paul warned us to not regard Jewish Fables. These non-Biblical ideas about Behemoth and Leviathan are partly the inspiration for Groudon and Kyogre the 3rd generation mascot Legendary Pokemon (and Rayqyaza was based on the Ziz) but none of that has any basis in Job.
I watched this YouTube video on Behemoth recently, at the very end it starts vaguely alluding to Republican politics and a Soterolgoy I no longer support, but mostly it's a pretty good video. There is little internal debate among Creationsits about what Dinosaur the Behemoth is, it's a longed neck herbivore, basically the first Dinosaur we see clearly and unobstructed in Jurassic Park, so just imagine John Williams score for that scene as you read Job 40.
Leviathan is more complicated however.
Firstly because unlike Behemoth the word does show up outside of Job, in Isaiah 27 and a couple of Psalms. Other references to Leviathan are possibly using him as an analogy for the 7 headed Dragon and/or The Beast out of the Sea of Revelation, like how Jesus uses Birds to represent Satan in the Kingdom Parables of Matthew 13, being used symbolically in some places doesn't make it not a word for a real animal. I also think Leviathan is possibly used of a Constellation in some verses. If The Ancient Hebrews had a view of the Constellations analogous to our own, then Draco, Serpens, Hydra and Cetus are all good candidates.
I think it's best to stick to Job when defining the Zoological characteristics of Leviathan. Which first of all means the words translated "piercing" and "crooked" in Isaiah 27:1 aren't used in Job 41 and so maybe descriptions of the Constellation or poetic idioms about Satan are not useful for figuring out what the real animal looked like.
Isaiah 27:1 is a really complicated verse to consider here. It could be using multiple idioms for one thing, or describing three different things, two Leviathans and a Dragon, or two things, Leviathan and a Dragon. This verse probably isn't about the actual animal anyway, but I still wanted to point that out.
If we limit our clues for the real animal to Job 41 does that weaken it's aquatic association? Not quite, verse 31 seems to say it spends some time in the sea. But it is most likely Amphibious and not purely a Sea Creature.
I have a personal hunch that the Leviathan of Job 41 could be Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. There are plenty of inaccuracies to how this Dinosaur was depicted in Jurassic Park 3, but according to this video it was indeed Amphibious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STn0CxdMIKk&t
Fire breathing, that is the big factor in objections to saying Dragons are real, including specifically Biblical ones which definitely attribute fire breathing to Leviathan and possibly but more debatably the Seraphim (there are other views of what them being called "firey" means).
The Bombardier beetle has an ability that certainly seems like shooting fire.
Skeptical analysis of such arguments for fire breathing animals often miss the point. Creationists only need the specific Biblical references to be literally true, so it doesn't matter if it actually looked like what Smaug or a Fire Type Pokemon can do.
One anti-Creationist website I was reading gave a simplified summery of the history of dragon legends and claims dragons didn't start breathing fire till the 5th century AD and none had wings till the 13th. That ignores The Bible's own descriptions of both winged serpents and Leviathan, as well as Beowulf. Basically this site wants to say Dragons didn't start resembling Dinosaurs till the 19th Century, which is an utterly absurd suggestion.
However opposition to Young Earth Creationism is the only explanation I can think of for why so many insist on denying any connection exists or could exist, insisting it must be just a coincidence that man imagined Dragons and then we found the bones of creatures that fit exactly the definition of what a Dragon is. Because they love being able to casually mock Creationists with "if the Earth is only 6000 years old how come humans never saw Dinosaurs", then countless accounts of people seeing things like Dinosaurs are pointed out to them and they go "no, but..." and move the goal posts.
I'm not desperate to convert anyone to Creationism any more since I'm an Evangelical Universalist now. I just want people to know that the existence of Dinosaurs is not a sufficient reason to doubt The Bible.
Dinosaurs weren't the only things to inspire these ancient myths, they're often also allegories of more abstract things like Greed. Same as Godzilla was not inspired only by Dinosaurs but was first and foremost an allegory for the destructive power of Nuclear Weapons. Even Jurassic Park is about more then just Dinosaurs, it's also another re-imagining of Frankenstein as well as being about the evils of Capitalism.
A lot of why people feel so confident they can mock the idea of a connection is because the modern default idea of what a Dragon looks like is much more specific then what it actually used to mean, being basically Smaug and Charizard. But even in Tolkien not all Dragons looked like Smaug, Smaug represents a specific sub group, the winged Fire Drake. And the really specific look of Smaug I don't think was even precedented much before Tolkien, even Beowulf's dragon is not described quite like that in the original text. There were actually medieval bestiaries describing many different kinds of Dragons, not all of which could even be described as gigantic in size.
Yes, a lot of the images Creationists point to don't look exactly perfectly like a specific Dinosaur, just as Bugs Bunny doesn't look that much like a real bunny rabbit. Artistic depictions take liberties and oral traditions can obscure the details even when they're trying to be perfectly accurate.
http://creationwiki.org/Ancient_dinosaur_depiction
The 12th century Ta Prohm Temple near Angkor Wat in Cambodia has a carving which resemblance to a Stegasaur is way to close to be coincidental.
First of all it's said to originally come from Galatia, which fits the fact that the earliest Christian Community of Southern France were people who came there from Ephesus in the 2nd Century. Now I'm not convinced Martha or the other Bethany siblings actually went to Asia Minor either, I suspect their remains are among those found at the Dominus Flevit Church on the Mont of Olives.
The most peculiar detail of the Tarasque is that it's not a Turtle but is described as having a turtle shell on it's back. I think this animal was inspired by an Ankylosaurus (the same type of Dinosaur that inspired Anguirus). This creature doesn't have a Turtle Shell on it's back but one can easily see how it might look that way to an ancient observer.
I no longer share the hostility other Creationists have to the idea of Feathered Dinosaurs. I don't think Dinosaurs evolved into modern Birds, but God could easily have created creatures that would seem to us like Lizard/Bird hybrids, just as an Ankylosaur could have been mistaken to be a hybrid of a Turtle and something else.
And once we acknowledge Feathered Dinosaurs we can realize that only adds to the amount of evidence of them being known to the Ancients. From Mesoamerican gods depicted as feathered serpents to the European examples of the Cockatrice and Basilisk. Both words have been used in translations of The Bible. Now I don't think the Hebrew word tsepha' was likely to be referring to the same thing as either of those European terms. But if you're a radical KJV onlyist like Kent Hovind, you can't then deny that what Cockatrice meant to a 1611 English speaker is something The King James Bible is claiming exists (it's right in the etymology of Cockatrice that it resembles a Rooster in some fashion). I remember watching one Kent Hovind debate where his opponent brought up the Cockatrice and Hovind just ignored it.
And now we've transitioned into talking about Dinosaurs in The Bible. I believe Seraphim was a term for Pterodactyls aka Ropens. And I mostly stand by my past speculation that Jonah was swallowed by a Sea Dinosaur. Reem (Unicorn in the KJV) however I do not think refers to a Dinosaur but probably an Auroch.
Now the big two when it comes to Dinosaurs in The Bible speculation are Behemoth and Leviathan. It boggles my mind every time someone tells me that in context' it's clearly describing a demonic creature and not a natural animal. No, it's context in Job 38-41 is as the climax of a list of normal animals, yet people keep getting away with saying it's the opposite.
Yes there are extra Biblical Jewish legends turning Behemoth and Leviathan into cosmic horrors not compatible with any real animals. That's why Paul warned us to not regard Jewish Fables. These non-Biblical ideas about Behemoth and Leviathan are partly the inspiration for Groudon and Kyogre the 3rd generation mascot Legendary Pokemon (and Rayqyaza was based on the Ziz) but none of that has any basis in Job.
I watched this YouTube video on Behemoth recently, at the very end it starts vaguely alluding to Republican politics and a Soterolgoy I no longer support, but mostly it's a pretty good video. There is little internal debate among Creationsits about what Dinosaur the Behemoth is, it's a longed neck herbivore, basically the first Dinosaur we see clearly and unobstructed in Jurassic Park, so just imagine John Williams score for that scene as you read Job 40.
Leviathan is more complicated however.
Firstly because unlike Behemoth the word does show up outside of Job, in Isaiah 27 and a couple of Psalms. Other references to Leviathan are possibly using him as an analogy for the 7 headed Dragon and/or The Beast out of the Sea of Revelation, like how Jesus uses Birds to represent Satan in the Kingdom Parables of Matthew 13, being used symbolically in some places doesn't make it not a word for a real animal. I also think Leviathan is possibly used of a Constellation in some verses. If The Ancient Hebrews had a view of the Constellations analogous to our own, then Draco, Serpens, Hydra and Cetus are all good candidates.
I think it's best to stick to Job when defining the Zoological characteristics of Leviathan. Which first of all means the words translated "piercing" and "crooked" in Isaiah 27:1 aren't used in Job 41 and so maybe descriptions of the Constellation or poetic idioms about Satan are not useful for figuring out what the real animal looked like.
Isaiah 27:1 is a really complicated verse to consider here. It could be using multiple idioms for one thing, or describing three different things, two Leviathans and a Dragon, or two things, Leviathan and a Dragon. This verse probably isn't about the actual animal anyway, but I still wanted to point that out.
