Wednesday, June 8, 2022

The God Culture: 2nd Esdras: The Hidden Book of Prophecy Book Review Part 2

Having examined Timothy Jay Schwab's "Torah Test" for 1st and 2nd Esdras and finding it weighed in the balance and wanting let us now pour over the marginal notes he has added to the text. Like his edition of Jubilees Tim has has annotated the text in an attempt to clarify its meaning and give his unique interpretation. The result is a mishmash of historical errors and heresy.


Take note that Tim declares in the book's description on both Shopee and Amazon:

We are not scholars and this is an educated layman's view of 1st and 2nd Esdras which many will find more valuable than most scholarly approaches. This work will teach and draw conclusions. 

https://shopee.ph/2nd-Esdras-The-Hidden-Book-of-Prophecy-i.345342921.11520349945?position=5

Before diving into the text itself it is necessary to point out that Tim has altered it just as he did the text of Jubilees. Except this time instead of simply inserting his alleged Hebrew name for God, Yahuah, Tim has also taken every proper name that begins with a "J" and replaced it with "Y." Here is an example.

1 Esdras 5:5 The Priests the sons of Phinehas, the son of Aaron: Yahusha the son of Yozadak, the son of Seraiah, and Yoakim the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel of the house of David, out of the kindred of Phares, of the tribe of Yahudah;

Replacing God with Yahuah here is even more egregious than in Jubilees becasue there are no Hebrew texts available for these works which he can compare. His replacement is disingenuous and can in nowise be called accurate. It reflects his biases about  the usage of the divine name, biases for which the Dead Sea Scroll Community would have him excommunicated. His replacing of Y for J in every instance of a proper name reeks of Hebrew Roots, a movement to which Tim is no stranger. It comes off as pretentious. If he wants to speak Hebrew then he should stop speaking English and not mix the two. Stop pretending already. Likewise, if he wants to translate the document a particular way he should do that rather than amend an already existing translation. He is standing on the shoulders of men whom he despises.

Timothy has also retained the marginal notes from the original King James translation. That means for the verse cited above, 1 Esdras 5:5, we learn that the text is corrupt.

Yoachim and Zorobabel. This place is corrupt: For Yoachim was the son of Yosedech, Neh.12:10 and not Zorobabel, who was of the tribe of Yahudah. 

Here Tim tacitly admits that the book of 1st Esdras contains corruptions in the text. So why continue to use it? How is a corrupt text inspired scripture?

One note Tim has sprinkled throughout the text is "Messiah quoted 2 Esdras." This is actually not true. The most disingenuous instance of this lie is found at 2nd Esdras 1:30:

Cf. Mt.23:37- 38. Messiah quoted 2 Esdras. Note: This is the 1611 Original Authorized KJV Footnote both in 2 Esd. and M 

This is a lie. The footnotes at 2nd Esdras 1:30 and Matt. 23:37 in the original 1611 KJV are as follows:

Neither at this verse nor the corresponding verse in Matthew do the translators indicate that Jesus Christ cited from 2nd Esdras. It is merely a referent because both verses are similar. In fact, there are three verses referenced at Matthew 23:37. Interestingly Luke 13:34, which is similar to Matthew 23:37 and 2nd Esdras 1:30, does not have a reference to Esdras.

https://archive.org/details/1611TheAuthorizedKingJamesBible/page/n1301/mode/2up

Why is this? Was Jesus quoting 2nd Esdras in Matthew but not in Luke? Tim does not discuss or acknowledge this anomaly. Luke 13:34 does not even show up in the book! This just goes to show that Tim's research is not exhaustive. He misses so many things.

We know that Jesus never cited 2nd Esdras or Jubilees or any other apocryphal book because Jesus always begins his scripture citations with, "It is written" or, "you have heard it is said." When Jesus is quoting scripture he lets his hearers know. This is important because He came to fulfill the scriptures and when he cites scriptures he is letting us know that he is fulfilling them. At no point do His alleged citations of 2nd Esdras follow that pattern.

At 2nd Esdras 7:28 there is an alleged prophecy of Jesus' birth and resurrection. Tim's note reads:
Messianic Prophecy: The only exact prophecy of Messiah’s birth by His name Yahusha and around 0 BC. Messianic Prophecy: Yahusha’s death predicted. 
If this book was written by Ezra around 400 B.C. and not after the destruction of the temple then why is this prophecy never brought up in the Gospels? Tim does not say. He has no answer. He does not bring it up in his introduction or Torah Test except to assume its genuineness without actually proving it. There are many prophecies of the birth and origin of the Messiah brought up in the Gospels but this one from 2nd Esdras is missing. It is not mentioned in Matthew 2:4 when Herod inquired about where the Christ would be born. Instead of looking for a child with a specific name as given in 2nd Esdras, Herod slaughters all the children under the age of two. This is an indication of its late date and Christian interpolation. This interpolation is also what explains 2nd Esdras 1:30 and the other passages similar to the Gospels.

This passage is also never used in any apologetic work from the early church or indeed any period of the church. Its absence is another testimony to its spuriousness and inauthenticity.

Three of Timothy's notes on the text are blatantly heretical and blasphemous.

2nd Esdras 3:2 
Yahuah and Yahusha created. Though we leave this insertion, it was not clear to the translators and this cannot overturn precedence. There were 2 Creators as Genesis refers to them as “Us” and “Our” and John 1 is clear Messiah  created too. Elohim is plural. Elohim made not  just El. 

This note is a denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirt, His role in creation, and the Trinity. It is also polytheistic as Tim says here "there were 2 Creators." There was only one creator who is God. But God is triune and all His works are done from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit. That is the doctrine of the Trinity in a nutshell, i.e. three divine persons sharing one divine nature and working in concert. That Tim says there are 2 Creators shows he simply has no idea who Jesus and the Father are or what their proper relationship is.


2nd Esdras 7:1 

Elohim is a classification of heavenly being not exclusive to Yahuah and is plural. 

The blasphemous idea that God is one of a class of heavenly beings comes from Dr. Micheal Heiser who teaches: 

The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly - a pantheon - of other gods. 

The Unseen Realm, pg. 11
The fact is God is neither a member of a class of beings or part of a pantheon of other gods. He is the creator of all being and stands outside all being because all things live and move and have their being in Him. This doctrine equates God with His creatures and embraces polytheism. It is absolutely heretical.

2nd Esdras 15:23 

In all of scripture Hell is an immediate burning with eternal fire. Esdras clarifies this is and  [sic] immediate burning and their spirits are gone forever. Straw burns quickly and disappears 

This is the heretical doctrine of annihilationism. That means Tim denies there is an eternal punishment for sinners in a lake of fire as the Bible teaches. Instead their spirits burn up and "are gone forever." Tim further elaborates on this in the comments section of his videos by saying that hell is an event and not an eternal torture.

Hell is an event not an eternal torture. Agreed. We have not entered the Flat Earth debate. Yah Bless.
It is not true that Timothy Jay Schwab and The God Culture "have not entered the Flat Earth Debate." They say much about it espousing the view that a flat earth is the correct biblical perspective.
2nd Esdras 6:1 Or, circle of the earth. Note: A circle is 2- dimensional. The ancient perspective was not that of a sphere. 
I have written elsewhere at length about Timothy's flat earth teachings. 

