Next Page: 10000

          firefox-i18n-mk 61.0.2-1 any      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Macedonian language pack for Firefox
          После вежбање…      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
После вежбање… pic.twitter.com/C0uYf8A8Ht — AdeMacedonia ®🇲🇰 (@AdeMacedonia) August 7, 2018
          There is no such thing as a new kind of Christianity!      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
by Mike Ratliff 3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by […]
          FYR Macedonia U-16 - Denmark U-16      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Basketball. European Championship U-16 B
          Manifesto in favor of the demonstrations for the Greekness of Macedonia: the view of a Macedonian Greek      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
original posted 3 August 2018 in greek. by Ioannis Abatzoglou* I am of the opinion that we Macedonian Greeks stand for something noble and universally human. In this sense we cannot, by affirming our own national affair, cause harm to another people, because then the universal character of Hellenism would be lost. Every people has its name, its character, which […]
          There is no such thing as a new kind of Christianity!      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
3 As I urged you upon my departure for Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, 4 nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to … Continue reading 
          Devotional – Ajutoare in rugăciune      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Cât de des te rogi pentru alții? De prea multe ori când spunem cuiva, „mă voi ruga pentru tine”, uităm să o facem. Sau ne rugăm din când în când şi uităm nevoia lor. Apostolul Pavel a avut greutăți atât de dure încât s-a temut pentru viața sa: „În adevăr, fraţilor, nu voim să vă lăsăm în necunoştinţă despre necazul care ne-a lovit în Asia, de care am fost apăsaţi peste măsură de mult, mai presus de puterile noastre, aşa că nici nu mai trăgeam nădejde de viaţă” (2 ​​Corinteni 1:8). Pavel și-a împărtășit nevoia cu frații săi și după ce a fost eliberat, a pus totul pe seama sprijinului lor în rugăciune (vezi 2 Corinteni 1:11). Nu știm exact ce probleme avea Pavel, dar 2 Corinteni 7:5 oferă un indiciu: „Căci, şi după venirea noastră în Macedonia, trupul nostru n-a avut nicio odihnă. Am fost necăjiţi în toate chipurile: de afară, lupte, dinăuntru, temeri.” Pavel se afla într-un punct de epuizare, suferind poate la nivel mental și, evident, avea nevoie de sprijin în rugăciune. Mulți credincioși suferă astăzi, așa cum a făcut-o şi Pavel; cea mai mare durere este cea emoțională, provocată poate de cei pe care ei i-au [...]
          Tompsion, Mary A.      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
MARY A. TOMPSION age 60, of Wilmington died Thurs. Funeral 2pm Wed at Macedonia Missionary Baptist Church. Viewing 1 hr prior to service. Davis...
          Weight-Loss Surgery May Help Treat, Even Reverse, Diabetes      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Surgical procedures that are commonly used to help obese people lose weight can also dramatically improve — even reverse — diabetes, according to two studies released Monday. Tim Ferree of Macedonia, Ohio, struggled with his weight for years. He knew his out-of-control blood sugar would eventually cause serious problems. "You're looking at losing your vision, losing your feet, having problems with your kidneys, going blind — you know, heart disease, strokes," Ferree said. So when Ferree heard about an operation that might help with his weight and his diabetes, he volunteered to get it. "With a brand new baby in the house, that's really what prompted me to take a very aggressive course towards treating the diabetes," he said. Surgeons have been operating on obese people for years, making their stomachs smaller and rearranging their digestive systems. Doctors realized that patients who got the operations also often had their diabetes get much better. Sometimes it even went away
          [Ticker] Macedonia name deal threatens Greek government      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Greek defence minister Panos Kammenos threatened on Wednesday to pull his nationalist Independent Greeks (ANEL) party from the government if a name deal with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) is put to a vote in the parliament, rather than a referendum. "I will not allow this deal to go through," he told the Greek internet radio. Greek MPs are set to vote on the deal in September.
          #bulgaria - capoistanbul2      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
DSQUARED👑BEST QUALITY NEW SEASON®SWEAT🥇 #toptan #wholesale #оптом #بالجملة #textile #suudiarabia 🇸🇦 #ıraq 🇸🇾 #azerbaijan 🇦🇿 #algeria 🇩🇿 #dubai 🇦🇪 #abudhabi 🇦🇪 #ıran 🇮🇷 #tunus 🇹🇳 #egypt 🇪🇬 #romania 🇷🇴 #macedonia 🇲🇰 #russia 🇷🇺 #albania 🇦🇱 #armenia 🇦🇲 #kazakhstan 🇰🇿 #france 🇫🇷 #germany 🇩🇪 #usa 🇺🇸 #bulgaria 🇧🇬 #serbia🇷🇸#merkkleding #sappe
          #bulgaria - capoistanbul2      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
OFF-WHITE👑BEST QUALITY NEW SEASON®SWEAT🥇 #toptan #wholesale #оптом #بالجملة #textile #suudiarabia 🇸🇦 #ıraq 🇸🇾 #azerbaijan 🇦🇿 #algeria 🇩🇿 #dubai 🇦🇪 #abudhabi 🇦🇪 #ıran 🇮🇷 #tunus 🇹🇳 #egypt 🇪🇬 #romania 🇷🇴 #macedonia 🇲🇰 #russia 🇷🇺 #albania 🇦🇱 #armenia 🇦🇲 #kazakhstan 🇰🇿 #france 🇫🇷 #germany 🇩🇪 #usa 🇺🇸 #bulgaria 🇧🇬 #serbia🇷🇸#merkkleding #sappe
          2nd and 3rd Shift Machine Operators      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
OH-Macedonia, Job Description We need a machine operator for 2nd and 3rd shift for our client in the Macedonia area. Must show attention to detail and understand the value of personal accountability. Pay increase once hired in! The Machine Operator is responsible for ensuring proper inspection and packing of product. Responsibilities: Inspect and manually pack injection molded products Assemble boxes for fillin
          Tulcea: Ansambluri din 11 state participă la Festivalul "Peştişorul de aur"      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Ansambluri folclorice din 11 ţări participă la sfârşitul acestei săptămâni la cea de-a 26-a ediţie a Festivalului internaţional de folclor pentru copii "Peştişorul de aur" de la Tulcea, singurul eveniment de gen din România inclus în calendarul Consiliului Internaţional de Organizare a Festivalurilor de Folclor al UNESCO. Directorul general al Ansamblului artistic Baladele Deltei, Ştefan Coman, a declarat că festivalul reuneşte ansambluri folclorice care nu au mai participat la evenimentul găzduit de Tulcea. Astfel, ansamblurile artistice provin din 11 judeţe din România, precum şi din Italia, Franţa, China, Ucraina, Macedonia, Georgia, Slovacia, Serbia, Bulgaria şi Cipru. "Având în vedere faptul că anul acesta marcăm Centenarul Marii Uniri, vom avea o deschidere deosebită. Toate ansamblurile participante vor veni pentru prima dată în Tulcea, iar spectatorii din judeţ vor putea vedea, de asemenea pentru prima oară, folclor din Cipru de Nord, Italia, Franţa şi China", a afirmat Coman. El a amintit că evenimentul este singurul festival de folclor pentru copii din România inclus în calendarul Consiliului Internaţional de Organizare a Festivalurilor de Folclor al UNESCO şi că este apreciat drept unul dintre cele mai bine structurate şi organizate. "În cartierele Vest şi Neptun, în zilele de 9 şi 10 august, ansamblurile folclorice vor susţine spectacole începând cu orele 18,00", a menţionat directorul general al Ansamblului Baladele Deltei. Cea de-a 26-a ediţie a Festivalului internaţional de folclor pentru copii "Peştişorul de aur" este organizată de Ansamblul artistic Baladele Deltei din cadrul Primăriei municipiului Tulcea, în parteneriat cu Ministerul Educaţiei, Consiliul Judeţean şi Primăria municipiului Tulcea. Pentru desfăşurarea acestei acţiuni, Ministerul Educaţiei a alocat 18.000 lei, Consiliul Judeţean a acordat 80.000 de lei, iar Primăria municipiului, prin ansamblu, 175.000 de lei. AGERPRES / (AS - editor: Marius Frăţilă,  editor online: Irina Giurgiu)
          Δικαιοσύνη a la carte       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
«Macedonia is one and only and is here» 

Το πανό της Τούμπας επαναλαμβάνεται και απόψε.

Που είναι ο υποψήφιος προϊστάμενος του Πρωτοδικείου Αθηνών και πειθαρχικά ελεγχόμενος πρώην αθλητικός δικαστής Δ.Σκουτέρης να κρίνει αν το σύνθημα είναι πολιτικό, όπως έκανε με τους Ποντίους Θράκης;

          Woman seriously injured in Gzira crash      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

A woman, 25 from Macedonia, resident in Sta Venera, was seriously injured early on Thursday afternoon when her motorcycle was involved in collision with a Toyota Vitz. The accident happened at Rue D'Argens, Gzira. The car was being driven by a 40-year-old woman from Birkirkara.   
          #bulgaria - nationalistbulgarian      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
#macedonia #makedonija #macedoniamemes #fyrom #balkans #macedoniaball #communism #commies #yugoslavia #jugoslavija #communistmemes #historybooks #spicymemes #dailymemes #memesworld #bulgaria #macedonians #fyrom #bjrm #македонци #македония #коминтерна #comintern #yugoslavs
          Danger Ahead: The Game Changer Drone      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
by Michael CurtisUneasy lies the head that wears a crown. The unease of rulers may result from personal factors, constant worry, lack of sleep, feeling of guilt for past odious actions, but also often from fear of assassination. The list is long of the sad stories of the death of kings, all murdered. Many of the victims in different countries and different eras have been well known, and been historically important. Even the Bible tells the story of Joab, commander of King David's army who killled the King's rebellious son and rival Absalon.A quick survey of some of the well known victims illustrates the targeted killings. Phillip II of Macedonia was assassinated in 336 B.C. and Julius Caesar on the Ides of March in 44 B.C. For a number of centuries, 8 14th, an Islamic sect callled the Assassins was active in the areas of what is now Iran and Syria, killing, often under influence of hashish, caliphs, viziers, sultans and Crusaders, for political and religious reasons.The Renaissance i...
          Magyar Telekom Q2 sales increase 9.2%      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Hungary’s Magyar Telekom reported that total revenues increased by 9.2% year-on-year to HUF167.7 billion (USD609 million) in Q2 2018 (excluding the impact of adopting IFRS 15 reporting standards), primarily driven by a strong rise in B2B IT/system integration (SI) revenues alongside rises in mobile data usage and equipment sales. Mobile revenues climbed 5.1% y-o-y to HUF83.7 billion in April-June 2018 whilst fixed line revenues improved 5.4% to HUF50.8 billion, boosted by gains in broadband/TV service revenue; quarterly SI/IT revenues grew by 36.2% to HUF33.2 billion. Q2 group EBITDA was up 6.6% to HUF51.0 billion as a result of improved gross profit and savings on operating expenses. Magyar Telekom’s Hungarian mobile subscriber base declined by 1.6% y-o-y to 5.31 million at 30 June 2018, whilst retail fixed broadband customers increased by 5.2% to 1.10 million. Hungarian pay-TV customers climbed 3.9% to 1.04 million; fixed voice lines dropped 2.4% to 1.39 million. Subsidiary Makedonski Telekom (Macedonia) also saw a drop in active mobile connections, down 3.1% y-o-y to 1.17 million, while its fixed broadband accesses were stable at 190,000. Macedonian IPTV subscribers grew by 10,000 y-o-y to 122,000; the unit’s fixed voice lines decreased by 3,000 to 210,000.
          August 9: Ruth 2; Acts 27; Psalm 10; Jeremiah 37       Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