If we limit our clues for the real animal to Job 41 does that weaken it's aquatic association? Not quite, verse 31 seems to say it spends some time in the sea. But it is most likely Amphibious and not purely a Sea Creature.
I have a personal hunch that the Leviathan of Job 41 could be Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. There are plenty of inaccuracies to how this Dinosaur was depicted in Jurassic Park 3, but according to this video it was indeed Amphibious.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STn0CxdMIKk&t
Fire breathing, that is the big factor in objections to saying Dragons are real, including specifically Biblical ones which definitely attribute fire breathing to Leviathan and possibly but more debatably the Seraphim (there are other views of what them being called "firey" means).
The Bombardier beetle has an ability that certainly seems like shooting fire.
Skeptical analysis of such arguments for fire breathing animals often miss the point. Creationists only need the specific Biblical references to be literally true, so it doesn't matter if it actually looked like what Smaug or a Fire Type Pokemon can do.
One anti-Creationist website I was reading gave a simplified summery of the history of dragon legends and claims dragons didn't start breathing fire till the 5th century AD and none had wings till the 13th. That ignores The Bible's own descriptions of both winged serpents and Leviathan, as well as Beowulf. Basically this site wants to say Dragons didn't start resembling Dinosaurs till the 19th Century, which is an utterly absurd suggestion.
Monday, October 1, 2018
This is a Post about Higurashi/When They Cry
The very nature of what I want to discuss here is a spoiler. Higurashi is one of the few shows where I think it’s important to not be spoiled. As I already explained when I declared season 1 the ideal Horror Anime.
This post will even spoil season 2. In fact it's more so about season 2. Though some important hints at the themes I'm discussing here are in season 1. October just started so it's as good a time as any to watch it.
This post will even spoil season 2. In fact it's more so about season 2. Though some important hints at the themes I'm discussing here are in season 1. October just started so it's as good a time as any to watch it.
Saturday, September 8, 2018
Endymion & Selene compared to Inanna & Tammuz
That Endymion is called both a Shepherd and a King for awhile had me thinking David is the only other "mythological" figure he could viably be compared to. And while that connection is still one I'm perusing. I eventually remembered that on the Sumerian Kings List the Antedeluvian Dumuzi/Dumuzid (from which the name Tammuz comes) was called a Shepherd.
En is a Sumerian honorary prefix usually translated "lord". Also an -on often winds up added at the end of Greek transliterations of foreign names (this Greek feature is the only reason we call Babylon that, in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Old Testament it's always Babel/BBL, it's also traditionally viewed as why we spell Solomon that way). For those two reasons, I could see Lord Dumuzi being corrupted to Endymion in Greek. Also Damu is another form the name of Dumuzi used in a text titled In the Desert by the Early Grass.
The genealogy of Inanna/Ishtar is contradictory in various Sumerian/Akkadian and other Mesopotamian sources. Sometimes she's the daughter of Anu directly, sometimes of Enlil. But in one of the oldest Sumerian poems about her relationship with Dumuzid called Inana and Bilulu: an Ulila to Inana she is specifically depicted as the daughter of Nanna aka Suen/Sin (The Moon god) and his wife Ningal. Which gives a pretty strong basis for seeing her as a Lunar Goddess.
So basically, Inanna=Selene and Dumuzid/Tammuz=Endymion.
This is not the only Greek version of this Sumerian myth, as it's usually more commonly compared to Adonis, the Adonia happens the same time of year the Women wept for Tammuz. But remember Greece also had multiple Flood legends. In the Adonis tradition Inanna is Aphrodite, so that's the version that came through Cyrpus. I also believe Eos and other Indo-European Dawn Goddess (plus Uzume in Japan) are also an aspect of Inanna/Ishtar.
What's interesting is how I could stretch this analogy beyond just the original Greek Myth and make it match even more by comparing it to the Lore of the Manga/Anime franchise Sailor Moon, starting with Ningal as Queen Serenity.
Bilulu could be compared to either Beryl or Queen Metaria. Metaria could also perhaps be compared to Ereshkigal, though that basically becomes a female version of the turning Hades into Satan trope.
The loyal Maid-Servants of Inanna like Ninshubur could perhaps be the other Sailor Senshi in this analogy, and I'm oddly attracted to Makoto as Geshtinanna. It's also theorized that Inanna and Ishtar were originally separate deities later merged together with Ishtar being originally mainly a name for the Planet Venus, so that makes Ishtar as Sailor Venus an interesting option since Sailor Venus was sometimes a body double for the Princess.
The four Shitennou could perhaps be compared to people like Lulal and Shara who were governing other cities under the sway of Uruk. Also Ningishzida who was a brother in-law of Dumuzi and sometimes paired with him.
I simply lack a Sailor Moon character to compare Girgire/Jirgire to, besides that maybe in a different way he also plays the role of the Shitennou.
En is a Sumerian honorary prefix usually translated "lord". Also an -on often winds up added at the end of Greek transliterations of foreign names (this Greek feature is the only reason we call Babylon that, in the Hebrew/Aramaic text of the Old Testament it's always Babel/BBL, it's also traditionally viewed as why we spell Solomon that way). For those two reasons, I could see Lord Dumuzi being corrupted to Endymion in Greek. Also Damu is another form the name of Dumuzi used in a text titled In the Desert by the Early Grass.
The genealogy of Inanna/Ishtar is contradictory in various Sumerian/Akkadian and other Mesopotamian sources. Sometimes she's the daughter of Anu directly, sometimes of Enlil. But in one of the oldest Sumerian poems about her relationship with Dumuzid called Inana and Bilulu: an Ulila to Inana she is specifically depicted as the daughter of Nanna aka Suen/Sin (The Moon god) and his wife Ningal. Which gives a pretty strong basis for seeing her as a Lunar Goddess.
So basically, Inanna=Selene and Dumuzid/Tammuz=Endymion.
This is not the only Greek version of this Sumerian myth, as it's usually more commonly compared to Adonis, the Adonia happens the same time of year the Women wept for Tammuz. But remember Greece also had multiple Flood legends. In the Adonis tradition Inanna is Aphrodite, so that's the version that came through Cyrpus. I also believe Eos and other Indo-European Dawn Goddess (plus Uzume in Japan) are also an aspect of Inanna/Ishtar.
What's interesting is how I could stretch this analogy beyond just the original Greek Myth and make it match even more by comparing it to the Lore of the Manga/Anime franchise Sailor Moon, starting with Ningal as Queen Serenity.
Bilulu could be compared to either Beryl or Queen Metaria. Metaria could also perhaps be compared to Ereshkigal, though that basically becomes a female version of the turning Hades into Satan trope.
The loyal Maid-Servants of Inanna like Ninshubur could perhaps be the other Sailor Senshi in this analogy, and I'm oddly attracted to Makoto as Geshtinanna. It's also theorized that Inanna and Ishtar were originally separate deities later merged together with Ishtar being originally mainly a name for the Planet Venus, so that makes Ishtar as Sailor Venus an interesting option since Sailor Venus was sometimes a body double for the Princess.
The four Shitennou could perhaps be compared to people like Lulal and Shara who were governing other cities under the sway of Uruk. Also Ningishzida who was a brother in-law of Dumuzi and sometimes paired with him.
I simply lack a Sailor Moon character to compare Girgire/Jirgire to, besides that maybe in a different way he also plays the role of the Shitennou.
Thursday, August 2, 2018
Richard Carrier says the differences don't matter.
I've read a couple articles on Richard Carrier's website about the Christ Myth Hypothesis. And he basically stubbornly says that the differences like what InspiringPhilosphy and Chris White point out don't matter, it's only the similarities that matter.
[Update August 17th 2018: I need to add a major qualifier to my endorsement of Inspiring Philosophy's Copycat Savior playlist since in the new Inanna video he engages in the massive Hersey of denying The Harrowing of Hell.]
Well it's nice that you feel you get to write the rules of this debate in a way that inherently favors your side. But if you took George Lucas to court for plagiarizing The Hidden Fortress in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and said "all these differences don't matter" the Judge would laugh at you. "No one is claiming Star Wars is a true story" you might respond, well things that actually happen sometimes seem like history repeating itself, there were a lot of jokes back in the 2000s about a second George Bush starting a second war with Iraq. And sometimes things that actually happen seem like earlier fiction coming true, which is a recurring meme about our current President, fictional Donald Trumps got into the White House long before the real one did, and in most cases those writers thought they were writing an inherently impossible absurdity. Or I could leave politics out of this and point to The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility.
Christianity has never claimed to base it's credibility on saying no one had ever thought of the idea of coming back from the dead before. Quite the contrary I seek to show that the idea was firmly set up by the Hebrew Bible, including The Torah, in Genesis 22 and Joseph's narrative, and some of the Psalms. And everything that's a basis for the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition. And the general Resurrection of the Dead was foretold in Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12.
Richard Carrier is unique, he brings up his beliefs about the Old Testament not being much different from Pagan beliefs either in the same articles he talks about the Christ Myth Hypothesis. You see lots of Christ Mythers are doing this partly with an agenda of denying the Jewishness of the New Testament, of saying it uses the situation of First Century Judea as a setting but that it's fundamentally philosophically Greco-Roman. And that attitude is what I'm trying to oppose in posts like Greek words that are viewed as Gnostic and The Hebrew precedent for the Last Supper.
