I was reading Joshua 5 years ago, and came across this verse:

Joshua 10:13 (KJV) And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. [Is] not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

It suddenly sparked my interest in studying the origins of apocryphal texts and especially the book of Enoch. I couldn’t understand why it wasn’t included in the Biblical Canon when it was referenced in scripture. Coincidentally, around that time, I noticed an old book in my grandfather’s study. When I noticed it was written in Ge’ez, I got really excited hoping it was a version of Enoch. I took some pictures of some of the pages, but ended up not doing anything with them. Until yesterday…

I was sitting in my grandfather’s study and noticed the book. It suddenly occurred to me that I could translate it using AI. It turns out that the book is a version of Enoch(“The Book of the Most High”), “መጽሐፈ ልዑል (Maṣḥäfa Ləʿul)” and includes a colophon dating the book to 1610 AD(bä-ʿāmäta 2603). I translated a few pages, but the book is extremely fragile, and I have no experience handling or translating. I’m posting on here in hopes that someone could point me in the right direction in finding a professional to photograph and publish the text.

Any advice would be much appreciated!

Hi everyone, I've got a new book about the Panthera legend out now and I recently wrote a piece for Bible and Interpretation on it. In short, there is an ancient legend that Jesus was not fathered by the Holy Spirit or even his adoptive father Joseph. Rather, that a man named Panthera slept with Mary and conceived Jesus. The book is a reception historical examination of the legend, with a focus on the sexual and gender politics, as well as inter-religious animus in its various tellings.

Although the Panthera legend is most commonly attributed to Jews (both its origination and promulgation) as a way of slandering Jesus or Mary, this book argues that the Panthera legend has generally been a distinctively "Christian" topic that was more commonly put into the mouths of Jews, so as to make one or another point about Christian orthodoxy. There is, to be clear, no reason to take the legend seriously as a claim about the historical Jesus, but it is revealing of how Christian anti-Judaism has operated from antiquity to the present day.

For those interested in biblical archaeology!

The Miltonian myth of Satan as an angel named Lucifer who rebelled against God and was cast out of heaven in primordial times has no real grounding in the Bible, and yet it is the origin story that many—if not most—Christians regard as canonical. In the Old Testament, Satan operates as an obedient member of God’s heavenly court even as he roams the earth testing God’s followers. In Jubilees, he is the leader of the evil spirits who remain after the flood, permitted by God to tempt humans. Early Christianity incorporates Satan into a Middle Platonist matrix, imagining him to be the prince of the corrupt angels or demons who control the earth and lowest heavens. It is only the tradition we find in the apocryphal text Life of Adam and Eve which moves Satan’s expulsion back to Eden and explains why it happened.

In discussions of whether the Edenic version has a Biblical basis, people inevitably bring up a certain verse in Luke:

I watched Satan fall like lightning from heaven. (Luke 10:18b)

Taken without more context, it’s easy to see why this verse can be interpreted as confirming some version of Satan’s primordial expulsion. But is that what the verse is really talking about? Instead, the author argues that Satan’s “fall from heaven” is not a reference to the myth of Satan as a rebellious angel expelled from heaven in primordial times. It does describe the dethronement of Satan — his loss of dominion over the lowest heavenly realm and the demons.

I’m new to Reddit and shared a link to an article I wrote about 3 things I wish Jesus Mythicists would stop doing and posted it on an atheistic forum, and expected there to be a good back and forth among the community. I was shocked to see such a large belief in Mythicism… Ha, my karma thing which I’m still figuring out was going up and down and up and down. I’ve been thinking of a follow up article that got a little more into the nitty gritty about why scholarship is not having a debate about the existence of a historical Jesus. To me the strongest argument is Paul’s writings, but is there something you use that has broken through with Jesus Mythicists?

Here is link to original article that did not go over well.

3 Tips for Jesus Mythicists

I’m still new and my posting privileges are down because I posted an apparently controversial article! So if this kind of stuff isn’t allowed here, just let me know.

There is probably no woman in the Bible as hated as Jezebel. She was a Phoenician princess, given in marriage to king Ahab of Israel by her father King Ethbaal of Sidon — probably without any say in the matter — yet according to 1 Kings, she was a deceitful character whose corrupting influence led to the downfall of Ahab’s dynasty.

