Tanach Thoughts

I've been quite busy lately and still am. I've started a number of posts but haven't gotten around to finishing them. However, yesterday I realized something interesting while reading a book, and it's short, so I'm sharing it. So Purim has come and gone...several months ago. But when you think about it, maybe Purim should be year-round because the whole build up to the grand finale of Esther was years in the making. Anyway, Daryavesh, or Darius, the one under whom the Second Temple was completed, was, according to Jewish tradition, the son of Queen Esther and King Achashverosh (see for example Midrash Yalkut Shimoni on the Torah 536 ). However, this is never openly acknowledged in Tanach. There might be any number of reasons for this, including that we have misunderstood our sources and they are not referring to the same Daryavesh under whom the Temple was completed; that Daryavesh was so far gone from Judaism that there was no point; IT'S A THEOLOGICAL CONSPIRA...

An Assyrian inscription from the time of Tiglath Pilesser III describes a list of kings that were conquered and subsequently gave tribute to the Assyrian king reads: "I installed Idi-bi'li as a Warden of Marches on the border of Musur. In all the countries which...[I received] the tribute of Kushtashpi of Commagene ( Kummu ḫ u ), Urik of Qu'e, Sibitti-be'l of Byblos,...Enil of Hamath, Panammu of Sam'al, Tarhulara of Gumgum, Sulumal of Militene,...Uassurme of Tabal, Ushhitti of Tuna, Urballa of Tuhana, Tuhamme of Ishtunda,...[Ma]tan-be'l of Arvad, Sanipu of Bit-Ammon, Salamanu of Moab,...Mitinti of Ashkelon, Jehoahaz ( Ia- ú - ḫ a-zi ) of Judah ( Ia- ú -da-a-a ) , Kaushmalaku of Edom ( Ú -du-mu-a-a ), Muzr[i...] ( Ḫ a-a-nu- ú -nu ) of Gaza ( Ḫ a-za-at-a-a ) (consisting of) gold, silver, tin, iron, antimony,4 linen garments with multicolored trimmings, garments of their native (industries) (being made of) dark purple wool...all kinds of costly objects be they pr...

On this blog I've discussed a couple of times the Exodus and archeology (see here and here ). Recently, I have been thinking to myself that perhaps the lack of hard evidence means something. True, there's a loose collection of findings (such as the Ipuwer Papyrus or the Book of Gates (see here )) that many Bible-believers hold to be evidence of the Exodus, but since they have all been dismissed by academic scholars in a manner that has lulled the world into a belief that there is zero evidence for the Exodus, it is difficult to consider them hard evidence. Not impossible, just difficult. Which led me to think that perhaps there's a reason for us not having found hard evidence for the Exodus, i.e., something that will completely knock the socks off of academia, and that is that the Exodus stands as a challenge to our generation: Will you believe or will you deny? Look at it this way: Although we have not yet found evidence for portions of the Tanach, it is no longer (compa...

A couple of days ago I read a great essay by Yairah Amit . Amit argued that the story of Shmuel's becoming a prophet as described in Shmuel 1:3:1-21  reflects matters of interest and comes to answer subjects that were debated in the circles of the prophets of Yisrael. In short: Prophets were rare in the time of the judges. People generally turned to the kohanim (priests) for guidance. The story is designed in a way that shows the divine providence leaving the kohanim and passing over to the prophets. Prophecy was individualistic, i.e., only the prophet could hear Hashem talking to him. In another essay I saw today by Chaim Gevaryahu, he argued (based on similar prior suggestions) that most prophets of the early days made a living off of donations from people who came to them, or they wandered from town to town and city to city collecting donations. This can be seen in several instances in Tanach, including by Eliyahu, Elisha, Shmuel, Achiyah Hashiloni and more. Now, about a year ag...

Not long ago I was reading a section of Epiphanius's Panarion. Epiphanius was a Jewish apostate who converted to Christianity. He was born in the Land of Israel and eventually became the Bishop of Salamis (no surprise there. Jews + salami...okay, I'll stop...). Epiphanius wrote a book called " Panarion " (thought to mean "bread basket" in Latin or "medicine chest" in Greek) about Jewish, Judeo-Christian and Christian sects from before his time and during his time. The book provides a lot of interesting information. In the section I was reading he discussed a certain Jewish or Judeo-Christian sect (unclear from the bits of information he provides) called "the Osseans" (he writes that it either means "impudent ones" or "strong ones". To me that means that in Hebrew or Aramaic their name was העזיים or העזאיים, since עז (Az) means both strong and impudent. Strangely, I have yet to come across an academic scholar who makes...

Happy Shushan Purim!  As mentioned in the previous post , my chavruta and I think that Achashverosh needed special convincing to agree to let Haman issue a decree to kill all of the Persian Empire's Jews. As promised, I will proceed to explain why: It's quite simple: In Esther 3:8-9 it says: "Haman then said to King Ahasuerus, “There is a certain people, scattered and dispersed among the other peoples in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws are different from those of any other people and who do not obey the king’s laws; and it is not in Your Majesty’s interest to tolerate them. If it please Your Majesty, let an edict be drawn for their destruction, and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver to the stewards for deposit in the royal treasury.”" I think people typically think that Haman was expressing criticism of the religion of the Jewish people here because the word he used is דתיהם which in modern Hebrew refers to religion. However, the English translati...

This idea was suggested by my Tanach chavruta (study-buddy) and I think it is an amazing idea. We are currently studying Esther at a snail's pace. We had previously concluded (this might be the subject of a future post; for now, take my word for it) that Achashverosh was reluctant to wipe out an entire nation from his empire, and was only convinced because of two things: 1. Haman's claim that these people were treacherous anarchists and a danger to the delicate balance and security of the empire. 2. More importantly, the promise of 10000 bars of silver. In light of this, we wondered: Why would Achashverosh join Haman in celebration via feast? Haman was celebrating his potential victory over the Jews. But what did Achashverosh have to celebrate? Money? Nu. He knew the money was coming out of a deal he was not 100% comfortable with. Then my chavruta suggested this: Practically every time feasting is mentioned in Esther, it is in relation to the closing of a deal: 1. A grand feast...