Archie T. Wright on Satan in Hebrews

  

LETTER TO THE HEBREWS

 

The Letter to the Hebrews contains one reference to a chief evil being, in Hebrews 2;14. The context speaks of the flesh and blood of Christ and his shared humanity, by which through his death he might destroy the one who has power over death, the devil (τον διαβολον-cf. Wis 2:23-24; 1 Cor 15:26, 55; Rev 20:14). It seems clear here that the author is speaking of a supernatural being and not an earthly adversary, although the author could be alluding to the Roman Empire, which certainly held the power of death in the Mediterranean world. Christ came to free those who lived their lives enslaved to the fear of death (through persecution?). What is not clear in the passage is how the adversary/the devil had this power over death; does this suggest he was in some way responsible for death among humanity? If so, then this would suggest this is a human adversary, as there is no apparent spiritual being that has power over death in the heavenly realm except God. Another possibility is that the power of death is brought on by the devil in that he turns people away from God and his Torah, which in the end results in their death and final destruction. (Archie T. Wright, Satan and the Problem of Evil: From the Bible to the Early Church Fathers [Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2022], 181)

 

Thomas E. Gaston on "Chaldeans" in the Book of Daniel

  

The Chaldeans

 

It was previously thought that the use of the term ‘Chaldean’ (kasdiy כשדימה) to refer to a class of wise men (Dan. 2:2, 4, 5, 10; 4:7; 5:7, 11) was an anachronism. The term ‘Chaldean’ comes from the Akkadian term Kasdu. In late Akkadian there was a phonetic shift such that in certain words the sibilant s became l before t and d, so Kasdu became Kaldu. The term, Kaldu, appears in Greek writers as Χαλδαιος, hence ‘Chaldean’. The Kasdu were a people from the region around Ur; Nebuchadnezzar and his father, Nabopolassar, were Kasdu. Since the ruling dynasty during the Neo-Babylonian period was Kasdu, it is objected that the author is in error to use Kasdiy as a class of wise man, rather than as an ethnic term. In the fifth century Herodotus refers to the Χαλδαιος as priests of Bel (Marduk). It is conjectured that the term would not have become a technical term for these priests until the end of Chaldean dynasty.

 

 

In fact, the author does use kasdiy in the ethnic sense (Dan. 5:30; 9:1; pos. 3:8) so his other use of the term cannot be due to ignorance of its ethnic origins. The designation of certain wise men as ‘Chaldeans’ cannot be explained by dependence on late sources, such as Herodotus, since the term kasdiy almost certainly derives from the earlier Akkadian form of the term. Therefore, we must look for an alternative explanation for the dual-use of kasdiy in the book of Daniel.

 

One suggestion proposed by R. D. Wilson, and defended by Archer, is that two meanings of Kaldu have separate etymologies. Wilson hypothesized that while Kaldu (ethnic) was derived from Kasdu, Kaldu (priestly) was derived from the Sumerian gal-du meaning ‘master builder’. While Kaldu (ethnic) referred to the race, Kaldu (priestly) referred to a group of high-ranking officials. However, even if the link between gal-du and Kaldu could be substantiated, there would be no link with the Hebrew kasdiy.

 

An alternative suggestion is that both meanings could have been used concurrently. Despite the early application of ‘Chaldean’ to the priests of Bel, the term continue to be used in an ethnic sense at least till the first century BC when it is used by the historian Strabo. Baldwin reasons:

 

There is nothing about the use of the term in both meanings, nor need it cause confusion, any more than our use in English of the word “Morocco” to designate both the country and the leather for which it is famous. (Baldwin, Daniel, 28)

 

Millard finds a possible analogy with the Magi, who performed a religious function in the Persian Empire and were probably a tribe of the Medes. (Millard, ‘Daniel 16’, 70) Given that the Chaldean dynasty was instrumental in the elevation of Marduk to supreme god, it is possible that the priests of Marduk were ethnically Chaldean. It is certainly conceivable that the theological shift towards Marduk would have been characterized as a Chaldean innovation, even if all the priests were not ethnically Chaldean.

