JOSEPHUS' ANTIQUITIES, VIII-XVII, Jeroboam to Herod: Solved

[rakovsky]

May 16, 2019 11:55:09 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 6) Does the Babylonian king's praise of God suggest (at least to Josephus) that this king believed in God or was talking about the one ultimate true God?

I don’t know what writing Josephus was quoting there, but a pagan king could easily praise another god and not give up his own beliefs. He would in fact have believed in the gods of many lands. To pagans, it isn’t whether or not your god is a god, but whose god (or gods) is more powerful.

I was asking about the Babylonian king's declaration to King Zedekiah in Book X, Chp. 8:2 of the Antiquities: "But great is God who in His abhorrence of your conduct has made you fall into our hands."
Thackeray's Footnote says: "These remarks on Nebuchadnezzar's behaviour and speech are an addition to Scripture."
I was not able to find the king declaring this to King Zedekiah in the Bible. The corresponding Bible chapters according to Thackeray are 2 Kings 25, Jer. 39, Jer. 52. In Jeremiah 34, God tells Jeremiah to tell King Zedekiah: "Behold, I will give this city into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he shall burn it with fire". This is similar to what Josephus has the Babylonian King say.

So we are really dealing with what the Babylonian king's declaration would have meant to Josephus: Did this king believe in God or the one ultimate true God? I didn't make this question very clear, but there are two options that I see: Either the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar was saying that the Jewish God delivered them into his hands, or that the Babylonian king shared the theological concept of the one ultimate true God, which was shared in some ancient religions and philosophers.

In Daniel 3, God saves the three Jewish youths from the fire, and the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar praises their God in response:

28. Nebuchadnezzar declared, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him. They violated the king’s command and risked their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God. 29. Therefore I decree that the people of any nation or language who say anything offensive against the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego will be cut into pieces and their houses will be reduced to rubble. For there is no other god who can deliver in this way.”

So in this passage, the Babylonian king is sincerely recognizing Israel's God as real and congratulating the youths for treating Him as the only god for their worship.
In other parts of Daniel, the Babylonian king also recognizes Israel's God. In response to Daniel's decipherment of the king's dream, Nebuchadnezzar tells Daniel in Daniel 2:47: “Your God is truly the God of gods and Lord of kings, a revealer of mysteries, since you were able to reveal this mystery.”

The Babylonian king recognizes their god as "The Most High God" when he tells them on seeing that the youths survived the fire: "Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, servants of the Most High God, come out, and come here!” (Daniel 3:26)
In Daniel 4:2, the king announces: "It has seemed good to me to show the signs and wonders that the Most High God has done for me."

In Daniel 4, the Babylonian king refers to Daniel's name of Belteshazzar that the king had given him after the king's god:

8 At last Daniel came in before me—he who was named Belteshazzar after the name of my god, and in whom is the spirit of the holy gods ["Elahin"]—and I told him the dream, saying, 9 “O Belteshazzar, chief of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in you and that no mystery is too difficult for you, tell me the visions of my dream that I saw and their interpretation.

Daniel got this name back in Daniel 1:5-7 ("And the king appointed for them a daily provision of the king’s delicacies and of the wine which he drank, and three years of training for them, so that at the end of that time they might serve before the king. Now from among those of the sons of Judah were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah. To them the chief of the eunuchs gave names: he gave Daniel the name Belteshazzar"). This was before the king had discovered his success at deciphering dreams, and Daniel received the name as part of initiation into Babylonian society. So Daniel 4's explanation of the name suggests that the Babylonian king's god was different than David's, and that therefore the Babylonian king ultimately transferred his faith to the Israelite God, the God of Daniel and the youths as a result of the miracles. So the king's declaration of praise to God in Dan. 3:28 was not simply a matter of the king already holding a philosophical henotheistic or inclusive monotheistic understanding of the one ultimate God.

Wikipedia's article on "Bel (mythology)", which is the first part of Belteshazzar, says:

Bel (/ˈbeɪl/; from Akkadian bēlu), signifying "lord" or "master", is a title rather than a genuine name, applied to various gods in the Mesopotamian religion of Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia. ... Bel became especially used for the Babylonian god Marduk and when found in Assyrian and neo-Babylonian personal names or mentioned in inscriptions in a Mesopotamian context it can usually be taken as referring to Marduk and no other god.

In Daniel 4:34-37, the king praises God after having recovered from the illness that Daniel had predicted:

I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing;
He does according to His will in the army of heaven
And among the inhabitants of the earth.
No one can restrain His hand
Or say to Him, “What have You done?”

At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my honor and splendor returned to me. My counselors and nobles resorted to me, I was restored to my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added to me. Now I, Nebuchadnezzar, praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all of whose works are truth, and His ways justice. And those who walk in pride He is able to put down.

So here, the king is praising the Most High, the King of Heaven, whom he identifies as Israel's God.

The Got Questions article "Who Was Nebuchadnezzar?" comments:

The exclamations of Nebuchadnezzar recorded in the book of Daniel have led some to consider the possibility that Nebuchadnezzar became a believer in the one true God. History records Nebuchadnezzar being a follower of the Babylonian gods Nabu and Marduk. Is it possible that Nebuchadnezzar renounced these false gods and instead only worshipped the one true God? Yes, it is possible. If nothing else, Nebuchadnezzar became a henotheist, believing in many gods but worshipping only one God as supreme. Based on his words recorded in Daniel, it definitely seems like Nebuchadnezzar submitted himself to the one true God.

In Daniel 2:47, the king had said that Daniel's God was the God of Gods (Elah Elahin), implying henotheism, but he also respected that worship only be given to Daniel's God by the youths, which is like a monotheistic or monolatrous henotheism.

Linus Morris in his talk "Will Nebuchadnezzar be in heaven?" said:

Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan who believed in the Babylonia pantheon of gods. His name meant: “O god Nebu, preserve my firstborn.” Nebu was the Babylonian deity of wisdom, son of the god Marduk, the head of the Babylonian pantheon of gods.

Morris says that after Daniel revealed the meaning of a dream to the king in Daniel 2, the king became a "notional believer":

Nebuchadnezzar was impressed that “God reveals.” Thus, he became a kind of “notional believer.” He had a notion of God. He added Daniel’s god to his pantheon of gods in some vague cognitive way.

In Daniel 3, the king put the youths in the fire because although apparently he had gained a belief that their God was the God of Gods, he still wanted the other gods' idols worshiped and the youths refused to worship those gods. After the youths are rescued, the king is further impressed by their God and declares his respect that only theirs was worshiped by the youths. Morris writes:

He goes from a notional belief in God (vague, one of many, distant) to a nominal belief in God (part of his cognitive belief but not the integrating point of his life). Nebuchadnezzar is not only impressed that God reveals, but that he also rescues. Nebuchadnezzar’s advisers had earlier expressed the Babylonian belief that the gods “do not live among men.” Nebuchadnezzar conceded that the God of Daniel was a revealer of mysteries. Now he perceives that the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego came among them to rescue and save them. Their God was not distant. Their God was not indifferent. Their God was not impersonal.

