Tuesday, March 3, 2026

Medical Expenses (Liver-related and other issues)

A few months ago, I was told by my doctor that I may have some (life-long) issues with my liver. And today, I got really bad news, so I will be facing a lot of medical expenses for the foreseeable future. I was adopted at birth, and information about my birth parents’ medical history is not accessible, beyond once finding out my birth mother, like me, suffers from chronic migraines.


I am logged out of my old “gofundme” so I set up a new one. Note: only donate if you are (1) in a position to do so and (2) want to. Also, feel free to keep me in your prayers. Also, feel free to share this link with others (e.g., if you are a YT content creator, do share the URL on your posts; ditto for your wall on f/b, etc)

Medical Expenses (Liver-related and other issues)


https://www.gofundme.com/f/medical-expenses-liverrelated-and-other-issues


Alt.: Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/irishlds/ Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Robert-Boylan-16

Robert Alter on the Golden Calves in 1 Kings 12:28

  

two golden calves . . . “Here are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” The representation of Jeroboam’s act as idolatrous —underscored by the use of “gods” in the plural—is tendentious. Calves or bulls were often conceived as a mount or a throne of God, precisely like those winged leonine figures, the cherubim. In all historical likelihood, Jeroboam’s intention was not to displace the worship of YHWH but merely to create alternate cultic centers to Jerusalem with an alternate temple iconography. But the narrator pointedly represents all this in precisely the terms, with an explicit quotation, of Aaron’s golden calf (Exodus 32). (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 2:486-87)

 

Notice that, while Alter holds to the “pedestal” interpretation, he has to reject what the biblical authors themselves interpret the calves to represent, i.e., deities themselves (in theriomorphic form).

Alexander Wolfe (2006) on the Authenticity of the "Malkiyahu, Son of the King" Seal

  

WSS 15 – 'Belonging to Malkiyahu, son of the king', Moussaieff collection.

 

Apart from the bet the letters appear to be compatible with a genuine piece. (Alexander Wolfe, "A Critical Assessment of Unprovenanced Seals, and Other Artifacts Known Since 1968 and Characterised by a 'Lame Bet'," Kusatu 6 [2006]: 157)

 

The Bodily Assumption of Mary ("Assumptio S. Mariae") in the Gelasian Sacramentary

Commenting on the Bodily Assumption of Mary, Ludwig Ott wrote that:

 

In the East, at least since the sixth century, and at Rome, at any rate, since the end of the seventh century (Sergius 1, 687–701) the Church celebrated the Feast of the Sleeping of Mary (Dormitio, κοίμησις). The object of the Feast was originally the death of Mary, but very soon the thought appeared of the incorruptibility of her body and of its assumption into Heaven. The original title Dormitio (Sleeping) was changed into assumptio (Sacramentarium Gregorianum). (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma [trans. Patrick Lynch; St. Louis: B. Herder Book Company, 1957], 210)

 

Intrigued, I decided to find the relevant source in the sacramentary:

 

[Item ipso die Vig. S. Mariae.

 

Sanctae Mariae semper virginis

Suscipe Dne. sacrificium placationis

*Adiuvant nos q. Dne. haec mysteria]

 

xviii Kal. Sept. Assumptio S. Mariae.

 

Concede nobis q. o. D. ad b. Mariae

Veneranda nobis Dne. huius est

Intercessio q. Dne. beatae Mariae

VD. Nos te in tuis

 

*Caelesti munere satiati (?) o. D. tua nos

*O. s. D. qui terrenis corporibus (H. A. Wilson, The Gelasian Sacramentary: Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894], 353)

 

 

[Also on the same day, the Vigil of Saint Mary.]

 

Of Saint Mary, ever-virgin.
Receive, O Lord, the sacrifice of propitiation.
May these mysteries help us, we beseech thee, O Lord.

 

 

The 18th day before the Kalends of September — The Assumption of Saint Mary.

