'Pagan influences' on the Christian Gospels & Paul (2022-02-01) #

0:00:02 okay so i i want to begin
0:00:05 sort of uh setting the table as it were
0:00:07 theologically okay
0:00:09 so i mentioned in a previous podcast
0:00:11 that that paul's christology um not you
0:00:14 paul paul paul of tarsus
0:00:18 by the way but it's not the same as the
0:00:19 apostle paul
0:00:21 yeah
0:00:22 paul's christology in essence
0:00:25 was a composite of jewish and greek
0:00:27 ideas okay that is to say jewish and
0:00:29 pagan beliefs and by pagan i simply mean
0:00:32 non-jewish i'm not using the word a
0:00:34 pagan necessarily in a derogatory sense
0:00:37 okay so paul created this new hybrid
0:00:39 religion and religion in the hellenistic
0:00:41 world
0:00:42 tended to be syncretistic i mean they
0:00:44 would mix and match different elements
0:00:46 this was normal
0:00:47 and paul was schooled in hellenistic
0:00:49 philosophy paul quoted pagan poets
0:00:52 according to the new testament to
0:00:53 support his christology he quoted pagan
0:00:56 poets in the new testament to support
0:00:58 his christology this is something that
0:01:00 christian apologists don't like to talk
0:01:02 about and most casual bible readers are
0:01:04 not even aware of this they just read
0:01:06 the text they don't know what paul's
0:01:07 saying paul quoted the final mean as
0:01:10 hymn to zeus by the pagan poet and stoic
0:01:13 eritis of soli according to acts 17 28
0:01:16 at the aeropocus
0:01:18 and he also quoted the poet manander in
0:01:20 first corinthians 15 33. i mean talk
0:01:23 about the satanic verses
0:01:26 no i'm just kidding um
0:01:29 paul made christ right the jewish
0:01:31 messiah
0:01:33 the locus the intersection of two pagan
0:01:35 beliefs so christ is both the dying and
0:01:38 rising savior man god as well as the
0:01:40 divine mediator between the god and
0:01:43 humanity and by the god i mean
0:01:46 the perfect being who is at the top of
0:01:48 this ontological hierarchy or pyramid
0:01:52 that permeates all existence so this
0:01:54 this hierarchy or or chain of being
0:01:57 is absolutely central to both middle and
0:01:59 neoplatonism
0:02:01 okay and i want to make a request of the
0:02:03 audience to study middle and
0:02:06 neoplatonism and you will come to know
0:02:09 the true origins of the trinity i mean
0:02:11 christian apologists will say that the
0:02:13 doctrine of the trinity is firmly
0:02:14 grounded in the tanakh
0:02:16 in my view that's a red herring
0:02:18 they want to throw you off the scent of
0:02:20 greek metaphysics and study philo of
0:02:23 alexandria okay so he was a jewish
0:02:25 middle platonic philosopher living in
0:02:28 egypt in the first century he died
0:02:29 around 40 of the common era before the
0:02:31 writing of the new testament okay
0:02:33 there's no doubt
0:02:35 that philo's writings influenced the
0:02:37 doctrine of the trinity in a significant
0:02:39 way
0:02:40 even william lane craig admits this you
0:02:42 know dr craig is their champion the
0:02:44 christian apologists you know they love
0:02:46 him the early christian greek fathers
0:02:48 they used philo's writings
0:02:50 as a basis with which to formulate their
0:02:52 logos christology people like justin and
0:02:55 irenaeus eusebius who was constantine's
0:02:58 sort of spin doctor uh even claimed that
0:03:01 philo met peter right i mean it's a
0:03:03 total fabrication i mean this was
0:03:05 eusebius's way of bolstering philo's
0:03:07 authority similar to paul claiming that
0:03:10 he met with peter and james maybe he did
0:03:12 i mean it doesn't end well according to
0:03:14 acts 21 but craig says that
0:03:17 the dogma at nicea was quote a synthesis
0:03:20 between john's gospel
0:03:22 and the thought of philo of alexandria
0:03:25 and the middle platonism that he
0:03:27 represented end quote i mean i would go
0:03:30 even further and say that
0:03:32 john's gospel itself was clearly
0:03:34 influenced by middle platonism
0:03:37 so so
0:03:38 so dr craig even downplays in my opinion
0:03:42 the reality of the vast influence that
0:03:44 greek metaphysics had on both christian
0:03:46 doctrine and christian scripture and
0:03:49 we'll and we'll see that okay
0:03:51 this is a common place in um historical
0:03:54 theologies it's not just you and william