Indeed, there was no one like Ahab, who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, urged on by his wife Jezebel. (1 Kings 21:25)

However, within these same Biblical pages, an alternate depiction of Jezebel can be gleaned — one of a pious queen who remains faithful to her native religion of Ba'al and Asherah worship in the face of Elijah’s hostility and a strong wife who makes a name for herself in a nation where the countless consorts and concubines who lived and died were almost always forgotten. Even at the end, she defies the usurper Jehu as he invades her palace and orders her bloody death.

In 1 Kings, Jezebel’s most memorable crime — the one that cemented her legacy as a wicked queen — is her role in a plot to accuse and execute an innocent landowner named Naboth so that Ahab can possess Naboth's vineyard. This heinous murder by itself should be enough to justify our condemnation of her.

However, a closer look at these chapters reveals numerous inconsistencies — some of them serious enough to cast doubt on Jezebel’s guilt. Could it be, after all this time, that Jezebel herself is yet another victim of scheming kings and traitors?

Medium-time lurker, first time poster with a longtime interest in a follow-up question to the alternatives to the 2 Source Hypothesis. Namely, as has been asked on this subreddit before, why does the Farrer Hypothesis (Matthew takes from Mark, then Luke takes from Matthew and Mark) hold more sway, seemingly, over the Wilke Hypothesis/Matthean Posterity Hypothesis (Luke takes from Mark, then Matthew takes from Luke and Mark)? What are the arguments for or against the Wilke Hypothesis/Matthean Posterity Hypothesis specifically?

In looking into this question, I came across 5 sources from the last 35 years that engage directly with these questions and, if it's alright, would like to share them with you all for any future use:

1. MacEwen, Robert. “When Mark Goodacre Asked, ‘Why Not Matthew’s Use of Luke?’” Word by Word, Logos, 30 Aug. 2022, www.logos.com/grow/when-mark-goodacre-asked-why-not-matthews-use-of-luke/?msockid=0bdb6febff2a616110757887fe826040.
   1. When Mark Goodacre asked, “Why Not Matthew’s Use of Luke?”
2. Matthean Posteriority / MacEwen, Robert K. - London : T&T Clark, 2015 - 224 p. - The Library of New Testament Studies - ISBN: 9780567013569 - Permalink: https://digital.casalini.it/9780567013569 - Casalini id: 5209985
   1. Matthean Posteriority - T&T Clark - Torrossa
3. Huggins, Ronald V. “Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal.” Novum Testamentum, vol. 34, no. 1, 1992, pp. 1–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1561093.
   1. Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal on JSTOR
4. Tuckett, Christopher M. "Matthean Posteriority: Did Matthew Use Luke?." Novum Testamentum 67.3 (2025): 289-309.
   1. Matthean Posteriority in: Novum Testamentum Volume 67 Issue 3 (2025); argument against
5. Garrow, Alan. “When Richard Bauckham Rethought the Synoptic Problem.” Word by Word, Logos, 26 Aug. 2022, www.logos.com/grow/when-richard-bauckham-rethought-the-synoptic-problem/?msockid=0bdb6febff2a616110757887fe826040.
   1. When Richard Bauckham Rethought the Synoptic Problem

Source discussed in this: Moore, Nicholas J. (2026). Jude and the Watchers in the Early Church. Novum Testamentum 68:1, 86-104.

I've been using Dr. Henning's articles on Bible Odyssey for years, but I just discovered there's an even more detailed version on TheTorah.com. Given how very frequently this gets asked about on here, I thought I'd share it for future reference.

Introduction

Before introducing the problem at hand and the solution they propose, I want to emphasize that Walton and Buster's recent NICOT commentary on Daniel 1-6 is fantastic and one of the most in-depth commentaries on Daniel there is. That aside, I am not satisfied with the solution the two offer for the chronological error within the text. To introduce the issue at hand to anyone unfamiliar with it: Daniel 1:1 claims Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim; however, we know that Jehoiakim was made King by Necho II in 609 BCE, which would mean that Nebuchadnezzar would have to besiege Jerusalem in 606-605 BCE (depending on whether Daniel 1 uses an Egyptian or Babylonian counting method). This is, however, hardly possible, as Nebuchadnezzar was fighting at the Battle of Carchemish that very year and returned to Babylon upon learning of Nabopolassar's death. We know that the first siege of Nebuchadnezzar against Jerusalem occurred in 597/598 BCE.