With family: Ruth 2; Acts 27

Ruth 2 (Listen)

Ruth Meets Boaz

Now Naomi had a relative of her husband's, a worthy man of the clan of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz. And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the field and glean among the ears of grain after him in whose sight I shall find favor.” And she said to her, “Go, my daughter.” So she set out and went and gleaned in the field after the reapers, and she happened to come to the part of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the clan of Elimelech. And behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem. And he said to the reapers, “The LORD be with you!” And they answered, “The LORD bless you.” Then Boaz said to his young man who was in charge of the reapers, “Whose young woman is this?” And the servant who was in charge of the reapers answered, “She is the young Moabite woman, who came back with Naomi from the country of Moab. She said, ‘Please let me glean and gather among the sheaves after the reapers.’ So she came, and she has continued from early morning until now, except for a short rest.”1

Then Boaz said to Ruth, “Now, listen, my daughter, do not go to glean in another field or leave this one, but keep close to my young women. Let your eyes be on the field that they are reaping, and go after them. Have I not charged the young men not to touch you? And when you are thirsty, go to the vessels and drink what the young men have drawn.” 10 Then she fell on her face, bowing to the ground, and said to him, “Why have I found favor in your eyes, that you should take notice of me, since I am a foreigner?” 11 But Boaz answered her, “All that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband has been fully told to me, and how you left your father and mother and your native land and came to a people that you did not know before. 12 The LORD repay you for what you have done, and a full reward be given you by the LORD, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge!” 13 Then she said, “I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, for you have comforted me and spoken kindly to your servant, though I am not one of your servants.”

14 And at mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come here and eat some bread and dip your morsel in the wine.” So she sat beside the reapers, and he passed to her roasted grain. And she ate until she was satisfied, and she had some left over. 15 When she rose to glean, Boaz instructed his young men, saying, “Let her glean even among the sheaves, and do not reproach her. 16 And also pull out some from the bundles for her and leave it for her to glean, and do not rebuke her.”

17 So she gleaned in the field until evening. Then she beat out what she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah2 of barley. 18 And she took it up and went into the city. Her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. She also brought out and gave her what food she had left over after being satisfied. 19 And her mother-in-law said to her, “Where did you glean today? And where have you worked? Blessed be the man who took notice of you.” So she told her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, “The man's name with whom I worked today is Boaz.” 20 And Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, “May he be blessed by the LORD, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead!” Naomi also said to her, “The man is a close relative of ours, one of our redeemers.” 21 And Ruth the Moabite said, “Besides, he said to me, ‘You shall keep close by my young men until they have finished all my harvest.’” 22 And Naomi said to Ruth, her daughter-in-law, “It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his young women, lest in another field you be assaulted.” 23 So she kept close to the young women of Boaz, gleaning until the end of the barley and wheat harvests. And she lived with her mother-in-law.

Footnotes

[1] 2:7 Compare Septuagint, Vulgate; the meaning of the Hebrew phrase is uncertain
[2] 2:17 An ephah was about 3/5 bushel or 22 liters

(ESV)

Acts 27 (Listen)

Paul Sails for Rome

27 And when it was decided that we should sail for Italy, they delivered Paul and some other prisoners to a centurion of the Augustan Cohort named Julius. And embarking in a ship of Adramyttium, which was about to sail to the ports along the coast of Asia, we put to sea, accompanied by Aristarchus, a Macedonian from Thessalonica. The next day we put in at Sidon. And Julius treated Paul kindly and gave him leave to go to his friends and be cared for. And putting out to sea from there we sailed under the lee of Cyprus, because the winds were against us. And when we had sailed across the open sea along the coast of Cilicia and Pamphylia, we came to Myra in Lycia. There the centurion found a ship of Alexandria sailing for Italy and put us on board. We sailed slowly for a number of days and arrived with difficulty off Cnidus, and as the wind did not allow us to go farther, we sailed under the lee of Crete off Salmone. Coasting along it with difficulty, we came to a place called Fair Havens, near which was the city of Lasea.

Since much time had passed, and the voyage was now dangerous because even the Fast1 was already over, Paul advised them, 10 saying, “Sirs, I perceive that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives.” 11 But the centurion paid more attention to the pilot and to the owner of the ship than to what Paul said. 12 And because the harbor was not suitable to spend the winter in, the majority decided to put out to sea from there, on the chance that somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing both southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there.

The Storm at Sea

13 Now when the south wind blew gently, supposing that they had obtained their purpose, they weighed anchor and sailed along Crete, close to the shore. 14 But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land. 15 And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along. 16 Running under the lee of a small island called Cauda,2 we managed with difficulty to secure the ship's boat. 17 After hoisting it up, they used supports to undergird the ship. Then, fearing that they would run aground on the Syrtis, they lowered the gear,3 and thus they were driven along. 18 Since we were violently storm-tossed, they began the next day to jettison the cargo. 19 And on the third day they threw the ship's tackle overboard with their own hands. 20 When neither sun nor stars appeared for many days, and no small tempest lay on us, all hope of our being saved was at last abandoned.

21 Since they had been without food for a long time, Paul stood up among them and said, “Men, you should have listened to me and not have set sail from Crete and incurred this injury and loss. 22 Yet now I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship. 23 For this very night there stood before me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, 24 and he said, ‘Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar. And behold, God has granted you all those who sail with you.’ 25 So take heart, men, for I have faith in God that it will be exactly as I have been told. 26 But we must run aground on some island.”

27 When the fourteenth night had come, as we were being driven across the Adriatic Sea, about midnight the sailors suspected that they were nearing land. 28 So they took a sounding and found twenty fathoms.4 A little farther on they took a sounding again and found fifteen fathoms.5 29 And fearing that we might run on the rocks, they let down four anchors from the stern and prayed for day to come. 30 And as the sailors were seeking to escape from the ship, and had lowered the ship's boat into the sea under pretense of laying out anchors from the bow, 31 Paul said to the centurion and the soldiers, “Unless these men stay in the ship, you cannot be saved.” 32 Then the soldiers cut away the ropes of the ship's boat and let it go.

33 As day was about to dawn, Paul urged them all to take some food, saying, “Today is the fourteenth day that you have continued in suspense and without food, having taken nothing. 34 Therefore I urge you to take some food. For it will give you strength,6 for not a hair is to perish from the head of any of you.” 35 And when he had said these things, he took bread, and giving thanks to God in the presence of all he broke it and began to eat. 36 Then they all were encouraged and ate some food themselves. 37 (We were in all 2767 persons in the ship.) 38 And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship, throwing out the wheat into the sea.

The Shipwreck

39 Now when it was day, they did not recognize the land, but they noticed a bay with a beach, on which they planned if possible to run the ship ashore. 40 So they cast off the anchors and left them in the sea, at the same time loosening the ropes that tied the rudders. Then hoisting the foresail to the wind they made for the beach. 41 But striking a reef,8 they ran the vessel aground. The bow stuck and remained immovable, and the stern was being broken up by the surf. 42 The soldiers' plan was to kill the prisoners, lest any should swim away and escape. 43 But the centurion, wishing to save Paul, kept them from carrying out their plan. He ordered those who could swim to jump overboard first and make for the land, 44 and the rest on planks or on pieces of the ship. And so it was that all were brought safely to land.

Footnotes

[1] 27:9 That is, the Day of Atonement
[2] 27:16 Some manuscripts Clauda
[3] 27:17 That is, the sea-anchor (or possibly the mainsail)
[4] 27:28 About 120 feet; a fathom (Greek orguia) was about 6 feet or 2 meters
[5] 27:28 About 90 feet (see previous note)
[6] 27:34 Or For it is for your deliverance
[7] 27:37 Some manuscripts seventy-six, or about seventy-six
[8] 27:41 Or sandbank, or crosscurrent; Greek place between two seas

(ESV)

In private: Psalm 10; Jeremiah 37

Psalm 10 (Listen)

Why Do You Hide Yourself?

10   Why, O LORD, do you stand far away?
    Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?
  In arrogance the wicked hotly pursue the poor;
    let them be caught in the schemes that they have devised.
  For the wicked boasts of the desires of his soul,
    and the one greedy for gain curses1 and renounces the LORD.
  In the pride of his face2 the wicked does not seek him;3
    all his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
  His ways prosper at all times;
    your judgments are on high, out of his sight;
    as for all his foes, he puffs at them.
  He says in his heart, “I shall not be moved;
    throughout all generations I shall not meet adversity.”
  His mouth is filled with cursing and deceit and oppression;
    under his tongue are mischief and iniquity.
  He sits in ambush in the villages;
    in hiding places he murders the innocent.
  His eyes stealthily watch for the helpless;
    he lurks in ambush like a lion in his thicket;
  he lurks that he may seize the poor;
    he seizes the poor when he draws him into his net.
10   The helpless are crushed, sink down,
    and fall by his might.
11   He says in his heart, “God has forgotten,
    he has hidden his face, he will never see it.”
12   Arise, O LORD; O God, lift up your hand;
    forget not the afflicted.
13   Why does the wicked renounce God
    and say in his heart, “You will not call to account”?
14   But you do see, for you note mischief and vexation,
    that you may take it into your hands;
  to you the helpless commits himself;
    you have been the helper of the fatherless.
15   Break the arm of the wicked and evildoer;
    call his wickedness to account till you find none.
16   The LORD is king forever and ever;
    the nations perish from his land.
17   O LORD, you hear the desire of the afflicted;
    you will strengthen their heart; you will incline your ear
18   to do justice to the fatherless and the oppressed,
    so that man who is of the earth may strike terror no more.

Footnotes

[1] 10:3 Or and he blesses the one greedy for gain
[2] 10:4 Or of his anger
[3] 10:4 Or the wicked says, “He will not call to account”

(ESV)

Jeremiah 37 (Listen)

Jeremiah Warns Zedekiah

37 Zedekiah the son of Josiah, whom Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon made king in the land of Judah, reigned instead of Coniah the son of Jehoiakim. But neither he nor his servants nor the people of the land listened to the words of the LORD that he spoke through Jeremiah the prophet.

King Zedekiah sent Jehucal the son of Shelemiah, and Zephaniah the priest, the son of Maaseiah, to Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “Please pray for us to the LORD our God.” Now Jeremiah was still going in and out among the people, for he had not yet been put in prison. The army of Pharaoh had come out of Egypt. And when the Chaldeans who were besieging Jerusalem heard news about them, they withdrew from Jerusalem.

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet: “Thus says the LORD, God of Israel: Thus shall you say to the king of Judah who sent you to me to inquire of me, ‘Behold, Pharaoh's army that came to help you is about to return to Egypt, to its own land. And the Chaldeans shall come back and fight against this city. They shall capture it and burn it with fire. Thus says the LORD, Do not deceive yourselves, saying, “The Chaldeans will surely go away from us,” for they will not go away. 10 For even if you should defeat the whole army of Chaldeans who are fighting against you, and there remained of them only wounded men, every man in his tent, they would rise up and burn this city with fire.’”