0:03:56 lane craig this is
0:03:58 very very standard understanding and
0:04:00 explanation of the origins of the way
0:04:01 the doctrine is formulated uh yeah this
0:04:04 is very very standard very very standard
0:04:06 across the board right
0:04:08 um so any honest historian or theologian
0:04:11 you know they will point this out so so
0:04:13 according to this platonic metaphysical
0:04:15 system at the top of this hierarchy of
0:04:17 being
0:04:18 is the one right tahen as platinus uh
0:04:22 referred to him the church father origin
0:04:24 of alexandria called him the auto theos
0:04:27 right the very god
0:04:29 of course philo called him hathaos with
0:04:31 the definite article the god and this is
0:04:33 also what john's gospel calls the father
0:04:36 ha theos okay with the definite article
0:04:39 um you know the the uh
0:04:42 the author of john's gospel never refers
0:04:44 to jesus or the son as ha theos in an
0:04:47 absolute and unqualified way
0:04:50 and thomas's so-called confession in
0:04:52 john 20 is not an exception to this so
0:04:54 john refers to jesus as the logos and a
0:04:58 theos a god so if you look at john 1 1
0:05:00 right nrk ain't halagas
0:05:03 kai halagas prastantheon
0:05:05 right so so in the beginning was the
0:05:07 word and the word was with the god tan
0:05:10 is a definite article here in the
0:05:11 accusative tan theon kai theos and a god
0:05:15 was the logos so middle platonism
0:05:18 explains what john meant here much more
0:05:20 coherently than tanaki judaism or
0:05:23 trinitarianism
0:05:25 in middle platonism the logos was
0:05:26 believed to be the second god a second
0:05:29 level of being who was generated
0:05:32 from within the one himself in
0:05:34 pre-eternality so since the logos was
0:05:36 generated or caused by
0:05:38 the god the logos is not as great as the
0:05:41 god the logos is the divine mediator
0:05:44 between the god and humanity
0:05:47 hence you know the father is greater
0:05:49 than i says john's incarnated logos yet
0:05:52 he also says the father and i are one so
0:05:54 christian apologists armed with the
0:05:56 nomenclature of nicaea they went back to
0:05:59 these texts and said okay when he said
0:06:02 the father is greater than i the logos
0:06:04 was talking about his hypothesis his
0:06:06 person but when he said the father and i
0:06:08 are one he was referring to his ucia his
0:06:10 essence so they incorporate this this
0:06:12 convoluted language and retroactively
0:06:15 import
0:06:17 a trinitarian hermeneutic upon john upon
0:06:20 john's gospel and does completely
0:06:22 decontextualize it i mean it's a nice
0:06:24 little slide of hand but read john in
0:06:26 its context right john's underlying
0:06:28 metaphysic is middle platonism
0:06:31 and in fact 70 years before john wrote
0:06:33 about the logos
0:06:35 philo wrote about the logos and philo
0:06:38 referred to the logos as a second god
0:06:42 deuterostas and origen would use the
0:06:44 same phrase some 200 years later but
0:06:47 still before nicea you know he said the
0:06:48 father is otto theos the very god the
0:06:51 son is important because the language
0:06:53 that john uses actually has a precedent
0:06:55 in um in the pagan language found on the
0:06:58 lips of philo of alexandria so it's not
0:07:01 a it's this continuity this connection
0:07:03 is really important i think it is very
0:07:06 important and you know origen also he
0:07:08 uses like you said he uses that phrase
0:07:10 from philo deuteros
0:07:12 that the logos is a second god but
0:07:14 johanna and jesus right
0:07:16 or john's logos refers to his father as
0:07:19 theon moo my god right
0:07:22 my god in mark in matthew jesus you know
0:07:24 the cry of their election
0:07:28 my god my god so the logos who's
0:07:30 supposed to be god capital g according
0:07:32 to trinitarians has a god so this is
0:07:35 clearly two gods and both men philo and
0:07:38 origen they hail from alexandria and you
0:07:40 know the name says it all you know this
0:07:42 is why imam al-ghazali vehemently
0:07:44 condemned the metaphysical positions of
0:07:46 the hellenistic muslim philosophers of
0:07:48 his day because he recognized that
0:07:50 platonic metaphysics
0:07:52 acted as a gateway to the theological
0:07:54 deviations and idolatry of the people of