 

Grant to us, we beseech thee, O Lord, through blessed Mary.
Venerable to us, O Lord, is the intercession — we beseech thee, O Lord, of blessed Mary.
V[erse]. D[ominus]. — We [place] you in your…
Filled by a heavenly gift, O Lord, make us thine.
O S. D., who in earthly bodies…

 

E. Earle Ellis and the Personal Preexistence of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 10

  

1 Cor 10:1-13

 

1 Cor 10:1-13 has a less clearly defined expository pattern than some other Pauline midrashim. But its opening summary of Exodus events (10:1-5) and its interpretive explanation of the one explicit biblical quotation (10:7) reveal its commentary form. This, its self-contained character, and its broadening of the question of food offered to idols to the more general question of idolatry lend plausibility to Wayne Meeks' view that the passage is "a literary unit, very carefully composed prior to its use in its present context".

 

The christological question becomes explicit when the “spiritual” following rock giving water to the Israelites in the wilderness is called Christ (10:4). By metonomy the miraculous work of God in the Old Testament can be called by the name God. But here the Rock is identified typically and surprisingly not with God but with Christ, and it is related to the typological character of other Exodus events of redemption and judgment (10:6, 11). Paul goes on to warn the Corinthians, "Neither let us tempt Christ (Χριστον p46 D) as some of [the Israelites] tempted him" (10:9). Thus, he places Christ both at the Exodus and in the present reality at Corinth. In a change of mind I now agree with Anthony Hanson that "the real presence of the pre-existent Jesus" is Paul's meaning in 1 Cor 10:4. If so, this preformed piece is a very early witness to the church's confession of the pre-existent Christ and, like 1 Cor 8:6 and Col 1:15—20, may be related to a wisdom Christology. (E. Earle Ellis, “Performed Traditions and Their Implications for Pauline Christology,” in Christology, Controversy, & Community: New Testament Essays in Honour of David R. Catchpole, ed. David G. Horrell and Christopher M. Tuckett [Supplements to Novum Testamentum 99; Leiden: Brill, 2000], 317-18)

 

Prudence M. Rice (2022) on the "macuahuitl"/macana being called a "sword"

  

The macuahuitl and macana

 

The Aztec macuahuitl (mak-WAH-weetl) was a melee weapon: a large broadsword or club wielded in close combat (Hassig, 2016, p. 8; Pohl, 2001, p. 19). The broad, flat wooden shaft, probably of a strong hardwood like oak, had grooved edges inset with obsidian blades secured by resin or other mastic. These armaments were apparently of varying sizes: most about one meter long, brandished with one hand while the other held a shield; others were larger, necessitating two hands (Cervera Obregón, 2006, p. 128, Figures 1, 14, 2007; Pohl, 2001, p. 19, 21; Taube, 1991, Figures 4, 5).

 

Effective in blunt-force slashing and chopping, macuahuitls are illustrated in native pictorial books (Figure 1; Cervera Obregón, 2006: Figures 1, 14; Taube, 1991: Figures 4, 5). Spanish chroniclers described them, perhaps with some hyperbole, as having “sharp blades of flint, set into opposite sides of a club, and … so fierce that … with one blow [the Aztecs] could chop off a horse’s head, cutting right through the neck” or “split a man in two with a single blow” (Cervera Obregón, 2006, p. 134; quoting Acosta, 1589/2003, p. 233 and Hernández de Córdoba, 1959, p. 407). Similarly, fray Francisco de Aguilar (1561/1963, p. 140) claimed that “One Indian at a single stroke cut open the whole neck of Cristóbal de Olid’s horse, killing the horse.” If death were not instantaneous from the blow itself, heavy bleeding from the wound would have quickly brought about the same end. These arms were “primarily restricted to nobles and professionals who had access to the necessary training” to use them (Hassig, 1992, p. 160).