For example, people who see Virgin Births in every ancient Pre-Christian special birth story BUT Isaiah 7:14. Saying "Isaiah couldn't possibly have been talking about a Virgin Birth because his said Almah not Bethulah", and then turn around and read Virgin Births into Greek stories that never called anyone a Parthenos and do graphically describe sexual intercourse.
One website I read went on about how "Goddesses aren't like Humans, we can assume they remain Virgins even when they have sex", as if the "Hyman" was the point. Only three Olympian deities are called Virgin as a title and none of them reproduced, likewise with the non Olympian Astraea. And in the Ugarit texts only Anath is called any word for Virgin and she never reproduced either, one line in the Baal Cycle can be taken out of context about her "Bearing a calf" but that was about her carrying one in her arms not giving birth. The Egyptian Virgin Goddess was Nephthys, who Wikipedia says was the mother of Anubis but there is no actual solid source on that. Isis was never ever called a Virgin until post Enlightenment Thesophists and Neo-Pagans decided it suited them to do so.
If the Christ Mythers stated this part of their argument as just being that there were miraculous births before Jesus, it wouldn't be so easy to nit pick it to death. But they don't do that, the names of their articles and blog posts are always about Virgin births. But you see they know deep down only calling it a "Virgin" birth is specific enough to be an impressive similarity.
However I'm not as invested in the uniqueness of the Virgin Birth as I am the Resurrection, because the Virgin Birth isn't the definition of The Gospel, The Resurrection is. And that is where I'll firmly respond to Carrier's attitude by saying that to me the similarities don't matter, because the difference between Jesus Resurrection and pagan Dying and Rising god myths is where the definition of The Gospel lies.
Pagan dying and rising god myths are mere allegories for the "Circle of Life", meant to reinforce that Death is a natural part of how the world works that we need to accept. Which is also the Moral of the Epic of Gilgamesh. You see these Pagan "dying and rising gods" don't permanently rise, Osiris winds up right back down in the Underworld after being reanimated just long enough to conceive Horus. After the Sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 the Greek audience is baffled by Paul's declaration of The Resurrection, not because the author of Acts was unaware of Greeks myths that could be called dying and rising myths, but because Paul is referring to someone who stayed Risen.
The Harrowing of Hell doctrine gets compared to Orpheus traveling to Hades, but Orpheus failed, like Izanagi failed, however Jesus succeeded in getting His Bride out of Hades. The stories of Orpheus and Izanagi are the Bad News, they send the message that there is no escape from Hades/Yomi. Paul proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15:55 that Death has no Sting and Hades has no Victory. Revelation chapter 20 foretells that Hades will one day be emptied. And in my interpretation of Scripture it's not merely some Humans who will be risen to Eternal Life, it is all of us, because I believe in Universal Salvation.
[Update August 17th 2018: I need to add a major qualifier to my endorsement of Inspiring Philosophy's Copycat Savior playlist since in the new Inanna video he engages in the massive Hersey of denying The Harrowing of Hell.]
Well it's nice that you feel you get to write the rules of this debate in a way that inherently favors your side. But if you took George Lucas to court for plagiarizing The Hidden Fortress in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope and said "all these differences don't matter" the Judge would laugh at you. "No one is claiming Star Wars is a true story" you might respond, well things that actually happen sometimes seem like history repeating itself, there were a lot of jokes back in the 2000s about a second George Bush starting a second war with Iraq. And sometimes things that actually happen seem like earlier fiction coming true, which is a recurring meme about our current President, fictional Donald Trumps got into the White House long before the real one did, and in most cases those writers thought they were writing an inherently impossible absurdity. Or I could leave politics out of this and point to The Wreck of the Titan: Or, Futility.
Christianity has never claimed to base it's credibility on saying no one had ever thought of the idea of coming back from the dead before. Quite the contrary I seek to show that the idea was firmly set up by the Hebrew Bible, including The Torah, in Genesis 22 and Joseph's narrative, and some of the Psalms. And everything that's a basis for the Messiah Ben-Joseph tradition. And the general Resurrection of the Dead was foretold in Isaiah 26, Ezekiel 37 and Daniel 12.
Richard Carrier is unique, he brings up his beliefs about the Old Testament not being much different from Pagan beliefs either in the same articles he talks about the Christ Myth Hypothesis. You see lots of Christ Mythers are doing this partly with an agenda of denying the Jewishness of the New Testament, of saying it uses the situation of First Century Judea as a setting but that it's fundamentally philosophically Greco-Roman. And that attitude is what I'm trying to oppose in posts like Greek words that are viewed as Gnostic and The Hebrew precedent for the Last Supper.
For example, people who see Virgin Births in every ancient Pre-Christian special birth story BUT Isaiah 7:14. Saying "Isaiah couldn't possibly have been talking about a Virgin Birth because his said Almah not Bethulah", and then turn around and read Virgin Births into Greek stories that never called anyone a Parthenos and do graphically describe sexual intercourse.
One website I read went on about how "Goddesses aren't like Humans, we can assume they remain Virgins even when they have sex", as if the "Hyman" was the point. Only three Olympian deities are called Virgin as a title and none of them reproduced, likewise with the non Olympian Astraea. And in the Ugarit texts only Anath is called any word for Virgin and she never reproduced either, one line in the Baal Cycle can be taken out of context about her "Bearing a calf" but that was about her carrying one in her arms not giving birth. The Egyptian Virgin Goddess was Nephthys, who Wikipedia says was the mother of Anubis but there is no actual solid source on that. Isis was never ever called a Virgin until post Enlightenment Thesophists and Neo-Pagans decided it suited them to do so.
If the Christ Mythers stated this part of their argument as just being that there were miraculous births before Jesus, it wouldn't be so easy to nit pick it to death. But they don't do that, the names of their articles and blog posts are always about Virgin births. But you see they know deep down only calling it a "Virgin" birth is specific enough to be an impressive similarity.
However I'm not as invested in the uniqueness of the Virgin Birth as I am the Resurrection, because the Virgin Birth isn't the definition of The Gospel, The Resurrection is. And that is where I'll firmly respond to Carrier's attitude by saying that to me the similarities don't matter, because the difference between Jesus Resurrection and pagan Dying and Rising god myths is where the definition of The Gospel lies.
Pagan dying and rising god myths are mere allegories for the "Circle of Life", meant to reinforce that Death is a natural part of how the world works that we need to accept. Which is also the Moral of the Epic of Gilgamesh. You see these Pagan "dying and rising gods" don't permanently rise, Osiris winds up right back down in the Underworld after being reanimated just long enough to conceive Horus. After the Sermon on Mars Hill in Acts 17 the Greek audience is baffled by Paul's declaration of The Resurrection, not because the author of Acts was unaware of Greeks myths that could be called dying and rising myths, but because Paul is referring to someone who stayed Risen.
The Harrowing of Hell doctrine gets compared to Orpheus traveling to Hades, but Orpheus failed, like Izanagi failed, however Jesus succeeded in getting His Bride out of Hades. The stories of Orpheus and Izanagi are the Bad News, they send the message that there is no escape from Hades/Yomi. Paul proclaimed in 1 Corinthians 15:55 that Death has no Sting and Hades has no Victory. Revelation chapter 20 foretells that Hades will one day be emptied. And in my interpretation of Scripture it's not merely some Humans who will be risen to Eternal Life, it is all of us, because I believe in Universal Salvation.
Monday, April 30, 2018
Puella Magi Madoka Magica and Faust
It is pretty well known that Madoka drew on Faust, but typically analysis of Madoka has been more about how it relates to the Magical Girl genre and Anime trends in general. However there are some things about how Madoka uses Faust that I think are worth discussing. This is based on just the original stand alone series, I’m ignoring all the spin off Manga and Rebellion.
But first allow me to give a brief overview of the history of the Faust legend. Before the name of Faust appears.similar themes are seen in the stories about St Cyprian and Justina or Theophilus of Adana. (And sometimes comparisons to Simon Magus are made. ) The legend of Faust first emerged in Germany in the 1500s. Possibly partly inspired by the historical Alchemist Johann Georg Faust who lived about 1480-1540.
One of the first major dramatizations of the story was the English Language Elizabethan Stage Play written by Christopher Marlowe which has two contradictory versions. I watched a performance of it on YouTube. It might have been intended to be a commentary on Calvinism, since the key differences between the two versions come down to whether Faust had Free Will or not. This is one of the versions where there is no Salvation for Faust in the end.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s version of the story is clearly the primary influence on Madoka. For example Walpurgisnacht is a plot point in Goethe.
Then came George Reynolds' Penny Dreadful Faust saga which competed with Varney The Vampire, and then had a spin off called Wagner the Werewolf. And a famous puppet show. The perhaps most obscure treatment of the legend is in the first chapter of Paul Feval's La Vampire translated into English by Brian Stableford for BlackCoatPress as The Vampire Countess. But as a fan of theirs I feel compelled to mention it.
Not all of Madoka’s characters line up to characters in Faust even vaguely. There are three that to some extent do.
Kyubey is obviously Mephistopheles, that’s a no brainer.