To me, the difference is that in Daniel 2, the king came to recognize God as supreme, but it was in the next chapter, 3, that he came to see their God as the only one whom the youths were right to worship.
Morris says that the king went further in Chapter 4:1-3 when he addressed the peoples of the world after he had another dream and declared:

“To the peoples, nations and men of every language, who live in all the world: May you prosper greatly! It is my pleasure to tell you about the miraculous signs and wonders that the Most High God has performed for me. How great are his signs, how mighty his wonders! His kingdom is an eternal kingdom; his dominion endures from generation to generation”

Morris notes that whereas earlier he had made a statue of himself, here he tells people about God:

Instead of seeking his own aggrandizement, he seeks the well being of his people. Instead of seeing his role to benefit himself and his own ethnic tribe, he sees his role to seek the prosperity of “the peoples, nations, and men of every language, who live in all the world” (4:1a).
Ken Eldred captures Nebuchadnezzar’s change in perspective in his book (Ken Eldred’s), The Integrated Life, declaring that the purpose of business (and any position of power or influence) is “to serve others for the glory of God.”

This was because of his dream in which he was told of a man whose mind became that of an animal so that “the living may know that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes and sets over them the lowliest of men” (4:17).
Morris notes that after recovering from the illness, the king praises "the Most High", "the name Daniel used for God in 4:24, 25". He concludes that the king became a "genuine believer" as shown in the praises that he gave for God.

[rakovsky]

Regarding Question 7 (Did the Seleucid king Antiochus secretly kill the leader Hyrcanus ben Joseph? Was Hyrcanus overly fearful of Antiochus in killing himself?
):
The idea of killing an enemy and then announcing that he killed himself was not foreign to the empires and kingdoms of the 2nd century BC. Wikipedia's article on Antiochus VII Sidetes notes:

That winter (130–129 BC), several Median towns rose in rebellion and attacked their Seleucid garrisons. Antiochus marched to support one such isolated garrison with only a small force (probably only his Royal Guards). In a barren valley, he was ambushed and killed in the Battle of Ecbatana by Phraates II and a large force of Parthians, who had entered the country without being detected. After the battle the Parthians told the people that Antiochus killed himself because of fear, but the last great Seleucid king died in battle, a fitting end for the heir of Seleucus I Nicator (the Victor).

One difficulty in finding out what happened is that Josephus is the only ancient source that we have on Hyrcanus' death.
Wikipedia's article on the Tobiads says that the two sources for Hyrcanus are Josephus and II Maccabees III, and:

Wellhausen ... regards the suicide of Hyrcanus as probable, since the latter supported the Ptolemies against the new régime of the Syrians, and might consequently fear the revenge of Antiochus IV. II Macc. iii. 11 mentions money deposited by Hyrcanus, the son of Tobias, "a man of great dignity", taking it for granted that a friendship existed between Onias II and Hyrcanus, a supposition which is very reasonable, since only the other Tobiads, the brothers of Hyrcanus, were involved in quarrels with the legitimate high priest. That Hyrcanus is called the son of Tobias, and not of Joseph, is due, Wellhausen holds, to mere abbreviation, and does not imply any divergency in the two accounts.

In The Tales of the Tobiads, Jonathan Goldstein writes:

However, when the forceful Antiochus IV (175-164) replaced Seleucus IV and the Ptolemaic empire was left under a weak regime of child-heirs (Ptolemy VI Philometer, 180-145, and his younger brother), Hyrcanus committed suicide rather than fall into Antiochus' hands, and his property was seized by Antiochus. ... Josephus' own account puts Hyrcanus' suicide in the reign of Antiochus IV and suggests that Ptolemaic weakness had as much to do with Hyrcanus' suicide as had Seleucid power. Antiochus IV is not reported to have invaded Transjordan. Hence, his reported confiscation of Hyrcanus' property probably took place when he sacked the temple in 169...
Jason's coup is described as pro-Ptolemaic at B.J. i.I.I.32... Further, confirmation of Jason's position can be found in the fact that after the failure of his coup he fled first to the Ammanitis (II Maccabees 5:7), stronghold of the pro-Ptolemaic Hyrcanus, who probably committed suicide shortly before.

David Kauffman, a rabbinical student, wrote in the Discussion group for THE ORION CENTER for the Study of the
Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature that: "he committed
suicide or was killed. Josephus had a thing about suicide and I'm not so sure
that this point is accurate". What Kauffman was alluding to was the questionable issue of suicide in Josephus' histories. In particular, the story of Josephus' soldiers killing themselves instead of surrendering, as well as the defenders of Masada, have been questioned by some writers as to their accuracy. On the other hand, one modern writer thought that Josephus seemed sympathetic to Hyrcanus in opposition to Antiochus, so Josephus might not be predisposed to deliberately make up an ignominious account about Hyrcanus.

Justin Michael Motter-Huguenin, in "The Tobiads and the Maccabees: Hellenism and Power in the Ancient Judean Community", writes:

Josephus in no way suggested that the colony [of Hyrcanus] was destroyed, merely that Hyrcanus committed suicide and Antiochus took possession of it...  It is hardly unheard of for troops, especially mercenaries, to change leaders, especially if their former leader is dead, nor is there any reason to suppose that Hyrcanus was in fact a rebel against the Seleucids. Josephus’ account actually presents Hyrcanus taking control of the Transjordan region after being unable to take Jerusalem from his brothers and before the Seleucids reconquered Judaea, and there is nothing to indicate in Josephus’ account that Hyrcanus ever served the Seleucids, let alone rebelled against them.

I don't find it reliable, but it's worth mentioning that there is a local legend that Qasr Al-Abd, the castle on the east of the Jordan River that historians tend to think that the Tobiad ruler Hyrcanus built, was built by "Tobias", and that Tobias was killed. Wikipedia's article on Qasr Al-Abd:

Although little is known for definite about the history of Qasr al-Abd it is widely believed to have been built by a Tobiad notable, Hyrcanus of Jerusalem, head of the powerful Tobiad family and governor of Ammon. Credence for this theory is gained from the fact that the Hebrew name 'Tuvya' or 'Toviyya' (Tobias) is engraved (טוביה but in a more Aramaic script) above the adjacent burial caves of Iraq al-Amir... According to a local legend, Tobias was a commoner who fell in love with the daughter of a nobleman. When he asked for her hand in marriage, the nobleman said that Tobias could only have her hand if he built the so-called "Castle of the Slave." After completing the castle, the nobleman had Tobias killed as he did not want his daughter marrying a commoner.

Dr. Michael Zimmerman, in his talk "’Iraq al-Amir, the Tobiads and Expansion in Hellenistic Palestine & Transjordan" theorizes that the fact that Hyrcanus' castle was not occupied after his death suggests that Hyrcanus killed himself:

According to Josephus, Hyrcanus eventually killed himself, afraid of punishment from Seleucid king
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164 BCE). This is supported by the archaeological evidence, since the Qasr
al-‘Abd and Square Building, the site’s only two monumental structures, show no evidence of continuing
occupation after their construction in the early 2nd century BCE.

I don't know how the fact that the building remained unoccpued shows the manner in which the builder Hyrcanus died, however. I read that it was not completed, so you could theorize that the lack of occupancy after his death was just a matter of his dynasty not being carried on, not necessarily proof that he committed suicide.