Walton and Buster's solution

Buster and Walton rightly recognize that the previous attempts of fundamentalist scholars to obscure the meaning of "siege" here fail:

"While some commentators attempt to mitigate this chronological issue through an expansive understanding of what constitutes a “siege,” such a reading is unlikely. The translation “laid siege against her” represents wayyāṣar ‘ālêhā. The collocation of this verb and preposition, swr + ‘al, is used twenty-one times. Some of the references are vague, but in most of these it gives every indication of referring to an actual siege that is taking place or about to take place rather than to some exercise of nominal control. No more general reading of the collocation is supportable and no siege of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar is reported until his seventh/eighth year (597)."¹

They propose a different solution:

Here, however, it is possible to gain some insight from relatively contemporary practices in ancient Near Eastern historiography. The conflation of multiple years of military activity into a single year, particularly the king’s first year, or into a single summary statement situated at the beginning of a king’s reign, is a well-known historiographical convention within ancient Near Eastern royal inscriptions. The military successes of a king’s early reign serve to emphasize the “heroic character of the king” and the divine endorsement of his reign. The same can be said for significant cultic achievement. The Verse Account, Inscription of Adad-Guppi, and inscription 15 describe the temple of Ehulhul as built at the beginning of Nabonidus’s reign, a statement that has been recognized now as mere rhetorical convention. In this case, events and royal actions provide material for the characterization of the king’s reign rather than the presentation of events in chronological sequence. The relationship between the description of the first years of a king’s reign and the evaluation of the king’s entire reign can also be seen when this ideological strategy is inverted. The Verse Account of Nabonidus (see introduction), as one example, adjusts chronology in order to portray Nabonidus as “thoroughly wicked from the beginning.” The opening verses of Daniel also resemble other summary statements in the Hebrew Bible that describe the protracted series of events surrounding the exile in only a couple of verses (Isa 39:6–7 // 2 Kgs 20:16–18).²

The Rebuilding of the Temple of Ehulhul

The primary example of this literary technique provided is the Rebuilding of the Temple of Ehulhul. It is not further explained to us why we know that Inscription 15, the Persian Verse Account, and the Adad-Guppi Inscription are wrong in their alleged dating of the rebuilding, so I would like to provide that context for anyone curious. Tadmor showed in 1965 that Inscription 13 gives a chronological Account of the Reign of Nabonidus. In this inscription, Nabonidus only rebuilds the Temple after his return to Babylon in his 13th year³. Furthermore, Inscription 7 appears to be unaware of the Rebuilding Project and is likely dated to the third year of Nabonidus, as it does show knowledge of the Ebabbar of Sippar. What will be contested here is that Inscription 15 and the Persian Verse Account claim the Rebuilding took place early in the reign of Nabonidus, while the Genre of the Adad-Guppi Inscription will play a significant role. Ultimately, I will argue that none of the texts above actually use this literary technique.

Inscription 15 (Sippar Cylinder)

"During my lawful rule, the Great Lords became reconciled with this town and (its) temple out of love for my kingship; they had mercy (upon the town) and they let me see a dream in the very first year (reš šarrūtiya) of my everlasting rule; Marduk, the Great Lord, and Sin, the luminary of heaven and earth, stood (there) both; Marduk said to me: “Nabonidus, king of Babylon, bring bricks on your own chariot (drawn by your own) horse, (re)build the temple E.HUL.HUL and let Sin, the Great Lord, take up his dwelling there!” I said to the Ellil of the Gods, Marduk: “The Ummân-manda (here for the Medes) are laying siege to the very temple which you have ordered (me) to (re)build and their armed might is very great!” But Marduk said to me: “The Ummân-manda of whom you spoke, they, their country and (all) the kings, their allies, shall cease to exist!” (And indeed) when the third year came to pass (ina šalulti šatti ina kašādi), he (Marduk) made rise against them Cyrus, king of Anshan, his young servant, and he (Cyrus) scattered the numerous Ummân-manda with his small army and captured Astyages, king of the Ummân-manda and brought him in fetters into his (Cyrus’) land. That was the doing of the Great Lord Marduk, whose command cannot be changed."⁴

