Just for some context Chrysosotom wrote the following sermons during his time in Antioch. As an address to the Judaizers, which he felt were becoming a major threat to Christianity. Trying To explain to them why the jews were wrong the following texts have been taken from his Adversus Judaeos or against the jews

Homily 1

If the enemies of the truth never have enough of blaspheming our Benefactor, we must be all the more tireless in praising the God of all. But what am I to do? Another very serious illness calls for any cure my words can bring, an illness which has become implanted in the body of the Church. We must first root this ailment out and then take thought for matters outside; we must first cure our own and then be concerned for others who are strangers.

What is this disease? The festivals of the pitiful and miserable Jews are soon to march upon us one after the other and in quick succession: the feast of Trumpets, the feast of Tabernacles, the fasts. There are many in our ranks who say they think as we \[Christians\] do. Yet some of them are going to watch the festivals and others will join the Jews in keeping their feasts and observing their fasts. I wish to drive this perverse custom from the Church right now. My homilies against the Anomians can be put off to another time, and the postponement would cause no harm. But now that the Jewish festivals are close by and at the very door, if I should fail to cure those who are sick with the Judaizing disease I am afraid that, because of their ill-suited association and deep ignorance, some Christians may partake in the Jews' transgressions; once they have done so, I fear my homilies on these transgressions will be in vain. For if they hear no word from me today, they will then join the Jews in their fasts; once they have committed this sin it will be useless for me to apply the remedy.

And so it is that I hasten to anticipate this danger and prevent it. This is what physicians do. They first check the diseases which are most urgent and acute. But the danger from this sickness is very closely related to the danger from the other. Since the Anomians' impiety is akin to that of the Jews, my present conflict is akin to my former one. And there is a kinship because the Jews and the Anomians make the same accusation. And what charges do the Jews make? That He \[Jesus\] called God His own Father and so made Himself equal to God. The Anomians also make this charge - I should not say they make this a charge; they even blot out the phrase "equal to God" and what it connotes, by their resolve to reject it even if they do not physically erase it.

Homily 2

Do not be surprised that I called the Jews pitiable. They really are pitiable and miserable. When so many blessings from heaven came into their hands, they thrust them aside and were at great pains to reject them. The morning Sun of Justice arose for them, but they thrust aside its rays and still sit in darkness. We, who were nurtured by darkness, drew the light to ourselves and were freed from the gloom of their error. They were the branches of that holy root, but those branches were broken. We had no share in the root, but we did reap the fruit of godliness. From their childhood they read the prophets, but they crucified him whom the prophets had foretold. We did not hear the divine prophecies but we did worship him of whom they prophesied. And so they are pitiful because they rejected the blessings which were sent to them, while others seized hold of these blessing and drew them to themselves. Although those Jews had been called to the adoption of sons, they fell to kinship with dogs; we who were dogs received the strength, through God's grace, to put aside the irrational nature which was ours and to rise to the honor of sons. How do I prove this? Christ said: "It is not fair to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs". Christ was speaking to the Canaanite woman when He called the Jews children and the Gentiles dogs.

But see how thereafter the order was changed about: they became dogs, and we became the children. Paul said of the Jews: "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the mutilation. For we are the circumcision". Do you see how those who at first were children became dogs? Do you wish to find out how we, who at first were dogs, became children? "But to as many as received him, he gave the power of becoming sons of God".

Nothing is more miserable than those people who never failed to attack their own salvation. When there was need to observe the Law, they trampled it under foot. Now that the Law has ceased to bind, they obstinately strive to observe it. What could be more pitiable that those who provoke God not only by transgressing the Law but also by keeping it? On this account Stephen said: "You stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart, you always resist the Holy Spirit", not only by transgressing the Law but also by wishing to observe it at the wrong time.

Stephen was right in calling them stiff-necked. For they failed to take up the yoke of Christ, although it was sweet and had nothing about it which was either burdensome or oppressive. …But what is the source of this hardness? It comes from gluttony and drunkenness. Who says so? Moses himself. "Israel ate and was filled and the darling grew fat and frisky".When brute animals feed from a full manger, they grow plump and become more obstinate and hard to hold in check; they endure neither the yoke, the reins, nor the hand of the charioteer. Just so the Jewish people were driven by their drunkenness and plumpness to the ultimate evil; they kicked about, they failed to accept the yoke of Christ, nor did they pull the plow of his teaching. Another prophet hinted at this when he said: "Israel is as obstinate as a stubborn heifer". And still another called the Jews "an untamed calf".