Jeremiah Imprisoned

11 Now when the Chaldean army had withdrawn from Jerusalem at the approach of Pharaoh's army, 12 Jeremiah set out from Jerusalem to go to the land of Benjamin to receive his portion there among the people. 13 When he was at the Benjamin Gate, a sentry there named Irijah the son of Shelemiah, son of Hananiah, seized Jeremiah the prophet, saying, “You are deserting to the Chaldeans.” 14 And Jeremiah said, “It is a lie; I am not deserting to the Chaldeans.” But Irijah would not listen to him, and seized Jeremiah and brought him to the officials. 15 And the officials were enraged at Jeremiah, and they beat him and imprisoned him in the house of Jonathan the secretary, for it had been made a prison.

16 When Jeremiah had come to the dungeon cells and remained there many days, 17 King Zedekiah sent for him and received him. The king questioned him secretly in his house and said, “Is there any word from the LORD?” Jeremiah said, “There is.” Then he said, “You shall be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon.” 18 Jeremiah also said to King Zedekiah, “What wrong have I done to you or your servants or this people, that you have put me in prison? 19 Where are your prophets who prophesied to you, saying, ‘The king of Babylon will not come against you and against this land’? 20 Now hear, please, O my lord the king: let my humble plea come before you and do not send me back to the house of Jonathan the secretary, lest I die there.” 21 So King Zedekiah gave orders, and they committed Jeremiah to the court of the guard. And a loaf of bread was given him daily from the bakers' street, until all the bread of the city was gone. So Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard.

(ESV)


          1 Thessalonians 1:1-10 – Thanksgiving for the Thessalonians’ Faith      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Introduction – 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10: Today we begin reading Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians. In the first letter, Paul sends greetings to the followers of Christ at Thessalonica. He thanks them for becoming examples of faithfulness and love for all the followers throughout Greece, and affirms their actions. — 1 Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you. 2 We always thank God for all of you and continually mention you in our prayers. 3 We remember before our God and Father your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope in our Lord Jesus Christ. 4 For we know, brothers and sisters loved by God, that he has chosen you, 5 because our gospel came to you not simply with words but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and deep conviction. You know how we lived among you for your sake. 6 You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering with the joy given by the Holy Spirit. 7 And so you became a model to all the believers in Macedonia and Achaia. 8 The Lord’s message rang out from you not only in Macedonia and Achaia—your faith in God has become known everywhere. Therefore we do not need to say anything about it, 9 for they themselves report what kind of reception you gave us. They tell how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10 and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead—Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath. — Reflect – Thessalonica, the capital of the Roman province of Macedonia in northern Greece, was located on a major east-west highway. Many of its people had worshiped idols before becoming believers in Christ. Because they became believers and lived on a major transportation route, they had a unique ability to share their faith stories quickly and easily. How can new technology facilitate faith-sharing today?
          Philippians 4:2-23 – Final Exhortations      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Introduction – Philippians 4:2-23: Paul offers final words of thanks and greeting. He notes that Christ gives him the strength to face whatever challenges lie ahead. He prays that God will take care of the needs of the believers-in-Christ in Philippi, just as the believers took care of Paul’s needs in the past. — 2 I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to be of the same mind in the Lord. 3 Yes, and I ask you, my true companion, help these women since they have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my co-workers, whose names are in the book of life. 4 Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice! 5 Let your gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near. 6 Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. 7 And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. 8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. 9 Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you. 10 I rejoiced greatly in the Lord that at last you renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you were concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. 11 I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. 12 I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. 13 I can do all this through him who gives me strength. 14 Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles. 15 Moreover, as you Philippians know, in the early days of your acquaintance with the gospel, when I set out from Macedonia, not one church shared with me in the matter of giving and receiving, except you only; 16 for even when I was in Thessalonica, you sent me aid more than once when I was in need. 17 Not that I desire your gifts; what I desire is that more be credited to your account. 18 I have received full payment and have more than enough. I am amply supplied, now that I have received from Epaphroditus the gifts you sent. They are a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God. 19 And my God will meet all your needs according to the riches of his glory in Christ Jesus. 20 To our God and Father be glory for ever and ever. Amen. 21 Greet all God’s people in Christ Jesus. The brothers and sisters who are with me send greetings. 22 All God’s people here send you greetings, especially those who belong to Caesar’s household. 23 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen. — Reflect – Reread Paul’s advice in 4:4-6. Of the things he commands, which would be easiest for you to do? Which would be hardest? Why? Paul says, “I have learned to be satisfied with what I have” (4:11). Have there been times in your life when you have had very little? When you have had a lot? What do you need in order to be equally satisfied in either circumstance?
          Introducing Kepa Arrizabalaga: Chelsea’s world-record goalkeeper with magnificent reflexes – but still a lot to learn      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
It's fair to say that Athletic Bilbao would never have dreamt of getting €80m for Kepa Arrizabalaga. The goalkeeper's contract was originally set to expire this summer, and the Basque club nearly lost their prodigy to Real Madrid in January for just €20m. The deal fell through becauseZinedine Zidane was reluctant to displace Keylor Navas during the season and asked president Florentino Perez not to mess with the dressing room atmosphere.Subsequently, Athletic persuaded Kepa to sign a new long-term contract with an astronomic release clause. Now that Roman Abramovich's club have sensationally triggered it, the bottom line is that everyone has won – except, perhaps,Chelsea.Real Madrid won the Champions League for the third time in a row with Navas between the posts, and have now managed to acquire Thibaut Courtois– a proven winner and a vastly experienced keeper at the age of just 26. The Belgian has seven years of performing at the highest level with Atletico Madrid and Chelsea under his belt, has won league titles in three different countries (including his first club Genk in 2011) and taken part in 46 European matches(winning the Europa League in 2012 and playing in the 2014 Champions League Final). He’s also represented his national team 65 times and excelled at two World Cups.By comparison, the 23-year-old Kepa won his only title: the European Under-19Championship back in 2012. He only played 53 top-division matches in Spain across his entire career, and doesn't have a single match for his club on the European stage because Bilbao decided to let Iago Herrerin play in the Europa League last season. Kepa’s only senior cap for Spain was in a friendly against Costa Rica last November, and he spent the World Cup in Russia as Spain's third-choice goalkeeper.He will be 24 in October, which means that he’s around two years younger than Courtois. Yet Chelsea chose to pay more than twice the price that they received for the Belgian. By any standards, it’s outrageously optimistic to consider such a deal to be reasonable.Rapid riseChelsea’s record signing has at least one thing in common with Alisson, the new Liverpool star he has displaced asthe world's most expensive goalkeeper:their rise to fame has been extremely fast. Alisson was virtually unknown in Brazil before getting an opportunity at Internacional at the age of 23, getting promoted to the national team and earning a move to Roma.Kepa, who joined Athletic Bilbao as a 10-year-old and played for the club at all youth levels, was introduced to the first team slowly by the Basque club, even though manager Marcelo Bielsa let him train with the senior squad back in 2012.The goalkeeper earned valuable experience in the second division during positive loan spells at Ponferradina and Real Valladolid, but only made his La Liga debut in September 2016, when Ernesto Valverde wasn't fully satisfied with the veteran custodian Gorka Iraizoz. The coach, who is now in charge of Barcelona, decided to rotate his goalkeepers, and Kepa eventually proved to be a highly capable performer.Cool under pressure and confident in his abilities, Kepamanaged to overcome several setbacks, including conceding an early goal on his home debut against Valencia. By the end of the 2016/17 seasonhe was celebrated as a promising prodigy, although his game wasn't perfect by any means.Summing up his first season a year ago, Mundo Deportivo reporter Endika Rio hailed Kepa for making complicated things look easy. His instincts are remarkable, his reflexes are magnificent, and his footwork is impressive too. The 23-year-old is a modern keeper who likes to be involved in building play from behind, and passes the ball expertly. "Kepa doesn't get nervous whenstrikers pressure him," Rio stated.However, he wasn't a finished article. "There is room for improvement in certain areas, especially in dealing with crosses. Kepa doesn't feel comfortable when he moves from the goalline. He's still young," Rio claimed. Those issues continued to beproblematic during last season, and the young keeper wasn't always able to help as Athletic experienced a difficult and disappointing season in the bottom half of the table, finishing 16th.Kepa did well not to be influenced by the Real Madrid transfer saga, but his concentration suffered nevertheless. He made some costly mistakes, and the lowest point was reached in the home fixture against Levante in April. With his team leading 1-0, Kepa conceded a soft goal as Macedonian winger Enis Bardhi curled in a free-kick from a tight angle. Just two minutes later, on the stroke of half-time, Bardhi managed to score from a similar position for a second time, with Kepa late to react yet again.Those type of errors were easily forgiven and forgotten by the Basque fans, because Kepa was a local idol. He could have left the club for free this summerbut became a legend by refusing to do so, instead signing a deal running to 2023 in January.Blues challengeThings will be very different at Chelsea, however. The price tag is disproportionate, and Courtois' shoes are huge to step into. Calm as he is, Kepa has never experienced situations thatremotely reminiscent of the pressure and scrutiny he is about to be under at Stamford Bridge.At least those who worked with him tend to think he would be able to handle it. "Kepa has amazing confidence in himself to face any type of challenge," says Miguel Angel Portugal, who coached the keeper at Valladolid. It remains to be seen whether he is right.The Basque star should definitely get the backing of Maurizio Sarri, who considered signing Kepa for Napoli as a replacement for Pepe Reina. "I saw him a year ago, and my first impression was that he is a very good goalkeeper," said the Italian. And yet, the manager himself steps into unknown territory in the Premier League, and his judgement won't necessarily carry great weight with fans or the press yet.There are certain similarities between Kepa's situation and that of David de Gea, who was signed by Manchester United in 2011 after less than two years as the first-choice goalkeeper at Atletico Madrid. De Gea's first season at Old Trafford was problematic, as he committed numerous errors when dealing with crosses and dead-ball situations. Replacing the legendary Edwin van der Sar proved to be a mammoth task, but the Spaniard was lucky enough to have Sir Alex Ferguson by his side to get through this tough period.Kepa's situation will be more difficult because Sarri doesn’t have thecontrol Ferguson had earned, and Chelsea have endured a tumultuous 12 months– unlike Manchester United at the beginning of the decade. This move is a steep challenge for a talented goalkeeper– albeit one who still has a lot to prove.New features you'd love on FourFourTwo.com
          Danger Ahead: The Game Changer Drone      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
by Michael CurtisUneasy lies the head that wears a crown. The unease of rulers may result from personal factors, constant worry, lack of sleep, feeling of guilt for past odious actions, but also often from fear of assassination. The list is long of the sad stories of the death of kings, all murdered. Many of the victims in different countries and different eras have been well known, and been historically important. Even the Bible tells the story of Joab, commander of King David's army who killled the King's rebellious son and rival Absalon.A quick survey of some of the well known victims illustrates the targeted killings. Phillip II of Macedonia was assassinated in 336 B.C. and Julius Caesar on the Ides of March in 44 B.C. For a number of centuries, 8 14th, an Islamic sect callled the Assassins was active in the areas of what is now Iran and Syria, killing, often under influence of hashish, caliphs, viziers, sultans and Crusaders, for political and religious reasons.The Renaissance i...
          The First Year of Herod the Great’s Reign      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

A Quick Review

We will begin this article with a brief review of the major points laid out in the previous one (“John 2:12–21 and Herodian Chronology,” http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2018/06/29/John-212e2809321-and-Herodian-Chronology.aspx), and then go into a detailed analysis of the arguments offered against its conclusion that the reign of Herod the Great should be dated to 37 BC, per the reasons laid out by Emil Schürer in A History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ.

