Burton Books

Wonderful book about furniture of this period. Especially interesting for me as I had numerous relatives living in Charleston during this period and up to present. It gives insight into how people lived in Charleston during these times.

The see how they grow series is yet another quality series put out by Dorling Kindersley (aka DK). Purchase them all if you can! Both children and adults will enjoy "watching" the chick grow. The last two pages are a pictorial summary of how the chick went from egg to eight week-old rooster.

The book contains several stories about Burton and his twin brother growing up in Southern Arkansas during the depression. Despite this time frame, the book is a great read for all ages. It has warm wit and humor and very inspiring messages.

Ms. Mains and Hancock have written a fantastic book on childhood sexual abuse and the problems the victim contends with later in life. The best thing about this book is that it gives practical steps on how to work through the steps of recovery and forgiveness. In fact, the steps to forgiveness can be applied to any area of our lives.

This is NOT a childrens' activities book -- the deceptive title explains the continued availability of this SLEEPER of a coffee table book/collector's reference/DYNAMITE picture trove.

Produced by the Victoria and Albert Museum, it has over 350 finely printed pix, mostly in delicious color on heavy matte stock, selected from the world's largest display of toys and a mojumbo kiddie library.

This is a must-have for collectors, or for those who teach and/or love children or are interested in the history of these delightful objects, or just of childhood. Seven topically organized sections plus back matter; every page is a delight. Grab one used and cheap, before too many people read this review!

From Front Jacket:

"This is the third volume of a uniform edition of 'The Works of Witter Bynner,' under the general editorship of James Kraft, issued under the auspices of The Witter Bynner Foundation for Poetry. It contains 'The Jade Mountain' with an introduction by Burton Watson, and 'The Way of Life According to Laotzu' with an introduction by David Lattimore, as well as Witter Bynner's essay on Kiang Kang-hu, 'Remembering a Gentle Scholar.' Witter Bynner (1881-1968) was a poet, critic, biographer, playwright, translator, editor, and man of letters whose work and career deserve to be better known to contemporary readers."

From Introduction:

"Fifty years have passed since the American poet Witter Bynner began making translations of Chinese poetry, at first publishing them piecemeal in various magazines and in 1929 collecting them in a volume entitled 'The Jade Mountain'.

Bynner read no Chinese. In making his translations he relied entirely upon the assistance of the eminent Chinese scholar and educator Kiang Kang-hu, who taught for a time at the University of California at Berkeley. ...Kiang supplied him with literal versions of the poems from which to work and aided him a shaping the translations and in preparing notes and biographical information."

As a writer and amateur historian who researches and writes on topics of religion, and not being a trained scholar who is able to translate texts for myself, I rely on books such as this one to give me the tools to ply my trade. This is a particularly juicy one since the Beelzebul Controversy has always struck me as a key component to understanding just what the heck was going on back then.

In my opinion, based on wide reading, there's a real possibility that the "god" that "Jesus" was talking about in terms of the "heavenly father" and the "kingdom of god" may very well have been "Beelzebul" and not Yahweh. It seems clear from reading the works of Burton Mack: A MYTH OF INNOCENCE (Foundations & Facets Series)", the The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins, Who Wrote the New Testament?: The Making of the Christian Myth, etc., as well as the works of other biblical scholars and historians of religion, such as Thomas L. Thompson, Phillip Davies, John van Seters, Giovanni Garbini, Niels Peter Lemche, and others, that Jesus very probably was not a Jew at all and it was only Jewish Christians who sought to cast him in that role to underwrite their "Synagogue reform" intentions, to indemnify themselves against the charge of following after "foreign gods."

In "Christian Origins and the Language of the Kingdom of God," Michael L. Humphries analyzes the "Beelzebul controversy" and draws some fascinating conclusions, though he doesn't go as far as I have in the above statement. It was only while reading his analysis that it occurred to me that it was obvious that the god of the real "Jesus" WAS Beelzebul.

