Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Canceling God: Hanukkah and Cancel Culture
Perhaps no other story so perfectly epitomizes the fight for freedom of worship than the story of Hanukkah. Though celebrated by the Jewish people for centuries, this story cannot be found in our Bibles. In fact, it occurred in the years between the testaments, but its significance to both Jews and to Christians cannot be underestimated.
The heroic efforts of the Jewish family known to us as the Maccabees literally saved the Temple in Jerusalem and the right of the Jewish people to worship their God. If not for the willingness of these warriors to stand against an evil tyrant, the circumstances would not have existed for a baby to be born in a stable to a devout Jewish family, circumcised on the eighth day as required by Torah law, and raised in a Torah-observant manner that qualified him to be the perfect sinless sacrifice for very sinful people.
The enemies of God, both spiritual and physical, know that God must be canceled and that the best way to accomplish this is to cancel His word, which is ultimate truth, and to cancel a people group dedicated to representing Him on this earth. The story of Hanukkah was not the first time that the enemies of God tried to cancel Him, and it is certainly not the last. We are living in a time when cancel culture has been intensifying exponentially. Make no mistake about it, cancel culture in the United States is not about canceling misogyny, racism, colonialism, homophobia, or even hate. It is about canceling God.
The United States is the only nation in the history of the world that was founded on Judeo-Christian foundations — these foundations include the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They include freedom of speech, freedom to worship in the manner you see fit, freedom to defend yourself, limited government— basically most of what is set forth in our founding documents. Our founders turned to God’s word, both the older and the newer testaments when establishing our nation. We have been a nation that, up until very recently, has defined itself as a Judeo-Christian nation that worshipped the God of Israel. Any attempt to cancel the foundations that our nation was built on is an attempt to cancel God. If we don’t recognize the ancient spiritual nature of our battle, we cannot fight it. I believe that in order to stand against these destructive spiritual forces, we can learn much from the powerful historical account of the story of Hanukkah.
Much of what we know about Hanukkah is recorded in the writings of Flavius Josephus, a first-century Roman-Jewish historian. As a thoughtful exercise in comparisons, I am going to use quotes from Josephus’ writings to identify themes of cancel culture that existed well over 2,000 years ago and still persist to this day. I have identified the quotes of Josephus by underlining them. By no means will I cover all of the points of similarity. I welcome readers’ feedback in identifying other relevant comparisons.
The story of Hanukkah is set in 167 BCE after the death of Alexander the Great who conquered the lands of the kings of Media-Persia. He ruled the world for 12 years and upon his deathbed, he divided his kingdom among four of his generals. These generals and their descendants each ruled a part of the great Greek empire.
A descendant of one of these generals was named Antiochus Epiphanies, the King of Syria. The realm of this particular king included Judea– Israel. Interestingly, Antiochus Epiphanes is not an actual name. It is a title that means “God Manifested.” Keeping this title in mind is critical for understanding the goals and objectives of tyrants like Antiochus.
The goal of King Antiochus was not just military; his goal was also to conquer cultures–to impose the Greek culture upon all nations in his realm. He wanted unity in his kingdom and required that everyone give up their traditions and adopt a Greek way of life. Many conquered nations fell in line with the Greek culture. Even in Judea, there were many Jews who wanted to adopt the Greek culture.
Josephus: Thus, they desired his (The King’s ) permission to build them a Gymnasium at Jerusalem. (A Gymnasium was a place where people exercised naked.) And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greek. “Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their country and imitated the practices of the other nations. “
Many Jews were more than willing to assimilate into the Greek culture–even to the point of engaging in medical procedures to “hide” their circumcision. That was intense assimilation. There is no more effective way to cancel an entire culture, an entire people group, than through assimilation. It is generally much easier and less messy than physical force, although often when assimilation doesn’t work, physical force is used. The history of the Jewish people is one of either persecution for remaining a separate and set apart people or “relative” peace by assimilating– getting swallowed up by their “host” nation.
But remember, God called Israel to be a separate and holy nation unto Himself. In Hebrew, “holy” means “to be set apart.” Their set-apartness was part of God’s plan to redeem the entire world. They were not to assimilate. If they become just one of the other nations, it would be impossible for them to be a light to these nations.
Similarly, we as God’s people are not to assimilate into the world. We are not to forsake our God-given “culture” in order to fit in with the rest of the world or even for the purpose of avoiding persecution.
Today, we are facing these same pressures to assimilate. Adopting the behaviors of a dominant or coercive culture is not enough to satisfy its leaders. They must insist that everyone think and believe in the same way that they do too. King Antiochus could not afford to allow people to think in ways that threatened his authority and power– that threatened his position as God manifested. Our modern-day gods must also control the thoughts and minds of the people– censoring opposing opinions, or as we now call it — “fact-checking” those thoughts and ideas.