Faust in this story is not the title character. All the other Magical Girls are to an extent, but chiefly it's Akemi Homura who is Faust.
The role Kaname Madoka fills is given away by the name of her Witch form, Gretchen. The character named Gretchen in Goethe's Faust is also known as Margurite or Margret. It’s possible to see Madoka as the closest thing to a similar sounding Japanese name.
The legend of Faust usually goes that he makes a deal with Mephistopheles selling his soul. They spend time being popular celebrities in Europe using their Magical Powers. Faust falls in love with Gretchen but Gretchen suffers a tragic fate because of Mephistopheles. Faust goes on being unrepentant. Many versions however have Faust saved in the end in-spite of his lack of Repentance, giving the story a Universalist tone.
Here is the thing about Goethe’s Faust that I feel is sadly overlooked in the context of its relationship to Madoka.
Faust is saved at the end when Gretchen who has become an Angel takes his Soul to Heaven snatching him away from The Devil. Yes, that’s right, even the Apotheosis of Madoka has a basis in Goethe.
Now Madoka has more agency then Gretchen in her Apotheosis, since Gretchen is just made an Angel as a reward for being Virtuous. But it’s somewhat subversive that Goethe considers Gretchen virtuous since she basically had an Abortion.
This aspect of the story descends from Theophilus being saved by the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary connection is also echoed by Ava Maria being played on the violin in the last episode of Madoka. I’ve commented elsewhere on how I think Fantasia may have also been an influence, Knight on Bald Mountain is depicting Walpurgisnacht.
"Virgin, Mother, Queen, ... Goddess kind forever... Eternal Womanhood. The Goddess is thus victorious over Mephistopheles, who had insisted at Faust's death that he would be consigned to "The Eternal Empty."- Goethe, Faust, Part Two, lines 12101–12110, translation: David Luke, Oxford World Classics.
That quote has the ability to seem both Feminist and Patriarchal in the same way that has made Feminists feel conflicted towards the Magical Girl Warrior genre since back when it was just Sailor Moon. So perhaps Faust was a more logical choice for a commentary on the Magical Girl genre than anyone originally thought.
But first allow me to give a brief overview of the history of the Faust legend. Before the name of Faust appears.similar themes are seen in the stories about St Cyprian and Justina or Theophilus of Adana. (And sometimes comparisons to Simon Magus are made. ) The legend of Faust first emerged in Germany in the 1500s. Possibly partly inspired by the historical Alchemist Johann Georg Faust who lived about 1480-1540.
One of the first major dramatizations of the story was the English Language Elizabethan Stage Play written by Christopher Marlowe which has two contradictory versions. I watched a performance of it on YouTube. It might have been intended to be a commentary on Calvinism, since the key differences between the two versions come down to whether Faust had Free Will or not. This is one of the versions where there is no Salvation for Faust in the end.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe’s version of the story is clearly the primary influence on Madoka. For example Walpurgisnacht is a plot point in Goethe.
Then came George Reynolds' Penny Dreadful Faust saga which competed with Varney The Vampire, and then had a spin off called Wagner the Werewolf. And a famous puppet show. The perhaps most obscure treatment of the legend is in the first chapter of Paul Feval's La Vampire translated into English by Brian Stableford for BlackCoatPress as The Vampire Countess. But as a fan of theirs I feel compelled to mention it.
Not all of Madoka’s characters line up to characters in Faust even vaguely. There are three that to some extent do.
Kyubey is obviously Mephistopheles, that’s a no brainer.
Faust in this story is not the title character. All the other Magical Girls are to an extent, but chiefly it's Akemi Homura who is Faust.
The role Kaname Madoka fills is given away by the name of her Witch form, Gretchen. The character named Gretchen in Goethe's Faust is also known as Margurite or Margret. It’s possible to see Madoka as the closest thing to a similar sounding Japanese name.
The legend of Faust usually goes that he makes a deal with Mephistopheles selling his soul. They spend time being popular celebrities in Europe using their Magical Powers. Faust falls in love with Gretchen but Gretchen suffers a tragic fate because of Mephistopheles. Faust goes on being unrepentant. Many versions however have Faust saved in the end in-spite of his lack of Repentance, giving the story a Universalist tone.
Here is the thing about Goethe’s Faust that I feel is sadly overlooked in the context of its relationship to Madoka.
Faust is saved at the end when Gretchen who has become an Angel takes his Soul to Heaven snatching him away from The Devil. Yes, that’s right, even the Apotheosis of Madoka has a basis in Goethe.
Now Madoka has more agency then Gretchen in her Apotheosis, since Gretchen is just made an Angel as a reward for being Virtuous. But it’s somewhat subversive that Goethe considers Gretchen virtuous since she basically had an Abortion.
This aspect of the story descends from Theophilus being saved by the Virgin Mary. The Virgin Mary connection is also echoed by Ava Maria being played on the violin in the last episode of Madoka. I’ve commented elsewhere on how I think Fantasia may have also been an influence, Knight on Bald Mountain is depicting Walpurgisnacht.
"Virgin, Mother, Queen, ... Goddess kind forever... Eternal Womanhood. The Goddess is thus victorious over Mephistopheles, who had insisted at Faust's death that he would be consigned to "The Eternal Empty."- Goethe, Faust, Part Two, lines 12101–12110, translation: David Luke, Oxford World Classics.
That quote has the ability to seem both Feminist and Patriarchal in the same way that has made Feminists feel conflicted towards the Magical Girl Warrior genre since back when it was just Sailor Moon. So perhaps Faust was a more logical choice for a commentary on the Magical Girl genre than anyone originally thought.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Avoid Bad Comparative Mythology Research
I still haven't gotten to the main stuff I wanna do on this Blog yet. Part of the problem is I have so many ideas I can't decide which one to delve into first.
Among other things, I want to help people avoid certain bad Comparative Mythology research that comes from both Believers and Skeptics. That has it's origins in the bad research of 18th and 19th century Thesophists and Alexander Hislop.
Before recommending again what I've said on the subject, I want to recommend some material by people more formally qualified then I am.
One is the Inspiring Philosophy YouTube channel. I don't agree with them on everything but they have some good material on this subject. One is a video called Is The Trinity Pagan? They have a series on Was Jesus a copycat Savior? And I like their video Easter is not Pagan. Their equivalent videos on Christmas also have good information but there they say stuff I can't endorse, they do tolerate more Catholic reclaiming of Paganism then I'm wiling to.
[Update August 2018: I need to add a major qualifier to my endorsement of Inspiring Philosophy's Copycat Savior playlist since in the new Inanna video he engages in the massive Hersey of denying The Harrowing of Hell.]
Another good YouTube channel is Religion for Breakfast, they come at things from a secular perspective, so as such certainly say things I don't agree with here and there. But sometimes that outsider perspective is useful. He has a video on the Cult of Mithras Explained, and his own about Why is Christmas on December 25th?
Chris White did a lot of stuff on this. In a way he's still more a conspiracy theorist then I am now. And to some extend I recently don't find his work as re-watchable as I used to. Still I have my own Playlist of Chris White videos on YouTube. Not everything there is about Comparative mythology, the ones about Zeitgeist and specific New Agers are the key ones.
Now for some of my own work.
My most important post on this topic is Paganism is about what you Believe not what you do from Sola Scirptura Christian Liberty on BlogSpot.
On m A Chronological View of Revelation blog. I actually think I do deal with the Letter of Hadrian from the Histora Augusta better then IP did in their Serapis video. And I also talk about Christmas Hanukkah, and December 25th.
And on my now semi-defunct Revised Chronology views of Mithrandir blog I talked about a lot of the Nimrod disinformation.
So the first two YouTubers I mentioned are the best starting point. I'll see how many videos I can successfully embed here. On some of these I've left comments in the comments sections.
Update October 2018: I found another Playlist on the history of the Christ Myth Hypothesis, from the Casual Historian YouTube Channel.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTZaOylOgJT-GLyroghQSfXAUPAusaEI4
Though he still says things I disagree with like considering Paul's Epistles older then any of the Gospels.
Among other things, I want to help people avoid certain bad Comparative Mythology research that comes from both Believers and Skeptics. That has it's origins in the bad research of 18th and 19th century Thesophists and Alexander Hislop.
Before recommending again what I've said on the subject, I want to recommend some material by people more formally qualified then I am.
One is the Inspiring Philosophy YouTube channel. I don't agree with them on everything but they have some good material on this subject. One is a video called Is The Trinity Pagan? They have a series on Was Jesus a copycat Savior? And I like their video Easter is not Pagan. Their equivalent videos on Christmas also have good information but there they say stuff I can't endorse, they do tolerate more Catholic reclaiming of Paganism then I'm wiling to.
[Update August 2018: I need to add a major qualifier to my endorsement of Inspiring Philosophy's Copycat Savior playlist since in the new Inanna video he engages in the massive Hersey of denying The Harrowing of Hell.]
Another good YouTube channel is Religion for Breakfast, they come at things from a secular perspective, so as such certainly say things I don't agree with here and there. But sometimes that outsider perspective is useful. He has a video on the Cult of Mithras Explained, and his own about Why is Christmas on December 25th?