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find out more information on whether Hyrcanus killed himself.

Josephus notes that after he killed himself, "all his property was seized by Antiochus.
" So certainly Antiochus was antagonistic of him and more powerful than Hyrcanus' kingdom was without Hyrcanus. And Antiochus' killing of Menelaus suggests that Antiochus was dangerous enough that he was a severe threat. So certainly Hyrcanus would be right to be afraid of Antiochus. It doesn't seem that Hyrcanus would have been able to negotiate with Antiochius, considering that Antiochus ravaged the Temple and persecuted those who resisted his rule.

Jonathan Goldstein, in his article "Tales of the Tobiads", writes about the political situation in that time period for Hyrcanus:

Hyrcanus was regarded as a rebel by the Seleucid kings, and his brothers had the favor and support of Antiochus IV, who at their behest massacred the pro-Ptolemaic faction in Jerusalem (BJ i. I.I.; cf. AJ xii. 5.3)... the death of Ptolemy V in 180 and the bungling regime of the guardians of his child-heirs left Hyrcanus with small hope of support. Hyrcanus' death can be placed with considerable confidence late in 170 or in 169 when Antiochus IV's victories in Egypt seemed to end all hope that the Ptolemies would reconquer Syria and Palestine. Against this dating stands the note at AJ xii.4.II that Hyrcanus' career as robber-baron lasted "Seven years, through all the time that Seleucus was king of Syria". The natural interpretation of the words is that Hyrcanus was a robber-baron for no longer than seven years, and that his career came to an end only a short time after the death of Seleucus IV. If so, the seven years would extend from 182/1 to 175 or 174. This would be in harmony with the implication of AJ xii.4.II that Ptolemy V (Died 180) died after Hyrcanus became a robber-baron. However, Josephus appears not to have understood his sources properly. The same passage has Ptolemy V dying at the same time as Seleucus IV, or later.

So it is not clear how dangerous the situation was for Hyrcanus when he died. If Antiquities XII.4-5 is to be understood chronologically, then Hyrcanus died after the deaths of both Seleucus IV (ruled c. 187 - 175 BC) and Ptolemy V (died in 180 BC), but before Antiochus IV's invasion of Egypt (c.170-16).

So in conclusion, there are some reasons to question the claim of suicide, like the treachery of the era, but on the other hand, Hyrcanus was in a dangerous situation and we don't have any other records from the time to contradict the story of his suicide and to suppose that he was assassinated.

[alon]

Nov 30, 2019 22:08:10 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

May 16, 2019 11:55:09 GMT -8 alon said:

I don’t know what writing Josephus was quoting there, but a pagan king could easily praise another god and not give up his own beliefs. He would in fact have believed in the gods of many lands. To pagans, it isn’t whether or not your god is a god, but whose god (or gods) is more powerful.

I was asking about the Babylonian king's declaration to King Zedekiah in Book X, Chp. 8:2 of the Antiquities: "But great is God who in His abhorrence of your conduct has made you fall into our hands."

 Most of what you wrote here only confirms my quote there.

Many "scholars" say that ancient Judaism was a henotheistic religion, since they lived in a world where gods were everywhere and they acknowledged those gods. I say many "scholars" wear loafers because they are too stupid to tie their own shoes! Yes, there were and are "elohim/gods." Any authority is a god- that's the literal definition of the word. You are (or can be) your own god! And yes, there are spiritual authorities of greater and lesser degrees which are "gods." But Judaism, Christianity, and Messianism all worshp a God who is kadosh, holy; set apart! He is not like other gods. He created those gods, and while He gave them free will for now they will one day answer to Him for their crimes!

I've also read many commentaries saying Nebuchadnezzar was "saved" because he "believed" in Daniel's God. This is partly because of the Christian belief they are saved by belief. However true belief requires action (see James). The first action is repentance- not just "I'm sorry" or turning away from sin (though those are part of it), but a return to the relationship Adam had with his Elohim in the Garden. Afterwards comes - His instructions for holy living. Simply put, do what God said!

So was good old Neb saved?

I don't know, but if pressed I'd say probably not. Yes, he acknowledged Daniel's God as existing and as being a mighty and powerful God. But there is little indication he ever gave up belief in or worship of other gods as being a part of a pantheon of gods which includes the God of Daniel. His declaration that everyone should worship only God could have meant between himself and God, worship God.

However he never changed his name from one upholding Marduk to one extolling the God of Israel. He never joined with Israel, and he never sent them home to reoccupy the Land of Israel. And he never said that he accepted El Elohe Yisroel alone as Lord of all and master of his life. So while yes, there is enough ambiguity there to keep the loafer and elbow patches crowd busy arguing 'till the return of Yeshua, there is no clear vidence of actual conversion. Just an adjustment of the beliefs he already had.               

[alon]

Dec 1, 2019 1:06:08 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Regarding Question 7 (Did the Seleucid king Antiochus secretly kill the leader Hyrcanus ben Joseph? Was Hyrcanus overly fearful of Antiochus in killing himself?

So in conclusion, there are some reasons to question the claim of suicide, like the treachery of the era, but on the other hand, Hyrcanus was in a dangerous situation and we don't have any other records from the time to contradict the story of his suicide and to suppose that he was assassinated.

Just remember Josephus wrote for the Romans, on whose benevolence he depended for his life. The Selucids were huge in spreading Hellinistic influence, and the Romans were themselves great Hellenists. So their view of history would have leaned to making their fellow Hellenists look good. And by extension, that would be Joe's view as well. 

[rakovsky]

Dec 1, 2019 3:29:34 GMT -8 alon said:

I've also read many commentaries saying Nebuchadnezzar was "saved" because he "believed" in Daniel's God. This is partly because of the Christian belief they are saved by belief. However true belief requires action (see James). The first action is repentance- not just "I'm sorry" or turning away from sin (though those are part of it), but a return to the relationship Adam had with his Elohim in the Garden. Afterwards comes - His instructions for holy living. Simply put, do what God said!

So was good old Neb saved?

I don't know, but if pressed I'd say probably not. Yes, he acknowledged Daniel's God as existing and as being a mighty and powerful God. But there is little indication he ever gave up belief in or worship of other gods as being a part of a pantheon of gods which includes the God of Daniel. His declaration that everyone should worship only God could have meant between himself and God, worship God.

However he never changed his name from one upholding Marduk to one extolling the God of Israel. He never joined with Israel, and he never sent them home to reoccupy the Land of Israel. And he never said that he accepted El Elohe Yisroel alone as Lord of all and master of his life. So while yes, there is enough ambiguity there to keep the loafer and elbow patches crowd busy arguing 'till the return of Yeshua, there is no clear vidence of actual conversion. Just an adjustment of the beliefs he already had.               

To answer your question, Dan, I think that Daniel is suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar became rather pious toward God. I don't know that they openly had the same clarity and detail of the concept or equivalent of being saved in the TaNaKh, although the concept of judgment in the Afterlife exists, including in the Book of Daniel. So it becomes a question of whether Nebuchadnezzar apparently joined the category of the pious righteous. I think that the author would suggest that Nebuchadnezzar converted into this category because he was impressed with the miracles and faith of God and the Israelites. I think that you can sense his change of heart (repentance) for honoring the pagan gods and persecuting the youths because he abolished worshiping those gods and honored the youths for their faith.