 

It is interesting to note that there is no extant use of the term Kaldu in cuneiform texts from the Neo-Babylonian period. This may be due to our lack of information but it is likely that the term was not used by Chaldeans of themselves during this period. (Thomas E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel [Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2016], 35-36)

 

E. Sylvester Berry on the Anglican Branch Theory

  

THE BRANCH THEORY. As already noted, the Branch Theory maintains that the Church of Christ consists of three parts or branches,--The Roman, the Greek, and the Anglican, and that consequently the Anglican Church is truly Catholic, since it is a part of the Church universal and a corporate continuation of the Church of England before the Reformation. The following quotation from Father Finlay will show the utter absurdity of this theory: “Though it has been prominently before the world for three-quarters of a century, it finds no one to accept and advocate it outside of the Anglican Communion. A section,--a small minority of the Church of England,--maintains the theory. The large majority of Protestant Episcopalians know nothing of it; while Greeks and Roman Catholic repudiated it utterly. Is it likely that the Church of Christ is constituted on a pattern which not one in a hundred of her members will acknowledge? Are we to believe that the true constitution of the Church was hidden from mankind,--from the Church herself,--through nineteen centuries, and was only then to be made known to a little group of Anglican theologians who have failed to persuade any but a handful of their own Communion that their conception of the Church is that of Christ?” (“church of Christ,” p. 168) (E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise [Frederick County, Md.: Mount Saint Mary's Seminary, 1955; repr., Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2009], 100-1)

 

Thomas E. Gaston, "We Shall fight on the Beaches”: A Critique of Criticism

  

Appendix 4: “We Shall fight on the Beaches”: A Critique of Criticism

 

Introduction

 

Traditionally, the We Shall Fight on the Beaches text has been ascribed by scholars to the pen of the wartime hero Winston Churchill. Modern textual criticism has thrown doubt upon this conclusion positing that the text is more likely the product of a so-called Churchillic circle. In this paper I will demonstrates that Beaches originates several decades after the War from a nationalistic group designated in the text by the term ‘Island’, the text itself being based around a pre-war conquest-hymn. Further, we can discern within the text three distinct stages of redaction: 1) the pseudonymous monography, written as vainglorious boast in reaction to the pressures of immigration, 2) the apologetic revision made in response to internal criticism, and 3) the eschatological additions made by splinter-Islandite group.

 

The Text

 

1. I have, myself, full confidence that if all do their duty, [if nothing is neglected,
2. and if the best arrangements are made, as they are being made,] we shall prove
3. ourselves once again able to defend our Island home, to ride out the storm of
4. war, and to outlive the menace of tyranny, if necessary for years, if necessary
5. alone.
6. [At any rate, that is what we are going to try to do. That is the resolve of His
7. Majesty’s Government—every man of them That is the will of the Parliament and
8. the nation.]
9. The British Empire, [and the French Republic,] linked together in their cause and in
10. their need, will defend to the death their native soil, aiding each other like good
11. comrades to the utmost of their strength.
12. Even though large tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen
13. or may fall into the grip of the Gestapo and all the odious apparatus of Nazi rule,
14. we shall not flag or fail.
15. We shall go on to the end, [we shall fight in France,]
16. we shall fight on the seas [and oceans,]
17. we shall fight [with growing confidence and growing strength] in the air,
18. we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
19. we shall fight on the beaches,
20. we shall fight on the landing grounds,
21. we shall fight in the fields and in the streets
22. we shall fight in the hills:
23. we shall never surrender (and even if, which I do not for a moment)
24. believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and startving then our
25. Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle,
26. until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and
27. might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.)

 

Words in italics represent the original conquest-hymn, words in [ ] mark additions of the second redaction, words in ( ) mark additions of the third redaction.