Although such beasts are unfit for work, they are fit for killing. And this is what happened to the Jews: while they were making themselves unfit for work, they grew fit for slaughter. This is why Christ said: "But as for these my enemies, who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and slay them". You Jews should have fasted then, when drunkenness was doing those terrible things to you, when your gluttony was giving birth to your ungodliness - not now. Now your fasting is untimely and an abomination. Who said so? Isaiah himself when he called out in a loud voice: "I did not choose this fast, say the Lord". Why? "You quarrel and squabble when you fast and strike those subject to you with your fists". But if your fasting was an abomination when you were striking your fellow slaves, does it become acceptable now that you have slain your Master? How could that be right?

The man who fasts should be properly restrained, contrite, humbled - not drunk with anger. But do you strike your fellow slaves? In Isaiah's day they quarreled and squabbled when they fasted; now when fast, they go in for excesses and the ultimate licentiousness, dancing with bare feet in the marketplace. The pretext is that they are fasting, but they act like men who are drunk. Hear how the prophet bid them to fast. "Sanctify a fast", he said. He did not say: "Make a parade of your fasting", but "call an assembly; gather together the ancients". But these Jews are gathering choruses of effeminates and a great rubbish heap of harlots; they drag into the synagogue the whole theater, actors and all. For there is no difference between the theater and the synagogue. I know that some suspect me of rashness because I said there is no difference between the theater and the synagogue; but I suspect them of rashness if they do not think that this is so. …

Homily 3

Many, I know, respect the Jews and think that their present way of life is a venerable one. This is why I hasten to uproot and tear out this deadly opinion. I said that the synagogue is no better than a theater and I bring forward a prophet as my witness. Surely the Jews are not more deserving of belief than their prophets. "You had a harlot's brow; you became shameless before all". Where a harlot has set herself up, that place is a brothel. But the synagogue is not only a brothel and a theater; it also is a den of robbers and a lodging for wild beasts. Jeremiah said: "Your house has become for me the den of a hyena". He does not simply say "of a wild beast", but "of a filthy wild beast", and again: "I have abandoned my house, I have cast off my inheritance". But when God forsakes a people, what hope of salvation is left? When God forsakes a place, that place becomes the dwelling of demons….

If, then, the Jews fail to know the Father, if they crucified the Son, if they thrust off the help of the Spirit, who should not make bold to declare plainly that the synagogue is a dwelling of demons? God is not worshipped there. Heaven forbid! From now on it remains a place of idolatry. But still some people pay it honor as a holy place.

Let me tell you this, not from guesswork but from my own experience. Three days ago - believe me, I am not lying - I saw a free woman of good bearing, modest, and a believer \[in Christ\]. A brutal, unfeeling man, reputed to be a Christian (for I would not call a person who would dare to do such a thing a sincere Christian) was forcing her to enter the shrine of the Hebrews and to swear there an oath about some matters under dispute with him. She came up to me and asked for help; she begged me to prevent this lawless violence - for it was forbidden to her, who had shared in the divine mysteries, to enter that place. I was fired with indignation, I became angry, I rose up, I refused to let her be dragged into that transgression, I snatched her from the hands of her abductor. I asked him if were a Christian, and he said he was. Then I set upon him vigorously, charging him with lack of feeling and the worst stupidity; I told him he was no better off than a mule if he, who professed to worship Christ, would drag someone off to the dens of the Jews who had crucified him. I talked to him a long time, drawing my lesson from the Holy Gospels; I told him first that it was altogether forbidden to swear and that it was wrong to impose the necessity of swearing on anyone. I then told him that he must not subject a baptized believer to this necessity. In fact, he must not force even an unbaptized person to swear an oath.