Thought crimes have always been the target of tyrants. Today, it is not enough for us to accept the behavior of those who go against God’s natural design for men and women, we must now champion it. We are deemed racists if we believe that skin color alone does not determine if one is the oppressor or the oppressed. We are not even allowed to believe in natural immunity acquired by those who have had a virus and recovered. And most disturbing, we are called science deniers if we think that boys cannot magically become girls based on their personal desires.
There’s another interesting part of the story as told by Josephus:
When the King and his army first came to Jerusalem, “he took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gate to him.” And when he had gotten possession of Jerusalem, he killed many of the opposite party and plundered the city.
Cancel culture cannot exist without its adherents installed in places of power and influence “within the city.” Those of us labeled as conspiracy theorists call this phenomenon in the US the “deep state.” To the dismay of so many of us in America, we have discovered just how many leftist ideological soldiers have “opened the gate” to this cancel culture nonsense in our government, our schools, our medical profession, even in our houses of faith. We have discovered that these deeply entrenched soldiers of the totalitarian faith are the Trojan horse in our midst.
Josephus: Then the King’s army left and came back two years later. This time when the king came up to Jerusalem, he pretended peace and by doing so got possession of the city by treachery.
As Ronald Reagan once so brilliantly surmised: The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help. The entire Covid response has been one of treachery and deceit with the government and its proxies in the established media claiming the mantle of peace, health, wisdom, and ultimate truth. For those committed to the totalitarian faith, deception serves a higher purpose; therefore, they “will not let a good crisis go to waste.” If it advances their cause to overlook the fact that the Covid “vaccines” do not actually keep people from getting or spreading the disease, this deception is valid and useful and not likely to ever go away.
Josephus: At which time (after entering the city) he spared not so much as those that had admitted him into it.
Eventually, those who engage in treachery will turn on their own. I am amazed at how many white male CEOs have run to a podium to denounce other white males as racists just by their very existence of being white and male. These attempts to appease the woke mob will be supremely self-destructive in the end.
Josephus continues: On account of the riches that lay in the temple, led by his covetous inclinations (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value.) In order to plunder its wealth, he broke the league he made (with those of his party).
Ahhhh……. Greed. The root of all evil. Who is making money or gaining power based on the creation or exploitation of a crisis– be it a racial crisis or a health crisis? As our general population suffers, many well-positioned elites remain unscathed by their own policies.
Josephus: So he left the temple bare and took away the golden candlesticks and the golden altar of incense and the table of showbread and the altar of burnt offering and did not abstain from even the veils which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures and left nothing at all remaining …He also burned down the finest buildings…
The goal of cancel culture is always “to leave nothing at all remaining.” No buildings, no businesses, no statues, no traditional institutions.
Josephus: He compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God and to adore those whom he took to be gods
Can anyone think of a self-declared god of science that we are all supposed to adore and obey?
Josephus: He appointed overseers who should compel them to do what he commanded.
Often the government either finds or compels others to do its dirty work. CEOs of major corporations come to mind, particularly media entities.
Josephus: He forbade them to offer their daily sacrifices which they used to offer to according to the law….He made them build temples and idol altars in every city and village and offer swine upon them every day
The daily sacrifices of the Jews were part of their worship practices. Tyrants will quickly close down and prosecute religious worship, as we saw with the forced closing of churches and synagogues. Conveniently, pagan worship is encouraged as we learned that we could still purchase alcohol and marijuana, and we could all engage in the sacrament of abortion throughout the pandemic shutdowns. In the same way, false worship at the altar of CRT has been forced on thousands of employees during training classes at woke corporations.
Josephus: He compelled them not to circumcise their sons and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction.
In the case of Antiochus, he compelled the Jews not to engage in a physical procedure on their bodies. In the case of governments around the world in 2021, tyranny in the form of an invasive medical procedure is the modern practice of the day.
Josephus: And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king’s commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was pronounced
Fear is the source of tyrannical control and the tool of cancel culture both in 167 BCE and in 2021. Fear is cultivated by tyrants and used to control the people. The good news is that tyranny and fear did not win in the Hanukkah story. The courage of just a few faithful and righteous followers of the God of Israel was enough to turn the tide then and it is enough to turn the tide now.
If you want to know the rest of the story and learn how these faithful few successfully defeated one of the greatest efforts in history to cancel God, I encourage you to read the account of Hanukkah in the writings of Josephus, which can be found online. Or you can search “Torah Talk Podcast” on all major podcast apps and listen to Cancelling God: What Hanukkah can teach us about cancel culture.
And I look forward to hearing from you about other ideas that may have been sparked by the words of Josephus.
Published in Religion & Philosophy
That is news to me.
See above.
Is that all you have?