In 2nd Esdras 11 Tim interprets the final world empire which will rule the world as being the Holy Roman Empire.
pg. 131

It would be too much to discuss point-by-point Tim's interpretation of this prophecy but I do want to focus on what he has to say about the Holy Roman Empire. It appears that Timothy Jay Schwab has no idea what the Holy Roman Empire is. In his introduction he says that Constantine is the origin, founder essentially, of the Holy Roman Empire.

“They established such pattern from the beginning when Constantine essentially declared Turkey as the seat of the new Roman Empire. He is the origin of the Holy Roman Empire (Final Empire) as he established the control religion that remains the largest in the world to this day.” 

P. 54

Whether origin or founder Constantine had nothing at all to do with the Holy Roman Empire which was founded in 800 A.D. by Charlemagne. It appears that Tim thinks the Vatican is the Holy Roman Empire. Tim's diagram says the Vatican remains to the end and in his videos he has talked about Constantine founding the Catholic Church. In one video he claims Constantine founded the Roman Empire.
1:15:07 ...Constantine the Great, you know the guy that founded the Roman Empire.

This is a statement that beggars belief in its astounding depth of ignorance. It also does not appear to be misspoken.

In another video he says the Catholic Church founded the Holy Roman Empire.

1:02:36 Yes, the Catholic Church founded the Holy Roman Empire. That's a pretty serious thing for a church to claim in history. For a Pope to really be the power behind an entire empire which killed, stole, and destroyed from many. 

Gog of Magog Attacks: FRESH REVELATION: Lost Tribes Series 5: Who is Gog?

In that same video he claims that Josephus founded the Catholic Church which logically would mean that Josephus is the founder and origin of the Holy Roman Empire and not Constantine.

47:38 So, yes Josephus founded that, what became the Catholic Church. 

Gog of Magog Attacks: FRESH REVELATION: Lost Tribes Series 5: Who is Gog?

Whatever the case Tim is wrong on all three points. Constantine did not found the Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire, the Catholic Church did not found the Holy Roman Empire, and Josephus did not found the Catholic Church.  

Tim appears to have a simplistic view of the complexeties of the Middle Ages and the roles of church and state. I would wager that he has never heard of the Investiture Controversy. To think the Pope has any considerable political power today is laughable. The powers that control world finance, the media, politics, science, education, and all the rest are part of a many armed creature. There is no single group controlling it all. There are many groups and they all collude with one another. Tim hits on this idea by noting that communism was financed by the West. That is very true yet most people are unaware of this fact. 

Now let's look at Tim's progression of world empires. Funny enough he ignores the Ottoman and Mongol empires and places emphasis on the West. It appears that the Holy Roman Empire was first. The British Empire came second. Next comes the USA which will eventually be "devoured by the Vatican" so that only the Holy Roman Empire will remain standing. But what happened to the British Empire? The USA took over her duties.

2nd Esdras 11:34 Britain essentially transferred its empire into the "New Atlantis" of the U.S.

There is a lot packed into that note many might not understand. Francis Bacon wrote a book about a utopian society called The New Atlantis. Occultists such as Manly P. Hall have referred to the USA as The New Atlantis. As the sun was setting on the British Empire the Milner Group, particularly Lionel Curtis, advocated that the U.S. must rejoin the British Commonwealth and that the Commonwealth must evolve into a World Government. That is all true and well documented in Caroll Quigley's Anglo-American Establishment as well as Tragedy and Hope. Likewise, The Pilgrim's Society sought to strengthen ties between the USA and the United Kingdom in the name of clandestine global hegemony. But I am not quite sure that is what Tim means because in his book "The Search for King Solomon's Treasure" he writes:

However, even in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, the United States is defined as part of the Holy Roman Empire to which the King of England remained Prince Elector and the Americans signed it too confirming such but under their British titles still servants of the crown. One cannot separate the two powers regardless of what narratives we have accepted.

The Search for King Solomon's Treasure, pg 212

I will not waste time breaking down all the errors in this passage. Suffice to say the USA was never part of the Holy Roman Empire nor did Americans remain "servants of the crown." What is important to note here is that Tim thinks the USA was never independent but that it was all for show. According to him the USA has been part of the Holy Roman Empire ever since 1783. Since Tim believes the Holy Roman Empire is the Vatican that makes the following note nonsensical.

2nd Esdras 11:35. The U.S. will be devoured by the Vatican

If the USA was declared part of the Holy Roman Empire in the Treaty of Paris in 1783 then this has already happened. Tim's prophetic chronology is thus not in sync and this is because of the historical errors he makes especially in his misidentification of the Holy Roman Empire.

Vatican II has steadily eroded the power and legitimacy of the Catholic Church for the past 50 years now. It is an ecumenical and immoral mess at the moment with an outright heretic, Pope Francis, currently leading her. Aside from that the current destruction and dismantling the USA is undergoing is the same as that of Western Europe and it has nothing to do with the Vatican and everything to do with Jews in academia and the government who have created the current cultural climate over decades using the media which they control. See The Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald for more information on that point.

The major reason Timothy Jay Schwab teaches 2nd Esdras is scripture is because he thinks it proves his pre-flood cosmology and the route of the Lost Tribes to the Philippines. 

Throughout the text, we expound on the antediluvian cosmology including the Rivers from Eden, chart the vision of the Eagle Empire with our interpretation, and most especially, we provide a foundation in creating maps using 2nd Esdras along with other scripture and history to locate the Lost Tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. If this book was written between 70 A.D. and 218 A.D. as some scholars assert, it still remains an incredibly valuable tool in these respects though we will prove that date wrong. This restored knowledge is full of revelation – too full to ignore and too accurate to minimize.

pg. 12

Let's briefly take a look at that cosmology and the route of the Lost Tribes.

On page 103 Tim has this picture:

p. 103

"The World Ocean was formed by the flood" is such a nonsensical statement that does not explain the diversity of fresh and salt water marine life on the planet. Also if the Rivers from Eden are now ocean trenches then identifying them in the Bible as if the people were familiar with them would be unintelligible. I have written about this at length in another article where I disprove Tim's claim that Daniel was ever in Susa.  

From pages 139-145 Tim has maps to show the alleged migratory routes of the Lost Tribes. There is absolutely nothing new here as he has mapped all this out in his videos and in his previous book "The Search of King Solomon's Treasure." If he thinks Israelites devolved into Negroes, Kurds, and Filipinos that is all fine and dandy. Many people have attempted to track the Lost Tribes but no one has ever found them. Tim thinks that there are residual traces of ancient Hebrew in Philippine place names which proves that there are Lost Tribes here but I have quashed that supposition in another article.

It's really the same old misinterpretations going on with Ferrisol, Pomponius Mela, Dinoysius the Tourist, and the Periplus of the Erythean Sea being touted and twisted to prove Tim's case. As I have proved elsewhere by actually citing him, something Timothy does not do, Abraham Farrisol does not locate the Lost Tribes anywhere near the Philippines. However in this book Tim gives us something new by labeling the Behaim Map of 1492.

pg. 143

In his sourcebook Tim did label a few of the scattered islands on this map as various Philippine Islands but he did not label the two peninsulas as he does here. These peninsulas are both mislabeled. Burma is actually the "aurea chersonese" or Golden Peninsula which is the Malay Peninsula. What Tim has labeled the Malay Peninsula is known as the Dragon's Tail.