 

The Conquest-Hymn

 

The discontinuity between the preceding lines and the ‘we shall fight . . . ‘ couplets (lines 16-17, 19-20, 21-22) indicates this section of the Beaches text was formerly a separate hymn that was adopted by the writer. Each couplet is formed by the juxtaposition of the differing locations. Line 18 does not conform to this structure and is clearly a later addition.

 

The proactive confidence embodied in the hymn is dissimilar to the defiant redactionism of the rest of the text, yet it is also uncharacteristic of the War period. Such buoyant enthusiasm for battle is unlikely to have been manifested after the early defeats to the German Blitzgreig. It is more probable that these lines represent a pre-war conquest-hymn composed by a pro-war activists to encourage support for further expansion of the Empire. We may legitimately speculate that this conquest-hymn dates to the height of the British Empire around 1900.

 

The Islandite Revision

 

In the opening lines of Beaches demonstrates the distinct isolationist Tendentz of the writer. Words such as “myself” (line 1) and “alone” (line 5) are employed to instill a separatist ideal. Phrases such as “native soil” (line 10) and “good comrades” (line 11) emphasize the merits of isolationism and nationalism; the xenophobia of the author(s) is apparent. The repetition of the term “Island” (lines 3, 18, 24) is a distinctive and clearly cannot denote the United Kingdom as this is made up of many isles. Rather the exclusivity is the term’s usage indicates that “Island” was used to designate the circle or group from which Beaches originates. The absence of external witness to a group of this name indicates that this group was secretive and highly sectarian.

 

The historical anomalies in the text require a date for the text long after the War period. Particularly, the use of the term “Gestapo” (line 13) presupposes the influence of post-war satire. (It can hardly be supposed that this German term was in common usage in the early years of the War.)

 

The aggressive nationalism portrayed in the text indicates that this text was composed in response to the increased immigration in the post-war decades. It is likely that Wartime hero—Churchill—was selected as a suitable figurehead for this movement, given his defiance of the German invader. The pseudonymous text was undoubtedly composed as rallying-call for British nationalism, which seems to have been the key Islandite ideal.

 

The Apologetic Revision

 

In many sects, expansion leads to the expression of views differing from that of the established leadership. Often a new generation seeks to question the group’s original ideals. This ‘watershed of rationalism’, as we may call it, requires the justification of old concepts to contemporary standards. The glosses and additions to the Beaches text demonstrate that such a watershed occurred within the Islandites. New historical information led to questions being asked about the validity of the group’s founding documents, particularly the Beaches text.

 

The role of the French, though previously omitted for obvious reasons, had to be conceded within the text due to the historical realities of the war-period to be conceded within the text due to the historical realities of the war-period (lines 9 & 150. Also the role of Parliament, and the collaborative nature of the war-effort, needed to be recognized (lines 6-8), even though it creates a clear inconsistency in the text with the isolationism of the opening lines. The apologetic phrases in lines 1b-2 were added to balance the bravado of the text against the facts of wartime defeats.

 

There is also an interesting gloss that occurs in line 17, where the limits of the British airforce were noted despite the damage it does that couplet. The redactor was at pains to preclude further historical criticism of the text.

 

The Eschatological Revision

 

The Beaches text would naturally finish on the word “surrender” (line 23a). However, the present form of the text includes an additional paragraph, which is not only inconsistent with the style of the preceding text but also is inconsistent with its outlook being distinctly defeatist. The religious terminology of this paragraph demonstrates that it was added for didactic reasons.

 

It is probable that as the Israelites expanded their membership they developed a quasi-religious, neo-apocalyptic fringe, which being dissatisfied with the group’s lack of progress in its nationalistic goals looked for the realization of those ideals in an eschatological renewal. It need not be said that this apocalyptic outlook would be inconsistent with an early date for the text.

 

Conclusion

 

This last form of the text, though probably composed by a splinter-group, was the enduring form. Its optimistic vision of the future disguised its nationalistic and xenophobic origins and led to the great popularity of the text. It is undoubtedly from these popularist audiences that the tradition of the text’s historical authenticity arose.