I think that you made a very good point when you questioned whether Nebuchadnezzar turned to only worshiping God and refused worship to any other God. On closer inspection what he said was:

“Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him. They violated the king’s command and risked their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God."

The king honored them for only worshiping their God, and he honored God repeatedly as the God of Gods, the Most High, the only one who could rescue in the way that He rescued the youths, etc. And the king required people to worship the Israelite God. But I can't find in Daniel a place where the king actually banned worshiping other gods, so I believe that I misread that passage. 

Even that being the case, I think that the author is still implying that the king joined the category of the pious and righteous. The author emphasized repeatedly the king's extreme praises of God, even after the king recognized that God made him like an animal for seven years, and then the king was praising God again with extreme praises. I think that if the author took a dim view of the king, he wouldn't have emphasized the praises and decisions of the king so much. The Jewish Encyclopedia seems to have mixed Jewish legends as to whether he was in with the righteous. For instance, it says:

He finally received his well-merited punishment; for God changed him into an animal, as far as his appearance, intellect, and language were concerned. He appeared to the people with his upper half as an ox and the lower half as a lion, and as such he killed many villains. Through Daniel's prayers the seven years of punishment decreed for Nebuchadnezzar were changed to seven months; and after the king had lamented his sins for forty days, had lived in the caves for another period of forty days, and had herded for the same length of time with the beasts of the forest, God took mercy upon him and allowed him to return to his throne. He repented and did penance for the next seven years, subsisting, on the advice of Daniel, on vegetable food. The affairs of the government he gave into the hands of seven judges, who held office for one year each. At the expiration of this period he wished to make Daniel one of his heirs; but the latter refused with the words: "Far be it from me to exchange the heritage of my fathers for that of one uncircumcised" ("The Chronicles of Jerahmeel," ed. Gaster, lxvi. 1-2; see also the passage quoted in the introduction, p. 106).

But then the Jewish Encyclopedia says:

Others say that Evilmerodach himself exhumed the body of his father, because the people believed that Nebuchadnezzar was not really dead—that he had simply disappeared as he had once before, and that they would be severely punished by him if at his return he found that they had invested another king. The body of the dead monarch was therefore dragged through the city so that the people might see it (Targ. Sheni, beginning; Jerome on Isa. xiv. 19; see also "The Chronicles of Jerahmeel," lxvi. 6; a shorter version is given in Seder 'Olam R. xxviii.). This was the shameful end of Nebuchadnezzar, after a reign of forty years (Seder 'Olam R. l.c. 45; Pesiḳ. R., ed. Buber, xxvii. [ed. Friedmann, p. 168b, 40]; Josephus, l.c. x. 11, §§ 1, 43).

So it looks like it has mixed views of him.

[rakovsky]

May 16, 2019 11:55:09 GMT -8 alon said:

(Question 8) How was the land of Judah was a terror to Egypt in the 2nd to 1st century BC? Alternately, if the land of Judah wasn't a terror to Egypt, then did the prophecy of Isaiah 19 about a temple being built in Egypt not really apply to that period? And what Egyptian city does the prophecy refer to that would be called the "city of destruction”?

Thackeray's footnote says:

Is. xix. 19, " In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord." Many commentators suspect vss. 18-25 of this chapter of having been interpolated by a writer of the Hasmonaean period.

Most of the Bible and other ancient texts are ‘interpolations’ rather than translations. Try reading an interlinear Bible sometimes, where exact interpretation (or as close to exact as we can get) are used and you’ll see why. We would not understand an interpretation. Try reading a literal interpretation like Young’s. These are written close to what is literally said, but enough interpolation used so we can still understand them. Yet they too are very difficult to read.

Unfortunately wrong interpolations often creep into our translations and then become doctrine and are thus passed down in all (or most) subsequent translations for centuries. This is one of the things we look for and try to correct as Messianics. But I’m afraid it will take someone with more knowledge than me to unravel all of this. All I can do is give some insights.

I doubt any Jewish text meant an altar where sacrifices were made or another Temple. I’m not really sure of the meanings of biblical references here.

châgâʼ, khaw-gaw'; to revolve; properly, vertigo, i.e. (figuratively) a reeling in fear. This could refer to the Egyptian gods, which were gods of the land, not the people. Again, I’m not really sure. It does speak of men fearing as well, though if their gods feared I’m sure that men would feel that too.

matstsêbâh, mats-tsay-baw'; feminine (causatively) participle of H5324; something stationed, i.e. a column or (memorial stone); by analogy, an idol:—garrison, (standing) image, pillar. The God of Israel would not have erected an idol to Himself, but a pillar, probably with writings on it would be possible. In that time kings erected statues either of themselves or their gods when they took new lands, and in outlying regions of their own lands. This was not just vanity. It told all who traveled there who was in charge and under whose protection those lands were. So a pillar saying “I AM LORD OF ALL” placed right in the midst of one of the most pagan cultures in existence would be a powerful message that would in fact make other gods (demons) tremble.

Dan,
I take you as saying that there are many wrong "interpolations" in the Bible, by which you mean wrong translations. Sorry that this issue was not clear enough, but "interpolations" means "insertions". The Oxford dictionary defines interpolation as "the insertion of something of a different nature into something else." or "a remark interjected in a conversation." Loeb's editor writes about Isaiah's prophecy about the altar and pillar in Egypt that "Many commentators suspect vss. 18-25 of this chapter of having been interpolated by a writer of the Hasmonaean period." So what the editor means is that many commentators suspect that in the Hasmonean period (c. 140  BC- c. 116 BC), a writer inserted the verses about an altar and a pillar in Egypt into the Book of Isaiah, even though the Book of Isaiah was written centuries earlier than the Hasmonean period writer.

Sure, Matstsebah in Isaiah 19 must not mean a pillar in the sense of an idol as that was banned by the . It says that there would be a pillar at the border, so this suggests to me that it was a kind of monument or marker.

Brown-Driver-Briggs says that there can be more than one altar, but that one Biblical author limited sacrifices to the Jerusalem altars:

Solomon sacrificed on the altar at Gibeon 1 Kings 3:4 and built altars in the temple at Jerusalem 1 Kings 6:20; 1 Kings 8:64; that Jeroboam built an altar at Bethel 1 Kings 12:32 (which was destroyed by Josiah 2 Kings 23:15); and that Elijah repaired an ancient altar on Carmel 1 Kings 18:30. An altar in Egypt is predicted Isaiah 19:19. All this accords with the law of the Covenant code Exodus 20:24-26 which recognises a plurality of altars and prescribes that they shall be built of אֲדָמָה, or of unhewn stones, and without steps.
...
P limits sacrifices to the altars of the tabernacle.

Unfortunately, he doesn't say what verse limits sacrifices to Jerusalem.

[alon]

Dec 1, 2019 11:27:43 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

May 16, 2019 11:55:09 GMT -8 alon said:

Most of the Bible and other ancient texts are ‘interpolations’ rather than translations. Try reading an interlinear Bible sometimes, where exact interpretation (or as close to exact as we can get) are used and you’ll see why. We would not understand an interpretation. Try reading a literal interpretation like Young’s. These are written close to what is literally said, but enough interpolation used so we can still understand them. Yet they too are very difficult to read.

