"and all Jerusalem with him"

Nativity Narrative Revisited · "and all Jerusalem with him"

Matthew 2: [1-3] When Jesus therefore was born in Bethlehem of Juda, in the days of king Herod, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem. Saying, Where is he that is born king of the Jews? For we have seen his star in the east, and are come to adore him. And king Herod hearing this, was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

In a book* from 2012, a man known then to such Catholics as I would consider "displaced souls" as "Pope Benedict XVI" seems to have hinted against the historicity of Matthew 2:3.

I say "seems to" - namely if there is nothing upcoming on the video by Bro. Peter Dimond after 11:54 and also nothing beyond this paragraph on p. 102 by his book.

Now, there are three levels of problems which a non-believer could try to find with this verse, and I propose to deal with them to show that they do not invalidate the historicity of the Gospel.

First, the one hinted at on that paragraph from p. 102, and shown at this time signature of the video**

The first "difficulty" evoked by Ratzinger was about why the Magi spoke of "king of the Jews" when Jews would have spoken of "king of Israel" - the solution is common with the Titulus on the Cross, the Magi, like Pilate, were Gentiles and they were speaking empirically about the de facto stretch of the realm. Or, they were speaking of "king of Judah" and underlining the Davidic nature of Christ's Kingship, lacking to Herod. Anyway, the phrase "king of the Jews" clearly made sense on both occasions involving a Gentile or more, so poses no problem for historicity of either passage.

But the idea of a parallel between the passages is pushed to a dangerous point where the mention of "all Jerusalem" being unquiet was given as having no sense if this was real history, so, my first task is to establish it has, from the Bible comment by Haydock and the commenter A.

Ver. 3. Through fear of losing his kingdom, he being a foreigner, and had obtained the sovereignty by violence. But why was all Jerusalem to be alarmed at the news of a king so long and so ardently expected? 1. Because the people, well acquainted with the cruelty of Herod, feared a more galling slavery. 2. Through apprehension of riots, and of a revolution, which could not be effected without bloodshed, as the Romans had such strong hold. They had also been so worn down with perpetual wars, that the most miserable servitude, with peace, was to the Jews an object rather of envy than deprecation. A.

The next questions are, what does "all Jerusalem" mean, how did "all Jerusalem" know, and why do the Jews not report this in their histories? Because here, Haydock and commenter A. are silent.

St. Matthew was a Levite, was therefore educated as a scribe, and to him, if all religious and political notables of Jerusalem were troubled, that could be resumed as "all Jerusalem" being so. It's like speaking of "all New York" if you mean all of the posh areas, and leave out individual exceptions, but also Bronx.

Anna and Symeon, these Old Testament Saints, were obviously not troubled. But they were not very typical of Jerusalem.

Luke 2: [25] And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was in him. ... [36-37] And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in years, and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity. And she was a widow until fourscore and four years; who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day.

In other words, for the reasons stated in the Haydock comment to Matthew 2:3, most people were unlike these two, most people were more apprehensive than hopeful about the eventuality of the promised Messiah arriving. And these most people of Jerusalem are what St. Matthew summarily calls "all Jerusalem" - a very often used turn of phrase and so far not yet out of fashion.

How did "all Jerusalem" know? Given we deal with important people, the obvious answer is networking. It was not immediately when Herod started to worry that all worried with him, but with the delay it took them to hear the news and sympathise with the "legitimate concerns" of their leader. It is very probable that this atmosphere was what made the childkilling in Bethlehem possible.

Political experts are saying that such and such a religious fanaticism is a legitimate hasard for the peace or wellbeing of the world - well, most people will agree with them, I'd say from my experience as such a "religious fanatic" as they would no doubt stamp me if I were better known and if they realised it is no good to try to change my mind, I'm not planning to bond with father figures offered me, and review positions of mine along with such "wiser men" than myself ...

This hysteria made the child killing politically, as one would say earlier on "morally" possible. Not that it was a moral, that is a morally good act, but that the act resonated with a hysteric morality that had been shaped by Herod's worries.

And final question - why do the Jews not speak of this in their stories?

Well, they have blotted out most of the memory of Our Lord Jesus the Christ from their collective memory, and attached remainders to the memory of another man, Yeshu, disciple of Joshua ben Pekhariah, and this composite memory is of course a blasphemy against Our Lord, but the details concerning only that disciple need not be, if such another man existed. I think he did and that his historically best known identity would be Odin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady of Mercy
24.IX.2022

* Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives Relié – 21 novembre 2012
Édition en Anglais | de Pope Benedict XVI (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/Jesus-Nazareth-Pope-Benedict-XVI/dp/0385346409

** The Secret Intentions of Benedict XVI's new book: "The Infancy Narratives"
5th Dec. 2012 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jCHEL6CSCc

"Pillars of the Earth"

Stef Heerema made a video, shortening a webinar on salt in diverse shapes.

Destruction of Sodom, Magmatic Origin Salt Giants and the Castile demolishes need for deep time
26th of Aug. 2022 | Stef Heerema
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4flwhCEUag

This picture is from a screenshot at time signature 10:04 of the video, and these salt pillars are actually part of the Netherlands, it's just that they are covered by something else that makes the Netherlands much flatter:

The picture is not made up by Stef Heerema or any other Fundamentalist, it is sourced from TNO - Geological Survey of the Netherlands. A standard Scientific source.

Who was it who said that "pillars of the earth" in the Bible proved a false world view in the hagiographer? Not me, and still less after this one!/HGL

Did The LORD "originally have a wife called Ashera"?

IV Kings 21:7 He set also an idol of the grove, which he had made, in the temple of the Lord: concerning which the Lord said to David, and to Solomon his son: In this temple, and in Jerusalem, which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, I will put my name for ever.

