Www.amazinglifebook.com



An Amazing Life:

The Story of Jesus in Three Parts

By Rich Van Winkle

This is the Reviewer’s Edition intended for those who have been asked to read, review, and comment on the book. It is not considered complete and is subject to change. It has been printed for horizontal page flips (long-edge binding) whereas the book version will be bound on the half-page folds. The pagination is the way the final book will be printed. The e-book version will have a single-page format..

Instructions to reviewers: Thanks for your time and effort in making this a better book. I hope that you find it worthy. My goal is that readers will find the work to be clear, concise, and complete – if you find otherwise, I need your feedback.

I have made great effort to verify the facts where possible and reach conclusions which are supported by or are consistent with the facts. Given the likelihood of “controversy” resulting from these facts, I most welcome challenges about my collection of them. Of course many view the gospel accounts as factual and I do not. There is no need to note where my facts differ from those offered in the gospels.

Please make your notes within the manuscript and return it at your earliest convenience.

Again, thanks for your help. I promise a first edition, first printing copy to all who offer worthwhile feedback.

RVW.

Copyright ©2013 by Richard L. Van Winkle

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED! 2013 by Richard L. Van Winkle and The Human Future, Inc.

Copyrighted under the Berne Convention and the Copyright laws of the United States. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without specific written permission of the copyright holders.

First Printing, 2013 in the United States of America.

Library of Congress Catalog Number ###-######.

ISBN 0-###-#####-# (paper)

Table of Contents

I. Preface

II. Introduction

III. Overview & Contents

IV. Notes

V. Outline

VI. Part one – Relevant History

VII. Part Two – More History

VIII. Part Three – Jewish Culture

IX. Part Four - Being Jewish – What it Meant to Jesus

X. Part Five: Relevant Chronology

XI. Application and Assessment

XII. Sources & Bibliography

XIII. Index

Preface:

If you care about Jesus, if the story of Jesus told in the New Testament leaves you unsatisfied, or if you have interest in a more complete and accurate portrayal of the life of Jesus, then “An Amazing Life” was written for you.

In this three part series, we start with the context necessary to understand the complex and confusing actions and choices of history’s most remarkable person. Then, you will read his story with new detail, insight, and depth – hopefully leading to a fuller understanding of his life, his mission, and his shocking death. Finally, you will rediscover the outcomes of Jesus’ life - most of which he never intended.

In Book One, “Jesus in Context”, we explore the rich and honest history of Judaism which Jesus knew and understood. That is followed by careful analysis of the cultural and social context in which Jesus lived – a context which framed his thinking and guided his choices. And then, we analyze what it meant to be Jewish for Jesus. With a new, broader, and deeper understanding of the context for his life, we re-tell his story…

In Book Two, “Jesus and the Nozerim”, we carefully examine the historical details of Jesus’ life with a different perspective of his origins, his associations, and his teachings. With the goal of better understanding his mission and his choices, we search for the soul of Jesus as revealed by his words and his works. Once elevated above the doctrinal and theological corruption of “Christianity”, Jesus and his life take on new meaning.

In Book Three, “After Jesus”, we first address the incredible story of arrest, trial , crucifixion, and resurrection which has been clouded by purposeful misrepresentation. Looking at the history of Jesus’ followers and family, we contrast their beliefs and respect for Jesus with the Pauline re-direction. Be prepared to shift your paradigm.

About the Author

Rich Van Winkle is a moral protagonist and writer from here and there (mostly Washington and Oregon). Following a short “career” as a military survival instructor, a longer career as a teacher and “professor”, and an even longer career as a tech entrepreneur, he re-grouped under the adage of his mentor and friend, John David Garcia: learn, teach, and create.

In the process of learning, teaching, and creating he developed a passion for Jesus and a resentment for the manner in which Jesus’ glorious life was stolen by a group which clearly did not know or honor him. After decades of research, the compulsion to re-tell the story of Jesus overcame common sense and “An Amazing Life” took shape.

Meanwhile, Rich worked on other projects, writings, and relationships while travelling, climbing, and relishing life. Finally, with the help and patience of more than a few, the work that you are about to love and cherish (hopefully) emerged.

You can read more of Rich’s writings at:



You can read more about Rich (if you’re really that interested) at:



An Amazing Life: Jesus and His Times

Book One – The Context of An Amazing Life

Introduction

Another book about Jesus? What can be said that hasn’t already? It wasn’t that long ago that I had these same questions. It certainly seems like everything that might be said would have been – or should have been – already written. After all, there aren’t any subjects that have been written about more. Considering the scarcity of historical data regarding Jesus, it would seem difficult to offer much - other than more fiction. And we certainly don’t need another telling of the same old story.

And who am I to be writing this book? I’m not a theologian, a historian, or a novelist. I don’t even consider myself to be a “Christian”. But I am a great fan of Jesus. Indeed, He’s on the top of my list above many other great people; and that’s a surprising thing. Obviously, if one believes in Jesus as “The Christ”, the son of God, or as some type of superhuman, then he wouldn’t be rightly placed on a list of “great people”. And, if one measures great people by their inventions, ideas, or creations, then Jesus might not even make it onto the list. Jesus would seem to be incredibly influential because so many believe him to be something he wasn’t. It’s hard to count that.

There’s little doubt that some will view this book at sacrilege. And, without wanting to do so, I confess to knowing that this book will offend more than a few. I hope that, for many, this book will be hugely challenging. It is intended to confront the greatest hoax and misdeed in human history – the theft of a great life.

Two thousand years ago a man we call Jesus lived an amazing life. During his life he started a movement that overwhelmed, amazed, and changed the lives of thousands. Upon his striking death, so many of his followers were stunned that many myths began about him. The vast majority of those closest to him sought to continue his mission and message. A few headed off on some other tangent. What most people think they know about Jesus comes from one of those tangents, the one known as “Christianity”.

Frankly, I care little about Christianity. Its doctrines seem silly and its beliefs irrational, but I leave it to each person to decide what they wish to believe in – so long as they don’t try to force their beliefs upon me or others. And that is exactly what has happened. Growing up in a society dominated by Christians, I was forced to hear and accept many of their beliefs. That’s wasn’t such a bad thing. Most Christians are good people and there’s plenty of goodness within Christianity. As I matured and learned, I found it easy to put aside the stories, myths, legends, and doctrines of Christianity. But then, as I matured and learned even more, I discovered an irritating truth: the church wasn’t just selling its stories and beliefs; it had promulgated a great lie. Over time, I came to realize just how harmful the lie was.

This book and the two that join it were written to undo the lie. That is not the same as saying that it is the truth. I have made great effort to accurately portray historical fact where possible. The reality is that we know very little about Jesus or his life and most of what people think they know about him is obvious fabrication. Paul and his followers worked diligently to limit our knowledge about Jesus. But they were confronted by the memories of others and chose to build their stories around facts and beliefs that could not be undone. They either ignored or recreated the context for those aspects of Jesus’ life that didn’t fit their goals.

This book was written in support of the story told in Book Two – “An Amazing Life: Jesus and the Nozerim”, the re-creation of Jesus’ story using facts winnowed from the canonical gospels, the non-canonical gospels and other ancient works. My goal is to tell Jesus’ story in a more complete and accurate context - a monumental task. The facts are obscure, hidden, or covered and the context has been so completely corrupted that even professional historians often simply follow tradition rather than explore the evidence.

As an attempt to make sense out of the best known story in the western world (a well-known story that simply doesn’t fit the facts, the time, or the test of reason), I confront well established expectations and the wide-spread notion that people already KNOW the Jesus story. I simply say that frequent and long-term re-telling of an incorrect story doesn’t make it truthful.

I know that some readers will be unable or unwilling to accept an alternative to the story they grew up with and which has been so completely indoctrinated into their thought. I know that some will find the story incompatible with their doctrinal or theological beliefs. Thus, I begin this three-book series with a compilation of essential contextual elements regarding Judaism. Knowing its history, structures, and customs are fundamental to knowing Jesus. In this book, I analyze the evidence in hope of providing anyone who cares about Jesus a better opportunity to understand his life and mission.

I began writing this book because of six key facts that are generally unknown or inadequately considered:

1. Jesus was part of a powerful and influential family. This is most evident in the historical record regarding his brother James, but is also evident in many verses of the New Testament.

2. Jesus was a Jew who firmly believed in religious devotion. He had no intention of starting a religion or being the Messiah. His religious message was simple and was not doctrinal.

3. Jesus chose his life and his death. The key to understanding Jesus is to understand why he made those choices.

4. Jesus’ family were his most ardent and loyal supporters. His brothers were also apostles and were the designated leaders of Jesus’ mission after his death.

5. Paul was opposed by Jesus’ family and Jesus’ core followers, but he saw the power in Jesus’ life, death, and mission and he redirected that power towards his own ends.

6. The Christian (Catholic) church edited, redacted, and re-wrote history with the specific intent of favoring Paul and Paul’s doctrines. This specifically required a diminishment of Jesus’ family and the corruption of Jesus’ teachings.

Thus, what most believe about Jesus is little more than myth. If Jesus was nothing more than a myth, this would be perfectly acceptable. But just the opposite is true. Jesus lived an amazing life and his story deserves to be told honestly and more fully. I wish that we knew the whole story of Jesus’ life.

I freely admit that this work, the story, and the “sequel” are far from perfect. However, I contend that it is much more accurate and far more meaningful than the Christian version. The first part of this can be easily proven. The second, I must leave up to you.

RVW

March, 2009 – Oregon, USA

Overview & Contents

If Jesus was a modern figure living in a familiar time, place, and culture, he would still be difficult to understand. Instead, Jesus lived thousands of years ago in one of the most complex periods in human history. Jesus accepted and taught one of the most complex religions. Jesus was substantially involved with three great cultures (along with their languages) and several lesser ones. Jesus interacted with very diverse groups, peoples, sects, and organizations. Jesus made choices that are very odd and confusing. Jesus chose key disciples who reflect unexpected combinations of family, friendship, mission, and purpose. Jesus openly acknowledged having secret knowledge and acted with mysterious means, methods, and mysticism.

Those who suggest that they can “know Jesus” through reading and study of the New Testament are delusional. Even if every part of it was true and accurate, it would still leave open a great many questions and mysteries. And, of course, as we progress we will find that the canonized gospels of the New Testament were not intended to be historical, factual, or complete. If your goal is to merely understand the doctrine and theology of Paul and his Church, this book is not for you. But, if you really wish to understand Jesus as a man, a teacher, and a monumental figure in human history, I hope that you read this book carefully.

In the Introduction there is a list of six facts which prompted this writing. There are a few other facts and premises which I hope you find compelling:

1. Jesus was aware that Judaism as commonly taught and understood by his peers was a hoax created by the Zadokites. His deeper understand of history and truth led him to a deeper understanding of God and God’s Will. Thus, while Judaism offered a foundation for his teachings, Jesus was hardly a “Jew” in accord with his contemporaries.

2. Jesus knew that the Temple and its priests were falsely represented, lacked authority, and were sufficiently corrupt as to undermine Judaism. He advocated a return to the basics of his religion: adherence to God’s law and the seeking of righteousness through one commandment: loving-kindness.

3. Jesus was involved politically and socially in ways never explained or detailed in the NT gospels. We have every indication that Jesus was a Davidic heir, but we ignore what that meant in the context of his time. (If Jesus was not a legitimate and verifiable Davidic heir, no one would have seriously suggested he was the “Messiah”). As a Davidic heir, we must place Jesus within that hierarchy and reassess his family ties. It also helps to have a better grasp of who David was and why being a Davidic heir was significant at a time when Herodians and Romans controlled the region.

4. Jesus was involved religiously in ways ignored by the NT gospels. This is clearest from the independent historical record regarding James, but is also evident within the genealogies offered in the NT gospels. If his brother James was a popular and powerful priest as the evidence indicates, then Jesus had close ties to a competing line of priests. This dramatically changes our notions of his being an itinerant pauper teacher who was basically unknown by Caiaphas and Annas before his arrest. It also explains the biblical accounts of religious authorities querying Jesus about his religious views (and his title “Rabbi”).

5. Jesus brought together twelve (or thereabout) leaders which included his siblings and an odd mix of friends, family, associates, and contemporaries. These “Apostles” covered a wide mix of social and political strata along with diverse religious and nationalistic sects. The people of his time would have best understood Jesus in terms of his choice in leaders.

6. Jesus was the oldest son in a powerful and well-connected family, but there was something odd about the circumstances of his birth (not “immaculate conception”). Thus, the next sibling (James) was the one consecrated under family tradition (as “Rechabites”) and Jesus was treated as a “mamzer” during his life. This little known aspect of his life had great impact upon his choices.

7. Jesus was one of John the Baptist’s followers who took over the reins of his movement after John’s arrest and execution. It would seem apparent that John’s influence over his younger cousin was greater than commonly thought and given that Jesus started his mission with the same exact premise as John, we should carefully consider John’s story. One issue that is largely ignored is why some followers of John did not follow Jesus.

8. It is apparent that Jesus was deeply involved in the issues of his time and culture and yet we have generally ignored those issues. We have a few instances of officials approaching Jesus to seek his positions on religious questions and Jesus’ answer to an inquiry regarding taxes, but little else. If Jesus chose to avoid the fray of social issues, we should explore his reasoning. Or, if he was engaged, we should explore how and why we are not offered more information in the gospel accounts.

9. Jesus had “secret knowledge” that he kept from even his chosen Twelve[1]. While it has been generally assumed that such knowledge related to God or God’s Kingdom, Jesus seemed open and frank about that subject. So what was this “secret knowledge” and why should we assume it to be religious in nature? Once placed into a fuller historical context, new possibilities become apparent.

10. Jesus chose a path and engaged in actions which had the likely outcome of his crucifixion. He was clearly not betrayed by Judas or anyone else – except perhaps by his belief that God would intervene to save him. What beliefs led Jesus to make these choices?

11. Jesus did not die on the cross and yet the single best attested fact about Jesus is that he was crucified. The entire account of his arrest, trial, crucifixion, and resurrection in the NT is silly, irrational, unhistorical, and inconsistent. And yet, many of his time and millions since have accepted it as truth. This requires a careful examination and unbiased analysis by anyone who takes Jesus seriously and should involve more than “blind faith” by Christians.

12. As pieces of the puzzle surrounding the family of Jesus fall into place, it is impossible to retain the legendary view of Jesus as the son of a poor “carpenter” who rises to the position of “Rabboni” and is widely accepted as the Meshiach by a large number of contemporaneous Jews. It is also absurd to perpetuate the notion that his family was uninvolved, unsung, and largely unknown within Jesus’ mission or the early pre-Christian church.

Here are the goals I hope to achieve by taking your time:

1. A new vision of Jesus as a man with a mission – serving God’s Will.

2. A new understanding of the complex life that Jesus lived and how his culture and the events of his time led to his choice to be crucified.

3. A new compassion for Jesus and his family – a family which shared his mission and his misery more than we have been taught.

4. A new awareness of the religion which Jesus took and forsook.

5. A new outrage over the manner in which Jesus’ life, message, and mission became co-opted and corrupted.

6. A new hope that we may restore the wisdom, regain the vision, and restore the meaning which Jesus sacrificed so greatly to offer us.

7. The possibility that many of those who have found love for Jesus through false doctrines and simple legends will find love for Jesus through his truth, his love, and his righteousness.

This book is not chronological or sequential. Its structure is categorical: sections are grouped by content and within the sections it is probably easier to read in sequence. Start with any section you want; skip around as you wish. The whole idea is to build as complete and useful a context as possible. It is large and complex, but tightly interwoven. Hopefully you’ll find it fascinating.

If there seem to be sections missing, it is likely because I felt there was little to add to excellent work already available or to the general understanding which is prevalent. In support of the first case, I offer an extensive bibliography with subject references and links. One good thing about the study of Jesus’ life – there is a plethora of worthwhile material available for free.

Abbreviations:

Most citations herein are either completed within the footnotes or in the Bibliography (at the end). A few works are cited frequently enough to justify these abbreviations:

NT – New Testament of the Bible[2]

OT – Old Testament of the Bible

XLL – Septuagint version of the Bible

JE – The Jewish Encyclopedia

CE – The Catholic Encyclopedia

Josephus: Wars (JW), Ant. (JA) and Life (JW)

BT – Babylonian Talmud

JT – Jerusalem Talmud

DSS – Dead Sea Scrolls

Outline

I. Part One: Judaism (I) - Relevant History (a new perspective)

a. The History of Judaism as Known to Jesus

b. The United Kingdom, the Davidic Dynasty, and the Great Divide

i. The United Kingdom

ii. The Davidic Dynasty

iii. The Divided Kingdom

c. The Exile & Return Therefrom

d. Onias, the Land of On, and the Onias Dynasty

e. The Hasmonean Era

f. The Herodian Era (to the Birth of Jesus)

II. Part Two: Judaism (II) – Historical (continued)

a. History of the Jewish High Priesthood

b. History of the Jewish Temples

c. History of Jewish Sects

d. Hillel and Shammai

e. Judean Politics and Power in Year 1 (and thereabouts)

f. The Sanhedrin

III. Part Three: Judaism (III) - Jewish Culture

a. Social, Religious, and Political Structures and Titles

i. The Sanhedrin

ii. Zugots (esp. Hillel and Shammai)

iii. The Jewish High Priesthood

b. Jewish Sects and Groups

i. Pharisees

ii. Hasidim

iii. Sadducees

iv. Essenes

v. Zealots

vi. Nazoreans

1. The Nozerim

c. Jewish Laws, Customs, and Beliefs

i. Introduction

ii. The Shema

iii. The Jerusalem Temple

iv. Festivals

v. The Sacred Treasures

vi. Family Law

vii. Trials and Punishment

viii. Jewish Gnosticism & Mysticism

ix. The Mashiach/Messiah

IV. Part IV: Being Jewish – What it Meant to Jesus

V. Appendix I: Relevant Chronology (Chart of Events – David to Paul)

Structural Note: There is plenty of detail included in these historical sections. It wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t relevant, but some of it isn’t very exciting. I have included a “condensed version” of many sections for those who want only the gist of it.

Preview:

Jesus was a Jew. How easily we ignore the single most defining aspect of the man so many deem “The Christ”. Not only was Jesus a Jew, he was profoundly Jewish - a Master (“Rabboni”) of his religion, and a zealous advocate of its basic/orthodox doctrines and practices. What Jesus was NOT however, was a typical Jew of his time. Thus, to understand Jesus we must understand his religion as he understood it.

Unfortunately, one Jewish historian[3] – Titus Flavius Josephus – has defined Judaism for his time (the 1st century). Although there are plenty of other sources, historians echo the words of Josephus as though he best understood and represented the beliefs of millions[4]. He didn’t. Josephus was both a traitor to and enemy of the Jews. He wrote for a Roman audience while being kept and sponsored by Romans. Thus, it is obvious he wrote with favoritism towards Romans and strove to tell his masters what they wanted to hear. More so, Josephus had specific notions of his own regarding his religion and these were often different from either the popular notions or the factual ones.

Our second most utilized source about Judaism was Saul, a man who forsook his religion to start a new one based upon his own conceptions, beliefs, and drives. “Paul”, as he is known in the Christian world claims he was a Pharisee (a Jewish sect described later) and a priest “wannabe”. Yet, he denigrates the Pharisees and denies their view of Judaism. He aligned with their key opponents, the Sadducees, and engaged in behavior that even he found reprehensible. He wrote and taught that becoming “all things to all people” and using “all possible means”, was his way of salvation (1 Cor. 9:22). He openly denied and refuted the laws of Judaism and the teachings of Jesus. And yet he is the source of knowledge for millions regarding Judaism and Jesus.

Part One of Book One of An Amazing Life reviews a few key aspects of Judaism that seem most relevant in understanding Jesus. These sections were selected because they differ most from widely held notions about Judaism and the Judaism that many think was the religion of Jesus.

Relevant History (a new perspective):

When we think of Judaism, it is difficult to not think of the “Old Testament” and its famous tales. For non-Jews, it is commonly thought that Jews deem the “Old Testament” to be scripture and that Jesus would have known it as scripture. For Jews, it is commonly thought that the three sections of the Tanakh (The Torah or "Teaching", Nevi'im or "Prophets", and Ketuvim or "Writings"—hence TaNaKh) were compiled by the Men of the Great Assembly (Anshei K'nesset HaGedolah) in (or before) 450 BCE and have remained unchanged since that date. The reality is otherwise.

“Scripture” holds a special place within the religion we think of as Judaism, but such was less the case during the time of Jesus. We need only consider that Jews are uniquely the “people of the book” and their religion was based more upon the written word than any other up to the fifth century. But the “book” was not readily accessible to Jesus or his contemporaries.

“The twin pillars of Judaism are the Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. The Hebrew Scriptures -- the book of the "People of the Book" -- are divided into three main sections: the Torah (Pentateuch); the Nevi'im (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Hagiographa). The Talmud is a massive collection of discussions and rulings based on the Mishnah, a compilation of laws and customs assembled in about 200 C.E. Two versions of the Talmud exist: The Jerusalem Talmud, dating from circa 400 C.E., is based on the discussions of the sages of Palestine, and the Babylonian Talmud, from circa 500 C.E., recapitulates the debates of the rabbis in the Babylonian academies.”[5]

In other words, prior to the time two centuries AFTER Jesus, much of “the Book” wasn’t even written. And, until much later, the written word was almost exclusively the realm of the priests. Before and during the time of Jesus, “the word” was just that – spoken words. Scrolls were very expensive and communities were blessed to have ONE which might contain ONE book of the Bible (such as “Exodus”). Only the largest communities, religious groups, or very wealthy had multiple scrolls (which make the treasured Dead Sea Scrolls all the more remarkable). Knowledge of scripture was oral and was taught and learned by the spoken word.

We should remember the adage that “the victors write history”[6] and when history is merely spoken, it is easier to modify over time. Given that Jewish scripture is largely “historical” in nature, we should not be surprised to learn that its story has been modified to enhance a particular point of view. One of the often missed issues of the time of Jesus was the recent writing (or more correctly – “rewriting”) of Jewish history.

Jesus was fortunate to live during a time when written scripture was becoming more widely available. That was due largely to the production of the Septuagint – a translation of Hebrew scripture into Greek begun under Ptolemy in Alexandria[7] during the 3rd century BCE (mostly completed by 132 BCE). He also benefitted from a radical change in the structure of Jewish religious teaching known as the rabbinical movement. The rabbinical movement decentralized the teaching of Judaism and its scripture before it was consolidated and “frozen” by written words. Thus, Jesus learned a different religion differently than modern Jews.

The History of Judaism as Known to Jesus:

We begin with Jewish history because we cannot hope to understand Judaism without understanding its history. We will often refer back to historical events in Judaism because they were relevant to the life of Jesus and his mission. It may be helpful to refer to the chronology in Appendix I for dates and sequence of both biblical and historical events.

We begin with an overview of the Hebrew Bible[8] (i.e. the “Old Testament”). Scholars will probably never figure out the details, but the scripture of Judaism has roots in much older works. The belief that Moses wrote much of the early scripture is unfounded and unattested. We start at the beginning, with the Torah (aka “the Pentateuch” or first five books of Jewish scripture) in cursory review…

In the beginning… God (Elohim)[9] created the universe and people. People were a problem early on and God struggled to establish a workable relationship with them. God made a covenant (“b'rit”) with Adam (the first man) which allowed Adam to live a worry free (immortal) life in Eden so long as he didn’t seek to "be as gods, knowing good and evil". But, Adam didn’t do so well (because of Eve?) and so God cursed him and his offspring (before he had any children or knew he could have any). Adam’s offspring didn’t do so well and didn’t honor God, so God decided to start over with a select few.

Noah was the great-grandson of Enoch, a man who walked in righteousness and then walked with God in Paradise (heaven). Through Enoch, God showed the possibility of a second (immortal) life available to the sufficiently righteous. God chose the righteous Noah to repopulate the earth after killing everybody else in a great flood. God chose some of the sons of Noah[10] to establish divine righteousness and to be an example to the world. Noah got a new covenant with God – the Noahide commandments:

✓ worshiping only Elohim,

✓ being fruitful and replenishing the earth,

✓ "abstaining from blood",

✓ practicing justice (via courts) and

✓ avoiding murder[11], theft, sexual impropriety, and blasphemy.

In return, God promised that there would never again be a curse upon the ground on account of man and that God would never again destroy all living things. God specifically recognized that “the intent of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” After the flood, Noah built an altar and made a sacrifice to God which God accepted graciously, thereby initiating or continuing the culture of worship through sacrifice.

Abram was a descendant of Noah's son, Shem, who lived in the northern Mesopotamian town of Harran. The sonless Abram led a tribe of semi-nomadic herdsman and farmers and one day God spoke to Abram promising to bless his descendants and make them God’s special people. In return, Abram was to remain loyal to God and to act as a channel through which God's blessings would flow. God instructed Abram to depart for an area called “Canaan” (probably south-westward toward the Mediterranean Sea and the area near modern Lebanon). In an act of great faith, Abram moved his clan amongst the militant Canaanites.

As Abram struggled to make his place he found himself near Jerusalem where Melchizedek, “the king of Salem and a priest of God Most High”, brought out bread and wine and blessed Abram and God. Abram then gave Melchizedek a tenth of everything. This odd meeting reveals a Semitic priesthood long before the Levites and underlies the notion of tithing. (Both Melchizedek and Enoch remain mysterious characters for future generations to ponder).

A decade later Abram offered a covenant ceremony (sacrifice) whereupon God foretold him of his descendant’s future bondage in a foreign land and God described the lands that his offspring would claim: " from the Wadi of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates - the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites.” And then Abram finally had a son (Ishmael, via his wife’s maidservant).

Thirteen years after moving to Canaan, God rewarded Abram with a new name – “Abraham, a father of many nations”. Because the time was approaching for Abraham to have a son by his wife (Sarai), God gave him new instructions for the inauguration rite into God’s covenant – circumcision. Through this unusual initiation rite every man who was to be part of God’s “great nation”, whether by blood inheritance or by induction, could join the covenant. Thus, through the establishment of successive covenants with humanity (e.g. with Adam, Noah, and Abraham), God began the “nation” of Abraham with a promise that they would have their own land (Gen. 15:18-21; 17:2-9).

Abraham’s son with Sarai, Isaac, married Rebecca (Rivka) and they had twin sons: Jacob (Ya'akov) and Esau. Esau, the hunter, was Isaac's favorite and Jacob was Rebecca's favorite because he was more spiritually-minded. Esau sold his leadership birthright to Jacob for a bowl of lentil soup and when Isaac was old, Rebecca tricked him into giving Jacob the heir’s blessing that was meant for Esau. Jacob fell in love with the delightful Rachel but was deceived into marrying Rachel's older sister, Leah. He then married Rachel as well and “entered into” Rachel and Leah's maidservants, Bilhah and Zilphah. Through these four women, Jacob fathered 12 sons and a daughter: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Zebulun, Issachar, Dan, Gad, Asher, Naphtali, Joseph, Benjamin and Dinah.

One night while Jacob was praying alone, a strange being appeared and proceeded to wrestle with him until dawn. After this “angel” couldn’t defeat Jacob, he blessed Jacob and gave him the name "Israel" (יִשְׂרָאֵל or Yisrael) meaning "one who struggled with the divine”. Thus, the sons of Jacob/Israel were the heads of the tribes of Israel and the ones for whom the tribes are named (although Joseph is the father of the tribes Manasseh and Ephraim). These “children of Israel” were then named Israelites.

Israel favored Joseph, his first son with Rachel, but his jealous brothers sold Joseph into slavery. As a slave in Egypt, Joseph prospered and was eventually made Vizier and renamed Zaphnath-Paaneah. He was given Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah (High Priest of On in the Land of Goshen), to be his wife.

In the tribe of Levi, a man named Amram and his wife Jochebed bore Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. They were part of the second generation of Israelites born in Egypt. Through strange events, Moses was raised in the household of the Pharaoh, but was forced to flee to Midian (on the Sinai Peninsula). There, Moses was leading his flock to Mount Horeb (aka Mount Sinai) where he saw a bush that burned, but was not consumed. When he approached to take a closer look, Moses heard God speak from the bush revealing his name: אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה (Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh, “"I Will Be What I Will Be" or rewritten as “I Am That I Am”)[12]. (I will use the more conventional “Yaweh” as this God’s name hereafter).

As Yaweh guided Moses and his people out of Egypt, they were stopped by the sea where they sung out: "there is no god like you, Oh Yahweh". Similarly, among the commandments that Yaweh gives Moses is that there should be no other gods "before Me".[13]

Yaweh sought yet another covenant with the people of Moses and proceeded to give Moses a set of laws which included the Ten Commandments (and the 613 derivative commandments or Mitzvot). But the people were obstinate and Moses was forced to slay thousands of those who refused to accept Yaweh as the god of the people. Eventually, God issued an extensive set of laws (through Moses) by which the Hebrews are to be set apart as God's people so long as they did not make idols or worship other gods. The Israelites became God’s “treasured possession among all people” (Ex. 19:5] and "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Ex. 19:6). At the conclusion of the Books of Genesis and Exodus, Yahweh dwells among the Israelites and the Judaism of Moses is the Judaism of Yahweh.

From this beginning –a beginning which is not well founded in history- we learn much about both Judaism and its development. We must wonder where this story came from and why it became the foundation for this fascinating religion.

We should begin by considering the source(s) of the Tanakh and the perspectives of its authors. We need not question whether or not divine inspiration was at work – divine inspiration does not change facts or evidence, only how we view such. The fact is that many of the stories in the Torah are myths unsupported by the evidence and contrary to known facts. There is strong archeological evidence that the Israelite community arose peacefully and internally in the highlands of Canaan and migrated southward[14]. In other words, the exodus from Egypt didn’t happen at all like the story in “scripture”. The first known record of the name Yaweh is in two Egyptian inscriptions from 1400-1300 BCE, as a place-name in the region of Edom associated with Shashu-Bedouins. I find the "Kenite hypothesis" to be most likely – that Yawehism was brought north to the pre-Israelites in Canaan by migratory Edomite tribes, including the Kenites[15].

When the Masoretic Text turns from a doctrinal focus (as in the five books of the Torah) to the eight books of the Nevi'im (נְבִיאִים, "Prophets"), the historical picture changes quickly. Joshua is given a region that will later be known as Chalcis and his journey from across the Jordan through Gilgal (Jericho) and up to Mt. Gerizim and Shechem (Samaria) better fits the historical evidence. Joshua even tells us the history of his people:

Long ago our ancestors, including Terah the father of Abraham and Nahor, lived beyond the Euphrates River and worshiped other gods. Abraham left the land beyond the Euphrates and came to Canaan with many descendants. While Esau stayed in the hill country of Seir, Jacob went to Egypt. The Amorites[16] conquered our lands and we were taken east of the Jordan, but – with God’s help - we fought back and regained our freedom and lands. (Derived from Joshua 24:2-5).

Finally, Joshua also emphasizes the presence of other deities within the religious beliefs of his people: "Now fear the Lord and serve him with all faithfulness. Throw away the gods your forefathers worshiped beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve Yaweh. But if you refuse to serve Yaweh, then choose today whom you will serve. Would you prefer the gods your ancestors served beyond the Euphrates? Or will it be the gods of the Amorites in whose land you now live? Destroy the idols among you, and turn your hearts to Yaweh, the God of Israel." (Joshua 24:14 et seq).

Following Joshua, the Book of Kings relates how the "law of Moses" (“Deuteronomy”) was discovered in the Temple during the reign of King Josiah (641–609 BCE). That partial text of the current work contained a number of laws from the kingdom of Judah during the 8th century BCE - a time when the Yahwist faction was actively attacking the mainstream polytheism. Eventually, just before the Jews would find themselves overtaken by the Assyrians and Babylonians, the Yahwists largely succeeded in establishing their view of God as the “official” God of Israel. Mosaic Law became supreme over all other sources of authority (even over the king) and the Levite priests became the guardians and interpreters of the law. Over time, Mosaic Law grew to incorporate the entire legal content of the Torah and the meaning, and application of this law was excerpted and codified in Rabbinical Judaism.

The Tanakh relates a history of Judaism – a history of the one form of Hebrew religion which prevailed and whose writings survived. But that history doesn’t tell us the whole story and often misrepresents those with opposing views. But, at least, the Bible does borrow from opposing sources and deals with other Hebrew viewpoints, thus offering us the opportunity to discern and extrapolate.

I would first approach this task with an understanding of biblical sources and the history of the Tanakh itself. In short, historians and academics generally accept that the writing of the Torah incorporates three basic strata: an Elohist source, a Yahwist source, and a Priestly source (designated E, J, and P under the “Documentary hypothesis”). I propose that these origins also point to the three primary doctrinal groups which underlie Judaism and that the history of Judaism is best understood as an evolution from Elohism to Yahwehism to Priestly Judaism. However, to understand both ancient Jewish diversity and contemporary “Judaism” requires that we look beyond the Tanakh and rediscover its roots.

Prior to God’s self-introduction to Moses as “Yahweh”, the Hebrew God was Elohim. Not surprisingly, the Masoretic Text[17] and the “Books of Moses” emphasize the distinctive view of the Divine which deems its source the “father of all prophets”[18]. We have come to assume this position but it seems apparent that not all “Jews” did. The best evidence of this comes from the Tanakh itself (as below). But let us start this journey with an overview of Elohism, Yahwehism, and Jebuism.

El was a God of the ancients before they could be called Canaanites[19]. Elohim is a transcendental God, a “hands off” God with a spiritual nature. There are no direct encounters between Elohim and the people and when Elohim interacts with people, it is typically done in dreams, visions, or by messengers. When Elohim appears, it is in the form of a cloud or a flame (even when Elohim appears to Moses only God's back is seen). For the Elohist, one look at Elohim means death. Indeed, fear of God is central to the Elohist and believers in Elohim expected someone else to tell them what God has to say (a “prophet”). Elohists show deep respect for God and the ritual forms they attribute to worshiping Elohim. One of these ritual forms was the keeping of idols (especially to Elohim’s consort, the goddess Asherah).

The Elohist views God’s covenant with Abraham as the basis of God's future relationship with humankind. Conversely, the Mosaic covenant established at Horeb (aka Mount Sinai) forms the basis of the people's relationship with God. In other words, Elohim expects loyalty and obedience and gives favor and guidance. Elohists were particularly aware of Israel's special covenantal relationship with God and view their covenant with God as more significant and fundamental than any political arrangement (whether the Davidic dynasty in Judah or the dynasties in the Northern Kingdom). Thus, Elohists were not impressed by the Davidic Court and viewed that group’s transgressions more critically.

Elohists had special interest in prophecy and prophets. Moses was viewed as a great leader with a key role in mediating the covenant with Elohim, but not as a great prophet. (Elijah and Elisha were favorite Elohist prophets in northern Israel in the ninth century BCE). The prophecy or promise which Elohists looked forward to was one of earthly prominence, peace, and prosperity.