Josephus Started the Year from Nisan

In the linked article we saw how Josephus’ own words demonstrated that he regarded the month of Nisan as the first month of the Jewish year, hence in Antiquities he followed the ecclesiastical calendar rather than the civil calendar starting in Tishri (emphasis and bracketed comments added; except where noted, the Whiston translation of Antiquities is used throughout this article):

Antiquities 1.3.3 – “But Moses appointed that Nisanshould be the first month…although he preserved the original order of the months [where Nisan, as counted from Rosh Hashanah in Tishri, was taken as the seventh month] as to selling and buying, and other ordinary affairs.”

Antiquities 3.10.5 – “Nisanis the beginning of our year.”

Antiquities 11.4.8 – “the first month; which according to the Macedonians is called Xanthicus; but according to us, Nisan.

It could perhaps be argued that calling Nisan "the first month" is purely a label, and does not entail actually counting years from it. But the fact remains that during the Second Temple period after the Babylonian exile, the Jews themselves, as reflected in both Antiquities 3.10.5 and the Mishnah, regarded Nisan rather than Tishri as "the beginning of our year," and counted their rulers' reigns from it. For our purposes, with a focus on the reign of Herod as a Jewish ruler, that is what matters.

Josephus Used Inclusive Reckoning

In addition it was established, from several examples, that the uncomplicated, plain sense of Antiquities indicates Josephus mainly followed inclusive reckoning. We know that inclusive reckoning was a normal convention in the Bible and in the Roman and Jewish worlds generally, this is not in dispute. The story of Cornelius in Acts 10 was given as a biblical example, while we observed that a straightforward reading of Josephus indicates he followed this convention in the way he handled the time spanned by several pairs of independent, unrelated events: the 27 years from Pompey’s taking of Jerusalem in 63 BC to the start of Herod’s de facto (“in fact”) reign in 37 BC following the siege of Jerusalem, the 107 years from the start of Herod’s reign in 37 BC until the Temple fell to Titus in AD 70, and the seventh year of Herod’s reign matching up with the year of the Battle of Actium on September 2, 31 BC, thus requiring his first year to have been in 37 BC. Since these three examples are obviously discussed in Antiquities—in 14.16.4, 20.10.1, and 15.5.2 respectively, with the last one also addressed in Wars 1.19.3—what Andrew E. Steinmann (“When Did Herod the Great Reign?” Novum Testamentum 51 [2009]: 1–29) states in his note 8 (p. 2) is not borne out by the evidence:

Schürer claimed that Josephus used inclusive reckoning (1896 edition 1.200–201, Vermes and Millar edition, Schürer, History 326–327). If Josephus used inclusive reckoning to arrive at thirty-seven and thirty-four years [the first giving the time from Herod’s Roman appointment to his death, the second from his siege victory to his death, Ant. 17.8.1] (i.e., the years 40–4 BCE inclusive totals thirty-seven), such inclusive reckoning is not indicated elsewhere in Josephus (emphasis and bracketed comment added).

The cited instances do indicate Josephus used inclusive reckoning elsewhere. They should predispose us to view the 37 and 34-year time spans the same way. With one small but, as we will see, significant correction: Josephus does does not refer to the "siege victory" in Antiquities 17.8.1, but to the death of Antigonus: "When he had done these things, he died...having reigned since he had procured Antigonus to be slain thirty four years." It is an important difference.

Josephus Sometimes Gave Time Durations

The few exceptions to inclusive reckoning in Josephus’ writings were seen to reflect elapsed time, or rather, time durations of single events that covered a period of time from start to completion. Such was the case where Herod's 18th year was said to mark the start of the 46 years the Temple was “a-building,” and with the 126 years that had elapsed since the Hasmonean dynasty was first set up until its last king died. Whereas time spans between two different events were reckoned inclusively as expected, the duration of what were essentially single events having a defined start and end point were dealt with differently. They were treated like birthdays; the first example looked at when the Temple became 46 years old, the second at when the Hasmonean dynasty became 126 years old. Since it is self-evident that one would never say a month-old infant was reckoned as being one year of age, exceptions like these to the normal inclusive reckoning approach are to be expected. But in saying this, we must insist that such exceptions to accommodate the duration of an event do not set aside the general principle of inclusive reckoning, nor reckoning specifically from Nisan in the case of the post-exilic (Second Temple) Judean kings.

I initially thought it would be sufficient to press these three simple, positive evidences upon the reader, deeming them adequate in themselves to powerfully call into question the validity of any chronological approaches that began the de facto reign of Herod in 36 rather than 37 BC. But the more I reflected on the matter, the more I realized that it was the very complexity of the arguments put forth by W.E. Filmer (“The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great,” Journal of Theological Studies 17.2 [1966], pp. 283–298) and Steinmann that might cause some readers to be swayed by them. Some people are impressed by cleverness, while for others it is far easier to simply accept these scholars’ judgments on authority than to analyze their arguments. Still others may feel a certain loyalty to particular scholars for other reasons, such as Steinmann’s reputation as a conservative scholar with a significant book on biblical chronology to his credit.

But in the end, none of those factors should influence our evaluation of their arguments, only the strength of the logic and data they present to make their cases. Therefore, before turning to consider the death date of Herod, it is necessary to offer some specific rebuttals to the Filmer/Steinmann contention that Herod’s reign must be dated from his appointment by the Romans, supposedly in 39 BC.

The Attacks on the “Schürer Consensus”

The approaches of Filmer and Steinmann involve attacking what Steinmann dubs the “Schürer consensus.” Their arguments primarily involve seeking ways to get around the manifest appearance of inclusive reckoning from Nisan seen in Josephus. But when we closely examine the evidence, we see this effort is built on a framework of assumptions, questionable interpretations, and outright accusations of error leveled against Josephus. In what follows we will attempt to demonstrate the existence of this shaky framework, and call for a return to a solid structure based on accepting the fundamental reliability of Josephus as an historian, with his work interpreted in a straightforward manner.

An Insistence on Non-Inclusive Dating

The fundamental way the Filmerians reinterpret Josephus is by insisting that he consistently used non-inclusive dating in Antiquities, with the month of Tishri (September/October) viewed as the first month of the year. In this approach, the year an event occurred in is not included in the counting. This means that in the case of reign lengths of rulers, counting began with the Tishri after the start of a king’s reign (known as accession-year reckoning), while with other matters actual reckoning (as we count things today) was used, with the first year counted on the first anniversary after an event.

The problem is, the records of the Jews themselves indicate non-inclusive Tishri dating was not followed after the return from the Babylonian exile. The Mishnah, the third century AD rabbinic compilation of Jewish oral tradition, clearly supports inclusive reckoning from Nisan during the Second Temple era that included Herod’s reign:

On the first of Nissan is the [cut off date for the] New Year regarding [the count of the reigns of the Jewish] kings [which was used to date legal documents. If a king began his reign in Adar even if was only for one day that is considered his first year, and from the first of Nissan is considered his second year…] On the first of Tishrei is the New Year for [the counting of] years [of non-Jewish kings], for the Shemittah and the Yoveil count...” (http://www.emishnah.com/moed2/Rosh_HaShanah/1.pdf; brackets with summarized Gemara commentary original, emphasis added).

This tells us there were two main calendars (there were minor ones as well, but they can be ignored for our purposes). One began in Tishri and applied to counting years dealing with civil affairs, specifically in regard to kings of foreign nations, sabbatical (shemittah) years and jubilee (yoveil) counts; the other began in Nisan and applied to Jewish kings and religious festivals. In emphasizing the primacy of Nisan dating for Josephus and for Herodian chronology in particular, we do not deny that Tishri dating for rulers’ reigns existed during the First Temple period. But we must insist, on the basis of the Mishnah, that such reckoning applied only to kings of other nations, not kings of the Jews like Herod. Furthermore, the evidence clearly indicates the Jews regarded Nisan as the first month of the year as far back as the Babylonian exile. We see this unambiguously stated in Esther 3:7 (NASB):

In the first month, which is the month Nisan, in the twelfth year of King Ahasuerus, Pur, that is the lot, was cast before Haman from day to day and from month to month, until the twelfth month, that is the month Adar.

If the first month was Nisan and the twelfth was Adar for Queen Esther, the ecclesiastical calendar’s ordering of the months was obviously normative by that time. There is no clear biblical evidence that the Jews thereafter ever viewed Tishri as the first month of the year, although they continued to calculate sabbatical years and the reigns of foreign kings from Tishri.

Preoccupation with Herod’s Roman Appointment

This brings up an important point about Steinmann’s approach to Herod’s reign. He consistently refuses to treat it as beginning with the deposing of Antigonus (Ant. 17.8.1) following the siege of Jerusalem, but insists it began with the Roman appointment. But why must we suppose that, just because the Romans had something to do with his getting the position, their involvement somehow made Herod a non-Jewish, foreign king to whom Tishri dating applied? Antigonus was likewise made king of Judea by the intervention of a foreign power, in his case the Parthians, yet no one tries to represent him as a foreign king. What makes one a foreign king with his reign reckoned from Tishri is ruling over a country other than Judea. This was not the case with Herod. It has to do with a uniform approach to record keeping in affairs of state.

Moreover, Steinmann’s proposal that Herod dated his reign from when the Romans granted him the throne of Judea is beside the point. For our purposes it ultimately does not matter how Herod may have viewed the start of his reign, but how Josephus did and recorded it in his histories. For argument’s sake, the strongest indicator that Herod may have personally placed priority on his Roman appointment could be seen in his coins. Steinmann cites numismatic evidence in support of Herod using Rome-based dating of his reign on page 27:

Herod’s first coins, issued to replace Hasmonean currency, are also the first dated Jewish coins. They are dated to “year three.”

Pictures of these coins, derived from David Hendin’s authoritative Guide to Biblical Coins, can be found at http://www.coinsoftime.com/Articles/The_Coins_of_Herod_the_Great.html. Then he continues:

Clearly, Herod counted the year he first reigned in Jerusalem as the third year of his reign. This means that he counted his first regnal year as beginning no later than Tishri 38 BCE and issued his first coinage shortly after conquering Jerusalem in 36 BCE (emphasis added).

We may regard the supposition that “Herod counted the year he first reigned in Jerusalem as the third year of his reign” as likely, since there are no known Herodian coins bearing year one or two (or any) dates. But the emphasized statement following it depends on first assuming the Filmerian view that Herod was named king by the Romans in 39 BC with non-inclusive accession-year dating applied (39 BC up to the end of Elul being his accession year), followed by the taking of Jerusalem in the fall of 36 BC. The coinsoftime.com website disagrees, saying the coin’s date refers to Herod’s capture of Judea in 37 BC. Steinmann has obviously allowed his assumptions to lead his arguments here.

It should also be observed that Steinmann deals with coin matters very carefully, pointing to the “year three” notation as evidence Herod dated his reign from his Roman appointment, yet in the case of Herod’s son Antipas going to great pains to argue against the numismatic evidence:

Antipas lost the tetrarchy of Galilee and Perea in the second year of Gaius (38/39 CE) and the latest coins minted under his authority are dated to his forty-third year. This means that he claimed to have begun his reign in 5/4 BCE. Why would Archelaus and Antipas claim to have reigned from 4 BCE if Herod did not die in that year? Is this not proof that Herod must have died in 4 BCE and not 1 BCE? (p. 20).