Chris White did a lot of stuff on this. In a way he's still more a conspiracy theorist then I am now. And to some extend I recently don't find his work as re-watchable as I used to. Still I have my own Playlist of Chris White videos on YouTube. Not everything there is about Comparative mythology, the ones about Zeitgeist and specific New Agers are the key ones.
Now for some of my own work.
My most important post on this topic is Paganism is about what you Believe not what you do from Sola Scirptura Christian Liberty on BlogSpot.
On m A Chronological View of Revelation blog. I actually think I do deal with the Letter of Hadrian from the Histora Augusta better then IP did in their Serapis video. And I also talk about Christmas Hanukkah, and December 25th.
And on my now semi-defunct Revised Chronology views of Mithrandir blog I talked about a lot of the Nimrod disinformation.
So the first two YouTubers I mentioned are the best starting point. I'll see how many videos I can successfully embed here. On some of these I've left comments in the comments sections.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLTZaOylOgJT-GLyroghQSfXAUPAusaEI4
Though he still says things I disagree with like considering Paul's Epistles older then any of the Gospels.
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Tuatha Dé Danann, The Table of Nations and the Ramayama
In Irish Mythology the Tuatha Dé Danann are a people who invaded Ireland from Northern Europe before the Milesians. Said to descend from a Goddess named Dana or Danu.
British Israelism, and other theories, have sought to identify them with the Biblical Tribe of Dan. In my own theories I've come to prefer more specifically identifying Dan with Greece, Makedon, Ionia and maybe parts of Italy. And thus come to reject attempts to identify them with northern European tribes.
I still think the Tuatha De Danann came from Scandinavia and thus may be partly related to modern populations of Scandinavia and Germany. But where did they come from Biblically? Well the D-n element is used in The Bible of more then just children of Jacob. Lately I finally noticed something interesting.
TuathaDeDanann, as in Dedan.
There are two Dedans in Genesis, both have a brother named Sheba. Some might be tempted to identify the De Danann with the Dedan who's a grandson of Abraham. But Abraham's sons by Keturah were settled in Arabia, according to Josephus along the Red Sea, where the the Dedan of Abraham was also known as Lihyan.
The Tuatha De Danann are often identified with two other groups from other Indo-European mythologies. The Children of Don of Welsh Mythology, descended from the Goddess Dôn. And the Danavas of Hindu mythology who also descended from a Goddess named Danu. There is a state called Dedan in modern India.
I've already argued elsewhere that the Rama of the Ramayama was a deification of Raamah son of Cush of Genesis 10. Rama by his wife Sita has two children just like the Raamah of Genesis. And one of the sons of Rama and Sita was named Kusha, showing that the Ramayama has the genealogy changed a bit, but is definitely evidence of them being Kushite. Cush wasn't just in Africa. I think the Sheba son of Raamah was deified as the Hindu god Shiva.
British Israelism, and other theories, have sought to identify them with the Biblical Tribe of Dan. In my own theories I've come to prefer more specifically identifying Dan with Greece, Makedon, Ionia and maybe parts of Italy. And thus come to reject attempts to identify them with northern European tribes.
I still think the Tuatha De Danann came from Scandinavia and thus may be partly related to modern populations of Scandinavia and Germany. But where did they come from Biblically? Well the D-n element is used in The Bible of more then just children of Jacob. Lately I finally noticed something interesting.
TuathaDeDanann, as in Dedan.
There are two Dedans in Genesis, both have a brother named Sheba. Some might be tempted to identify the De Danann with the Dedan who's a grandson of Abraham. But Abraham's sons by Keturah were settled in Arabia, according to Josephus along the Red Sea, where the the Dedan of Abraham was also known as Lihyan.
The Tuatha De Danann are often identified with two other groups from other Indo-European mythologies. The Children of Don of Welsh Mythology, descended from the Goddess Dôn. And the Danavas of Hindu mythology who also descended from a Goddess named Danu. There is a state called Dedan in modern India.
I've already argued elsewhere that the Rama of the Ramayama was a deification of Raamah son of Cush of Genesis 10. Rama by his wife Sita has two children just like the Raamah of Genesis. And one of the sons of Rama and Sita was named Kusha, showing that the Ramayama has the genealogy changed a bit, but is definitely evidence of them being Kushite. Cush wasn't just in Africa. I think the Sheba son of Raamah was deified as the Hindu god Shiva.
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Shakespeare never wrote about King Arthur
There are a lot of subjects Shakespeare never covered, that a mind like mine wonders what it could have been like if he had. The censorship laws of the time tell us why he never dramatized any stories from The Bible. In addition to that is Alexander The Great, or the Julio-Claudian Dynasty.
But it’s easy to think of King Arthur as being the one most conspicuous in his absence. He covered other semi or completely mythical Kings of Briton like Lear and Cymbeline. Even Macbeth feels almost like it belongs in the same genre as Arthurian legend.
Other Elizabethans didn’t really write about Arthur much either. There is one obscure Elizabethan play about Merlin that some speculate might have been a work of Shakespeare, but it’s generally not considered part of the canon.
The reason I want to bring this up here is because I think one particular set of Shakespeare plays possibly provides a good model for how Shakespeare would have handled the subject of Arthur. The four plays known as the Henriad.
This idea of mine came about from how KyleKallgrenBHH tends to talk about the Henry plays in his videos, like his take on The Lion King, and The Chimes at Midnight, and the Branagh films, and talking about Thor in his video on The Avengers.
It becomes easy to think of the rather idealized portrait he paints of Henry V as being what his take on King Arthur would be. With Henry IV then as Uther, and Richard II as Vortigern. Falstaf could maybe be compared to Sir Kay. or maybe Ecktor with Kay, Bedivere and Gawain being Pistol, Nym and Bardolph.
Update April 2019: And maybe you could expand that to the War of the Roses plays resembling what supposedly happened after Arthur's death. With various Lancastrian figures being the 5 kings of Wales and Cornwall, and maybe Cardinal Henry Beaufort as Gildas. And the house of Peredur being the house of York.
But it’s easy to think of King Arthur as being the one most conspicuous in his absence. He covered other semi or completely mythical Kings of Briton like Lear and Cymbeline. Even Macbeth feels almost like it belongs in the same genre as Arthurian legend.
Other Elizabethans didn’t really write about Arthur much either. There is one obscure Elizabethan play about Merlin that some speculate might have been a work of Shakespeare, but it’s generally not considered part of the canon.
The reason I want to bring this up here is because I think one particular set of Shakespeare plays possibly provides a good model for how Shakespeare would have handled the subject of Arthur. The four plays known as the Henriad.
This idea of mine came about from how KyleKallgrenBHH tends to talk about the Henry plays in his videos, like his take on The Lion King, and The Chimes at Midnight, and the Branagh films, and talking about Thor in his video on The Avengers.
It becomes easy to think of the rather idealized portrait he paints of Henry V as being what his take on King Arthur would be. With Henry IV then as Uther, and Richard II as Vortigern. Falstaf could maybe be compared to Sir Kay. or maybe Ecktor with Kay, Bedivere and Gawain being Pistol, Nym and Bardolph.
Update April 2019: And maybe you could expand that to the War of the Roses plays resembling what supposedly happened after Arthur's death. With various Lancastrian figures being the 5 kings of Wales and Cornwall, and maybe Cardinal Henry Beaufort as Gildas. And the house of Peredur being the house of York.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Valentines Day and Lupercalia
I like finding an excuse to draw attention to this YouTube video that I didn't make when V-Day approaches. And it occurred to me it could count as relevant to this Blog.
Love Angels V-Day PSA by TokuTenshi. It's a bonus episode of Wedding Peach Abridged, which is a funny series in general. This one mostly works well even out of that context.
I promise I have some proper posts coming. It's taking longer for me to perfect the arguments I wanted to make then I originally anticipated.
Love Angels V-Day PSA by TokuTenshi. It's a bonus episode of Wedding Peach Abridged, which is a funny series in general. This one mostly works well even out of that context.
I promise I have some proper posts coming. It's taking longer for me to perfect the arguments I wanted to make then I originally anticipated.
Wednesday, January 31, 2018
Lilith, Serpents and Izanami
This post is somewhat a follow up to my post on The Two Seed Line Theory on another Blog.
I talked about Lilith once on my Prophecy Blog in Edom and Lilith. I still think that theory might have some truth to it, but I want to talk about some other factors here.
The 8th-10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira is the first known example of Lilith being identified as a previous wife of Adam. Though the suggestion that Adam had a previous wife is made in the 3rd-5th Century Genesis Rabbah. But the Rabbah is weird, implying it's earlier woman was also made from a peice of Adam but he wasn't put to sleep that time.
Later on some Kabbalah writings like Treatise on the Left Emanation would identify Lilith with the Serpent of Genesis 3. And to be honest there is no solid proof in the Genesis text that the Nahash is male rather then female. Even Lilith being traditionally depicted as red haired could come from Nahash being similar to the Hebrew word for Bronze. Lilith has also been associated with the Serpents in Isaiah 27:1, Humm, Alan. Lilith, Samael, & Blind Dragon. And for some context in the Egyptian Ogdoad the female deities are depicted as Serpents while the males are Frogs.
