Contra this person, and the Lester Crabbe he cites, reading between the lines, oh, yes we do have at least hints of Yehud revolting against the early years of Achaemenid Persian rule. Any good critical commentary on Zechariah, specifically the first couple of chapters of the "1 Zechariah" half of the book, will tell you that. Like other portions of the empire, when Darius took the throne after a presumed usurpation against (the murdered?) Cambyses, Yehud/Judah apparently rose up. And was pushed down.
==
Ahh, a person who thinks Colossians is Pauline and then goes on to justify his ignorance by saying he can't see the difference in writing style from other Pauline books while saying he doesn't read Greek and is going by English. The reality is its codependence on Ephesians, whichever was first, is one issue. An increased emphasis on Gnostic(-izing) themes is another.
==
A whole round of comments on this post by the seeminly chuddish Chonkshonk claiming, based on this paper, that it is NOT Nero, nor any gematria at all, that is behind the name of the Beast in Revelation, but rather, in one of the stupidest things I've seen out of non-fundamentalist Christian academia, that the "666" is instead riffing on Solomon's gold. No, really.
I'll call him chuddish because he comments regularly, and even occasionally posts, in the form r/AcademicQuran and admits he can't read Arabic. (Worse, he's a moderator. That said, most the mods of r/AcademicBiblical, including Naugrith the Nazi, probably can't read Greek and surely can't read Hebrew.) I can't downvote him because the post is archived, but he's downvoted elsewhere.
As for the claim? Tosh. First, a reminder that the Beast of Revelation is NOT the man of lawlessness from 2 Thessalonians and is not set up within the temple. Related to that, the Beast is not identified as a Jewish leader exploiting his own people, etc. Therefore, even if not Nero, this is NOT NOT NOT a reference to Solomon's gold. Also, "666" occuring as the number of number of children of Adonikam in Ezra 2:13 is totally irrelevant. I will give the pair some credit for wrestling with the numerology, history of Nero as presumed target, critical text, etc. Of additional note? Keith Bodner and Brent A. Strawn are both OT guys, not NT.
==
An easy-to-spot fail here. Not only the OP has the bad framing with "standard Old Testament," but even a "quality contributor" like Qumrum 60 among commenters failed to tell the OP that 1 Enoch is indeed in the Ethiopic and Eritrean canon, and was in the early Christian era, considered scriptural by the author of Barnabas. A better formed question would be "Why did it not get considered scriptural in later centuries?" or "Why did it fall out of consideration?"
And, a month later, Albanese Gummies asking a similar question. And, this time, the comments are overall better, and in the Western tradition, directly address the last issue.
==
Even though rules there say no interjecting theology, a fundagelical-type questioner is doing just that in the background, when his question about Matthew's crucifixion earthquake assumes it's real. Since the OP has just two posts anywhere in two-plus years, I can't figure a background. They also deleted some posts somewhere to have 333 karma points with that minuscule amount of overall commenting.
==
That said, a kudo on something good. This post about the Seth and Cain genealogies and entanglement, influence or suppression of the Yahwist by the Priestly author and anything else going on, is itself informed and looking for feedback and gets good feedback.
No comments:
Post a Comment