 

A similar weapon was employed by the lowland Maya of the Yucatan Peninsula. In addition to bows and arrows and spears, Spaniards involved in early battles with the Maya reported that their opponents’ armaments included “[s]words that appeared to be two-handed ones” (Díaz del Castillo, 1568/1998, p. 9) and “twohanded swords of very strong wood (set with) obsidian” (Cogolludo, in Tozzer, 1941, p. 49n240). Two sizes were noted (Tejeda Monroy, 2012, p. 150): one about 83 cm (31.5 in) long, and the other approximately 104 × 5 cm (also Barrera Vásquez, 1991, p. 184; Hassig, 1992, pp. 256–257; Roys, 1943, p. 66). The Spaniards called this weapon a “macana,” a term they learned from the Taino in the Caribbean (Hassig, 2016, p. 8), or sometimes a “machete.” Some sources reported that the affixed blades were chert (Barrera Vásquez, 1991, p. 184; Roys, 1943, p. 66; Tejeda Monroy, 2012, pp. 150–151), but their sizes and shapes are not described. Known as a hadzab or hats’ab in Yucatecan Mayan, it had a shaft of strong chulul wood: Apoplanesia paniculata, a small (6–9 m/20–30 ft.) flowering tree.

 

. . .

 

Mayapan, Yucatan, Mexico

 

Although the Late Postclassic northern Yucatan Peninsula was ostensibly unified by the League of Mayapan, it was plagued by conflict, conspiracies, and roaming bands of guerrillas (see Edmonson, 1986, pp. 38–39). Early excavations at Mayapan recovered about 1,700 obsidian blade fragments (Proskouriakoff, 1962, pp. 368–369), primarily “pieces broken at both ends” (i.e. medial segments) with evidence of “heavy use” on the edges. Perplexingly, however, the possibility of macana weaponry was dismissed because analysts found “no suggestion in the range of sizes” of these segments, and small “flake-blades” and fragments were identified as scrapers (Proskouriakoff, 1962, p. 369, Figure 35o, p). In more recent work, “almost all” the obsidian artifacts at Mayapan were found to be blade fragments (Masson & Lope, 2014, p. 363). However, there is only oblique reference to armaments: “wooden swords with ‘flint’ (perhaps obsidian) edges” obtained “from beyond the Maya area” (Masson & Lope, 2014, p. 280). Study of cranial trauma on human remains from another site in the northwestern peninsula revealed small, oval wounds to the left frontal and parietal bones, especially in the Postclassic period. These suggest injuries from a right-handed combatant wielding a “wooden club with protruding points … a specialized weapon” (Serafin et al., 2014, p. 148). That is, a macana or hadzab. (Prudence M. Rice, “Macanas in the Postclassic Maya Lowlands? A Preliminary Look,” Lithic Technology 44, no. 22 [2022], 314-15, 318)

 

Jewish/Rabbinical Traditions Concerning the Murder of Zechariah and Other Religious Figures

  

23:35: Until the blood of Zachariah, the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the temple (house) and the altar.

 

1. The murder of Zechariah b. Jehoiada in 2 Chr 24:20ff. in rabbinic tradition.

 