Unfortunately wrong interpolations often creep into our translations and then become doctrine and are thus passed down in all (or most) subsequent translations for centuries. This is one of the things we look for and try to correct as Messianics. But I’m afraid it will take someone with more knowledge than me to unravel all of this. All I can do is give some insights.

I doubt any Jewish text meant an altar where sacrifices were made or another Temple. I’m not really sure of the meanings of biblical references here.

châgâʼ, khaw-gaw'; to revolve; properly, vertigo, i.e. (figuratively) a reeling in fear. This could refer to the Egyptian gods, which were gods of the land, not the people. Again, I’m not really sure. It does speak of men fearing as well, though if their gods feared I’m sure that men would feel that too.

matstsêbâh, mats-tsay-baw'; feminine (causatively) participle of H5324; something stationed, i.e. a column or (memorial stone); by analogy, an idol:—garrison, (standing) image, pillar. The God of Israel would not have erected an idol to Himself, but a pillar, probably with writings on it would be possible. In that time kings erected statues either of themselves or their gods when they took new lands, and in outlying regions of their own lands. This was not just vanity. It told all who traveled there who was in charge and under whose protection those lands were. So a pillar saying “I AM LORD OF ALL” placed right in the midst of one of the most pagan cultures in existence would be a powerful message that would in fact make other gods (demons) tremble.

Dan,
I take you as saying that there are many wrong "interpolations" in the Bible, by which you mean wrong translations. Sorry that this issue was not clear enough, but "interpolations" means "insertions". The Oxford dictionary defines interpolation as "the insertion of something of a different nature into something else." or "a remark interjected in a conversation."
Nope, I meant both, actually. Let's take the verse you referenced as an example:

Isaiah 19:10 (ESV) Those who are the pillars of the land will be crushed, and all who work for pay will be grieved.

Isaiah 19:10 (KJV) And they shall be broken in the purposes thereof, all that make sluices and ponds for fish.

Isaiah 19:10  (NIV)The workers in cloth will be dejected, and all the wage earners will be sick at heart.

Isaiah 19:10 (YLT) And its foundations have been smitten, All making wages [are] afflicted in soul.

And if you go to an interlinear, it becomes COMPLETELY nonsensical to us. Translators must continually paraphrase or insert words and even sentences in order to get across what they THINK the original author was saying! But there are also many wrong interpretations of what is said, usually the result of church dogma being taught to us for years until we look right at the answer and still misunderstand. For example:

Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV) Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Try reading that without the subtitle added by the translators (Christ Came to Fulfill the Law), and tell me how any sane, thinking person can say it means the law was done away with! The problem is centuries of brainwashing everyone and people read it and they DO think that is what it means. Just like the translators, who believed it so much they were willing to put their ignorance on display for all to see! We won't even go into the idiocy of seeing "fulfilled" as meaning ended, as I've dealt with that several times on the forum already. Suffice it to say if you do take fulfill to mean do away with, that sentence would more aptly read "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to abolish them." Right! I'm down with THAT one! Yoooouuu-betcha! But heaven nor earth have passed away, and if Christians kept the feasts instead of Easter they'd know not all prophecy has been fulfilled either. There is absolutely no justification for that understanding, yet millions do see it exactly that way.

So I'll say again: scripture has been misinterpreted, misinterpolated, and misunderstood for centuries. MJ is all about putting that right. 

Loeb's editor writes about Isaiah's prophecy about the altar and pillar in Egypt that "Many commentators suspect vss. 18-25 of this chapter of having been interpolated by a writer of the Hasmonaean period." So what the editor means is that many commentators suspect that in the Hasmonean period (c. 140 BC- c. 116 BC), a writer inserted the verses about an altar and a pillar in Egypt into the Book of Isaiah, even though the Book of Isaiah was written centuries earlier than the Hasmonean period writer.
I've read those commentators and scholars and other fat headed fools. They almost invariably say it is because Isaiah couldn't have known all those things. Prophet of God- idiot commentator: you decide. Some do try to couch the argument in writing style, but you look at those verses and tell me they are stylistically different. 

Sure, Matstsebah in Isaiah 19 must not mean a pillar in the sense of an idol as that was banned by the . It says that there would be a pillar at the border, so this suggests to me that it was a kind of monument or marker.
Those monuments or markers were statues or columns with writings and graven images of the ruler or the gods who owned the land. They were meant as a warning to those who would come for nefarious purposes. But whether of rulers or gods, these were exactly the kinds of things that were and are proscribed in !

Brown-Driver-Briggs says that there can be more than one altar, but that one Biblical author limited sacrifices to the Jerusalem altars:

Solomon sacrificed on the altar at Gibeon 1 Kings 3:4 and built altars in the temple at Jerusalem 1 Kings 6:20; 1 Kings 8:64; that Jeroboam built an altar at Bethel 1 Kings 12:32 (which was destroyed by Josiah 2 Kings 23:15); and that Elijah repaired an ancient altar on Carmel 1 Kings 18:30. An altar in Egypt is predicted Isaiah 19:19. All this accords with the law of the Covenant code Exodus 20:24-26 which recognises a plurality of altars and prescribes that they shall be built of אֲדָמָה, or of unhewn stones, and without steps.
...
P limits sacrifices to the altars of the tabernacle.
Sacrifices on high places was common before the Temple was built. After it was sin. Jeroboam sinned greatly in this and other matters concerning sacrifices. Elijah prepared his altar where he did because he was challenging the priests of Ba'al on their own turf. And the altars spoken of in Ex 20 were probably where the Mishkan was set up.

Unfortunately, he doesn't say what verse limits sacrifices to Jerusalem.

Deuteronomy 12:5-6 (ESV) But you shall seek the place that the Lord your God will choose out of all your tribes to put his name and make his habitation there. There you shall go,  and there you shall bring your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and the contribution that you present, your vow offerings, your freewill offerings, and the firstborn of your herd and of your flock.

God chose Jerusalem and when the Shekinah came into it the choice was confirmed.  

[alon]

Dec 1, 2019 10:55:29 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Dec 1, 2019 3:29:34 GMT -8 alon said:

I've also read many commentaries saying Nebuchadnezzar was "saved" because he "believed" in Daniel's God. This is partly because of the Christian belief they are saved by belief. However true belief requires action (see James). The first action is repentance- not just "I'm sorry" or turning away from sin (though those are part of it), but a return to the relationship Adam had with his Elohim in the Garden. Afterwards comes - His instructions for holy living. Simply put, do what God said!

So was good old Neb saved?

I don't know, but if pressed I'd say probably not. Yes, he acknowledged Daniel's God as existing and as being a mighty and powerful God. But there is little indication he ever gave up belief in or worship of other gods as being a part of a pantheon of gods which includes the God of Daniel. His declaration that everyone should worship only God could have meant between himself and God, worship God.