The Dragon's Tail is a modern name for the phantom peninsula in southeast Asia which appeared in medieval Arabian and Renaissance European world maps. It formed the eastern shore of the Great Gulf (Gulf of Thailand) east of the Golden Chersonese (Malaysia), replacing the "unknown lands" which Ptolemy and others had thought surrounded the "Indian Sea".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Tail_(peninsula) 

If Tim had actually put in the research he claims he has then he would not have made this colossal boner. Thomas Suarez discusses the Dragon's Tail at length in the eighth chapter of "Early Mapping of Southeast Asia" which is a book Tim has cited in his research. Has he even read that book or just cherry picked a few paragraphs to support his claims? I have pointed this out to him several times in my articles so he cannot be ignorant about the Dragon's Tail. He likely just ignored this fact. If so, that is not merely bad scholarship but total dishonesty. 

Timothy Jay Schwab's research is not reliable at all. This close look at his new book over two articles has revealed error after error. No wonder Tim admits, "We are not scholars." However, there is nothing educated about this layman's view of 1st and 2nd Esdras. The fact is Timothy Jay Schwab is not a trained historian or geographer or linguist or an expert in any field concerning the Bible or ancient history. He is first and foremost an adman with his college degree being in marketing. Tim is basically Don Draper and only a fool would seriously receive a theological education from Don Draper.

To end this review I want to take a look at Tim's new website to promote this book. Just like all his other websites he has my blog name concealed beneath a picture of him and his second wife.


https://www.2esdras.org/about

Why is this? Does he really think that people search for my blog by name or that it will redirect traffic to him? The fact is Tim is very paranoid about me and my blog. He is so paranoid that he is even rude to commenters on his videos because he thinks anyone contrarian must be me.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8MyNjBZld4&lc=UgwEQ0EtFCPMJiUUFe14AaABAg
We take such hits every hour and usually just delete them because we know it's the same blogger and his associates. We did not delete you. Your opinion is welcomed but if ever we have a sense one is that blogger, we do not allow him to pollute our stream. He has connections inside YT and FB and they censor our regular subs not even notifying them nor posting their comments at times yet they always allow those trolls in. You may raise questions just don't get offended if we sense you are one of those trolls because we don't roll over for them. Yah Bless.
What associates is he talking about? The man really thinks I make sock puppet accounts to comment on his videos and that I have connections inside Facebook and Youtube. That is ludicrous. What else is ludicrous is how Tim goes on and on about Youtube censoring him for not notifying his subscribers. Many people have this problem. Here is a Youtube video on how to fix it. It has nothing to do with censorship.

Though I have not received any papers yet I am aware that Tim has filed a case against me for libel and is hoping to see me in jail soon.

The Hanukkah HOAX? Is This Biblical? Time to test.
NOTE: Some have actually come in claiming March is not Winter. This is likely an illiterate blogger who just can't read and understands very little of anything yet still writes illiterate and illegal trash which is all he appears capable. He will likely be in jail soon anyway as he is a criminal.

Imagine an American calling someone a criminal because of their opinions! He says that in order to dismiss rather than engage with me. When advertising his books Tim claims that in four years no one has made a single dent in his case. That is not true as for the past year and a half I have systematically broken down his videos and books, revealing Tim to be a man who misinterprets, twists, and ignores information. In short I have definitively and repeatedly proven Timothy Jay Schwab to be a heretic and a liar. He does not like that so in order to silence me he has threatened me with a lawsuit and jail time. If Tim ever does see me in court he will quickly realize the mistake he has made as I am nothing like the phantom over whom he obsesses. 

at No comments:

The God Culture: 2nd Esdras: The Hidden Book of Prophecy Book Review Part 1

Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture has published a new book. Instead of another lesson about the  history of the Philippines it is an annotated version of 1st and 2nd Esdras. This is the second volume of his Levite Bible project, the goal of which is to publish the Scriptures as they were kept at Qumran, i.e. the Dead Sea Scrolls. 

Reading through the introduction one can see it's really the same old stuff from his videos and previously annotated Book of Jubilees. There is a lot of rehashing going on. But there is a lot of new material too. 2nd Esdras is important to The God Culture's historical and prophetical scheme because Timothy uses it to chart the alleged path of the Lost Tribes to Africa, Central Asia, and the Philippines. It is his belief that Negroes, Kurds, and Filipinos are actually Israelites and that Filipinos and Kurds will literally fight the anti-Christ in Jerusalem during the end times as they are the Two Witnesses spoken of in Revelation. A cursory reading of the introduction reveals the usual mangled syntax, prideful tone against scholars, and historical errors. Let's take a look.

https://www.paperturn-view.com/?pid=MTc172719&v=1.1

The introduction of this book is set up just like that of The Book of Jubilees. There is some historical material and then a "Torah Test." The historical material deals with who lived in Qumran and is the same introduction found in The Book of Jubilees. There is additional material about how Hanukkah is a hoax, the book of Maccabees is a lie, and Antiochus Epiphanies never defiled the temple by sacrificing a pig on the altar. No proof is offered for this last claim except the Qumran Community's commentary on Nahum and Habakkuk as well as the dealings of Alexander the Great with the Jews. Timothy Jay Schwab ultimately rejects this historical event, i.e. the defiling of the temple by Antiochus by dismissing both Maccabees as lying propaganda and Josephus as fraudulent because his history is informed by Maccabees.

10:57 This fragment is accurate. Maccabees, however, is not. It makes us a new history, basically, in propaganda. The book is a lie....

Who Defiled The Temple? FINALLY, The Truth Exposed By the Dead Sea Scrolls

He offers no clue as to who wrote Maccabees or why the author would concoct not just a defamatory lie against Antiochus but a fake history of Judea which includes the rebellion of the Maccabees which shook off Grecian Seleucid rule and the restoration of the temple. Neither does he tell how such a lie would ever become accepted amongst the people to the extent that it ended up in the Septuagint with no backlash.

I will apply the same method I employed to review Timothy Jay Schwab's annotated Book of Jubilees which is using the "Torah Test" as a guide. Within a set framework hopefully this review will not be excessively long.

TORAH TEST

1. Prophetic Authorship

According to this criteria, for a book to be considered sacred scripture it must have been written by a prophet. Ezra wrote 1st and 2nd Esdras therefore both books are scripture. Tim's proof? The book says so.

1st and 2nd Esdras both identify their writer as the Prophet Ezra, or in Latin Esdras as an eyewitness or relating a fairly recent era in his time around 400 B.C. It does not do so in speculation but even identifies the exact Ezra to whom it refers with detailed lineage. In modern scholarly circles, many hold to the paradigm that somehow those in Qumran just wrote whatever they wanted and called it scripture claiming they wrote in the name of a prophet in fraud. The fact that they do not even realize they are undermining the actual Levite Temple Priests who cared for and curated scripture with their very lives, demonstrates the paradigm is illiterate of the Biblical keepers of scripture up until the time of Messiah. They did not write scripture arbitrarily, they kept it copying it over for many centuries in order to preserve it.

The prophet would typically employ the assistance of a Levite scribe to write his words down but they did not just make up whatever they wanted nor add to it nor wait centuries to write. That is not established and irresponsible. It is certainly not scholarly to claim they just made up texts and attributed them to the prophets just because they wanted to teach the people a lesson. This would undermine their authority in every sense and such practice is not recorded anywhere among the Temple Priests nor would it be acceptable in any sense then nor today. It is unthinkable anyone calling themselves a scholar would even enter such false paradigm.