It would seem so on the surface, but Steinmann then goes on to argue at length (devoting five pages to this), on a conjectural basis with considerable reading between the lines, that Herod actually did not die in 4 BC, and the evidence of the coins is misleading in this case. This is a discussion that must be tabled for now. My only point in bringing it up is to show that Steinmann is willing to reinterpret the apparent sense of the evidence when doing so will further his argument.

Let us return to our main point, that Herod’s possible view of the start of his reign is less important than how Josephus viewed it. As we saw earlier when discussing the evidence for inclusive reckoning in Josephus, the examples of Pompey’s 27 years, the Temple’s fall after 107 years, and the Battle of Actium assigned to Herod’s seventh year, all rely on dating from 37 BC. So, too, does the rebuilding of the Temple in Herod’s eighteenth year. None of these figures work with Josephus’ own time spans if they are counted from the Roman appointment three years previously. In presenting the synchronisms as he did, it is clear that, so far as Josephus was concerned, the taking of the city and deposing of Antigonus took priority over the Roman appointment for dating purposes. So, if our goal is to understand Josephus rather than read our own preferences onto his records, that is the basis we likewise should prefer for dating.

At this juncture I wish to mention an insight Ed Rickard shared on his The Moorings website, https://www.themoorings.org/Jesus/birth/Herodian_chronology.html. He proposes that the more detailed information in Antiquities was due to Josephus uncovering additional sources of authoritative, reliable information for dating the reign of Herod after Wars was written. Filmer had pointed out (pp. 286–287) that Josephus included nothing in Wars about the consular year and Olympiad synchronizations Antiquities gives for the 40 and 37 BC regnal start dates. Filmer, filtering this observation through his presuppositions, concludes that Josephus devised his own date synchronizations and introduced dating errors into Antiquities in the process.

There is another way of looking at it, however, that does not require demeaning Josephus: to posit that the additional information sources were official Roman records not known to him until after Wars was written, plus what might be called, as Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren translate it in the Loeb version of Antiquities 15.6.3, “Herod’s Memoirs.” This idea is attractive. It is highly probable that official records would have reflected consular dating, while information written by Herod himself would also likely have been from a Roman perspective, given how much he owed them for his exalted position. But even if it was, the question remains: did Josephus himself embrace that perspective in the way he wrote Antiquities? For most Herodian events it makes no substantive difference whether Josephus’ records reflect a January or Nisan first month, but it does matter when we consider exactly when Herod died. That is a matter for future consideration.

It is also worth noting that, notwithstanding the evidence of the coins which, as legal tender of the realm, would naturally have reflected Roman preferences, Herod expended great effort to have the Jews regard him as one of their own rather than a Roman pawn. This is particularly clearly illustrated in the remarks he made in Antiquities 15.11.1 before undertaking the building of the Temple:

I think I need not speak to you, my countreymenOur Fathers indeed, when they were returned from Babylon, built this temple to God Almighty… And it hath been by reason of the subjection of those fathers of ours… I will do my endeavour to correct that imperfection, which hath arisen from the necessity of our affairs, and the slavery we have been under formerly…(emphasis added).

Such self-evident intent to foster an identification of himself with the Jews and gain their loyalty is inconsistent with Steinmann’s insistence that only Roman views mattered to Herod:

Since Herod was appointed by a Gentile power, he probably [assuming a 39 BC appointment as king] began to count his official regnal years as beginning on the following Tishri (September/October) of 38 BCE (since the Jewish civil year began on Tishri). He may have counted his years as beginning in Nisan (March/April) of 38, but this is less likely, since this was the beginning of the religious year, and it would have been unwise to count a Gentile appointment from a sacred Jewish date….This also implies, however, that in Antiquities Josephus numbered Herod’s regnal years from his appointment by the Romans (p. 27, emphasis and bracketed comments added).

All of that is pure conjecture; notice the words “probably,” and “may have.” Consider as well, that apart from being the start of a month—sharing certain prescribed rites with other first days of months (Num. 10:10, 28:11–15), including the first of Tishri—there was nothing especially “sacred” about the first day of Nisan. It was primarily a starting reference point, the first month of the year, from which the Jewish feasts and fasts mandated by the Torah were ordered. It carried with it none of the special “sacredness” that characterized those dates and the weekly Sabbath (Lev. 23).

To wrap up this phase of the discussion, the Mishnah’s stipulations regarding the Tishri dating of kings were for record keeping purposes relative to other countries, not how kings reigning over the Jews from Jerusalem started their rule. Tishri dating therefore does not apply to Herod as a king of Judea. Yet, despite the united testimony of Scripture, Josephus and the Mishnah in favor of inclusive reckoning from Nisan from the time of Esther onwards for Judean kings, Filmer and Steinmann argue against that evidence, asserting that Josephus used accession-year, non-inclusive reckoning from Tishri. They then use this conjecture as the basis for a frontal attack on the plain sense of Josephus’ records. Filmer was the first modern scholar to take this tack, citing Edwin Thiele to claim that the reigns from Solomon to Zedekiah (pre-exilic rulers of the united monarchy, it should be noted) were reckoned from Tishri (p. 294), and then extrapolating from that to Herod. But surely the knowledgeable rabbis who put the Mishnah together had their own post-exilic history and the dating norms that arose from it down pat, which Josephus’ focus on Nisan dating indicates he likewise followed. Arguing against it appears to be flouting the evidence.

An Insistence on Factual Reckoning: The Actium Issue

Nevertheless, Steinmann chose to align himself closely with Filmer on this and many other matters. One is the Actium issue. He deals with it briefly on pages 5–6 in the context of critiquing the work of P.M. Bernegger, “Affirmation of Herod’s Death in 4 BCE,” Journal of Theological Studies 34 (1983), 526–531. What his objections boil down to is an insistence on looking at Josephus’ data through the lens of factual (date-specific), non-inclusive reckoning from September 2, 31 BC. For example, Bernegger (p. 529) cites Josephus’ discussion about the Roman tax registration in Syria during AD 6:

Josephus stated that the registration was completed in the thirty-seventh year after Actium. The battle of Actium took place in 31 B.C., thirty-six factual years before the completion of the Syrian registration. In this instance, Josephus counted inclusively, and without any ambiguity.

Steinmann protests, “However, Bernegger’s reasoning only works if one forgets about the date of the Battle of Actium, September 2, 31 BCE.” This reveals his Filmerian assumptions. Shelve the idea that factual, to-the-day dating matters, together with the presumption of non-inclusive year counts, and the problem vanishes. Steinmann also projects his own bias onto Bernegger when he writes, “Years after Actium commenced on September 3, not on the following January 1, as Bernegger’s calculations assume.” But as a follower of Schürer’s approach that adhered to Jewish and Roman inclusive dating conventions, Bernegger’s year count would have been inclusive, making the first year “after Actium” begin in 31 BC, not the following January. This makes 30 BC the second year after Actium, and so on until the 37th year in AD 6. Whether Bernegger used a January-to-December Julian calendar or Nisan to Adar, the inclusive approach still makes September 2 part of 31 BC rather than 30 BC. Thus, we see that Steinmann has here criticized a misrepresentation of Bernegger’s position. His so-called “Schürer consensus” increasingly resembles a convenient straw man for him to attack. It bears only passing resemblance to the actual positions of Emile Schürer and those who followed him.

The problems posed by the Battle of Actium against Filmer and Steinmann’s interpretation get worse. For example, Steinmann claimed in note 83 of his article:

The Battle of Actium [September 2, 31 BC] would have taken place at the very end of Herod’s seventh year, since Tishri can begin no earlier than September 20 and no later than October 19. In 31 BCE the Babylonians counted September 21 as the first day of Tishri (Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 BCE–AD 75 [Brown University Studies 19, Providence: Brown University, 1956] 43). This confirms that Herod started his regnal years in Tishri, not Nisan (emphasis and bracketed comment added).

But this is circular reasoning. All this statement proves is that the Battle of Actium took place in the sixth month, Elul, just before Tishri started. It does not indicate that Actium was at the very end of Herod’s seventh year, or of any year. To claim that means first assuming a Tishri-based year—the very thing Filmer and Steinmann must prove—as well as factual dating. If Nisan-based inclusive dating was used instead, Actium would still have occurred just before Tishri, but would have fallen in the middle of Herod’s seventh year. Not only does this logic fail, the claim again flies in the face of Josephus’ testimony in Antiquities that his historical records for the Jews revolved around the Nisan-based ecclesiastical calendar, not the civil calendar using a Tishri New Year. We should place priority on the source material’s own interpretation of itself, not on a modern scholar’s reinterpretation of it. If it makes good sense as written, there is no real reason to reject it.

Further to this, at http://www.nowoezone.com/NTC04.html, Kenneth Frank Doig observed:

Andrew E. Steinmann...claims that the Battle of Actium in Herod’s 7th year on September 2, 31 BCE establishes Josephus “confirms that Herod started his regnal years in Tishri, not Nisan.” However, the dating is such that it was Herod’s 7th year reckoned from either Nisan or Tishri. Because of using dating from Tishri Steinmann elsewhere says Josephus “contradicts” himself.

My own independent analysis, put into a spreadsheet long before I read Steinmann’s article, agrees with Doig’s conclusions. Whether Nisan (March/April) or Tishri (September/October) reckoning is used for the start of the year, both of these possible New Year’s dates fall squarely into the January-to-December year of 31 BC.

In the end, what “Alexander” wrote (https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/jesus-historical-jesus/herods-death-jesus-birth-and-a-lunar-eclipse/), quoted in my last article, still applies:

Despite any counting methods that may be employed by various authors, whether Nisan to Nisan, Tishri to Tishri, or even January to January, it holds true nonetheless that if the spring of 31 BCE is his seventh year, then the spring of 32 BCE is his sixth year, the spring of 33 BCE is his fifth year, and so on, making the spring of 37 BCE his first year (emphasis added; the argument would remain true if all instances of “spring” read “fall” instead).

The Filmerian Reinterpretation of Josephus

We will now undertake a point-by-point analysis of Steinmann’s case against the “Schürer consensus.” As observed above, he repeatedly emphasizes the significance of the de jure (in law) date of Herod’s Roman appointment over the de facto (in fact) date of taking Jerusalem. This is intimated as early as page 2, right after summarizing the main points favoring the 37 BC consensus for the start of Herod’s reign:

Despite this widely held opinion that Herod reigned from 40 (37) to 4 BCE, this was neither the consensus before Schürer nor has it gone unchallenged in the last half century. Most disturbingly, the Schürer consensus assigns only thirty-six years to Herod’s reign, thirty-three of them in Jerusalem, whereas Josephus reports the figures as thirty-seven and thirty-four respectively. All early Christian sources place the birth of Jesus after Passover in 4 BCE, with most of them placing it in sometime in late 3 or early 2 BCE (emphasis added).

Concerning these comments, three observations can be made:

First, we need to be clear: Herod did not in fact reign over the Jews from 40 BC on (or 39 BC, if one follows the Filmerian reinterpretation of Josephus), but from 37 BC (36 BC per Filmer and Steinmann). The “widely held opinion”—the “Schürer consensus”—views him in 40 BC merely as king-designate, and in Roman eyes only, until the city was actually taken and placed under his control. Antigonus, as we shall see, was the king of the Jews in every measure of the word—title (including on his coins, which bore the inscription BACILE?C ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus), see http://www.forumancientcoins.com/catalog/roman-and-greek-coins.asp?vpar=1063), government control, residence in Jerusalem, and acceptance as king by those he ruled—from 40 BC until Herod’s siege removed him and led to his death in 37 BC. This is surely a common sense observation, but it must unfortunately be specifically pointed out, lest the complex arguments put forth by Filmer and Steinmann obscure it.