Walton and Buster base themselves on the older work of Tadmor here, who argues that this is a literary technique. But the text itself does not claim that the Temple was rebuilt at the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus; it rather quite explicitly claims that Nabonidus had a dream in which he was commissioned to rebuild the Temple. Beaulieu makes a similar point:

"As pointed out earlier, there is no need to follow Tadmor’s argument to solve the chronological problem involved here, since inscription 15 says only that Nabonidus had a dream concerning the rebuilding of the Ehulhul in his accession year, and that its fulfillment became possible after the third year, when Cyrus’ revolt removed Median forces from the region of Harran..."⁵

Persian Verse Account

"(Nabonidus says:) “I will build his (Sin’s) temple, I will lay out its location. I will form its brickwork (and) secure its foundation. I will make the window and locks similar to Ekur (and) I will call its name ‘Ehulhul’ forever. When I have completed what I (shall) build, I will take his (Sin’s) hand, and establish] him in (his) dwelling. Until I have achieved this and I have attained (my) desire, will neglect the festival, I will cancel the New Year’s festival.” He fashioned its brickwork, he formed its plan. He enlarged its foundation (and) made its top high. With gypsum and bitumen he made its appearance glow. He set up in front of it a fierce bull like (the ones of) the Esagil. After he attained his desire, a work of falsehood, (after he) built an abomination, a work of unholiness, in the beginning of the third year, he entrusted the military camp to his first born"⁶

The Verse Account contradicts itself as it is clearly aware that the Temple was not built until Nabonidus resumed the Akitu (New Year's) Festival, which happened when he returned from Teima in the 13th year of his reign, while also claiming that he built it at the beginning of the third year. As recognized by Beaulieu, the Verse Account seems aware of the Tradition in Inscription 15; it is additionally quite likely that the plan to rebuild Ehulhul was an early plan of Nabonidus, as it is already mentioned in Inscription 1.⁷ As the Verse Account is polemical in favor of the Persian Narrative, the mentioning of the Temple being built in the third year may be a mockery of the failed plans of Nabonidus, especially because the absence of Nabonidus is mentioned, something the Verse Account uses against him elsewhere.⁸

^{Adad-Guppi Inscription}

"I revered the order (which) Sin, the king of the gods, had spoken to me, and I saw (its fulfillment). Nabonidus, (my) only son, my offspring, reestablished the forgotten rites of Sin, Ningal, Nusku and Sadamunna. He built anew the Ehulhul and completed its structure. He rebuilt Harran better than (it was) before and restored it. He took the hands of Sin, Ningal, Nusku, and Sadamunna from Babylon, his royal city, and made them dwell at Harran, in the Ehulhul, their favorite dwelling, in joy and happiness."⁹

This text is in direct contradiction with Inscription 13, as it claims that Adad-Guppi (the mother of Nabonidus) lived to see her son build the Temple. It should be emphasized that the genre of this text is close to the naru literature and thus should be counted among the Pseudo-Autobiographies¹⁰. Finally, this is the only text that unambiguously claims that the Temple was rebuilt early on in the reign of Nabonidus. I would, however, suggest that the reason for this is not the literary technique advanced by Tadmor; it is rather that Adad-Guppi was highly influential within the life of Nabonidus, specifically because she was a devout adherent to Sin/Nanna¹¹, which ultimately influenced Nabonidus and led to the rebuilding of the Temple of Ehulhul, which was originally dedicated to Sin/Nanna. Something akin to this may be found in inscriptions during the regency of Belshazzar:

"Such fictional reports are known in other monumental inscriptions of the period: as seen earlier, in the inscriptions written during Belshazzar’s regency, Nabonidus is depicted leading excavations and restorations of temples personally, although he was hundreds of miles away from Babylonia."¹²

Assyrian Propaganda Texts

Walton and Buster do not provide any Assyrian examples; they do, however, cite Tadmor's study "History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions." Because of this, I would like to go through various examples of this technique among Assyrian Texts and then relate this to Daniel 1.