0:07:56 the book both jews and christians of the
0:07:58 past not just christians but also jews
0:08:01 and as i said for philo the logos was
0:08:03 the highest of the intermediary beings
0:08:06 okay the begotten son of god he says
0:08:09 philo says he says his firstborn he says
0:08:12 the celestial high priest right who was
0:08:15 often symbolized in the tanakh by an
0:08:17 angel
0:08:18 all right this is according to philo the
0:08:19 logos as the mind of god as it were was
0:08:22 neither uncreated in the same sense as
0:08:24 the god nor created in the same sense as
0:08:27 the cosmos the logos was caused from the
0:08:30 very essence of the god
0:08:32 meaning the logos was eternally
0:08:34 generated i.e begotten not made before
0:08:38 all the ages sounds very very familiar
0:08:40 sounds like the nicene creed you know
0:08:42 justin martyr the father of logos
0:08:44 theology he he admits that there are
0:08:46 disturbing parallels between his
0:08:48 christology and the pagan myths of
0:08:50 bacchus that's dionysius
0:08:53 and and hercules and and esclepius and
0:08:55 perseus and mithras
0:08:57 and in his dialogue with trifo justin
0:08:59 accounts for these similarities by
0:09:00 claiming well the devil sort of emulated
0:09:02 the prophecies of christ by inventing
0:09:04 these sort of fake fables
0:09:06 about their pagan gods in order to cause
0:09:08 christians to go astray i mean justin
0:09:10 also says that the angel that
0:09:12 jacob wrestled in genesis
0:09:14 and beat no less was the pre-incarnate
0:09:18 christ the logos so so john 1 1 is the
0:09:21 beginning of the prologue of john's
0:09:22 gospel that's called the hymn to the
0:09:24 logos how does the hymn end right so the
0:09:27 most authentic reading according to new
0:09:29 testament textual critics like the
0:09:31 united bible society nestle allen and so
0:09:33 on and so forth is the following so it's
0:09:35 john 1 18 right john 1 18 that's the end
0:09:38 of the hymn to the logos it says
0:09:42 so no one has ever seen god and the
0:09:45 context clearly suggests that john is
0:09:47 talking about the first level of being
0:09:49 the father the god
0:09:51 because then he says monogenes theos a
0:09:55 unique god
0:09:57 a one of a kind god a uniquely generated
0:10:00 god and now john is talking about the
0:10:02 logos the logos is another god
0:10:04 because he was seen the first god he
0:10:06 mentioned has never been seen right the
0:10:08 monogamy's theos it's it goes on to say
0:10:12 who is in the heart of the father it
0:10:14 says ekinas exegesato that one exegetes
0:10:17 or explains or reveals the father so the
0:10:20 son is the divine
0:10:22 mediator and then john 3 16 for god so
0:10:24 loved the world he gave his only
0:10:26 begotten son the son is a savior man god
0:10:28 a human sacrifice
0:10:31 so then the second level of being
0:10:33 referred to as the logos by middle
0:10:35 platonic writers such as philo and john
0:10:37 is still a divine being he is a theos
0:10:40 he's a god but he's not haphaos he's not
0:10:43 the god or the otto theos the very god
0:10:46 so this is called henotheistic
0:10:48 polytheism okay this is not the yeti
0:10:51 this is not the unitarian you know
0:10:53 monotheism of the tanakh
0:10:55 nor is this the trinitarian monotheism
0:10:57 of the fourth century of the common era
0:10:59 this is a henotheistic polytheism this
0:11:02 is what the gospels and pauline epistles
0:11:05 teach in my view okay
0:11:06 the gospels suffused with greek ideas
0:11:10 and influenced by paul's gospel teach
0:11:13 that jesus is another god a lesser god
0:11:16 who mediates between the unseen perfect
0:11:18 being and humanity by becoming a human
0:11:20 sacrifice so he is the son of god not
0:11:22 god the son right and of course paul
0:11:24 wrote first timothy chapter 2 verses
0:11:27 five really that's pseudo paul right
0:11:29 first timothy two five and six but this
0:11:31 represents paul's thinking uh for there
0:11:33 is one god and one mediator between god
0:11:36 and man the man jesus christ and then he
0:11:38 goes on who gave himself as a ransom for
0:11:41 all people so we have the mediating
0:11:42 logos dying for our sins now paul never
0:11:45 referred to the mediator as the logos
0:11:48 but clearly this is the concept he has
0:11:50 in mind
0:11:51 paul didn't refer to christ as the