After I talked with him at great length and had driven the folly of his error from his soul, I asked him why he rejected the Church and dragged the woman to the place where the Hebrews assembled. He answered that many people had told him that oaths sworn there were more to be feared. His words made me groan, then I grew angry, and finally I began to smile. When I saw the devil's wickedness, I groaned because he had the power to seduce men; I grew angry when I considered how careless were those who were deceived; when I saw the extent and depth of the folly of those who were deceived, I smiled.

The Jews frighten you as if you were little children, and you do not see it. Many wicked slaves show frightening and ridiculous masks to youngsters - the masks are not frightening by their nature, but they seem so to the children's simple minds- and in this way they stir up many a laugh. This is the way the Jews frighten the simpler-minded Christians with the bugbears and hobgoblins of their shrines. Yet how could their ridiculous and disgraceful synagogues frighten you? Are they not the shrines of men who have been rejected, dishonored, and condemned?

Homily 4

Our churches are not like that; they are truly frightening and filled with fear. God's presence makes a place frightening because he has power over life and death. In our churches we hear countless homilies on eternal punishments, on rivers of fire, on the venomous worm, on bonds that cannot be burst, or exterior darkness. But the Jews neither know nor dream of these things. They live for their bellies, they gape for the things of this world, their condition is not better than that of pigs or goats because of their wanton ways and excessive gluttony. They know but one thing: to fill their bellies and be drunk, to get all cut and bruised, to be hurt and wounded while fighting for their favorite charioteers….

I urge you to keep my words in your minds in a special way. For I am not now speaking for show or applause but to cure your souls. And what else is left for me to say when some of you are still sick although there are so many physicians to effect a cure?

There were twelve apostles and they drew the whole world to themselves. The greater portion of the city \[of Antioch\] is Christian, yet some are still sick with the Judaizing disease. And what could we, who are healthy, say in our own defense? Surely those who are sick deserve to be accused. But we are not free from blame, because we have neglected them in their hour of illness; if we had shown great concern for them and they had the benefit of this care, they could not possibly still be sick….

Tell me this. Suppose you were to see a man who had been justly condemned being led to execution through the marketplace. Suppose it were in your power to save him from the hands of the public executioner. Would you not do all you could to keep him from being dragged off? But now you see your own brother being dragged off unjustly to the depth of destruction. And it is not the executioner who drags him of, but the devil. Would you be so bold as not to do your part toward rescuing him from his transgression? If you don't help him, what excuse would you find? But your brother is stronger and more powerful than you. Show him to me. If he will stand fast in his obstinate resolve, I shall choose to risk my life rather than let him enter the doors of the synagogue….

Homily 5

But I must get back again to those who are sick. Consider, then, with whom they are sharing their fasts. It is with those who shouted: "Crucify him, Crucify him", with those who said: "His blood be upon us and upon our children". If some men had been caught in rebellion against their ruler and were condemned, would you have dared to go up to them and to speak with them? I think not. Is it not foolish, then, to show such readiness to flee from those who have sinned against a man, but to enter into fellowship with those who have committed outrages against God himself? Is it not strange that those who worship the Crucified keep common festival with those who crucified him? Is it not a sign of folly and the worst madness?

Since there are some who think of the synagogue as a holy place, I must say a few words to them. Why do you reverence that place? Must you not despise it, hold it in abomination, run away from it? They answer that the Law and the books of the prophets are kept there. What is this? Will any place where these books are be a holy place? By no means! This is the reason above all others why I hate the synagogue and abhor it. They have the prophets but do not believe them; they read the sacred writings but reject their witness - and this is a mark of men guilty of the greatest outrage….

If they did not have the prophets, they would not deserve such punishment; if they had not read the sacred books, they would not be so unclean and so unholy. But, as it is, they have been stripped of all excuse. They do have the heralds of the truth but, with hostile heart, they set themselves against the prophets and the truth they speak. So it is for this reason that they would be all the more profane and blood-guilty: they have the prophets, but they treat them with hostile hearts.