However he never changed his name from one upholding Marduk to one extolling the God of Israel. He never joined with Israel, and he never sent them home to reoccupy the Land of Israel. And he never said that he accepted El Elohe Yisroel alone as Lord of all and master of his life. So while yes, there is enough ambiguity there to keep the loafer and elbow patches crowd busy arguing 'till the return of Yeshua, there is no clear vidence of actual conversion. Just an adjustment of the beliefs he already had.               

To answer your question, Dan, I think that Daniel is suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar became rather pious toward God. I don't know that they openly had the same clarity and detail of the concept or equivalent of being saved in the TaNaKh, Salvation is the same today as it was in any part of the OT. Join with Israel, worship the God of Israel as he said to do it, and Him alone. Repent of your old ways and return to God, developing a relationship with Him. Obey His instructions for holy living. There is an initial acceptance, but it is not just "believe and confess, and here, say this sinners prayer. it'll save you!" Clarity? We are the ones with a skewed idea of salvation! 

although the concept of judgment in the Afterlife exists, including in the Book of Daniel. So it becomes a question of whether Nebuchadnezzar apparently joined the category of the pious righteous. I think that the author would suggest that Nebuchadnezzar converted into this category because he was impressed with the miracles and faith of God and the Israelites. I think that you can sense his change of heart (repentance) for honoring the pagan gods and persecuting the youths because he abolished worshiping those gods and honored the youths for their faith. Just being impressed and honoring godly men is not the same as accepting the od of Israel in his life as Lord and Master.  

I think that you made a very good point when you questioned whether Nebuchadnezzar turned to only worshiping God and refused worship to any other God. On closer inspection what he said was:

“Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who has sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him. They violated the king’s command and risked their lives rather than serve or worship any god except their own God."

The king honored them for only worshiping their God, and he honored God repeatedly as the God of Gods, the Most High, the only one who could rescue in the way that He rescued the youths, etc. And the king required people to worship the Israelite God. But I can't find in Daniel a place where the king actually banned worshiping other gods, so I believe that I misread that passage. 

Even that being the case, I think that the author is still implying that the king joined the category of the pious and righteous. Many do. The author emphasized repeatedly the king's extreme praises of God, even after the king recognized that God made him like an animal for seven years, and then the king was praising God again with extreme praises. I praise Trump, doesn't mean I'm a Republican. I think that if the author took a dim view of the king, he wouldn't have emphasized the praises and decisions of the king so much. Is that backed by evidence or just an assumption? The Jewish Encyclopedia seems to have mixed Jewish legends as to whether he was in with the righteous. For instance, it says:

He finally received his well-merited punishment; for God changed him into an animal, as far as his appearance, intellect, and language were concerned. He appeared to the people with his upper half as an ox and the lower half as a lion, and as such he killed many villains. Through Daniel's prayers the seven years of punishment decreed for Nebuchadnezzar were changed to seven months; and after the king had lamented his sins for forty days, had lived in the caves for another period of forty days, and had herded for the same length of time with the beasts of the forest, God took mercy upon him and allowed him to return to his throne. He repented and did penance for the next seven years, subsisting, on the advice of Daniel, on vegetable food. The affairs of the government he gave into the hands of seven judges, who held office for one year each. At the expiration of this period he wished to make Daniel one of his heirs; but the latter refused with the words: "Far be it from me to exchange the heritage of my fathers for that of one uncircumcised" ("The Chronicles of Jerahmeel," ed. Gaster, lxvi. 1-2; see also the passage quoted in the introduction, p. 106).

But then the Jewish Encyclopedia says:

Others say that Evilmerodach himself exhumed the body of his father, because the people believed that Nebuchadnezzar was not really dead—that he had simply disappeared as he had once before, and that they would be severely punished by him if at his return he found that they had invested another king. The body of the dead monarch was therefore dragged through the city so that the people might see it (Targ. Sheni, beginning; Jerome on Isa. xiv. 19; see also "The Chronicles of Jerahmeel," lxvi. 6; a shorter version is given in Seder 'Olam R. xxviii.). This was the shameful end of Nebuchadnezzar, after a reign of forty years (Seder 'Olam R. l.c. 45; Pesiḳ. R., ed. Buber, xxvii. [ed. Friedmann, p. 168b, 40]; Josephus, l.c. x. 11, §§ 1, 43).

So it looks like it has mixed views of him.

[rakovsky]

For Question 8 (about Isaiah 19 on Judah being a terror), I don't agree with the emendation to "city of the sun", but it looks like a literary association. Loeb's note says about Isaiah 19:

in vs. 18 some scholars emend "ir hn-heres " city of destruction " to "ir hu-heres " city of the sun," supposing this to be an allusion to the name Heliopolis "city of the sun."

I see that destruction is close to sun in Hebrew, off by a letter. But the context suggests city of destruction, not sun.
The verses include associations with destruction, because A) destruction causes "terror", and (B) the cities speaking Canaanite sounds like they would subjugated or conquered, which can be associated with destruction in war (eg. one of the 5 cities or their neighbors was destroyed), and (C) the Egyptians are crying out because of oppressors, which can also be related to destruction:

17. And the land of Judah shall be a terror unto Egypt, every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid in himself
...
18. In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan, and swear to the Lord of hosts; one shall be called, The city of destruction.
..
20. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt: for they shall cry unto the Lord because of the oppressors, and he shall send them a saviour, and a great one, and he shall deliver them.

The "City of the Sun" was a name for the Egyptian city based on their own pagan religion that focused on the sun. In contrast, the passage above seems apocalyptic and associated with God's bringing a savior and worship of God to Egypt, which would conflict with the city receiving a name associated with Heathen worship.
I do think that the similarity of "ir hn-heres " city of destruction " to "ir hu-heres " city of the sun" in Hebrew suggests that Isaiah could be making a play on words. He could be referring to the city called City of the Sun, while giving it another label that refers to its status of a destroyed city.

The entry on Heliopolis in Wikipedia says:

Heliopolis is the Latinized form of the Greek name Hēlioúpolis (Ἡλιούπολις), meaning "City of the Sun". Helios, the personified and deified form of the sun, was identified by the Greeks with the native Egyptian gods Ra and Atum, whose principal cult was located in the city.



Its native name was I͗wnw ("The Pillars"), whose exact pronunciation is uncertain because ancient Egyptian recorded only consonantal values. Its traditional Egyptological transcription is Iunu but it appears in biblical Hebrew as ʔÔn (אֹ֖ן[4]), ʔŌwn (אֽוֹן[5]), and ʔĀwen (אָ֛וֶן[6])
[4] Gen. 41:45

[5] Gen. 41:50

[6] Ezekiel 30:17, Amos 1:5

This city was a focus for worshiping the sun gods Ra and Horus. But it looks like in Isaiah's time its name was On (Hebrew) or Iunu (Egyptian), not City of the Sun (Greek), so I am not sure if this name fits into Isaiah 19:19. The Greek name would really most strongly apply in the 2nd century BC and onwards with the Alexandrian conquest.
On the other hand, the NIV notes "Some manuscripts of the Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, Symmachus and Vulgate" say "City of the Sun".
I have alot of respect for the Masoretic text and Dead Sea Scrolls, but it's not definitive proof, since eg. it's only some Masoretic manuscripts that say City of the Sun.
Since all our copies of Isaiah do have those verses, including the Dead Sea Scrolls of c.300-100 BC.
, have the verses, I doubt that the verses were a Hasmonean late 2nd century BC interpolation. Checking the rest of Isaiah, like the beginning part (below), a prophecy of Judah being a terror to Egypt would fit with the other extreme apocalyptic elements of the Chapter, eg.:

1. The burden of Egypt. Behold, the Lord rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.
2. And I will set the Egyptians against the Egyptians: and they shall fight every one against his brother, and every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom against kingdom.