So, yes, unlike what some on a livestream were saying to a random objector to Catholicism - there actually was an Asherah idol in the temple.

But the thing is, the culprit was not Solomon but Manasses.

Check out verses 1 to 3 in the same chapter:

Manasses was twelve years old when he began to reign, and he reigned five and fifty years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Haphsiba. And he did evil in the sight of the Lord, according to the idols of the nations, which the Lord destroyed from before the face of the children of Israel. And he turned, and built up the high places which Ezechias his father had destroyed: and he set up altars to Baal, and made groves, as Achab the king of Israel had done: and he adored all the host of heaven, and served them.

Now, I think Ezechias was around the time of Romulus - but King David was in times between the Fall of Troy and the founding of Rome.

The documents we have in the four books of kings (or two books, one of Samuel, one of Kings, or four books again, two of Samuel, two of Kings) do not say that the Asherah idol originally was part of the temple, but that this came as an intrusion, just as it would be totally erroneous to pretend St. Peter was venerating Pachamama back before Nero had him crucified, just because an intruder was doing so very recently, and arguably fairly close to the dark chapters of the Apocalypse.

But some people like to cherry pick some line of a document and ignore the rest.

I told the person he (or she?) was preferring fantasy novels on religious history over the actual documents. But it is true that this particular false goddess actually at one point was idolised in the Temple of the true God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Eve of Holy Cross
13.IX.2022

Did Helcias and Saphan Invent the Torah?

somewhere else: Did Helcias and Saphan Invent the Torah? · Great Bishop of Geneva!: What About the Scroll of the Law that was Mislaid?

They found it. If you are reading NIV instead of Douay Rheims, you are probably spelling it Hilkiah and Shaphan.

The text is II or IV Kings, chapter 22 (we who prefer saying IV Kings use II Kings for what some others call II Samuel).

DRBO : 4th Book of Kings (2 Kings) Chapter 22
https://drbo.org/chapter/12022.htm

2 Kings 22, New International Version (NIV)
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Kings%2022&version=NIV

[8] And Helcias the high priest said to Saphan the scribe: I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord: and Helcias gave the book to Saphan, and he read it. [9] And Saphan the scribe came to the king, and brought him word again concerning that which he had commanded, and said: Thy servants have gathered together the money that was found in the house of the Lord, and they have given it to be distributed to the workmen, by the overseers of the works of the temple of the Lord. [10] And Saphan the scribe told the king, saying: Helcias the priest hath delivered to me a book. And when Saphan had read it before the king, [11] And the king had heard the words of the law of the Lord, he rent his garments. [12] And he commanded Helcias the priest, and Ahicam the son of Saphan, and Achobor the son of Micha, and Saphan the scribe, and Asaia the king's servant, saying: [13] Go and consult the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Juda, concerning the words of this book which is found: for the great wrath of the Lord is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened to the words of this book, to do all that is written for us.

Challoner comments:

[8] "The book of the law": That is, Deuteronomy

And that is credible from context, as Deuteronomy 28 spells out misfortunes for disobeying the law.

Was this a coup de théatre with a newly produced book falsely given antiquity from Moses' time?

The holy faith says, this is not so. But supposing it were, it would arguably be to add the curses in Deuteronomy 28:[15] But if thou wilt not hear the voice of the Lord thy God, to keep and to do all his commandments and ceremonies, which I command thee this day, all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee. - and following verses up to the end of the chapter.

And if so, the answer of the prophetess was also a coup de théatre ... meant to scare people into following the law, even if it was basically too late.

I find it even humanly speaking more credible, someone found a book, it involved a curse which recent events had triggered, and it was delayed ...

But the idea that all of the Torah was faked on this occasion, like they had never had any Torah before - it was referenced in Joshua's, probably Samuel's and Solomon's times.

[25] And Samuel told the people the law of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord: and Samuel sent away all the people, every one to his own house.
[1 Kings (1 Samuel) 10:25]

Haydock comment:

Ver. 25. Before the Lord. It seems that the ark was therefore present. This record of Samuel is lost, so that we cannot determine what laws he prescribed on this occasion. C. --- Josephus (vi. 5.) says that he wrote and read in the hearing of all, and in the presence of the king, what evils would ensue under the regal government; and deposited the writing in the tabernacle, that the truth of the prediction might be ascertained. He probably alludes to the denunciation of tyranny, which had been made C. viii. and which he says Samuel repeated on this occasion. But the prophet would also take a copy of the law of the kingdom, prescribed by Moses, (Deut. xvii.) and deliver it to Saul, that he might make it the rule of his conduct, and not imitate the wicked customs of tyrants. H. --- The whole process of this memorable event he would also write down, (M.) as we read it at present in this chapter, placing it in the proper order, as a continuation of the sacred history which Moses and Josue had commenced; and like them, depositing the sacred volume beside the ark, or in the tabernacle. See Jos. xxiv. 26. H.

So, for Samuel's time, we only have probable. But we have clear references to the law from other times, as said.

Stating that the Torah was invented by Helcias and Saphan would imply they started a steamrolling cascade of forgeries on forgeries. It would be technically easier to achieve a faked moonlanding (pictures and all) for Apollo 11 than for this to be true, there are so many more who would have needed to be in on it.

So, no, it was inherited. Those hiding it away - probably from Athalia, though I have that from Bible Pix and not from the Bible text - or dropping it had people know of it already in Joas' time, when he succeeded Athalia's usurpation.

[12] And he brought forth the king's son, and put the diadem upon him, and the testimony: and they made him king, and anointed him: and clapping their hands. they said, God save the king.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 11:12]

Challoner comments:

[12] "The testimony": The book of the law.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Stephen of Hungary
2.IX.2022