So it is that I exhort you to flee and shun their gatherings. The harm they bring to our weaker brothers is not slight; they offer no slight excuse to sustain to the folly of the Jews. For when they see that you, who worship the Christ whom they crucified, are reverently following their rituals, how can they fail to think that the rites they have performed are the best and that our ceremonies are worthless? For after you worship and adore at our mysteries, you run to the very men who destroy our rites. Paul said: "If a man sees you that have knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols"? And let me say: If a man sees you that have knowledge come into the synagogue and participate in the festival of the Trumpets, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to admire what the Jews do? He who falls not only pays the penalty for his own fall, but he is also punished because he trips others as well. But the man who has stood firm is rewarded not only because of his own virtue but people admire him for leading others to desire the same things.

Homily 6

That you may know that the sacred books do not make a place holy but that the purpose of those who frequent a place does make it profane, I shall tell an old story. Ptolemy Philadelphus had collected books from all over the world. When he learned that the Jews had writings which treated of God and the ideal state, he sent for men from Judea and had them translate those books, which he then had deposited in the temple of Serapis, for he was a pagan. Up to the present day the translated books remain there in the temple. But will the temple of Serapis be holy because of the holy books? Heaven forbid! Although the books have their own holiness, they do not give a share of it to the place because those who frequent the place are defiled.

You must apply the same argument to the synagogue. Even if there is no idol there, still demons do inhabit the place. And I say this not only about the synagogue here in town but about the one in Daphne as well; for at Daphne you have a more wicked place of perdition which they call Matrona's. I have heard that many of the faithful go up there and sleep beside the place.

But heaven forbid that I call these people faithful. For to me the shrine of Matrona and the temple of Apollo are equally profane. If anyone charges me with boldness, I will in turn charge him with the utmost madness. For, tell me, is not the dwelling place of demons a place of impiety even if no god's statue stands there? Here the slayers of Christ gather together, here the cross is driven out, here God is blasphemed, here the Father is ignored, here the Son is outraged, here the grace of the Spirit is rejected. Does not greater harm come from this place since the Jews themselves are demons? In the pagan temple the impiety is naked and obvious; it would not be easy to deceive a man of sound and prudent mind or entice him to go there. But in the synagogue there are men who say they worship God and abhor idols, men who say they have prophets and pay them honor. But by their words they make ready an abundance of bait to catch in their nets the simpler souls who are so foolish as to be caught off guard.

So the godlessness of the Jews and the pagans is on a par. But the Jews practice a deceit which is more dangerous. In their synagogue stands an invisible altar of deceit on which they sacrifice not sheep and calves but the souls of men.

Finally, if the ceremonies of the Jews move you to admiration, what do you have in common with us? If the Jewish ceremonies are venerable and great, ours are lies. But if ours are true, as they are true, theirs are filled with deceit. I am not speaking of the Scriptures. Heaven forbid! It was the Scriptures which took me by the hand and led me to Christ. But I am talking about the ungodliness and present madness of the Jews…

Do you see that demons dwell in their souls \[i.e., the souls of the Jews\] and that these demons are more dangerous than the ones of old? And this is very reasonable. In the old days the Jews acted impiously toward the prophets; now they outrage the Master of the prophets. Tell me this. Do you not shudder to come into the same place with men possessed, who have so many unclean spirits, who have been reared amid slaughter and bloodshed? Must you share a greeting with them and exchange a bare word? Must you not turn away from them since they are the common disgrace and infection of the whole world? Have they not come to every form of wickedness? Have not all the prophets spent themselves making many and long speeches of accusation against them? What tragedy, what manner of lawlessness have they not eclipsed by their blood-guiltiness? They sacrificed their own sons and daughters to demons. They refused to recognize nature, they forgot the pangs of birth, they trod underfoot the rearing of their children, they overturned from their foundations the laws of kinship, they became more savage than any wild beast….

Homily 7

What else do you wish me to tell you? Shall I tell you of their plundering, their covetousness, their abandonment of the poor, their thefts, their cheating in trade? The whole day long will not be enough to give you an account of these things. But do their festivals have something solemn and great about them? They have shown that these, too, are impure. Listen to the prophets; rather, listen to God and with how strong a statement he turns his back on them: "I have found your festivals hateful, I have thrust them away from myself".