Yahweh (יהוה = YHWH) was an ancient God who came to Jews with a new personality via Moses. Yahweh is an “in your face” -“hands on” God with a very prominent physical form. Those who interact with Yahweh know it for certain although God’s “voice” is almost always disassociated from God’s presence. When Yahweh appears, it is in the form of a human man who walks, talks, and interacts as if human. Yahweh also appears in other odd forms (perhaps the burning bush), but whenever Yahweh appears there is some concrete outcome. For the Yahwist, gazing upon God is a sign of favor and fulfillment. One expects to see Yahweh and to hear the actual sound of God speaking. Believers in Yahweh also expected someone else to tell them what God has to say (a “prophet”) although Yahweh speaks louder through action than words. Yahweh is a very interactive God who is intimately involved in human affairs and deals with people on a very personal level.

The Yahwists created a strangely anthropomorphic view of God: Yahweh walked with Adam and Eve, sealed the door of the ark, had a meal with Abraham, and bargained with Abraham over Sodom and Gomorrah. Yahweh is so human a view of God that God gives in to human logic (such as when God actually decides against destroying Israel because of the persuasion of Abram). Yahweh appears directly to people (although we never get a good description). Yahweh is alternately a potter and a gardener – and forms man from clay with his own hands. During the exodus, YHWH, incensed by the Israelites' lack of faith, threatened to destroy them all and raise Moses' descendants instead, but "relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened" when dissuaded by Moses.

For sure, the Yahwists were followers of Moses – after all, before God makes an introduction to Moses, God was Elohim. Yahweh is not the benign Elohim, a remote God in heaven. Yahweh is a dangerous[20], arbitrary[21], jealous[22], vengeful[23], and even mischievous[24] God. Yahweh expects a childlike faith and rigorous obedience (denying the faithful servant Moses entrance to the Promised Land for one minor transgression). Yahweh is a warrior (unequivocally stated at Exodus 15:3) and has no qualms about killing “innocent” women and children.

Yahwists emphasize the special relationship between humans, God, and the soil. They view the separation between humans and God as being a result of progressive human corruption[25]. There is also a special tie between Yahweh and the sun. For the Yahwist, Adam was taken from the soil and lives in a garden - when he transgresses, God curses the soil (!). Noah is described as a man of the soil and the one who will remove the curse from the soil. Yahweh wants clear boundaries between humans and divinity and enforces the boundary when Adam (who was divine) gains too much knowledge (power) and when the sons of God join in sexual union with human women, Yahweh limits the life span of their offspring (Genesis 6:1-8).

Yahwists see a steady increase in human corruption. Yahweh created an ideal world in which all creatures are vegetarian and violence is unknown. Humans came along and then all hell broke loose. Adam and Eve disobeyed a simple single rule and then Cain murdered his brother Abel. Soon, the entire world was so filled with human corruption that Yahweh decided to destroy it with the Flood. When human corruption continued after the Flood, God admitted that Creation is flawed and accepted human flaws as part of the deal. The Yahwists evolved a progression for allowing human corruption while still finding favor with Yahweh all the way through the reign of the very corrupt David and his son Solomon. Incredibly, humans din’t cross the line until God cursed Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:28-30) – seemingly more for failure than sin.

The Yahwist views God’s covenant with Moses as the basis our relationship with God. The Yahwist covenant with God is more of a formal legal arrangement with all sorts of legal details and loopholes. Likewise, God’s expectations are detailed and remarkably physical – God seeks an earthly home and expects the Yahwists to provide it. For the Yahwist, there is no separation of God and God’s human representatives – both political and priestly. Yahweh likes intermediaries and specifies a particular structure or institution (the priesthood) to ensure that worship and tithing is done correctly. The focal point of the Yahweh institution is sacrifice.

For Yahwists, the Davidic dynasty in Judah formed a turning point – and a breaking point from the Elohists in the Northern Kingdom. While the Elohists were not impressed by the Davidic successors and viewed their transgressions critically, one group of Yahwists saw an opportunity and took Judaism in a whole new direction. To them, Yahweh centered monotheism meant more power for them and more income for the new Levite/Aaronite Temple (“Solomon’s Temple”). The supposed “wisdom of Solomon” was manifested in the construction of a monument which could attract believers from many religions[26]. The problem was that Solomon’s Temple didn’t compete well with the palaces, temples, altars, and cities established for other deities in other regions.

Thus, a battle began between the Orthodox Yahwists and Heterodox Yahwists – which I shall distinguish as simply the Yahwists versus the Zadokites[27]. This important episode in Jewish religious history began with a priest named Abiathar bar Achimelech, High Priest at Nob and the fourth in descent from Eli. Being the only priest to escape from Saul's massacre, he went to David and brought with him the ephod and other priestly regales (1 Sam. 22:20 f., 23:6, 9; cf 2 Sam. 15:24-29). He served David well and was made High Priest, but in an unexplained circumstance, Abiathar shared his title of High Priest with Zadok (1 Kings 4:4). David’s heir, Solomon, deposed and banished Abiathar because he had supported Adonijah (the elder surviving heir) as David’s successor. Zadok became the sole High Priest and the subsequent priesthood succeeded from his line. This brings us to the third concept of the Jewish God.

After Solomon, the Yahwists controlled the Temple in Jerusalem and the Elohists (“Northen Tribes” or “Israelites”) separated themselves from both the Yahwists and their new priesthood (now, the “Judeans”). (Since the Judeans ended up writing the history, we must carefully discern fact from fiction in their telling of what happened). The Judeans portrayed their prosperous and powerful antagonists as pagans, idol worshipers, and child-sacrificers. Instead, the Israelites simply had an Elohist view of God and retained more of the polytheism of their heritage[28].

The Levite Zadokites found a new covenant through which they became the favored of God – the Aaronite or “Priestly covenant” (ברית הכהונה or “brith ha-kehuna”) which established the Aaronic priesthood and continued it through the perpetual priestly promise to Phinehas (Num. 25:7-15). (See Appendix ???). These priests altered the conception of God to emphasize both Temple sacrifice as proper worshiping and their special relationship and function in serving God’s covenant with man. They “took the law into their own hands” – devising a system whereby justice, legality, and religious practices were only known by them. Under the Zadokite conception, Yahweh (II )instructed Moses to present the Levites before Yahweh so that they could exclusively do the service of Yahweh thus elevating the Levites from among the children of Israel. As Yahweh’s chosen among the chosen, the Levites alone may make atonement for the children of Israel (Num. 8:10 et seq)[29].

Given the power to speak on behalf of God, the Levites couldn’t help but redefine Yahweh to best suit their needs. First, Yahweh no longer appeared to the average man – only to the priests and prophets. And, when Yahweh appeared to the prophet Jeremiah, he related God's promise that there will always be priests (“Kohanim”) and Levites fit to serve. Thus, the Levites established yet another covenant: "I will never renege on My covenant with day and night, so is my covenant with...the Levites, the Kohanim, My servants" (Jeremiah 33:21). Of course, in return for their “service” to God, the Levites needed to get rich and so they are given income from cities, tithes, and special wealth enhancing privileges[30]. The Levites used Yahweh (and monotheism) to build one of the best income producing systems of ancient times.

Further refinements to the concept of Yahweh evolved over time, perhaps the biggest being admission to Yaweh’s kingdom (heaven). This requires yet another covenant. The “Davidic covenant”, as established between David and his descendants, has four key elements (2 Sam. 7; Jer. 33:17-21):

1. David’s child shall succeed him and establish his dynasty.

2. This successor (Solomon) shall build the temple of Yaweh in Jerusalem.

3. The Davidic throne shall be established forever.

4. From the descendants of David there shall emerge a savior-king (המשיח)[31].

Thus arose a more concrete Jewish eschatology – a new belief in the “end of times” which would favor Jews by establishment of a powerful Jewish king from the Davidic line who will be anointed with holy oil, gather the Jews back into the Land of Israel, usher in an era of peace, build the Third Temple, re-institute the Sanhedrin and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age. This new age will be characterized as a time when:

“there will be no hunger or war, no jealousy or rivalry. For the good will be plentiful, and all delicacies available as dust. The entire occupation of the world will be only to know God... the people Israel will be of great wisdom; they will perceive the esoteric truths and comprehend their Creator's wisdom as is the capacity of man. As it is written ‘For the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of God, as the waters cover the sea’."[32]

The Zadokite eschatology was clearly a refinement or condensation of existing Jewish and non-Jewish beliefs which had no clear scriptural basis. The intent of promulgating these new beliefs was to impel all of Israel to follow the Torah and to strengthen its observance by promising something hopeful, intangible, and unknowable. That these beliefs originated during the Exile is indicated by key elements: that the Mashiach will build (rebuild) the Holy Temple in its proper place and gather the dispersed Israelites to worship Yaweh together (Zephaniah 3:9). Lacking a distinct or specific prophecy, the Jews created diverse views regarding the details[33] and scholars labored to find scriptural references which might reveal God’s plan for the Mashiach. (Many of those references are examined in detail in the later section regarding The Mashiach/Messiah).

By the time of Jesus, Judaism had two primary areas of focus: Zadokite post-exile eschatology and Rabbinical explanation and extrapolation of the Torah. Temple worship and festival pilgrimage was still advanced by the Sadducee led priesthood, but more and more people found their religious base centered upon their synagogue and local Rabbis. Jews were dispersed (the majority living outside of Judea and the single largest population living in Alexandria) and the Temple was under Roman control. The Temple priesthood relied upon the fears and frustrations of the people to hold their power and collect their tithes. To many Jews Divine intervention seemed like the only solution to prevent the death of their religion and some Jews hoped to trigger the accepted prophetic promises through direct action. Many of the teachings and actions of Jesus are best explained by understanding these beliefs and their origins. I think that it is clear that the eventual success of Christianity was based upon the lack of clarity in Jewish eschatological belief and the diminishing popularity of the Temple Priesthood.

Jesus may not have been a historian, but he lived during a time when the history of his people was less well known, resolved, or defined. Like his contemporaries, he would have viewed the Tanakh as symbolic historical fiction – as a “midrashic work”[34] intended to reveal God’s nature and Will. He saw that when the Israelites strayed from the covenant, God sent prophets and invading armies to bring them back into line. He understood that the stories of scripture were not inerrant historical or factual claims; they were intended as revelations which allowed the inspired to discern a deeper message.

As the Judaism of Yahweh evolved through the Davidic dynasty and was refined during the Exile, the other forms and beliefs of Judaism diminished. Yawehism and its priestly core became centered in Jerusalem and remained so through the time of Jesus (except regard the Temple at Leontopolis as discussed later). Judaism remained apart and unique in its particular claims – “to have experienced God's presence in human events and its subsequent development” and to have God’s promise of conditional favoritism until a time when God’s Kingdom would open its gates to the righteous Jews. That time would come after the appearance of a “savior” or Messiah. We shall proceed to discussion of that belief after we more fully examine the relevant Jewish history.

Having now observed how the concept of God changed and developed in parallel with the Children of Israel, we know that the idea of a unified “Judaism” as portrayed in the Old Testament is clearly a myth and seems to be “propaganda” written by the “victors”. Let us now look at some of the key historical and doctrinal difficulties glossed over in most histories of Judaism.

The United Kingdom, the Davidic Dynasty, and the Great Divide:

The modern understanding of Judaism is derived largely from the “historical” portions of Jewish scripture – the books called Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Chronicles, and Kings. These books offer an odd and often contradictory historical fiction. We will focus upon three closely related historical aspects of Judaism which are dealt with in the portions of scripture: the “United Kingdom” of Israel, the “lost tribes” of Israel, and what I term the “Great Divide”.

The idea of a “United Kingdom of Israel” is largely a myth created to misguide Jews regarding the role and reign of David. The “lost tribes” were never lost and the tribes which refused to accept Davidic succession were basically written out of history so that their competing notions regarding Judaism would be forgotten (with great success).

The Great Divide – the separation of Jews into “Israelites[35]” and “Judeans” – is among the most significant (and unknown) events in Jewish history. Since the “history” we read (aka “Old Testament”) was written by the Judeans, our knowledge and understanding of the Israelites is highly skewed and the significance of the Great Divide is well hidden. While the events surrounding the Great Divide occurred over centuries, the focal points occurred around the time of the Davidic Dynasty.

It should come as no surprise that the history of David is important in the study of Jesus since it was claimed that he was a Davidic heir and only a Davidic heir was considered as a potential Mashiach[36]. What may surprise many is the manner in which history was re-written to favor David and his descendants – specifically because of the Mashiach prophecies and beliefs.

In the Biblical account, the Jews unite under the reign of King David and the split happens as a direct result of his grandson Rehoboam being named as king. But, this account was written centuries later by Judeans who had four clear goals:

1. To establish Yahwehism as the absolute monotheistic theology of the Jews,

2. To establish a powerful central priesthood which would control Judaism,

3. To establish the Judeans as the authentic chosen people (among the Jews), and

4. To establish David as the source of Messianic hope.

As discussed above (and below) the writers of this “history” are best known as the “Deuteronomists” – those Judeans who returned from the Babylonian exile with revised ancient scripture merged with their new “scripture”. The Deuteronomists wrote to tell their story (as they wanted it to be), to advocate their unorthodox theological views, and to make their history the Jewish history. As we can see from both the written history of the “western world” and the contemporary formulation of mainstream Judaism, they were remarkably successful.

During the time of Jesus neither Jewish history nor Judaism were so well established. While the Judeans had emerged from the Babylonian Exile as the dominant Jews of Judea, there were competing factions that were lost to history almost as completely as the “lost tribes”. Because both historians and religious writers have largely “taken the bait” and because so many have accepted the Bible as historically reliable, we have lost sight of how different the circumstances were during the life of Jesus: very few Jews would have recognized what we call the Old Testament and knowledge of the alternatives (especially the non-canonical works of “scripture”) would have been much broader.

To understand first-century Judaism and the fundamental issues within the Jewish gestalt of the era, we need to know more about the Great Divide and its impact. To grasp the essence of the messianic concept as was formulated by the Deuteronomists, we need to know their background and methods. To better understand the mistakes made by the followers of Jesus and the church which was built upon his name we need to know the basis for their beliefs. And, to fully understand the life and teachings of Jesus we need to know how the Great Divide influenced him and his life.

The Basis:

David and his heir Solomon are two of the major characters in the Biblical narrative and David serves as the blood source for most of the messianic traditions of Judaism (and thus, also of Christianity). Their history has been almost exclusively derived from the combined legends, myths, and stories compiled in the Hebrew scripture by the collection of authors termed “Deuteronomists”. Modern scholars have access to sources and evidence which reveals the biases and misrepresentations recorded by these writers. Here, we have specific interest in the truth behind these stories as was likely known or believed by Jesus and the Nazoreans[37].

David was a usurper, adulterer, murderer, and traitor. Yet, he became the standard against which Jewish kings would be measured and the blood-source for the prophesized Messiah. In a final and brief opportunity to unite the Jewish peoples, David’s initial success turned to bitter failure. Nevertheless, it was the followers and successors of David who molded Judaism into the religion we know and who wrote its history. At first reading it is difficult to glean the basis for David’s influence or the high regard he is given, but we can see it clearly if we dig deeply: David began the consolidation of the Jewish priesthood which eventually led to the survival of Judaism.

Prior to David’s reign, the Jews were tribal people who worshiped various forms of the same God and other godly forms (“including “idols”). They were ruled by councils and “Judges” who were also priests and on occasion the tribes found reason to confederate. David saw that the Jewish priesthood had a divisive nature and that those empowered by it would undermine Jewish unity. Thus, while giving the priests a central place and considerable power, he moved strongly (including murder) to consolidate the feuding factions and to centralize religious worship in the new “city of David” and temple at Jerusalem.

To understand the reasons, means, and results of this transformation, we need to review and reshape the “history” of Judaism – moving away from the revisionist legends and purposeful redirections offered within the Old Testament. To understand how this affected the life of Jesus and his world-view, we need to reform our understanding of the Davidic legacy, the related origins of the Messianic expectations, and the social-political-religious climate which led to the formation of Judaism as it was known during Jesus’ time. Strangely, perhaps, this reconstruction begins not with David, but with his son Solomon.

Solomon, David’s first son by his stolen wife Bathsheba, is recorded as a wise and prosperous king who built a famous Temple in Jerusalem (“Solomon’s Temple”). But he was also an overt sinner and idolater who turned away from Yahweh and married “foreign princesses”, leading the “united kingdom” of his father to be torn apart. Solomon became the king because his mother and the prophet Nathan convinced the aged and feeble David to pick him over other sons – of which there were many. (David’s fourth son Adonijah was the heir-apparent following the deaths of Amnon and Absalom, his older brothers). Because David's High Priest Abiathar (a descendent of Eli) sided with Adonijah, he was exiled by Solomon and was replaced by Zadok of the line of Eleazar. Thus, Judaism as we know it – built upon the legends of David and Solomon and formed by the Zadokites – emerged and evolved from the disputed succession of Solomon.

The division of the Jewish tribes after the death of King Solomon was one of the defining events in human history – Judaism as we know it today is based largely upon the minority view of the “Judeans” and the history written by that minority. The Judeans and Israelites (aka the “northern tribes”) struggled, fought, aligned, and then both merged and bifurcated before, during, and after the “Babylonian Exile” (about 600 BCE). The “lost tribes of Israel” were only lost because the Judeans largely wrote them out of their history or sought to malign them so that only the Judeans would become “the Jews”. The split of Judaism and its subsequent impact on western civilization had its turning point with the Israelite objections to Solomon’s successor: Rehoboam.

Before trying to grasp how all this came about and its significance, we should quickly review the history of the tribes of Israel and the reigns of Saul, David, and Solomon…

Background:

The Book of Genesis tells us that Joseph bar Jacob’s sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, formed two of the tribes of Israel[38]. Each of the other sons of Jacob led only one tribe. (Thus there were thirteen tribes but the Tribe of Levi is generally excluded since they were dedicated to the priesthood (Num 1:32-34; Josh 17:14, 17; 1 Ch. 7:20)). The Old Testament explains the eventual precedence of the tribe of Ephraim as being derived from Joseph tricking Jacob into blessing Ephraim before Manessah. This story seems extremely unlikely and is probably an effort by the Deuteronomists[39] to denigrate the subsequent superior claims of Jeroboam and the Israelites[40]. Those claims are based upon the related history of the tribes.

Joshua, a descendant of Ephraim (1 Chron. 7:20-27), led the conquest of Canaan (around 1200 BCE) and until the formation of the first Kingdom of Israel under Saul (~1050 BCE) the Tribe of Ephraim was the source of its leaders. Indeed, despite the intended confusion by the Deuteronomists, Samuel, the last of the biblical Judges[41] and the one to appoint Saul, was from the tribe of Ephraim[42]. Because Samuel’s sons were deemed dishonest and untrustworthy, the leaders of the Israelites refused to have them become Judges. Instead, after the disaster of the Philistines and while at Mizpah (the Benjamite capital) they demanded that Samuel anoint a king. Thus, Saul, from the Tribe of Benjamin, was chosen by lot from all the tribes and families of Israel[43].

The entire biblical tale regarding Saul provides insight into the Deuteronomist methodology: Saul was chosen by Yahweh and anointed by Samuel (as Yahweh's prophet) and yet the Deuteronomists have him ultimately rejected (did God make a mistake?). The reasons offered (in the Book of Samuel) for Saul’s disfavor are: first, he offers God a sacrifice in place of Samuel (1 Samuel 13:8-14) and second, he refuses to commit genocide against the Amalekites (supposedly as ordered by Yahweh - 1 Samuel 15). For these alleged transgressions, God ignored Saul’s divine appointment, Saul’s righteous accomplishments, and Saul’s good character to take away his opportunity to reign or establish a dynasty. Instead, according to the Deuteronomists, Yahweh favored David.

In the Biblical story, Yahweh tells Samuel to anoint David, Saul's armor-bearer and harpist from Bethlehem, as king. Jonathan, Saul's son and heir, acknowledges David as the rightful king and (according to the biblical narrative) the Israelites accept such (thereby uniting all the Jewish tribes). This seems incredibly far-fetched and is contradicted within the accompanying historical narrative. While it is difficult to assemble that “historical” narrative into something which makes sense and aligns with the archeological and non-Judean evidence, a diligent effort to do such is rewarding and revealing…

The Bible states that:

• “[T]he soul of Jonathan was knit to the soul of David.”

• “Jonathan loved [David] as himself.”

• “Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was on him and gave it to David.”

• Jonathan warned David to hide against Saul’s wrath.

• “[T]hey kissed each other, and wept with each other…”

Saul later reproached Jonathan with strange language: “Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness?" and upon hearing of the death of Jonathan, David says:  "Jonathan, you have been very pleasant to me. Your love to me was more wonderful than the love of women.” (1 Sam. Ch. 20; 2 Sam. 1:23-27). I agree with those who have proposed that David and Jonathan had more than “brotherly love[44]” for one another.

The Biblical account of David’s story (mostly from the books of Samuel and Chronicles) is remarkably honest[45] – as if a revelation of his many flaws makes him more endearing. After joining Saul’s inner circle (as armor-bearer and harpist), David became a popular military leader and was rewarded with marriage to Michal dau Saul[46] while also being Jonathan ben Saul’s lover. But Saul saw David’s plans to assume the throne and attempted to have him killed. Jonathan warned David about one of Saul’s plots and David replies: “There is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape to the land of the Philistines…” Taking his other wives[47] (listed as Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the Carmelitess) and some 600 followers with him, David went to the Israelite’s arch enemy, Achish bar Maoch (King of Gath) and was given the city of Ziklag[48]. From there, he raided surrounding areas killing every man, woman, and child “as far as the land of Egypt” (1 Sam. 27:8).

When Achish gathered the Philistine army to fight Israel, he called upon David to fight on his side and David said to Achish, “Surely you know what your servant can do.” (1 Samuel 27, et seq.) After Saul, Saul’s other sons, and Jonathan were killed during a battle at Mount Gilboa, David mourned their deaths, abandoned Achish, went up to Hebron, and was anointed by Samuel as King of Judah[49]. Meanwhile, Ishbaal (aka Ish-bosheth), Saul’s fourth son, was proclaimed king over Israel at Mahanaim by his uncle Abner (2 Sam. 2:81; Sam. 31:1)[50]. Since the tribe of Judah (“Judeans”) proclaimed David as their king, civil war broke out over the dispute (2 Sam. 2:12).

The Book of Chronicles (1 Chron. 11:3-8) states that shortly thereafter, the inhabitants of Jebus (later, Jerusalem) forbade King David from entering their city so David sent Joab (his military commander) to take the city. After successfully sneaking into the city by a tunnel, Joab[51] conquered the Jebusites and was named chief and captain of David's armed forces. David moved the capital from Hebron to Jerusalem and "Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house." David brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, and decided to build Yahweh a proper home there. God made a covenant with David, promising that "Your throne shall be established forever." But that promise was not kept and David’s heirs were a constant problem for him during his life.

David’s son and heir Amnon raped his half-sisterTamar, Absalom, who was David’s son and Tamar’s brother, had Amnon killed two years later. Absalom fled his father’s wrath, but David forgave him and he later returned to the Davidic Court. Meanwhile, Abner and Ish-Boshet feuded and Abner approached David to make a pact with him. As a result, Ish-Boshet was forced to make concessions to David and David became the ruler of the United Kingdoms[52]. Then, Joab killed Abner (supposedly without David’s knowledge) and Ish-Boshet was killed (also without David’s knowledge). "But when the Philistines heard that they had anointed David king over Israel, all the Philistines came up to seek David" (2 Sam. 5:17).

With the power of a consolidated kingdom (map below), David began to invade and conquer surrounding regions, especially on the east bank of the Jordan. He defeated the Moabites, the Edomites, the Ammonites and the Arameans. The Palestinians attacked, taking the Valley of Raphaim and Bethlehem. David retaliated and, after three battles, forced the Palestinians out of Israel. Soon, the Davidic Empire extended over both sides of the Jordan River, as far as the Mediterranean Sea. David divided the country into twelve districts, each with its own civil, military, and religious institutions. He established courts and military administrations in Jerusalem and made Jerusalem the secular and religious center of the country. He collected taxes and tributes and instituted the annual holiday pilgrimages (Passover, Shavout and Sukkot) to Jerusalem.

[pic]

Palestine during the Time of David

A few years later, Absalom gathered a group of supporters and journeyed to Hebron with the intention of taking over Davids’ kingdom. The leaders in Hebron, who had been insulted by David’s change of capitals and whose status was undermined by some of David’s policies, supported Absolom’s rebellion. The Benjamites also joined the rebellion because they wanted to avenge Saul’s family (who were Benjamites)[53]. Strangely, David was overmatched by the forces aligned with Absalom so he and all his followers fled the city, leaving only 10 concubines in the palace. Absalom took Jerusalem and slept with David’s concubines (usually meaning a transfer of rule). The priests Zadok and Abiathar remained in the city and secretly supplied information to David – who was gathering his troops. Those troops eventually met and killed 20,000 of Absalom’s soldiers and Absalom himself, returning David to power[54].

And then, along came Bathsheba.

David voyeuristically lusted after Bathsheba, the wife of David’s captain, Uriah the Hittite, and then committed adultery with her. Bathsheba became pregnant and so David recalled Uriah from battle hoping to conceal the identity of the child's father. But Uriah refused to “do the deed” while his companions were still in the field of battle (at Rabbath, the capital of the Ammonites). Thwarted, David tried another plan – he had Joab, Uriah’s commander, place Uriah at the head of battle and abandon him there so that "he may be struck down, and die." After Uriah was murdered, David married Bathsheba and she bore his son. But David’s sins displeased God and Nathan (the Prophet) openly confronted David with a prophecy of God’s vengeance: "the sword shall never depart from your house”, "[God] will take your wives and give them to one who is close to you, and he will sleep with your wives in broad daylight”, and finally, that "the son born to you will die." (2 Sam. 12:10-14).

Despite David’s attempts to repent, God killed this first son with Bathsheba. David’s response was to further reject God: "While the child was still alive, I fasted and wept. I thought, 'Who knows? The Lord may be gracious to me and let the child live.' But now that he is dead, why should I fast?’" (2 Sam. 12:22–23). God refused to let David build his Temple and David's son Absalom rebelled against him.

Then, Joab killed Absolom during the battle in the Wood of Ephraim. David became bedridden and Adonijah, his eldest surviving son and natural heir, decided to marry the “princess” Abishag (an action tantamount to declaring himself king). But Bathsheba and Nathan tricked David to secure his blessing of Solomon, Bathsheba's son, so that he would sit on the throne instead. Thus, it is to Solomon that David gives his promise that their descendants will inherit the throne of Judah forever (and his request that Solomon kill his oldest “enemies” on his behalf).

The Re-Write:

Not knowing otherwise, one could hardly guess that David would be deemed the “righteous King” and the key figure of Jewish Messianism. For Judeans, David's reign represented the formation of a coherent Jewish kingdom centered in Jerusalem and in their scripture a Davidic descendant will occupy the throne of a restored kingdom and usher in the Messianic age. Given the willingness of the Deuteronomists to re-write history, it seems surprising that they didn’t re-write his character and forget his sins. Perhaps such were too well established in legends which were well known.

There are three key contradictions in the Biblical accounts of David and numerous historical problems. I suggest that these are related and therefore merge their discussion. Two of the most respected modern historians who have written about that era, Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, argue that the archaeological evidence indicates that David’s Judah was a small tribal kingdom. Yigal Shiloh, of the Hebrew University, has completed the most thorough archeological investigation of Jerusalem’s urban core from the reign of David and has found no significant evidence of David’s attack or occupation[55]. In short, there is an astonishing lack of archeological evidence supporting the biblical account of David…

“Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name.” Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs[56].

This lack of archeological evidence supports the theory of Baruch Halpern (the Chaiken Family Chair in Jewish Studies at Pennsylvania State University) which holds that David was a long term vassal of Achish (the Philistine king of Gath)[57] – a theory supported within the biblical text (as above). Also probable is that the biblical account greatly distorts the relationship between David and the Jebusites[58]. In one passage we are told that David was unable to conquer the city and in another that Joab did (for David). And, without explanation, Jebusites suddenly enter the scene in positions of great influence and power (e.g. Zadok as co-High Priest, Nathan as the leading prophet, and Bathsheba, the mother of David’s successor). David’s purchase of property for an altar from the Jebusite Araunah (aka “Ornan” in the Book of Chronicles) is explained as his respecting the property rights of the conquered Jebusites, but this simply disregards David’s legendary ruthlessness. What seems certain is that David’s story and reign was quite different than the biblical account and the discrepancies underlie the Israelite objections to David’s successor Rehoboam and the cause of the Great Divide.

The key aspect of the biblical account is the “United Kingdom” under David. The evidence strongly indicates that there was merely an alliance – mostly military – between the confederated tribes of the Jewish peoples (aka “Northern Kingdom”) and that David was perhaps one leader under this alliance (probably led militarily by Abner and Joab). His connections and alliance with the Philistines were secondary to Ishbaal’s similar connections and alliance with the much more powerful Egyptians.

The Egyptian dominance over the region is revealed in the Bible during Solomon’s time and we have indication of Egyptian influence over the Jews from the “Amarna Letters”. These archaeological artifacts (written on 380 small clay tablets) record parts of Pharaoh Akhenaten’s (aka Amenhotep’s) dealings with Palestinian people called the “Habiru” (aka “Apiru” or Hebrews). In the Amarna Letters, the Habiru are stateless brigands outside the protection of city-state laws who hired themselves out to the local rulers as mercenaries.[59] This aptly describes David as portrayed in the Bible.

Because the Egyptians and Philistines were enemies, David’s alliance[60] with the Philistines would have made him an unpopular with Psusennes I and his successors Amenemope (who ruled from 1001 – 992 BCE), Osorkon the Elder (the son of Shoshenq who ruled from 992 – 986 BCE) and Siamun (986–967 BCE) who was one of the most powerful rulers of this Dynasty[61].

We may never know the circumstances whereby David came to power, but we can be confident that the biblical story both errs and misleads. David probably would have remained a pro-Philistine brigand were it not for Abner’s lust for one of Ishbaal’s (aka “Ish-bosheth's”) royal concubines (named Rizpah). Since the taking of a royal concubine was seen as akin to claiming the throne, Abner was forced to flee Ishbaal and he went straight to David. He sought and was granted a covenant with David – the details of which are unknown. I propose that Abner greatly empowered David through a complete change of direction: in exchange for David’s turning against the Philistines, Abner arranged an alliance with the Egyptians. This move would have brought support from some of the other tribes and greatly weakened Ishbaal - exactly as indicated in the biblical story[62].

Ishbaal was further weakened by his need to defend his border against the Philistines and David's faction eventually prevailed against “Ish-bosheth's” (2 Sam. 3:1), but the war did not come to a close until Ishbaal and David reached an accord (2 Sam. 3:14)[63]. David's terms for peace required that Michal (Saul's daughter, Ishbaal's sister, and David’s first wife) be returned to him. Ishbaal returned Michal and apparently gained concessions regarding his sons and their position within the new Court of David.

This was as close to a “united kingdom” as they got – David was the military and de facto leader of the confederated tribes which retained their own local leaders and separate militias. While they cooperated in mutual defense and economic matters, they never agreed on religious issues, the priesthood, David’s succession, or that Jerusalem would be their “capital”.

There was a short period (2-5 years)[64] where David and Ishbaal shared leadership roles. Strangely, it was Abner who held the alliance together since his popularity with the military forces of the northern tribes was so great. Abner prospered greatly under “David’s wing”, but Abner’s success came largely at Joab’s expense and the two arch enemies simply couldn’t coexist within the Davidic Court. After a strange feud and fight, Abner killed Joab’s brother and Joab gained revenge by killing Abner. This sent a shockwave through the tribal leaders and their militaries. Ishbaal was assassinated (1005 or 1002 BCE) by Rechab and Baanah, two of his own captains, who expected to be rewarded for such by David (2 Sam. 4:5). Instead, David had both killers stoned to death[65].

There exists a five year void in the in the Biblical chronology at this point (the ”united kingship” of David is dated as beginning in 1000 BCE). Some[66] propose that the date for the assassination of Ishbaal is incorrect and that he reigned for over seven years instead of the two given at 2 Samuel 2:10. I offer a different theory.

David had the momentum of a military power-shift and David’s power increased to where he was the default leader of all the tribes. But such was neither absolute nor trouble-free and as told within the biblical story (summarized above) and the hatred of David surfaced in several forms:

• The followers of Saul (Ephraimites) hated David for breaking his promise to Saul and his family.

• The followers of Ishbaal (Benjamites) believed that David was behind the murder of their king.

• The Levites hated David for imposing a non-Levite High Priest upon them.

• The Hebronites hated David for moving the Judean capital to Jerusalem.

• The Philistines hated David for his disloyalty.

• The righteous Jews hated David for the murder of Uriah.

• God found disfavor with David because he was an adulterer and an idolater.

This hatred eventually manifested itself in the insurrection of Absolom (David’s oldest living son at the time). To understand his revolt and disloyalty, we need to take a short look at David’s marriages and family. David’s wives and sons are given in the biblical records, but one has to do some piecing-together to make the situation clear:

First, David was to marry Merab, the oldest daughter of Saul, but for reasons never given, Saul instead wed her to Adriel the Meholathite. The generally accepted reason was that David favored the younger sister of Merab named Michal and when “they told Saul” of their love, he favored their marriage. (Perhaps they had to tell him about more than their love and a marriage was required). But, then Saul and David became opponents and David was forced to flee (with Michal’s help). Saul gave Michal to Phalti bar Laish (which would have required a divorce and remarriage). During his flight from Saul, the biblical story tells us that David took two wives with him: Ahinoam of Jezreel and Abigail of Carmel. But the sequence is clearly incorrect since Abigail was married to Nabal until later. We know little about Ahinoam other than she gave David his first son, Amnon. By coincidence, Ahinoam was also the name of Michal’s mother – thus we may (should) speculate that David’s second wife was his mother-in-law.

In the biblical account, David’s third wife was Abigail. David encountered Abigail while he was on the run from King Saul (1 Sam. 25). David, then an outlaw and brigand, attempted to extort supplies from a rich Carmelite named Nabal, who refused. But then, according to the biblical story, Abigail secretly defied her husband's wishes and took supplies to David, begging his tolerance of her “boorish” husband. It’s a “romantic” story which is way beyond believability in a patriarchic culture (where such defiance meant death and such an appearance was beyond scandalous). The convenience of Nabal’s prompt death so that David could summon and then marry Abigail is also too convenient. It was much more likely that David attacked Carmel, plundered the supplies he wanted, and took away Abigail as his third “wife”. Abigail bore David a son named Kil'av.

Next, David married Maacah, the daughter of Talmai (King of Geshur). We know nothing about this marriage other than that David begat Absalom and Tamar with her. Similarly, we know little about the next wives: Haggith, who bore him Adoniyya (Adonijah), Abital, who bore him Shefatya (Shephatiah), or Eglah, who bore him Yitre'am (Ithream). Once David had moved to Jerusalem, he took other wives including the one we know most about: Bathsheba,[67] daughter of Eliam bar Ahithophel and the mother of Shimea, Shobab, Nathan, and Solomon. But David also took other wives and had other known sons: Ibhar, Elishama, Eliphelet, Nogah, Nepheg, Japhia, Eliada, and Eliphelet (1 Chron. 3:1-9) along with unknown sons and daughters via concubines (ibid).