Like I said earlier, I see how Onias' temple would fulfill Isaiah 19's prophecy about an altar in Egypt, and I see how Christ and Christianity would fulfill the passage about them receiving a savior. But I am having trouble seeing the land of Judah as a terror to Egypt "in that day."

Barnes' Notes suggest that the Land of Judah being a terror to Egypt means that Egypt would be scared because of the destruction that another empire (IMO maybe the Seleucids like Antiochus) had wrought in the Land of Judah before potentially invading Egypt, or it means that Egypt would be scared because of the prophecies were being fulfilled that had come from the Land of Judah:

This cannot be understood to mean that they were in danger from an invasion by the Jews, for at that time they were not at war, and Judah had no power to overrun Egypt. Jarchi and Kimchi suppose that the passage means that the Egyptians would hear what had occurred to the army of Sennacherib on its overthrow, and that they would be alarmed as if a similar fate was about to come upon them. But the more probable interpretation is that which refers it to the "invasion" of Judah by Sennacherib. The Egyptians would know of that. Indeed, the leading design of Sennacherib was to invade Egypt, and Judah and Jerusalem were to be destroyed only "in the way" to Egypt. And when the Egyptians heard of the great preparations of Sennacherib, and of his advance upon Judah (see Isaiah 10:28-31), and knew that his design was to invade them, 'the land of Judah' would be 'a terror,' because they apprehended that he would make a rapid descent upon them. Vitringa, however, supposes that the sense is, that the Egyptians in their calamities would remember the prophecies of Jeremiah and others, of which they had heard, respecting their punishment; that they would remember that the prophecies respecting Judah had been fulfilled, and that thus Judah would be a terror to them "because" those predictions had come out of Judah.

I do think that he is making a good point that Isaiah says that the "Land of Judah" would be a terror to Egypt.

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
sees Judah as a threat in that Judah was allied with Assyria (and I could add that there were Jewish allies of the Seleucids):

17. Judah … terror unto Egypt—not by itself: but at this time Hezekiah was the active subordinate ally of Assyria in its invasion of Egypt under Sargon. Similarly to the alliance of Judah with Assyria here is 2Ki 23:29, where Josiah takes the field against Pharaoh-nechoh of Egypt, probably as ally of Assyria against Egypt [G. V. Smith].

Wikipedia's article on Bible Prophecy theorizes that the terror has to do with God having Israel as His land and the prophecy is ultimately about making Egypt into one of God's lands too:

Some theologians argue the statement that the "land of Judah" will terrify the Egyptians is not a reference to a large army from Judah attacking Egypt but a circumlocution for the place where God lives. They argue it is God and his plans that will cause Egypt to be terrified. They go on to argue the second "in that day" message from verse 18 announces the beginning of a deeper relationship between God and Egypt which leads to Egypt's conversion and worshiping God (verses 19–21). They say the last "in that day" prophecy (verses 23–25) speaks about Israel, Assyria and Egypt as God's special people, thus, describing eschatological events.

Matthew Poole's Commentary theorizes that it could mean either:

1. Because of Judah’s calamities and desolations; for Judah was their bulwark against the Assyrians and Babylonians; and when this bulwark was removed, the Egyptians, their neighbours and confederates, had just cause to fear. Or,



2. Because of their manifold both former and later injuries against Judah, for which they now apprehend that God is calling them to an account; which interpretation seems to be favoured by the following words; for their fear of mentioning Judah’s name seems to have proceeded partly from the sense of their guilt and miscarriages towards Judah, and partly from their apprehensions and experience of the irresistible power and justice of the God of Judah, whom they had provoked, and who was now marching to plead his own and Judah’s cause against them.

Justin Brent Top
, in his essay "Isaiah's Burden Prophecies as Spiritual Formulas", comments about verses 17-21 on Egypt's terror and conversion that some scholars have attempted to link the verses to history, "But this prophecy may not have been completely fulfilled, and therefore,
for now, its full implications must remain obscure."

Gill's Exposition theorizes that the land of Judah would be a terror to Egypt

on account of what they should hear had befallen the land of Judea, and the cities of it, by the invasion of Sennacherib's army, which had taken and laid them waste; the tidings of which being brought them a panic would seize them, fearing that they should next fall a sacrifice to them, because of their alliance with them, and nearness to them, there being only the land of the Philistines between them and Egypt; and Judea being invaded and overrun, the way was open for the Assyrian army into their country; and besides they might reflect, that if the judgments of God fell so heavy on his own people, what might they not expect? and the rather, as they had been the means of drawing them into idolatry, which had provoked the Lord to come out against them; as well as at the remembrance of the injuries they had formerly done them. Jarchi and Kimchi understand this of the fall and ruin of Sennacherib's army, at the siege of Jerusalem, the rumour of which reaching, Egypt would fill them with terror; or as fearing that the hand of the Lord, which was seen in that affair, would be next lifted up against them; which sense is not probable; the former is best. The word used for terror signifies "dancing", such as is not through joy, but fear, see Psalm 107:27,

I think that it's hard to relate this to the time of Sennacherib while also relating it to Antiochus' era like Josephus does, because the passage in Isaiah says that the events would happen in "that day", suggesting in the same era.

I think that the Pulpit Commentary gives a reasonable explanation if we are to see the fulfillment as happening in Isaiah's era:

In Manasseh's reign Judaea became subject to Assyria (2 Chronicles 33:11; G. Smith, 'Eponym Canon,' p. 139, 1. 13), and had to take part in the hostile expeditions, which both Esarhaddon and his son, Asshurbanipal, conducted against Egypt. Egypt had to keep her eye on Judaea continually, to see when danger was approaching her. If is not likely that Isaiah's prophecies caused the "terror" here spoken cf. Every one that maketh mention thereof shall be afraid; rather, when any one maketh mention thereof, they shall turn to him in fear. The very mention of Judaea by any one shall cause fear, because they will expect to hear that an expedition has started, or is about to start, from that country.

"Because of the counsel of the Lord of hosts." This is how Isaiah views the Assyrian attacks on Egypt, not how the Egyptians viewed them. The fear felt by the Egyptians was not a religious fear. They simply dreaded the Assyrian armies, and Judaea as the country from which the expeditions seemed to issue.

The Targum on Isaiah 19:18 rephrases the part about the City of Destruction to mean:

At that time, there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt, speaking the language of Canaan, and swearing by the name of the Lord of hosts. The city of Beth-Shemesh, which is to be destroyed, shall be called one of them.