Does God hate their festivals and do you share in them? He did not say this or that festival, but all of them together. Do you wish to see that God hates the worship paid with kettledrums, with lyres, with harps, and other instruments? God said: "Take away from me the sound of your songs and I will not hear the canticle of you harps". If God said: "Take them away from me", do you run to listen to the trumpets? Are these sacrifices and offerings not an abomination? "If you bring me the finest wheaten flour, it is in vain: incense is an abomination to me". The incense is an abomination. Is not the place also an abomination? Before they committed the crime of crimes, before they killed their Master, before the cross, before the slaying of Christ, it was an abomination. Is it not now all the more an abomination? And yet what is more fragrant than incense? But God looks not to the nature of the gifts but to the intention of those who bring them; it is this intention that he judges their offerings.

Tell me this. If a man were to have slain your son, would you endure to look upon him, or accept his greeting? Would you not shun him as a wicked demon, as the devil himself? They slew the Son of your Lord; do you have the boldness to enter with them under the same roof? After he was slain he heaped such honor upon you that he made you his brother and coheir. But you dishonor him so much that you pay honor to those who slew him on the cross, that you observe with them the fellowship of the festivals, that you go to their profane places, enter their unclean doors, and share in the tables of demons. For I am persuaded to call the fasting of the Jews a table of demons because they slew God. If the Jews are acting against God, must they not be serving the demons?

Homily 8

I could have said more than this, but to keep you from forgetting what I have said, I shall bring my homily to an end here with the words of Moses: "I call heaven and earth to witness against you". If any of you, whether you are here present or not, shall go to the spectacle of the Trumpets, or rush off to the synagogue, or go up to the shrine of Matrona, or take part in fasting, or share in the Sabbath, or observe any other Jewish ritual great or small, I call heaven and earth as my witnesses that I am guiltless of the blood of all of you….

Do not regard my words lightly. Be scrupulous in hunting out those who suffer from this sickness. Let the women search for the women, the men for the men, the slaves for the slaves, the freemen for the freemen, and the children for the children. Come all of you to our next meeting with such success that you win praise from me - and, before any praise of mine, that you obtain from God a great and indescribable reward which in abundant measure surpasses the labors of those who succeed. May all of us obtain this by the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom and with whom be glory to the Father together with the Holy Spirit now and forever, world without end. Amen

Hello, everyone.

I am in great despair seeing how great my pride is.

Furthermore, when following the guidance of the Church, I find that I commit regularly, if not on a daily basis, all of the 8 great passions ("7 deadly sins").

I am in a situation where I am not really able to follow Catechism or the guidance of a Spiritual Father.

I cannot attend Divine Liturgy either due to what one could call health issues.

Being faced with how sinful I actually am, along with the worst passion I have: pride; I am in great despair and would really appreciate your prayers and/or advice, because this seems to be an impossible mission.

I know all things are possible with God, but I lack faith greatly.

Also I have been in depression for the last 1.5 years, it's been really rough at only 15 years old.

I live in France.

Thank you for anything you will answer for my sake, brothers and sisters in the Faith.

(PS: as you could understand reading this, I am an inquirer)

[supprimé]

I recently got confirmed Catholic and have too many icons , I know we can use them too but I got too much . It’s a Eastern Orthodox icon hand cross , a dypchtich with our mother and the 2 archangels and a icon of the Resurection in Russian style. I will pay myself for the shipment as long as you are from :
Moldova
Poland
Germany
Italy
Spain
France
United Kingdom
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Hungary
Austria
Netherlands
Lithuania
Letonia
Estonia
For more info and photos of the icons mesage me in private

I was reading 2 Chronicles 14 again the other week. The NIV puts it like this:

"Zerah the Cushite marched out against them with an army of a million men and three hundred chariots."

It is, on the face of it, a fairly ordinary sentence. A Cushite that is, an African, leads a vast army against Judah. The text says what it says.

Then I checked a commentary. And the commentary explained, very calmly, that Zerah was probably not really a Cushite at all. He was probably Osorkon, an Egyptian Pharaoh of Libyan descent. The footnote moved on. No fuss. No flag.

I closed the book and sat with it for a minute, because this is not the first time I have noticed this happening, and I do not think it is going to be the last.