The biblical account gives us conflicting or missing information about David’s other sons: Amnon was killed by Tamar’s brother Absolom because Amnon raped his step-sister (forcing Absolom to flee). In the biblical sequence, David’s second son was Daniel (Kil'av) by Abigail, but he is missing from the action (probably because he was not the second son). It is the biblical third son, Absalom (by Maachah) and the fourth son Adonijah (by Haggith) who appear to have precedence.

After being forgiven by David for killing his oldest son, Absolom found a friend and odd supporter in David’s chief counselor, Ahithophel (who was probably Bathsheba's grandfather – Solomon’s great-grandfather. See 2 Sam. 15). With the “guidance” of Ahithophel , only four years later Absolom audaciously went to Hebron, gathered supporters, and was crowned king there. With the Hebronites and other allies of the northern tribes, the force gathered by Absolom was sufficient to scare David into flight (supposedly leaving his concubines to care for the palace[68], Zadok and Abiathar to care for the ark, and Hushai to act as spy). Clearly, the “United Kingdom” was less than united and “the [Israelite] sense of being separate peoples was still prevalent”[69] (II Sam. 13-20cf. 19:41-43).

Because of bad advice, Absolom was killed in battle (by Joab) and David managed to recapture Jerusalem and his throne. But he was viewed as a weak king. Sheba, the son of Bichri the Benjamite, soon led other northern tribes in rebellion. His cry for independence was clear enough: "We have no portion in David, and we have no inheritance in the son of Jesse…” (2 Sam. 20:1-2). “So every man of Israel deserted David… But the men of Judah, from the Jordan as far as Jerusalem, remained loyal to their king.“ (Ibid). With a Jewish civil war underway, the Philistines attacked their old ally. This was probably a break for David as the Northern tribes hated the Philistines even more than they despised David. Perhaps in this we have the only reality of the “united kingdom” myth – both groups were united in opposition to the Philistines.

With David’s decline in both health and power, his fourth son, Adonijah planned his transition to rule. Adonijah had the support of the High Priest Abiathar and most of the military and he headed for the northern tribes to forge alliances. But Bathsheba and her sons had other plans – and better access to the feeble king. Nathan, the prophet, reported to David that Adonijah was planning a coup. Together with Bathsheba and Zadok, they “revealed” Adonijah's plan and convinced David that he had promised the crown to Solomon (an unlikely promise not noted before). David agreed to have Solomon crowned co-regent and the usurpers had Solomon ride from Jerusalem to Gihon upon the royal “donkey” accompanied by the priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan. There, Solomon was ceremoniously anointed king and in triumph and royal splendor he returned to Jerusalem. With this fait accompli, Adonijah and Abiathar were forced to admit that they had been out-maneuvered and accepted inferior roles under Solomon’s rule.

After David’s death, Solomon was also unable to control the two Hebrew kingdoms. First, Hadad, who had been exiled during David's reign for insurrection (escaping to Egypt where he married queen Taphene's sister and they had a son named Genubath – 1 Kings 11:19-20), returned as Solomon’s adversary (I Kings 11:14-25). Hadad was the surviving member of the royal family of the Edomites whose rebellion appears to have taken place early in Solomon’s reign. Although Solomon managed to retain his hold on Ezion-geber (at the Red Sea) he didn’t succeed in quelling the revolt (I Kings 9:26 ff.). Indeed, Hadah remained in power and married his daughter to Solomon (I Kings 11:1). Possibly aligned with Hadah was the Syrian ruler Rezon bar Eliada (aka Hezion), also an enemy of Solomon (mentioned in 1 Kings).

The final opponent of Solomon listed in the biblical history is the one of greatest interest: Jeroboam[70]. Described as the son of Nebat (aka Nathan, of the Tribe of Ephraim) and Sarua[71], we are lacking in detail about who these parents were. However, while still young, Jeroboam was designated to lead or superintend the forced laborers[72] from the tribes of Joseph (not just Ephraim and Manasseh, but all ten “northern tribes”[73]). Whether this assignment was granted by Solomon or gained by ascension is uncertain, but it is clear that Jeroboam was a popular leader accepted by Solomon and the workers. Also responsible for Solomon’s building projects (the Temple, Palaces and others), Jeroboam rose quickly in power and prestige until Solomon saw him as a threat.

In 1 Kings 11:29-40, Jeroboam is told that he is destined to become king of the Jews (or Israelites) by the Prophet Ahijah and so he decided that he should begin an insurrection. In the Septuagint, Jeroboam is said to attempt to build a fortress and organize an army in Ephraim, but was discovered by Solomon. It is more likely that Jeroboam sided with a revolt against Solomon by the abused corvée. Whatever the basis, Solomon discovered Jeroboam’s opposition and Jeroboam was forced to flee to Egypt where the “Pharaoh Shishak[74]” accepted him with “royal dignity” and gave him a royal daughter (“Ano”) in marriage (paralleling Hadad, above)[75].

There is plenty of evidence to support the legends that Hadad and Jeroboam went to Egypt, found support there, and married Egyptian wives. The Biblical account is likely mistaken about the title for these Egyptian “princesses” since true Egyptian royalty were considered divine and were never allowed to marry foreigners[76]. They were more likely just Egyptian “gift brides” – usually daughters of high officials who were not royals. It is interesting that the biblical account also states that Solomon married an Egyptian princess (receiving Gezer as a dowry) and that out of his harem of seven hundred she is singled out for mention (mostly criticism) but never named.

The whole of the biblical story related to David’s, Solomon’s, and Rehoboam’s relationship with the Egyptians is probably an effort to counter the reality of Jeroboam’s good relationship with the vastly more powerful Egyptian Kings of the period (the 21st dynasty). Two parts of the story do seem to fit well: if Jeroboam went into exile in Egypt, returned with an Egyptian bride, and found recognition and favor with the Egyptian royals, then the Egyptian support for Jeroboam over Rehoboam makes perfect sense: five years after Rehoboam became king Shishak took Jerusalem, removed the Temple treasures, and made Judea a vassal state while leaving Jeroboam King of the Northern Kingdoms (“Israel”). But we haven’t gotten that far yet…

Solomon was neither the wise nor powerful king described in the biblical tales. His building projects – mostly palaces and fortresses - required massive taxation[77]. His foreign wives brought objections from many and, as already noted, his relationships with his neighbors were strained. The descendants of Saul awaited Solomon’s death so that they might reclaim their throne. The descendants of Eli (Abiathar) objected to Zadok as High Priest and loyalists believed that the priesthood had become corrupted (consistent with idol worship within the Temple). In short, Solomon had consumed the wealth and power left him by David and when he died all that was left was a curse – that the “united kingdom” would be divided[78].

According to the Bible, upon the death of Solomon, Rehoboam headed for Shechem for all the Israelites had gone there to make him king (I Kings 12:1; 2 Chronicles 10:1). But Jeroboam had already been summoned from Egypt and was there to challenge Rehoboam (2 Chron. 10:2). In the biblical story, the Israelites have hardened hearts and lack appreciation for their leader[79] but the reality is revealed by Rehoboam’s response to their request for lower taxation:

"Whereas my father [Solomon] laid upon you a heavy yoke, so shall I add tenfold thereto. Whereas my father tortured you with whips, so shall I torture you with scorpions… and your backs, which bent like reeds at my father's touch, shall break like straws at my own touch." (1 Kings 12:1-19).

The biblical story makes it seem that the Israelites wanted to keep Rehoboam as their king if only he would lighten their burden slightly – but Rehoboam offered the opposite and thus the ten northern tribes turned to their leader, Jeroboam. The story makes little sense and doesn’t fit the record.

Whatever impetus may have existed for a unified kingdom was far from sufficient to inspire allegiance to the Davidic throne or to compel alignment with Rehoboam. The Northern Tribes sought confederation and central leadership, but only under a ruler with more to offer. I propose that the meeting in Shechem[80] (specifically not Jerusalem) to decide on the future king strongly indicates that Rehoboam was not in control and that the negotiations which might have allowed him to retain control were unsuccessful. Instead, all the tribes except the Judeans chose Jeroboam to be their king (the Benjaminites switched later to join the Judeans)[81]. I would also propose that Jeroboam was related to Rehoboam – perhaps as cousin.

Jeroboam established (or re-established) his capital in Shechem and proceeded to build the “Northern Kingdom” into an economic and military power. This was largely because of geography (control over the roads to the coast and to Egypt) and Jeroboam’s favor with the Egyptians. While the bible says that Rehoboam and Jeroboam fought major battles (involving 180,000 Judean troops), there is simply no evidence of this. Minor battles over specific regional disputes were likely and it seems that Rehoboam made a general nuisance of himself. But that ended shortly after the divide when Shishak attacked Judea and Jerusalem (because they “had been unfaithful to Yahweh” - cf. 2 Chron. 12:2 and 1 Chron. 10:13). Rehoboam gave Shishak the Temple treasures (2 Chron. 12:9) and the gold shields of Solomon (2 Chron. 9:16) as tribute. Judea became a vassal state of Egypt. Conversely, Jeroboam retained his rule and the Northern Kingdom (“Israel”) grew and prospered.

[pic]

The Lands of the Twelve Tribes

The Divided Kingdom:

According to the Bible, Jeroboam feared that the pilgrimages to Jerusalem prescribed by the Torah might lead the people of the Northern Kingdom to seek re-alliance with the Judeans. So, he decided to provide for them new places of worship in the north where golden calves would be worshipped[82]. He enlisted priests drawn from the lowest of the people (1 Kings 12) to administer at these temples. And he made it illegal to make a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Thus, the prophet Abias proclaimed that Divine vengeance would punish the house of Jeroboam because of these evil deeds (1 Kings 14) and the worst actions of future kings were referred to as being like “the wickedness of Jeroboam”.

Oddly, in the Aggadah (Jewish biblical commentary) Jeroboam was able to set up the “idol worship” under the full authority of the Sanhedrin. His good reputation and power of persuasion allowed him to obtain “extra privileges” for his actions. In an interesting apologetic, it says that Jeroboam conducted a powerful propaganda campaign which distorted the law and misrepresented history by exalting the “tolerance and forgiveness, the goodness and lovingkindness implicit in the religion of the calves”. (TJ, Av. Zar. and Sanh., loc. cit. per [83]).

For the most part, we can discount the biblical accounts related to Jeroboam and the Northern Kingdom as “revisionist history” and propaganda by the Deuteronomists. While remembering that both the Jewish kingdoms were relatively insignificant (relative to other regional powers), of the two it was the Northern Kingdom which grew, prospered, and gained significant influence. The history written by the Judeans attempts to explain away the disparity with logical and factual inconsistencies – especially in regard to the “idol worship” accusation.

Here we take another aside to understand what was going on[84]…

The Bible emphasizes political, military, and social disputes between Jeroboam and Rehoboam and merely hints at the religious power issue which led to the Great Divide. Similarly, the Deuteronomist account focuses upon one split of the priesthood (Abiathar vs. Zadok) without explaining Zadok’s origin. In essence, the Biblical account disguises the fact that there were several prominent regional Jewish priesthoods fighting for power:

1. The Aaronite/Elide priesthood of Shechem and Nob which descended through Ithamar[85], Eli, and Abiathar[86]. (Samuel was not of this lineage, but was an Elide priest).

2. The Aaronite/Zadokite priesthood of Jerusalem and Gibeon which descended through Eleazar, Uzzi, and Zadok[87].

3. The Mushite priesthood of Shiloh and Nob which descended through Moses and Abinadab[88].

4. The Jebusite priesthood of Jebus-Salem which descended from Melchizedek ("Priest of El-Elyon”) and Ira[89].

5. The Kenite/Rechabite priesthood of Beth-El which descended through Reuel (Jethro) and Obed-edom[90].

6. The Mushite/Gershmite priesthood of Dan which descended through Moses, Gershom, Asaph, and Joel.

7. The Kohathite/Levite/Ezrahite priesthood of Arad and Kadesh which descended through Kohath (ben Levi), Korah, Samuel, Heman, and Uriel.

8. The El-berith/ Elohist (“Lord of the Covenant”) priesthood of Shechem which descended through Laban[91], Beor, and Balaam.[92]

9. The Korahite/Levite/Elohim priesthood of Hebron which descended through Kohath (of Esau), Korah, Esau, Izhar, and Hebron.[93]

This complex priestly division simply doesn’t fit within the monotheistic/unified Judaism picture painted in the Bible, but the vast majority of support for these divisions comes from within scripture[94]. As with many biblical matters, there are dozens of books written about these facets and factions and it is difficult to compress the scholarship which others have contributed to the subject (please note the notes). And, as is also common, there is plenty of room for dissent (especially regarding the Mushite and Kenite priesthoods). If we remember that the goal of the Deuteronomists was to present a view of Judaism as a unified mono-theistic religion headed by the Judean Aaronite priesthood, we can grasp the problem of presenting the complex historical reconciliation, consolidation, and compromise which led to Judaism as we know it.

The lineage of these priesthoods has Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as common sources per the following…

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

The patriarchal priesthood which was rightfully Esau’s was, according to the Deuteronomist’s biblical account, given instead to his brother Jacob (by deceit). The efforts undertaken by the Deuteronomists to make this fable work and to disparage Esau strongly indicate a need to overcome an opposing view. It seems clear in the account from Genesis that Esau’s family had cause to believe that they held the rightful priesthood. After all, it is affirmed that Esau had received the garments of the high priest that were passed down from Adam to Noah to Shem (also Melchizedek to some) to Abraham and to Isaac (Esau’s father). Despite the story of Jacob’s deceitful stealing of Esau’s birthright (and priestly garments), the Genesis account states that Isaac properly gave the vestments of the priesthood to Esau.

Genesis also details Esau's marriage to two Canaanite women: Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite. Then, we are told that these marriages grieved his parents (twice - at a time when marriages were arranged by the parents). Then, Esau went to his uncle Ishmael and married his cousin, Mahalath. When Esau’s family is again revisited (Genesis 36) other Canaanite wives are named: Adah, the daughter of Elon the Hittite and Aholibamah, the daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon the Hivite[95]. (Bashemath is also listed as Ishmael's daughter and Esau’s wife, but we should equate this name with Mahalath). Esau had at least five sons: Eliphaz (by Adah); Jeush, Jalam, and Korah by Aholibamah; and Reuel by Bashemath. (Thus, when we read of Korahite priests, we cannot be sure we are not talking about descendants of Esau). From Genesis 36:16, it appears that Esau had both a son and grandson named Korah. (Of course, these Korahites are not those who rebelled per Exodus 6:21).

That Esau’s family settled the land known as Edom and that the historical conflict between the Edomites and Judeans continued to the time of Jesus makes the story both interesting and relevant. I propose that David sought to reconcile the Edomite priesthood with the Israelite and Judean priesthoods. (We will meet Doeg the Edomite shortly).

The descendants of Merari also claimed priestly status and that lineage produced key figures in the Davidic Court. Ethan and a Heman were descendants of Zerah, head of a Judahite family (1 Chron. 2:6) AND they were Levites (1 Chron. 15:17). Ethan was listed as “Ethan the Ezrahite[96]” and the son of Kushaiah," (1 Chron. 15:16-17; aka “Kishi”) and although Heman is identified as being “wiser than all men, even Ethan the Ezrahite” (1 Kings 4:31), we should view this comparison as reflecting a tradition of both men’s reputation for wisdom. That they were descended from two Levite branches who intermarried (Judah/ Zerahiah and Aaron/Kohath) and the Merarites (1 Chron. 15:16-17[97]) indicates that the term “Ezrahite” is not merely a patronymic – I suggest it was the name by which their priestly house was distinguished from the other Korahites.

Here we should recognize the problem which David sought to resolve: Jews were divided by region, tribe, leadership, and priesthood. As the tribes confederated and regional conflicts brought the Jews together under the military leadership of Abner and Joab, David was uniquely positioned to unify Judaism. However, the diverse and opposing religious leaderships remained the primary obstacle to a nationalized Judaism. David’s solution was intelligent and inspired – he found common threads and tried to use them to bind the factions together.

The strongest common threads of the various Jewish factions and priesthoods were “Yahweh” and wealth. It was easily understood and widely realized that small tribal states could no longer survive in the world of the Middle East. The drive to survive became great enough to overcome the advantages of local leadership held by the Judges/priests and thus, Saul became the first “King” of the Israelites[98]. By the time David assumed the throne, the mandate for unification was great enough to allow his solution to take root.

David understood that wealth, not religion, had become the central issue behind the priesthood. So he and his council (discussed below) offered them greater wealth through a plan to create a single Jewish sanctuary in Jebus/Salem/Jerusalem. He also understood that distribution of power and wealth would be the key to negotiating a unified priesthood and that the religious differences would disappear if the opportunity for greater wealth was clear. (It helped that he was ruthless enough to simply kill those who wouldn’t negotiate). It is difficult to piece together the process by which the unification of the priesthood was accomplished, but there are sufficient clues in the Old Testament to give us a general idea.

We should begin with an astounding and outrageous incident – the slaughter of the priests at Nob[99]. In short, after David had fled from Saul he first took refuge in the” Priestly City” (Nob). The “High Priest” there was named Ahimelech ben Ahitub (of the house of Eli) and in order to gain his assistance, David lied to Ahimelech and told him that he was there in service to Saul. Ahimelech was in no position to deny the King’s son-in-law refuge and hospitality. But then Saul, acting under the darkness of a disloyal son (Jonathan - who was likely to have been David’s lover, as above) and a betraying friend (David – who was also his son-in-law) sought information on the situation in Nob. He sent Doeg the Edomite (incorrectly titled Saul’s “chief herdsman”) who then intentionally misled Saul by telling him about Ahimelech’s assistance without also telling him that the assistance was only given because of David’s lie. Saul summoned Ahimelech to ask about his traitorous actions, but Ahimelech’s answer was unsatisfactory. So Saul ordered Ahimelech, his family, AND all the priests at Nob (and their families) to be killed. When no one else (including Abner and Amasa, his top generals) would commit such a horrendous crime, Doeg obliged the King and led the slaughter[100]. All were killed except Abiathar who escaped and joined David in flight.

Several elements of this story stand out, but I will focus on just two: that Doeg was specifically labeled an Edomite and that his position is given as “chief herdsman”[101]. In the Rabbinical literature (JE), Doeg is considered the greatest scholar of his time[102] and he is remembered for losing the argument with David over the site for the Temple at Jerusalem (Zeb. 54b), for his argument that David could not belong to the congregation of Israel because the law forbade a descendant of a Moabite (Ruth) from such[103], and for declaring David's marriage with Michal to be invalid (hence Saul married her to another).

From these sources, it would seem that Doeg was a prominent scholar (almost always priests) from Edom who served Saul as chief shepherd and murderer of priests. But, he was also consulted by Saul and Saul followed his advice to take his daughter (Michal) back from David. Then, after Doeg argued against David’s right to belong to the “Jews”, David consulted him regarding the site for the Jerusalem Temple. It seems clear that Doeg was far more than a herdsman and that he had enough power and influence to survive as an opponent of David. As an opponent of David, the Deuteronomists were threatened enough to paint him as the murderer of 85 priests. History tells us little more, so we are left to speculate about Doeg’s real role (and lineage, as above).

But Doeg was specifically identified as an Edomite. Why? We will work towards that answer…

In addition, we need to look at two other hidden “players” - Jehoiada and his son Benaiah. Although they are barely mentioned in the Bible, both were very powerful : Jehoida as a priest and head of the Sanhedrin and Benaiah as military commander and advisor to Solomon. To exemplify their stature, we need only a few references…

When it came time to appoint his successor, "King David said, ‘Call to me Zadok the priest, Nathan the prophet, and Benaiah the son of Jehoiada.’" (1 Kings 1:32-34). Following David’s deathbed advice, Solomon had Benaiah kill the rightful heir, Adonijab, along with the popular and powerful military commander Joab (who Benaiah replaced). (1 Kings 2:23-25). The better known Biblical Jehoiada established the national covenant "between him, and between all the people, and between the king, that they should be [Yahweh’s] people" (2 Chron. 23:16). He is termed "priest chief” (רֹ֑אשׁ הַכֹּהֵ֖ן) in 1 Chronicles 27:5, yet Jehoiada is not called a priest or even a Levite elsewhere in the Bible. Strangely, he is termed “High Priest” by Josephus (Ant. 10:151-153) but doesn't appear in the list of the Zadokite priesthood given in Chronicles (I Chron. 5:30-40). Yet, in 1 Chron. 12:27 it is specifically stated that “Jehoiada [was the] leader of the family of Aaron”. This leads us to ask why Jehoiada, the father of Benaiah, was not remembered or recorded by the Deuteronomists as High Priest?

In the Rabbinical writings, Benaiah was President of the Sanhedrin under David (Ber. 4a) and was a leader of the Jewish scholars (indicated in II Sam. 23:20 - "Kabzeel," = "kabaẓ" he collected; "el" for God; Sifra (Ber. 18b; Targ. II Sam. l.c.). Benaiah was said to occupy eminent positions under Solomon, being his chancellor and best friend (JE). If Benaiah was President of the Sanhedrin, then it is almost certain that he succeeded his father in that position – and the timing would indicate that Jehoiada acted as such during the time of David, not Benaiah.

And so… let us add these key figures to the Biblical storyline and attempt to integrate them into the result. Since the Biblical account identifies Abiathar and Zadok as co-High Priests during this period, where did Jehoida fit in? And why, like Doeg, did the Deuteronomists attempt to write Jehoida out of history. If Benaiah was leader of the army and later Nasi, what was his role in the Davidic plan? And where did Doeg come from and end up? Once we negate the myth of a “United Kingdom” and dig deeper into the “Great Divide”, we can better see how these pieces fit together.

David’s method was to first bring together the key Jewish factions – the Aaronites/Levites and the Jebusites/Edomites. His “High Priests” Abiathar and Zadok became his instruments in designing and implementing the new Temple-based Jewish religion. In the Biblical account, God denies David permission to build the new Temple (too much blood on his hands) and the actual construction is left to Solomon. In truth, it appears that David lacked the cooperation and wealth to even begin the project[104]. The proverbial “wisdom of Solomon” was probably based upon his letting his Court make the Temple a reality (while he managed his huge harem). We may reconstruct Solomon’s Court with these key figures: Benaiah, Jehoiada, Abiathar, Zadok, Doeg, Nathan, Shemaiah, and Abiathar. It is they who should be credited with the elaborate plan and process intended to unify the Jewish priesthood.

We cannot know the process or the details of the players, but we know the result in considerable detail – the Book of Chronicles details how power was brokered as different priestly groups were brought together[105]. Because of language and tradition, we tend to think of the “priests” as being the primary functionaries within the priesthood, but this misrepresents the Davidic plan and result. The biblical terms לַעֲבֹדָתָ֗ם (“minister”) and לַכֹּהֲנִ֖ים (“priests”) define the Levitical branch of Aaron which won the right to minister in the temple by lot. However, the other Levitical families (of Eleazar and Ithamar) were also priests assigned other honored positions: musicians, singers, guards/gatekeepers, attendants, regional overseers, treasurers, judges, and officials. The division of Temple income was not based upon these titles and one could argue that several of the non-ministerial positions were more powerful or more desirable (would you rather play the flute or butcher animals?).

The divisions and duties specified in 1 Chronicles 24 include:

• Priests/High Priest: Aaronites - Zadok (house of Eleazar and leader from the Jebusite priesthood of Jebus-Salem) and Abiathar (and his son Ahimelech - house of Ithamar and leader of the Levitical priests of Shechem) (1 Chron. 24:5).

• Priests' Assistants: An assortment of lesser familiies (1 Chron. 23:4; 23:28).

• Singers: Kenaniah (the head of the house of Izhar) was in charge of the Levite singers (1 Chron. 25:7-31) and the “outward business” of the Temple (1 Chron. 26:29)[106].

• Musicians: Heman (a Kohathite who was the grandson of the Israelite prophet Samuel was specifically designated for the cymbals), Asaph (of the Mushite/Gershmite priesthood) was chorister while Jeduthun (aka Ethan, of the house of Merari) led the trumpet players (1 Chron. 23:5).

• Gatekeepers/Guards: Divided among the key families – Ethan and Obed-edom of the Kenite/Rechabite priesthood (the sons of Jethro/Merari) and Zechariah (the house of Korah/Kushaiah) held key positions among the gatekeepers (1 Chron. 26:1-19).

• Treasurers: A mix with different income sources kept by different Levite family leaders – especially the Gershonites (house of Laban), Zetham, Joel, Shebuel, and Shelomoth of the El-berith/ Elohist priesthood of Shechem (1 Chron. 26:20-28).

• Officers and Judges: Izharites (house of Kenaniah); Hebronites (house of Jeriah) were put in charge of the Reubenites, the Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh (for both religious and political matters) (1 Chron. 26:29-32).

What emerged from this consolidation was a new class of priests: the Kohanim (“כֹּהֵן” or “כֹּהֲנִים”). Because Jewish tradition remembered earlier non-Levite priests[107] and because other competing priesthoods remained, the Deuteronomists created an explanation in the Old Testament to explain how the Kohanim became the “proper” priests[108]. This explanation is complex, convoluted, and contentious. We review that history by reorganizing the biblical account.

As suggested above, I believe that David united the Levite priesthood and the Jebusite (Shemite) priesthoods through Abiathar and Zadok (respectively). But this leaves us in the dark regarding the other more ancient priesthoods. There is little Biblical information regarding the Hebrew priestly circumstance before Moses. In the succession of Abraham> Isaac>Jacob/Israel, we are given the mainline lineage of the Judean/Levite priesthood while we also are told of the Shem>Melchezidek priesthood (which would seem to have at least equal footing). Moses’ father was Amram whose forefathers were Horite[109] priest-scribes[110]. Moses was supposed to be both leader of the Jewish people and their priest (Exodus 32:10), but the Deuteronomists have him disagree with God and suggest that he should not be the priest - therefore God gave the priesthood to the better speaker, Aaron (Exodus 28 & 29)[111]. It seems clear that the descendants of Moses[112] disagreed with that “history” and that their priesthoods at Shilo and Nob remained in opposition to the new “United Priesthood” under David.

The Deuteronomists (speaking largely through Ezekiel) assert that the very first priesthood had been confirmed to Aaron and his descendants while the rest of the Levites had been set apart to fill the lesser offices of the Temple[113]. In support of his “Priestly Code”, Ezekiel offers a priestly genealogy supposedly establishing the legitimacy of the Aaronite/Zadokite priesthood. In this lineage, the Zadokites are the lineal descendants of Phinehas ben Eleazar ben Aaron who is not a priest but “earns” God’s promise of the priesthood as a lasting heritage for the murder of two sinning lovers (an Israelite man and a Midianite woman). By righting “the Heresy of Peor” and ending the idolatrous immorality (worshiping Baal-peor) of the Moabites and Midianites, Phineas was to become the source of the authority behind the Zadokite priesthood (Numbers 25:1-13).

Thus, to designate the Zadokites as God’s chosen priests/ministers, the Deuteronomists had to negate superior priestly claims by the descendants of Shem (via Melchizedek), by the descendants of Esau (via Kohath and Reuel), by the descendants of Gershom ben Levi (via Jehoiada and Kenaniah), by the descendants of Jethro/Merari (via Ethan and Obededom ), by the descendants of Moses (via Eliezer and Gershom), and by the descendants of Ithamar ben Aaron (via Eli and Abiathar[114]).

The Melchizedek priesthood was absorbed via the Jebusites (as above). A fictional account explained how Esau traded and was tricked out of his priesthood (even though such was contradicted within the account). The Gershonites were absorbed into the Zadokite priesthood. The Merarites were given a substantial bribe to resolve their claim. The divided Mushites were killed, exiled, and given the “shaft” (but not the rod), and the sons of Ithamar were said to have been cursed out of their heritage (justifying their murder and exile). Meanwhile, God found favor with the murderer Phineas (who was not a priest and whose lineage came from Eleazar ben Aaron). Eleazar was then made out to be the older son of Aaron to explain the Zadokite legitimacy (even though the biblical account clearly indicates that the priestly lineage passed through Ithamar (the reason why some are compelled to suggest that Eli descended from Eleazar – to make the biblical story make sense).

Ultimately, none of this fits either the biblical history or the Jewish traditions and we should readily conclude that the Deuteronomist fiction both misinforms and intentionally misleads. Instead, we should review the biblical record and reach an entirely different conclusion: the Zadokites lacked scriptural and traditional authority for or legitimate right to the priesthood and within the revisionist history prepared by the later Zadokites, a large fiction was overlaid onto the established historical framework. The diverse Jewish priesthood continued before, during, and after the time of David and was a large part of the reason for the Great Divide. And since this work is about the amazing life of Jesus, we should confirm why all this is relevant.

According to the recorded testimony of Jesus, Abiathar was High Priest and the Elide sanctuary at Nob was "the House of God." (Mark 2:26). This simple statement has been generally ignored, but leads to two important conclusions: Jesus was surprisingly well informed about this particular history and he accepted/taught a view which is in opposition to the scriptural tradition (which does not recognize the Elide High Priesthood of Nob or the authenticity of its altar - I Chron. 5:30-40; Ezra 7:1-5). Whereas the Bible names Zadok before Abiathar, Jesus names only the rightful High Priest. I propose that this single statement records a level of historical awareness which greatly enhances our understanding of Jesus: he understood the historical corruption of the Deuteronomists and taught a corrected version. It is little wonder that he was called “Rabboni” (great teacher); Jesus had broader knowledge than most of his contemporaries and was willing to publically dispute the religious authorities. But then this also helps explain his end.

Finally, let us return briefly to the "Kenite hypothesis" – an explanation for the recurring Edomite prestige which permeates the Old Testament. Under this “theory”, it is said that Yawehism originated with migratory Edomite tribes and was brought north to the pre-Israelites in Canaan by Edomite sects including the Kenites[115]. The Kenite/Rechabite priesthood of Beth-El had descended through Reuel (Jethro)[116] and Obed-edom, both of whom are also vaguely given very high honors in the OT story: Jethro was a Midianite priest described as a Kenite shepherd who gave Moses his first wife (Exodus 2:18; 18.9) and Obed-edom was trusted with the Ark of the Covenant (in his “house”) before it was brought to Jerusalem by David (2 Sam. 6:12).

It is clear that a priesthood claiming Jethro as its source of legitimacy would be powerful and such is shown by the trust placed in Odebedom. As I would propose that Doeg the Edomite was a Kenite/Rechabite[117] priest (“the most respected scholar of his time” - as above), we readily see that he was a driving force behind David’s centralization of Yawheism. When we are told by the Deuteronomists that they were then designated as the “Gatekeepers” of the new Temple we should readily realize that this was perhaps the most trusted and powerful function – the Edomites (led by Ethan and Obed-edom) were in charge of the Temple Guards. The other key positions (ministers and treasurers) were at the mercy of the guards. Thus, we can understand how Doeg the Edomite could argue that David should not belong to the congregation of Israel (as a descendant of a Moabite), declare David's marriage with Michal to be invalid, and lose an argument with David over the site for the Temple at Jerusalem and yet still remain in power. He had powerful friends.

The subsequent story of the Edomites is summarized elsewhere (Appendix ???). Because Jesus had ties to both the Rechabites (as with the “Nozerim”)[118] and Edomites (e.g. the Herodians), their history is relevant in our story of Jesus and understanding of his amazing life. But, as is evident from our second book’s subtitle, the Nozerim were both most relevant and least known (detailed in that book). There are few biblical references to the Rechabites or the Nozerim, but what we are told should catch our attention. In the Book of Jeremiah, we are told that the Rechabites shall have a priest before God forever (Jer. 35:18-19). While similar promises were made elsewhere to others, those promises were always conditional and were eventually revoked. But not so with the Rechabites; and at the time of Jesus we are unaware of any scriptural issue regarding Jeremiah’s prophecy or the lack of such a priest to stand before God. So who was that man?

In both the New Testament and ancient history (especially Josephus), only one person seems to fit: James the Just – the brother of Jesus. And if James had the lineage and credentials to be the High Priest of the Rechabites, then Jesus’ lineage and credentials need to be reconsidered. But even more, we need to examine the story of his life - an amazing life - with that profound premise in mind.

The Exile & Return Therefrom

(If you skipped to this section, you’ll miss important details offered in the section above. Don’t forget the chronology offered in Appendix I)

The Babylonian Exile was a watershed event in the history of Judaism – the very essence of what we now think of as Judaism emerged from the Judahite exile in Babylon. It was a period of consolidation, syncretism, and creation which led to a new form of Jewish state, a new basis for religious belief, and a new structure for religious practice. We simply cannot understand Judaism[119] without understanding the transformation which took place during and after “the exile”.

The history of the exile is well known and well supported from the historical record, but the details of the transformative impetus and process are highly speculative. The results are clear, but the motives and methods which yielded those outcomes are the subject of considerable conjecture and analysis. In this brief review the goal is to discern a few salient facts and assess their impact and meaning.

With the progressive captivity of the Israelites in the Northern kingdom which had begun under Tiglath Pileser in 745 BCE, it should not have been difficult to guess that Judeans would suffer a similar fate. The fall of Samaria and functional end of Israel which took place by 721 BCE was marked by subsequent deportations by the Assyrian kings, Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal. The Judeans only avoided the same fate by paying massive tributes. When the Babylonians (with the Medes) conquered Assyria (612 BCE) and defeated the Pharoah Neco at the battle of Carchemish (605 BCE), the fate of the Judeans was sealed.

Nabopolassar established the Chaldean Empire in 620 BCE (known as the neo-Babylonian Empire since Babylon was the capitol). He was succeeded by Nebuchadnezzar (II) who invaded Judea "in the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim" (605 BCE). After the invasion and siege of Jerusalem, Nebuchadnezzar seized some of the Temple Treasures and deported the “first wave” of Jews to Babylon. He selected royals, nobles, and “young men without any physical defect, handsome, showing aptitude for every kind of learning, well informed, quick to understand, and qualified to serve in the king's palace” (Dan. 1:4). Among those taken were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (each of whom was given a new name and was taught the language and literature of the Babylonians).

In 601 BCE, the Egyptians tried to regain territory lost to Nebuchadnezzar and the Judeans sided with the Egyptians. After the siege of 597 BCE, Jehoiachin surrendered and, along with his sons, Ezekiel, and ten thousand others, was taken as part of the “second wave” of Babylonian deportations. (II Kings 24:10-17)[120]. Nebuchadnezzar also stripped the temple of its remaining treasures (2 Kings 24:13) and left Jehoiachin’s uncle Mattaniah as the govenor of Judah (changing his name to Zedekiah).