Humphries quotes Walter Bauer who says:

"Perhaps - I repeat, perhaps - certain manifestations of Christian life that the authors of the church renounce as "heresies" originally had not been such at all, but were the only form of the new religion - that is, for those regions they were simply "Christianity." The possibility also exists that their adherents constituted the majority, and that they looked down with hatred and scorn on the orthodox, who for them were the false believers."

That's pretty much the attitude the Cathars had toward the Catholic Church - that the church was the false religion. They also claimed that the god of the Old Testament - the Jewish Yahweh/Jehovah - was the evil demiurge. And yet, in order to legitimize itself, we note that Christianity has adopted this god as the "father of Jesus." (See Burton Mack for a very good analysis of how that came about).

Humphries then discusses the problem of the "kingdom of god" which is intimately tied up with the Beelzebul controversy. He begins with a quote of a more mainstream view from Norman Perrin:

"The central aspect of the teaching of Jesus was that concerning the Kingdom of God. Of this there can be no doubt and today no scholar does, in fact, doubt it. Jesus appeared as one who proclaimed the Kingdom; all else in his message and ministry serves a function in relation to that proclamation and derives meaning from it. The challenge to discipleship, the ethical teaching, the disputes about oral tradition or ceremonial law, even the pronouncement of the forgiveness of sins and the welcoming of the outcast in the name of God - all these are to be understood in context of the Kingdom proclamation or they are not to be understood at all.

Humphries then notes that:

"The concept of the kingdom therefore functions like a "skeleton key" whereby all seemingly loose threads are gathered into a unifying whole; and comprehension comes only to the reader who knows this to be true."

Just exactly what this "kingdom of god" was/is, seems to be somewhat problematical. Humphries aligns himself with Mack's general ideas writing that:

"[...] Crossan effectively argues on behalf of a sapiential or ethical understanding of the kingdom as represented by a first-century Mediterranean Jewish peasantry. The kingdom constitutes a present reality characterized by social and cultural engagement with ruling powers ... resistance against oppression."

Here's where I think biblical scholars and historians of religion really ought to do some reading in physics and astronomy and maybe open the doors of their minds a bit wider. What I mean is, I don't know why it doesn't occur to biblical scholars such as Mack, to consider the hyperdimensional hypothesis and compare Jesus to the Siberian Shaman who has access to the "kingdom" via his ascent/descent.

What seems to be most important about Central Asian shamanism in the history of mysticism is the role the shaman plays in the defense of the psychic integrity of the community. Shamans are pre-eminently the anti-demonic champions; they combat not only demons and disease, but also the black magicians. The shaman is the tireless slayer of demons and dragons.

In this sense, we find the connection between Jesus and the Grail legends. Here we find explication of the "military" elements of the Grail Ensemble. The Sword in the Stone that can only be withdrawn by the "Heir", or the "Desired Knight", was represented in the Steppe shamanic regalia as lance, cuirass, bow, sword, etc. These are accounted for by virtue of the requirements of war against the demons, the true enemies of humanity. As Eliade points out in ShamanismShamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy (Bollingen Series (General)), the shaman defends life, health, fertility, the world of "light", against death, diseases, sterility, disaster, and the world of "darkness". In short, the Shaman is a very early "type" of the Knight on the Quest for the Holy Grail - the Shamanic ascent to the Celestial Spheres and Jesus is certainly modeled on this archetype in many respects.

We see that what is fundamental and universal to the shaman, to the heroes of myth, to the Quest for the Holy Grail, to the myth of Jesus, is the shaman's struggle against what we could call "the powers of evil". The knight/shaman's essential role in the defense of the psychic integrity of the community depends above all on this: men are sure that one of them is able to help them in the critical circumstances produced by the inhabitants of the invisible world. Here we come to a crucial characteristic of the knight/shaman: he must be able to SEE what is hidden and invisible to the rest and to bring back direct and reliable information from the supernatural worlds. In short, in the accounts of shamanic ecstasies, we find correspondence to the themes of the great epics in oral literature. The knight/shaman's adventures in the other world, the ordeals and tests that he undergoes in his ecstatic descents below and ascents to the sky, describe in every detail the adventures of the figures in popular tales and the heroes of epic myths. This suggests that many epic "subjects" or motifs, as well as many characters, images, and clichés of these tales, are of ecstatic, or even other-worldly origin in the sense of interactions with hyper-dimensional realities.