There is a habit in mainstream biblical scholarship, a very old habit, going back to the nineteenth century, when the field as we know it took shape in German and British universities , of quietly reaching into the text whenever an African appears in a position of prominence, and re-labelling them. Egyptian. Arabian. Asiatic. Anything, really, other than what the Hebrew actually says.

You can read the Old Testament from cover to cover without ever noticing it. I did, for years. It's the kind of thing you only see once someone points it out, and then you cannot un-see it.

It has a name, by the way. African biblical scholars call it de-Africanisation. David Tuesday Adamo, the late Nigerian Old Testament scholar, wrote about it for most of his career. So did Charles Copher in the States, and Rodney Sadler after him. Adamo's phrase for it was blunt; "a deliberate attempt to de-Africanise or de-emphasise" the African presence in Scripture. He wasn't speaking in metaphor.

Let me show you what I mean with Zerah

The argument for turning Zerah into Osorkon, if you actually go and dig it out of the commentaries, comes down to one thing: the names sound a bit similar. Zerah and Userken share some consonants. That's the case.

I want to be fair to the scholars who proposed this. Phonetic correspondence is a real method in historical reconstruction. Sometimes it works. But you have to look at what it costs you here.

The Bible , the same Chronicler, writing in the same passage knows the difference between Cushites and Libyans. He distinguishes them by name in 2 Chronicles 16:8, just two chapters later. So the suggestion that he confused a Libyan-descended Egyptian Pharaoh with a Cushite, in one verse, and then got the categories right again in the next, asks a lot of him.

Then there's the title problem. Zerah is never called Pharaoh. Never called king of Egypt. He is called "the Cushite". In Hebrew, ha-Kushi ,the Cushite, with the definite article. The text labels him ethnically, not politically. If he were Osorkon, the writer had every motivation to say so, and every reason to use the royal title that the Bible elsewhere uses for Egyptian kings without hesitation.

And there is, as far as I am aware, no Egyptian source recording Osorkon ever invading Judah. The whole reconstruction is built on a phonetic guess and then defended by repetition.

So why has it stuck? My read: and I think it is the honest read is that it is the timeline doing the work, not the evidence. The standard Egyptological timeline restricts serious Nubian military power to the 25th Dynasty, in the eighth century BC. Zerah's campaign would put a Cushite army of significant size in the field a hundred and fifty years before that, which is inconvenient for the timeline. Rather than allow the text to push back on the timeline, the text gets rewritten. That's not exegesis, it's housekeeping, and once you see it, you see it.

The same move, in Genesis

Genesis 2 has the four rivers of Eden, and the second one the Gihon, is said to flow through the entire land of Cush. Read plainly, with no further apparatus, Eden's geography reaches into Africa.

A lot of older commentaries cannot have this. So they reach for what is sometimes called "Asiatic Cush" , a hypothetical Cushite kingdom somewhere in Mesopotamia, usually loosely associated with the Kassites because the names are vaguely similar. There is no archaeological footprint for this kingdom. There is no extra-biblical reference to it that doesn't rely on the same circular reasoning. The argument exists primarily so that the Gihon doesn't have to flow through Africa.

Now, I'll be honest, there are real arguments people make here. Some of them point to Cush as a son of Ham and brother of relatives associated with Arabian peninsular regions, and try to build a case from there. I am not pretending that side of the debate doesn't exist. What I am saying is: every other occurrence of Cush in the Old Testament and there are many, in Isaiah, Ezekiel, Esther, Jeremiah, the Psalms refers to the African Cush. The Nubian, sub-Egyptian, Sudanese Cush. We do not invent an Asiatic Cush for Isaiah 18. We do not invent one for Ezekiel 30. We invent one for Genesis 2, and we invent one for Genesis 10 when Nimrod the city-builder turns out to be the son of Cush, because the alternative is conceding that an African founded the first cities of Mesopotamia, and that is a concession the field has historically not wanted to make.

And it isn't just two verses

Once you start looking, the pattern shows up everywhere a Cushite appears in any position of power or significance.