Nahash is given in 2 Samuel 17:25 as the name of a parent of at least one of David's sisters. And attempts to explain that usually debate between Nahash as another name for Jesse or a theory that David's mother had a husband before Jesse. But it's occurred to me that maybe this name can be used by men and women and that this Nahash could have been a wife of Jesse.
Some scholars think the Lilith (Screech Owl in the KJV) of Isaiah 34 is most likely just some normal animal, other words used around there are clearly animals elsewhere in Scripture. For example the Satyr in the KJV is actually Sayir a Hebrew word for Goat. Lilith coming from a word for Night could mean it's some kind of Nocturnal animal. Babylonian Talmud on Tractate Nidda 24b implies Lilith is a winged creature. Those clues could support the Owl translation. But if it refers to an animal called by some other term elsewhere in scripture, the flying Serpents of Numbers and other parts of Isaiah are arguably placed near the region of Edom.
The Latin Vulgate of Isaiah 34 translated Lilith as Lamia, the Lamia was a creature in Greek Mythology often depicted as part woman and part serpent. But Lamia's etymology has also been interpreted to mean "Nocturnal Spirit", being related to Lemures.
It is commonly theorized that the idea of a Jewish tradition of Adam having a wife before Eve must come from a desire to reconcile a supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. But the truth is if you view them as accounts of separate events, then more then one Adam was created too. Also if you separate them neither the male or female Adam is made from the dust of the earth in Genesis 1.
It is often overlooked that without even leaving Genesis 2:4-25 there is a basis for Adam having possible wives or at least wife-candidates before Eve, who were also formed from the Dust of the Earth like he was. That is when Adam names the "Beasts of the Field".
Some of my fellow Creationists may feel the need to mock the suggestion that God was seriously considering mating Adam with any of them. Indeed if you read verses 19 and 20 in isolation there is no clear indicator they were possible spouses. But the fact is verse 18 comes before this narrative rather then being saved till after it, that presents it as somehow linked. Now I certainly believe God knew what the outcome of this would be, but this still happens in the text. And indeed the actual text of The Alphabet of Ben Sira supports this being where it placed Lilith's creation.
Genesis 3:1 also says that whatever the Nahash is, it could qualify as a Beast of the Field. Some use the terminology of that verse to say it's distinguished from being a Beast of the Field, but what's even the point of mentioning Beasts of the Field in that case? Or maybe the Serpent is distinguished from them because he was the offspring of one? possibly by Adam? I don't know, I'm not planning on building any doctrines on the theories in this post.
I've read that the most direct translation of the Hebrew would be something like "crafty from all of animals of the field", and that Genesis 3:14 clearly defined the Serpent as a a fellow beast of the field.
Maybe the extra-Biblical traditions of Lilith came to involve confusing or conflating all the creatures of chapter 2 verses 19 and 20 together? After all Lilith is technically a feminine Plural. Fowls of the air are also explicitly mentioned in those verses.
I've also noticed lately that comparing Amos 9:11-12 as it is in the Masoretic text/KJV to how it's quoted in Acts 15:15-17 shows that what reads Edom in the Masoretic was probably originally Adam, which is spelled the same in Hebrew. So maybe Isaiah 34 is the same, it was never about Edom but about the domain of Adam?
In my post about why we should not call Satan Lucifer. I pointed out that Shachar/Shahar the Hebrew word for Dawn/Morning in Isaiah 14:12 is spelled the same as Shachor a Hebrew word that means Black or Dark, and that relating that meaning to the Dawn kind of makes sense because "The Night is Darkest just before The Dawn". In that context it could make a good synonym for Lilith given the Night association of the name Lilith. Giving me a basis to argue that Isaiah 14:12 says Satan is the Son of Lilith.
In the past I have noted possible parallels between the figure of Lilith and Izanami of Japanese Mythology. In the Edom post I already linked to, in a post talking about the Anime called Evangelion, and when speculating on The Lost Tribes possibly going to Japan. However as I've been reading up more on Lilith, I've noticed even more parallels.
Before it was mostly just her being the Wife of an Adam figure, plus Izanami speaking first in their mating ritual being an issue having a possible parallel to Lilith wanting to be on top in The Alphabet of Ben Sira.
But now I'm learning things like Lilith also being sent to an Underworld type location, from the Myths linking her to Asmodeus, to the Kaballah tradition of her going down to the Great Abyss. Meaning the debate about if the Queen of The Night Relief is Lilith or Ereshkigal could be redundant, it could be they were always the same woman.
I talked about Lilith once on my Prophecy Blog in Edom and Lilith. I still think that theory might have some truth to it, but I want to talk about some other factors here.
The 8th-10th Century Alphabet of Ben Sira is the first known example of Lilith being identified as a previous wife of Adam. Though the suggestion that Adam had a previous wife is made in the 3rd-5th Century Genesis Rabbah. But the Rabbah is weird, implying it's earlier woman was also made from a peice of Adam but he wasn't put to sleep that time.
Later on some Kabbalah writings like Treatise on the Left Emanation would identify Lilith with the Serpent of Genesis 3. And to be honest there is no solid proof in the Genesis text that the Nahash is male rather then female. Even Lilith being traditionally depicted as red haired could come from Nahash being similar to the Hebrew word for Bronze. Lilith has also been associated with the Serpents in Isaiah 27:1, Humm, Alan. Lilith, Samael, & Blind Dragon. And for some context in the Egyptian Ogdoad the female deities are depicted as Serpents while the males are Frogs.
Nahash is given in 2 Samuel 17:25 as the name of a parent of at least one of David's sisters. And attempts to explain that usually debate between Nahash as another name for Jesse or a theory that David's mother had a husband before Jesse. But it's occurred to me that maybe this name can be used by men and women and that this Nahash could have been a wife of Jesse.
Some scholars think the Lilith (Screech Owl in the KJV) of Isaiah 34 is most likely just some normal animal, other words used around there are clearly animals elsewhere in Scripture. For example the Satyr in the KJV is actually Sayir a Hebrew word for Goat. Lilith coming from a word for Night could mean it's some kind of Nocturnal animal. Babylonian Talmud on Tractate Nidda 24b implies Lilith is a winged creature. Those clues could support the Owl translation. But if it refers to an animal called by some other term elsewhere in scripture, the flying Serpents of Numbers and other parts of Isaiah are arguably placed near the region of Edom.
The Latin Vulgate of Isaiah 34 translated Lilith as Lamia, the Lamia was a creature in Greek Mythology often depicted as part woman and part serpent. But Lamia's etymology has also been interpreted to mean "Nocturnal Spirit", being related to Lemures.
It is commonly theorized that the idea of a Jewish tradition of Adam having a wife before Eve must come from a desire to reconcile a supposed contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2. But the truth is if you view them as accounts of separate events, then more then one Adam was created too. Also if you separate them neither the male or female Adam is made from the dust of the earth in Genesis 1.
It is often overlooked that without even leaving Genesis 2:4-25 there is a basis for Adam having possible wives or at least wife-candidates before Eve, who were also formed from the Dust of the Earth like he was. That is when Adam names the "Beasts of the Field".
Some of my fellow Creationists may feel the need to mock the suggestion that God was seriously considering mating Adam with any of them. Indeed if you read verses 19 and 20 in isolation there is no clear indicator they were possible spouses. But the fact is verse 18 comes before this narrative rather then being saved till after it, that presents it as somehow linked. Now I certainly believe God knew what the outcome of this would be, but this still happens in the text. And indeed the actual text of The Alphabet of Ben Sira supports this being where it placed Lilith's creation.
After God created Adam, who was alone, He said, "It is not good for man to be alone." He then created a woman for Adam, from the earth, as He had created Adam himself, and called her Lilith.Plenty of Creationists have already seen the creation of these animals as separate from their initial creation in Genesis 1, whether we place these events on day six or a later point. In Genesis 1 they're made before Adam, even those that were the same day, but in Genesis 2 they're made after Adam is placed in The Garden. In which case I suspect Genesis 1 records the ancestors of the animals we generally see today, while Genesis 2 could be beings peculiar to the Garden, who perhaps were more "sentient". Maybe the Living Creatures of Revelation aka the Cherubim and the Seraphim were among these?
Genesis 3:1 also says that whatever the Nahash is, it could qualify as a Beast of the Field. Some use the terminology of that verse to say it's distinguished from being a Beast of the Field, but what's even the point of mentioning Beasts of the Field in that case? Or maybe the Serpent is distinguished from them because he was the offspring of one? possibly by Adam? I don't know, I'm not planning on building any doctrines on the theories in this post.
I've read that the most direct translation of the Hebrew would be something like "crafty from all of animals of the field", and that Genesis 3:14 clearly defined the Serpent as a a fellow beast of the field.
Maybe the extra-Biblical traditions of Lilith came to involve confusing or conflating all the creatures of chapter 2 verses 19 and 20 together? After all Lilith is technically a feminine Plural. Fowls of the air are also explicitly mentioned in those verses.
I've also noticed lately that comparing Amos 9:11-12 as it is in the Masoretic text/KJV to how it's quoted in Acts 15:15-17 shows that what reads Edom in the Masoretic was probably originally Adam, which is spelled the same in Hebrew. So maybe Isaiah 34 is the same, it was never about Edom but about the domain of Adam?