Around 590 BCE, Zedekiah, encouraged by Nebuchadnezzar's absence from the region and bolstered by Pharoah Psammetichus II, chose to ignore the warnings of Jeremiah (Jer. 28) and rebelled against Babylon (II Kings 24:20). Thus, in 588, "Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came, he, and all his army, against Jerusalem, and camped against it; and they built a siege wall around against it" (II Kings 25:1). After a two-year siege the walls were breached (II Kings 25:7) and the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem, killed the chief priests and burned the Temple[121]. Zedekiah was blinded and carried in fetters along with the “Third Wave” of deportees back to Babylon. (2 Kings 25:1-21).Thus, the year 586 BCE marked the beginning of the“Galut Bavel” and the end of the Biblical (First Temple) Period.

While it is obvious that deportation and exile could be terrible events for both individuals and a society, the Babylonian Exile was far from disasterous for the Jewish people. First, only a small percentage of the Jews were actually deported – the vast majority of the poor and rural Jews remained in Judea. They, the "people of the land" (am-hares), were no longer self-governed and no longer had the option of worshipping in the Temple. But some people were better off because Nebuchadnezzar redistributed the land among the poor[122]. Indeed, their Judaism tended to merge with other religions in the same manner that their marriages did. For those who were deported, the situation was remarkably favorable[123].

Babylon was far richer than Judah and the exiles were allowed many privileges and opportunities - there was little hindrance to their gaining positions of prominence and wealth (Daniel 2:48; Nehemiah 1:11). There is evidence that many of the Jews enjoyed the unique opportunities offfered by the larger, more prosperous, more cultured, and more diverse society. Some even acquired great riches and power[124]. They were joined with leading families and established roots (continuing their failure to heed the Prophets and accepting the words of false prophets who flattered them (Jer. 27:29; Ezek. 12:21, 13:23). By all appearances, the Jews in exile came to regard themselves as the true Israel[125] and “keepers of the faith” while the “heathens” in Judea were rivals[126].

It was within this context that the core group of the aristocratic priests in Babylon redefined Judaism.

Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded in 562 BCE by his son Amel-Marduk[127], an incompetent leader who was slain two years later by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur (Neriglisar). Neriglisar reigned from 560-556 BCE and freed the imprisoned Jewish kings, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah (II Kings 25:27 - which wrongly attributes the action to Awel-Marduk). He was succeeded by his son, Labashi-Marduk (who was murdered after reigning only a few months). One of those involved in the murder of Labashi-Marduk was a Babylonian noble named Nabonidus, who became his successor. He would be the last monarch of the Neo-Babylonian Empire since it ended when the Persians overthrew the Chaldeans in 538 BCE. (Megillah 11b).

Fortunately for the Jews in exile, Nabonidus was a man of great culture with diverse and open religious interests. He was also a builder and restorer of temples. But Nabonidus and his son, the regent Belshazzar, were Assyrians and favored the god Murdok over the several gods offered by the local priests. They also alienated the political elite and military through their archeological focus outside of Babylon. Thus, when the Achaemenid Persian King named Cyrus (the Great) invaded Babylon in 539 BCE, the divided Babylonians were no match for him. Babylon became part of the Persian Empire and Jewish history took its “dog-leg” turn.

Within this historical context, the Babylonian Jews chose to re-write their own history and redefine their religion. The group known as the Deuteronomist School (which had roots during the reign of Josiah circa 623 BCE) emerged as a more powerful influence upon Judaism. They had already been engaged in writing a new history built from the sweeping reforms of Josiah and also undertook the re-writing of the Pentuetech (obviously focused upon the Book of Deuteronomy). With the circumstances of the exile to build from[128], these Deuteronomists expanded upon the oracles of the anonymous prophet known as Deutero-Isaiah (Isaiah 40-55 and especially Isaiah 45) where the prophet calls King Cyrus of Persia "the anointed of YHWH." (aka the Mashiach/Messiah). A new messianic connotation regarding the end of exile was added to the fundamental concepts of Judaism. These "servants of YHWH" ("the meek") decided that humble submission to God’s Will required a new priesthood and expanded Temple services.

The Yahwests gathered a few “Prophets” who supported their ideas and wedged their way into prominence among the Jews[129]. The Deutero-Isaiah prophet predicted (after the first inroad of Cyrus into the Babylonian kingdom in 545 BCE) that a conquest of Babylon would take place and after the decisive defeat of the Babylonian army at Opis (and surrender of Sippar) in 539 BCE, the prediction seemed inspired.

With the arrival of Cyrus, the Deuteronomists found themselves highly favored and gained his consent to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. We shall review some details regarding that shortly. But first, we should note some other changes which occurred during the captivity.

Jewish literature and scripture shows many examples of Babylonian influence[130]. Suddenly the Jews engage a broader view of the world and a greater scope of providence and history. They incorporate Babylonian imagery, allusions to Babylonian customs, and even characteristic Babylonian phrases into their writings. A distinctive new form was given to Hebrew composition (no earlier writing, except the prophecy of Amos, is marked by such symmetry of structure). Literary tools such as symbolism, parables, and allegory are utilized like never before. The exile literally changed the way Jews thought as well as their ideas.

The exiled Judahites and Deuteronomists developed the Mosaic legacy (from Genesis to Joshua) reflecting the specific concerns and ideas of the exilic authors and editors rather than actual events. However, the fundamentalists started taking and teaching biblical stories as the literal truth. The final editing of the Pentateuch included the additional deuteronomist works of history (the Books of Samuel and Kings). To add additional ideas and interpretation, they wrote many of the prophetic books and some new literature (such as the Chronicles and the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah). The “people of the book” had a new religion to learn. The Jewish leaders in exile pursued and pushed their Scripture with intense study. (As we will see shortly, it was Ezra “the Scribe” who taught the Scriptures and gave light to their meaning in Jerusalem).

The separation from Jerusalem and the Temple led to a new social order called the "Scribes." They served the Jewish captives through the teaching of the Scriptures and they produced the rabbinical literature known as the Mishna[131] and the Gemara[132]. (These two volumes were later expanded and combined to form the Babylonian Talmud). Places for assembly or "synagogues" were instituted in order to conduct formal Jewish services and to provide schools for education. And, when the Jews – some of them - returned to Judea, the religion and religious institutions they brought back were far removed from what existed in Jerusalem before they left.

So, Cyrus the Great (a rare instance where the appellation has merit) not only allowed the Jews to return to their homeland, he returned their sacred objects and funded reconstruction of their Temple. Cyrus sent them home specifically to worship Yahweh—what was once only a kingdom would become a nation of Yahweh. But when the opportunity arose for the Jews of Babylon to return to their homeland, only a very small number answered the call[133]. Indeed, the Jewish (Davidic) royal family almost entirely remained in Babylon to become known as the Exilarchs[134].

The preparations for the return were assigned to Sheshbazzar (a Jew and perhaps a Davidite according to I Chron. 3:18), who was accompanied to Jerusalem by such distinguished Jews as Zerubbabel and the priest Joshua. The actual reconstruction, however, was delayed (Ezra v. 13-16) and the actual return of the exiles wasn’t until later (consummated by Ezra and Nehemiah). They brought about 1,800 men including 38 Levites (Ezra 8:1 et seq.) to begin reconstruction. However, they were not met with open arms by the 100,000 or so Judeans who had remained in Judea.

It is no wonder that the “am-hares” would resent the return of an aristocratic class led by puppet priests whose primary aim was to collect tithes from the poor. Judah was established as a Persian satrapy, enjoying semi-autonomous administrative rights ruled by a priestly elite from Babylonia. They arrived back in Judea with new views and attitudes shaped by the religious history and doctrines created during the exile. Led by Ezra, the new priests rigorously enforced separation from the mixed multitude of inhabitants of Judah – thus further alienating the populous.

Around 525 BCE, a new Pekhah (governor), named Zerubbavel, arrived. Being also of Davidic lineage, he re-established the High Priesthood with Jehoshua ben Jehozadak (a Zadokite) as the first choice. Thus, the Jebusite elite of Jerusalem from the time of King David emerged as the leaders of the new Judaism.

On the basis of the newly re-written Torah, Ezra built a theocratic state ruled by priests with a legalistic ideal. The rabbinical movement which would prevail later found its roots in the institutionalization of the Torah and the new oral law traditions of various kinds. The earlier institution of prophecy ended. Key among the newly enforced religious practices was the keeping of the Sabbath as a day of rest. Within the Temple the Levites were to serve as auxiliary priests for the first time.

By 520 BCE, the Prophets Haggai and Zecharias had offered their strong messsianic expectations and encouraged the Judahites to rebuild the Temple. Soon, a new effort to rebuild the Temple was underway and that effort produced a working structure that was rededicated in 515 BCE. The Jerusalem Temple would remain the focus of Judaism through the period of Hellenization, the Maccabean wars, and into the time of Herod.

While the deuteronomists would suggest that Jerusalem had always been the center of Judaism, with the return of the priestly class and nobility from Babylon, Jerusalem emerged as the one place where God lived upon Earth[135]. With its sacred center in Jerusalem, the practice of Temple sacrifice expanded and was adhered to by much of the extended diaspora. This meant that pilgrimages where patrons brought lavish gifts and paid substantial tithes were expected[136].

Because of the lens, focus, and filter of the deuteronomists upon Jerusalem, we have been led to accept it as the heart and soul of Jewish religion. In the time of Jesus, this was far less apparent or accepted. Unquestionably, Jerusalem was at the center of Jewish religious, cultural, and political life for Judeans, but Jews in other regions were not so accepting of its prominence – especially and including the Galileans.

Not that we know how the Judeans re-wrote history in their favor, we can better understand how and why some others might rigidly oppose their views[137]. This is best seen in the Samaritans and their history (and opposing Temple) but is present elsewhere if we look a bit more closely.

Knowing that Jesus opposed the Jerusalem Temple and seemed to align with the Samaritans[138], we might easily accept that Jesus knew and understood the historical fallacies of the Judeans. But, there was another important reason for Jesus to view Jerusalem and its Temple with disdain and we shall proceed to that history, next…

Notes & Sources:

[pic]

The Cyrus Cylinder:

"...I am Cyrus. King of the world. When I entered Babylon...I did not allow anyone to terrorize the land...I kept in view the needs of the people and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being...I put an end to their misfortune. The Great God has delivered all the lands into my hand; the lands that I have made to dwell in a peaceful habitation..."

Other Sources:

“Influence of the Babylonian Exile on the Religion of Israel” by George A. Barton" from The Biblical World, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 37, No. 6, Jun., 1911, p/ 369. Available at .

For further reading: Lawrence H. Schiffman, From Text to Tradition. A History of Second Temple Rabbinic Judaism (Hoboken: Ktav, 1991), Martin S. Jaffee, Early Judaism (Upper Saddle River/NJ: Prentice Hall, 1997).





Onias and the Land of On

[pic]I

If there is any area within the scholarly realm related to Judaism and Jesus where I think more work needs to be done, it is in regard to Onias, the Oniads, and the Temple at On. I hope that I might contribute something worthwhile to that effort and that this section serves as more than mere background for the book. In that light, this is a more detailed document than needed for the story, but it is an interesting and neglected story that I believe is worthy of our time and interest. (The chronology in Appendix I and additional related content regarding the Jewish High Priesthood in Appendix II and regarding the Jewish Temples in Appendix III may be helpful).

Relevance to Jesus:

Our story follows the NT account by having the young Jesus in Egypt[139]. However, I add to the tradition and speculate that Jesus would have known its Jewish Temple and its priesthood. Later, I contend that Jesus had contacts from the Egyptian community (at Leontopolis and Alexandria) and their associates at Qumran are key players in the life of Jesus. It seems clear that these influenced his views and give him a broader perspective on religion. Because the greatest healers of the time were the Therapeutae from Alexandria, I also propose a tie between Jesus and them. And, I propose that there is an ancestral tie between Jesus and Hananeel – an Oniad.

As we have already seen (from prior sections), Jesus seemed acutely aware of historical detail regarding the High Priesthood. Since the High Priest Onias was an ancestor of Jesus and since his brother James was directly involved in the High Priesthood, there is every reason to presume that Jesus would have known the true story…

The Short Version (An overview expanded below):

According to Jewish scripture the title of High Priest was to remain in the family of Levi even if there was no son (Ex. 28:1-2; 29:4-5; Lev. 6:15) and, thus, from the first High Priest (Aaron, the brother of Moses) it had been passed down through the generations[140]. King Solomon broke this tradition when he deposed Abiathar and appointed Zadok (a descendant of Eleazar) in his stead (1 Kings 2:35; 1 Chron. 24:2-3). Onias I (aka Honio ben Jaddua) was a descendant of Zadok who was the High Priest in Jerusalem from 323 to 300 BCE. His son Simon I (“the Just”) succeeded him until he died in 260 BCE. His son, Honiyya ben Shimon (Onias II), was still a minor and so Simon’s brothers Eleazar and then Manasseh officiated as high priest (Josephus, Ant." xi. 8, §§ 2-4; xii. 4, § 1) until 250 BCE. This is when a new problem and rivalry arose.

According to Josephus (who was likely an opponent of the Oniads - a Tobiad[141]), Onias II was a covetous man of limited intelligence whose foolish actions placed Judea at risk. Thus, in 233 BCE, Joseph bar Tobias (a nephew of Onias) went to Ptolemy III Euergetes to smooth things out[142]. It seems more likely that this was the first bid to be named as High Priest by bribe. Joseph didn’t secure the priesthood, but managed to secure for himself the most lucrative position in Judea – tax collector. Onias and Joseph apparently died almost simultaneously around 218 BCE. Onias named his son Simon II as his successor and then, “all hell broke loose”…

In 195 BCE Ptolemy V Epiphanes and Antiochus III signed a treaty that left the Seleucid king in possession of Coele-Syria and Judea (along with Cleopatra I as a wife). Meanwhile, the Judeans had trouble of their own. The Samaritans were flourishing and took land claimed by the Judeans. Simon II chose a course of conciliation and assigned many Tobians (Samaritans and Benjamites) to important posts. When he was replaced by his son, Onias III, in 190 BCE, the intrigue of the High Priesthood would reach its apex and the line of succession would be broken again.

The Tobiads aligned themselves with the new king Antiochus IV Epiphanes and brought on the deposition and exile of Onias III and the appointment of their own partisan, Jason, as High Priest. Jason sought to ingratiate himself with Antiochus through the Hellenizing of Judea (through such things as the building of an arena/gymnasium adjacent to the Temple). Jason’s trusted friend Menelaus offered a greater bribe to Antiochus and was awarded with the title High Priest in 171 BCE. He also instigated the murder of Onias III whereupon his young son, Onias IV, fled to Egypt.

In Egypt, the young Onias IV was granted exile and much more by the young king Ptolemy VI Philometor (and his wife Cleopatra II); he was given permission to establish a Jewish Temple in the ancient Land of On (then, the Heliopolite Nome on the eastern side of the Nile delta).

[pic]

Being convenient to the very large Jewish population at Alexandria and having the legitimate High Priest, the Jewish Temple built at Leontopolis/Bubastis prospered. When the Hellenists despoiled the Jerusalem Temple in 171 BCE, Jews could not worship there and the Temple of Onias became the center of Judaism. The Maccabees/Hasmoneans revolted against the Hellenists in 168 BCE and restored the Jerusalem Temple in 165 BCE (Kislev 25 – the origin of Hanukkah), but they chose to keep the High Priesthood for themselves and the war with the Syrians continued.

Eventually the Maccabees prevailed (beginning the Hasmonean dynasty) and there was a failed effort to bring the Egyptian priests to Jerusalem. The Oniad leader in Judea was held in exile at Qumran through the reign of the Hasmoneans. With the death of the last Ptolemy, Cleopatra VII (along with Mark Antony), and Roman occupation of Egypt, the Jewish community in On declined. However, Herod, the Roman appointed king of Judea, made Hananeel (an Oniad) High Priest in Jerusalem. This would seem to restore legitimacy to the office, but many other factors made the appointment more political than religious. At least the Qumran community became free of its holds and a group of Zadokites there sought restoration of the proper Temple.

The Land of On (The full version starts here):

The names On, Onam, Onan, and Ono point to the existence of an area likely named for a clan referred to in several passages in the scriptural Prophets[143]. The ancient capital city of the thirteenth Nome of Lower Egypt , with the hieroglyphic name "Oon" (Heliopolis as it was known later in Greek) was a center of worship and place of great learning[144]. The Pharaoh Sesostris I erected a number of obelisks at On[145] and he may well have been the Pharaoh under whom Joseph was vizier. This helps make sense of Genesis 41:45: "Then Pharaoh gave Joseph a new Egyptian name, Zaphenath-paneah. He also gave him a wife, whose name was Asenath. She was the daughter of Potiphera, the priest of On. So Joseph took charge of the entire land of Egypt."

On-Heliopolis was situated in the southeastern end of the Delta, east of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. It was one of the most ancient and holiest cities in Egypt. There were several Temples erected in the area including “the House of the Prince” where a sacred tree was identified from which the sun-god rises every morning. The divinity worshipped there included Atum, Re, Harmachis and a god identified as the Heliopolitan form of Osiris. The high reputation of the Heliopolitan astronomers and astrologers led to visits by some of the great thinkers including Plato and Eudoxus of Cnidus. Even before the foundation of Alexandria, Heliopolis undoubtedly ranked high among cities with a Jewish population. Being situated near the western end of Goshen (on the road from Goshen to Memphis), On was well known to ancient travelers who were headed either south or west from Pelusium.

Ptolemy I Soter captured Judea around 320 BCE and led some 100,000 Jewish captives to Egypt (Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates, 12-13). From these captives, he armed tens of thousands and made them part of his army (who were often rewarded for their service with land). Ptolemy II Philadelphus (~285 BCE) initiated a program which freed the Jews and offered them religious tolerance. That, combined with favorable immigration practices, attracted many Jews away from the Judean battlefield (due to the Syrian Wars) to the fertile soil of the Nile Delta. Egypt became home to over a million Jews, most of who lived in Alexandria[146] and the ancient land of Goshen /On.

The ancient city walls of Heliopolis were made of crude brick that may still be seen in the fields. They give us an idea of the city’s dimensions and shape: a trapezium of about 1200 meters west to east, and 1000 meters north to south. The walls were over 15 meters thick and 12 meters high – 3 meters thicker than the outer walls of the Temple of Amun in Karnak (measuring a mere 480 by 550 meters). We will take a look at this Jewish Temple in a later section.

The Onias Dynasty:

According to Jewish scripture the title of High Priest was to remain in the family of Levi even if there was no son (Ex. 28:1-2; 29:4-5; Lev. 6:15) and, thus, from the first High Priest (Aaron, the brother of Moses) it had been passed down through the generations[147]. King Solomon broke this tradition when he deposed Abiathar and appointed Zadok (a descendant of Eleazar) in his stead (1 Kings 2:35; 1 Chron. 24:2-3). Onias I (aka Honio ben Jaddua) was a descendant of Zadok who was the High Priest in Jerusalem from 323 to 300 BCE. His son Simon I (“the Just”) succeeded him until he died in 260 BCE. His son, Honiyya ben Shimon (Onias II), was still a minor and so Simon’s brothers Eleazar and then Manasseh officiated as High Priest (Josephus, Ant." xi. 8, §§ 2-4; xii. 4, § 1) until 250 BCE. This is when a new problem and rivalry arose.

There are several dubious stories in history that relate to Onias I, including that he greeted Alexander the Great in Jerusalem (who probably never passed through it) and who is said to have received a friendly letter from Arius, ruler of the Spartans. What is known is that during Onias' High Priesthood Palestine and Judea were in the middle of continual conflicts between the former generals of Alexander[148] (Ptolemy and Seleucid) who led the forces in Egypt and Syria. Because of the unsettled conditions during this period, many Jews left Judea for the newly founded city of Alexandria (Egypt).

Onias was succeeded by his son Simon I who was extolled in the Jewish literature[149] as “Simon the Just”. He was a leading Hassidim (later the Pharisees) who initiated what seemed to be a golden era of peace[150]. Simon’s chief maxim was "The world exists through three things: the Law, worship, and beneficence". He was an opponent of the Nazarites and was deeply interested both in the spiritual and in the material development of the nation, refurbishing both the city of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Simeon the Just is called one of the last members of the Great Synagogue[151] (or Anshei Knesset HaGedolah “The Men of the Great Assembly”). It instituted the prayers and blessings for Israel as well as the benedictions for Kiddush and Habdalah. They also established of the Feast of Purim. As an example of the change that resulted, after Simeon’s death, men ceased to utter the Tetragrammaton (“YHWH”) aloud (Yoma 30b; Tosef. Soṭah, xiii).

When Simon (I) died in 260 BCE his son, Onias II, was still a minor so his uncle Eleazar bar Jaddus served as High Priest for a short period, but he died within a couple of years. After him Manasseh bar Jaddus officiated as High Priest (even though the very old Jaddus was still alive).

At this point, it may be useful to divert from the main theme and examine three related matters: the feud between the Oniads and the Tobiads, the schism between the Orthodox Jews and the Hellenists, and the debate between the “pious ones” or Hassidim and the modernists or Sadducees.

It was then as it is now, the foundation of governing is taxation. Different schemes may exist for taxation and governments may range from benevolent to wholly corrupt, but their essence remains: take money from those who they govern and use that money for their own purposes and priorities[152]. The gist of all the political struggles and in-fighting from this era (and all others) is to expand the power of taxation. One simply cannot get a proper view of history without close examination of who collects taxes and how they collect them. When we talk about a king taking and occupying some new territory, it is for the purpose of expanding or protecting taxation. Judeans were historically prosperous and thereby a frequent target of others.

During the times that Judea was under foreign control, they almost always had to pay some “tribute” to the foreign leader – even when they had their own “king” or ethnarch. From their origin, the Temple and the priesthood had the power of taxation. During the times that the Jews had a combined King and High Priest, it was difficult or impossible to distinguish taxes that were “political” and taxes that were “religious” (tithes). Sometime around the time of Solomon and Zaddok, the taxes became more easily distinguished and there was a need for tax collection separate from tithes.

We don’t know the details of their history, but between the time of Zaddok and Onias there emerged a powerful family of tax collectors in Judea – the Tobiads. They were generally Aaronites but not Levites and they had a central line descended from Manasseh with strong ties to the Samaritans. They intermarried with the Zaddokites and held positions of trust within the priesthood and government (such as Temple treasurer). As the “establishment” publicans they even collected taxes or tributes for foreign powers, making them wealthy, powerful, and unpopular.

Greek civilization was the dominant world culture from the time of Alexander the Great well into the Roman era and there were many Jews who found the Grecian or Hellenist culture preferable. That was due to three basic facts: the majority of Jews in the world lived within Greek societies[153] (the largest grouping of Jews in the world was in Alexandria), Greek was the language of commerce, government, and most intellectuals, and pro-Hellenistic leaders were in control of both Syria and Egypt. Among the younger Jews, a growing number leaned more and more towards Hellenization creating a rift with traditionalists and the more orthodox. Obviously, there existed a full range of absorption with varying cultural elements, but there would eventually evolve clear lines of distinction.

There were numerous political factions, sects or “parties” within Judea and Judaism, two of which will be important to the succession of the High Priest[154]. The first may generally be designated as the Chasidim (Assidean/Hassidim/Pharisee). They were self-designated as “the pious” and Jewish tradition distinguishes between the 'earlier' and the 'later' Chasidim – who began the Pharisee/Rabbinical movement. The Hassidim were more liberal and progressive, seeking ways to adapt Judaism to newer ideas. The second sect were the Sadducees (or Tzedukim, sons of Zadok), a priestly group associated with the aristocrats and the leadership of the Temple in Jerusalem. Originally, the Sadducees were the “fundamentalist” or conservative Jews who held to the more traditional beliefs and practices. Later, the name seems to have been purloined or corrupted such that it took on different meanings.

During this period, Judea was (as Josephus says) like a storm-tossed ship on the ocean. In the “First Syrian War”, (274-271 BCE) Antiochus I, the Seleucid king, was trying to expand his empire's holdings in Syria and Anatolia. Ptolemy II scored a major victory and re-took the areas in coastal Syria (including Judea) and southern Anatolia. The “Second Syrian War” (260-253 BCE) had little military significance and was ended when Antiochus II (Theos) married Ptolemy's daughter Berenice Syra[155]. In each of these wars, Judea was caught in the middle.

It would appear that Manasseh gained and held his position by courting the favor of the Ptolemies (who had controlled Judea since the death of Alexander the Great). But when he married Nicaso, a daughter of Sanballat (III) the Samaritan Governor, Jaddus gave Manasseh the alternative of divorcing his wife or leaving the priesthood. Manasseh went to Sanballat who promised him that if he would retain his daughter as wife he would build a temple upon Mount Gerizim where Manasseh would officiate as high priest. Manasseh, accordingly, remained with his father-in-law and became High Priest in the Samaritan temple[156]. Thus, Onias II finally became High Priest around 250 BCE.

Antiochus II was likely poisoned by Laodice in 246 BCE and in a competition to put their respective sons on the throne, Laodice claimed that Antiochus had named her son heir while on his deathbed but Berenice argued that her newly born son was the legitimate heir. Thus came the “Third Syrian War” (246-241 BCE) between Ptolemy III (Euergetes) and Queen Laodice. Berenice asked her brother Ptolemy III, the new Ptolemaic King, to come to Antioch and help place her son on the throne, but when Ptolemy arrived Berenice and her child had been assassinated. Ptolemy declared war on Laodice's newly crowned son, Seleucus II, and campaigned against him (and his brother) with great success.

Upon reaching the peak of their dynasty (240-225 BCE), the Ptolemies were to be significantly weakened by court intrigue and public unrest. Ptolemy III reigned from 246-222 BCE. Onias II died in 240 BCE and was succeeded by his son Simon II[157]. Ptolemy IV Philopator inaugurated his reign (221-204 BCE) with the murder of his queen and mother Berenice II. The young king succumbed to the influence of imperial courtiers and ministers who used their positions for their own self-interest (at the people's expense). In this context, we have the start of the great Jewish feud and historical fraud.

Josephus[158](the Jewish/Roman historian of the first century) provides fascinating reading regarding this period, although it is clear that he was less concerned about the truth than making his point and advancing his cause. We are left to wonder about the biases and sources (apparently Samaritan and pro-Tobian) of the historian. Josephus paints a picture that often makes little sense (along with getting names and dates wrong), but he does provide some useful information about the Tobiads.

Joseph bar Tobias (apparently a descendant of Tobiah the Ammonite -Neh. 2: 19) was the nephew of Onias II (his mother was the sister of Onias I) who served as Temple treasurer. His father (Tobias) was the chief tax collector. Parsing the work of Josephus, we learn how Tobias got this position…

When the day came on which King Ptolemy was to let the taxes of the cities to farm and the principals of several countries [Coele Syria, Phoenicia, Judaea, and Samaria] were to bid for them, [Tobias] accused the bidders of conspiring to under-estimate the value of the taxes [which came to eight thousand talents] and bid twice their offer. The king was pleased and said he would confirm the sale of the taxes, but asked [Tobias] what sureties that would be bound for the payment of the money. Tobias answered: "I will give such security, and those of persons good and responsible, and which you shall have no reason to distrust: thyself and thy wife - and you shall be security for both parties." Ptolemaeus laughed at the proposal, and granted him the farming of the taxes without any sureties.

The Jews would have been delighted to have non-foreign tax collectors[159] and the Tobians initially gained favor with the Jewish people. We don’t know the dates involved, but Josephus tells us that the Tobians were the Egyptian tax collectors for at least 22 years (probably from around 240-214 BCE). To show the power involved in such, Josephus offers these details (parsed):

Joseph took with him two thousand foot soldiers to Ascalon and demanded the taxes. They refused to pay anything; upon which he seized upon about twenty of the principal men, slew them, gathered what they had together, and sent it all to the king. Ptolemaeus... gave him leave to do as he pleased. When the Syrians heard of this, they willingly admitted Joseph and paid their taxes. When the inhabitants of Scythopolis would not pay him taxes without disputing about them, he slew the principal men of that city and sent their effects to the king. He gathered great wealth by this farming of the taxes and made use of what estate he had thus gotten in order to support his authority. He privately sent many presents to the king, to Cleopatra, to their friends, and to all that were powerful about the court, thereby purchasing their good-will. (Ibid).

The Tobias family naturally favored continued Egyptian control, but the Onias family favored the Syrians and the improved possibility of greater independence they offered. When Antiochus III took the Seleucid throne in 223 BCE, he set out to restore the possessions lost by his predecessors and two more Syrian Wars (the Fourth from 220-217 BCE and the Fifth from 202-195 BCE) ensued. Joseph was followed by an ambitious son, Hyrcanus.

Simon II (named “the Just” by some historians in contrast to the prior Simon) held the High Priesthood from 220-190 BCE). Antiochus III (“the Great” - brother of Seleucus II) entered into Palestine in 218 BCE by defeating Ptolemy III but was then defeated by in the battle of Raphia (near Gaza) in 217 BCE. The Ptolemaic victory was also a loss since the native Egyptians who had fought at Raphia broke from Ptolemy in what is known as the Egyptian Revolt and established their own kingdom in Upper Egypt. This would preoccupy the Ptolemies, along with other economic problems and rebellions, through the next decade.

Ptolemy IV died in 204 BCE and a bloody conflict over the regency followed (beginning with the murder of the dead king's wife and sister by the ministers Agothocles and Sosibius). Agothocles held the regency for a couple of years - until he was lynched by an Alexandrian mob. The regency was passed from one adviser to another, the nativist movement expanded with the support of Egyptian priests, and the kingdom was in a state of near anarchy

Antiochus III put together a new alliance (with Philip V of Macedon) and undertook a new invasion of Coele-Syria which earned him the important port of Sidon and delivered a crushing blow to the Ptolemies. He then prepared to invade Egypt itself, but the Romans would suffer no disruption of their grain imports from Egypt and demanded a settlement. The parties willingly complied and in 195 BCE Ptolemy and Antiochus signed a treaty that left the Seleucid king in possession of Coele-Syria and Judea.

Meanwhile, the Judeans had trouble of their own. The Samaritans were flourishing and took land claimed by the Judeans (Josephus). Simon II chose a course of conciliation and assigned many Tobians (Samaritans and Benjamites) to important posts. When he was replaced by his son, Onias III, in 190 BCE, the intrigue of the High Priesthood would reach its apex and the line of succession would be broken again.

Onias III (known as “the Pious One”) was surrounded by international conflicts and confronted by increasing intra-family tensions, but he repeatedly demonstrated his ability to preserve the prosperity of the country along with the religious and secular authority of his family. He saw the Egyptian-Syrian settlement as an opportunity to change alliances and so he withheld payment of the Egyptian tribute against the advice of his Tobian advisors. The kings of Syria and Egypt both wanted the support of the Jews and so they both honored the Jerusalem Temple and presented it with expensive gifts.

Antiochus III (‘the Great”) was soundly defeated by the Romans in several battles between 191 and 189 BCE and was forced to enter into the Treaty of Apamea in 188 BCE. As part of that treaty, one of Antiochus’ sons was delivered to the Romans as a hostage. However, within a year, Seleucus IV Philopator (the oldest son of Antiochus III) followed his father onto the throne and so the Romans exchanged their hostage, the younger Antiochus IV, for his nephew Demetrius I Soter (the son and heir of Seleucus). Onias gained the favor of Seleucus and was on such friendly terms with him that the King collected no Temple Tax and even made contributions to the cost of "services of the sacrifices."

The Tobians easily changed loyalties and were becoming more and more Hellenized. Being unable to collect taxes for the Egyptians, they sought favor with the Syrians in a contest for power and wealth against the Oniads. The contest reached a turning point when the head of the Temple - a Tobian named Simeon (bar Bilgah, a Benjamite) - demanded the post of commissioner (“Agoranomos”)[160] from Onias. (II Macc. 3:4). Onias refused and Simeon turned to Apollonius, son of Thraseas of Tarsus and governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, to inform him about "untold sums of money[161]" held in the Temple treasury. Appolonius told Seleucus and the King dispatched Heliodorus, his chancellor, to investigate and take the money if it was found. When Heliodorus arrived in Jerusalem and made his inquiries, Onias remonstrated that the funds held in the Temple were primarily "deposits of widows and orphans" but also included a substantial sum belonging to Hyrcanus, son of Joseph bar Tobias[162]. Nevertheless, Heliodorus persisted in his mission and sought to see and abscond with the funds (supposedly consisting of 30,000 pounds of silver and 15,000 pounds of gold) (II Mac. 3).

According to legend (and the Book of the Maccabees), when Heliodorus entered the Temple God intervened in the form of a horse mounted apparition that scared the wits out of Heliodorus. Onias interceded to save Heliodorus, but he was no longer willing to enter the Temple. Heliodorus returned to Seleucus empty handed and advised the king to send an enemy on this mission instead of him.

The traitor Simeon (the Tobian) then advised Seleucus that Onias had actually tricked Heliodorus to avoid giving up the treasure. His unholy action led to bloodshed between their followers and families. The Oniads won the minor civil war and cast the Tobians out of Jerusalem. Simeon (and followers) ran to Seleucus with further allegations against Onias and asked him to make use of them as his leaders of an expedition into Judea to settle the dispute. Instead, Seleucus allowed the Tobians their own little empire east of the Jordan River (in the vicinity of Heshbon) where they built the castle of Tyre, carried on war with the Arabs, and ruled during the remaining seven years of Seleucus’ reign.

With victory over the Tobians came defeat within Onias’ family. With the Tobians gone, other members of Onias’ family assumed vacated positions. Onias’ son Jason obtained access to Temple funds and then went to Seleucus offering an extraordinary sum[163] for the title of High Priest. That might not have been enough, but Jason was as willing to sell out his religion as his family and so he also promised to convert Jerusalem into a Hellenized city and to do away with Jewish services. Seleucus took the deal and Onias (III) was forced into exile.

Jason proved good to his promises: he built a gymnasium near the Temple and instituted the full range of Greek culture[164] and corruption. He set aside the existing Syrian and Roman concessions[165] to the Jews and modified the Temple and its services. Seleucus was so pleased that he granted the citizens of Jerusalem the privileges and title of citizens of Antioch.

Heliodorus assassinated Seleucus and seized the throne for himself, but soon thereafter, the brother of the Seleucus, Antiochus IV Epiphanes re-took the throne with the help of the Pergamon monarch Eumenes II[166]. (The true heir Demetrius, son of Seleucus, was being retained in Rome as a hostage so Seleucus’ infant son, named Antiochus, was formal head of state for a few years until Epiphanes had him murdered). Jason offered to pay Antiochus in order to be confirmed as the new High Priest in Jerusalem and Antiochus accepted the offer, banishing Onias III. Jason sought to create a Greek-style Polis in Jerusalem (re-named Antioch after the king) and abandoned ordinances granting the Judeans religious freedom given under Antiochus III. It is little wonder that Orthodox Jews, including the later Essenes, would view Jason as “the Evil One” and imposter to the High Priesthood.