This demonstrates a disrespect from the scholarly community for scripture and it’s writers and keepers. If a text says Ezra or Moses wrote it, then, either they wrote it, at most with the assistance of a scribe, or the whole thing is a lie. If it is a lie, then there is little to be learned from it. This vets very easily by merely reading the content as such research will reveal whether the writing offers truth or not. Notice, you will not learn this from reading a blog and scoffing. Does it align with scripture? Is it quoted in scripture? As we executed with The Book of Jubilees, it is time to apply The Torah Test to 1st and 2nd Esdras. Many may be surprised at what we find.

The Qumran/Bethabara exiled Temple Priests are the only documented source for scripture as to what was in the Old Testament and what was not up until the time of Messiah. Anything found there should be assessed with literacy and not by such scoffers. Anything not found there, should also be examined as to whether it should even qualify as scripture. Every book of the Old Testament canon was found in Qumran with the exception of Esther which tells us much. Esther must be examined as well. Notice too, Maccabees of similar Zionist tone to Esther also was not found among these Temple Priests. These are questionable and must be vetted. This is not a new thought. We will show you Martin Luther’s comments on this topic.

Ezra wrote these two books that bear his name as they not only test as scripture in theme and content but they are quoted in the New Testament and by Messiah Himself.

p.36

Tim offers no proof that Ezra wrote these books. Instead he assumes the fact saying that the books tell us Ezra was the author. That is all the proof we need because to posit that someone else wrote them under the name of Ezra is to show disrespect to the Community at Qumran who were the keepers of Scripture. But this assumes already that the book was found at Qumran and is Scripture. His Torah Test has just begun and Tim has already concluded that the book is scripture and was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls with zero proof. This is an absolutely worthless analysis of the authorship of 1st and 2nd Esdras.

2. Witness of the Spirit: The Historical Process

This is a very long section of 20 pages dealing with how different communities included 1st and 2nd Esdras in their canons. Specifically Tim cites the Ethiopian Orthodox Church as well as mentioning Codex Sinaticus and Vaticanus.

What is telling is one of the first Christian communities in their canon, the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Biblical Canon, approximated to the 4th century, included 1st and 2nd Esdras though titles get confusing as they are listed as 1 Ezra (Ezra-Nehemiah as 1 book), 2 Ezra (1st Esdras or Ezra 3 to the Rabbis) and Ezra Sutuel (2nd Esdras or Ezra 4 to the Rabbis). Even the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus both of the 4th Century as well as the Codex Alexandrinus of the 5th century included 1st Esdras (labeled as 3 Esdras or Ezra 3 and some Ezra 2 but all are 1st Esdras). Also, though not included in Jerome’s original Vulgate, the Latin Vulgate includes 1st and 2nd Esdras since the 9th century or so.

p.37

It is very interesting that Tim admits that Jerome's original translation of the Hebrew Scriptures lacks 1st and 2nd Esdras as that is an important testimony that neither the Christians nor the Jews considered this book as being Scripture. Jerome was well versed in the Scriptures and knew what was and was not in the canon. That is why he also rejected Jubilees and Enoch. His testimony about 1st and 2nd Esdras is found in his preface to Ezra and is as follows:

No one ought to be bothered by the fact that my edition consists of only one book, nor ought anyone take delight in the dreams found in the apocryphal third and fourth books. For among the Hebrews the texts of Ezra and Nehemiah comprise a single book, and those texts which are not used by them and are not concerned with the twenty-four elders ought to be rejected outright.

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_ezra.htm

As for Codex Sinaticus, that manuscript includes The Shepherd of Hermas. Are we to include that in the canon as well? Likewise, shall we adopt the 81 book canon of the Ethiopian Church? How about their theology? Will Tim be adopting their theology which teaches the Trinity, a doctrine Tim rejects? Of course he won't so why is the Ethiopian Church an authority on what belongs in the canon but not on theology?

Tim's next proof to the Witness of the Spirit concerning 1st and 2nd Esdras is that the books were actually found at Qumran. According to him, the problem is that the scholars who have been researching the Dead Sea Scrolls have willfully misrepresented this fact and covered up the truth.

In the Dead Sea Scrolls, we find what appears misrepresentation on yet another topic from those controlling these narratives.

Are we sure, then, that 1st and 2 Esdras were not found among the Dead Sea Scrolls? Are they even looking for it since these are not in their interest? Let’s take a good look at these so-labeled “Proto-Esther” fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls, of which there are two. 

p.38

What follows is an analysis of the two very tiny Proto-Esther fragments as well as the story of Esther. Over 14 pages Tim tries his hardest to undermine the story of Esther as well as reinterpret the two fragments as better fitting the story of 1st Esdras. His conclusion is as follows:

Many do not realize, this was not just rejected by the Qumran/Bethabara community but even by some Rabbis in that era, there is no mention of Purim nor Esther in the New Testament, the early church strongly questioned its authenticity and inspiration especially those in Turkey where the 7 ekklesias of Revelation were, and even Martin Luther wrote:

“I am so great an enemy to the second book of the Maccabees, and to Esther, that I wish they had not come to us at all, for they have too many heathen unnaturalities. The Jews much more esteemed the book of Esther than any of the prophets; though they were forbidden to read it before they had attained the age of thirty, by reason of the mystic matters it contains.” –Martin Luther (1483-1546), Table Talk [59]

Martin Luther knew even the Jews in the 1500s had issues with the Book of Esther being read among the youth due to mystic matters meaning there is hidden Kabbalistic meaning embedded in this book which demonstrates it is not scripture. That clarifies this is a Pharisee writing with hidden Pharisee messages to the initiated among the Pharisees. It is not for us and we need not read it. It is not scripture. However, let’s be clear, she was a concubine who slept with the King prior to marriage and the story should be adults only really as the Jews of the 1500s even knew.

We could go even deeper into this story but Esther is not found in the Dead Sea Scrolls and instead these liars have propagandized these two fragments in fraud. This needs to be addressed and the church should have caught this and addressed it long ago. However, they give this New Testament era find over to the Pharisees who defiled the Temple and defile scripture still. As long as the church listens to them, they will remain in willing ignorance. This is Proto-1st Esdras not Esther.

p. 51-52

I do not know why Tim cites Martin Luther at all on this matter. It is true that Martin Luther took issue with several books of the Bible including Esther, Maccabees, and James. The fact is all the books he disliked were included in his Bible. You can read the table of contents at this link. Martin Luther is no witness for Tim on any matter. Will Tim excise James from his New Testament? 

The next six pages are taken up with analyzing 2nd Esdras and attempting to link it to the Qumran Community. Since no copy of 2nd Esdras was found at Qumran, indeed the overwhelming consensus is that it was written after the temple was destroyed, Tim instead tries to find similar thought patterns between the Dead Sea Scrolls and 2nd Esdras. It is these thought patterns that prove 2nd Esdras was found, or at lest used, at Qumran.

The general conclusion of those managing the Qumran narrative who are Pharisees (modern Rabbis) not Aaronic Levite Priests nor even Hebrews, is that 1st and 2nd Esdras are not found among the Qumran fragments. We have identified a sort of “Proto-1st Esdras” and now let us consider 2nd Esdras at least in mindset of the community that aligns heavily with 2nd Esdras.

p. 52

He begins by citing two scholars who claim that the writings of the Qumran Community and 2nd Esdras both contain the same apocalyptic traditions.  Here is their conclusion.