I don’t know. Occam’s Razor, I guess, plus the grand total of zero quotations from the Apocrypha in the NT. (Or did I miss a quotation?) And the occasional reference to the OT Scriptures in ways that apparently reference the entire Tanakh but not the Apocrypha. (Although I have learned of interesting objections to that last one!)
I believe the canon as a whole wasn’t formally defined until Trent, in response to the challenge of the Reformation.
My point was to clarify that it was not a 2-step process, where the protocanonical books were formally recognized at one council and then the the deuterocanonical books were added by a later council. The whole list was drawn up by the earliest councils, and repeated over the centuries, and then Trent came along and said “this is our final answer.”
Well said. I guess I shouldn’t be thinking of the difference in terms of formality.
Maybe I should use the term “settled.” The status of the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha was settled later. That seems to fit your NewAdvent citation well enough. (I think it also fits my # 34, which seems to be where this dialogue started, well enough, although it would seem to be rather clearer language.)
Aren’t they called “deutero” because they are the writings from the second temple period?
Not that I know of, but the list of things I don’t know is pretty long.
I don’t know how long. That’s one of the things on the list.
I don’t know either, but I don’t think we can rely on their name as evidence for their being canonized as an afterthought.
They are late writings, so their being “second” canon could be virtue of when they were written as much as when they were accepted.
I found the answers to these and other questions here.
The site contains a lot of interesting information about Josephus.
I wasn’t relying on their name as evidence.
Their name, to my knowledge, is a reminder of what we already know: that the Catholics recognize their canonicity as having been settled later.
What do you mean that’s all I have? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John and the others quoted from the Septuagint. The Septuagint included the deuterocanonical books. There is no evidence they rejected them. If anything Occam’s Razor says they accepted them.
I answered this Go back to my comment #41. Quoted from Wikipedia that the deuterocanonical books were settled officially at Council of Rome in 382:
Wikipedia link is in comment 41. St. Jerome included all 73 books in the Vulgate. So for 1100 years (from roughly 400 to Luther roughly 1500) everyone accepted the deuterocanonical books. That’s a span roughly from Moses to Christ. That’s pretty authoritative if you ask me. And St. Augustine, you name sake, endorsed it. ;)
But accepted them as what? As reasonable, or right, or containing some truth? Or the inerrant inspired word of God?
For a start, you recently liked the post where I explained the theory that all you have is entirely wrong.
And then there’s your apparent assumption that if the Septuagint is taken as Scripture then so must be the Apocrypha:
Really? Did it? I don’t know that. I know they were copied together, but I don’t know that one was recognized as part of the same text as the other.
I don’t answer to him either.
But why don’t you go back to # 41? And to # 37. Try to remember what we were talking about. NT canonicity was settled before it was official. And if an agreement of African bishops–who Augustine would be first to remind you do not constitute the whole church–plus a council in Rome makes it official, it still wasn’t “elevated . . . to dogma” until much later.
So go back to # 37 and see if you can follow my point yet.
Feel free to discount them. But the apostles didn’t and it was carried forward. This was the Bible for the early Christians until a translation was needed, and they based the translations on the Septuagint.
I don’t know what you’re trying to argue over. The Church had established all 72 books as canonical at the Council of Rome in 382. In the subsequent couple of decades it was definined in the Eastern side of Christianity as well. It was accepted by all for the next 1100+ years. No one in the Christian world disputed using the Septuagint. Perhaps they disputed what the Septuagint contained, but the Septuagint was the Christian standard. 1100 years is about from Moses to Christ. That’s pretty defined. That’s as authoritative as it gets in the pre printing press world.
I’m baffled as to what you’re trying to say. The canon was defined 1100 years before Luther.
I’m arguing that your point above does not carry any weight. If a canon can be settled before there’s an official list put out by the church, then a Jewish canon be settled before there’s an official list put out by the Rabbis.
Now this is a pretty good argument. But it seems like you’re discounting the fact that the canonicity of these texts was not settled at the same time (or to the same degree) or in the same way as the other texts (see the NewAdvent citation in # 54).
Moreover, if it appears that the Jews at the time of Jesus did not recognize these texts as Scripture, then I don’t know why we should disagree with them.
Neither does anyone dispute using the English translations. That doesn’t make the English translations the same thing as the original canon. It makes them acceptable/accepted translations. And if, for a few centuries, English-speaking Christians all accepted the KJV, that doesn’t mean the letter of dedication to King James that was printed along with it was also Scripture.
In other words, you’re still assuming that recognition or use of the Septuagint guarantees recognition of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon. I don’t know that that is the case, and you have given me no reason to think that is the case. I only know that they were copied together, but I don’t know that one was recognized as part of the same text as the other.