In my post about why we should not call Satan Lucifer. I pointed out that Shachar/Shahar the Hebrew word for Dawn/Morning in Isaiah 14:12 is spelled the same as Shachor a Hebrew word that means Black or Dark, and that relating that meaning to the Dawn kind of makes sense because "The Night is Darkest just before The Dawn". In that context it could make a good synonym for Lilith given the Night association of the name Lilith. Giving me a basis to argue that Isaiah 14:12 says Satan is the Son of Lilith.
In the past I have noted possible parallels between the figure of Lilith and Izanami of Japanese Mythology. In the Edom post I already linked to, in a post talking about the Anime called Evangelion, and when speculating on The Lost Tribes possibly going to Japan. However as I've been reading up more on Lilith, I've noticed even more parallels.
Before it was mostly just her being the Wife of an Adam figure, plus Izanami speaking first in their mating ritual being an issue having a possible parallel to Lilith wanting to be on top in The Alphabet of Ben Sira.
But now I'm learning things like Lilith also being sent to an Underworld type location, from the Myths linking her to Asmodeus, to the Kaballah tradition of her going down to the Great Abyss. Meaning the debate about if the Queen of The Night Relief is Lilith or Ereshkigal could be redundant, it could be they were always the same woman.
Izanami also
possibly reflects Lilith's status as a mother of Demons via her sending
Rajin and Shikome after Izanagi from the Underworld, and being the mother of many Kami. Ryujin
could also be compared to Isaiah 27:1, as he's literally a Dragon in
the Sea, and as Watasumi is an offspring of Izanagi and Izanami.
In the context of all of that, there are two figures from Greek Mythology it might be plausible to compare to Lilith.
One is Echidna, a Half-Woman and Half-Snake monster who was the wife of Typhon. And Aristophanes says she was a denizen of the Underworld. And she was known as the Mother of Monsters. The word Echidna also appears in the New Testament, the KJV always translated it Viper. Is it possible that means Echidna was used in the Septuagint where the KJV has Viper in the Old Testament? I don't know, checking the Septuagint isn't easy given how sometimes the Chapters aren't even in the same order. Eph'eh is the Hebrew word Translated Viper in the KJV, it's used in Isaiah 30:6 in a way that's possibly synonymous with the fiery flying Serpent. The Apocryphal Acts of Philip tells a story of Philip dealing with a Temple ruled by Echidna.
Another would be Eurynome who was the wife of Ophion, or in some theories his mother, who was also cast into Tartarus according to Lycophron (1191). It's possible Eurynome and Echidna could have originally been the same, considering how Typhon and Ophion are almost certainly different versions of the same original myth. Other Greek mythical figures who could be based on this same original idea are Nyx (means night) and Ceto, and maybe Lamia who was mentioned above.
There has naturally been a tendency to compare some takes on Lilith to Sophia in Gnosticism. And Robert Graves basically made Eurynome a Sophia figure in his reconstruction.
This Mother of Monsters aspect could also make one think of Grendel's Mother in Beowulf. Or in Norse Mythology Angrboða who by Loki was the mother of Hella (the Underworld Goddess), Jormungander, a Sea Serpent monster comparable to Serpents discussed above, and Fenrir a wolf creature you might recognize from Thor Ragnorock. Sometimes another possible offspring named Larnvidia (she of the Iron-Wood) is mentioned, who is sometimes refereed to as a She-Wolf and the mother of Fenrir's children. Fenrir and his offspring no doubt played a role in inspiring Tolkien's Wargs and Werewolves (who are not what the term Werewolf generally means), and Fenris Ulf in Narnia, as well as the Direwolves on Game of Thrones. But the usual "Mother of Monsters" figure in Tolkien's lore is Ungoliant, the ancestress of both Shelob and the Spiders of Mirkwood. Sulkaris is a villainess from a Zelda fan game who might be partly inspired by Ungoliant.
When I finally read George MacDonald's Lilith, I wonder how relevant all this speculation will be?
Update December 25th 22019: It seems like Fate/Grand Order: Babylonia is identifying the Mesopotamian Tiamat with Echidna since they're clearly implying a relationship with Medusa (Fate/Stay Night's Rider) via a similar look and having the same Voice Actress in both Japanese and the Aniplex Dub, and a similar "mystic eyes" ablity. And there does seem to be prior precedent for such an identification. Graves makes Tiamat the same kind of goddess he makes Eurynome.
Turns out the initial Tiamat isn't quite Tiamat but "Gorgon", they're still implying Tiamat is a Mother of Monsters.
In the context of all of that, there are two figures from Greek Mythology it might be plausible to compare to Lilith.
One is Echidna, a Half-Woman and Half-Snake monster who was the wife of Typhon. And Aristophanes says she was a denizen of the Underworld. And she was known as the Mother of Monsters. The word Echidna also appears in the New Testament, the KJV always translated it Viper. Is it possible that means Echidna was used in the Septuagint where the KJV has Viper in the Old Testament? I don't know, checking the Septuagint isn't easy given how sometimes the Chapters aren't even in the same order. Eph'eh is the Hebrew word Translated Viper in the KJV, it's used in Isaiah 30:6 in a way that's possibly synonymous with the fiery flying Serpent. The Apocryphal Acts of Philip tells a story of Philip dealing with a Temple ruled by Echidna.
Another would be Eurynome who was the wife of Ophion, or in some theories his mother, who was also cast into Tartarus according to Lycophron (1191). It's possible Eurynome and Echidna could have originally been the same, considering how Typhon and Ophion are almost certainly different versions of the same original myth. Other Greek mythical figures who could be based on this same original idea are Nyx (means night) and Ceto, and maybe Lamia who was mentioned above.
There has naturally been a tendency to compare some takes on Lilith to Sophia in Gnosticism. And Robert Graves basically made Eurynome a Sophia figure in his reconstruction.
This Mother of Monsters aspect could also make one think of Grendel's Mother in Beowulf. Or in Norse Mythology Angrboða who by Loki was the mother of Hella (the Underworld Goddess), Jormungander, a Sea Serpent monster comparable to Serpents discussed above, and Fenrir a wolf creature you might recognize from Thor Ragnorock. Sometimes another possible offspring named Larnvidia (she of the Iron-Wood) is mentioned, who is sometimes refereed to as a She-Wolf and the mother of Fenrir's children. Fenrir and his offspring no doubt played a role in inspiring Tolkien's Wargs and Werewolves (who are not what the term Werewolf generally means), and Fenris Ulf in Narnia, as well as the Direwolves on Game of Thrones. But the usual "Mother of Monsters" figure in Tolkien's lore is Ungoliant, the ancestress of both Shelob and the Spiders of Mirkwood. Sulkaris is a villainess from a Zelda fan game who might be partly inspired by Ungoliant.
When I finally read George MacDonald's Lilith, I wonder how relevant all this speculation will be?
Update December 25th 22019: It seems like Fate/Grand Order: Babylonia is identifying the Mesopotamian Tiamat with Echidna since they're clearly implying a relationship with Medusa (Fate/Stay Night's Rider) via a similar look and having the same Voice Actress in both Japanese and the Aniplex Dub, and a similar "mystic eyes" ablity. And there does seem to be prior precedent for such an identification. Graves makes Tiamat the same kind of goddess he makes Eurynome.
Turns out the initial Tiamat isn't quite Tiamat but "Gorgon", they're still implying Tiamat is a Mother of Monsters.
Monday, January 1, 2018
Jehosheba and Athaliah
I’ve often thought in the past that the story of Jehosheba, also called Jehoshabeath (2 Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 22:10-12) might have a vague parallel to fairy tales like Snow White. Mostly because I was operating under an assumption that Athaliah was probably not Jehosheba’s mother, and therefore could easily be seen as an Evil Step-Mother who’s also a usurper of the throne and thus the Evil Queen. We are told that Jehosheba is the daughter of Jehoram and a sister of Ahaziah, but not who her mother is.
A few things have changed my perspective on that however.
2 Kings 10:13-14 talks about Jehu encountering brothers of Ahaziah (son of Jehoram and Athaliah). This is often accused of being a contradiction due to 2 Chronicles 21:17 and 22:1 saying the Philistines and “Arabians that were near Cush” took all the other wives and sons of Jehoram captive. And some have explained this by saying 2 Kings really means brethren as in nephews or something.
However I feel the point of what 2 Chronicles says here is that they were left with no one but children by Athaliah to inherent Jehoram’s throne. That by calling Jehoahaz the youngest son they meant the youngest set of sons. So I think Jehu slew the other sons by Athaliah, after all it was the House of Ahab he was seeking to extinguish.
2 Chronicles 22:8 can be cited as saying it was sons of brethren of Ahaziah that Jehu slew. But they weren’t alone, they were with Princes of Judah. The sons of Jehoram by other wives being taken probably hadn’t had children yet, or if they did they too were taken, the point was the potential lines of succession to Jehoram were left to just the children by Athaliah.
2 Chronicles 24:7 confirms that Athaliah had more than one son.
In which context, I started wondering if we can infer these Philistines and Arabs took the daughters of the other wives too? The word translated sons can sometimes be interpreted gender neutrally when it's used in a plural form, and their taking wives shows they weren’t against taking women. So I now think it probable that Jehosheba was a daughter of Athaliah, but The Bible doesn’t directly refer to her as such since she didn’t inherit the sins of Jezebel or of Jeroboam.