There was a city called Beth-Shemesh near Jerusalem abandoned as a result of the Assyrians or Babylonians, but that doesn't seem like the best explanation, because it isn't in Egypt. However, the Targum is helpful, because Jeremiah 43 has a similar prophecy that appears related:

12. And I will kindle a fire in the houses of the gods of Egypt; and he shall burn them, and carry them away captives: and he shall array himself with the land of Egypt, as a shepherd putteth on his garment; and he shall go forth from thence in peace.

13. He shall break also the images of Bethshemesh [Literally "House/Temple of the Sun"], that is in the land of Egypt; and the houses of the gods of the Egyptians shall he burn with fire.

I think that you might take the view that Isaiah 19:18 refers to both the City of the Sun and the City of Destruction and is making a play on words, with "City of the Sun" being a secondary meaning that the Targum reveals.
One interpretation that comes to my mind is that the city could be called "City of Destruction" in the sense that as Jeremiah 43 says, the idols would be smashed there. Certainly this smashing would have occurred to some extent in the time of the spread of Christianity to Egypt, like in Byzantine times.

[rakovsky]

Dec 1, 2019 16:47:21 GMT -8 alon said:

Dec 1, 2019 11:27:43 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Matthew 5:17-18 (ESV) Christ Came to Fulfill the Law
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Try reading that without the subtitle added by the translators (Christ Came to Fulfill the Law), and tell me how any sane, thinking person can say it means the law was done away with! 

I got off on a tangent answering your question, so I put it on a new thread, here: theloveofgod.proboards.com/thread/4788/matthew-17-iota-dot-pass
Peace - Shalom.

[alon]

Dec 2, 2019 14:50:48 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Dec 1, 2019 16:47:21 GMT -8 alon said:

I think that you are asking a rhetorical question. Yes. If someone took the statement to mean that the law was done away with, they would have to think that it means that in the time period before both (A) heaven and earth pass away and (B) before "all" was accomplished (all being meant as something that has in fact been accomplished), nothing will pass from the Law. And you would also have to read it to mean that if anything is taken from the Law, then the whole Law is done away with, in other words, the Law would have to be seen as an inherently integrated whole requiring all its parts to be the Law. Yes.

There are at least three potentially confusing things that I underlined above about the two verses, in terms of exegesis. One of them is that it doesn't actually say "The Law will not pass away until ______", it says "not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until ____." Another way of saying that is not even the smallest part- not even those little marks you see at the tops of the Hebrew letters- will pass away until all prophecy is fulfilled. Yeshua fulfilled most of the prophecy of the Spring Feasts when He came the first time. The rest of the Spring feast prophecies and all remaining prophecy concerning this age will be fulfilled when He returns. In other words, it isn't directly talking about the Law passing away, only about parts of the Law passing from the Law. So the two verses by themselves don't say whether or not the Law itself will pass away ever. If you want to interpret it as meaning that the Law will or won't pass away, you have to see the Law as a necessarily integrated whole (which I guess that you do), whereby one of those parts passing away would mean the whole Law passed away. While that is true, it is not the point here. Yeshua just plainly said He did not come to do away with any part of . He came to fulfill prophecy and to better explain . Not all prophecy though. Remember when He read from Isaiah:

Luke 4:16-21 (NASB) And He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up; and as was His custom, He entered the synagogue on the Sabbath, and stood up to read. And the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to Him. And He opened the scroll and found the place where it was written,
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord.”***
And He closed the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.”

But not all this prophecy was fulfilled, because He'd stoped short of reading the entire prophecy:

Isaiah 61:1-3 (NASB)
The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
Because the Lord has anointed me
To bring good news to the afflicted [humble];
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And freedom to those who are bound;
To proclaim the favorable year of the Lord***
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
To grant those who mourn in Zion,
Giving them a garland instead of ashes,
The oil of gladness instead of mourning,
The mantle of praise instead of a spirit of fainting.
So they will be called oaks of righteousness,
The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.
*** the place Yeshua stoped reading

You were right to question the term "all," as often it doesn't mean everything. However when we can find in scripture that "all" clearly is not finished, then in this case it does mean exactly what it says: "ALL!" "When 'all' is finished"

Everything in its time. "The day of vengeance of our God" will not occur until the fall feasts. On that day the wicked are punished but we will be with Yeshua and all the good things that followed that statement will be ours! Baruch HaShem!

But the main point here is that the Law/ has not been nullified, either in whole or in the smallest part. Yeshua's , His instructions for holy living are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. He is Yeshua hu Adon, Jesus who is God, He does not change!

[rakovsky]

Baruch HaShem.

[rakovsky]

Dec 1, 2019 16:47:21 GMT -8 alon said:

Dec 1, 2019 11:27:43 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Loeb's editor writes about Isaiah's prophecy about the altar and pillar in Egypt that "Many commentators suspect vss. 18-25 of this chapter of having been interpolated by a writer of the Hasmonaean period." So what the editor means is that many commentators suspect that in the Hasmonean period (c. 140 BC- c. 116 BC), a writer inserted the verses about an altar and a pillar in Egypt into the Book of Isaiah, even though the Book of Isaiah was written centuries earlier than the Hasmonean period writer.
I've read those commentators and scholars and other fat headed fools. They almost invariably say it is because Isaiah couldn't have known all those things. Prophet of God- idiot commentator: you decide. Some do try to couch the argument in writing style, but you look at those verses and tell me they are stylistically different. 

The verses they are talking about seem to fit the context and style enough that it looks to me that there is not enough reason to think that they are interpolations from later centuries. You are making a good point.

[rakovsky]

Dec 1, 2019 17:10:24 GMT -8 alon said:

Dec 1, 2019 10:55:29 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

To answer your question, Dan, I think that Daniel is suggesting that Nebuchadnezzar became rather pious toward God. I don't know that they openly had the same clarity and detail of the concept or equivalent of being saved in the TaNaKh, Salvation is the same today as it was in any part of the OT. Join with Israel, worship the God of Israel as he said to do it, and Him alone. Repent of your old ways and return to God, developing a relationship with Him. Obey His instructions for holy living. There is an initial acceptance, but it is not just "believe and confess, and here, say this sinners prayer. it'll save you!" Clarity? We are the ones with a skewed idea of salvation! 

I think that since as you said, Yeshua did a good job of explaining things, or making them more plain and clear, then there was not the same open clarity and detail on the topic of Salvation in the TaNaKh. You can say that Salvation and the criteria of the judgment is fundamentally the same concept though.

You asked, "'I think that if the author took a dim view of the king, he wouldn't have emphasized the praises and decisions of the king so much.' Is that backed by evidence or just an assumption?"

Some evidence is that I can't think of times when the TaNaKh's authors showed someone whom they consider evil as praising God in such extreme tones both before an after divine punishment. Pharaoh, when he saw God's power, relented and let the people go due to the plagues and his fear- Pharaoh was forced to. Pharaoh is seen as a negative figure despite his recognizing God's power. In contrast, in the case of the Babylonian king, he was impressed with God's power and reality due to the miracles, and praised God to all nations even after the 7 years' punishment. God did not demand the king's worship at the threat of punishment or reward, but rather the king gave it voluntarily both before and after the punishment.

[alon]

Dec 2, 2019 15:48:04 GMT -8 rakovsky said:

Baruch HaShem.

Ah, we'll make a messy-annic outa yu yet! 


But fer now, EO is cool!