Jason's time as High Priest ended unexpectedly in 172 BCE when he sent Menelaus, the brother of Simon the Benjaminite, to deliver tribute to Antiochus. Menelaus took this opportunity to "outbid" Jason for the priesthood[167] and Antiochus appointed Menelaus (who was not an Aaronite), as the “High Priest” (given the title but not the religious authority). At this point, we see the bifurcation of the high-priest lineage and confusion among historians regarding the name Onias.

After receiving the king's orders he returned to Jerusalem possessing no qualification for the High Priesthood, but having the decree of King Seleucus and the enforcement of his army. Thus, Jason supplanted his own brother by bribery and was then supplanted by another through bribery. He was driven out of Jerusalem as a fugitive and ended up in the land of Ammon.

Menelaus held the title to the office, but he was unable to regularly pay the money promised to the king.  Seleucus ordered his general of the Jerusalem citadel, Sostratus, to demand payments past due or to bring Menelaus to Antioch. Unable to pay, Menelaus was forced to leave and appointed his brother Lysimachus to act as the High Priest while he was away. With his life on the line, Menelaus returned to Jerusalem desperate for funds and so he stole the golden vessels belonging to the Temple.

It was in the year 170 BCE that Onias decided that he must go to Seleucus and intercede on behalf of his people. But, before a decision was given, Seleucus was opportunistically assassinated by his minister and "friend" Heliodorus while an accomplice, Andronicus, murdered Seleucus's infant son (the available legitimate heir). But, their coup failed when Antiochus IV Epiphanes returned from Rome and took advantage of the murder to install himself as King Antiochus IV Epiphanes[168].

Menelaus took advantage of the timing and conspired with Heliodorus to have his accomplice Andronicus entice Onias from his sanctuary at Daphne and treacherously slay him. This action caused great indignation among both the Jews and the Greeks (2 Macc 4:34). Nevertheless, Menelaus managed to remain in office[169] and further abrogate the Jewish observances. The new King ordered Andronicus put to death and Heliodorus banished.

Upon the killing of Onias III, a group of supporters took his young son, Onias IV, and fled to Egypt[170] (many Jews believed that salvation would come from Egypt) to seek sanctuary from the Court of Alexandria: King Ptolemy VI Philometor and Queen Cleopatra II[171]. The royals gladly gave refuge to such a prominent personage who was the enemy of an enemy[172].

Then, in 167 BCE, the deposed High Priest Jason gathered a small army and made a surprise attack on the city of Jerusalem forcing Menelaus to flee. Meanwhile, Antiochus had taken his army to the Sinai with the intent of settling the long-term feud with the Ptolemies. However, he and his army were turned away[173] from their attack and upon hearing about Menelaus’ situation he took his army to Jerusalem and restored Menelaus as “High Priest”. As punishment for the complicity of the Jews, Antiochus executed thousands of men, women and children, built a citadel near the Temple called the Acra (rebuilt by the Hasmoneans as “Baria/Baris” and partly used later by the Romans as “Antonia”[174]), and decreed most Jewish religious practices unlawful. (See 2 Maccabees 6:1-11). The Temple was desecrated and services were stopped. Judaism in Judea was outlawed and there was no Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem.

This began centuries of “religious civil war” that divided Judea and Judaism into hostile camps— the Orthodox versus the Hellenists. The war was directly related to who should be High Priest and was still being waged during the time of Jesus. There are many indications that the family of Joseph was deeply involved and, therefore, aspects of history related to this feud deserve more detailed explanation.

Once given sanctuary in Egypt, Onias IV soon requested permission to build a Temple in Egypt modeled after the Temple at Jerusalem. There he would reinstate the legitimate Jewish priesthood based upon the Levitical/Aaronite priesthood and orthodox traditions. He sold the idea to Ptolemy by suggesting that building an alternative Temple and place of offering would draw many Jews away from the Syrians and the Jewish oppression in Jerusalem. For Ptolemy, a big selling point for accepting the Jewish Temple was the claim that the Jews it attracted would be willing soldiers ("B. J." vii. 10,§2). This was clearly indicated by the fact that Onias also proposed to build a fortress around the temple in order to protect the surrounding territory and to serve Ptolemy with his Jewish army. Ptolemy not only agreed to Onias’ plans, but also provided substantial funding for the "Oneion" project ("B. J." vii. 10, § 3). Thus, Leontopolites[175] became a Jewish center and the area’s ancient temples were restored for use by the Jews. (The is more discussion regarding the “Temple of Onias” below).

Onias’ timing could hardly have been better since soon after work began on the new Temple and its altar the Jerusalem Temple was taken over by the Hellenists and Jewish services were cut off. With a temple in Egypt, Alexandrian Jews – the largest Jewish population in the world at that time – had a more convenient place for services. Judean Jews had no other choice; not only was their Temple desecrated, their fundamental religious practices were punishable by death. There was no dispute that Onias was a legitimate High Priest (if not the only legitimate one) and the Egyptian Temple became the center of Judaism for several years.

Antiochus's religious persecution proved to be a major miscalculation as it provoked a full-scale revolt (starting in 167 BCE). Mattathias, a Jewish priest, and his five sons Jochanan, Simeon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Judah (together known as the Maccabeans) led a rebellion against Antiochus. By 166 BCE Mattathias had died, and Judah (who became known as Yehuda HaMakabi "Judah the Hammer") became the leader of the revolt. Through the heroic achievements of Judah (defeating several large and well-equipped armies of Antiochus[176]) the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy gained remarkable success: in 165 BCE, the Temple was liberated, rebuilt according to the Torah, and rededicated to worship (the festival of Hanukkah[177] was later instituted to commemorate this triumph).

We don’t know who presided over the Temple during this time and it is interesting that the historical record is lacking in such a critical detail. It is a good guess that the information was intentionally removed from the records because of controversy and changing “victors”. Reading between the lines and creating a likely scenario (relying mostly upon what we are told by Josephus, the Maccabee books, and other sources, we suppose the following…

Despite his temporary success, Judah was caught between strong opposing forces in Jerusalem: Hellenists, Hasidim[178], Zadokites, Syrians, and Ptolemaics. He also knew that eventually, Antiochus’ main army could return from Parthia. In an effort to appease as many as possible, he selected an Aaronite (but not of the high-priestly line) Hellenist named Alcimus[179] as High Priest. This turned into a disaster for everyone involved: Alcimus was too much of a Hellenizer for the Hasidim and not enough of a Zadokite for most[180]. Even worse, he was cruel and over- ambitious. He got himself ousted from Jerusalem and went promptly to Judah’s Syrian enemy Antiochus Eupator seeking re-instatement. But Antiochus had other bigger problems to deal with and died in 164 BCE before acting upon Alcimus’ request.

Since Alcimus didn’t act as High priest for at least a year, we know that somebody filled in during his absence - and it may well have been an Oniad. Demetrius I Soter replaced Antiochus as the Syrian King and he accepted whatever promises and claims Alcimus made. And, although Judah had gained a remarkable victory, he still didn’t control all of Jerusalem, much less Judea. He was repelled, in 164 BCE, when he attempted to drive the Syrian garrison out the Acra (fortress) in the lower city. In 162 BCE, Demetrius sent an army under his general Bacchides to re-establish Alcimus to the High Priesthood in Jerusalem[181]. With twenty thousand infantry and two thousand cavalry, Bacchides met and killed Judah at the Battle of Elasa (161 BCE). The Hellenists were again in charge of Jerusalem.

Many Jews welcomed the idea of peace and the hope that a priestly High Priest would bring a return to proper Temple worship. Bacchides left a strong garrison in Jerusalem and returned to Antioch along with most of his army. Jonathan (the youngest son of Mattathias and brother of Judah) took over the Maccabean leadership. He barely eluded capture by the Syrians and started reorganizing the Judean resistance. Alcimus died miserably of “palsy” in 159 BCE - the Jews believed that it was God’s response to Alcimus’ desecrations of the Temple.

When Demetrius was overthrown, Jonathan courted more gentile allies and took control of more territory. He even invaded southern Galilee. Despite spectacular external political gains, Jonathan's policies created religious discord among conservative/orthodox Jews, many of whom viewed his claim to the high-priesthood as illegitimate. The orthodox Jews had not forgotten who the legitimate High Priest was (Onias IV).

Onias had not only enjoyed the favor of the Egyptian court, he had succeeded in elevating Egyptian Judaism to a position of greater respect and significance. As he had suggested, a large number of Judeans (called "inhabitants" by the Egyptians) had either accompanied him to Egypt or had followed later. These inhabitants performed military service and served the Ptolemies well enough to be given tracts of land for their own. ("Ant." xi. 8,§6). The district even became known as the "country of Onias" Like the Maccabees (Tobiades), Onias had an army and had fought on behalf of his benefactors. (Egypt had the same type of intrigue and in-fighting as the Syrians). (Josephus, "Contra Ap." ii. 5).

The situation in Egypt changed when peace came to Judea and Ptolemy VI Philometor died in 145 BCE. His wife, Cleopatra II, proposed joint rule with Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (aka “Ptolemy II Physcon”) and he became Pharaoh in 144 (after murdering Cleopatra’s son). The new Pharaoh had been opposed by Alexandrian intellectuals and Jews[182] and he took his revenge on them, engaging in mass purges and expulsions. With the changes in politics in both Egypt and Judea, there were good reasons for the Egyptian Jews to think that it was the right time to restore the legitimate High Priest to the Jerusalem Temple. The Tobiades had other ideas. But first, we should return to Jonathan Maccabee and the Syrian throne.

In 175 BCE, the unimaginable happened again - God’s anointed High Priest (Onias III) was replaced by an usurper who was not qualified to hold the post – his brother (or nephew) Jason (aka Jesus bar Simon). When Antiochus Epiphanes ascended to the throne of the Seleucid Empire (which controlled Judea at the time), Jason bribed the new King for appointment to the position of Jewish High Priest (aided by his cousin Menelaus bar Manasseh).

When Onias III was killed in 172 BCE, loyalists managed to save his son (Onias IV in some writings) and take him to Egypt. There, Ptolemy VI (an enemy of Antiochus) and Cleopatra V gladly granted him asylum and even approved his building of a Temple at an ancient temple site in the Nome of Heliopolis (some say the City of Leontopolis, the modern Tell al-Yahudi[183]). Supposedly, Onias sold the idea to the royal court based upon the prediction of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 19:19) that a Jewish temple would be erected in Egypt[184].

Menelaus and Jason were both corrupt and careless, raiding the Temple treasures to buy armies and pay bribes. By 170 BCE, the Jerusalem Temple was hardly recognizable as a Jewish institution. In 168 BCE, Antiochus Epiphanes finally became fed up with the Jews and decided it was time to utterly destroy Judaism. He went to Jerusalem, devastated the city and its citizens, defiled the temple (sacrificing swine on the altar), destroyed all the holy writings that could be found, erected an altar to Zeus in the temple and forbade circumcision or worship of the Shabbat (Sabbath) on pain of death[185]. The city was fully converted to Hellenistic ways, including the building of a gymnasium (with nude athletics). Judaism in Jerusalem was essentially dead. Was it merely fortunate “coincidence” that a new Temple had just opened in Leontopolis with the legitimate High Priest and a large body of Levites and priests?

The Onias temple was only similar to the Temple at Jerusalem: it was smaller and had at its center a high tower (obelisk?) – a remnant of the ruined temple of Bubastis. The interior arrangement was also simpler: it had a hanging lamp instead of a candelabrum. We don’t know if it had a “Holy of Holies”, but it would be surprising that it wouldn’t. There was a court (τέμενος) which was surrounded by a brick wall with stone gates. The entire Temple area was surrounded by fortifications (ὀχύρωμα) and there was a separate fortress (θρωύριον).

For five years (the “inter-sacerdotium” period), the Egyptian Temple was the only place where Jews could worship and sacrifice to their God. But then, in 165 BCE, Judas Maccabeus re-captured Jerusalem and purified and rededicated the Jerusalem Temple (the origin of the Jewish "Festival of Lights" or Hanukkah). Many Jews believed that this would lead to the restoration of the proper High Priesthood in Jerusalem, but Judas had other ideas – he appointed his younger brother Jonathan to the post instead. However, neither the war nor the dispute was over.

Many Jews were tired of war and, having their Temple restored, saw little reason to continue fighting. Judas and his brothers sought to expand Jewish control in a larger region, had control of the military, and also had great popularity. The new Seleucid king, Demetrius I Soter, found favor with Alcimus[186] of the Hellenizing party. According to 1 Maccabees (7: 14) he was an Aaronite but not in the high-priestly line. Demetrius sent an army to establish Alcimus in the high priesthood at Jerusalem, but soon after the Syrian army left, Judas Maccabee attacked and drove Alcimus to Syria. Two armies and attacks on Jerusalem later (in 163 BCE), the Syrians defeated and killed Judas and restored Alcimus as high priest. They also left a strong garrison in Jerusalem to ensure his power and their Hellenistic control[187]. The Jews had been granted “religious freedom” by Demetrius, but their religious leader was still in Egypt.

As we close out this period in Jewish history, we should review its meaning and impact upon the Judaism which Jesus knew. When we consider that to Jesus this period was as recent as the American Revolution is to us, we might understand that while distant it was remarkably significant.

Given the significance of the position of High Priest to Judaism (perhaps even greater than the Pope to Catholicism), it is easy to see that any disruption in its ancestral lineage would be profound to purists and the orthodox Jews. By the time of Jesus, the break in lineage from the Exile (as above) was largely accepted and the Zaddokite lineage was entrenched as the legitimate family of High Priests. But the Zaddokites had been supplanted and as we know from the Dead Sea Scrolls, this was a major issue to fundamentalists.

Before we move to the Hasmonean Era, let us recognize that the separate priesthood in Egypt – the “legitimate priesthood” – was a much more important matter than generally portrayed and was as much the basis for the later Zealot movement as Roman occupation. It was certainly the focus of the Qumran group and would have been widely understood as a major issue to Jews, especially those outside of Jerusalem.

As we enlarge our understanding of Jesus’ lineage, his various affiliations and associations, and the political circumstances within Judaism of his time, we will need to rely upon an understanding of this historical period and some of the key personages involved. Among those are the Hasmoneans…

The Hasmonean Era

The period preceding Roman occupation of Palestine is largely unknown to Christians, but remains very important in our understanding of Jesus and his times. The key parts are recorded in two deuterocanonical books contained in the Catholic canon (based upon the Greek translation contained in the Septuagint) – the First and Second books of Maccabees[188].

As we have already seen, after the exiles of the Jews from the former Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, their lands were occupied in turn by Assyria, Babylonia, the Achaemenid Empire, Alexander the Great's Hellenic Macedonian Empire, and the Seleucid Empire[189]. During this time Jewish religious practice and culture had persisted and even flourished during certain periods, but the situation took a turn for the worse under the Greek ruler Antiochus IV Epiphanes. His attempt to suppress the basic practices of Judaism resulted in a Jewish revolt against Seleucid rule.

The priestly family of Mattathias ben Hasmon and his sons (who came to be known as the Maccabees) called for a holy war against the Seleucids. After a decade of bloody fighting and the loss of his father and brothers, Judas Maccabee captured Jerusalem and freed the Temple in Jerusalem. Its re-consecration in 164 BCE is the basis for the celebratory festival of Hanukkah. Four years later, Judas sent Eupolemus ben Johanan and Jason ben Eleazar “to make a league of amity and confederacy with the Romans.” But Judas was killed at the Battle of Laisa in 160 BCE and the victorious Seleucid Bacchides re-established the Hellenists as rulers in Israel. The persecuted Jewish patriots were forced to flee beyond the Jordan River under Jonathan, the younger brother of Judas.

But an opposing Seleucid ruler threated Bacchides and he made a truce with Jonathan. Jonathan accepted an even better offer from the opposition leader, Alexander Balas, and was made High Priest and ruler "Meridarch” of Judea. In 153 BCE, he officiated at the Feast of Tabernacles in the Jerusalem Temple wearing the High Priest's garments – powerful enough that his opponents were forced to accept his rule.

In 147 BCE, Demetrius II Nicator claimed Balas' throne and sought to add Judea to his kingdom. But Jonathan prevailed and forged an alliance with Ptolemy VI of Egypt. But the Seleucids remained a problem after further intrigue in Syria. Jonathan was duped into a trap and later killed (142 BCE) so that Simon became both High Priest and ruler of Judea. Thus, the Hasmonean dynasty was established by a resolution adopted in 141 BCE at a large assembly "of the priests and the people and of the elders of the land, to the effect that Simon should be their leader and High Priest forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet" (1 Macc. 14:41). Simon managed a period of peace and prosperity until he and his two oldest sons were assassinated in February 135 BCE (at the instigation of his son-in-law Ptolemy bar Abubus).

Simon was succeeded by his third son, John Hyrcanus who was promptly confronted by another Seleucid attack. According to Josephus, John Hyrcanus opened King David's sepulchre and removed three thousand talents to use as tribute to Antiochus VII Sidetes (Wars 1:60). He remained as governor as a Seleucid vassal until 110 BCE when the Seleucids were weaked by the Parthians. John Hyrcanus raised a mercenary army and conquered Madaba, Schechem, Transjordan, Samaria, Galilee, and Idumea (aka Edom) to significantly increase his regional influence. He forced the Idumeans to convert to Judaism – a move that would later change Judea as Idumeans took control (Ant. xiii, 9:1).

[pic]

Hyrcanus wanted his wife to succeed him as head of the government with Aristobulus I, his oldest son, to serve only as High Priest. However, when Hyrcanus died in 104 BCE, Aristobulus, with the support of his brother Antigonus, imprisoned his mother and his other three brothers (including Alexander Jannaeus) and allowed his mother to starve to death. Aristobulus took the title Basilieus and asserted the independence of the state. But, he soon became inflicted with a painful illness and died one year later (103 BCE). Queen Shelomit (Salome) Alexandra had arranged the murder of Antigonus and then arranged for Aristobulus' brothers to be freed from prison. She appointed Alexander Janneus (Jonathan) as king (Wars i, 74-85).

Janneus (aka "King Yannai") then married Queen Salome under the law of Yibbum ("levirate marriage"). By her, he had two sons, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. Jannaeus had a 27 year rule which was almost constantly engulfed in military conflict. He aligned with Cleopatra III of Egypt (who relied upon two famous Jewish Generals of the Onias family) but suffered great loses against her foe and co-ruler son Ptolemy Lathyrus. Luckily, Cleopatra’s army kept Lathyrus from taking Jerusalem.

Janneus was too busy fighting to worry about his duties as High Priest and his appointed friends, all Sadducees as a strong rift existed between Janneus and the Pharisees. It was the “battle between the sects” of this period which ultimately had the greatest effect upon Judaism (the sects and their history are detailed in a later section).

The Pharisees had emerged as a party during the era of Jonathan, the successor of Judas Maccabeus ("Ant." 13. 5. 9). The Pharisees generally sought to maintain adherence to the laws and traditions of the Jewish people in the face of assimilation by the Hellenists. They believed that all Jews had to observe the purity laws and they were considered the most expert and accurate expositors of Jewish law. By the Hasmonean period, the Sadducees (who were avid supporters of Jannaeus[190]) and Pharisees functioned primarily as political parties.

The Pharisees opposed Jannaeus’ wars of expansion and demanded that he choose between being king and being High Priest. In response, the king openly sided with the Sadducees and adopted their rites in the Temple. Eventually, during the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, Jannaeus incited a riot by flaunting one of the Temple rituals and during the ensuing melee some 6,000 Jews were killed in the Temple. That led to a brief civil war that ended with a bloody repression of the Pharisees[191].

On his deathbed (76 BCE) Jannaeus called for reconciliation between the two parties and his successor, Queen Salome Alexandra (whose brother, Shimon ben Shetach, was a leading Pharisee) reversed the power struggle in favor of the Pharisees. Then, upon her death (67 BCE), her elder son Hyrcanus sought Pharisee support while her younger son Aristobulus sought Sadducee support. The conflict between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus culminated in a civil war that ended when the Roman general Pompey captured Jerusalem in 63 BCE and inaugurated the Roman period of Jewish history.

Even after their opposition resulted in Judea and Jerusalem being occupied and ruled by the Romans, the Pharisees and Sadducees could not reconcile their differences and unite as Jews. They would continue to battle and bribe their way in and out of the High Priesthood through the next century and the time of Jesus. It can only be surmised that their foolishness was a large factor in the formation of the Zealot party and its rebellious factions.

It is worth noting here that the Hasmonean period first bolstered and then undermined the Onias priesthood at Leontopolis leading to the formation of the Essenes, the Hasidim, the Nazoreans, and the Qumran community. Those stories are told in subsequent sections.

Because Jesus was descended from Hasmoneans and his family included both Oniads and Tobiads, he would have been very aware of their conflicts and the history surrounding them. As the last independent royal family in Judea, the Hasmoneans remained powerful for a century after their reign and the daughters/grand-daughters of the Hasmoneans were highly valued as wives. (The male heirs were routinely killed by Herod I, as below).

This brief political history of the period is only part of the picture – the rest is detailed in the History of the High Priesthood (a later section) and in the discussions of the various Jewish sects. At the very least, we should now understand how it was that the Romans took over Judea and that a door of opportunity opened for the Herodians.

[pic]

Palestine under the Maccabees (163-63 BCE)

The Herodian Era and the Birth of Jesus

The High Priests, the Great Secret, and the Royal Mixup

"In 63 BC, Judaea became a protectorate of Rome. Coming under the administration of a governor, Judaea was allowed a king; the governor's business was to regulate trade and maximize tax revenue."[192]

With the death of Salome Alexandra in 67 BCE, Antipater the wealthy Edomite (Idumean)[193] joined Hyrcanus II in the feud with his younger brother Aristobulus II. Although Hyrcanus succeeded his widowed mother as ruler and took the office of the High Priest, he was soon attacked by his brother and surrendered[194]. While Hyrcanus agreed to live quietly in Aristublus’ former home, Antipater turned to his father-in-law and friend, the Nabataean King Aretas (III). With promises of bribes and the return of lands previously taken by the Hasmoneans, Antipater persuaded Aretas to offer Hyrcanus refuge and assistance. In 64 BCE, Aretas laid siege to Jerusalem with a large army and forced Aristobulus to bribe Marcus Aemilius Scaurus (deputy of the Roman general Pompey) for help. Scaurus ordered Aretas to withdraw his army and Aristobulus sent his troops after them. The Nabeteans were first crushed by the unexpected attack and then subdued by a follow-up invasion by Scaurus (63 BCE). In exchange for a huge bribe to Scaurus and recognition of Roman supremacy over Nabatea, Aretas retained his territory and possessions as a vassal of the Roman Empire and the Roman magistrate Pompey intervened to appoint Hyrcanus the Ethnarch of Judea.

Somehow Antipater emerged from all this with even greater power: still aligned with the Hasmoneans and Nabeteans while gaining great favor with the Romans. Pompey seemed especially kind to Antipater and when he split the Roman province of Judea (forming also Samaria, Idumaea, and Galilee), Antipater was placed in control of Idumaea[195]. Then, Antipater aided Caesar in his defeat of Pompey (48 BCE) and in quashing civil war in Egypt[196]. Caesar rewarded him with appointment as governor (“procurator”) of Judea and surrounds[197], he granted Antipater Roman citizenship, and he declared him to be free from Roman taxation everywhere with the right to collect taxes where he governed. Antipater appointed his sons Phasael as governor of Jerusalem and Herod as governor of Galilee.

Following the assassination of Caesar (44 BCE), Antipater sided with Cassius against Mark Antony and eventually his enemies caught up with him. He was poisoned and died in 43 BCE. Herod believed that his father had been poisoned under the orders of Hyrcanus and he sought revenge. In 42 BCE, the Parthian Pacorus supported Brutus and Cassius - the murderers of Caesar – in their losing battle at Philippi. Pacorus then allied with Quintus Labienus (the Roman rebel) and invaded Syria (spring of 40 BCE) defeating the forces of the Roman governor Decidius Saxa. Pacorus’ deputy Barzapharnes took control of Judea and deposed Hyrcanus II replacing him with his nephew Antigonus II. Antigonus had Hycanus seized and proceeded to bite off his ears making him permanently ineligible for the priesthood. He then had Hyrcanus taken to Babylonia, where he would live in exile among the Babylonian Jews – which included the Exilarchs[198]. Herod had escaped to Rome (where he grew up) and sought Roman military assistance to recapture Judea.

In 37 BCE, Herod vanquished Antigonus[199] but feared that Hyrcanus might induce the Parthians to help him regain the throne. So, he persuaded the former High Priest to return to Jerusalem where Herod received him with honors including a position in the Sanhedrin[200]. This marked the beginning of a trend which Herod would follow throughout his reign: those opponents or competitors he couldn’t kill, he brought under some form of control (often until he could have them killed).

(From here, I begin inclusion of the speculative story – what follows is a mix of history and supposition based upon the evidence)[201].

The appointment of a Sanhedrin was a crucial early step for Herod. While he would rule in all matters not specifically religious, Judea was a religious state and the religious leadership would have great power with the Jewish people. Whereas the priesthood was largely functionary, the Sanhedrin made legal decisions and judgments. Under a relatively new “tradition” which began during the reign of Mattathias Maccabee, the Sanhedrin was led by a pair of men known as the Zugot (literally meaning “pair”): one was “Nasi” (President) and the other was “Av Beit Din” (Vice-President). According to tradition, the Zugot were opponents who stood at the head of the Sanhedrin and offered different views on issues and judgments so that a balanced position was offered to the other sixty-nine general members.

When Herod was governor of Galilee, he had been brought before the Sanhedrin upon charges of unlawful killings (supposedly of “bandits”). The Zugot at the time, Shemaiah (aka Samaias) and Avtalyon (aka Ptollion)[202], spoke against Herod but also warned their colleagues about repercussions of judging against Herod. Avtallyon (with Hyrcanus) arranged for Herod to “escape”, thus averting the judgment and potential strife. Later (37 BCE), it was Avtalyon who urged the Jerusalemites to open the city gates to Herod when he returned with a Roman army to reclaim his position.

Herod rewarded these men by retaining them as the Zugot[203] and they were given substantial leeway in proposing appointees to the general membership with one caveat: Herod insisted that the Sanhedrin reflect diverse religious and social views. Since the Zugot were both Pharisees, that meant appointment of both friends and foes. As Zugot, Shemaiah and Abtalion also played a key role in the selection of the new High Priest.

Knowing the power of the High Priest and the historical trend of the High Priest becoming the ruler of the Judeans, Herod wisely sought a High Priest from outside the Hyrcanus/Hasmonean line. He needed someone that the people would find favorable, someone who would remain aside from the entrenched priesthood, and someone who he could control. The Zadokite presence had remained strong and Herod was quite aware of the history of the “line of Aaronite priests who still claimed to be the legitimate holders of the High Priesthood”. Herod sought the advice of the Zugot[204] and they agreed that the appointment of an Oniad would meet his goals. They also wondered privately how such an outsider could possibly function within the highly nepotistic and bureaucratic priesthood of Jerusalem.

Herod sent an agent named Benaiah to Egypt where the Oniads had remained independent for several generations, even establishing their own Jewish Temple. At Leontopolis (about 270 miles from Jerusalem on one of the two major routes to Alexandria) he met with both the High Priest Sethus ben Ananias (aka “Sie”)and his Nasi, Hananiah ben Ari (aka “Hanan”). Benaiah’s offer of returning the rightful title in the rightful place to the rightful heirs was simply irresistible. Offering his personal guarantee for the safety of the High Priest and his family helped ensure the Oniads and after consulting with both family and their Council (a 23 member “Sanhedrin”), it was agreed to accept it.

It was critical to the deal that Herod didn’t want the legitimate High Priest, just a High Priest who had legitimate claim to the title. Sie would never have accepted for himself, especially after what had happened to his great-grandfather (see Appendix XXVIII). Instead, Hanan agreed to go and negotiate directly with Herod while under the protection of Benaiah’s hospitality.

Arriving at Herod’s Palace, Hanan witnessed the impressive effort that was underway to clean it up, although it still showed signs of the turmoil that had prevailed in Jerusalem for decades. Hanan was surprisingly impressed by Herod – a man who could be charming, witty, and persuasive or treacherous, ruthless, and murderous. During this frist meeting, Herod displayed only his good side and Herod offered Hanan a deal even better than that proposed by Benaiah. In essence, Herod wanted the High Priest removed from politics, the Temple to function more as it had in the old days, and the Sanhedrin to focus upon religious matters, civil justice, and operation of the priesthood instead of governing the nation. Hanan was in nearly full agreement and when the discussion turned to finances, Herod offered his High Priest all Temple income (tithes, offerings, and donations) while he would keep all Temple related income (exchange fees, taxes, vendor lease fees, etc.). In short, he offered Hanan a fortune. Prompted by Hanan’s questions, Herod assured him that the Temple treasures and treasury would be secure[205], that its archiving function would be independent, and that the priesthood would be allowed great independence so long as it avoided political actions. Without further detail, Hanan accepted the deal and asked that a document be drawn to reflect Herod’s promises[206].

As word spread that Herod would appoint an unknown Zaddokite from Egypt as High Priest, the reaction was mixed: the average Jew saw it as a clear sign of God’s Will and a major change in the right direction for the Jewish people whereas the aristocrats and entrenched priests saw it as a direct threat. Both were right. Two weeks later, during the festival of Lights, Herod appointed “Hananiel” (or Ananeel) as High Priest[207]. The Hasmoneans, especially Herod’s mother-in-law[208], Alexandra, saw it as a travesty. She wanted Aristobulus (III), brother of Herod’s wife Mariamne, to be the High Priest and saw Herod’s appointment as a dagger at the throat of the Hasmonean dynasty (which was getting weaker and weaker). Her recourse was to appeal to her good friend Cleopatra (VII) for help from the Romans (i.e. Mark Antony).

Meanwhile, Hanan struggled to appease the diverse groups which sought favorable appointments and assurances of continued power. His relatives and friends who made the journey to Jerusalem included good hearted “well wishers” as well as a large contingent looking for favorable appointments. Since the Jerusalem priesthood was in disarray, he had no friends or associates there and he had in mind a whole new infrastructure. But he wasn’t in any hurry and he wisely focused on restoring traditional services using traditional means and utilizing existing people in their current positions to make that happen.

Within six months, Hanan managed to achieve his first goal and won favor with both the masses and Herod. He hadn’t pushed reforms too hard and his appointments were generally regarded as fair and proper. Just as he was ready to begin a new wave of reform, Herod called for him and advised him that he was being replaced. Alexandra’s appeal to Cleopatra to exercise her influence upon Mark Antony had worked and Herod decided to give the office to the young Aristobulus instead of having to appear again before his friend and answer for his choices.

Thus, in 36 BCE, the sixteen year old Aristobulus was named High Priest. Hanan was given a sizable tribute and was asked to remain in Jerusalem as an advisor to Herod. The young High Priest was in “over his head” (sorry, the bad pun is coming) and he relied heavily upon Hanan to function. The attractive and charming High Priest quickly proved far too popular with both the people (who had a positively flawed memory of the Hasmoneans) and the aristocrats. Herod felt threatened and there could only be one outcome.

Less than six months after the appointment of Aristobulus, Herod arranged to have Aristobulus “accidentally” drowned while playing in the Palace pool at Jericho. Although Herod feigned profound grief and paid for a lavish funeral, Alexandra was livid. She again turned to Cleopatra and began a series of intrigues and events that would nearly end the Herodian era. In the meantime, Herod re-appointed Hanan as High Priest.

Guessing what might be coming, Herod began to prepare for his possible execution. This planning included the execution of every member of the Hasmonean clan in Judea by his Idumean friends and family. Herod was so absorbed in this vengeance that he allowed Hanan great liberty as High Priest. A year later (34 BCE) Herod was summoned to Laodicea where another round of bribes and gifts to Mark Antony managed to keep the Idumean on the throne. To appease Cleopatra, Antony awarded her some of Herod’s most valuable and profitable lands in Palestine (the coast and Jericho) so that Herod was forced to both pay her and obey her. Then, upon returning home, Herod found that his execution plan had become known and was told that his favorite wife (Marianne) had been having an affair.

It had to be a bitter and difficult time for Herod – he had just been humbled by the Hasmoneans and he couldn’t afford to take vengeance upon them. Instead, he turned his attention to a mutual foe – the Davidians (and, he began to treat everyone associated with the Hasmonenas – including many of Jerusalem’s aristocrats – as foes). It was well known and believed that the future of Judaism was prophesized to return to a Davidian descendant (see Appendix XI). Thus, those with the blood of David in their ancestry (thousands) who had any legitimate claim to David’s throne (dozens) were a risk to both the Hasmoneans and the Herodians. A quiet but effective pogrom against these possible claimants began. It was made somewhat difficult because the Hasmoneans had strived to marry into the Davidic lineage – a strategy Herod had also adopted.

Not long after Herod’s humiliation before Antony (and Cleopatra) and following Antony's conquest of Armenia, the “Donations of Alexandria” were held in Egypt (late 34 BCE). These somewhat wild and speculative self-delusions led to further deterioration of Antony’s Roman position and his relationship with Octavian (which had been worsening for several years). By 33 BCE, the two Romans were at war and although Herod had benefitted from a friendship with Antony, he clearly hated Cleopatra and secretly sided with Octavian. Following the defeat of Antony's forces and Cleopatra’s navy at Actium (31 BCE), Herod knew that Rome would be ruled by Octavian. His strategy was to appear loyal to Antony while assisting Octavian[209].

Octavian summoned Herod to Rhodes and Herod persuaded the future Emperor that he would support him with the same loyalty that he had shown Antony. Octavian saw the potential of this ally in the east and affirmed that Herod could remain as ruler of the Jews. Herod was promised the return of lands taken from him by Antony (given to Cleopatra) and he was to receive several coastal and Jordanian cities. Herod provided Octavian the full support of his military[210] and a promise to keep the Egyptian Oniads neutral (which Hanan had indicated was their intent anyway). The deal was hardly significant as events turned out, but it cemented Herod’s favored status with the man who would soon “rule the world”. On August 1, 30 BCE, Antony’s army deserted him in Egypt and by the 12th, both he and Cleopatra were dead.

With Cleopatra out of the way, the Hasmoneans lost all leverage with Herod. With complete confidence in his future, Herod returned to Jerusalem as an immensely more powerful man. Two of Herod’s commanders alleged that Alexandra urged them to rebel against Herod while he was away and she was executed. Herod also executed Costobar (his brother-in-law) for allegedly hiding the sons of Baba (supposedly supporters of Antigonus). The sons of Baba were executed as were Herod’s aides Antipater, Lysimachus and Dositheus for being involved. After purging his Court of the Hasmoneans, he demanded an oath of loyalty from all those around him and those appointed by him. The exceptions to this oath were revealing: all Essenes were exempted and the Zugot were exempted.

Hanan refused to take the oath on similar grounds, but Herod was looking for a change in the High Priesthood anyway. Hanan had served Herod well during difficult times and he had restored considerable respect for the office and the Temple. However, Herod saw too much wealth outside his control within the High Priesthood and he decided to take offers from others for the title. He told Hanan that he could remain High Priest only if he was the highest bidder. Hanan had no intention of bidding for the job but he knew someone who might.