Let me address both your last comments here. First I was unfortunately ambiguous in what I just highlighted. I was referring to the differences between the Eastern Orthodox having a few extra books in their Septuagint, not anything to do with the translations. Sorry about that. The next phrase was the gist of my point: “But the Septuagint was the Christian standard.”
Which is what you’re disputing in your second paragraph. OK, so you don’t accept the NT writers all choosing the Septuagint, you don’t accept the various Church councils authorizing the Septuagint (and which other Church Councils do you not accept?), you don’t accept all the Apostolic Churches using the Septuagint as canon, and you don’t accept 1100 years of unchallenged precedent, then where did the Holy Spirit go wrong? After all Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all led to the Septuagint. Christ says “But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth” (Jn 16:13 and elsewhere). Did the Holy Spirit lead the Gospel writers astray? After all, the Hebrew texts could have been available to them. It would not have required heroic effort for them to go to them. They were available at the Temple.
And before you say, it didn’t matter which translation they went to, yes it did. By directing all four to the Septuagint it established the prayers for the dead and therefore purgatory as dogma. All four is not an accident. Did the Holy Spirit after just some twenty to thirty years after Christ’s crucifixion guide the NT writers incorrectly?
I’m pretty sure I’m not disputing that the Septuagint (LXX) was the Christian standard, but I suppose I might just have no idea what you mean by that.
And maybe it’s better to leave out the word disputing.
But I doubt that the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon actually is part of the Septuagint.
Once again, I think it likely that few NT authors (indeed, none except Luke) actually quoted the LXX more than once or twice, if that.
Yes, and they quoted them.
You recently liked the post where I explained this view.
I’m not discounting them. I’m asking, again, are they God-inspired and inerrant. That’s all. I don’t think anyone’s answered this question.
Oh I never imagined that’s what you were referring to. That’s why it kept going over my head. I have never heard otherwise. Where do you see anything to suggest they were not part of it? I’m certainly not a history of the Bible scholar, but I have not come across that anywhere.
Who would be the authority to declare that? I would say as I said to St.A: (1) NT writers used them over the Hebrew texts, (2) Council of Rome in 382 affirmed them and followed by the other Apostolic Churches, and (3) 1100 years of unchallenged precedent. If they are included in the Bible they would be “God-inspired,” so Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptics, and the other Apostolic Churches must consider them so. I know we Catholics do.
I didn’t read it all. I’ll have to go back. It was pretty long though. What passages did they quote from the Hebrew?
I was just curious. You say that they are God-inspired and inerrant. Okay.
Where do you see anything to suggest they were part of it?
But as for the idea that they weren’t–Ockam’s Razor ain’t a bad place to start. But since the LXX is a translation of Scriptures, and since OT Scriptures are abundantly used in the NT, then we have at least two other reasons of some interest:
–the grand total of zero quotations from the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon in the NT. (Or did I miss a quotation?)
–the occasional reference to the OT Scriptures in ways that apparently reference the entire Tanakh but not the Apocrypha. (Although I have learned of interesting objections to that last one!)
I disagree. You recently liked the post where I explained this view.
All of them.
Or very nearly all.
Or very nearly all outside of Luke and Acts.
You’re using the wrong paradigm to understand this.
St A, I’ve been spending all my free time today learning about the history of the various Bibles. I have to admit to you it is more complicated than I have outlined in this thread. I’m going to write up the complications in a post, but it may take me a little while and possibly not by tonight. First let me address our questions here.
Yes, there are quotations or references from the Hebrew OT, referred to as the Masoretic Text, but the statistics I found are the following. Of the several hundred quotes and references in the NT, 20% are in common between the Septuagint and Masoretic. Of the 80% which are different, 90% are from the Septuagint and 10% are from the Masoretic. I wonder if the NT writers were sometimes using their memory of a phrase since 10% isn’t all that much. But it is not exclusively Septuagint. On that I can see then how you might hold to your position.
As to Occam’s razor, no, I still think Occam’s Razor supports the Septuagint. There are lots of OT books the NT didn’t quote from. Because they didn’t quote from the deuterocanonical ones doesn’t mean anything. The Septuagint was a bundle of all the books, so Occam’s razor would say if they relied on the bulk of that bundle, then the entire bundle was accepted.
Here’s a major fact I learned today which expanded my perception and perhaps alters some of my rationales, but I still believe the Septuagint should be the Christian text of the OT. In the third century AD, Judaism only established the canon of books, which books Judaism holds as scripture, not the official text. But it did not agree on which of the variations of the texts was canonical, and given the loss of Hebrew it made the composition not so easy and straight forward. The official Hebrew text was fixed centuries later, in the 9th century, known as the Masoretic Text. What we have as the Masoretic texts were an assimilation of old manuscripts and oral tradition composed hundreds of years later. So let me work on my comment that brings all this together.
I only liked it to be courteous. ;) I didn’t intend to imply I agreed with it. I’ll have to read it.