As I was contemplating the Oedipus=Akhnaton theory a while back, I also thought about Electra (possibly called Laodice by Homer), the myth often considered the female counterpart of Oedipus in terms of how Psychologists like Freud and Jung use Greek mythology anyway. And when I read that according to Pindar (Pythia, xi. 25) Clytemnestra also tried to kill Orestes, but he was rescued by either Electra or his wet-nurse. I immediately thought of Jehosheba saving Jehoash and his wet-nurse from Athaliah’s attempt to massacre all her grandchildren.
King Strophius could be seen as playing the role of Jehoiada. And Aegisthus as Mat-tan the Priest of Baal.
Still there are differences, besides the genealogy being different. The Bible does not actually involve Jehosheba in the killing of Athaliah. The genealogy difference could come down to just skipping one generation in the direct royal line, the Greek version having no equivalent for Ahaziah or merging him with Jehoram. Athaliah didn't kill Jehoram or Ahaziah, but Jeosheba or others could have blamed her for their demises because of her role in leading the nation into Idolatry.
This connection could happen to fit with Salverda’s identification of Pelops with Ahab, the Greek oral tradition simply changed through which parent Jehosheba and Jehoash descended from Ahab. However I’ve come to prefer possibly identifying Pelops with Jehu, or maybe even with a Davidic King. Perhaps Tyndareus and Leda are in some way based on Ahab and Jezebel?
I think Jehosheba’s marriage to Jehoiada was probably a purely arranged one. 2 Chronicles 22:11 seems to explicitly say that Jehoiada was married to Jehoshabeath because she was the sister of Ahaziah. Exodus 6:22 says Aaron, the first High Priest was married to Elisheba, the sister of Naashon/Nahshon then Prince of Judah (Numbers 1:7, 2:3, 7:12-17 and 10:14) and an ancestor of King David according to Ruth 4, 1 Chronicles 2, Matthew 1 and Luke 3. So it might be sisters of the King marrying High Priests was a common custom.
If I wrote a dramatization of Jehosheba’s story, I would probably write in a Lesbian story-line. Possibly between her and the wet-nurse, or maybe between her and Zibiah of Beersheba the mother of Jehoash. Or maybe both, a nice Yuri threesome.
Update 8/14/18: I kind of follow up on this here, Jacob Fathered Two Sets of Twins.
Update December 5th 2018: Achaeans
In the Greek Strongs Concordance Achaia is right next to Ahaz because how Ahaz is rendered in Greek looks like the first part of Achaia. Ahab begins the same as Ahaz in Hebrew, this is why Salverda could argue a connection between Ahab and the Achaeans. Ahaziah is another name that begins the same way, the name of sons of both Ahab and Jehoram of Judah.
His mistake was thinking that made Pelops an Achaean.
Herodotus and Pausanias both said that the Achaeans originally dwelt in Laconia(Sparta) and Argos(including Mycenae), so Agamemnon and Menelaus were Achaeans by marriage and by ruling them, not by their descent from Pelops who was in Elis. The Iliad used Danaans/Danaoi and "Long Haired Achaeans" interchangeably, the most famous Danite was Samson who's long hair was a vital plot point.
1 Maccabees and Josephus record how Areus I King of Sparta sent letters to High Priest Onias I about how he had documentation that the Spartans descended from Abraham. The letter was stamped with an image of an Eagle Clutching a Serpent. The Serpent is a Biblical symbol of Dan based on Genesis 49, the Eagle isn't directly, but Micah uses an Eagle as a symbol of Samaria.
Omri was first crowned King at Gibbethon a city of Dan's original Allotment, and then Omri founded Samaria. So Maybe an Eagle and Serpent together is a symbol of the House of Omri? Maybe he married his son to a Phoenician Princess because of the Danites past associations with the Phoenicians?
So thus Clytemnestra was a daughter of the House of Omri.
A few things have changed my perspective on that however.
2 Kings 10:13-14 talks about Jehu encountering brothers of Ahaziah (son of Jehoram and Athaliah). This is often accused of being a contradiction due to 2 Chronicles 21:17 and 22:1 saying the Philistines and “Arabians that were near Cush” took all the other wives and sons of Jehoram captive. And some have explained this by saying 2 Kings really means brethren as in nephews or something.
However I feel the point of what 2 Chronicles says here is that they were left with no one but children by Athaliah to inherent Jehoram’s throne. That by calling Jehoahaz the youngest son they meant the youngest set of sons. So I think Jehu slew the other sons by Athaliah, after all it was the House of Ahab he was seeking to extinguish.
2 Chronicles 22:8 can be cited as saying it was sons of brethren of Ahaziah that Jehu slew. But they weren’t alone, they were with Princes of Judah. The sons of Jehoram by other wives being taken probably hadn’t had children yet, or if they did they too were taken, the point was the potential lines of succession to Jehoram were left to just the children by Athaliah.
2 Chronicles 24:7 confirms that Athaliah had more than one son.
In which context, I started wondering if we can infer these Philistines and Arabs took the daughters of the other wives too? The word translated sons can sometimes be interpreted gender neutrally when it's used in a plural form, and their taking wives shows they weren’t against taking women. So I now think it probable that Jehosheba was a daughter of Athaliah, but The Bible doesn’t directly refer to her as such since she didn’t inherit the sins of Jezebel or of Jeroboam.
As I was contemplating the Oedipus=Akhnaton theory a while back, I also thought about Electra (possibly called Laodice by Homer), the myth often considered the female counterpart of Oedipus in terms of how Psychologists like Freud and Jung use Greek mythology anyway. And when I read that according to Pindar (Pythia, xi. 25) Clytemnestra also tried to kill Orestes, but he was rescued by either Electra or his wet-nurse. I immediately thought of Jehosheba saving Jehoash and his wet-nurse from Athaliah’s attempt to massacre all her grandchildren.
King Strophius could be seen as playing the role of Jehoiada. And Aegisthus as Mat-tan the Priest of Baal.
Still there are differences, besides the genealogy being different. The Bible does not actually involve Jehosheba in the killing of Athaliah. The genealogy difference could come down to just skipping one generation in the direct royal line, the Greek version having no equivalent for Ahaziah or merging him with Jehoram. Athaliah didn't kill Jehoram or Ahaziah, but Jeosheba or others could have blamed her for their demises because of her role in leading the nation into Idolatry.
This connection could happen to fit with Salverda’s identification of Pelops with Ahab, the Greek oral tradition simply changed through which parent Jehosheba and Jehoash descended from Ahab. However I’ve come to prefer possibly identifying Pelops with Jehu, or maybe even with a Davidic King. Perhaps Tyndareus and Leda are in some way based on Ahab and Jezebel?
I think Jehosheba’s marriage to Jehoiada was probably a purely arranged one. 2 Chronicles 22:11 seems to explicitly say that Jehoiada was married to Jehoshabeath because she was the sister of Ahaziah. Exodus 6:22 says Aaron, the first High Priest was married to Elisheba, the sister of Naashon/Nahshon then Prince of Judah (Numbers 1:7, 2:3, 7:12-17 and 10:14) and an ancestor of King David according to Ruth 4, 1 Chronicles 2, Matthew 1 and Luke 3. So it might be sisters of the King marrying High Priests was a common custom.
If I wrote a dramatization of Jehosheba’s story, I would probably write in a Lesbian story-line. Possibly between her and the wet-nurse, or maybe between her and Zibiah of Beersheba the mother of Jehoash. Or maybe both, a nice Yuri threesome.
Update 8/14/18: I kind of follow up on this here, Jacob Fathered Two Sets of Twins.
Update December 5th 2018: Achaeans
In the Greek Strongs Concordance Achaia is right next to Ahaz because how Ahaz is rendered in Greek looks like the first part of Achaia. Ahab begins the same as Ahaz in Hebrew, this is why Salverda could argue a connection between Ahab and the Achaeans. Ahaziah is another name that begins the same way, the name of sons of both Ahab and Jehoram of Judah.
His mistake was thinking that made Pelops an Achaean.
Herodotus and Pausanias both said that the Achaeans originally dwelt in Laconia(Sparta) and Argos(including Mycenae), so Agamemnon and Menelaus were Achaeans by marriage and by ruling them, not by their descent from Pelops who was in Elis. The Iliad used Danaans/Danaoi and "Long Haired Achaeans" interchangeably, the most famous Danite was Samson who's long hair was a vital plot point.
1 Maccabees and Josephus record how Areus I King of Sparta sent letters to High Priest Onias I about how he had documentation that the Spartans descended from Abraham. The letter was stamped with an image of an Eagle Clutching a Serpent. The Serpent is a Biblical symbol of Dan based on Genesis 49, the Eagle isn't directly, but Micah uses an Eagle as a symbol of Samaria.
Omri was first crowned King at Gibbethon a city of Dan's original Allotment, and then Omri founded Samaria. So Maybe an Eagle and Serpent together is a symbol of the House of Omri? Maybe he married his son to a Phoenician Princess because of the Danites past associations with the Phoenicians?
So thus Clytemnestra was a daughter of the House of Omri.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)