0:11:54 wisdom of god theo sophian and of course
0:11:57 philo had already identified chokma in
0:12:00 the old testament divine wisdom as being
0:12:02 the logos explicitly right like in
0:12:04 proverbs chapter eight right the
0:12:06 personified and expressive
0:12:08 logos according to philo spoke of its
0:12:10 origin the lord possessed me at the
0:12:11 beginning of his way before his work of
0:12:14 creation i was poured forth from
0:12:16 eternity from from before the creation
0:12:18 of the earth and paul being a highly
0:12:21 hellenized jew that he was echoed this
0:12:24 phelonic uh sentiment i mean paul wrote
0:12:26 to the corinthians that he was speaking
0:12:27 of the wisdom of god and mystery which
0:12:29 was ordained by god before the ages of
0:12:31 our glory
0:12:33 in this in the pseudo-pauline book of
0:12:34 colossians the author said and he the
0:12:36 son is before all things and by him all
0:12:39 things are held together this is middle
0:12:41 platonism this is stoicism okay
0:12:44 additionally
0:12:46 and again in imitation of middle
0:12:47 platonism paul envisioned a henotheistic
0:12:51 and hierarchical scheme of divinity with
0:12:54 god our father at the top and then the
0:12:56 lord jesus christ the wisdom of god i.e
0:12:59 the logos just below him right so paul
0:13:02 wrote in first corinthians he says
0:13:03 pantas andros ethale
0:13:06 so he says the head of every man is
0:13:08 christ
0:13:12 and the head of of the woman is the man
0:13:15 right so the feminist they don't they
0:13:17 don't like this verse uh
0:13:20 it's extraordinary passage because the
0:13:21 hierarchy the divine hierarchy and the
0:13:23 human hierarchy is is ontological we're
0:13:27 dealing here with jesus after his
0:13:28 resurrection after the ascension this is
0:13:31 the theology that paul really believes
0:13:33 in and that is god christ and then
0:13:36 subservient to that man and woman and uh
0:13:39 there's nothing trinitarian about it at
0:13:41 all on the contrary is as you say
0:13:43 exactly is a hierarchy of being and the
0:13:45 head of christ is
0:13:47 ha theos he says at the end
0:13:51 the god yes the father is the god jesus
0:13:53 christ is the lord these two are not
0:13:55 ontologically equal for paul
0:13:58 just just say uh so just so people
0:14:00 understand here how christians deal with
0:14:01 this i i i've had the honor and the
0:14:03 privilege also to speak to professor
0:14:05 dale martin from uh yale university he's
0:14:07 one of the world's great uh new
0:14:09 testament scholars he's also a christian
0:14:11 theologian and a trinitarian
0:14:13 and he discusses this very very passage
0:14:15 and how he deals with it in his uh most
0:14:18 uh recent work which is addressed to
0:14:20 these whole car all these home and
0:14:21 musical issues how do we how do we be
0:14:23 trinitarian christians in the light of
0:14:24 what you're saying dr alietai and he
0:14:27 says well when you read passages like
0:14:28 that what you do is you read them in a
0:14:30 trinitarian way and you insert
0:14:32 the the son and father language you
0:14:34 understand it in that way you read it in
0:14:37 a trinitarian way so he's very explicit
0:14:40 he's very open and candid about what you
0:14:42 do you don't take paul's meaning you
0:14:45 take the later meaning and you read it
0:14:47 in
0:14:48 and he's not he's very open about it
0:14:50 he's very yeah he's very honest and open
0:14:52 that's exactly how how you read it i
0:14:54 mean on the surface the plain meaning
0:14:56 here is very clear you know the one who
0:14:58 has authority over christ a god is the
0:15:01 god
0:15:02 and this is further made clear by paul's
0:15:03 statement he says whether paul or
0:15:05 apollos or kephas or the world or life
0:15:07 or death
0:15:08 or things now or things to come all
0:15:11 things belong to you and you belong to
0:15:12 christ and christ belongs to god
0:15:16 right it's very good finally we read in
0:15:18 in the pseudo-pauline book of ephesians
0:15:21 the god of our lord jesus christ the god
0:15:24 just think about this thing the god of
0:15:26 our lord jesus christ the father of
0:15:29 glory again in john the logos the johann
0:15:31 and jesus refers to the father as my god
0:15:35 as well as the only one who is truly god
0:15:38 in in john 17 3.