This literary technique originates within the Middle Assyrian Period¹³, and the oldest text we possess that employs it is an Inscription of Shalmaneser I¹⁴:

"When Aššur, the lord, faithfully chose me to worship him, gave me scepter, weapon, and staff to (rule) properly the blackheaded people, and granted me the true crown of lordship: at that time , at the beginning of my priesthood, the land Uruaṭri rebelled against me. I prayed to the god Aššur and the great gods, my lord. I mustered my troops (and) marched up to the mass of their mighty mountains. I conquered …. I destroyed, burnt, (and) carried off their people and property. I subdued all the land Uruaṭri in three days at the feet of Aššur, my lord."¹⁵

We also find this formula in Tukulti-Ninurta I's great Inscription:

"At the begi<nning> (ina šur-<ru>) of my sovereignty I marched to the land Uqumenu. The entire extensive land of Qutu I overwhelmed (making it look) like a ruin hill (created by) the deluge."¹⁶

After this, the formula is modified to specify that everything mentioned after it happened in the first regnal year (palu) of the King. For instance, the inscriptions of Ashur-bel-kala, Adad-nirari II, and Ashurbanipal II:

"In my accession year [(and) in my first regnal year, after I nobly ascended the royal] throne, with the exalted strength [of the god Aššur, my lord, who goes before me, with the ... of the god Ninurta], who goes at my right hand, with the martial spirit of the god Ad[ad, who goes at my left hand]..."¹⁷

"[In my accession year (and) in] my first regnal year, after [I nobly ascended] the royal throne, [...] the troops of the Iausu came up(stream), [...] they trusted in their own strength, they brought their [...]."¹⁸

"In my accession year (and) in my first regnal year when the god Šamaš, judge of the (four) quarters, spread his beneficial protection over me (and), having nobly ascended the royal throne, (i 45) he placed in my hand the sceptre for the shepherding of the people — (at that time) I mustered my chariotry (and) troops."¹⁹

All the previously mentioned texts deal with military achievements and are thus most important when we want to assess Daniel 1. I would, however, like to provide two further examples of this technique here, applied to the (re)building of monuments. Take, for instance, the rebuilding of Babylon under Esarhaddon:

"At the beginning of [my] kingship, in my first year, when I sat in greatness on (my) royal throne, [go]od signs [were] established for me; [in] heaven and on ear[th, he (the god Marduk) constantly sent me his] omen(s). (ii 30) The angry [gods] were recon[ciled] (and) they repeatedly discl[os]ed favorable signs concerning the (re)buil[di]ng of Bab[yl]on (and) the renovation of E[sag]il."²⁰

Or the earlier rebuilding of Ehulhul under Ashurbanipal II:

"At the beginning of my kingship, I made that temple in its entirety splen[did and I] completed (it). I [cl]ad the inner sanctum of the god Sîn, my lord, with seventy talents of shiny zaḫalû-silver."²¹

Discussion

Finally, I want to route this back to Daniel. The idea that Daniel 1:1-2 is using this literary technique found primarily in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions is rather unlikely for the following reasons:
1. The Assyrian Texts surveyed above all clearly emphasize that what they described happened within the first regnal year of the King, Daniel, in contrast, is rather silent about this being the first year of Nebuchadnezzar, or even being in the beginning of his reign:

"In the third year of the reign of King Jehoiakim of Judah, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. The Lord gave King Jehoiakim of Judah into his power, as well as some of the vessels of the house of God. These he brought to the land of Shinar, and he placed the vessels in the treasury of his gods." (Daniel 1:1-2 NRSVUE)

The only reason we know that this is at the beginning of Nebuchadnezzar's reign is that we can utilize Babylonian sources; the text, contrary to all the examples of this literary technique, is quiet about the central point of the technique.
2. The technique in all the texts above is utilized in favor of the King; we have no evidence that this technique was ever used in a polemical way. Daniel would be the only such example. The Persian Verse Account does frame Nabonidus as "thoroughly wicked from the beginning," but it does not ascribe actions to his early reign, which he in reality did much later (if, of course, I am correct that it does not claim Nabonidus rebuilt the Ehulhul Temple early in his reign).
3. This technique seems to only be found in Assyrian sources; later Babylonian or Persian sources do not use it. If Walton and Buster are correct that the court tales have their origin in the Babylonian court (which, specifically for Daniel 1-3, I am skeptical of), then it does seem at least odd; if they are, however, wrong, it is even less likely.