The conclusions of our study are no doubt modest but by no means insignificant. The observation that some of the key ideas of 4 Ezra are to be found in one way or another in the MSS from Qumran, allows to fit this apocalypse within a secular tradition more easily. We can see its roots, the development of certain themes, the rejection of others, etc. In short, we have a more historical vision of this fascinating work. In the same way that the publication of the Qumran fragments of 1 Enoch had proved that one should not look for the origins of apocalyptic tradition in the Antioch crisis, the discovery of certain basic ideas of 4 Ezra in 4QSecond Ezekiel forces us to separate the origin of these ideas from the great crisis that was the destruction of Jerusalem and of the Temple. We also have to acknowledge that these ideas had already been present within the apocalyptic tradition for some two centuries. While recognising the importance of this fundamental event in the radical way in which the author of 4 Ezra poses his problems, the Qumran parallels noted here force us to acknowledge that these ideas are not exclusively the product of reactions to the author’s present desperate situation, but had existed and matured over a long period within the apocalyptic tradition to which the author of 4 Ezra belongs.

Qumranica Minora I Qumran Origins and Apocalypticism  (Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah) by Florentino Garcia Martinez, p. 167

The conclusion here is that the apocalyptic ideas in 2nd Esdras reflect a long tradition which stretches back hundreds of years. It is 2nd Esdras that has incorporated the apocalyptic tradition of Qumran and not the other way around. Timothy Jay Schwab in his usual fashion acknowledges the import of this study but then dismisses it by attributing bad motives to the author.

However, we encourage everyone to read this entire finding but unfortunately, they do not prove this out. One is left with a maybe or ammunition to scoff which is the likely intention unfortunately. If only these scholars then conducted true research seeking other fragments that may actually be a match to 2nd Esdras, then, this might be compelling. We did and we find more direct references.

p. 53

Once again the scholars are not just wrong but malicious and shallow while Tim and The God Culture have taken the time to do actual deep and compelling research. However, a closer look at the content of this research shows that Tim has found absolutely nothing to conclude that 2nd Esdras was held in esteem by the Qumran Community. In fact what follows is a whole lot of exorbitant interpretation and polemic. Tim claims that the Qumran Community applied 2nd Esdras in their interpretation of Habakkuk.

One must merely read the community writings and commentaries especially from these Aaronic Temple Priests to quickly realize they were reading and applying the prophesies of 2nd Esdras which the aforementioned scholars do perceive. One of the greatest examples of this synergy is Ezra’s Prophetic Vision of the Eagle Empire, the Final Empire (2 Esd. 11-12). Ezra tells us this is a continuation of Daniel’s Fourth Beast thus this must be the Final Empire which Daniel describes in interpretation of the statue from Nebuchadnezzar’s dream from Yahuah (Dan. 2) as well as the Four Beasts (Dan. 7). We fully break this Eagle Empire down at the end of Chapter 11 of 2nd Esdras with diagram even identifying the three heads in the end.

In their commentary on Habakkuk, these sons of Zadok of Qumran/Bethabara clearly apply this 2nd Esdras vision in their interpretation. 

p. 53

His whole thesis that 2nd Esdras was found in Qumran amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls relies on this notion of "synergy" rather than the finding of actual fragments of 2nd Esdras. Instead of offering hard and tangible proof that the Qumran Community used 2nd Esdras Tim goes on to offer a bizarre and factually wrong interpretation of their commentary on Habakkuk. 

The Holy Roman Empire moves it’s seat at least in appearance but the islands from Greece and Turkey to the rest of the Mediterranean to the British Isles as well as their coastal nations have been these power structures as these ‘islands of the sea” which “come from afar” largely throughout history until today. They established such pattern from the beginning when Constantine essentially declared Turkey as the seat of the new Roman Empire. He is the origin of the Holy Roman Empire (Final Empire) as he established the control religion that remains the largest in the world to this day. He did so “where satan’s seat is” (Rev. 2:13) and the synagogue of satan worked (Rev. 2:9, 3:9) That restored the role of Priest King, Pontifex Maximus (“greatest priest,” title of the Pope also deriving from Persia not the Bible) originating in the Nephilim Atlantis and prominent in Persian history. That role is NEVER a Biblical one and it’s history is lined in blood no different from that of Mohammed who was no prophet but a warlord both better aligning with the acts of the Beast and fruits of satan as they steal, kill and destroy (Jn. 10:10). This was the origin of his religion as well as he was High Priest of Mithraism, a Persian religion. Constantine was repeating the same Samaritan hijacking of Yahuah’s worship infusing it with their Persian/Babylonian gods (2 Ki. 17) which is why Catholicism is so foreign to the Bible in practice most of the time.

It would certainly explain their obsession with forcing a Trinity, a term not found in the Bible but well-documented in Persian worship. 

p. 54

This is ignorant nonsense. Constantine is not the origin of the Holy Roman Empire. The Holy Roman Empire was actually founded by Charlemagne in the year 800. It was dissolved during the Napoleonic wars and no longer exists. It is most certainly not the "Final Empire." What Constantine founded later became the Byzantine Empire when the Western half of the Roman Empire fell. The Byzantine Empire lasted until 1453 when the Ottomans conquered it. And what exactly is the Nephilim Atlantis? Pure fantasy. The doctrine of the Trinity was around long before Constantine came on the scene but Tim would not know this as he has not read the writings of the pre-Nicene church and rejects the doctrine because the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible. I agree. It does not. But the concept does. The doctrine does. That is why the Church confesses it. There is no room to get into that here but the information is out there. Start with reading the Seven Ecumenical Councils. 

Tim concludes this portion of the "Torah Test" by telling us that 2nd Esdras is cited in an alleged prophecy of the Messiah which originates from Qumran. He then offers us this:

What did John say Messiah’s purpose was? He declared: “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). The only way to take away lawlessness or sin is to restore the law. 

p. 56

That is Tim's heretical legalistic doctrine of "the law is what redeems us." To think that Jesus came to restore the law is anti-Christian to the core. Jesus Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth (Rom 10:4).

To sum up this portion of Tim's Torah Test he offers no "Witness of the Spirit" for either 1st or 2nd Esdras. The Witness of the Spirit is:

“The appeal to the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was also made to aid the people in understanding which books belonged in the canon and which did not.”

Tim does not show how the books of 1st and 2nd Esdras were used throughout history by the Church. The fact is both books were excluded from the canons of the Jews and Christians. Neither the Third Council of Carthage held in 397 A.D. nor the Decretum Gelsaianum include those books in their lists of Canonical Scripture. 1st Esdras made it into the Septuagint but not 2nd Esdras which is not accepted in the East while in the West both 1st and 2nd Esdras are relegated to apocrypha rather than Scripture. Jesus said the Spirit would be sent to lead the Church into all truth. Tim offers no florilegium or catena of citations of 1st and 2nd Esdras spanning the history of the Church to show that the books were used as Scripture because such a thing does not exist. The Church rejected them.

That the Church rejected 1st and 2nd Esdras as Scripture is a testimony against the Witness of the Spirit for them. This is another worthless analysis that offers the reader nothing substantial to prove the case for the canonicity of 1st and 2nd Esdras.