The oldest report is in y. Taʿan. 4.69A.56: R. Yohanan († 279) said, “80,000 young priests were killed because of the blood of Zechariah.” R. Judan (ca. 350) asked R. Aha (ca. 320), “Where was Zechariah killed? In the forecourt of the women or in the forecourt of the Israelites?” He answered, “Neither in the forecourt of the Israelites nor in the forecourt of the women, but rather in the forecourt of the priests (so near the altar of burnt offerings); and they did not deal with his blood as with the blood of a ram and as with the blood of a gazelle. There it is written, ‘He shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth’ (Lev 17:13); but here it says, ‘Their blood is in their midst, on a bare rock (cf. Judg 9:5) it (the blood city Jerusalem) made it flow, not poured onto the earth so that the dust covered it’ (Ezek 24:7). Why all this? ‘In order to bring up wrath, in order to take violent vengeance, I have made their blood stray onto naked rocks so that it may never be covered’ (Ezek 24:8). The Israelites committed seven transgressions on that day (of the murder of Zechariah): they killed a priest and prophet and judge, they shed innocent blood, they defiled the forecourt, and it happened on a Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. When Nebuzaradan came up there, he saw how the blood welled up תוסס. He said to them, ‘What is this?’ They answered, ‘It is the blood of bulls and lambs and rams that we presented on the altar as an offering.’ Immediately he had the bulls and rams and lambs brought and slaughtered above it, but the blood still welled up. Since they did not confess to him, ropes (תלי תליין??) were hung up on the place of execution (to hang the priests). Then they said, ‘It pleases God to require his blood from our hands!’ They said to Nebuzaradan, ‘It is the blood of a priest and prophet and judge, who prophesied against us all what you have done to us, and we rose up against him and killed him.’ Immediately he had 80,000 young (i.e., capable of service) priests brought and slaughtered above it (above the blood of Zechariah); but still the blood welled up. In that hour he turned on it and said, ‘Do you want your whole people to be destroyed because of you?’ Immediately God was filled with pity and said, ‘If this man who is flesh and blood and cruel is filled with pity for my children, how much more must this apply to me, of whom it is written, “Yahweh your God is a merciful God. He will neither leave you, nor destroy you, nor forget the covenant with your fathers that he swore to them” (Deut 4:31).’ Immediately he gave the blood a nod, and then it was swallowed up in its place.” ‖ The parallel in b. Giṭ. 57B is as follows: R. Hiyya b. Abun (a contemporary of Raba, so ca. 330) said that R. Joshua b. Qarha (ca. 150) said, “An old man from the inhabitants of Jerusalem recounted the following to me: ‘In this valley (this refers to Biqʿath-Jadajim near Betar) Nebuzaradan, the head of the guard, killed 211 myriads and in Jerusalem he killed 94 myriads on one stone until their blood came and touched the blood of Zechariah, in order to fulfill what is said: “Blood touches blood” (Hos 4:2). He found the blood of Zechariah, as it welled up and rose up. He said, “What is this?” They answered, “It is blood from sacrificial offerings that has been poured out.” He sent for the like; but it was not like the former. He said to them, “If you tell me, good; but if not, I will comb off your flesh with iron combs.” They said, “What should we tell you? There was a prophet among us who rebuked us (in punishment) in divine things. Then we rose up against him and killed him, and behold, who knows how many years it has been that his blood has not been mollified.” He answered, “I will mollify it.” He took the great Sanhedrin and the small Sanhedrin and killed them above it (the blood of Zechariah); but it was not mollified. He took youths and virgins and killed them above it, but it was not mollified. He took schoolchildren and killed them above it, but it was not mollified. Then he said to it, “Zechariah, Zechariah, the best among them I have destroyed; so you want me to destroy them all?” When he said this, the blood was mollified. In that hour he inwardly thought of repentance. He said, “If this happened to them because of one human life, how much more will it happen to this man (i.e., me) who has killed all this human life!” Then he departed. He sent a testament (שטר פרטתא) to his family and converted to Judaism.’ ” In a baraita it has been taught: Naaman (2 Kgs 5) was a resident alien proselyte גר תושב; Nebuzaradan was a real proselyte גר צדק.—A similar text with small variations can be found in b. Sanh. 96B. ‖ In the Midrash literature, the report in Pesiq. 122A follows the Jerusalem Talmud closely; there is a connection of the tradition of both Talmuds in Midr. Lam. 2:2 (64B); 4:13 (76A); Midr. Eccl. 3:16 (21A); Midr. Lam. Introduction #23 (36A) and Midr. Eccl. 10:4 (46B); in the last two passages, the killing of Zechariah is partly grounded in his pride.—In Midr. Lam. Introduction #5 (30B) we find only the question of R. Judan to R. Aha concerning the place where Zechariah was slaughtered. ‖ Targum Lamentations 2:20: “You killed Zechariah, the son of Iddo, the high priest and reliable prophet, in the sanctuary of Yahweh on the Day of Atonement, because he rebuked you (in punishment) that you should not do what is evil before Yahweh.”—In more detail, we read in Tg. 2 Chr. 24:20f.: “The spirit of prophecy from Yahweh dwelt (rested) on Zechariah b. Jehoiada, the priest. When he saw the sin of the king and of the people, how they kindled incense to the idol in the sanctuary of Yahweh on the altar on the Day of Atonement and how the priests of Yahweh neglected to present burnt and drink offerings and the offering of the day together with the additional offerings, as is prescribed in the book of the Torah of Moses, he stepped before the people and said, ‘Thus says Yahweh: “Why do you transgress the commandments of Yahweh, so that you no longer have fortune? Since you have abandoned the service of Yahweh, he will abandon you.” ’ And they rose up against him and stoned him according to the order of the king in the forecourt of the sanctuary of Yahweh.” ‖ Josippon 80: Before the holy temple in your midst the righteous and pious prophet Zechariah was slaughtered נשחט; and he lay there without a grave, and the earth did not cover his blood, but rather still rises up and cries out (literally: chirps) in your midst.”—Here the text probably has in mind the prophet Zechariah, son of Berekhiah, named in Zech 1:1. See also Midr. Lam. 2:20.