 

******

 

Epilogue

 

The preceding article is, of course, entirely spurious. However, any humour that it engenders is founded solely on the sure knowledge that We Shall Fight on the Beaches speech penned by Winston Churchill in June 1940. Were the circumstances of the speech’s origins unknown or obscured the conclusions presented above might appear plausible within critical circles.

 

This is the inherent danger of redaction criticism. Where external evidence is unavailable internal criteria, such as discontinuity, is (over)emphasized and the idiosyncrasies of the author become indicates of redaction, revision and disunity. This is not to say that critical methods are necessarily invalid, but it does mean that dogmatism on the part of critical will rarely be warranted.

 

This consideration has important implications for the field of biblical studies. For instance, many critical scholars believe that the final redaction of the book of Daniel was penned before 164 BC by a group known as the maskilim (literally ‘the wise’), which is otherwise unknown to history. It is also asserted that the apocalyptic sections of the book were appended to an early extant compilation of court-tales. These conclusions are reached in the absence, and at times in the fact of, external evidence. The limitations of the critical method should be considered before accepting these conclusions. (Thomas E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel [Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2016], 167-70)

 

Further Reading:

 

David J. A. Clines, New Directions in Pooh Studies

Esther J. Hamor on Isaiah 29 and the Familiar Spirit

  

Mass Attack: Spirits of Distortion and Stupor

 

On two occasions, God sends a spirit to act against an entire population. Both times, the spirit is nearly imperceptible—but our examinations of other spirit attacks have yielded a pattern that surfaces here too.

 

Both incidents are described by Isaiah. In the first oracle, God lays out a plan of attack against Egypt. First, he plans to incite the Egyptians against one another—like he did with Abimelech and the Shechemites. Next, he’ll leave Egypt emptied of spirit—like he did to Zedekiah and Saul. Then he’s going to confuse Egypt so that the people will rely on futile divination and false sources—like he did with Ahab (Isaiah 19:2-3). Taken individually, each similarity to a spirit attack might seem coincidental. But these reverberations of multiple incidents of spirit infiltration, all packed into two verses, build to a blunt statement: the leaders of Egypt have been ”deceived,” because “the Lord mixed within it a spirit of distortion” (19:13-14).

 

We see only the faintest silhouette of spirit, but recognize its handiwork. The rest: all of Egypt is led astray “like the stumbling of a drunk in his vomit” (19:14).

 

A nation can’t up and die like the individual victims of other spirit attacks, so instead Egypt is threatened and humiliated. The image is as disturbing as any blood slaughter we’ve seen: the Egyptians will become like women “trembling with fear before the raised hand that the Lord of Armies swings against them” (19:16). A violent God looms over them. He strikes—fade to black.

 

The second time god deploys a spirit against an entire region, the target is Jerusalem. In this oracle, Isaiah’s back to his frequent focus on the threat of Assyrian attack. Only here, God’s on the Assyrian side. Jerusalem has sinned, Isaiah says, and God is threatening a devastating siege against the city, along with a battery of other consequences.

 

“Ariel, Ariel,” God begins his address to Jerusalem (29:1). This is sometimes translated “Loin of God,” but at best it’s a nasty play on words, since Jerusalem isn’t called this anywhere else in the Bible and the word means something totally unrelated in the next verse—and it’s not pretty. In Hebrew Ariel means the “altar hearth” on which things are slaughtered and burned (as in Ezekiel 43:16). God continues, “I will cause distress to Ariel; there will be mourning and lamentation, and the city will be like an ariel to me,” like an altar where blood is spilled (Isaiah 29:2). God describes his military invasion of the city, and its fatal consequences. He tells the people they will speak from deep beneath the earth, that their voices will come from underground like a ghost, and that they’ll “chirp” from the dust, which is how Isaiah describes the eerie sounds of ghosts elsewhere (29:3-4; see 8:19). You’ll be mourned, God says to Jerusalem, after I lead this deadly assault that turns the whole city into an altar for slaughter.