Second, Steinmann asserts that the “disturbing” Schürer consensus contradicts the figures given by Josephus for the 37 and 34 years of his reign as measured from the Roman appointment and the taking of the city respectively. Actually, what is disturbing is this misrepresentation, for no conflict with Josephus can be found. Schürer himself wrote, in his note 165:

Herod died shortly before a Passover (Antiq. xvii.9.3; Wars of the Jews, ii.1.3), therefore in March or April. Since Josephus says that he reigned thirty-seven years from the date of his appointment, thirty-four years from his conquest of Jerusalem (Antiq. xvii.8.1; Wars of the Jews, i.33.8), it would seem as if, counting thirty-seven years from the year B.C. 40, he must have died in B.C. 3. But we know that Josephus elsewhere counts a year too much, according to our reckoning…The reason of this is that he counts portions of a year as a year [i.e., he counts inclusively]; and, indeed, he probably, according to the example of the Mishna, reckons the years of the king’s reign from Nisan to Nisan. If this be so, the thirty-fourth year of Herod would begin on the 1st Nisan of the year B.C. 4, and Herod must in that case have died between 1st and 14th Nisan, since his death occurred before the Passover. That this is indeed the correct reckoning is confirmed by astronomical date, and by the chronology of the successors of Herod (bracketed comment added).

Since at this time we will not discuss the death of Herod, we will skip over the last two lines (although we agree with them), and just note that there is nothing in what Schürer wrote to conclude that he disagreed with Josephus’ 37 and 34-year figures. His reasoning is actually predicated around accepting them as written. Neither did he accuse Josephus of error, as Steinmann does (“ Thus, Josephus is in error,” p. 7) in reference to his matchup of consular and Olympiad dates. (See also page 28, “Josephus made mistakes in Antiquities 14.389, 487 when reporting the consular and Olympian dating of the beginning of Herod’s reign.” The supposition that there was a direct conflict between Josephus’ equating the consular year of Calvinus and Pollio with the 184th Olympiad is addressed under “A Closer Look at the Consular Years,” below.) On the contrary, Schürer fully accepted those numbers and sought to understand them as Josephus and the Jews did, rather than imposing modern non-inclusive dating conventions upon them. The only contradiction is not with Josephus, but with the ultimately unsupported insistence of Filmer and Steinmann on using non-inclusive rather than inclusive reckoning, and that from Tishri rather than Nisan.

Third, he states that early Christian sources place the birth of Christ after 4 BC, generally in late 3 or early 2 BC. It should be pointed out, however, that those sources are not unanimous about a specific year, which indicates they reflect not accurate records but tradition (i.e., early Church hearsay). Jack Finegan’s Handbook of Biblical Chronology (p. 291) gives several dates suggested by early sources. Although it is true that a majority are listed as 3/2 BC, it should not escape our notice that these give a date range, and there are a number of outliers. To take these reports as authoritative is to depend on unproven tradition rather than a single well-attested year. If Luke, arguably the most historically picky of the New Testament writers, did not pinpoint the year for us, nor did any of the other inspired apostles who knew Him (and His mother Mary) best, we have no objective criterion for dating Christ’s birth, only old theologians’ tales. We must conclude, therefore, that early Church tradition gives us no clear year for the Savior’s birth, and therefore no conclusive help in pinpointing the year of Herod’s death.

Reinterpreting Three Incontestable Points

Beginning on page 8 of his article, Steinmann raises several critiques against 37 BC as the start of Herod’s de facto reign. He begins by presenting three incontestable points from Antiquities 14:

- Herod’s siege of Jerusalem ended during the consular year of Agrippa and Gallus, which coincided with the 185th Olympiad, “on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast”

- The city fell 27 years after it had under Pompey, on the same day

- The last Hasmonean, Antigonus, was put to death by Antony 126 years after the Hasmonean dynasty was first set up

Steinmann first admits (p. 9) that “the consular year and Olympiad given by Josephus indicates that Herod took Jerusalem in 37 BCE.” This is objective fact. But then he immediately makes two assertions with no such firm basis: “It was the Day of Atonement (“the fast”) on 10 Tishri in the Jewish calendar, but the third month (September) in the Greek calendar” (parentheses original, emphasis added). In what Josephus wrote there is no discernible indication that Greek months entered into the picture at all, nor reason to pivot from Greek months to Jewish days: “This destruction befel the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome; on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad; on the third month; on the solemnity of the fast” (Ant. 14.16.4). In the post-exilic era several Jewish months, including the third, were routinely designated by their order in the calendar rather than their Jewish names. Scripture itself demonstrates this in Esther 8:9, “in the third month (that is, the month Sivan),” where the parenthetical clarification is part of the verse, and in Ezekiel 31:1, “in the third month.” We can confidently expect Josephus followed that post-exilic convention. The parenthetical explanation in Esther 8:9 also demonstrates the standardized inclusive counting the Filmer camp denies, for Tammuz, not Sivan, would have been specified as the third month if the Jews had used actual, non-inclusive reckoning.

Steinmann’s assertions about the day and month of Jerusalem’s fall appear to arise not from what Josephus wrote, but from the Filmerian preoccupation with Tishri dating. There is no reason to suppose that Josephus, a Romanized Jew whom we already know—from his own words, no less—viewed Nisan as the first month of the year, would refer to a Greek month out of the blue, particularly without also naming it for his readers unfamiliar with Greek conventions (recall how he explained Xanthicus earlier). It also makes little sense that Josephus would flip-flop with his calendars, giving the month in Greek terms, but the day in Jewish terms. The odds are overwhelmingly against it. A straightforward understanding of the passage indicates the Jewish month of Sivan, the third month of the ecclesiastical calendar, was meant. This means “the fast” is impossible to assign to the Day of Atonement in Tishri, the seventh month. “The fast” has another more likely meaning, to be discussed later.

Steinmann then (p. 9) presents two other considerations which, he claims, “contradict” the 37 BC date indicated by both consular year and Olympiad reckoning. First, he says, the 27 years that passed after Pompey takes one to 36 BC, not 37 BC. Two problems exist here: first, he again assumes without supporting evidence that it was the Day of Atonement in Tishri, and second, he makes the further undemonstrated assumption that non-inclusive, actual dating was used. In short, he is using his (and Filmer’s) assumptions as the basis for claiming Josephus was in error, instead of trying to understand the data as Josephus understood it.

As for the second “contradiction,” Steinmann says that there is no evidence of any government by the Hasmoneans until 162 BC, therefore the 126 years had to be reckoned from 36 BC, not 37 BC. But as discussed in the previous article of this series, this overlooks the detail that Antiochus IV Epiphanes died in 163 BC, vacating the Syrian kingship over the Jews and defaulting to leaving the Hasmoneans in power. By recognizing this we can say that the Hasmonean dynasty endured for 126 years.

Three Considerations Favoring Actual, Non-Inclusive Years?

At this point in his article, it is apparent that Steinmann feels the pressure of the “Schürer consensus” against the Filmerian position he has staked out: “Nonetheless, the Schürer consensus could hold that the data given by Josephus here were reckoned by inclusive reckoning, making no conflict” (p. 10). Indeed, it not only could, but it does. But then he adds, “However, that Josephus was not using inclusive reckoning and that these data should be seen as reporting actual years is demonstrated by three more considerations” (p. 10). What are these considerations?

Supposed Conflict of the High Priest Chronology with the Consular Years

The first he owes directly to Filmer (p. 287): “Josephus also contradicts his own consular year for Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem by his chronology of the high priests.” The main assumption behind this is that Josephus used factual, to-the-day dating for the reigns of high priests, similar to the way the Romans reckoned the reigns of their emperors. But another assumption is less obvious: that Josephus’ account of Hyrcanus II and Antigonus views their “reigns” only as those of high priests, not kings. We will discuss this matter in detail below.

The Alleged Passivity of Sosius

The second consideration arises from a conflict Steinmann, again following Filmer (p. 286), sees in Dio’s Roman History, which he claims “casts doubt on the Schürer consensus that the conquest of Jerusalem occurred in 37 BCE.” Here I quote his argument in full (p. 11):

Concerning 37 BCE Dio states (49.23.1–2):

…during the following year [37 BCE] the Romans accomplished nothing worthy of note in Syria. For Antony spent the entire year reaching Italy and returning again to the province, and Sossius [sic], because anything he did would be advancing Antony’s interests rather than his own, and he therefore dreaded his jealousy and anger, spent the time in devising means, not for achieving some success and incurring his enmity, but for pleasing him without engaging in any activity (emphasis and brackets added).

Thus, Sossius would not have helped Herod—a man favored by Antony—capture Jerusalem in 37.

Rather than teaching that Sosius was entirely passive during 37 BC, the Dio passage merely tells us, and quite specifically, that the Romans accomplished nothing of note in Syria. The sense is that, lest personal successes in Syria might inadvertently offend the uninvolved Antony, Sosius likewise did nothing there. This text does not address activities Sosius might have pursued in Judea at Antony’s specific behest, however. Making the assumption that Sosius’ fear of affronting Antony paralyzed him into inactivity everywhere is entirely unwarranted. Since Dio emphasizes Sosius’ desire to please Antony, if Antony wanted him to help Herod with the siege of Jerusalem, of course he would! That is exactly what the text says in Antiquities 14.16.1: “Sosius [was] sent by Antony, to assist Herod.” The supposed problem Filmer and Steinmann see is nonexistent. Consistent with this, in Wars 1.17.2 Josephus elaborates a little further:

For after the taking of Samosata [in 38 BC], and when Antony had set Sosius over the affairs of Syria, and had given him orders to assist Herod against Antigonus, he [Herod] departed into Egypt; but Sosius sent two legions before him into Judea, to assist Herod, and followed himself soon after with the rest of his army (emphasis and brackets added).

This information is in direct conflict with the idea that Sosius “would not have helped Herod” to capture Jerusalem in 37 BC. Therefore, we can dismiss the Dio “problem” as being nothing of the sort for the “Schürer consensus.”

The Sabbatical Years

The third consideration adduced by Steinmann against a 37 BC fall of Jerusalem is tied to the Jewish sabbatical years. The sabbatical years are brought up in two places in Antiquities in conjunction with the start of Herod’s reign. Describing the siege undertaken by Sosius and Herod, Josephus records:

Now the Jews that were inclosed within the walls of the city, fought against Herod with great alacrity and zeal...and making use of brutish courage, rather than of prudent valour, they persisted in this war to the very last. And this they did while a mighty army lay round about them; and while they were distressed by famine, and the want of necessaries: for this happened to be a sabbatick year (14.16.2, emphasis added)

He continues the story in the next chapter, observing:

Nor was there any end of the miseries he [Herod] brought upon them [the defeated Jews]: and this distress was in part occasioned by the covetousness of the prince regnant [Herod was confiscating silver and gold wherever he could find them]; who was still in want of more; and in part by the sabbatick year, which was still going on, and forced the countrey to lie still uncultivated: since we are forbidden to sow our land in that year (15.1.2, emphasis and bracketed comments added).

