Simply Jesus: NT Wright Interviewed

Dr NT Wright is interviewed on his new book, Simply Jesus:

HT

Mughrabi Bridge Demolition Delayed

Jordan, Egypt warned Israel taking down bridge that connects Western Wall, Temple Mount may spark regional protests.

Anything for a good protest in Jordan and Egypt…

In any event, The Jerusalem Post reports:

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday delayed plans at the last minute to  start rebuilding the Mughrabi Bridge linking the Western Wall Plaza to the  Temple Mount because of Egyptian and Jordanian concerns, Channel 2 reported  Sunday.

According to the report, work on the bridge – which received approval in March – was to have begun early Sunday morning. The initial work of  demolishing the existing structure would have necessitated the deployment of  large IDF and security forces in Jerusalem and around the Temple Mount, as well  as stepped-up army preparedness in the West Bank.

Channel 2 reported  Cairo and Amman warned Jerusalem the work would likely lead to “disruptions” in  both Jordan and Egypt.

Officials in both the Prime Minister’s Office and  the Jerusalem Municipality refused Sunday night to comment on the  reports.

Previous work on the bridge caused widespread rioting in  neighborhoods throughout the Jerusalem area and in Jordan.

Jordan’s Awkaf  Islamic Affairs and Holy Places Ministry warned that were Israel to begin to  take down the Mughrabi Bridge, the move would likely ignite protests throughout  Jordan, which could eventually spread to the West Bank, according to the Channel  2 report.

Under the plans, a permanent bridge is to be built to replace  the current temporary wooden structure that has been in use since a 2003  earthquake and winter storm caused part of the original bridge to collapse. The  bridge is used as the main entry point for non-Muslim tourists and security  forces entering the Temple Mount.

 

No Substance Archbishop John Hepworth’s Rape Claim

There is no substance to a breakaway Anglican church leader’s claim to have been raped by a Catholic priest, Catholic Archbishop Philip Wilson says.

So it in other words: Archbishop John Hepworth is lying.

Traditional Anglican Communion Archbishop John Hepworth said earlier this year he had been the victim of violent rapes by three priests that began in 1960, when he was 15.

Senator Nick Xenophon named an Adelaide priest  as one of the rapists under federal parliamentary privilege, saying the Catholic Church had taken too long to investigate.

Adelaide Archbishop Wilson said today that an independent inquiry into the allegations by Michael Abbott QC had found there was no substance to the allegations.

The investigation included interviews with 29 witnesses, many of whom were present at the time the events were alleged to have occurred, and examination of a large number of documents including those dating back to the relevant period, Archbishop Wilson said.

“I am satisfied that Mr Abbott examined every aspect of the allegations raised by Archbishop Hepworth,” he said in a statement today.

Archbishop Wilson said Mr Abbott also found there was no basis to Senator Xenophon’s criticism of the Archdiocese’s handling of the complaint.

“He found the matter was handled in a completely appropriate and professional way … and in accordance with proper procedures and sensitivity towards Archbishop Hepworth.”

Monsignor Dempsey earlier said it was “totally unfair and unjust” of Senator Xenophon to have named him under parliamentary privilege as a rapist.

He said he had never had sex of any kind, consensual or not, with Archbishop Hepworth.

Archbishop Hepworth, who is primate in Adelaide of the splinter group Traditional Anglican Communion, has said he was an adult when he was allegedly raped by Monsignor Dempsey.

Archbishop Hepworth has said he broke away from the Catholic Church because of the abuse. The two other accused priests are dead and his claims about them have been settled with the Catholic Church.

 

The Extra Letter on the Tel Dan Inscription

Writes George Athas:

I recently returned home from the annual Society of Biblical Literature conference in San Francisco. While there I heard a very interesting paper by Andrew Knapp (Johns Hopkins University), in which he gave a new take on part of the text of the Tel Dan Inscription. This Old Aramaic inscription is perhaps best known for containing the phrase House of David (or something close to this). Knapp’s paper focused not on this phrase, but on another section of the inscription. He argued that the word קדם in line 4 of the inscription, which scholars usually translate by the adverb formerly, is actually a toponym, Qedem. He pointed to other sources in which there appears to be a place called Qedem in the northern Transjordan in the general vicinity of Damascus…

… This extra letter stands in addition to the other major flaws of the general consensus view of the inscription, such as the claim that Fragments B1 and B2 belong to the immediate left of Fragment A. This claim and the text reconstructed on the basis of this configuration is virtually physically impossible. Furthermore, the authorship  and dating of the inscription were pegged to Hazael in c.840 BC, but this was concluded before the find site at Tel Dan was fully excavated. Subsequent seasons of excavation at Tel Dan show that this is slightly too early for the relevant strata. In addition to this, it seems that the consensus view largely sidesteps the fact that Hazael was a known usurper of the Damascene throne. That is, his father was not the previous king of Damascus. In fact, the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III refers to Hazael as ‘the son of a nobody’, implying that he was not part of the previous ruling dynasty. This fact is further reflected by the biblical tradition that Hazael murdered his predecessor to take the throne (2 Kings 8.15). And yet the Tel Dan Inscription (at other points) refers to the author’s father as though they were the reigning monarch. The general consensus view of the inscription simply does not make sense. The much more likely candidate for authorship is Hazael’s son, Bar Hadad.

There are many other flaws in the general consensus view of the Tel Dan Inscription, which I won’t enumerate here…

Read the whole post here.

HT:  Dr Jim West