Hi, Andrew! This is a fair question and I want to give it a clear (rather than super long) answer/explanation.
The first thing to say is that I fully reject the concept of “Lord” for all applications in the Semitic register. Adonai is a term of convenience that morphed into a Goyim syncretism with Ba’ali over centuries of linguistic corrosion. Kyrios is a total colonization of the word. Dominus is even worse.
Here is an explanation of this concept in one of my essays, “No, YHWH is Not ‘the Lord’.”
Hosea says that YHWH desires to be called “Ishi” (intimate partner) instead of “Ba’ali” (master/overlord). I take YHWH at its word here and reject all forms of nounification and lordification of YHWH. As Yehoshua (Yeshua) is the Meshach’yah of YHWH, and YHWH is not ‘the Lord’, then ha-Tzaddik cannot be ‘the Lord’ either. I replace this in English with a rendering of “the Steward” or “the Sacred Guardian” - a shepherd figure, not a regal or martial one. Able to ward off lions and bears, but not an armored vanguard of imperial power. I wonder if @Sergio DeSoto has any additional thoughts on this? I know he’s thinking deeply along these same concerns and I’d be curious.
The second is this: for most of my readers, there are two modes of denoting years (AD and CE). Since I reject the Latinification and lordification of YHWH and Yehoshua, as Moshe did, I opt for that which is “common” than that which is “dominating” to all people. Until we create a new calendrical system (which I’m open to), I prefer the more conceptually horizontal to the more conceptually vertical.
Does this approach an answer that you were looking for?
I struggled with that very question when I was finishing building the timeline on my website. I had to lean toward the common interpretation simply because it is what has been widely accepted. I just don't know how I categorize this in my brain as far as depth of importance. Hopefully that resonates. So much to process, so much to think about.
I originally had it as CE, and then I thought of the exact question that Andrew was going to pose. And I had the same argument you're presenting in my brain. Talk about timing.
I read the other day, that Constantine gets converted by reading Virgil, and it brings to mind the capacity of missionaries to work with what was in front of them
That's an interesting anecdote. I hadn't heard that before, but I wouldn't be surprised. Virgil was the "national poet" of Rome and it would make sense that a Roman emperor would be into Roman nationalist poetry.
There’s a tradition, unfortunately I am not as well sourced as you are, hopefully you’ll look into it.
Story goes, Eusebius of Caesarea claimed the 4th act in all the poems of Virgil pointed towards Jesus coming, especially eclogue.. which is a birth of a child that brings a golden age, really cool literature. Just getting into Virgil, from the Hasty Pudding club.
The medieval guys make it even more interesting talking about how Greek religion predicted Christ and that’s the prophecy he fufils, like an amplified marcion. which is rumored to have come back in the Greek revivals in Europe and America before being forgotten completely.
You give much to think about here, and I hope to return to do just that. In the meantime, three observations: 1. reading Paul's compliance with Yaakov's orders can be read with or against the grain of Paul. Personally, I think that Paul was well-lined-up for this ritual: Acts 18:18 tells us that Paul had shaved as part of a vow (I assume the nazirite vow), which would resolve with the offering of the hair grown under the vow at the Temple. Yaakov is telling Paul to complete the vow he's under together with others under the same vow as a demonstration of Torah-observance. Since Paul started his vow before meeting with Yaakov in Jerusalem, this suggests he was at least partially Torah-observant, and not just at the command of Jerusalem. I think the problem is that Paul is slippery, availing himself of whatever prevailing conditions will advance his cause. As such, it can be very difficult to get to the bottom of what he most deeply believed about himself as a Jew. 2. Second observation: your choice to translate malkutha di-(not b') shmayya as "commonwealth of flourishing," while commendable for avoiding the place vs state problem of "kingdom," misunderstands the intention of the phrase, especially in Matthew. Ever wonder why Matthew so often has "kingdom of heaven" where Luke has "kingdom of god"? Shmayya was used by Jews as a replacement term for God, to avoid overt anthropomorphism and too-direct speech about God. 3. I also think "commonwealth" improperly de-emphasizes the divine monarchic thrust of how malkutha was being used, as a direct alternative to the "kings of flesh and blood" of the nations. But by situating kingship with God, as with Deuteronomy and the subsequent literature it inspired/influenced, authority over human affairs is intentionally left out of the hands of a freshly human king (thus the unheeded warning in 1 Samuel 8).
Carl, I think you’re hitting some important points here.
A few notes I think are worth explaining:
All Israelites (B’nei Yisra’el and ha-Yehudiim) took temporary Nazarite vows when they returned to Eretz ha-Yisra’el from being in a land of ha-Goyim. Paul would have taken the vow as part of the halakah and takkanot process, just to maintain his identity markers.
James is requiring Paul to do this specifically to prevent him from being murdered by a mob. James is absolutely saving Paul’s life here by intervening and placing himself between the Zealous Ones (ha-Qana’im) and Paul.
You’re dorrect that I should have said Malkuth’a d’Shamayim rather than b’. I don’t have dyslexia but you would think I did for how often I transpose letters (and numbers) in my typing. Thank you for the correction.
I would recommend you read this particular essay I wrote a couple of weeks ago on the Covenant. It will explain precisely why I use Commonwealth instead of “Kingdom” and why I believe Yehoshua meant it as the former and decidedly not as the latter.
I've not finished the article, but have a question: why do you refer to Common Era (CE) instead of Anno Domini (the year of the Lord)?
Hi, Andrew! This is a fair question and I want to give it a clear (rather than super long) answer/explanation.