Meanwhile, Herod announced that it was his intention to restore and enhance the Jerusalem Temple so that it was “worthy”. Jews were flocking to Jerusalem and Judea from the turmoil in Egypt and other areas, bringing great wealth with them. Herod saw restoration of the Temple as both a matter of prestige and income generation. (For all his shortcomings, Herod was also a visionary builder). His ambitious plan coincided with the announcement of several other large-scale building projects (including entire cities). The Temple project meant that the opportunity to be High Priest was fraught with great risks and even greater potential rewards: the new High Priest would control the most important Jewish building project since Solomon first built his Temple and he would control much of the vast sum needed to build it.

Hanan had stayed in close contact with Sie even though they could never be together. They had agreed that war between Rome and Egypt was inevitable and that although Cleopatra deserved the support of Egyption Jews, her’s was a losing cause. Hanan and Sie facilitated the moving of many family members to Judea, Galilee, and the trans-Jordan (including Jericho, En-Gedi, and Pella). They also began the transfer of savings and records from the Leontopolis Temple to the Jerusalem Temple.

Among those who were part of this “second Exodus from Egypt” was Joazar bar Boethus, patriarch of the family known to many as “the Boethusians”. When he arrived in Jerusalem from Alexandria, he was among its wealthiest citizens (even wealthier than Herod) and he was a power-broker with powerful Roman friends[211]. When Hanan (his “cousin”) informed Joazar of Herod’s plans, he asked Hanan to arrange an audience with the King.

Herod recognized the name and stature of Joazar and quickly realized that Joazar was as adept at dealing with politicians as he was adept at being one. Joazar wasted no time in getting to the point and made Herod an offer beyond Herod’s dreams – doubling the amount Herod had planned to spend upon the Temple. In return, Joazar got to name the next High Priest and had the privilege of keeping the title within his power during the rest of Herod’s life. Hanan knew that Joazar would replace him, but was pleased that the title would remain within the family. Besides, he simply didn’t have the energy to deal with all the non-religious duties that it would take to supervise the Temple reconstruction project. He suggested that his replacement be Sie’s son Jeshua (aka Yehoshua)[212].

Joazar would have preferred one of his brothers (Phabet or Simon), but followed Hanan’s preference far enough to send delegates to Sie with a proposal and a letter from Hanan. Joazar’s proposal contained no surprises – he was interested in matters of income, authority, and assignments. Hanan’s letter explained his reasons for suggesting Yehoshua and it included their secret phrase (“חֶמְדַּ֣ת כָּל־ הַגֹּויִ֑ם וּמִלֵּאתִ֞י אֶת־ הַבַּ֤יִת הַזֶּה֙” = “May the wealth of all nations fill your house” - from Haggai 2:7). Sie needed nothing more since this told him that the reason involved the sacred treasures [which we’re getting to].

Yehoshua would have done whatever his father asked, but when told that the suggestion came from “Uncle Hanan”, it was a given that Yehoshua would agree. It was more difficult to convince his mother Deena but she was also swayed by the fact that Hanan had proposed the idea. So, despite Sie’s reservations about sending his[213] son to Jerusalem, he trusted Hanan. Thus, at the end of the year 30 BCE, Yehoshua ben Sie became High Priest of the Jerusalem Temple.

Herod’s announcement relating his intention of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple met mixed reaction: the people didn’t trust him and the priesthood found much to worry about. The announcement included one critical detail - the project required the destruction of the existing Temple[214]. Many Jews simply couldn’t imagine tearing down God’s house under any circumstance and some priests thought this might just be a pretense for destroying the Temple outright. Herod and Yehoshua had discussed this and Yehoshua had proposed some ideas which Herod included in his announcement.

First, Herod explained that funding for the project was already secured and reserved. He promised that not a single Temple service would be missed. He committed to having all the actual on-site construction performed by priests (for ritual purity) and all the off-site preparation supervised by priests (to ensure the work was “chokim” - performed as required by the Torah). Yehoshua proved himself in quickly negotiating the necessary concessions which placated the priests and pacified the people. With plenty of “pockets getting filled”, it was an easy sell.

It was to be a massive project with some 25,000 workers. Countless stones would be cut and moved prior to the start of actual construction. All the construction machines had to be built and years of preparations would be required to allow the current Temple to be rebuilt from the inside out without violating its sanctity. And all of this required extensive planning. But that was hardly all of it.

Herod had also told Yehoshua that he intended to do far more than rebuild the Temple itself – he wanted to enclose the Temple within a compound that would include massive new walls, gates, bridges, stairs, underground facilities, stoas, porticos, and supporting buildings. While these would be future projects (as funds became available), he asked that these intentions be incorporated into the early construction planning (but kept private). When Yehoshua heard of these plans, he felt the Hand of God at work since it fit perfectly into his secret intentions.

It was widely known that the Temple served as both national bank and national archive. Rumors of unimaginable riches hidden within Mt. Moriah (beneath the Temple) were commonplace – and true. There were few places in the world where the super-rich could safely keep their treasures. The Egyptians had been masters of hiding, protecting, and then recovering such treasure for over a thousand years, but the Jews had evolved even better methods which combined good record-keeping, the ability to keep a secret, trustworthiness, and competency. Even their enemies had learned that the Jews would honor their obligation to safeguard and return whatever was kept by them for another (for a fee, of course)[215]. Thus, both Herod and his bitter enemy Aretas secretly stored a large part of their wealth within the Temple Bank.

Such a large project required many separate working groups and three of them were specifically assigned the task of re-designing the Temple vaults. Two were well known, but secretive in their work and one was both secret and so secretive that only three people outside the group even knew it existed: Yehoshua, Hanan, and Dositheus – the younger half-brother of Yehoshua. Hanan had fathered both (via different mothers), although legally Yehoshua was Sie’s son. The half-brothers thought of each other as cousins and didn’t know they were more closely related[216]. Dositheus had the public role of being Yehoshua’s chief assistant and confidant. He worked closely with his uncle Simon[217] (Joazar’s brother) and Simon’s daughter Marianne (who acted a Simon’s “right-hand-man”). But his most important title was Shawmar (“Keeper”) because Hanan had designated him as his successor.

The Shawmar was responsible for keeping the greatest secret in human history – the location of the Sacred Temple Treasures[218] – hidden since the days of Jeremiah. The treasures were currently hidden in three locations in Egypt (having been taken there around 170 BCE by the exiled Oniads) and the method of locating them was a set of three different puzzles spread among two dozen Oniads[219]. Sie, Hanan, and Dositheus had sought to relocate the treasures for years, but hadn’t decided how or where until recently.

Within a year of Herod’s announcement, final plans had been completed and some 12,000 priests began special training in construction arts. Only priests would be allowed inside the Temple itself during construction and only a small percentage of them would work on the most sacred area - the Holy of Holies[220]. Another 10,000 Jews were to be utilized for general labor outside the Temple itself. But an even more select group worked on the vaults beneath the Temple and within that group were 77 men chosen to construct the אוֹצָר סָתַם (Satham Otsar or Secret Storehouse). Their task was made easier by the fact that beneath the Temple were dozens of chambers, channels, and conduits needed for normal Temple operations, numerous vaults for storing monies and documents for the Temple’s normal banking functions, hidden chambers for keeping treasures from others, and additional secret storehouses for other purposes. What only a handful of men knew was that the whole thing was a ruse.

The Keepers had no intention of storing the sacred treasures beneath the Temple, but they carefully allowed others to believe the rumors knowing that the chances of 77 men keeping such a secret were almost zero. The Secret Storehouse would find other important uses and remained hidden even after the Temple was razed by the Romans almost a century later. The important secrets were of an entirely different character.

Yehoshua kept Hanan directly involved in the Temple project and he found creative solutions to the most difficult aspect of the project: it was his agreement with Herod and the other Jewish religious authorities that the sacrificial rituals (“korbanot”) would continue unabated during construction. The requirement that all on-site Temple constructed be performed by the Kohanim (family of priests) meant thousands had to learn trade skills. Assembling planners and builders from many nations, gathering and constructing the huge machines that would be required, and quarrying stone would take most of a decade.

Herod had received the title “Basileus” from Octavian (also the unofficial title for the Emperor himself) and gained incredible favor from him: tax breaks, gifts, and honors. Having turned the Temple project over to the priests, Herod took on massive building projects elsewhere, including palaces, fortresses, and entire cities (such as Caesarea Maritima which he dedicated to his primary benefactor). It was a remarkable period for the region as economic prosperity reversed much of the damage and destruction which had occurred during the prior century. Roads were built, aqueducts and irrigation systems were constructed, and great wealth was amassed and spent, especially in Jerusalem. (Herod was also insane and his court was full of intrigue, murder, and shuffling for position – see Appendix XXII).

The situation in Egypt was somewhat opposite – the hit-and-miss prosperity of the last century had become the hit-and-miss decline through the current century (before the common era – BCE). The Ptolemaic Kingdom of Egypt had become Aegyptus - the Roman province of Egypt. Because it remained the “breadbasket of the Roman Empire”, Egypt was treated differently than most other provinces – it was governed by a “prefect” (of the equestrian class) instead of the traditional senatorial governor. The first prefect of Aegyptus was Gaius Cornelius Gallus who lasted only a year. He was replaced by Gaius Aelius Gallus (no relation) who only managed to stay for two years. The third prefect was Gaius Petronius who lasted almost a decade (until 20 BCE). These prefects brought Roman control (by the force of over 10,000 Roman soldiers) to both lower and upper Egypt and established a protectorate over the southern frontier. They also implemented a new and more complex taxation system[221] whereby land was taxed and rented, a variety of small taxes and tolls were added, customs duties were expanded, and the system of tax collection was supervised by appointed officials.

Both the Alexandrian and Heliopolis Jews made this new system work well for themselves and the general rift between Jews and other Egyptians continued. The Romans were practical if nothing else and they recognized the efficiency of the tax collection system the Ptolemies had implemented. Actually, many taxes were lowered under the Romans and they successfully used land grants as an incentive to increase production. Sie and his community were given more liberty than they expected although a Roman epistrategos ("over-general") controlled the region and a strategoi named Calpurnius Concessus oversaw the Nome of Heliopolis. Neither Roman was particularly interested in the affairs of the Jews so long as tax revenues were collected easily and agricultural production increased.

Sie grew old and tired. However, he had a lifelong desire to see the Jerusalem Temple, so in the year 25 BCE he turned his title over to his youngest son, Yohanan (Yohan), and made his pilgrimage to the Holy City. He took most of his family with him and they stayed with Hanan and Dione in the City of David (Ophal). But the journey proved fatal to Sie and on the day after he fulfilled his dream of seeing Solomon’s Temple, he suddenly died. In a showing of family unity (and to highlight their prominence) Joazar and Simon chose to honor Sie with a massive funeral procession. It was unlike anything Jerusalem had seen since the before the Exile.

Deena and the children were not aware of the political side of the event and saw it more as affection from family and fellow Jews. With Dione’s approval, Hanan invited Deena and her children to move in with them and Denna happily decided to accept, thereby remaining in Jerusalem. Joazar was pleased with this arrangement since he very much wanted to have Yoni dau Sie (their oldest daughter) marry one of his nephews and to have this line of legitimate succession under his control. But Joazar was not aware of the very close ties between Hanan, Deena, and their children and his plan was dependent upon Yohan not having a son as successor.

With the death of his father in Jerusalem and the choice of his mother to remain there, Yohan was “stuck” in Leontopolis. He would have happily relinquished his position and title except for a solemn and holy pledge he had made to his father and to God. It was essential that he keep his title in order to protect the sacred treasures of Judaism (see Appendix XXVII).

[pic]

(The supposed lineage of Ari)

We should recall that "The Paralipomena of Jeremiah" (or “4 Baruch”) states that Jeremiah hid the sacred objects from the Jerusalem Temple just before the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile (in 586 BCE) and that at the conclusion of the exile Cyrus allowed the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of Jewish worship there. The Book of Ezra provides a detailed listing of the objects returned to the Temple, but that list includes none of the most sacred objects (the Ark of the Covenant and its mercy seat, a golden table for showbread, a 75 pound solid gold menorah, a square bronze altar, a perpetual lamp, an incense altar, and a bronze laver). It is most likely that the objects remained in hiding even after the Temple was restored and that replicas were made to permit services.

The continuous turmoil which surrounded and engulfed Judea over the subsequent half century would have rationally required that God’s most sacred objects remain hidden. The secret of their location would have been closely held within the High Priesthood and with the death of Onias III, that secret would have travelled to Egypt and Heliopolis with his son’s entourage. Thus, it was passed down in the line of Egyptian High Priests (my best guess):

171-142 BCE Onias IV

142-134 BCE Ananias bar Onias (absent, 138-134 BCE)

134-99 BCE Banus bar Onias

99-79 BCE Boethus bar Banus/Phiabi bar Ari

79-54 BCE Phiabi bar Ari

54-25 BCE Sethus bar Ananleus

25-4 BCE Yohan bar Sethus

However, in 99 BCE, the role of שָׁמַר (Shawmar or Keeper) was given to Phiabi bar Ari and was subsequently retained within his line and the line of Sethus. When Sethus bar Ananleus became High Priest, Phiabi and Sethus devised a way to disseminate the secret within their families and improved its survivability and security. Thus, Yehoshua bar Phiabi became one of the Keepers before he became High Priest in Jerusalem (30-23 BCE).

Yehoshua married Bethanne, the daughter of Levi bar Melchi, and fathered three daughters with her: JoAnna (“Jane”), Elizabeth, and Hannah[222]. Lacking a son and any other person he trusted, Yehoshua became the first to pass the secret to a daughter – in fact he shared it with all three of them (in part because he knew they couldn’t keep secrets from each other anyway). Yehoshua would have remained High Priest in Jerusalem except for an unexpected event within the Herodian Court. But first, there is a relevant side story.

Herod was constantly seeking ways to improve his standing and that of his heirs while frequently changing his mind about who those heirs would be. Few historical figures had a royal court with more intrigue, murder, back-stabbing, and pure craziness (and that says a lot). The complexities are far beyond the scope here, but some of the many forced, impelled, arranged, or bought marriages brokered by Herod are important in this matter. Perhaps the most popular person in Jerusalem at the time was “Cleopatra of Jerusalem”, the posthumous daughter of Cleopatra VII of Egypt (fathered by Mark Antony). She was as beautiful and politically astute as her mother – who was legendary as the former and historically the later. She had been given as a wife to Jacob ben Mattan, a “Nasi” and a Davidic Prince of Israel who had served Herod’s interests well as his ambassador in Alexandria from the time of Cleopatra through the Roman take-over. Upon his return to Jerusalem in 32 BCE, Herod had appointed him as the Pechah (mayor) of Jerusalem.

The popularity of this couple rankled Herod but he couldn’t risk killing them because Jacob had powerful friends at home and abroad. But after Herod fell ill in 29 BCE, a series of events changed the entire scene. With Herod recuperating elsewhere, Alexandra (his Hasmonean mother-in-law) conspired to dethrone him by telling Herod’s commanders in Jerusalem that Herod had gone “insane”. Instead, they betrayed her to Herod and he had her executed. Herod also executed his brother-in-law Costobar[223] for conspiracy in hiding the sons of Aububus (“Baba”) ben Antigonus (the surviving Hasmonean heir) and then had both the sons of Baba killed. During this purge, Herod also executed his close Idumaean advisors Gadius Antipater, Lysimachus, and Dositheus (for allegedly conspiring with Costobar). Finally, he told Jacob that the only way for him to keep his title was to forfeit his wife (“Cleopatra”) so that Herod could make her his own wife. This terrible choice was made by both Jacob[224] and Cleopatra for one reason: they wanted to protect their only son, Joseph[225].

During this period, a group of significant marriages took place, beginning with the marriages of Yehoshua’s daughters. Jane (aka Joanna) married Joachim, the son of Alamyos (an Oniad who was the “Patriarch” or Pechah of Judea from 50-47 BCE). This made Jane the sister-in-law of Salome dau Alamyos who had married Zebedee, the brother of Joseph of Arimathea. (Zebedee and Salome were the parents of the Apostles James and John). Elizabeth (an Aaronite) married Zechariah, a leading Priest of the Abijah Order (a Levite)[226]. They were the parents of John the Baptist. Yehoshua’s youngest daughter was Hanna – a precocious and charming young woman who caught the eye of a “minor” Hasmonean prince Alexander III Helios (known to all as “Heli”). Yehoshua would not have encouraged a royal match but allowed Hanna to marry a prince because she so clearly loved him. It didn’t hurt that Yehoshua thought highly of “Heli” [227] – a man with more character and honor than most of his relatives. Unfortunately, it was a marriage which didn’t last (as below).

Also during this period, Yoni dau Sie, the oldest daughter of Sie (via Hanan) and Dione, married for the second time. Her first husband, a prominent but unfavorable man, was killed in an accident having not fathered any children. She had no brother-in-law and would not have opted for levirate marriage regardless. After moving to Jerusalem to live with her parents, she met the recently widowed Simon bar Shemayah[228] and they married a year later.

This brings us to the year 23 BCE, a year which would prove eventful and profoundly significant[229]. As Judea and surrounds recovered from the drought[230], an era of prosperity ensued (assisted by the fact that Herod temporarily reduced taxes by 1/3). Herod improved his stature with Caesar Augustus who added the territories of Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis to Herod's kingdom. Herod sent his sons (by Mariamme I), Alexander and Aristobolus, to Rome for their education. Herod met with Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa[231] at Mitylene and they seemingly formed a pact which made Herod one of the most powerful Roman patrons. Herod was comfortable in continuing his pogrom against his real and imagined rivals.

Herod had eliminated all the main Hasmonean and Davidic heirs and with his increased status, he set upon the secondary lines. Thus, although the young Alexander III Helios was well removed from the line of succession, Herod had him killed (feeling empowered enough to overcome the objections of his adversaries). He would have also killed Hanna just to be certain that she wasn’t carrying another possible heir, but Herod spared her since he intended that she would marry one of his sons. But Hanna managed to escape Herod’s grasp with the help of powerful friends (Joazar intended for Hanna to marry one of his nephews to bring this line of legitimate succession under his control).

Yehoshua had managed Hanna’s escape and this infuriated Herod. He imprisoned his High Priest and refused to release him until Hanna was returned. Yehoshua refused and so Herod decided to replace him. The timing of this decision was awkward because of Herod’s reliance upon Joazar and the state of the Temple construction. Simon bar Boethus, Yehoshua’s uncle (a brother of Joazar), was Joazar’s chief assistant and handled both the planning and purchasing for Temple construction. This made him very powerful and brought him in frequent contact with Herod. Herod liked and admired Simon and especially “liked” Simon’s daughter, Mariamne. She was Simon’s primary assistant and she accompanied Simon almost wherever he went. Ultimately, it was Herod’s lust for Mariamne that determined the outcome: Herod was so smitten by her that he asked Joazar how she might become his wife (Mariamne was not of sufficient “dignity” to marry the king). Joazar saw his advantage and told Herod that Marriamne would gain the necessary dignity if her father was High Priest. Thus, Simon was named High Priest and the High Priesthood remained within Joazar’s family during his lifetime. Mariamne became Herod’s 3rd wife[232] and Yehoshua “disappeared”.

The Jerusalem High Priests of the Herodian Era[233]

Hanaeel/Ananelus 37-37 BCE

Aristobulus III 37-36 BCE[234]

Hanan/Ananelus (restored) 36-30 BCE

Yehoshua ben Fabus 30-23 BCE

Simon ben Boethus 23-5 BCE

Matthias ben Theophilus 5-4 BCE

Joazar ben Boethus 4-4 BCE[235]

Eleazar ben Boethus 4-3 BCE

Joshua ben Sie 3-1 BCE

Joazar ben Boethus 1 BCE-6 CE

The families of Sethus and Hanan were torn by this event: while Joazar was not to blame, most felt that he could and should have done more to help Yehoshua. Yet, inter-family marriages and power-sharing had created complex alliances and loyalties such that family ties no longer dictated one’s positions. The group which aligned with Joazar in Jerusalem would go on to dominate the office of High Priest for several generations (until the war that would result in the destruction of Temple-based Judaism). Simon went on to become the most important High Priest of the era – at least in terms of the office itself. The families of the Oniads, the Hasmoneans, and the Herodians become inexorably linked. The family group which disassociated from Joazar became exiled, outcast, and even hunted (Herod would have paid handsomely for the head of Hanna or her offspring). The family group which followed Joazar bar Boethus became known as the Boethusians and the exiled family group we shall call the Shawmars (“Keepers”, since they were the ones who kept the legitmate title of High Priest and Judaism’s great secret).

Of course, the continuation of the Temple and High Priesthood at Leoptopolis remained an issue. Yohanan ben Sethus saw the imprisonment and “disappearance” of his brother Yehoshua as more than a “sign” and had little trouble grasping the likely future. He summoned his uncle Hanan (his biological father) in order to change their plans. Hanan agreed with Yohan that their situation was bleak but was surprised when Yohan went a step further and suggested that Judaism as they knew it would cease in a few generations. Hanan reminded his son that Jews had demonstrated a remarkable survivability and Yohan reminded his “uncle” that Jews and Judaism were not one and the same. He explained his vision of the destruction of a new and glorious Temple in Jerusalem and a time when Jews were even more dispersed than during the Great Exile. Even though he didn’t share Yohan’s vision, Hanan took it seriously and knew there were growing risks to his people. It was essential to take steps to prepare for the worst regarding both the High Priesthood and the sacred treasures.

Joazar held the largest deposits of wealth in Jerusalem and was very interested in keeping those deposits safe – even from Herod. It was a poorly kept secret that deep within the new Temple complex there were vaults and storerooms holding vast wealth. It was said that these were protected by cunningly engineered passages which could “disappear” if necessary. It wasn’t long before it was rumored that some of the ancient sacred treasures had been moved there. In truth, those were merely the better replicas which had been moved there from Egypt (as below).

Simon had never been made privy to the great secret, but both he and Joazar knew about it. They wanted desperately to make inquiries about it, but knew that to do so would raise suspicions. But they never missed an opportunity to glean what they could from those relatives likely to have some tidbit of information or to reveal those who would know more. Over the course of three decades, they had gathered an extensive knowledge, a bunch of theories, plenty of speculation, and almost nothing tangible about the great secret. But they were sure about its subject and that Yohan and Hanan guarded it. With that, it didn’t take geniuses to figure out who they might share it with.

In that regard, it was beneficial that Hanna was in hiding and that to keep her safe it was necessary for all those close to her to be very cautious (especially her sisters). Her situation was made more complex by a simple fact – she was pregnant.

Once Herod realized his mistake, he was furious. He had hoped to control the Davidic line, intermingle it with the Hasmonean line and the Aaronite/Zaddokite/Oniad line, and then make these hereditary lines his own. His pogrom against the Davidic heirs had been more successful than he had hoped so that the remaining heirs were much farther down the line than he or his advisors had expected. Once his advisors figured out that one of the remaining primary lines of Davidic succession was linked to Alexander Helios, that Hanna had brought together the right bloodlines, and that their offspring would be contenders for the Davidic throne, Herod demanded that Hanna be found and kept alive so that she could be bred into his family.

His first plan was to bribe or coerce Joazar into finding and handing over the girl; after all he was related to her. Joazar offered his obsequious and agreeable façade while thinking that Herod couldn’t offer enough money to entice Hanna from him – if he had her. The daughters of High Priests were “prized possessions” and were generally wed (sold) to princes and powerful men. However, the daughters of Yehoshua III had been treated differently: Jane, Elizabeth, and Hanna were never treated as “chattel” by their father. His loyalty and love offered them the freedom of choosing a husband even though they were carriers of a primary Oniad line of succession. Besides, Yehoshua knew that they also carried parts of the great secret so that their marriage was part of keeping such.

There was “no love lost” between Joachim and Herod since it had been Herod’s father (Antipas) who had deprived Joachim’s father, Alamyos, of his position (Pechah of Judea) back in 47 BCE. Like his father, Joachim was politically astute and well connected so that when Alexander Helios was executed, he foresaw what was coming. With Yehoshua’s help, he took his niece Hanna under his protection and arranged for her transport to Leontopolis (out of Herod’s reach). There, Hanna met Yohan, her uncle who was the High Priest. She had heard plenty about him over the years, so meeting him had more familiarity than one might expect. The most pleasant surprise for Hanna was Yohan’s wife, Zayit, who was much more than welcoming. It was in the home of her uncle Yohan and aunt Zayit that Hanna gave birth to Mary.

And this leads us to another key event in the year 23 BCE. At the same time that Mary was brought into the world, Yohan had convened a special council to consider their future and what to do about the sacred treasures. Given that this was the holiest of holy work, the council was deeply in prayer seeking divine guidance when a slight rumbling was felt. The council agreed that the small earthquake was a sign from God that the treasures should be moved. But where and how? Moving the most valuable objects known to man (at least to these men) could not be accomplished without risk and such a move required both a secure location and a change in the manner by which the secret was held.

The last time the treasures were moved was soon after the exodus of Onias IV and his entourage to Egypt in 172 BCE. At that time there were offsetting concerns which weighed in favor of the risky move: the abject corruption and greed of the usurpers (those who bought the title of High Priest) meant that they would sell the treasures if they got their hands on them and there were traitors amongst them who knew the treasures were hidden (but not exactly where). On the other hand, until the Oniads had safe refuge in Egypt, there was no safety in bringing them there. Luckily, soon after their arrival in Alexandria, Ptolemy had generously given them a homeland in Egypt and once they arrived there they found several secure locations for hiding their treasures. Unfortunately, those locations were becoming less and less secure.

Three teams were sent out in search of new sites where the treasures could be safely hidden. Those teams proposed numerous sites which were pared down to twelve. Further prayer and discussion reduced that to three favored sites: Pella/ Gadara, Hazazon Tamar (Ein Gedi), and Gamala in Galilee. Ultimately, the Gadara site was chosen and a plan was developed for the move. This five-year plan centered upon a fake mining operation subsidized by a secret supporter with mining rights provided by the Romans. Between 28 and 24 BCE, preparations were made and late in the year 23 BCE, the treasures were moved in circuitous routes via four different caravans to their new hiding place. Oddly, the “cover story” given to those sworn to secrecy about the move was that they were transporting riches and relics from the Temple Bank in Leontopolis to the Temple Bank in Jerusalem. This brought all the treasures within a stone’s throw of the Jewish Temple for the first time in five centuries. They remained in Jerusalem for only one night before being sent out in new caravans headed for four different cities where they were again reloaded and restaged for staggered arrival in Gadara[236]. Those carrying the treasures believed they were carrying valuable mining supplies (the reason for armed guards and extra security precautions). Over a three day period, the treasures were buried deep within the vaults built in the Gadara mines[237].

Concurrent with the move, Yohan and six of his most trusted priests devised a complex means of promulgating the secret over many generations. This had three parts: personal, written, and permanent. The personal part involved a network of trusted people who were given parts of the puzzle which would require at least three different people to come together, share their knowledge and work out the details. The written part involved writing the secret in coded language and meaning so that only a select group of scholars and priests might decode the existence of the secret and the means by which it could be deciphered (essentially combining numerology and the kabbalah). The permanent part involved the creation of metal scrolls, stone tablets, and special artifacts which were engraved with specially coded messages which required one to have at least two of the artifacts to make sense of the encoded message.

And then, as if the rest of the year hadn’t been bad enough, the end of the year 23 BCE proved disastrous for the Oniads, in large part because of the movement of the sacred treasures. It was expected that someone within Joazar’s clan would learn of the move, but it was not expected that Herod would hear of it. Joazar ended up knowing many of the details, but not the actual destination. Herod learned only that riches from the Leontopolis Temple had been moved to Jerusalem or Judea, but upon hearing such, he summoned Simon and Joazar to appear before him. They cautiously acknowledged and confirmed what Herod already knew but insisted they had little additional information. After all, didn’t it make sense to keep one’s valuables in the safest place and wasn’t the new Temple Treasury[238] intended to be the safest of all places? Herod didn’t have enough information to oppose this idea, but didn’t exactly accept their premise. He insisted on an accounting of the Treasury’s contents; Simon and Joazar knew this could never be allowed and agreed that Herod must never learn about the sacred treasures.

This made their task more difficult because they desperately wanted to learn the location of the treasures, but they had to accomplish this without leaking information to Herod. In addition, they did not want Herod to know the full extent of riches (including theirs) held within the Temple Treasury. Thus, they had to give Herod enough information to appease him, but nothing more. Their plan backfired – the accounting they gave to Herod only piqued his curiosity. He wanted to send one of his trusted Idumaen aides to audit the accounting and see the treasury first hand – after all, if the accounting was accurate, what objection could there be?

Joazar and Simon had anticipated part of Herod’s response and they had prepared for it; when it came time to show Herod’s Idumaen underling the Temple Treasury, he was shown vast riches in only one of several treasury “vaults”. But when Herod heard about the maze of passages and tunnels beneath the Temple, he wanted to know more – even to the point of seeking a tour. Luckily for Joazar and Simon, Herod was sickly and when told of the “cold”, dark and wet passages, he changed his mind. The many eyes of a Herodian entourage passing through the Temple’s catacombs would have created plenty of problems for the High Priest, his keeper, and the many Jewish aristocrats who kept large portions of their riches within its confines.

Unfortunately, their troubles didn’t end with Herod’s declining a Temple tour: in fact, they had just begun. Herod was still sour about the disappearance of Hanna and his spies had told him that there were secret happenings regarding unknown riches being moved within his lands. Herod sensed, somehow, that the two events were related and his general paranoia[239] was intensified. It was the distractions in Rome and Herod’s new palace in Jerusalem and fortress at “Herodia” (both completed in 23 BCE) that kept him from pursuing the issue more. Those distractions simply meant that Herod delegated his inquiries to a subordinate and this time he picked Nicholas of Damascus, the cultured scholar, diplomat, court philosopher and historian who had served Antony and Cleopatra. When Joazar learned of this selection, he knew he had trouble.

Nicholas was both smart and loyal. He had developed a large network of friends, associates, and people who owed him money or favors. Whereas Herod’s spies were powerful, Nicholas’ were smart and well positioned. Herod’s spies relied mostly upon threats and force; Nicholas selected those with intelligence, discretion, and connections. Only a day after he sent out inquiries, Nicholas learned that Hanna was in Leontopolis with a new daughter and was living with the High Priest there. He learned that the Leontopolis Temple had sent caravans with riches and relics to Jerusalem only weeks before and that something strange had happened to them after their arrival. The level of secrecy around this transfer seemed to far exceed what one might normally expect. Nicholas decided that he would devote more of his personal attention to the matter and his first step was to invite Joazar and Simon to meet with him at Joazar’s estate just north of Jerusalem.

They began a strange but familiar “dance” of rhetoric and testing, each trying to decide how much was known and how much would be revealed. Simon let Joazar speak for him even when Nicholas tried to directly engage him in the process. Getting nowhere, Nicholas tried a different approach: “I want to examine the relics which were recently transferred to the Temple.” “Relics,” asked Joazar unconvincingly. Nicholas grinned ever so slightly – he saw that he had touched a nerve. “There were no relics recently transferred from Leontopolis.” That caused Nicholas to pause – Joazar seemed to be telling the truth, but it was certain the earlier question had caused a reaction. Were they playing word games with “recently” or had they come from somewhere else? “So there have been no shipments from On during the last six months?” “Of course there have been, but none contained any Holy relics that I’m aware of.” Joazar looked to Simon and he affirmed this.

Now Nicholas thought back through his information and tried again: “Are you aware of any relics being shipped out of On within the last six months?” There was a short pause which was far too long for Joazar’s denial to be truthful and Nicholas saw the change in Simon’s expression. Nicholas concluded that there was a shipment, these men knew something about it, and that it did not end up in the Jerusalem Temple. Their effort to hide this was most revealing and Nicholas wasn’t about to let this pass easily. “Gentlemen, we have but two choices here: either we can cooperate or we will find ourselves asking Herod to pick sides. Since he already believes that you know the whereabouts of Hanna and since he sent me on this inquiry, I propose that it would be a great mistake to send me back to your lord and patron with a report suggesting any sort of conspiracy or perfidy.”

The balance between promise and pragmatism often becomes skewed and it had just become such for Joazar. When he was told of the Great Secret (not the secret itself) he had taken a holy oath. Now, he might lose everything, including his life, if he didn’t break that promise. It didn’t take him long to decide. “There is a long and complex history regarding the most sacred relics of our religion. For centuries, we have been unable to expose them to loss or desecration because our people have not been secure and our Temple has been controlled by kittim (a derogatory slang for foreigners). Before our people were forced into exile by Nebuchadnezzar, one of our prophets had the great relics hidden and started the Great Secret which held the means of finding them. We know of this secret, but not the secret itself. We are under holy oath to not even reveal that there is such a secret.”

Nicholas saw this as true and wondered: “Are these relics valuable in themselves or only as holy objects?” “They are priceless to our people, but would not pay a day of taxes if melted down or sold to others.” “So, would your people go to war over these relics?” “Every devout man, woman, and child would die to save them.” Nicholas saw that this included the two men before him and he changed course. “Is there some tie between the relics and Hanna”. Joazar sighed in despair; he knew he was opposed by a master. He nodded the affirmative and gathered his breath before explaining about Hanna’s relationship with Yohan, the legitimate High Priest, who knew the Great Secret. He admitted that he believed that her father had shared the Great Secret with Hanna and her sisters. And he admitted that he was seeking both the relics and the girl for his own purposes.

“Then you don’t know Hanna’s whereabouts?” “I believe that she is staying with her uncle in Leontopolis where she is beyond my reach… And, she has a new daughter.” Nicholas saw that Joazar was cooperating and so he turned more personal: “Why do you seek the girl?” Joazar understood that Nicholas had the answer and was merely looking for confirmation. “She brings together two main ancestries – the Davidic line and the Zaddokite line. If Yohan remains childless, the daughters of Yehoshua will pass along the rightful title of High Priest.” Nicholas looked at Simon who didn’t react to Joazar’s statement indicating that he wasn’t the “rightful High Priest”. All of this was new to Nicholas and he was intrigued. Over an hour later, Joazar had summarized both the Oniad story and the history of the Holy Relics and Nicholas was busily assimilating both the details and the implications. In his blunt way, he summarized: “So, without the Holy Relics the Temple here is illegitimate and without the proper ancestry, you (looking to Simon) are not the legitimate High Priest. Fascinating!”

While reflecting upon this information, Nicholas saw the discomfort which Joazar and Simon could not hide. “You have been forthright with me and I have found it unwise to penalize such – you have my word that what you have told me will remain confidential.” This did little to ease the worries of two men who had just violated a holy oath and who had unwillingly placed their fates in the hands of this “God-less” kittim. Now, Joazar only hoped that he would find Hanna before Herod (or Herod’s lackeys) and that the Great Secret was as well protected as he believed it was. Because the most important thing was to ensure that Hanna not fall into Herod’s hands, Joazar sent word to Yohan that he had information indicating that Herod was aware of Hanna’s location and that she was in great peril.