 

A brief moment of hope follows, but then it all comes crashing back down. The storm after the calm brings the pinnacle of God’s threat: a visit from our ephemeral interloper. A few chapters earlier, Isaiah described the terrible effect of the spirit of distortion, when Egypt would be led astray “like the stumbling of a drunk in his vomit.” Now he turns and says something similar to Jerusalem: “Stupefy yourselves and be stupefied, blind yourselves and be blind! Be drunk, but not from wine—stagger, but not form a drink” (29:9). Be dazed and confused—but not from any substance. Isaiah explains why the people fall into such a discombobulated state: “Because the Lord has poured upon you a spirit of stupor” (29:10).

 

Like the spirit that was “mixed into” Egypt, this spirit takes a form that can permeate a population, and it’s “poured upon” Jerusalem. Also like the spirit of distortion, the spirit of stupor makes people stagger around stupefied like they’re drunk out of their gourds. But that’s only one symptom of the spirit’s infiltration.

 

Isaiah details its immediate effect: Stagger around, he tells the people of Jerusalem, “because the Lord has poured upon you a spirit of stupor, and has shut your eyes, the prophets, and covered your heads, the seers.” God uses the spirit of stupor to obscure prophecy. Like all of its cohort, this spirit shrouds reality from the eyes of its prey. In Jerusalem’s bleakest hour, in the chaos and desperation of war, all radio signal is cut off. God has pulled the plug.

 

We’ve seen spirits engage in each major type of psyops—spreading disinformation, fomenting discord—and now we see the final piece of the triad, blocking access to information.

 

Spirits of falsehood of rumor, distortion, and stupor being false prophecy, no prophecy, prophetic speech absent a prophetic message. Evil spirits sow discord and deadly violence. People are deceived, rendered delusional, and dazed. The spirits of God’s entourage leave their signature at every crime scene. (Esther J. Hamori, God’s Monsters: Vengeful Spirits, Deadly Angels, Hybrid Creatures, and Divine Hitmen of the Bible [Minneapolis: Broadleaf Books, 2023], 184-87)

 

Thomas E. Gaston on Historical issues with the Bel and the Dragon

  

Bel and the Dragon

 

The story of Bel and the Dragon relates how Daniel demonstrated that the two titular objects of worship were not real gods. The idol of Bel appears to consume food. Daniel demonstrates that it is the priests and their families that are consuming the food making use of secret doors. The dragon is a living creature that Daniel slays ‘without iron or club’ by giving it cakes of pitch, at and hair to eat. The Babylonians are indignant at Daniel’s actions and demand that Daniel is thrown into a pit of lions for six days. On the sixth day the prophet Habakkuk is transported to Daniel with food. When the king finds Daniel alive, he has Daniel brought out to the pit and his accusers are thrown in and devoured. The story has a clear polemic against idolatry.

 

It is fairly obvious that this story was composed independently of the autograph. OG-Dan opens with the words ‘From the prophecy of Hambakoum [i.e. Habakkuk] the son of Iesous of the tribe of Lieu” (Dan. 14:1 NETS), implying that this was conceived as a story about Habakkuk and not part of the book of Daniel. (OG-Dan does identify the Daniel in this story with the Daniel of the book by naming him ‘Baltasar’ [i.e. Belteshazzar]—Dan 14:34). Th-Dan tries to integrate the story into the book of Daniel, opening with the transition from the reign of Astyages to Cyrus. Nevertheless, it is clear that the story does not belong at the end of chapter 12, as it is placed, but (if anywhere) after chapter 5. The re-use of the lion’s den is crude and is another indication that this story is a later composition.