Moses marries a Cushite woman in Numbers 12, and his sister Miriam is struck with leprosy for objecting to it. The Hebrew word the text uses for the wife is Kushit a feminine form that doesn't really lend itself to ambiguity. Yet a remarkable number of commentaries will tell you she was probably Arabian, or that "Cushite" here is symbolic, or that this is just a second reference to Zipporah his Midianite wife (though the text gives no indication of this). I have read genuinely contortionist explanations of this verse from the Jews too! The simplest reading that Moses married a black African woman, and that his sister had a problem with it, and that God sided with Moses is treated as a last resort rather than a first instinct.

The Queen of Sheba is the same story. Josephus places her in Africa. Origen places her in Africa. The Ethiopian Kebra Nagast traces a whole royal dynasty from her union with Solomon. And yet the default scholarly assumption you'll get in most modern study Bibles is that she was Yemeni, on the strength of trade-route geography and not much else. Both options exist in the source material. One is consistently chosen. The other is consistently downplayed.

There's the Cushite messenger in 2 Samuel 18, whose role in delivering the news of Absalom's death to David is given real narrative weight by the writer. There's Ebed-Melech in Jeremiah 38, a Cushite official in the Babylonian court who rescues the prophet from a cistern and is personally promised divine protection in chapter 39, a Cushite singled out by God for his faithfulness. There's Asenath, Joseph's Egyptian wife, the mother of Ephraim and Manasseh, which means half the tribes of Israel descend through an African woman. And then there's Hagar, the Egyptian maidservant of Sarah, who is the first person in the entire Bible, before Abraham, before Moses, before any of the prophets, to give God a name. El Roi. The God who sees me. That is in Genesis 16, and most Christians I know have never heard a sermon on it.

These are not minor characters. They are not background. The text foregrounds them. The tradition has, in many cases, foregrounded around them.

Why does this keep happening

I don't think most modern scholars sit down and decide to do this. I think most of them have inherited a framework, the way you and I inherit accents and turns of phrase from the people who raised us. But the framework has roots, and the roots are worth naming.

The first is theological. If Eden's geography touches Africa, then humanity's story is not centred in Europe or the Near East in the way nineteenth-century European Christianity assumed. That is, for some, theologically uncomfortable in a way they would not necessarily admit out loud.

The second is academic. Western biblical studies grew up alongside Western archaeology, and Western archaeology grew up with the assumption that civilisation flowed from Mesopotamia outwards. Africa, in that frame, was downstream. If the Bible places Africans upstream building cities, leading armies, marrying into the patriarchal line, mothering tribes the frame has to be modified. It is usually easier to modify the African than to modify the frame.

The third is the long, grim shadow of the so-called Curse of Ham. For about three centuries, Genesis 9 was used to justify the enslavement of African peoples on the grounds that they were the cursed descendants of Ham. The text doesn't actually say this the curse falls on Canaan, who settles in the Levant, not on Cush, who is associated with the African but accuracy was never the point of that interpretation. And if the actual descendants of Cush turn out to be majestic figures in the biblical narrative, the whole racial scaffolding starts to wobble. The interpretive tradition had reasons, very ugly reasons, to keep the wobble out.

And the fourth, more recent, is colonial. It is difficult to morally justify colonising a continent whose ancestors are visibly present as kings, queens, royal mothers, and divine favourites in your sacred scripture. Diminishing that presence makes the project easier to live with. None of this is hypothetical. You can read the missionary correspondence of the nineteenth century and watch it happening in real time.

What I'd actually like you to do with this

I am not asking anyone to take any of this on my authority. I am a layman, not a biblical scholar, and you should be sceptical of anyone me included telling you how to read the Bible.

What I am asking is for you to do three things, when you can.

1. The next time you are in a Bible study and a Cushite shows up, and the study notes tell you the Cushite is "probably Egyptian" or "probably Arabian" or "probably symbolic"pause. Ask why. Ask what the Hebrew actually says. Ask what would change if the text were just allowed to say what it says.

2. Read someone who isn't in the standard reading list. David Tuesday Adamo's Africa and Africans in the Old Testament is a good place to start. So is Rodney Sadler's Can a Cushite Change His Skin? a slightly drier, more technical read, but rewarding. Daniel Hays is a white American Old Testament scholar who has written carefully and at length on the Cushites and is worth your time. Charles Copher's older work is now hard to find but he's the foundational figure.