Let me add here that the subtitle of this book, The Hidden Book of Prophecy, really does despite to the Spirit of Grace. How can Tim talk about the Witness of the Spirit and then call this a HIDDEN book of prophecy? The Spirit was sent to reveal all truth to us (John 16:13). There is no hidden prophecy or books or knowledge waiting to be revealed in the end times. The fullness of revelation is to be found in Jesus Christ who was revealed 2,000 years ago and fulfilled both the law and prophets. The Law and the Prophets were until John (Luke 16:16). The testimony of Jesus IS the Spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10). 

3. Acceptance

Acceptance is rather self-expalantory and is not much different from the Witness of the Spirit. The issue is whether or not the church accepted 1st and 2nd Esdras as Scripture. They did not and Tim does not offer any proof to the contrary. Instead he says there are parallels between 2nd Esdras and Revelation and is probably the origin of certain terms found there. This on its face is completely wrong.

If we are to take Revelation seriously then we must admit that it is a book all of its own and does not borrow from any sources. John was given a unique vision and he wrote down what he saw. To say that Revelation cites Jubilees or 2nd Esdras or any other book influenced it in any way is to deny the uniqueness of John's vision. The only reason there are similarities between Revelation and other prophetic books like Ezekiel is because there is only one God and one consistent revelation of Him. But to say John borrowed from other books is to deny the uniqueness of the vision which John was commanded to write down. What thou seest, write in a book (Rev. 1:11).

 4. Quoted as Doctrine in Scripture

Tim begins this section as follows:

In this portion of The Torah Test, we will identify several scriptures from the New Testament in which 2nd Esdras is the likely origin. We are aware the current scholarly dating of 70-218 A.D. remains an illiterate guess as to when this book was written. No scientific dating has occurred thus they are only guessing. As we proved earlier in this test, we can find 2nd Esdras being used to interpret prophecy as early as 100 B.C. and 1st Esdras in 100 A.D. at least. There is a high likelihood 1st Esdras was in the original Septuagint of 300 B.C. or so. We covered the historicity which waxes solid.

2nd Esdras was written at the very least in 100 B.C. well before the whole of the New Testament thus any concepts we find in the New Testament for that book, proves Messiah and the Apostles were quoting it. Of course, that still is far later than the book says and once you find this vets as scripture in doctrine especially, 2nd Esdras was written when it says it was around 400 B.C. by the Prophet Ezra himself or perhaps his scribe though he originally was a scribe so certainly would not have needed one necessarily. This will affirm 2nd Esdras as inspired scripture or not. Let’s begin with Messiah’s words even recognized in the 1611 King James Version as originating in 2nd Esdras.

p. 59-60

This is a very long section but there is no need to go through each of the alleged citations of 2nd Esdras in the New Testament. The fact is Tim has not proven that Ezra wrote the book, he has not proven it was to be found in Qumran, and he has certainly not disproved the accepted date of the book's writing which is sometime after the destruction of the temple. He simply assumes all those things while mocking the consensus of the book's post-70 A.D. date as "an illiterate guess." 2nd Esdras, also known as 4th Ezra, does contain passages similar to the New Testament and there is a reason for that. 

Fourth Ezra is a pseudonymous Jewish writing that was highly regarded by the early Christians, who added material to the book and used it in worship and instruction in the second century C.E. 

The Biblical Canon, Lee McDonald, p. 161 

Tim does not disprove that consensus in the slightest, though he thinks he does. What he does do is write page after page of irrelevant interpretation and polemic. It is assertion after assertion with no actual proof. His alleged proof that 1st and 2nd Esdras was known to the Qumran Community is based on his interpretation of the very tiny fragment known as Proto-Esther and similarities with the Habakkuk commentary. 

Tim is putting the cart before the horse here since he has not proven any of his previous assertions. This part of the Torah Test is easily disproved by noting that every single time Jesus cites Scripture he alerts his hearers by saying "It is written" or "You have heard it said" or something similar. At no point do any of Jesus' alleged quotations from 2nd Esdras follow that pattern.

5. In Agreement With the Whole of Scripture

Tim's conclusion to the Torah Test is more assumptions that he has proved his case.

Having fully reviewed the 5 points of our Torah Test, some from Blue Letter Bible and our additions to strengthen such test, we feel confident in declaring 1st and 2nd Esdras as inspired scripture. We find the authorship of a prophet who writes accurate prophecy and doctrine from which many New Testament passages originate. We find these books applied in consistent historicity as inspired scripture from around 100 B.C. to present. Again, we demand the Pharisees and the Catholic Church produce their authority to overrule the legitimate, ordained Temple Priests who were exiled to Qumran. If they cannot, and none can, they have no such authority. We should all migrate to a position which places these Biblical keepers of scripture above any modern scholar.

1st and 2nd Esdras coalesce with the whole of scripture including the role of the Yahudim in the Old Testament and New as well as Messiah’s purpose, birth, death, ascension and second coming. One can strain gnats to attempt a detail here or there but they do that with the Gospels even and they are wrong every time. The Bible never contradicts itself, man’s interpretations do. This is very solid ground in which we can move forward in publishing 1st and 2nd Esdras in The Levite Bible of texts found in Qumran not currently in most modern canons. When assessing all of these books, one uncovers a clear agenda of manipulation which has led to their censorship at least in part for some. It is time we all awaken and test this increasing knowledge of ancient origin. Here is our report card for 1st and 2nd Esdras which prove as inspired scripture.

p. 72

The only thing Tim has shown is that 2nd Esdras has similarities between the apocalyptic literature of Qumran and the New Testament. That is because 2nd Esdras was written after the destruction of the temple, has Christian interpolations, and is firmly in the apocalyptic tradition which was in evidence at Qumran. This is why 2nd Esdras especially has such an affinity with the Gospels. Tim has everything backwards by assigning 2nd Esdras an earlier date. Likewise Tim has failed to prove any application of 1st or 2nd Esdras as history or "as inspired scripture from around 100 B.C. to present." This is because the Church never accepted those books as scripture. He has cited no sermons or commentaries or writings where this book is used authoritatively or referred to as sacred scripture. One of the most important apologetic pieces of literature from the Early Church is the dialogue of Justin with Trypho. Justin goes through the whole Old Testament proving that Jesus is the foretold Messiah. Not one time does he cite from 2nd Esdras and its prophecy about the Messiah. Not one time! That is because it is not part of the Jewish Old Testament.

For all the words Tim has typed this analysis is poor and shallow. There are a lot of problems with 2nd Esdras which he simply does not discuss such as the differences between the Greek and Latin manuscripts.

Study of 2 Esdras is complicated by the probability that its early chapters—found only in Latin manuscripts but in not Greek ones—appear to be later additions written by a Christian author, prophesying the coming of the messianic "son of God" and God's subsequent complete rejection of the Jews. Some later chapters may also suffer from similar additions, although this is more debatable. Despite these and other difficulties with the text, the bulk of the work is considered one of the gems of Jewish apocalypticism.