These details give us a way to determine the year that Herod took Jerusalem, but only if we can identify with confidence at least one other post-exilic sabbatical year to synchronize with it. Once again following Filmer’s lead (pp. 289–291), Steinmann presents this argument (p. 11):

Finally, it should be noted that Herod besieged Jerusalem at the end of a Sabbatical year when food supplies were running low. This was the same situation in mid-162 BCE near the end of a sabbatical year. Thus, Tishri 163–Elul 162 was a Sabbatical year. Since the summer of 162 BCE fell during a Sabbatical year, the summer of 37 BCE could not have been a Sabbatical year. Instead, Tishri 37 BCE–Elul 36 BCE was also a Sabbatical year. Since food supplies would have been adequate at the beginning of the Sabbatical year, Jerusalem could not have fallen to Herod in Tishri 37 BCE as the Schürer consensus holds. Instead, Jerusalem fell at the beginning of the following year (Tishri 36), with the siege taking place during the summer of the Sabbatical year (summer of 36 BCE).

To begin with, I have no idea how Steinmann concluded that his “Schürer consensus” holds that Jerusalem fell to Herod in Tishri. None of the references I looked at that accept a 37 BC de facto start for the reign of Herod place the taking of Jerusalem in Tishri, but in early summer, generally the month of Sivan (June of 37 BC, cf. http://www.nowoezone.com/NTC04.html). This conclusion follows the logic that the “siege of five months” (Wars 1.18.2) began “after the rigor of winter was over” (Ant. 14.15.14) around February, and concluded in the “summer time” (Ant. 14.16.2), “in the third month” (Ant. 14.16.4) of the Nisan-based ecclesiastical calendar Josephus favors. No, those who follow Schürer do not think Jerusalem fell in Tishri.

Now, the validity of all of Steinmann’s sabbatical year reasoning, including the assertion that 163–162 BC was a sabbatical year, depends on first accepting the foundational premise of a Tishri-based, actual/accession-year/non-inclusive dating scheme, and then presuming on the accuracy of the sabbatical year determinations made by Ben Zion Wacholder (“The Calendar of Sabbatical Cycles During the Second Temple and the Early Rabbinic Period,” Hebrew Union College Annual 44 [1973], 153–193). Quite possibly under the influence of Filmer’s 1966 article, Wacholder decided to revisit the careful earlier study done by Benedict Zuckermann (Treatise on the Sabbatical Cycle and the Jubilee, translated by A. Löwy from the German original of 1856), and concluded Zuckermann’s dates for the sabbatical years were a year too early. Of particular note is that he concluded that 37-36 BC, Tishri through Elul, was a sabbatical year, aligning it with Filmer’s date for Herod taking Jerusalem.

So, which is more accurate for the post-exilic period, the sabbatical year determination of Wacholder, or the one by Zuckermann? A detailed discussion of the issues involved is given in a Wikipedia entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Sabbatical_Years) that references the work of many acknowledged authorities, such as Parker and Dubberstein, Edwin Thiele, and Jack Finegan. It also draws on the work of ABR's Dr. Bryant Wood and several ABR Associates, including biblical chronologist Rodger Young and Dr. Douglas Petrovich. After acknowledging that the geonim (medieval Jewish scholars) and the modern state of Israel follow Zuckermann’s approach, this significant admission seems to be depreciated in favor of a sympathetic focus on Steinmann’s views favoring Wacholder. Arguments are also presented there based on the Seder Olam in support of Wacholder’s dates, but they are ultimately rendered indecisive by translation uncertainties. Their uncertainty is compounded by the fact that the Talmud demonstrates that even the leading rabbis could not agree on when the sabbatical years after the Second Temple should be observed (for example, see the convoluted discussion given in Mas Arachin 12a–12b, http://halakhah.com/pdf/kodoshim/Arachin.pdf). Without a solid, objective basis for translating its problem passages bearing on the sabbatical years, the Seder Olam provides no conclusive help in choosing between the approaches of Zuckermann and Wacholder. We must look elsewhere for a basis to make the choice.

I believe we find this basis in the detailed analysis of sabbatical year evidences of Wacholder and Zuckermann presented by Bob Pickle. The above-cited Wikipedia article is incomplete without considering the balanced treatment Pickle sets forth (as well as Blosser’s study, see below), which would help readers better appreciate why, as the Wikipedia article admits, “there are many prominent scholars who still maintain a cycle consistent with Zuckermann’s conclusion of a 38/37 BCE Sabbatical year.” Pickle’s two online articles, “When Were the Sabbatical Years?” (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years.htm) and “Which Years Were the Sabbatical Years?” (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/sabbatical-years-more.htm), are of such high quality, they should have been published in a scholarly journal. Here we merely summarize some of their key points.

Wacholder had presented ten lines of evidence for his sabbatical year determinations, and Pickle bases his study on them. They are:

The Pledge of Nehemiah 10:31
Alexander’s Grant of Tax Exemption
Judah Maccabee’s Defeat at Beth-Zur
Simon’s Murder
Herod’s Conquest of Jerusalem
Herod Agrippa’s Reading of the Law
Note of Indebtedness from Nero’s Reign
Destruction of Second Temple
Land Contracts of Bar Kochba
Tombstones from Zoar

For each of these topics Pickle examines the data, contrasts how the Zuckermann and Wacholder approaches deal with it, and draws conclusions about which does a better job at explaining the data. In his Introduction he asks, “So which proposal is correct? First of all, why does it matter? It matters because this question is pertinent to a study of the 70 weeks of Daniel 9.” (This is exactly right, and the reason why we will have further reason to address the sabbatical years as part of “The Daniel 9:24–27 Project.”) He then goes on:

Since Daniel 9 begins with a reference to the 70 years of Babylonian captivity, this conclusion [of Wacholder, that the Hebrew word for “week” in Daniel 9 is used in Jewish writings to refer to sabbatical cycles] seems certain. The reason the Jews were sentenced to a captivity of 70 years is because they had not kept that many sabbatical years and had to catch up (Lev. 26:34–35, 43; 2 Chr. 36:21–23). So Daniel 9 begins with a reference to the missed sabbatical years of 70 sabbatical cycles, and ends with a discussion of another 70 sabbatical cycles (bracketed comment added).

It therefore follows that if a particular interpretation of the 70 weeks coincides with known sabbatical years, then that interpretation has additional merit. This approach requires the positive identification of at least one sabbatical year sometime in history.

This post covers paid iPhone and iPad apps that have been made available for free for a limited time by their developers. BGR is not affiliated with any developers. There is no way to tell how long they will be free. These sales could end an hour from now or a week from now — obviously, the only thing we can guarantee is that they were free at the time this post was written. If you click on a link and see a price listed next to an app instead of the word “get,” it is no longer free. The sale has ended. If you download the app anyway, you will be charged by Apple. Subscribe to our feed to be notified as soon as these posts are published, and you’ll avoid missing the sales we cover.

Pinball Breaker Forever

Normally $0.99.

Pinball Breaker Forever merges pinball and brick breaking mechanics to produce a supercharged twitchy randomly generated endless gaming experience, with a vibe from the 80's! Easy to play, hard to master!!

Monster-Blocks appear in waves and slowly go down the screen one after the other. Protect your city from the invaders by destroying the blocks before they reach the bottom of the screen.

Side tracks with optional skill shot mini-games will increase your score and add another twist to the game.

Main Features:

- Endless randomly generated levels
- 6 types of power-ups like explosions, unstoppable ball or multiballs
- 15 types of side track mini-game like target arrays, bumpers, spinners or laser
- Progress through power-ups, skill shots and cosmetic unlocks
- Many types of blocks with different behaviour
- Replaykit for replays and shares
- Tactical aiming: scan the maps for weaknesses and power-ups to increase your efficiency
- MFI support
- Game Center achievements and leaderboards
- Original soundtrack
- Live broadcasting

Download Pinball Breaker Forever

Up Rise

All in-app purchases for character upgrades are currently free.

Ascend through the various obstacles in this artistically elegant adventure. Dodge the enemies by swiping left and right. Enemies appear in all shapes, sizes and colours.

- Free to play (iAP to remove ads).
- 5 playable characters.
- Worldwide leaderboards.
- Enemies in various colours, shapes & sizes.

Download Up Rise

Bladeheart

Normally $0.99.

- Easy to play
There are only 2 buttons: Jump and attack. Take actions based on the in-game situations. Simple and straightforward.
- Unique aesthetic styles
Minimalistic 3D artwork with a full screen of post-combo special effects deliver exhilarating visual impacts.
- 60fps smooth frame rate
We ensure that even devices with the lowest settings are able to enjoy the smooth and natural game experience.
- Global Ranking
Challenge players around the world to show your skills and rank top on the chart!
Achievements
Gold Prize at 2017 The 10th Xiamen International Animation Festival

Download Bladeheart

Spiko for Whatsapp

Normally $4.99.

Have you ever received voice messages in Whatsapp and wasn't able to listen at that time ?

With this app you can convert your voice messages to text.

1. Select a voice message in whatsapp app.
2. Tap on the forward button.
3. Choose "Spiko for Whatsapp".

That's it - your voice message will show up as text !

Currently supported languages:
Arabic, Azerbaijani, Bulgarian, Bengali, Bosnian, Catalan, Czech, Danish, German, Greek, English, Spanish, Estonian, Persian, Finnish, French, Hebrew, Hindi, Croatian, Hungarian, Indonesian, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Georgian, Korean, Latin, Lithuanian, Latvian, Macedonian, Mongolian, Malay, Burmese, Dutch, Norwegian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Kinyarwanda, Slovak, Slovenian, Somali, Albanian, Serbian, Swedish, Tagalog, Turkish, Ukrainian, Uzbek, Vietnamese, Chinese.

Download Spiko for Whatsapp

YourApparel - pick your style

Pro in-app purchase to remove ads is currently free.

Many people agonise over what to wear, whether for a specific occasion or just every day. YourApparel provides a great new twist to the daily routine of selecting an outfit. It offers inspiration by suggesting suitable clothes from your own wardrobe and gives exciting reminders of items you may have forgotten about. It learns your tastes as you go, so the more you use it, the more it will suggest outfits you love.

Simple to use
The app is aimed at anyone - of any age and gender who would like fashion inspiration at a single touch, anytime, anywhere.

Pick your events
Whether you’re going to the perfect job interview or you’ve been invited to the social event of the year, YourApparel can find an outfit for any occasion.

Outfit recommendations
YourApparel learns your tastes as you go, so the more you use it, the more it will suggest the outfits you love, it’s like your own personal shopper!

Manage your wardrobe
All the items in your YourApparel wardrobe can be tagged with different events like work, a wedding, an interview or a birthday party.

Download YourApparel - pick your style

Night Web Browser by Alex

Normally $0.99.

**Appointed to Top 5 Best Web Browsers for iPhone by iMore**

Night Web Browser by Alex is THE ONLY web browser that lets you DIM 100% of your screen, including the keyboard, status bar, web videos like YOUTUBE and INSTAGRAM, Facebook etc.

Do you think that your iPhone's/iPad's screen is too bright when you look at it in the dark?

Night Web Browser allows you to surf the web in the dark without disturbing the one next to you and without straining your eyes.

Perfect for you who love doing some browsing before sleep without the risk of waking the one next to you because of the bright iPhone screen.

Night Web Browser lets you dim the screen including the keyboard to even less brightness than the minimum standard iPhone/iPad setting. You can simply access the brightness control whenever you want with just one tap in the browser.

NOTE THAT ONLY CONTENTS IN THE WEB BROWSER CAN BE DIMMED, NOT THE ENTIRE iOS!