 

2. Other murders in the sanctuary.

 

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11.7.1: “When the high priest Eliashib had died, his son Judah took over the high priesthood. After him his son John received the high priestly dignity, because of whom Bagoses, the field commander of the second Artaxerxes, desecrated the temple and laid a tribute on the Jews: they were to pay 50 drachmas from the temple treasury before presenting the daily (Tamid) offering for every lamb. The cause of this was as follows: John had a brother, Jesus. Since he was his friend, Bagoses had promised the latter the high priesthood. Confident in this, Jesus provoked his brother in the temple so that the latter killed him.… When Bagoses learned of this, he said full of anger, ‘In your temple you have dared to commit a murder?’ and infiltrated the temple.” ‖ Tosefta Yoma 1.12 (181): It once happened with two priests that they ran up the ramp (to the altar of burnt offering) equally fast (in order to obtain the privilege of removing the ashes). Then one of them pushed his companion four cubits back; but he took a knife and drove it into the heart of the former. Then R. Zadok (ca. 60, himself a priest) came and set himself at the entrance to the forehall (of the temple building) on the temple mount and said, “Hear me, our brothers, house of Israel! It says, ‘If a slaughtered person is found on the soil that Yahweh your God will give you to possess, lying on the field, without it being known who slaughtered him, your elders and judges shall go out and measure to the cities that are around the murdered person’ (Deut 21:1f.). Come and let us measure for whom it is obligatory to bring the calf to the place, the temple or the forecourt!” Then all people broke out weeping. Then the father came and said, “My son still twitches (is still alive) and the knife has not yet become unclean (by touching a corpse)!” This teaches that the impurity of the knife seemed worse to them than bloodshed.—Parallel passages include t. Šebu. 1.4 (446); SNum 35:34 § 161 (62B); y. Yoma 2.39D.13; b. Yoma 23A. ‖ Here the report of Josephus about the murder of Zechariah b. Barukh may also find a place to which some interpreters of Matt 23:35 refer. Josephus, Jewish War 4.5.4: “They (the zealots at the beginning of the Jewish war against Rome) had planned to kill one of the most respected men, Zechariah b. Barukh. It angered them that the man extremely hated every evil thing and loved freedom. He was also rich, so that they might hope not simply to usurp his fortune, but also to do away with a man who was in a position to contribute to their own elimination. They summoned seventy ordinary people as a college of judges and accused Zechariah without proof that he betrayed the land to the Romans. But with courageous words he undermined the complaints brought against him and accused his opponents of their numerous acts of lawlessness. Despite the raging of the zealots the judges acquitted him. Then two of the zealots in the middle of the temple fell upon Zechariah and killed him, crying out to him scoffingly, ‘Here you have also our voice and a reliable acquittal!’ Then they cast him down from the sanctuary to the chasm next to it.” (Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Midrash, ed. Jacob N. Cerone, 4 vols. [trans. Andrew Bowden and Joseph Longarino; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2022], 1:1079-82)

 

Blog Archive