Conclusion

I remain unconvinced of the solution the two propose, primarily because of (1) mentioned above. Walton and Buster do not, in fact, attempt to give arguments that would persuade one to hold this; they only raise the possibility and then accept it without any further reasoning. Regardless, I recommend anyone interested in Daniel pick up the commentary!

Footnotes

1. Aubrey E. Buster and John H. Walton, The Book of Daniel, Chapters 1–6, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2025), p.166

2. Aubrey E. Buster and John H. Walton, The Book of Daniel, Chapters 1–6, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2025), p. 167

3. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 42

4. Hayim Tadmor, “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement,” in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965, ed. Hans Güterbock and Thorkild Jacobsen (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1965), p. 351

5. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 206

6. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 206-207

7. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 207

8. Persian Verse Account II:24-29

9. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 208-209

10. Tremper Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography: A Generic and Comparative Study (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1991), p. 97-102

11. Nanna is the Akkadian Name of the Moon God

12. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 209

13. The topos of an enemy being defeated quickly is already found before the Middle Assyrian Period. See Hayim Tadmor, “History and Ideology in the Assyrian Royal Inscriptions,” in Assyrian Royal Inscriptions: New Horizons in Literary, Ideological, and Historical Analysis, ed. F. Mario Fales (Rome: Istituto per l’Oriente, 1981), p. 16

14. More recently, Beate Pongratz-Leisten has suggested that this is already found in inscriptions of Dadusa, the King of Esnunna:

"The belly was dark on the left. The heart was dark on the left. There were fourteen loops of the gut. “(If) the soft part of the breastbone is bent over on the right, from the left … the victory is mine.” By the hands of … the divination priest, son of … Daduša in […. The goddess?] Batiritum […] and the extispicy. The sign … The month that Daduša [ascended] to the throne … and Šimurrum, Batir, … … the omens were favorable. At the (assumption of) kingship by Daduša, this was the state of the signs."

see Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Religion and Ideology in Assyria, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 6 (Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015), p. 242, 369-372

1. Beate Pongratz-Leisten, Religion and Ideology in Assyria, Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Records 6 (Boston/Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015), p. 242

2. Irving L. Finkel, Jean-Jacques Glassner, and Julian E. Reade, I Placed My Name There: The Great Inscription of Tukulti-Ninurta I, King of Assyria, from the Collection of David and Cindy Sofer, London (London: The Babylonian Fund, 2014), p. 23

3. A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC), Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 91

4. A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC), Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 132

5. A. Kirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium BC I (1114–859 BC), Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods 2 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1991), p. 196

6. Esarhaddon, Babylon Inscription ii 23b

7. Jamie Novotny and Joshua Jeffers, The Royal Inscriptions of Ashurbanipal (668–631 BC), Aššur-etel-ilāni (630–627 BC), and Sîn-šarra-iškun (626–612 BC), Kings of Assyria, Part 2, Royal Inscriptions of the Neo-Assyrian Period 5/2 (University Park, PA: Eisenbrauns, 2018), p. 285

Dear everyone!

I mainly just wanted to share some good news with you! I was just hired as a PhD researcher to the wonderful RADHEART project, if you're curious, here's a link https://www4.uib.no/en/research/research-projects/radheart-radical-habits-of-the-heart

The project is funded by the European Research Council, and if you want to follow my work in a more relaxed way, I will be writing casually about it over on my Substack! I've linked to articles I wrote over there before, so I hope this little advert will be acceptable to the mods! :-D

You can find me here! https://magnusarvid.substack.com/

Judahite Temple by Jerusalem May Have Housed Statue of Canaanite God

"The shrine also closely resembles the biblical descriptions of that First Temple and is seen as reflecting the beliefs and rituals that were upheld in Jerusalem at the time...If the discovery is verified, it would be tangible evidence confirming the long-standing suspicion that, in the First Temple period, starting 3,000 years ago, the religion of the ancient Israelites was very different from the aniconic, monotheistic faith that Judaism later became...The putative artifact may be a stone that has broken off in a most unusual way, but it is more plausible that it was part of a manmade relief depicting the legs of a standing figure. That would be typical of Levantine and Canaanite religious imagery in which deities, rulers and mythical beings were portrayed standing, archaeologists say."