3. This one is for the believers among us, sit with the fact that the family God assembled, the family the text actually describes, is far more African than most of our church traditions have let on. Moses' wife. Joseph's wife. Solomon's notable guest. The man who saved Jeremiah's life. The first person to name God. The general at Mareshah. The eunuch on the road to Gaza. These are not exotic guest appearances. They are part of the household.

Jeremiah asked, in chapter 13 verse 23, whether the Cushite could change his skin. The point of the question was that he could not. And yet for a hundred and fifty years there has been a quiet, persistent academic effort to do precisely thats not literally, but ethnically, on the page, with footnotes and reconstructions and tidy phonetic guesses. The text has not moved.

I think it is the scholarship that needs to.

Further reading

• David Tuesday Adamo, Africa and Africans in the Old Testament
• Rodney S. Sadler, Can a Cushite Change His Skin? An Examination of Race, Ethnicity, and Othering in the Hebrew Bible
• J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race
• Charles B. Copher, collected essays in Black Biblical Studies

I have done some research on split brain patients, it's scaring me. Please answer me.

There's a logical fallacy that keeps popping up in discussions with ecumenists - the Straw man fallacy.

Traditionalists say: "Outside the Church there are no Sacraments, but by economy a heretic can be received without baptism."

Ecumenists then claim you said: "Traditionalists do not allow the reception of heretics into the Orthodox Church without baptism."

Brilliant. Traditionalists literally just said they do allow it – but Ecumenists decided to ignore that little detail. Why engage with the actual distinction between dogma and economy when you can just build a straw man and and then triumphantly knock it down, pretending they've defeated the actual argument?

This isn't just an occasional slip. This tactic is systematically used by ecumenist apologists to discredit traditionalists. Here's the pattern:

1. A traditionalist says: "We must be careful about economy; it does not mean we recognize grace in heresy."
2. The ecumenist responds: "So you want to rebaptize everyone? You're a rigorist!"

Or:

1. A traditionalist says: "The Church has boundaries; heretics are outside."
2. The ecumenist responds: "So you condemn all non-Orthodox to hell and deny God's mercy?"

The goal is always the same: avoid the actual theological distinction (between akrivia and oikonomia, between dogma and pastoral practice) and instead paint the traditionalist as an extremist, a Pharisee, or a bigot.

It's intellectually dishonest. It's a rhetorical cheap shot. And it poisons any real conversation about the Sacraments and the limits of economy, since if you have to misrepresent your opponent's position to win the argument, you've already lost – at least in terms of truth-seeking.

Hi guys so I think you know the guy Agen(miaphisite). A lot of the time he argues that maximus the confessor and John of damascus teach that the word changed intrinsicly (he came to jay dier's stream arguing that). Now I don't even understand the argument so if anyone has an explanation of his point and a refutation I would love to hear it. Also does anyone know what can I read on that precise point if such a thing exists.

Hey is it automatically heretical, or at the very least strongly advised against, to mention Hebrew names or words?

I don't mean in the Judaising Hebrew Roots sense, where they are asserted as the only correct way and obsessively used in such a way that disparages more conventional English or Greek pronunciations—but rather only mentioning them occasionally or in passing or to make a point, or when talking to certain people (to convert them, for example). Is that bad or okay? For example, some people speak Syriac or other Semitic languages as their actual native language and I don't see how it would necessarily be canonically anathema to refer to Jesus as Yeshou/Isho Mshiḥo or Simon Peter as Shemun Kifo within that context.

The reason I ask this sort of question is because coming from a Prot background where it is actually rather common to casually use words such as Yeshua or Yahweh, or shalom and whatnot on occasion. I was wondering if in Orthodoxy this is an explicit no no or not. While the inquiry focuses on Hebrew this would probably equally be applicable to Syriac or Arabic, I would think.

I know i should probably ask my priest, but I don't want to bother him if this is a stupid question.

Most bread has oil in it. Do I need to find break without oil to eat on strict fast days or is pretty much all bread okay?