As much as Yohan wanted to believe that Hanna was safe with him (surrounded by a small but well proven army) he felt the need to discuss the matter with both his wife and his ward. Zayit was adamant that Hanna and Mary were not safe with them: “Herod will stop at nothing to capture her, and failing that, kill her. Even after his Roman reprimand for the war against Aretas, he might send forces here – jeopardizing all of us.” Yohan knew that Zayit was more than fond of Hanna and that she would fight to defend her, so her concerns were beyond personal. Hanna agreed to do whatever Yohan thought was best and Yohan conceded that it would be best for Hanna to move. But where to and how?

As with all secrets, the fewer the people who know it or about it, the better. Thus, when Zayit suggested an odd plan, Yohan decided to test it without discussing the matter with the Council. A week later, Hanna left Leontopolis before daylight hidden in a merchant’s wagon headed for Alexandria. Once they reached the Nile, she was covertly transferred to a barge headed for Pelusium (at the NE edge of the delta on the old trade route). From there she travelled with a caravan to Jerusalem as “Anne dau Ari” and was met by Joachim and his wife Helena. Zayit’s plan had Hanna living right under Herod’s nose. However, there was another VIP involved: Mary.

Zayit left Leontopolis a day after Hanna on a direct route to Jerusalem. With her was Mary, a child who viewed Zayit as a second mother. She stayed with a trusted cousin until Helena and Anne arrived to reunite mother and daughter. It was a sad and joyous occasion to be back together while knowing they might never be together again, but Zayit was confident in her plan and in the future of Anna and Mary.

Joachim and Helena lived relatively private lives and only rarely introduced Anne to friends and relatives as his new levirate wife from Sepphoris. (Since levirate marriages always involved a relative’s death, no one asked questions). Back in Leontopolis, the questions about Hanna were discretely answered with “she went to live with a relative in Alexandria”. Herod’s spies heard this and were able to confirm Hanna’s secret departure and arrival at the Nile, but from there, the trail went cold. The only oddity of the informant’s tale was that there was nothing said about an infant, but it was easily assumed that the infant had been hidden. Herod sent word to his spies and aides in Alexandria (a likely destination for Hanna) to look for Hanna and Mary, but they obviously found nothing.

With the year 23 BCE coming to an end and his efforts to find Hanna unsuccessful, Herod ordered the arrest of dozens of the Oniads who had moved to Jerusalem when Yehoshua became High Priest. (He did not, however, order the arrest of any priests). Then he made it clear that he would not release his hostages until Hanna was turned over to him. The events which followed took several unexpected turns.

After Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (Yamim Noraim, the “Days of Awe” marking the start of a new year), four different delegations appeared before Herod to appeal for release of the captive Oniads. First was a delegation of priests who pleaded for mercy and respect for these Kohanim, several of whom were Temple officials (Herod had distinguished priests and priestly officials, arresting only the later). Herod was unmoved. Then there was a delegation of officials who made both a political argument and a popularist argument. Herod was only moved by the fact that he had inadvertently arrested two Oniads who were also Roman citizens and they were released. Finally, Herod was approached by a delegation of Saduccean aristocrats who either had direct ties to the Oniads, owed them, or relied upon them. Herod scoffed at their argument but was persuaded by a sizable bribe to release four of the Oniads. This left a dozen captive Oniads including two grandsons of Chelkias ben Onias (IV) and the grandson of Berenice dau Onias.

These children of Onias IV were not in the main line of succession, but all had created a powerful legacy. Chelkias had been one of the great Jewish generals who supported Ptolemy, Cleopatra, and even Mark Antony. Despite the failure of Antony and Cleopatra, Chelkias had earned great respect by the Romans and he had friends throughout the Middle East. His off-spring included independent minded over-achievers who formed the backbone of the “Zealot” movement[240], including his son Garon and grandson Hezekiah ben Garon. Berenice dau Onias had married Mennius ben Mattathias, a Davidic Exilarch and tetrarch of Chalcis (aka Abilene and Iturea). They had formed a powerful alliance with the Romans and “had the ear” of Varro, the Legatus (Prefect) of Syria (appointed in 24 BCE).

The fourth “delegation” to Herod was the smallest and involved only two members: Lucius Terentius and his aide. Lucius had been sent by Varro to make inquiries on behalf of certain “concerned citizens” regarding allegations of illegal imprisonments. Varro wasn’t about to create a fuss over the matter, but wanted Herod to know that powerful people had made serious accusations and that Herod should be wary of such. It was Lucius’ task to gather facts and try to ascertain Herod’s reason for the arrests. The more Lucius heard, the more concerned he became. He decided to extend his visit and further impress upon Herod that what he was doing was clearly illegal and would most certainly cause more problems than Herod seemed to realize.

On the second day of the visit, Lucius sent his aide, named Traianus, to offer greetings from Varro to Joazar (who was well known by the Roman). Lucius suggested that Joazar might have additional insight into the arrests and wanted Traianus to ask about them if the opportunity arose. What Traianus reported back added to the concerns of Lucius and he decided to speak more boldly to the King. Herod wasn’t about to let some minor official from Syria tell him what to do, but he also didn’t want to irritate the Legatus. He made appeasing sounds and acknowledgements while intending to do nothing. However, after Lucius left, Herod conferred with Nicholas who was clear in his advice: “It is almost certain that the taking of these hostages will not result in the return of Hanna and that the price you must pay to keep them will be great.” Herod gave his trusted friend and “secretary” his look of scorn, but knew that Nicholas was right. “Wait until the week before Chanukah and then we’ll release them”. The Oniads had won this “battle”, but their war with Herod was just beginning.

The Oniads in Jerusalem realized that remaining there was simply too risky and most chose to leave. Besides, they were increasingly disgusted with Herod and his policies which undermined their religious and cultural distinctiveness. Since another group that had left Egypt had settled in Galilee and Sepphoris, it became the favored destination for the Oniads and Joachim decided to move his family there. Among those in their caravan north was Hezekiah ben Garon (one of the recently released hostages). He was actively recruiting followers for an opposition army and found plenty of support but few “soldiers” among the group. The ties formed during that week would last for several generations.

Soon afterward a new issue created an uproar. Merchant caravans and official parties were attacked by “brigands” who stole or destroyed merchandise and sometimes killed targeted people. The intended victims were clearly Herodians and Herodian supporters. Herod’s response was to order any thieves caught - even Jews - to be sold into permanent foreign slavery. This violated Jewish law and served as the tipping point for public outcries, demonstrations, and protests. Some of Herod’s officials and advisors even objected to this new policy and so Herod prohibited public gatherings[241] and demanded an oath of loyalty from all those around him. Those who refused the oath or didn’t cooperate with Herod's policies were secretly executed[242]. This led to a spiral of greater oppression and greater resistance.

The one thing the brigands didn’t interfere with was the construction of the new Temple and once actual building began in the year 20 BCE, it (the actual Temple, not the surrounding structures) was completed in less than two years. It was a remarkable accomplishment and the result was stunning – the new Temple was praised as one of the most beautiful and striking in the world with abundant polished white stone and plenty of gold. Equally impressive were the new accoutrements: impressive lampstands, a new laver large enough to cleanse twelve priests at once, three massive curtains, several golden tables, and the immense altar of whitewashed (unhewn) stones - 48 feet square and 15 feet high.

[pic]

The Temple Herod Built

Here we shall skip ahead without detailing more of the striking story of Herod’s reign. His construction projects flourished while his wives and descendants suffered. The priesthood remained under the control of Simon ben Boethus. And then there was Mary…

(End of Book One, Part One)

An Amazing Life:

The Story of Jesus in Three Parts

Book One - Part Two

By Rich Van Winkle

Overview & Contents

Outline

VI. Part Two: Judaism (II) – Historical (continued)

g. History of the Jewish High Priesthood

h. History of the Jewish Temples

i. History of Jewish Sects

j. Hillel, Shammai, and the 18 Measures

k. Judean Politics and Power in Year 1 (and thereabouts)

l. The Sanhedrin

VII. Part Three: Judaism (III) - Jewish Culture

a. Social, Religious, and Political Structures and Titles

i. The Sanhedrin

ii. Zugots (esp. Hillel and Shammai)

iii. The Jewish High Priesthood

b. Jewish Sects and Groups

i. Pharisees

ii. Hasidim

iii. Sadducees

iv. Essenes

v. Zealots

vi. Nazoreans

1. The Nozerim

c. Jewish Laws, Customs, and Beliefs

i. Introduction

ii. The Shema

iii. The Jerusalem Temple

iv. Festivals

v. The Sacred Treasures

vi. Family Law

vii. Trials and Punishment

viii. Jewish Gnosticism & Mysticism

ix. The Mashiach/Messiah

VIII. Part IV: Being Jewish – What it Meant to Jesus

IX. Appendix I: Relevant Chronology (Chart of Events – David to Paul)

Introduction to Part Two:

In “Part Two” we will again look at Jewish history, this time from a topical perspective. While there may be some review of the history within Part One, the goal here is to analyze a few key subjects within the larger historical context previously presented.

First, we will deal with the Jewish High Priesthood because of its great significance to Judaism generally and to Jesus specifically. As we looked at Jewish history in Part One, it was clear that much of Jewish history arises directly from the priesthood because the High Priest was often the ruler of the Jews. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we found that the issue of restoring the legitimate High Priest was paramount to those who wrote the works at Qumran. Regardless of how we relate Jesus to the writers of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we now know that the issue remained at the forefront of Jewish though during his time.

Closely related to the history of the High Priesthood is the history of the Jewish Temples. Whereas the NT gospels would lead one to think that Judaism was centered on the Jerusalem Temple, we know that at least two other Jewish temples were highly significant in Jewish life during the time of Jesus. In Part One we looked at the historical circumstance which led to these other Temples; here we will examine the history of these temples.

Next, we will take a deeper look at the development of the major Jewish sects which were influential in the life of Jesus. This is also follows the earlier historical context but delves deeper into their functional and doctrinal differences.

Finally, in Part Two we will examine Judean Politics and Power during the time of Jesus with special focus upon the last Zugot pair (Hillel and Shammai) and the Sanhedrin.

Book One – The Context of An Amazing Life

Judaism (Part II)

Part Two: Judaism (II) (continued from above)

a. History of the Jewish Priesthood

b. History of the Jewish Temples

c. Jewish Sects and Groups

i. Pharisees

ii. Hasidim

iii. Sadducees

iv. Essenes

v. Zealots

vi. Nazoreans

1. The Nozerim

d. Judean Politics and Power in Year 1 (and thereabouts)

i. Hillel and Shammai

ii. The Sanhedrin

History of the Jewish High Priesthood[243]:

Overview:

The Jewish High Priesthood was the topic and issue among Jews during the time of Jesus. Certainly, the Jews were not happy with Roman occupation, but the focus of their anger was derived from Roman interference with their religion – and the focus of their religion was often the High Priest. Even before the Romans arrived, issues regarding the legitimacy of the High Priest had been a major dispute among Jews for several hundred years – a dispute that directly involved Jesus and his family.

Once we understand that Judaism had diverse origins only suggested within the OT text (as discussed in Part One), we can better understand that the Jewish priesthood also had more diverse and complex origins than commonly understood. Here, we will not only look at those origins, but at the significant functioning of the priesthood as it existed during the time of Jesus.

It is difficult for non-Jews to understand the significance of the Jewish High Priest during the era of Jesus. Through the centuries his role varied, but often combined that of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Pope, King, and Hand Servant to God. It was a position that too often led to his death and sometimes led to his murdering others. By offering even more than wealth and power, the title “High Priest” could never be taken lightly.

Tradition has told the story of Jesus with little regard to his brother James. Because James – the brother of Jesus – has been described as the “opposition High Priest”[244] – and was recorded as having entered the Holy of Holies[245] (a privilege reserved to the High Priest), we should recognize that the sons of Joseph bar Jacob were of Davidic and Aaronite lineage and had legitimate claim to the High Priesthood. Indeed, the entire conception of Jesus’ family must be reframed with greater consideration of their royal and priestly status.

In The Beginning:

The first indication of any kind of Jewish priesthood in the Old Testament comes unexpectedly and obscurely: “And Melchizedek, King of Salem, brought forth bread and wine; and he was the priest of the most high God. And he blessed him [Abraham], saying ‘Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand’; and he gave him tithes of all.” Genesis 14:18-20 (from the KJV, Emph. added). We are not told how Melchizedek became a priest or what happened to the priesthood that he led. Centuries later, during the time of Moses, a different priesthood is established that would have much more historical significance – the priesthood of Aaron.

In the Book of Exodus (28:1) the Lord directs Moses to appoint Aaron (Moses’ older brother) as first and highest priest and describes a model or prototype for the Jewish High Priesthood. Thus, on Mount Sinai, the Jews are directed to institute worship, sacrifice, and an order of priests – right down to detailed descriptions of their clothing. Initially, the perpetual office of the Aaronites was limited to caring for the lamp before the veil of the tabernacle which was to burn perpetually (Exodus 27:21), but soon thereafter a more elaborate calling was detailed (Exodus 28:29). Aaron and his male offspring were to be distinguished from ordinary Jews by their sacred functions, their authority, and their vestments. Concomitant to their appointment and duties, God granted the Aaronites a “heave offering” as compensation for their work.

Along with Moses, Aaron, the first High Priest, ranks high as spokesman and executor of the Will of God (as revealed through Moses). Aaron and his descendants were awarded special power and compensation related to the position of High Priest or Kohen Gadol. The formal priesthood (the “kohanim”) also received special duties and compensation necessary for service to Yahweh[246]. Both the High Priest and the subordinate priests often used their position and power to protect their status and income. Over time, the role of the priests would grow and so would the Jewish priesthood. However, not all Levites were kohanim and, as we shall see, the descendancy of the priesthood did not always follow a direct line.

The History and Succession of the High Priesthood:

Initially, the succession was to be through the High Priest’s oldest son and was to remain in his own family (Lev. 6:15). In the time of Eli (~1100 BCE) the office passed to the collateral branch of Ithamar (the youngest son of Aaron the High Priest) after the death of his two older brothers Nadab and Abihu. Ithamar served as High Priest along with his older brother Eleazar until his death (I Sam. 2:23). Eleazar’s term was marred by the corruption of Balaam, God’s plague for the sinners, and the heresy of Peor. However, Eleazar’s son Phinehas (aka Pinchas) was appointed by God as High Priest after he speared Zimiri bar Salu (the prince of the Tribe of Simeon) and Cozbi (the princess of the Midianites) as they defiled the tabernacle[247]. God then promised Phinehas peace and the perpetual priesthood. (Numbers 25:7-13). The High-Priesthood remained in the family of Phinehas until the time of Eli, into whose family it passed (Eli was descended from Eleazar's brother Ithamar)[248].

Jewish High Priests from Exodus to the time of David[249].

|Chronicles | Ezra | Josephus |

|Aaron |Aaron |Aaron |

|Eleazar |Eleazar |Eleazar |

|Phinehas |Phinehas |Phinehas |

|Abishua |Abishua |Abishua |

|Shesha[250]  | | |

|Bukki | | |

|Uzzi |Bukki |Bukki |

|Zerahiah |Uzzi |Uzzi |

|Meraioth |Eli |Eli |

|Azariah |Ahitub |Ahitub |

|Amariah |Ahijah |Ahijah |

|Ahitub |Ahimelech |Ahimelech |

|Zadok[251] |Abiathar |Abiathar |

A major break in the succession of the High-Priesthood occurred during the time of Saul when the king was told that Ahimelech bar Ahitub (the High Priest) had given aid to David. Saul had Doeg the Edomite kill the priest along with many of his fellow Levites. The only one to escape was Abiathar bar Ahimelech who went to David and was then appointed High Priest. (1 Sam. 22:9:23). However, Abiathar was then cast out by Solomon (I Kings 2:26–7) when it was thought that he lost favor with God and the high priesthood was given to Zadok, son of Ahitub (son of Amariah, son of Meraioth, son of Zerahiah, son of Uzzi ((1 Chr 6:6-8) of the line of Eleazar.

Zadok was High Priest during the remaining reign of King Solomon and the construction of the First Temple. Descendants of Zadok increased in rank and influence, so that his son Azariah was one of the princes of Solomon (I Kings iv. 2) and Ahimaaz, who also married a daughter of Solomon, was probably another of Zadok's children. Either Zadok himself or his grandson was the ruler of the Aaronites (I Chron. 27: 17). The High-Priesthood remained in the hands of the Zadokites from the reign of Solomon until the rise of the Maccabees. However, there were several significant glitches during that period.

Jewish High Priests from the time of David to the Exile.

|Chronicles | Ezra | Josephus |

|Ahimaaz |Zadok |Zadok |

|Azariah |Ahimaaz |Ahimaaz |

|Johanan |Azariah |Azariah |

|- |Joram |Joash |

|- |Isus |Jehoiarib |

|- |- |Jehoshaphat |

|- |Axioramos |Jehoiada |

|- |Phideas |Pediah |

|Azariah |Sudeas |Zedekiah |

|Amaria |Juelus |Joel |

|Ahitub |Jotham |Jotham |

|Meraioth |Urias |Urijah |

|Zadok |Nerias |Neria |

|Shallum |Odeas |Hoshaiah |

|Hilkiah |Shallum |Shallum |

|Azariah IV |Elcias |Hilkiah |

|Seriah |Azaros |Azariah IV |

| |Sareas |Seriah[252] |

The most obvious problem occurred during the Babylonian exile (598-538 BCE). There may, in fact, have been times when there was no functioning priesthood among the Jews. However, the descendants of Zadok were careful to maintain their lineage (note 1 Chron. 6: 1-53) and power so that Joshua, son of Jehozadak, was appointed High Priest upon the return from exile and the restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem (with only 38 Levites known to Ezra). The succession of Zadokite High Priests continued through the restoration period until the time of Alexander the Great (listed in Neh. 12: 10).

Jaddus bar Joannes (aka Jaddua, Johanan or Jonathan – the last High Priest mentioned in the Old Testament at Neh. 12:22) fathered two lines of High Priests (one beginning with Onias I – aka Honi, Honiyya or Honiyahu and the other through Mannasseh, the first Samaritan High Priest – as below). Apparently, Jaddus became ill or disqualified for the position such that his oldest son Onias I was made High Priest while he was still alive. Thus began an era of High Priesthood intrigue that would carry on until the time of Jesus.

Onias I was the High Priest in Jerusalem from 323 to 300 BCE. There are several dubious stories in history that relate to Onias I, including that he greeted Alexander the Great in Jerusalem (who probably never passed through it) and who is said to have received a friendly letter from Arius, ruler of the Spartans. What is known is that during Onias' High Priesthood Palestine and Judea were in the middle of continual conflicts between the former generals of Alexander[253] (Ptolemy and Seleucid) who led the forces in Egypt and Syria respectively. Because of the unsettled conditions during this period, many Jews left Judea for the newly founded city of Alexandria (Egypt).

Onias was succeeded by his son Simon I (High Priest from 300-270 BCE) who was extolled in the Jewish literature[254] as “Simon the Just”. He was a leading Hassidim (later the Pharisees) who initiated what seemed to be a golden era of peace[255]. Simon’s chief maxim was "The world exists through three things: the Law, worship, and beneficence". He was an opponent of the Nazarites and was deeply interested both in the spiritual and in the material development of the nation, refurbishing both the city of Jerusalem and the Temple.

Simeon the Just is called one of the last members of the Great Synagogue[256] (or Anshei Knesset HaGedolah “The Men of the Great Assembly”). It instituted the prayers and blessings for Israel as well as the benedictions for Kiddush and Habdalah”. They also established the Feast of Purim. As an example of the change that resulted, after Simeon’s death, Jews ceased to utter the Tetragrammaton (“YHWH”) aloud (Yoma 30b; Tosef. Soṭah, xiii).

When Simon died (270 BCE) his son, Onias II, was still a minor so his uncle Eleazar bar Jaddus served as High priest for a short period, but he died within a couple of years. After him Manasseh bar Jaddus officiated as High Priest (even though the very old Jaddus was still alive).

It would appear that Manasseh gained and held his position by courting the favor of the Ptolemies (who had controlled Judea since the death of Alexander the Great). But when he married Nicaso, a daughter of Sanballat (III) the Samaritan Governor, Jaddus gave Manasseh the alternative of divorcing his wife or leaving the priesthood. Manasseh went to Sanballat who promised him that if he would retain his daughter as wife he would build a temple upon Mount Gerizim where Manasseh would officiate as high priest. Manasseh, accordingly, remained with his father-in-law and became High Priest in the Samaritan Temple[257]. Thus, Onias II finally became acting High Priest around 250 BCE.

Onias II died in 240 BCE and was succeeded by his son Simon II[258]. Joseph bar Tobias (apparently a descendant of Tobiah the Ammonite -Neh. 2: 19) was the nephew of Onias II (his mother was the sister of Onias I) who served as Temple treasurer. His father (Tobias) was the chief tax collector.

Simon II (named “the Just” by some historians in contrast to the prior Simon) held the High Priesthood from 220-190 BCE).

Meanwhile, the Samaritans were flourishing and took land claimed by the Judeans (Josephus). Simon II chose a course of conciliation and assigned many Tobians (Samaritans and Benjamites) to important posts. When he was replaced by his son, Onias III, in 190 BCE, the intrigue of the High Priesthood would reach its apex and the line of succession would be broken again.

Onias III (known as “the Pious One”) was surrounded by international conflicts and confronted by increasing intra-family tensions, but he repeatedly demonstrated his ability to preserve the prosperity of the country along with the religious and secular authority of his family.

Then, a Tobian named Simeon (bar Bilgah, a Benjamite) - demanded the post of commissioner (“Agoranomos”)[259] from Onias. (II Macc. 3:4). Onias refused and Simeon turned to Apollonius, governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, to inform him about "untold sums of money[260]" held in the Temple treasury. Appolonius told Seleucus and the King dispatched Heliodorus, his chancellor, to investigate and take the money if it was found. When Heliodorus arrived in Jerusalem and made his inquiries, Onias remonstrated that the funds held in the Temple were primarily "deposits of widows and orphans" but also included a substantial sum belonging to Hyrcanus, son of Joseph bar Tobias[261]. Nevertheless, Heliodorus persisted in his mission and sought to see and abscond with the funds (supposedly consisting of 30,000 pounds of silver and 15,000 pounds of gold) (II Mac. 3).

According to legend (and the Book of the Maccabees), when Heliodorus entered the Temple God intervened in the form of a horse mounted apparition that scared the wits out of Heliodorus. Onias interceded to save Heliodorus, but the Syrian was no longer willing to enter the Temple.

Simeon then told Seleucus that Onias had actually tricked Heliodorus to avoid giving up the treasure. This led to a civil war in which the Oniades prevailed. With victory over the Tobians came defeat within Onias’ family. With the Tobians gone, other members of Onias’ family assumed vacated positions. Onias’s son Jason obtained access to Temple funds and then went to Seleucus offering an extraordinary sum[262] for the title of High Priest. That might not have been enough, but Jason was as willing to sell out his religion as his family and so he also promised to convert Jerusalem into a Hellenized city and to do away with Jewish services. Seleucus took the deal and Onias was forced into exile (at Daphne).

Jason made good his promises, building a gymnasium near the Temple and instituting the full range of Greek culture[263] and corruption. He set aside the existing Syrian and Roman concessions[264] to the Jews and modified the Temple and its services. Seleucus was so pleased that he granted the citizens of Jerusalem the privileges and title of citizens of Antioch.

Jason's time as High Priest ended unexpectedly in 172 BCE when he sent Menelaus, the brother of Simon the Benjaminite, to deliver tribute to Antiochus. Menelaus took this opportunity to "outbid" Jason for the priesthood[265] and Antiochus appointed Menelaus (who was not an Aaronite), as the “High Priest” (given the title but not the religious authority). At this point, we see the bifurcation of the high-priest lineage and confusion among historians regarding the name Onias.

After receiving the king's orders Menelaus returned to Jerusalem possessing no qualification for the high priesthood, but having the decree of King Seleucus and the enforcement of his army. Thus, Jason supplanted his own brother by bribery and was then supplanted by another through bribery. He was driven out of Jerusalem as a fugitive and ended up in the land of Ammon.

Menelaus held the title to the office, but he was unable to regularly pay the money promised to the king.  Seleucus ordered his general of the Jerusalem citadel, Sostratus, to demand payments past due or to bring Menelaus to Antioch. Unable to pay, Menelaus was forced to leave his brother Lysimachus to act as the High Priest while he was away. With his life on the line, Menelaus returned to Jerusalem desperate for funds and so he stole the golden vessels belonging to the Temple.

In the year 170 BCE, Onias decided that he must go to Seleucus and intercede on behalf of his people. But, before a decision was given Seleucus was murdered and his son Antiochus was installed as King Antiochus IV Epiphanes[266].

Menelaus took advantage of the timing and conspired with Heliodorus to have his accomplice Andronicus entice Onias from his sanctuary at Daphne and treacherously slay him. This action caused great indignation among both the Jews and the Greeks (2 Macc 4:34). Nevertheless, Menelaus managed to remain in office[267] and further abrogate the Jewish observances.

Upon the killing of Onias III, a group of supporters took his young son, Onias IV, and fled to Egypt[268] to seek sanctuary from the Court of Alexandria: King Ptolemy VI Philometor and Queen Cleopatra I[269]. The royals gladly gave refuge to such a prominent personage who was the enemy of an enemy[270].

In 167 BCE, the deposed High Priest Jason gathered a small army and made a surprise attack on the city of Jerusalem forcing Menelaus to flee. Antiochus took his army to Jerusalem and restored Menelaus as “High Priest”. As punishment for the complicity on the Jews, Antiochus executed thousands of men, women and children, built a citadel near the Temple called the “Acra” (rebuilt by the Hasmoneans as “Baria/Baris” and partly used later by the Romans as “Antonia”[271]), and decreed most Jewish religious practices unlawful. (See 2 Maccabees 6:1-11). The Temple was desecrated and services were stopped. Judaism in Judea was outlawed and there was no Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem.

This began centuries of “religious civil war” that divided Judea and Judaism into hostile camps— the Orthodox versus the Hellenists. The war was directly related to who should be High Priest and was still being waged during the time of Jesus. There are many indications that the family of Joseph was deeply involved and, therefore, aspects of history related to this feud deserve more detailed explanation.

Once given sanctuary in Egypt, Onias IV requested permission to build a Temple in Egypt modeled after the Temple at Jerusalem. There he would reinstate the legitimate Jewish priesthood based upon the Levitical/Aaronite priesthood and orthodox traditions. He sold the idea to Ptolemy by suggesting that building an alternative Temple and place of offering would draw many Jews away from the Syrians and the Jewish oppression in Jerusalem. Thus, Leontopolites[272] became a Jewish center.

Onias’ timing could hardly have been better since soon after work began on the new Temple and its altar, the Jerusalem Temple was taken over by the Hellenists and Jewish services were cut off. With a working temple in Egypt, Alexandrian Jews – the largest Jewish population in the world at that time – had a more convenient place for services. Judean Jews had no other choice; not only was their Temple desecrated, their fundamental religious practices were punishable by death. There was no dispute that Onias was a legitimate High Priest (if not the only legitimate one) and the Egyptian Temple became the center of Judaism until 165 BCE when the Temple was liberated by the Maccabees and rededicated to worship[273].

Jewish High Priests from the Exile to the Maccabees

|Joshua ben Jehozadak[274] |

|Ezra ben Seraiah |

|Joiakim ben Joshua |

|Eliashib ben Joiakim |

|Joiada ben Eliashib[275] |

|Johanan ben Joiada |

|Jaddua ben Johanan |

|Onias ben Jaddua |

|Simon ben Onias |

|Eleazar ben Onias |

|Onias (II) ben Simon |

|Simon (II) ben Onias (II) |

|Onias (III) ben Simon (II) |

|Jason ben Simon (II) |

|Menelaus |

|Onias (IV) ben Onias (III)[276] |

|Alcimus |

We don’t know who presided over the Jerusalem Temple during this time and it is interesting that the historical record is lacking in such a critical detail. It is a good guess that the information was intentionally removed from the records because of controversy. Ultimately, Judah Maccabee appointed a Hellenist Aaronite from outside of the high-priestly line named Alcimus[277] as High Priest. Since Alcimus didn’t act as High priest for at least a year, we know that somebody filled in during his absence - and it may well have been an Oniad. In 162 BCE, the Syrian general Bacchides met and killed Judah at the Battle of Elasa (161 BCE) and reestablished Alcimus as the High Priesthood in Jerusalem[278]. The Hellenists were again in charge of Jerusalem.

Many Jews welcomed the idea of peace and the hope that a priestly High Priest would bring a return to proper Temple worship. Bacchides left a strong garrison in Jerusalem and returned to Antioch along with most of his army. Jonathan (the youngest son of Mattathias and brother of Judah) took over the Maccabean leadership. He barely eluded capture by the Syrians and started reorganizing the Judean resistance. Alcimus died miserably of “palsy” in 159 BCE - the Jews believed that the painful death was God’s punishment in response to Alcimus’ desecrations of the Temple.

Josephus (Ant. 20:10) relates that the office of High Priest was vacant for several years after the death of Alcimus, but this is highly unlikely since the High Priest was a necessary part of the rites on the Day of Atonement. In other places (Ant. 12:10-11) Josephus suggests that Judas Maccabeus held the office for three years after the death of Alcimus, but Judah actually died at least a year before Alcimus. Other references indicate that the Syrian Court at Antioch didn’t nominate (e.g. allow) a successor High Priest and there ensued an inter-sacerdotium of seven years in the list of the High Priests.

One theory is that the functions of the High Priest were performed by a Sagan or vice high-priest [279], but that makes little sense (why wouldn’t they be deemed the High Priest if they perform their key functions?). Another theory (Dupont-Sommer) holds that “the Wicked Priest” (Jonathan) attacked and killed the High Priest known as the “Teacher of Righteousness” on the Day of Atonement (when Jews were forbidden by the Law of Moses to defend themselves) and that the Teacher of Righteousness was an Oniade High Priest whose name was wiped out by the Maccabeans.

Because Alcimus’ death occurred at the same time the Syrian throne was being challenged, Jonathan took up residence in Jerusalem and began to fortify it. Then, Alexander Balas (who had married Cleopatra Thea and had Ptolemaic support for his bid to be recognized by the Romans as the Syrian King) offered Jonathan appointment as High Priest in return for his support, Jonathan accepted and during the Feast of Tabernacles in 152 BCE Jonathan put on the High Priest's garments and officiated for the first time. Soon thereafter, Jonathan was also made the civil and military authority over Judea (1 Maccabees 9:73-10:66). Thus, the Hasmonean dynasty began in Judea.

Despite Jonathan’s political gains, his policies created religious discord among conservative/orthodox Jews, many of whom viewed his claim to the high-priesthood as illegitimate. The orthodox Jews had not forgotten that Onias IV was the legitimate High Priest and Egyptian Jews thought that it was the right time to restore the legitimate High Priest to the Jerusalem Temple.

In 143 BCE, Diodotus Tryphon invited Jonathan to Scythopolis (aka Akka) for a “friendly” meeting and then killed or captured the entire Jewish army and held Jonathan captive until his execution at Baskama. Simon (Jonathan’s younger brother) assumed the High Priesthood in 142 BC, receiving the double office of High Priest and Prince of Israel. He gathered a “large assembly "of the priests and elders of Judea who adopted a resolution declaring that “Simon should be their leader (ethnarch), commander of the army, and High Priest forever, until there should arise a faithful prophet" (1 Macc. 14:41). A copy of the decree was engraved upon tablets which were set up in the Temple court. Ironically, the election was performed in Hellenistic fashion without meaningful involvement of the Oniads.

Simon had an army large enough to enforce the decree and enjoyed popular support among the Jewish people having led them to semi-independence. He reigned from 142 to 135 BCE. The Roman Senate accorded the newly formed Hasmonean dynasty recognition and authority in 139 BCE, when the delegation of Simon was in Rome. Simon led the Jews in relative peace and prosperity, until he was assassinated at the instigation of his son-in-law Ptolemy bar Abubus (aka Abobus or Abobi), who had been named governor of the region by Antiochus VII Sidetes . (He invited Simon and his two sons Mattathias and Judah to a banquet, where he had them murdered).

Simeon was succeeded by his son John Hyrcanus in 134 BCE. John’s early years as High Priest (he declined the title of regent) were tumultuous. He was lucky to escape the assassination that killed his father and brothers, but he was unable to avenge their murder. He had Ptolemy trapped in the fortress at Dagon, but Ptolemy had his mother captive in the fort. Whenever Hyrcanus tried to attack, Ptolemy would parade out John’s mother and torture her on the walls of the fort.

In 130 BCE, John marched against the Parthians with Antiochus Sidetes. He conquered Shechem, one of the most important towns of Samaria, and destroyed the temple on Mount Gerizim – thereby creating an enduring hostility between the Jewish peoples of Judea and Samaria.

John withdrew religious authority from the Sanhedrin and there were accusations that he was unfit to be High Priest because his mother had once been held captive. Eleazar ben Po'era demanded that he forfeit the diadem of the high priest because he did not have the required lineage from David or proper descendancy from Aaron. But John’s reign lasted for thirty years (until 104 BCE), when, according to his will, the leadership of the country was awarded to his wife. Since she could not serve as High Priest, John’s oldest son, Aristobulus, received that title thus separating the royal and priestly roles again. Aristobulus was not satisfied with this, so he put his mother in prison and starved her to death and became both High Priest and King. That lasted for just a year before he died (hopefully a miserable death).

Aristobulus was succeeded by his brother, Alexander Jannæus (the third son of John Hyrcanus, by his second wife), who ascended to both the throne and High-Priesthood in the year 102 BCE. (Salome, the childless wife of Artobulus had freed him from prison upon her husband’s death when he promised to marry her). Jannaeus had intentions (like his predecessors) of expanding Jewish influence and territory. However, he proved to be incompetent as a general [280] and had to be rescued from defeat through the assistance of Egyptian Jews.

Cleopatra III feared that her banished son Ptolemy Lathurus (from Cyprus) would become too powerful a threat to her reign if he was able to capture Judea, so she allowed two Jewish generals (Helkias and Ananias – both Oniades) to take an army to support Janneaus. They not only forced Lathurus back to Cyprus and saved Jannaeus, they convinced Cleopatra not to go ahead and take control of Judea.

The Hasmonean High Priests

|Jonathan Apphus |

|Simeon Tassi |

|John Hyrcanus (I) |

|Aristobulus (I) |

|Alexander Jannaeus |

|John Hyrcanus (II) |

|Aristobulus II |

|John Hyrcanus II (restored) |

|Antigonus ben Aristobulos (II) |

Jannaeus gave greater prominence to military and political interests and less to religious considerations. The Pharisees, who represented popular sentiment, largely ignored the transgressions[281] of the Hasmonean princes when their exploits served to directly secure Judea and Palestine (and allow free worship). Jannaeus demonstrated his contempt for the Pharisaic prescribed offerings (the water libation) by allowing the holy water to run over his feet. The people present were so incensed at their High Priest that they threw coins[282] (which they carried in accordance with one of the customs of this festival) at him and assailed him with loud cries of "son of the captive!" (as explained above). In response, Jannaeus had some 6,000 Pharisees[283] killed.