But, I digress. The Beelzebul controversy has been going on for a long time. Understanding the meaning of the accusation that "He [Jesus] casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of demons" has been interpreted so many ways that are unsatisfactory, that it is a great satisfaction to read Humphries treatment of the subject even if there are a couple of unsatisfactory conclusions, in my opinion.

Humprhies notes that the designation of Beelzebul as the "ruler of demons (Satan) is difficult to trace to any other source. According to one scholar quoted:

"The derivation of the name is disputed, and is in any case unimportant for the meaning of the text, since Beelzebul is simply a popular name for the prince of demons. The name dos NOT occur in Jewish literature, but appears to represent the same figure as Belial in the intertestamental literature. (Marshall)"

Humphries does not agree with this easy tossing away of the importance of the etymology of the name. He points out that Marshall says 1) the name is absent in the Jewish literature, and thus disputed; BUT 2) is said to represent a popular name for the ruler of demons! That is contradictory.

In short, the precise explanation of the name Beelzebul is, apparently, without documentation prior to the composition of the biblical text. It appears later in the writings of Origen, Hippolytus, and "The Testament of Solomon."

The correlation of Beelzebul with the "ruler of demons" (Satan) is actually quite problematic. Hippolytus distinguishes between Beelzebul and Satan and Origen makes no connection between the two at all, reports Humphries.

The "true believer" Bible scholars tend to assume that Beelzebul was a well-known lord of demons, but that is, in fact, not the case. It is not established that Mediterranean Jews customarily regarded Beelzebul as the "ruler of demons." This designation only occurs in later Christian literature. So, how to explain it?

Beel is the Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Beel from the Hebrew Baal, meaning "owner," "lord," or "prince." The problem is with the "zebul" part.

Humphries points out that the majority of New Testament texts read "Beelzeboul" but the Vulgate and Syrian text cite the alternate: Beelzeboub. This leaves open the possibility that there was an association between Beelzebul(b) and the ancient PHILISTINE deity Ball zebub (Baal muian in the Septuagint "Lord of the flies"). Some scholars propose that Beelzebul and Baalzebub are one and the same. The more likely possibility is that Baalzebub represents a pun ("lord of the flies") on the original name of Baal zebul whose rule was not limited to the region of Philistia.

Humphries then turns to the fact that the reading of this name that seems to be gaining support translates the name as: LORD OF HEAVEN. This thesis was developed by W.E.M. Aitken and Lloyd Gaston. Each took a different approach to analyzing the word ZEBUL, and arrived at the same conclusion that ZEBUL signifies the DWELLING OF GOD, whether heaven or a temple.

This conclusion came from analyzing rabbinic literature. According to Rosh ha-shanah 17a: "There is no zebul except the temple, for it is written: 'I have built thee a beth zebul.'"

In Aboth de Rabbi Nathan, it is said that ZEBUL is the name of one of the SEVEN HEAVENS.

According to Hagigah 12b, ZEBUL is the fifth heaven ...

These reading apparently derive from the saying in 1 Kings 8:13, where BETH ZEBUL represents a parallel expression for Yahweh's eternal dwelling, and from Isaiah 63:15, where ZEBUL designates the heavenly throne of Yahweh. Habakkuk 3:11 uses ZEBUL as the "dwelling place of the Sun and Moon." Humphries quotes Aitken:

"This makes it clear that ZEBUL was understood specifically of the dwelling of God, whether that was though of as the temple on earth or the heavens; in later ages when the temple has disappeared it was still used of heaven."

Additional evidence was provided by another scholar, Gaston, who pointed out that the Septuagint texts of 1 Kings 8:13 and Isaiah 63:15 translate ZEBUL with the Greek OIKOS, meaning "temple."