0:15:40 of course trinitarians will disagree
0:15:42 with these assertions they will quote
0:15:44 paul's famous hymn to christ in
0:15:45 philippians 2 as being sort of a proof
0:15:47 text of their position that paul
0:15:49 maintained that christ was essentially
0:15:51 equal to god so paul said uh he said
0:15:54 that jesus christ he said being in the
0:15:56 form of god did not think it was robbery
0:15:58 to be equal with god
0:16:00 but but here's a problem if if christ
0:16:02 was god
0:16:03 the god why would he even consider the
0:16:05 notion that it was robbery to be equal
0:16:07 to himself this is nonsense
0:16:10 you see paul was neither a trinitarian
0:16:12 nor a unitarian okay so from the greater
0:16:15 context of the passage i mean it's clear
0:16:17 that paul believed that christ was
0:16:19 somehow divine in fact worthy of worship
0:16:22 it seems to me that when paul wrote that
0:16:23 christ was both the morphe feiyu the
0:16:26 form of a god and the morphe dulu the
0:16:30 form of a servant he meant a physical
0:16:32 god a deity in the appearance of human
0:16:34 flesh however christ as lord and savior
0:16:38 did not consider it robbery to be equal
0:16:40 to the god precisely because he was not
0:16:43 the god
0:16:45 christ was the divine son of god whose
0:16:46 level of authority on earth was equal to
0:16:49 the god because the latter sent him to
0:16:51 communicate his will to die for the sins
0:16:53 of humanity so for paul christ was not
0:16:55 equal to god sorry christ was equal to
0:16:58 god but not identical to god and this is
0:17:00 a very very crucial distinction i'll say
0:17:02 it again for paul christ was equal to
0:17:04 god but not identical okay therefore
0:17:07 paul was a hellenized you know jewish
0:17:09 you know soft polytheist a henotheist
0:17:11 really he was neither a trinitarian nor
0:17:14 unitarian now the major difference
0:17:16 between paul and john on one side and
0:17:19 philo on the other
0:17:21 is that paul and john believed that the
0:17:24 wisdom or the logos had incarnated into
0:17:26 human flesh as a jewish messiah while
0:17:29 philo did not speak of specific
0:17:30 incarnations but philo did say that the
0:17:33 meaning of the statement man was made in
0:17:35 the image of god he said that man was
0:17:37 made in the image of the second god the
0:17:39 logos and adam was made in the uh
0:17:43 adam was not made in the image of the
0:17:45 god because the god is the supreme and
0:17:47 absolutely transcendent mystery you know
0:17:50 just as john said no one has it ever no
0:17:52 one has ever seen god because he is the
0:17:55 absolutely transcendent mystery the
0:17:57 logos who is seen reveals him so even
0:18:00 there there's a bit of a similarity and
0:18:01 just one last thing before we get to
0:18:03 daniel sort of laying down this sort of
0:18:06 theological
0:18:08 foundation here is that
0:18:11 and this is all related to daniel and
0:18:12 the son of man by the way i'll get to
0:18:14 that in my view and this is something
0:18:15 that maybe uh many muslim duat many
0:18:19 muslim callers to the faith will not
0:18:20 agree with
0:18:22 okay in my view jesus is portrayed as a
0:18:24 divine being a god
0:18:27 in all four gospels in the new testament
0:18:29 okay this is my view that he is the
0:18:31 divine son of god and savior who will
0:18:33 eventually judge mankind in all four
0:18:35 gospels this is how the gospels present
0:18:37 him
0:18:38 he's not the god right the closest he
0:18:41 gets to the god is in john but he never
0:18:43 actually reaches him
0:18:44 the new testament jesus is clearly
0:18:46 inferior to the god whom he calls the
0:18:49 father but he's also clearly not just a
0:18:51 man
0:18:52 okay so the gospels were not written by
0:18:54 trinitarians that's anachronistic
0:18:56 nor were they written by pharisaic jews
0:18:59 nor were they written by jamesonian you
0:19:01 know nazarenes or ebionites so i don't
0:19:03 believe that the four gospels are
0:19:05 teaching a theology that is totally
0:19:06 consistent with islam or unitarian