 

In OG-Dan the king is identified only as ‘the king of Babylon’ (Dan. 14:2). Th-Dan, presumably in an attempt to lend weight to the account by adding historical detail, identifies the king as ‘Cyrus the Persian’ (Dan. 14:1). However, the writer describes Cyrus as receiving his kingdom from As Astyages. This demonstrates a misunderstanding of history. While Cyrus received the Median kingdom from Astyages, this was not a natural succession but Cyrus deposed Astyages. In any case, these events took place in 550 BC, long before Cyrus conquered Babylon; Astyages was never king of Babylon. This attempt by the writer of Th-Dan to identify Darius the Mede and add historical detail to the story was not based on recollection of the events but on a clumsy reading of the Greek historians.

 

The name ‘Bel’ means ‘lord’ and could have been used for various Babylonian gods. In the Neo-Babylonian context, Bel would especially have been used for Marduk, the patron god of Babylon. The use of Bel in the story may be another indication of a reliance on Greek historians as opposed to firsthand knowledge. According to Th-Dan, Daniel destroys both Bel and his temple (Dan. 14:22); OG-Dan mentions only the destruction of Bel. The temple of Marduk in Babylon was the Esagila, which housed statues of Marduk and his consort. However, the Esagila was not destroyed during the reign of Cyrus, nor is there any record of the statue of Marduk being destroyed. Herodotus records that Xerxes removed a statue from the Esagila when he desecrated the temple and sacked the city in 482 BC. Yet the temple was not destroyed and was destroyed by Alexander the Great. The idea that Daniel was responsible for the destruction of the statue of Marduk or of the Esagila appears fanciful.

 

The second supposed god in the story, the dragon, seems also fanciful. Whilst the story does not record this δραγων breathing fire, the fact that it bursts when it consumes pitch and fat might imply this. The worship given to the dragon suggests that it is not some ordinary serpent but a distinctive and unique creature. This does not recommend the historicity of this account. In any case, there is no record of the Babylonians worshipping a live dragon.

 

Finally, we may think about the prophet Habakkuk. Of course, his transportation to Babylon to provide food for Daniel was miraculous, but laying that aside there are reasons to question the historicity of the account. Whilst the prophecy of Habakkuk is not precisely dated, it is written in anticipation of the Babylonian invasion (cf. Hab. 1:6), whereas the events of Bel and the Dragon date, according to Th-Dan, to the reign of Cyrus. There is a good seventy years dividing the two. Now, we must allow that if it is plausible that Daniel could have lived long enough for his life to span the whole Babylonian captivity then the same might be said of Habakkuk. But if Habakkuk is older than Daniel, as one might guess from the tenor of his prophecy, then it stretches credulity to believe him to be still living in the reign of Cyrus. (Thomas E. Gaston, Historical Issues in the Book of Daniel [Paternoster Biblical Monographs; Milton Keynes, U.K.: Paternoster, 2016], 125-26)

 

Abulfeda’s account of Galen’s Comments on Christians

  

According to the Kûmil (of Ibn Athîr) Galen lived in the days of this Commodus, having been born before the death of Ptolemy [literally: “and Galen lived to the time of Ptolemy”]. In his [i.e. Galen’s] time the religion of the Christians in his book Remark on the Book of Plato on the Republic, where he says: “The mass of the people are not able to follow the thread of an apodictic discourse, wherefore they need allusive (enigmatic) sayings, so that they may enjoy instruction thereby (by allusive sayings he means the tales concerning rewards and punishments in the world to come). Of this sort we now see the people who are called Christians deriving their faith from such allusive sayings. Yet on their part deeds have been produced equal to the deeds of those who are in truth philosophers. For example, that they are free from the fear of death is a fact which we all have observed; likewise their abstinence from the unlawful practice of sexual intercourse. And, indeed, there are some among them, men and women, also, who during the whole of their natural life refrain altogether from such intercourse. And some of them have attained to such a degree of severe self-control and to such earnestness in their desire for righteousness, that they do not fall short of those who are in truth philosophers. Thus far the words of Galen. (M. Sprengling, “Galen on the Christians,” American Journal of Theology 21, no. 1 [1917]: 96)