Features:
- Brightness control/Darkness boost
- Night mode with warmer color temperature
- Search instantly in the address field and choose from search results that instantly appear as you type
- Swipe for back/forward navigation like in Safari
- Bookmarks
- Modern minimal design
- 64-bit support

Download Night Web Browser by Alex

Angle Meter PRO

Normally $1.99.

Angle Meter PRO lets you measure the angle or slope. Note that you will be able to measure a variety of slope forms. You can choose to directly measure the surface by the second mode, which makes it relatively easy to measure up,or to measure the angle of the target away a short distance away from you after kilo meter. By measuring the angle from the camera aperture. This is a reference line, respectively, and the angles are measured while the display on your phone continuously. You also can take what you measure by showing the angle to keep a check on it later.

Featured
1) Real time display angle value reference by horizontal axis.
2) 2 mode for using(mode 1 and mode 2).
3) Support measure angles with the camera mode.
3.1) you can take screen short can be a target for record store at a later time.
4) Support the ability to measure the angle from the image.
5) Graphics Animation display related by mode.
6) Display 0 to 90 degree reference by horizontal axis.
7) Calibrate option for accuracy.

8) Support Level Meter allows you to measure the degree of tilt in the vertical plane and can take many forms. The measurements in each axis is locked to the screen, still more easy to measure.

***For Level Measurement
1) The three models at the same level. Including horizontal, vertical and inclined at 45 degrees.
2) Sound a warning when it finds that the measure in the horizontal plane. That is the angle measured in the plane is less than 1 degree (you can enable / disable this).
3) While the display is illuminated at all times, making the work easier (you can enable / disable this).

Download Angle Meter PRO

Super Space X

Normally $0.99.

In Super Space X you control the Intruder 53X, a spacecraft which carries a special load.

Dodge meteorites, laser rays and plasma balls to pass to the next level and achieve your goal but, be careful because the game it’s not easy at all. Scenes are designed for you to do your best at every second. You won’t have time to relax.

Get the different types of capsules that will help you to improve your scores and win the game.

- The red capsule will help you to destroy asteroids.
- The blue capsule will give you points and you could get your shield back.

The game has nine stages with a design that will complicate things to avoid you get your goals.

Super Space X is a game developed by Black Cube with music by Mr. Spastic, Gregoire Lourme and other artists.

Features:

- 9 scenes in which you can play and improve your scores.
- Pixel Art design.
- 60 constant FPS.
- Share your achievements using Game Center.
- Ultra-adjusted difficulty.
- Easy and intuitive control.
- Music by Mr. Spastic, Gregorio Lourme and other artists.

Download Super Space X

Universal Image Search Pro

Normally $0.99.

# Featured on Yahoo, AppShopper, 148Appps.com and many Top websites & Blogs !
# Best App to search image online .
# Rated 4+ star (Avg) by users .
# A powerful App to get Image from popular image sharing website and search engine in single App.
# Top best results from every Image sharing website at one place with just single click .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Some Reviews -

@This app is amazing,you can search a thing and find what you really want which one you want,
byFile vendergeli -Mar 24, 2016

@I like the way it is designed, very well done. Thanks.
byXiache - Mar 20, 2016

@Super App!!! Super Like!!! Excellent
bymarygrace128 - Jan 28, 2016

@Perfecta para buscar imágenes en varios buscadores
bypeterbox - Feb 16, 2016

@Excellent Image Search
excellent image search that use different search engines
byاليتيم - May 9, 2016

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Key feature of App:-
* Image from many website to in a single APP
* Search results from Google
* Search results from Bing
* Search results from Flickr
* Search results from Duckduckgo.com
** App show top results from search engine and show it within the app
* Save image to phone
* Easy to switch between search results
* Clear view of image , no text or other media
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advantage of this App:-
* Save a lot of time of User to Search Image on Internet
* Get the best results from different search engine and image sharing website
* Very less in size .so take less memory .
* User friendly Design
* Just Single Click to Switch Different Website Results .
* Write once in Search Text box , Universal Image Search will search for all Six Image Sharing Website .
* Very Easy way to Search Image Online .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you !!

Download Universal Image Search Pro


          TV ERA Macedonia      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   
Streaming online TV ERA Macedonia, channel General Live Streaming
          HR Manager (Macedonia, OH)      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

Summary:


The Human Resources (HR) Manager plans, coordinates, and evaluates the various services, policies, and programs of the HR department.  


Responsibilities:


Payroll, employee relations, union relations, benefits administration, 401K administration, onboarding, recruiting, HR metrics, and other tasks as assigned


Education/Experience:


Bachelor's degree in HR/accounting/business or equivalent combination of education and relevant experience


Knowledge of labor laws and HR best practices


Must have payroll experience


Union relations experience is preferred


Proficient in communication and interpersonal skills


Excellent active listening skills


Must be proficient with Microsoft Word, Excel, and Outlook


 


Salary DOE


Benefits including medical, dental, vision, 401K, and paid holidays 


Empire is an equal opportunity employer and all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability status, protected veteran status, or any other characteristic protected by law.


          NATO's top general visits candidate member Macedonia      Cache   Translate Page   Web Page Cache   

NATO's top general visits candidate member MacedoniaNATO's top military officer is visiting Macedonia, which hopes to join the alliance once a landmark deal with neighboring Greece to rename itself North Macedonia has been fully implemented. U.S. Army Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, NATO's supreme commander in Europe, congratulated Macedonia's leaders Thursday in the capital of Skopje for the country's "significant progress" in military reforms.





Next Page: 10000

Site Map 2018_01_14
Site Map 2018_01_15
Site Map 2018_01_16
Site Map 2018_01_17
Site Map 2018_01_18
Site Map 2018_01_19
Site Map 2018_01_20
Site Map 2018_01_21
Site Map 2018_01_22
Site Map 2018_01_23
Site Map 2018_01_24
Site Map 2018_01_25
Site Map 2018_01_26
Site Map 2018_01_27
Site Map 2018_01_28
Site Map 2018_01_29
Site Map 2018_01_30
Site Map 2018_01_31
Site Map 2018_02_01
Site Map 2018_02_02
Site Map 2018_02_03
Site Map 2018_02_04
Site Map 2018_02_05
Site Map 2018_02_06
Site Map 2018_02_07
Site Map 2018_02_08
Site Map 2018_02_09
Site Map 2018_02_10
Site Map 2018_02_11
Site Map 2018_02_12
Site Map 2018_02_13
Site Map 2018_02_14
Site Map 2018_02_15
Site Map 2018_02_15
Site Map 2018_02_16
Site Map 2018_02_17
Site Map 2018_02_18
Site Map 2018_02_19
Site Map 2018_02_20
Site Map 2018_02_21
Site Map 2018_02_22
Site Map 2018_02_23
Site Map 2018_02_24
Site Map 2018_02_25
Site Map 2018_02_26
Site Map 2018_02_27
Site Map 2018_02_28
Site Map 2018_03_01
Site Map 2018_03_02
Site Map 2018_03_03
Site Map 2018_03_04
Site Map 2018_03_05
Site Map 2018_03_06
Site Map 2018_03_07
Site Map 2018_03_08
Site Map 2018_03_09
Site Map 2018_03_10
Site Map 2018_03_11
Site Map 2018_03_12
Site Map 2018_03_13
Site Map 2018_03_14
Site Map 2018_03_15
Site Map 2018_03_16
Site Map 2018_03_17
Site Map 2018_03_18
Site Map 2018_03_19
Site Map 2018_03_20
Site Map 2018_03_21
Site Map 2018_03_22
Site Map 2018_03_23
Site Map 2018_03_24
Site Map 2018_03_25
Site Map 2018_03_26
Site Map 2018_03_27
Site Map 2018_03_28
Site Map 2018_03_29
Site Map 2018_03_30
Site Map 2018_03_31
Site Map 2018_04_01
Site Map 2018_04_02
Site Map 2018_04_03
Site Map 2018_04_04
Site Map 2018_04_05
Site Map 2018_04_06
Site Map 2018_04_07
Site Map 2018_04_08
Site Map 2018_04_09
Site Map 2018_04_10
Site Map 2018_04_11
Site Map 2018_04_12
Site Map 2018_04_13
Site Map 2018_04_14
Site Map 2018_04_15
Site Map 2018_04_16
Site Map 2018_04_17
Site Map 2018_04_18
Site Map 2018_04_19
Site Map 2018_04_20
Site Map 2018_04_21
Site Map 2018_04_22
Site Map 2018_04_23
Site Map 2018_04_24
Site Map 2018_04_25
Site Map 2018_04_26
Site Map 2018_04_27
Site Map 2018_04_28
Site Map 2018_04_29
Site Map 2018_04_30
Site Map 2018_05_01
Site Map 2018_05_02
Site Map 2018_05_03
Site Map 2018_05_04
Site Map 2018_05_05
Site Map 2018_05_06
Site Map 2018_05_07
Site Map 2018_05_08
Site Map 2018_05_09
Site Map 2018_05_15
Site Map 2018_05_16
Site Map 2018_05_17
Site Map 2018_05_18
Site Map 2018_05_19
Site Map 2018_05_20
Site Map 2018_05_21
Site Map 2018_05_22
Site Map 2018_05_23
Site Map 2018_05_24
Site Map 2018_05_25
Site Map 2018_05_26
Site Map 2018_05_27
Site Map 2018_05_28
Site Map 2018_05_29
Site Map 2018_05_30
Site Map 2018_05_31
Site Map 2018_06_01
Site Map 2018_06_02
Site Map 2018_06_03
Site Map 2018_06_04
Site Map 2018_06_05
Site Map 2018_06_06
Site Map 2018_06_07
Site Map 2018_06_08
Site Map 2018_06_09
Site Map 2018_06_10
Site Map 2018_06_11
Site Map 2018_06_12
Site Map 2018_06_13
Site Map 2018_06_14
Site Map 2018_06_15
Site Map 2018_06_16
Site Map 2018_06_17
Site Map 2018_06_18
Site Map 2018_06_19
Site Map 2018_06_20
Site Map 2018_06_21
Site Map 2018_06_22
Site Map 2018_06_23
Site Map 2018_06_24
Site Map 2018_06_25
Site Map 2018_06_26
Site Map 2018_06_27
Site Map 2018_06_28
Site Map 2018_06_29
Site Map 2018_06_30
Site Map 2018_07_01
Site Map 2018_07_02
Site Map 2018_07_03
Site Map 2018_07_04
Site Map 2018_07_05
Site Map 2018_07_06
Site Map 2018_07_07
Site Map 2018_07_08
Site Map 2018_07_09
Site Map 2018_07_10
Site Map 2018_07_11
Site Map 2018_07_12
Site Map 2018_07_13
Site Map 2018_07_14
Site Map 2018_07_15
Site Map 2018_07_16
Site Map 2018_07_17
Site Map 2018_07_18
Site Map 2018_07_19
Site Map 2018_07_20
Site Map 2018_07_21
Site Map 2018_07_22
Site Map 2018_07_23
Site Map 2018_07_24
Site Map 2018_07_25
Site Map 2018_07_26
Site Map 2018_07_27
Site Map 2018_07_28
Site Map 2018_07_29
Site Map 2018_07_30
Site Map 2018_07_31
Site Map 2018_08_01
Site Map 2018_08_02
Site Map 2018_08_03
Site Map 2018_08_04
Site Map 2018_08_05
Site Map 2018_08_06
Site Map 2018_08_07
Site Map 2018_08_08
Site Map 2018_08_09