The first thing to say is that I fully reject the concept of “Lord” for all applications in the Semitic register. Adonai is a term of convenience that morphed into a Goyim syncretism with Ba’ali over centuries of linguistic corrosion. Kyrios is a total colonization of the word. Dominus is even worse.
Here is an explanation of this concept in one of my essays, “No, YHWH is Not ‘the Lord’.”
https://ebyonim.substack.com/p/no-yhwh-is-not-the-lord?utm_source=publication-search
Hosea says that YHWH desires to be called “Ishi” (intimate partner) instead of “Ba’ali” (master/overlord). I take YHWH at its word here and reject all forms of nounification and lordification of YHWH. As Yehoshua (Yeshua) is the Meshach’yah of YHWH, and YHWH is not ‘the Lord’, then ha-Tzaddik cannot be ‘the Lord’ either. I replace this in English with a rendering of “the Steward” or “the Sacred Guardian” - a shepherd figure, not a regal or martial one. Able to ward off lions and bears, but not an armored vanguard of imperial power. I wonder if @Sergio DeSoto has any additional thoughts on this? I know he’s thinking deeply along these same concerns and I’d be curious.
The second is this: for most of my readers, there are two modes of denoting years (AD and CE). Since I reject the Latinification and lordification of YHWH and Yehoshua, as Moshe did, I opt for that which is “common” than that which is “dominating” to all people. Until we create a new calendrical system (which I’m open to), I prefer the more conceptually horizontal to the more conceptually vertical.
Does this approach an answer that you were looking for?
I struggled with that very question when I was finishing building the timeline on my website. I had to lean toward the common interpretation simply because it is what has been widely accepted. I just don't know how I categorize this in my brain as far as depth of importance. Hopefully that resonates. So much to process, so much to think about.
I originally had it as CE, and then I thought of the exact question that Andrew was going to pose. And I had the same argument you're presenting in my brain. Talk about timing.
https://www.sergiodesoto.com/ekklesia-timeline
The wind blows where it will and no one knows from whence it comes! Thank you so much, achi.
I’m grateful for your steadfastness in dialogue and instruction.
Likewise!
I read the other day, that Constantine gets converted by reading Virgil, and it brings to mind the capacity of missionaries to work with what was in front of them
That's an interesting anecdote. I hadn't heard that before, but I wouldn't be surprised. Virgil was the "national poet" of Rome and it would make sense that a Roman emperor would be into Roman nationalist poetry.
There’s a tradition, unfortunately I am not as well sourced as you are, hopefully you’ll look into it.
Story goes, Eusebius of Caesarea claimed the 4th act in all the poems of Virgil pointed towards Jesus coming, especially eclogue.. which is a birth of a child that brings a golden age, really cool literature. Just getting into Virgil, from the Hasty Pudding club.
The medieval guys make it even more interesting talking about how Greek religion predicted Christ and that’s the prophecy he fufils, like an amplified marcion. which is rumored to have come back in the Greek revivals in Europe and America before being forgotten completely.
You give much to think about here, and I hope to return to do just that. In the meantime, three observations: 1. reading Paul's compliance with Yaakov's orders can be read with or against the grain of Paul. Personally, I think that Paul was well-lined-up for this ritual: Acts 18:18 tells us that Paul had shaved as part of a vow (I assume the nazirite vow), which would resolve with the offering of the hair grown under the vow at the Temple. Yaakov is telling Paul to complete the vow he's under together with others under the same vow as a demonstration of Torah-observance. Since Paul started his vow before meeting with Yaakov in Jerusalem, this suggests he was at least partially Torah-observant, and not just at the command of Jerusalem. I think the problem is that Paul is slippery, availing himself of whatever prevailing conditions will advance his cause. As such, it can be very difficult to get to the bottom of what he most deeply believed about himself as a Jew. 2. Second observation: your choice to translate malkutha di-(not b') shmayya as "commonwealth of flourishing," while commendable for avoiding the place vs state problem of "kingdom," misunderstands the intention of the phrase, especially in Matthew. Ever wonder why Matthew so often has "kingdom of heaven" where Luke has "kingdom of god"? Shmayya was used by Jews as a replacement term for God, to avoid overt anthropomorphism and too-direct speech about God. 3. I also think "commonwealth" improperly de-emphasizes the divine monarchic thrust of how malkutha was being used, as a direct alternative to the "kings of flesh and blood" of the nations. But by situating kingship with God, as with Deuteronomy and the subsequent literature it inspired/influenced, authority over human affairs is intentionally left out of the hands of a freshly human king (thus the unheeded warning in 1 Samuel 8).
Carl, I think you’re hitting some important points here.
A few notes I think are worth explaining:
All Israelites (B’nei Yisra’el and ha-Yehudiim) took temporary Nazarite vows when they returned to Eretz ha-Yisra’el from being in a land of ha-Goyim. Paul would have taken the vow as part of the halakah and takkanot process, just to maintain his identity markers.
James is requiring Paul to do this specifically to prevent him from being murdered by a mob. James is absolutely saving Paul’s life here by intervening and placing himself between the Zealous Ones (ha-Qana’im) and Paul.
You’re dorrect that I should have said Malkuth’a d’Shamayim rather than b’. I don’t have dyslexia but you would think I did for how often I transpose letters (and numbers) in my typing. Thank you for the correction.
I would recommend you read this particular essay I wrote a couple of weeks ago on the Covenant. It will explain precisely why I use Commonwealth instead of “Kingdom” and why I believe Yehoshua meant it as the former and decidedly not as the latter.
https://ebyonim.substack.com/p/what-is-the-covenant?utm_source=publication-search
I so love reading your work! Wonderful
Thank you so much! I want to read your latest soon as well, on lands listed in the Biblical texts!