The first two chapters of 2 Esdras appear in the Latin version of the book, but not the Greek. They are considered by most scholars to be Christian in origin for this reason, and more especially because they speak of the the Messiah in Christian terms and assert God's rejection of the Jews in language resembling the Christian theology of the second and third centuries C.E. "I gathered you as a hen gathers her brood under her wings," it states, apparently quoting a phrase used by Jesus in Matthew 23:37, "but now, what shall I do to you? I will cast you out from my presence." (1:30)

This section also contains a vision of the the Messiah as the son of God who ministers to the martyred saints in heaven: "Then I said to the angel, 'Who is that young man who places crowns on them and puts palms in their hands?' He answered and said to me, 'He is the Son of God, whom they confessed in the world.'" (2:46-47)

Because of their Christian character, these chapters are therefore generally considered to be late additions to the work from the second or third century.

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/2_Esdras

The issues raised in the above article are why 2nd Esdras is assigned a late date. It is not an "illiterate  guess." It is a hypothesis that takes into account the actual contents of the book as well as the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of 2nd Esdras until after the destruction of the temple. Tim does not deal with any of this. He does not mention that there is no Hebrew version of 2nd Esdras or that the Latin and Greek texts differ. For all the research he has done on 2nd Esdras there is no way he can be ignorant of these facts. So, why does he ignore them? Because he cannot overcome them and they disrupt his thesis that the Qumran Community was influenced by the book and that it was ever considered Scripture.

This is the end of the first part of my review of this book. Next week I will take a look at Tim's marginal notes and other annotations.

at No comments:

Monday, May 30, 2022

The God Culture: The Philippines is the Land Before Time

Timothy Jay Schwab of The God Culture has released another series of videos about the Philippines showing once more just how ridiculous he is. The gist is that he is either unable to read or is willingly misinterpreting old maps. In the first video he claims the phantom island Antilia shown on several Renaissance maps is actually the Philippines.

The Famed Isle of Antilia: The Land Before Time in the Philippines. Solomon's Gold Series: Part 15A

I am going to cut to the chase here and state it as plainly as I can. The Island of Antilia has NOTHING to do with the Philippines. Tim cites the Wikipedia entry for this island in his video but he neglects to mention the origin of the legend of this island.

It originates from an old Iberian legend, set during the Muslim conquest of Hispania c. 714. Seeking to flee from the Muslim conquerors, seven Christian Visigothic bishops embarked with their flocks on ships and set sail westwards into the Atlantic Ocean, eventually landing on an island (Antilha) where they founded seven settlements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antillia

That should be the end of the story but because Tim bloviates for an hour I shall have to press on and show his outright mendaciousness. It should be noted that in this video he makes absolutely no reference to this legend except to say that its origin is Arabic. That is not an oversight.  That is lying! 

Tim's theory of maps from the ancient Greeks to the Renaissance is that they show the evolution of thinking about the world. 

7:43 It's amazing how many scholars look at ancient maps and then forget at, you know, the thinking of that era. They can't even, uh, fathom that the Malay Peninsula didn't even exist at certain times according to cartographers. They didn't know about it so they didn't draw it.

39:05 ...Ptolemy who didn't even know Southeast Asia existed.

That is simply a lie. Ptolemy's map shows the Malay Peninsula and a limited knowledge of South East Asia which was provided to him by men who had sailed to those places. I have proven how dumb this notion of maps evolving is in another article. Ancient maps and directions prove that Europeans were unfamiliar with the Philippines because they show nothing beyond the Malaysian Peninsula which was known as the Aurea Chersonesus. Tim conflates this region with the Philippines. In this video and in part 15C he proves how ignorant he is and that he cannot read a map. Here are two screenshots of Tim's annotated Behaim map.

The Famed Isle of Antilia: The Land Before Time in the Philippines. Solomon's Gold Series: Part 15A

 


Tim has gotten everything about this map WRONG! What he has labelled Burma is actually the Malaysian Peninsula and what he has labelled the Malay Tip is the Dragon's Tail.

The Dragon's Tail is a modern name for the phantom peninsula in southeast Asia which appeared in medieval Arabian and Renaissance European world maps. It formed the eastern shore of the Great Gulf (Gulf of Thailand) east of the Golden Chersonese (Malay Peninsula), replacing the "unknown lands" which Ptolemy and others had thought surrounded the "Indian Sea".

The Portuguese were aware of the peninsula's likely nonexistence by shortly after the fall of Malacca, when Albuquerque acquired a large Javanese map of Southeast Asia. The original was lost aboard the Froll de la Mar shortly afterwards but a tracing by Francisco Rodrigues was sent in its place as part of a letter to the king. Nonetheless, published maps continued to include it in different forms for another century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon%27s_Tail_(peninsula)

Tim continues to misinterpret this map because he is a liar. There is no other reason for him to continue spewing falsehoods about this map except that he is knowingly and willingly telling lies. He is not merely ignorant or stupid, he is vomiting falsehoods and depending on the stupidity of his audience to not "test" his claims. One of his claims, based on faulty etymology,  is that on this map the island labelled Thilis is Antilia.

32:50 Then there is the Isle of Pearl here known as Thilis. Sound familiar? Thilis, Antilia, Anthilis. Hmmm? How about that? Columbus used the name Antilles. Antilis. Anthilis. There you go. No, they didn't put that together back then but that's what it is. Thilis is Antilas, Antilia. That just fits like a glove and you're gonna see why.

1:03:30 What can we say about Antilia? Well. it is a match to the ancient Thilis, a reference to the Philippines even on the 1492 Behaim globe commissioned by the Portuguese government.

That is so wrong it's unbelievable. There is no way Tim could get this wrong unless he did it intentionally.  Here is Antilia as drawn on the Behaim map.

https://i.imgur.com/oxJn6cX.jpg

Antilia is the green island just near the middle of the picture. Compare that with what Tim claims is Antilia on the same map!

The Famed Isle of Antilia: The Land Before Time in the Philippines. Solomon's Gold Series: Part 15A

The Behaim map even has a description of Antilia which Tim declines to relate.

The legend, in this form, is told in various places. The principal source is an inscription on Martin Behaim's 1492 Nuremberg globe which reads (in English translation):

In the year 734 after the birth of Christ, when all Spain was overrun by the miscreants of Africa, this Island of Antillia, called also the Isle of the Seven Cities, was peopled by the Archbishop of Porto with six other bishops, and certain companions, male and female, who fled from Spain with their cattle and property. In the year 1414, a Spanish ship approached very near this Island.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antillia

When interpreted correctly Martin Behaim's map, which was commissioned by the City of Nuremberg in Germany and not the Portuguese, does not prove any of the nonsense Tim claims it does. Believe me when I tell you there is so much nonsense in this video but the main point, Tim's claim that Antilia has anything to do with the Philippines, has been demolished so it's time to move on.

The second video, actually the third since the second video was a digression about a prophecy of Bongbong Marcos in a Filipino epic poem, is more nonsense as Tim misreads several maps and ignores what the sources he refers to actually say. He also declines to really dig deep and find all the relevant material for his cause.

In this video Tim seeks to prove that Cattigara, a place mentioned in Ptolemey's Geography, is actually the Philippines. His main argument is that Antonio Pigafetta claims they set a course for that place and landed at the Philippines. Thus all other claims are bogus.

 

18:31 So, as you see on the map here Magellan is headed not just to the Philippines but very specifically to between the 12th and 13th degree north which is known as Samar on the map. Just look at it. There it is. Okay you know like Samaria? Yeah Columbus was going where? To meet up with the lost tribes of Israel. Who would name Samaria? Don't know. So hard to figure that out of course. Pigafetta just told us that is where Cattigora is. Done. Settled. This is fact and it's not up for debate.