So, the conclusion is that Beelzebul means Lord of Heaven or the one that dwells in the dwelling place of God.

So, how did he come to be known as the Lord of Demons???

One theory suggested by Humphries is that this was a Jewish thing, a rendering of Baalshamaim, the Jewish name for Zeus Olympios. Baalshamaim was a pagan sky god whose cult was a source of rear and hatred for loyal Palestinian Jews during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes whom the book of Daniel labels the "abomination of desolation." The argument is:

1) since Baalshamaim is a foreign deity, he is a demon ("for all the gods of the nations are demons" psalms 95:5)

2) Since he is the god of heaven, he is the chief rival of Yahweh, and therefore must be Satan, the ruler of demons.

3) Because Yahweh is the only TRUE god of heaven, therefore, no other deity can carry that name - Baalshamaim) and therefore an alternate designation is necessary: ZEBUL replaces SHAMAIM.

Humphries also suggests that the principle target of the text could have been the early Jesus people, keeping in mind that Jesus identified himself with the "master of the house" which they took to be threats toward the Temple.

Humphries argues a connection between Beelzebul and the Canaanite-Syrian deity zbl bl ars, or "the prince, lord of the earth".

Of course, all of the above assumes that we are discussing a real, historical event, and it is not really clear that this is the case! The Q document gives no indication of conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees regarding his behavior toward the temple. The charge that Jesus sought to destroy the temple is a much later story wrapped around Jesus - the same as the claim that he was the "son of god."

Moreover, there is another possible interpretation for ZEBUL: elevate, exalted, height, glorified.

That, of course, fits better with my notion that what was being discussed as the "kingdom of god" was actually an understanding of hyperdimensional realities, shamanic ascent and descent.

Bottom line is, according to Humphries, to the Jews, all other gods were demons, so, if there was any historical reality to this event, what it means is that the basis of the accusation was that Jesus cast out demons by the power of some foreign god.

As I suggest, maybe he did.

Humphries makes the point that this was a charge of "deviance." The accusation is saying: "He is not one of us, he is not a Jew, he is not a child of Israel, but a child of Beelzebul."

Since Jesus was said to be a Galilean, from the North, this makes perfect sense. The charge was intended to label Jesus as an outsider: he does not belong.

Jesus retort is introduced with a statement that makes it clear that he is able to discern the strategy of his accusers - that they intend to label him as a deviant. The charge of Black Magic is always and ever intended to defame, to diminish; the effort to label Jesus as an outsider would be aimed at garnering Jewish support against him. Being labeled in this way is supposed to draw lines, to create in others the impression of us vs. them.

In his analysis, Humphries discusses the role of chreia - an elaboration tale that was created to exemplify what Jesus WOULD or MIGHT have said in such a situation - and breaks down the response into two parts.

The first part is his remark about the disasters that befall those who are divided: the charge of demon collusion to cast out demons is intended to be absurd because everyone knows that a divided kingdom falls!

This does not, of course, address the deeper charge of deviance; it only attacks the surface logic of the accusation. The accusers are, essentially, caught in a trap for the issue of the unity of the demonic kingdom was not even in their minds. One scholar suggests that this chreia was based on some knowledge of the real Jesus, that it is possible that when Jesus was once reproached for exorcising demons by Beelzebul, he retorted: "Devil against devil? some strategy!" Humphries points out that this is a clever bit of sophistry similar to the numerous Cynic chreiai.

In the second part of the response, Jesus points out that when the accuser's own sons perform exorcisms, they are not charged with demon collusion so, what the accuser grant to their own sons - that they are performing exorcisms by the power of god - must also be granted to Jesus, or the sons will also be held up to question. In other words, the practice of exorcism itself precludes demon collusion.