0:19:09 christianity or traditional uh judaism i
0:19:12 believe that jesus attains divine status
0:19:14 in different ways in the gospels right
0:19:16 but nonetheless he is a divine being in
0:19:18 all four gospels right yeah so you know
0:19:20 you know
0:19:21 yeah
0:19:22 erman has uh explained this in great
0:19:24 detail
0:19:25 jesus in some sense and this is a
0:19:27 crucial caveat yeah nowhere is jesus
0:19:30 yahweh in any of the gospels but he
0:19:33 according to the understandings of the
0:19:35 use of this language in the greek aroma
0:19:36 world and even in judaism at the time
0:19:38 the language of divinity was very
0:19:40 elastic and could and did apply to human
0:19:42 beings as well and within that kind of
0:19:44 matrix jesus does find the setting but
0:19:47 not as yahweh jesus never yahweh in the
0:19:49 new testament he would say yeah
0:19:51 yeah and we do see that evolution of
0:19:53 christology in the gospel i mean the
0:19:54 earlier the gospel
0:19:56 the the later jesus becomes the divine
0:19:58 son of god in the timeline or to put it
0:20:00 in another way the later the gospel the
0:20:02 earlier jesus becomes divine yes now the
0:20:04 under the underlying influences of
0:20:06 mark's gospel which is the earliest of
0:20:08 the quartet
0:20:09 are greek metaphysics enochic tradition
0:20:12 and pauline christology so judaism is
0:20:14 very much sort of in the back row it's
0:20:16 just kind of a veneer
0:20:18 the disciples in mark are are totally
0:20:20 inept unable to understand anything you
0:20:23 know they're cowards who forsake jesus
0:20:25 and flee
0:20:26 why because they're jews mark is making
0:20:29 a statement here um you will not
0:20:31 understand jesus at least his jesus the
0:20:34 mark in jesus through jewish eyes you
0:20:37 need greco-roman eyes
0:20:39 and at the end of mark it is a roman
0:20:41 centurion who confesses
0:20:43 you know at the foot of the cross truly
0:20:44 this man was a son of god
0:20:46 you see he gets it not the jewish
0:20:49 disciples in a mark mary and jesus's
0:20:52 family think he's insane
0:20:54 you know if mary was visited by an angel
0:20:57 why does she think jesus was insane why
0:20:59 because she was a jew so mark is telling
0:21:01 us that that jesus is the son of god
0:21:04 really in a greco-roman sense now what
0:21:07 is the roman conception of a son of god
0:21:09 you know augustus was called the son of
0:21:11 god he was a divine being but no roman
0:21:13 believed that augustus was equal in all
0:21:16 respects to jupiter to zeus who is the
0:21:19 god okay so keep that in mind so so so
0:21:22 when we study um jewish history we see
0:21:25 that that pre-christian north african
0:21:28 and palestinian judaism had already been
0:21:31 significantly influenced by greek
0:21:33 metaphysics ever since the beginning of
0:21:36 the hellenistic period in the 4th
0:21:37 century bce so philo and paul and john
0:21:40 they're just sort of the tip of the
0:21:41 iceberg
0:21:42 the invasion of all things greek and
0:21:45 palestine
0:21:46 even led to a massive
0:21:48 inter-jewish conflict right with
0:21:50 maccabean purists on one side and then
0:21:53 the the cyro grecian the you know the
0:21:55 celeste empire along with their jewish
0:21:58 sympathizers on the other side i mean
0:22:00 they were jewish men i don't know how on
0:22:02 earth they were able to do this but
0:22:03 there were jewish men who reversed their
0:22:05 circumcisions
0:22:06 so that they could look like
0:22:08 a wrestler in the gymnasium and stuff i
0:22:10 never got that but i thought that's not
0:22:12 to bring too much into these details but
0:22:13 somehow they did it so somehow they
0:22:16 managed to pull it off some kind of
0:22:18 reconstructive surgery and they were
0:22:20 able to like yeah you wrestle in the
0:22:21 gymnasium compete in the greek olympics
0:22:23 yeah in the end the maccabees gained the
0:22:25 upper hand at least politically yeah and
0:22:27 in 164 bce the temple was repaired and
0:22:30 cleansed and rededicated to god thus
0:22:31 hanukkah was born