Actually that is not what Pigafetta says. He says they set course for Cattigara but he never claimed that Samar is Cattigara. In fact the place is never mentioned again in the whole of his journal. Samar is also not in between the 12th and 13th degree.


Tim also claims that Pigafetta is the only eyewitness account to Magellan's voyage.
2:00 The problem is well, they ignore history, real history, about as valid as you get such as Pigafetta's journal, the only eyewitness account of Magellan's arrival in the Philippines.

That is wrong on so many levels and reveals the total ignorance of Timothy Jay Schwab and his alleged research team. The fact is while Pigafetta's journal is our main source of information about the first voyage around the world there are other eyewitness accounts. Back in Spain the surviving crew were subject to interrogation. That testimony and a complete description of the voyage can be read at this link but it's all in Spanish. Maximilianus Transylvanus, a courtier of Emperor Charles V, actually interviewed the surviving crew members and wrote a summary of the voyage. 

Now, the book of the aforesaid Peter having disappeared, Fortune has not allowed the memory of so marvellous an enterprise to be entirely lost, inasmuch as a certain noble gentleman of Vicenza called Messer Antonio Pigafetta (who, having gone on the voyage and returned in the ship Vittoria, was made a Knight of Rhodes), wrote a very exact and full account of it in a book, one copy of which he presented to His Majesty the Emperor, and another he sent to the most Serene Mother of the most Christian King, the Lady Regent.

As this voyage may be considered marvellous, and not only unaccomplished, but even unattempted either in our age or in any previous one, I have resolved to write as truly as possible to your Reverence the course (of the expedition) and the sequence of the whole matter. I have taken care to have everything related to me most exactly by the captain and by the individual sailors who have returned with him. They have also related each separate event to Cæsar and to others with such good faith and sincerity, that they seemed not only to tell nothing fabulous themselves, but by their relation to disprove and refute all the fabulous stories which had been told by old authors. 

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_First_Voyage_Round_the_World/Letter_of_Maximilian,_the_Transylvan

In his introduction Maximilianus recognizes the importance and worth of Pigafetta's published journal and tells us that what is to follow was related to him by the surviving crew members. This is crucial for what he writes about concerning Cattigara.

When our men had set sail from Thedori, one of the ships, and that the larger one, having sprung a leak, began to make water, so that it became necessary to put back to Thedori. When the Spaniards saw that this mischief could not be remedied without great labour and much time, they agreed that the other ship should sail to the Cape of Cattigara, and afterwards through the deep as far as possible from the coast of India, lest it should be seen by the Portuguese, and until they saw the Promontory of Africa, which projects beyond the Tropic of Capricorn, and to which the Portuguese have given the name of Good Hope; and from that point the passage to Spain would be easy. But as soon as the other ship was refitted, it should direct its course through the archipelago, and that vast ocean towards the shores of the continent which we mentioned before, till it found that coast which was in the neighbourhood of Darien, and where the southern sea was separated from the western, in which are the Spanish Islands, by a very narrow space of land. So the ship sailed again from Thedori, and, having gone twelve degrees on the other side of the equinoctial line, they did not find the Cape of Cattigara, which Ptolemy supposed to extend even beyond the equinoctial line; but when they had traversed an immense space of sea, they came to the Cape of Good Hope and afterwards to the Islands of the Hesperides.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_First_Voyage_Round_the_World/Letter_of_Maximilian,_the_Transylvan

At this point in the voyage it is December and the crew are on the island of Tidore which is in the Moluccas. One of the ships springs a leak but it cannot be fixed. The other ship is told to press ahead to the Cape of Cattigara but they are never able to find it. 

There you go. Simple as that. Neither Pigafetta nor the surviving crew members claim Samar is the Cape of Cattigara or that they ever found its actual location. There is more to this story as those who listened to the testimony of these men decided that Gilolo island in the Moluccas was Cattigara.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.afk2830.0001.001&view=1up&seq=219&skin=2021

Item: it can not be denied that the island of Gilolo, lying near the Maluco Islands, is the cape of Catigara, inasmuch as the companions of Magallanes journeyed westward upon leaving the strait discovered in fifty-four degrees of south latitude, sailing such a distance west and northeast that they arrived in twelve degrees of north latitude where were found certain islands, and one entrance to them. Then running southward four hundred leagues, they passed the Maluco islands and the coast of the island of Gilolo, without finding any cape on it. Then they took their course toward the Cabo Buena Esperanza [Good Hope] for Spain. Therefore then the cape of Catigara can only be the said island of Gilolo and the Malucos.

Are these men, who were well acquainted with the testimony of the entire crew dunderheads and ninny's? Of course not. 

Tim ends this video by maligning Scottish Physician and writer John Caverhill.

37:10 John Caverhill deduced in 1767, before this map was created, that's why we want to cover this, that Cattigara was the Mekong Delta. Okay, so, we're talking about essentially Vietnam, okay. So he deduced? Is that an accurate word? Not even remotely. Is that what you call a ridiculous guess founded on nothing but ignorance? You mean he ignores Magellan? You know the actual explorer who found and corrected the course to Cattigara in writing and then he tries to figure it out? But well he's an idiot who ignores history then claims to be an historian. Ta-dah. Enough of this stupidity

Then in a faux retard voice he says:
I be academic so I forget the explorer who landed on Cattigara who left actual coordinates. Uh no i'm gonna throw that out and just make up my own location because, well, that's academic.

I agree. Enough of this stupidity. Neither Pigafetta nor the rest of the crew claim they landed on Cattigarra.

Rather than look up what Caverhill wrote Tim relies on a blurb from Wikipedia. Well, I actually did the research and Caverhill's paper is not founded on nothing or a ridiculous guess. After reviewing all the material available to him he concluded that Cattigara was in Cambodia very close to the spot now considered to be Cattigara.
Óc Eo (Vietnamese) is an archaeological site in modern-day Óc Eo commune of Thoại Sơn District in An Giang Province of southern Vietnam. Located in the Mekong Delta, Óc Eo was a busy port of the kingdom of Funan between the 2nd century BC and 12th century AD and it may have been the port known to the Romans as Cattigara.

The remains found at Óc Eo include pottery, tools, jewelry, casts for making jewelry, coins, and religious statues. Among the finds are gold jewellery imitating coins from the Roman Empire of the Antonine period. Roman golden medallions from the reign of Antoninus Pius, and possibly his successor Marcus Aurelius, have been discovered at Óc Eo, which was near Chinese-controlled Jiaozhou and the region where Chinese historical texts claim the Romans first landed before venturing further into China to conduct diplomacy in 166. Many of the remains have been collected and are on exhibition in Museum of Vietnamese History in Ho Chi Minh City.

Funan was part of the region of Southeast Asia referred to in ancient Indian texts as Suvarnabhumi, and may have been the part to which the term was first applied.

This city has something that Samar does not, actual archeological evidence of the presence of Romans.  How about that? Archeological evidence is something which Timothy Jay Schwab's theory about the Philippines being Ophir, Tarshish, The Garden of Eden, Sheba, Seba, Havilah, and now Antilia and Cattigara is sorely lacking.
at No comments:
Subscribe to: Comments (Atom)

The God Culture: There Is No Resurrection

Timothy Jay Schwab who is The God Culture has a new video in which he thinks he is correcting the misunderstanding of Revelation chapter 20....