What needs to be kept in mind, in my opinion, is that this is a clever story created by later Jewish Christians within a Jewish context. The implication is actually deeper. Humphries writes:

"The force of the arguments aims to locate oneself within the Israelite field, to designate and legitimate one's ethos thereby. The discourse is not about distinguishing between valid and invalid exorcisms, but about being for Beelzebul or for Yahweh, for Satan's kingdom or Yahweh's kingdom, an outsider or an insider. [...] It is also quite clear... that Jesus' response turns the tables on his accusers. Insofar as they refuse to recognize the power of the kingdom in his exorcisms, they find themselves in danger of standing outside the kingdom. No one belonging to the kingdom of God could identify Jesus' exorcisms, or any exorcism for that matter, a s satanic. If the accusers do not accept the "quality in common" ... if they do not grant to Jesus what they grant to their own sons, then it is precisely this failure of recognition that renders the accusers themselves as deviant. And so a sharp distinction is indeed established. The exchange between Jesus and his accusers constitutes a battle over who represents the legitimate expression of Israel."

Clearly, to my mind, the individual writing this story understood himself as an "insider" of Israel and sought to use this method to draw Jesus in as an insider as well. This suggests strongly that Jesus WAS an outsider to Israel, was NOT a Jew, and Beelzebul WAS the name of the personification of the "kingdom of god," the Celestial Supreme Being. As Eliade writes:

"Everywhere in those lands, and from the earliest times, we find documents for the existence of a Supreme Being of celestial structure, who also corresponds morphologically to all the other Supreme Beings of the archaic religions. The symbolism of ascent, with all the rites and myths dependent on it, must be connected with celestial Supreme Beings; [...] This symbolism of ascent and "height" retains its value even after the "withdrawal" of the celestial Supreme Being... [...]

The reduction or even the total loss in religious currency of Uranian Supreme Beings is sometimes indicated in myths concerning a primordial and paradisal time when communications between heaven and earth were easy and accessible to everyone; as the result of some happening, these communications were broken off and the Supreme Beings withdrew to the highest sky.[...]

It is indubitable that the celestial ascent of the shaman is a survival, profoundly modified and sometimes degenerate, of this archaic religious ideology centered on faith in a celestial Supreme Being and belief in concrete communications between heaven and earth. [...]

The myths refer to more intimate relations between the Supreme Beings and shamans; in particular, they tell of a First Shaman, sent to earth by the Supreme Being or his surrogate to defend human beings against diseases and evil spirits. (Eliade, Mircea, Shamanism, Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, pp. 503-506)

It was in the context of the "withdrawal" of the "Celestial Being" that the meaning of the shaman's ecstatic experience changed. Formerly, the activity was focused on communing with the god and obtaining benefits for the tribe. The shift of the function of the shaman associated with the withdrawal of the benevolent god/goddess was to "battling with evil spirits and disease". This is a sharp reminder of the work of Jesus, healing the sick and casting out demons - the shamanic exemplar "after the Fall".

And since this sort of activity has been related to more northern regions, Asia, Eastern Europe, and even Western Europe - where it is a deep part of the Greek mythic substratum - it would make sense that Beelzebul - or other "foreign gods" would be the representation for the "kingdom of heaven" according to the "real Jesus." If Beelzebul was a Philistine god, right there is the connection. Modern archaeology has shown early cultural links between the Philistines and the Mycenean world in mainland Greece.

Anyway, back to the book: it's a very good explication of the problem of the Beelzebul Controversy and the argument is generally well presented and well-reasoned. I would recommend this book also to a general, non-expert reader for some very good background on biblical texts and how they are studied by scholars.

Ms. Burton has done it again - capturing the imagination of teens in her Topeka Heights series. A fun read that is easy to relate to - a perfect book for any teen, of any color.

The author of this book is truely a wonderful pastor and mentor. I would read anything he wrote. He was my pastor of my youth and a loving and awesome man. I will always think of him as my father figure since my father died when I was only 8 years of age. I am very much looking forward to reading this book and studying it and learning something new. Thank you Pastor Burton.

How many computer books have your purchased and found them to be about as interesting as watching grass grow. Granted technical material is tough to write. This set is great. It isn't just Cisco documentation rehashed again. The commentary adds an entirely new dimension to it. The troubleshooting tips & strategies give the reader the benefit of the knowledge of several well respected Cisco authorities. I'll use this set a great deal!