This incident led to civil war. The opponents of Jannaeus (and his Sadducee supporters) decided that it was time to restore the High Priesthood to legitimate holders (as is reflected in the Dead Sea Scroll labeled 4Q390[284]). For six years the civil war continued between the people and the royal troops leading to over 50,000 deaths. Jannaeus sought peace with the Pharisees but was offered only one option: his death. They simply could not forgive his brutal cruelty and sacrilege of massacring the defenseless multitude in the sacred precincts of the Temple. Unfortunately for them, they had not yet seen the full scale of Jannaeus’ evil.

Upon the advice of the Sadducee Diogenes, Jannaeus captured some 800 Pharisees and had them nailed to crosses. As if such a monstrous deed wasn’t enough, Jannaeus took it even farther by organizing a feast (surrounding himself with his courtiers, concubines, and courtesans) while he had the families (women and children) of the Pharisees being crucified dismembered and executed in front of them[285]. The bloody spectacle so terrorized his Pharisee opponents that they fled by the thousands (8,000+) to Syria[286] and Egypt[287].

Hated by his own people, Jannaeus succumbed in 78 BCE. Salome Alexandra, his wife, was present at his deathbed[288] and he entrusted the reins of government to her.

Alexandra's brother, Simeon ben Shetah, was a leader of the Pharisees and she sought peace between the factions. She appointed John Hyrcanus II, son of Alexander Jannaeus, as High Priest (76-66 BCE) and Simeon ben Shetah to be head of the Sanhedrin (the Jewish Council of State). They resolved that every young Jewish man should be educated in the Hebrew Scriptures and organized a comprehensive system of schools and teachers to achieve that goal. The political influence of the Pharisees grew tremendously under Alexandra’s reign and the power of the Sanhedrin was expanded. The Mishnah and the Talmud (written subsequently) record numerous rulings ascribed to the Pharisees in a diversity of subjects including sacrifices and other ritual practices in the Temple, civil and criminal law, and governance. The influence of the Pharisees over the lives of the common people remained strong and their rulings were deemed authoritative for many generations.

Alexandra (who was in her late 70s) became ill and her son Aristobulus II (who sought the support of the Sadducees) rose against her in order to prevent the succession of the elder son Hyrcanus II (who had Pharisee support). Despite Alexandra’s wishes to the contrary, she was succeeded by Aristobulus II in 67 BCE. The rivalry between Hyrcanus (II) and Aristobulus (II) brought about another civil war.

At one point during the conflict, Hyrcanus took refuge in the citadel of Jerusalem (a remnant of the Acra), but when Aristobulus captured the Temple, Hyrcanus was compelled to surrender and renounce his office of High Priest (because Hyrcanus held Aristobulus's wife and her children hostage in the fortress he was allowed to keep the revenues of his office). With the brothers reconciled, they changed houses in Jerusalem such that Aristobulus went to the royal palace and ruled from 67–63 BCE.

In 63 BCE, the “allies”of Hyrcanus captured “Onias the pious” (aka Honi HaM'agel or Onias the Circle Drawer[289]) and ordered him to pray for the demise of Aristobulus. Honi instead prayed: "Lord of the universe, as the besieged and the besiegers both belong to Your people, I beseech You not to answer the evil prayers of either." After this, the followers of Hyrcanus stoned him to death. Because Onias was greatly revered, this action incensed the majority of the Jews, whether Pharisee or Sadducee.

Meanwhile, the Roman general Marcus Aemilius Scaurus went to Syria to take possession of the Seleucid Empire and to bring Judea under the rule of the Romans. He summoned the Hasmonean brothers, delegates of the people's party (represented by an unnamed third claimant of the Jewish throne) and others (including Antipater the Idumean). Offering lavish gifts, they each bid for Roman favor, but the Roman sided with the pro-Roman Antipater and followed his course – choosing Hyrcanus as a weak leader who could be better controlled. Aristobulus guessed the designs of Pompey and tried to secure himself in the fortress of Alexandrium[290]; but soon realized that resistance was futile and surrendered at the first summons of Pompey (offering to deliver Jerusalem in the process).

Some Jewish patriots and members of the “people’s party” (mostly supporters of Aristobulus and Sadducees) were not willing to give up to the Romans and forced a siege of the Temple. It took the Romans three months (and a Sabbath day attack) to break the siege. They killed all the priests who were officiating in the Temple (whether combatants or not) along with 12,000 other Jews. Pompey entered the empty Holy of Holies, but chose not to further desecrate it. Judaea became a “protectorate of Rome” (with a substantial tribute) under the supervision of the Roman governor of Syria Aulus Gabinius. The ambitiousness of Aristobulus and weaknesses of Hyrcanus had caused Judea to lose its independence again.

Thus, under Roman control, Judaea was allowed their High Priest (John Hyrcanus II) while Antipater the Idumaean[291] was given effective control of the country (as epitropos or “regent”). The Romans served to regulate trade and maximize tax revenue, but were unsuccessful in keeping the peace.

Aristobulus and his son Alexander (along with a number of other captives) were taken as prisoners by Pompey for his triumphant return to Rome. However, while in route to Rome, Alexander escaped and promptly organized a revolt against Hyrcanus. With some difficulty Gabinius restored order and in 57 BCE he split the Hasmonean Kingdom into Galilee, Samaria, and Judea with five districts of legal and religious councils[292] – effectively removing Hyrcanus’ political power. In 54 BCE, Gabinius handed over the province to his successor as Governor of Syria, Marcus Licinius Crassus.

Then, in 50 BCE, Julius Caesar chose to use Aristobulus and his family as his clients to try and take control of Judea from Hyrcanus and Antipater (who supported Pompey in the growing feud between Caesar and Pompey). But Antipater struck first by having Aristobulus poisoned in Rome and Alexander executed in Antioch. But when Pompey was killed by Ptolemy XIII (in 48 BCE), Antipater and Hyrcanus quickly changed allegiances and led the Jewish forces in support of Caesar at Alexandria. This brought them Caesar's favor and secured an enlargement of their authority in Palestine. Caesar ignored the claims of Aristobulus's younger son, Antigonus the Hasmonean and in 47 BCE confirmed the Judean ethnarchy for Hyrcanus (also continuing his High Priesthood). Ceasar also named Antipater the first Roman Procurator of Judea, restored Joppa to the Hasmonean domain, granted Judea freedom from all tribute and taxes to Rome, and guaranteed the independence of the Judean administration.

Hyrcanus willingly let Antipater continue running the government even though everyone knew that he was mostly interested in promoting his own family. Antipater appointed his sons to positions of influence: Phasael was made Governor of Jerusalem and Herod Governor of Galilee. But soon thereafter, Herod was accused of abuses and was put on trial. This led to increasing tension between Hyrcanus and Antipater, especially when Herod was forced into exile in 46 BCE.

Caesar was assassinated in 44 BCE and unrest and confusion spread throughout the Roman world, including Judaea. Antipater wisely sided with Cassius (one of Caesar's assassins), but in the midst of his rising success Antipater was poisonedwhile feasting with Hyrcanus in 43 BCE[293]. Phasael managed to kill the assassins and maintain the control over Judea for Antipater's family. However, the Roman civil war was headed their way.

In support of Cassius’ bid to become the new Roman Emperor, Quintus Labienus declared himself proconsul of Syria. He joined the Parthians in invading Roman territories in 40 BCE, fighting against Mark Anthony. Antigonus encouraged Labienus and the Parthians to invade Syria and Palestine and formed an army from the many Jews eager to support the scion of the Maccabean house to help drive out the hated Idumean puppet king.

Phasael and Hyrcanus went to negotiate with the Parthians, but were captured instead. Antigonus bit off Hyrcanus's ear to make him unsuitable for the High Priesthood and put Phasael to death. Herod fled to seek the support of Mark Antony in Rome. Antigonus (Mattathias to the Hebrews) bore the double title of king and High Priest for only three years (40-37 BCE).

In Rome, Mark Anthony strove to get Herod named king of Judea and in 40 BCE succeeded in persuading Octavian (later Caesar Augustus) and the Roman Senate to agree (giving him the title of “Basileus”, the highest possible Roman title at the time). In 39 BCE, a Roman counterattack killed Labienus and recovered Asia Minor. After the Parthians' defeat, Herod led another Roman army to retake Jerusalem, capturing the holy city from Antigonus after a five-month siege in 37 BCE. Antigonus was delivered to Mark Antony and was executedshortly thereafter[294]. That marked the end of the Hasmonean dynasty[295] but not its influence in Judea or on the High Priesthood.

Herod began his rule in 37 BCE with revenge, trepidation, discontent, confusion, and discord. Strong opposition arose to his appointment because he was not of proper kingly (Davidic) ancestry or Jewish priestly heritage[296] . But Herod was both ruthlessness and shrewd; he murdered all the remaining judges from his earlier trial in Jerusalem and executed all of the remaining male relatives of Hyrcanus - anyone who might reasonably dispute his throne.

Also early among his tasks was the selection and appointment of a new High Priest. Herod needed someone to replace the deformed Hyrcanus as high priest and he wanted to choose the least threatening possibility. Interestingly, he chose a member of the Zadokite/Onias family, Hananiel (Ananel , Ananelus), a priest from Egypt[297]. But Alexandra, Herod's mother-in-law, was insulted that her sixteen-year-old son Aristobulus[298] (the brother of Herod’s wife Mariamne) was not named. She asked Cleopatra (via Marc Antony) to force Herod to appoint Aristobulus as high priest and upon that request, Herod immediately (in 36 BCE) removed Ananel and made the 17 year old Aristobulus High Priest.

During the following feast of Tabernacles people were showing great affection for the handsome and likeable Aristobulus. Herod found that excessively threatening and decided to get rid of this potential rival. After the feast concluded Herod joined Alexandra in Jericho and invited Aristobulus to go swimming where some men hired by Herod drowned Aristobulus by “accident”. Herod made a great showing of lamentation and arranged a magnificent funeral , but Alexandra knew the truth and devoted her life to revenge.

She informed Cleopatra of the murder and demanded an inquiry. Herod had no choice but to go and face possible death at the hands of Anthony. So, before he left Jerusalem, Herod told his uncle Joseph to keep watch over Mariamne and to kill her if he should be executed. Herod appeared before Marc Antony and put forth an eloquent defense (along with a suitable bribe) that led to his acquittal. When Herod returned to Jerusalem, Joseph's wife Salome (Herod's sister) accused Joseph of having intercourse with Mariamne. Mariamne denied the allegation and Herod believed her, but she learned about the instructions that Herod had given Joseph. Herod found out that Joseph had tattled so he executed him without a trial and then had Alexandra bound in chains and put in prison as a troublemaker. Not long aftwerwards, he had Mariamne killed. It didn’t pay to be related to Herod.

With the death of Aristibulus, Herod reappointed Hananiel (aka Ananeel) as High Priest (36 BCE) and there was a period of relative stability while Herod tried to consolidate his position and plan his great building projects. After the death of Hananiel (30 BCE), Herod appointed another Egyptian Yeshua bar Phiabi (aka Joshua ben Fabus or “Jesus bar Phabet” according to Josephus) as High Priest from 30-23 BCE. (We know very little about this person). Then there was more intrigue.

Herod never fully got over the loss of Mariamne and it was reported that he frequently lamented over her. His early years as king were full of court intrigues and the consequent brutalities. For this reason and to quell complaints against his legitimacy, Herod hoped for an alliance with the sacerdotal aristocracy which should legitimatize him.

Conveniently and ironically, another Mariamne came into his life – one who was esteemed as the most beautiful woman of that time. People spoke of her with such admiration that Herod invited her to his palace and he became smitten with her. This new Mariamne was the daughter of the priest Simon bar Boethus from Alexandria. Seeking the daughter’s affection, the father’s consent for marriage, and the aforementioned alliance, Herod offered Simon the office of High Priest. Thus, Simon ben Boethus served as High Priest from 23-5 BCE. Given the fact that Herod re-built the Jerusalem Temple during this period (20-10 BCE for the actual Temple), the importance of this High Priest can hardly be estimated.

The Boethusians[299] would be prominent from this time forward. From the family of Boethus we would later gain the following high priests: Joezer, who filled the office twice; Eleazar; Simon Cantheras; his son Elioneus; and Joshua b. Gamla (by marriage to Martha who belonged to the family (Yeb. vi. 4)).

These Boethusians[300] were of ancient aristocratic blood and their new good fortune blended with the Herodian high aristocracy to elevate them to near sovereignty. When the Gospels speak of “the chief-priests, the scribes, and the elders”, they might well have given them the name Boethusians. In this we may see the difficulties in categorizing individuals during the time of Jesus – orthodox Oniades later became aristocratic Hellenist Sadducees.

Herod remained suspicious of his heirs throughout his life. In 13 BCE Herod named Antipater, his first-born son by Doris, first heir. Meanwhile, Herod suspected both his sons from his marriage to Mariamne I, Alexander and Aristobulus (IV), of intending to murder him[301]. He took them to Caesar Augustus be tried, but Augustus reconciled the three and Herod amended his will so that Alexander and Aristobulus rose in the royal succession (remaining below Antipater). Mariamne (II) bore Herod one son, also called Herod Philip (sometimes known as Herod Boethus).

In 8 BCE, Herod accused his Hasmonean sons (those by Mariamne I) of high treason. This time Augustus gave him the permission to proceed legally against his sons – and they were executed. That left Herodias (Herod’s grand-daughter by Aristobulus IV and Berenice) orphaned and a minor. According to Herod’s wishes, Herod II Boethus (Philip) married Herodias so that her connection to the Hasmonean bloodline would support his right to succeed Herod. This marriage was opposed by Antipater III (Herod’s oldest son) and so Herod specifically demoted Herod II Boethus to second in line to the succession.

The High Priest Simon ben Boethus died in 5 BCE and was replaced by his son-in-law Matthias ben Theophilus (father of Josephus the historian and first of two High Priests of the same name). This High Priest suffered great indignity on his first eve of the Day of Atonement (probably the most important day of the priest’s year) when he dreamt he was having sexual intercourse and was therefore ritually impure for the highest of holy services. Instead, his kinsman Joseph ben Ellem[302] acted as High Priest for that day. ("Ant." xvii. 6, § 4; Tosef., Yoma, i. 4; Yoma 12b; Yer. Yoma 38d).

Finally, in 4 BCE, zealot youths demolished the golden eagle (an idolatrous Roman symbol) over the main entrance of the Temple of Jerusalem. Herod arrested them, brought them to court, and sentenced them to death. When it was found that Pharisee teachers had inspired the action, Herod had them executed (burned alive) as well.

Antipater was charged with the intent to poison Herod. Herod was already seriously ill but wrote a new will naming Antipas (from his fourth marriage with Malthace) as his successor. Otherwise, Antipater's execution would have made Herod II Boethus first in the line of succession. (It seemed though that Philip’s mother had knowledge of the poison plot and failed to stop it, so Herod dropped Philip from his position just days before he died).

High Priests under Herod I

|Hananiel/Ananelus |

|Aristobulus III |

|Hananiel (restored) |

|Joshua ben Fabus |

|Simon ben Boethus |

|Matthias ben Theophilus |

With the death of Herod, radical Jewish elements rose in revolt: Judah b. Zippori in Jerusalem, Judas in Galilee, Simon in Perea (a former slave of Herod who burned down the royal palace at Jericho), and Athronges in Judea (a shepherd who led a two-year rebellion). The Syrian legate Publius Quinctilius Varus took command of Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee, and immediately put down the uprisings, killing thousands of Jews by crucifixion and selling many into slavery. With governance re-established, Augustus divided Herod's kingdom among his sons: Archelaus (by Herod’s wife Malthace) received Judea and Samaria), Herod Antipas (also by Malthace) became Tetrarch[303] of Galilee and the southern Transjordan (Peraea), and Philip (from Mariamne II) received the northern Transjordan (Batanaea).

Here, we encounter an historical oddity which again calls into question the veracity of Josephus – he intentionally leaves out the fourth Tetrarch from his writings: Herod Agrippa I, the Tetrarch of Chalcis. Agrippa enjoyed special favor with Emperor Claudius and became ruler of Galilee also in 39 CE.

Herod’s Primary Heirs & Their Territories

|Archelaus – Judea |

|Antipas – Galilee |

|Philip – Batanaea |

|Agrippa – Chalcis/Iturea |

|Salome (sister) - cities[304] |

Because Chalcis has special importance in the story of Jesus (as in Book II), as separate appendix deal specifically withs its relevant history and rulers.

The High Priest Matthias ben Theophilus had been implicated in the insurrection when the golden eagle was pulled down from the gate of the Temple and so Herod Archelaus (the new ruler of Judea) replaced him with Joazar ben Boethus – a Sadducee[305]. But that choice was very unpopular and several groups petitioned Archelaus during the gathering for Passover to replace him. Perhaps as a mockery of their request, he substituted Joazar’s brother Eleazar ben Boethus (also a Sadducee) as High Priest.

For reasons unknown, when Archelaus returned from his confirmation visit to Rome, he replaced Eleazar ben Boethus with Joshua (Jesus) ben Sie (Siah) (3 BCE). We know little about Joshua ben Sie, but his high priesthood lasted for only two years. Then Joazar ben Boethus was made High Priest a second time in 4 CE, and deposed in 10 CE. Because he was replaced by Ananus (Annas / Hanan) ben Seth – who was appointed by Quirinius (the Roman governor of Syria) - the dates of his service are well established. Annas was appointed High Priest just after the Romans had deposed Archelaus. Annas served in the office until the age of 36 when he was deposed by the procurator Gratus in 15 CE “for imposing and executing capital sentences which had been forbidden by the imperial government.”[306]

This appointment marked another decline in the High Priesthood. At least Herod had felt some necessity of appointing lackeys who had some credentials and popular support. The Romans merely appointed whoever was most likely to do their bidding and keep the peace. Beginning with Ananus, every High Priest would answer directly to the Roman Procurator of Judea and the office would somehow involve Ananus. Even after he was deposed, Ananus remained highly influential in religious, social, and political circles - aided greatly by his five sons and his son-in-law. He may have served as Nasi or president of the Sanhedrin after being High Priest.

Ismael ben Fabus (Phiabi) (15-16 CE), another Alexandrian priest, was appointed High Priest by Valerius Gratus, the predecessor Procurator of Pontius Pilate. Legend holds that he was "the handsomest man of his time, whose effeminate love of luxury was the scandal of the age". He was followed by Ananus’ son Eleazar ben Ananus (16-17 CE) and Simon ben Camithus (17-18 CE).

Joseph bar Caiaphas (Yosef bar Kayafa) became the High Priest in 18 CE. He was the son-in-law of Ananus and reportedly belonged to the Sadducee sect. In the Mishnah (Parah 3:5) he is said to oppose the Mishnat Ha-Hasidim (“extra law for the Pious”) and is referred to as “Ha-Koph” (“the monkey” -a play on his name). Of course, Caiaphas is most famous for his involvement in the life of Jesus as portrayed in the New Testament and within that record there is both contradiction and confusion. What does seem clear is that Ananus was still “pulling the strings” of his son-in-law. In 36 CE, Pontius was recalled to Rome and Caiaphas was removed by Vitellius, the new governor of Syria.

Because they had no influence on the life of Jesus, the remaining successors to the High Priesthood are merely listed (but are key players in our sequel – “After Jesus”):

• Caiaphas was succeeded by Jonathan bar Anan (36 CE) a brother-in-law of Caiaphas.

• Jonathan bar Ananus, (37 CE). Appointed by Vitellius.

• Theophilus bar Ananus (Jonathan), (37-41 CE). Appointed by Herod Agrippa I

• Simon Kantheras (Cantharus), son of Boethus, (41-43 CE). Appointed by Herod Agrippa I – led Paul’s tribunal.

• Matthias bar Ananus, (43-44 CE).

• Elionaius (Elioneus) bar Kantheras (Kobi /Gamus) (above), (44-45 CE). Appointed by Herod of Chalcis.

• Simon bar Cantharus (part of 45 CE) was a appointed a second time and was deposed the same year.

• Joseph bar Kami (Cainus / Caneus), (45-47 CE). Appointed by Herod of Chalcis.

• Ananias bar Nebedaius (Nebedeus / Hananiah ben Nedebai), 47-55 CE.

• Jonathan (Joazar) bar Ananus restored Under Agrippa II.

Ishmael bar Phiabi III, (55-61 CE). Appointed by Herod Agrippa II.

• Joseph Qabi, son of Simon (above), 61-62 CE. From Iudaea. Appointed by Herod Agrippa II.

• Ananus bar Ananus (Alexander ben Hanan), 62 CE. Fifth son of Ananus to act as High Priest. Appointed by Herod Agrippa II. Tried and executed James, the brother of Jesus, and was removed from office after only three months. Fighting against the zealots, he was killed commanding the Jews during the Zealot Temple Siege.

• Jesus (Ismael) bar Damnaius (Damneus), 62-65 CE.

• Joshua (Jesus) bar Gamaliel (House of Phiabi), 63-65 CE. Since he was betrothed to Martha, daughter of Jonathias bar Elioneiai and grand daughter of Caiaphas, before his elevation, he was permitted to marry her while High Priest.

• Matthias bar Theophilus (grandson of above), 65-67 CE. Was ousted by the zealots during the revolution.

• Phinnias bar Samuel, 67-70 CE. From Aptha. Appointed (by lots) during the war by the Jerusalem “mob”. A man who proved unworthy of the title and was subject to ridicule by other priests.

In 66 CE, the first Jewish Roman war began and in 70 CE Titus Flavius captured Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple. Thus, the Jewish High Priesthood ended.

Jewish High Priests after Herod I

|Joazar ben Boethus 4 BCE |

|Eleazar ben Boethus 4-3 BCE |

|Joshua ben Sie 3 BCE |

|Joazar ben Boethus 6 CE |

|Ananus ben Seth 6-15 |

|Ishmael ben Fabus 15-16 |

|Eleazar ben Ananus 16-17 |

|Simon ben Camithus 17-18 |

|Joseph Caiaphas 18-36 |

|Jonathan ben Ananus 36-37 |

|Theophilus ben Ananus 37-41 |

|Simon Cantatheras ben Boethus 41-43 |

|Matthias ben Ananus 43 |

|Elioneus ben Simon Cantatheras 43-44 |

|Jonathan ben Ananus 44 (restored) |

|Josephus ben Camydus 44-46 |

|Ananias ben Nebedeus 46-58 |

|Jonathan 58-71 |

History of the Jewish Temples

God's world is great and holy. The holiest land in the world is the land of Israel. In the land of Israel the holiest city is Jerusalem. In Jerusalem the holiest place was the Temple, and in the Temple the holiest spot was the Holy of Holies... Of the peoples of the world the holiest is the people of Israel. The holiest of the people of Israel is the tribe of Levi. In the tribe of Levi the holiest are the priests. Among the priests, the holiest was the High Priest... Of all the days in the year, the holidays are holy. Higher than these is the holiness of the Sabbath. Among Sabbaths, the holiest is the Day of Atonement, the Sabbath of Sabbaths... Of the languages in the world, the holiest is Hebrew. Holier than all else in this language is the holy Torah, and in the Torah the holiest part is the Ten Commandments. In the Ten Commandments the holiest of all words is the name of God... And once during the year, at a certain hour, these four supreme sanctities of the world were joined with one another. That was on the Day of Atonement, when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies and there utter the name of God. And because this hour was beyond measure holy and awesome, it was the time of utmost peril not only for the High Priest but for the whole of Israel. Adapted from “The Dybbuk” by Shloyme-Zanvl Rappoport (aka S. Ansky), a traditional Yiddish play written in 1914.

Introduction:

Among the greatest misunderstandings regarding Judaism are those relating to the Temple in Jerusalem. There is little doubt that the NT gospels have contributed to this misunderstanding and it seems clear that Jesus had a much different understanding of the Temple and its history than we have been taught. In the prior sections, we have caught glimpses of the temple history of Judaism; here we will expand that history and deal with Temple operation.

When reading this, I hope that you will keep in mind one basic question: If the essence of Temple Judaism at the time of Jesus was sacrifice upon the altar, why are there no accounts of Jesus doing such? Bear in mind that references in the NT about Jesus being within “the temple” are unquestionably referring to the Temple’s courtyards and surrounds and not the Temple itself. To help answer this question and understand what was going on, it is necessary to know the lesser known details regarding Jewish Temples…

In the beginning, the dwelling place (or “Shekinah”) of God was a portable shrine known as the “Ark of the Covenant”. This shrine was placed in a Tabernacle (a structured tent known as “משכן” or “mishkan”, pictured below) and was the focal point for Jewish ritual and sacrifice. Before Solomon built the first Holy Temple (Hebrew: בֵּית־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, Beit HaMikdash; "House of the Holy") in Jerusalem, the designated priests (“Kohanim”) performed most services in the Tabernacle[307].

[pic]

The Miskan or "dwelling place”

In this section we will focus on the primary and best known Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. However, we will also look at three other Jewish Temples: The Samaritan Temple at Mount Gerizim, the Elephantine Temple on the Nile, and the Egyptian Temple of Onias. It is not possible here to offer any resolution to the very long-standing debates regarding these Temples or the related issue of the High Priesthood (covered more completely in a subsequent section). Suffice it to say that history has given prominence to the Jerusalem Temple and it is the one of greatest interest in our story. For those who are interested in the details of the debate regarding God’ preferred home on Earth, I have provided links to other sources (at the end). Following the material related to the specific Temples and their history, I provide details of the ancient and 1st century Temple practices and functions – particularly as related to the Jerusalem Temple and the life of Jesus.

The Jerusalem Temple:

Jerusalem was the ancient Salem, the capital of Melchisedech, king and first named priest of the Bible (Genesis 14:18). After the time of Abraham, Jerusalem passed under the domination of Egypt until around 1400 when the Khabiri invaded Palestine and took possession of the city. It was likely that during this period Jebus (Jerusalem) fell into the power of the Jebusites.

When the Hebrews came into the Land of Promise, Jebus maintained its independence. In the distribution of the land among the children of Israel, it was assigned to the descendents of Benjamin. Judah and Benjamin tried to gain possession of it, put many of its inhabitants to the sword and put much of the city to flame (Judges 1:8), but they only captured the lower city and some suburbs (Josephus, Antiq. Jud., v, ii, 2). Jebus remained independent of Israel until the reign of David (Judges 19:12).

King David unified all of Israel and brought the Ark of the Covenant to his new capital, Jerusalem. There he wanted to build a permanent home for the Ark. After he purchased a threshing-floor for the site of the Temple, God told him that he would not be permitted to build a temple (because he had spilled blood). Instead, God instructed David:

Behold, a son shall be born to you, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies all around. His name shall be Solomon, for I will give peace and quietness to Israel in his days. He shall build a house for My name, and he shall be My son, and I will be his Father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel forever. (I Chron. 22:9-10).

The site of the Jerusalem Temple was supposedly a former threshing area situated on top of Mt. Moriah (which was to the north and above the city at that time). To the west of the Temple was the Tyropoeon valley and to the south and east was the Kidron or Hinnom valley.

The construction and dedication of “Solomon’s Temple” (completed around 960 BCE) is described in some detail within the Bible (1 Kings 6:1-38, 1 Kings Chapters 7 & 8)[308]. Based upon those descriptions, the following model was built by Michael Osnis …

[pic]

The key feature of the Temple was the “Kodesh Hakodashim” or Holy of Holies, (1 Kings 6:19; 8:6) and was considered the dwelling-place of the "name" of God. The buildings were erected upon a great platform, constructed by means of immense containing walls. I would also note the two brass pillars in the porch of the Temple that were named Boaz and Jachin. (1 Kings 7:15; 7:21; 2 Kings 11:14; 23:3). These two pillars had parallels at Tyre, Byblus, Paphos, and Telloh. In Egypt obelisks were used to express the same phallic emblems originating from the primitive Hamito-Semitic "maẓẓebah".

It wasn’t long however before the people began to complain of the burdensome taxation and forced labour. After Solomon died, his successor was unable to hold the tribes of Israel together and a series of kings brought corruption to the Temple (a focus of 2nd Kings chapters 14-23). Nevertheless, Solomon’s Temple on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem (the “Jerusalem Temple”) was the focus of Judaism for almost 900 years and as the House of God, it served as gathering place, the place or worship, the place for sacrifice, and the home of both the High Priest and the Jewish High Court (Sanhedrin). Its significance to the Jews is incomparable to any other Temple of the time or any time. But the unimaginable happened at least twice.

The Temple was plundered by the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar during the brief reign of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:13). The Babylonians attacked Jerusalem again and burned the Temple along with most of the city in 597 BCE (2 Kings 25). The Jews who survived were taken as captive to Babylon (for the “Exile”). We don’t know what happened to the Ark of the Covenant. Fortunately, when Cyrus the Great became King of Persia in 538 BCE, he favored the re-establishment of the city of Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the Temple (Ezra 1:1-4, 2 Chron. 36:22-23). Zerubbabel was designated by the King to lead the project which began (535 BCE) with the clearing of the original Temple site (which had remained a devastated heap during the captivity (Dan. 9:1-2)). The reconstruction suffered a number of set-backs (supposedly caused by the Samaritans) before being completed in 515 BCE. The “Second Temple” was re-consecrated and services resumed in the spring of 516 BCE (the third day of the month Adar, in the sixth year of the reign of King Darius).

The Second Temple was greatly welcomed by the people, but lacked much of the “spirit” of the first Temple. In part this was due to the missing Ark of the Covenant, Moses’ Tablets of Stone, the pot of manna, Aaron's rod, the Urim and Thummim, the holy oil, and the sacred fire. And even though the Second Temple included the Menorah (golden lamp), the Table of Showbread, and the golden altar of incense (with golden censers)[309], according to Jewish tradition the Second Temple lacked the Ruach HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) present in the First Temple. Of course, it didn’t help that the Jews were still under Persian control and that the High Priesthood had become uncertain (see the prior section).

The Second Temple on Mt. Moriah in Jerusalem served as gathering place, the place or worship, the place for sacrifice, and the home of both the High Priest and the Jewish High Court (Sanhedrin) for the next 300 years. The political situation for Jerusalem – sitting in the middle of major post-Alexandrian Empires – was anything but peaceful during this period. Palestine, including Judea, was surrendered by Ptolemy to the Seleucids in 198 BCE. During the war between the two kingdoms the Temple was damaged such that the Seleucid King Antiochus III decreed that the Temple be repaired and made more splendid (Ant. 12.3.3; 139-41). In this decree, we have reference to a specific feature of the Temple- the stoa (portico). The decree also implies the existence of an outer court into which purified gentiles could enter. Josephus states that Antiochus published an additional decree stating: 'It shall be lawful for no foreigner to come within the limits of the Temple round about; which thing is forbidden also to the Jews, unless to those who, according to their own custom, have purified themselves'" (Ant. 12.3.4; 145).

In 175 BCE, the unimaginable happened again - God’s anointed High Priest (Onias III) was replaced by an usurper who was not qualified to hold the post – his brother (or nephew) Jason (aka Jesus bar Simon). When Antiochus Epiphanes ascended to the throne of the Seleucid Empire (which controlled Judea at the time), Jason bribed the new King for appointment to the position of Jewish High Priest (aided by his cousin Menelaus bar Manasseh).

When Onias III was killed in 172 BCE, loyalists managed to save his son (Onias IV in some writings) and take him to Egypt. There, Ptolemy VI (an enemy of Antiochus) and Cleopatra V gladly granted him asylum and even approved his building of a Temple at an ancient temple site in the Nome of Heliopolis (at the City of Leontopolis, the modern Tell al-Yahudi[310]). Supposedly, Onias sold the idea to the royal court based upon the prediction of the prophet Isaiah (Is. 19:19) that a Jewish temple would be erected in Egypt[311].

Menelaus and Jason were both corrupt and careless, raiding the Temple treasures to buy armies and pay bribes. By 170 BCE, the Jerusalem Temple was hardly recognizable as a Jewish institution. In 168 BCE, Antiochus Epiphanes finally became fed up with the Jews and decided it was time to utterly destroy Judaism. He went to Jerusalem, devastated the city and its citizens, defiled the temple (sacrificing swine on the altar), destroyed all the holy writings that could be found, erected an altar to Zeus in the temple and forbade circumcision or worship of the Shabbat (Sabbath) on pain of death[312]. The city was fully converted to Hellenistic ways, including the building of a gymnasium (with nude athletics). Judaism in Jerusalem was essentially dead. Was it merely fortunate “coincidence” that a new Temple had just opened in Leontopolis with the legitimate High Priest and a large body of Levites and priests?

The Onias temple was only similar to the Temple at Jerusalem: it was smaller and had at its center a high tower (obelisk?) – a remant of the ruined temple of Bubastis. The interior arrangement was also simpler: it had a hanging lamp instead of a candelabrum. We don’t know if it had a “Holy of Holies”, but it would be surprising that it wouldn’t. There was a court (τέμενος) which was surrounded by a brick wall with stone gates. The entire Temple area was surrounded by fortifications (ὀχύρωμα) and there was a separate fortress (θρωύριον).

For almost five years (the “inter-sacerdotium” period), the Egyptian Temple was the place where Egyptian and Judean Jews could worship and sacrifice to their God. But then, in 165 BCE, Judas Maccabeus re-captured Jerusalem and purified and rededicated the Jerusalem Temple (the origin of the Jewish "Festival of Lights" or Hannukkah). Many Jews believed that this would lead to the restoration of the proper High Priesthood in Jerusalem, but Judas Hasmon had other ideas – he appointed his younger brother Jonathan to the post instead. However, neither the war nor the dispute was over.

Many Jews were tired of war and, having their Temple restored, saw little reason to continue fighting. Judas and his brothers sought to expand Jewish control in a larger region, had control of the military, and also had great popularity. The new Seleucid king, Demetrius I Soter, found favor with Alcimus[313] of the Hellenizing party. According to 1 Maccabees (7: 14) he was an Aaronite but not in the high-priestly line. Demetrius sent an army to establish Alcimus in the High Priesthood at Jerusalem, but soon after the Syrian army left, Judas Maccabee attacked and drove Alcimus to Syria. Two armies and attacks on Jerusalem later (in 163 BCE), the Syrians defeated and killed Judas and restored Alcimus as high priest. They also left a strong garrison in Jerusalem to ensure his power and their Hellenistic control[314]. The Jews had been granted “religious freedom” by Demetrius, but their true religious leader was still in Egypt.

Then along came the Romans…

The Jews enjoyed a reprise during a large part of the Hasmonean rule (165 BCE-63 BCE): territories were regained, wealth accumulated, and they were the conquerors. The reign of Queen Alexandra (75-67 BCE) was considered one of the most prosperous ever for the Jews (Ta'anit, 23a; Sifra, ḤuḲḲat, i. 110). But political intrigue and fighting between the successors of Alexandra led to their being overtaken by the Romans.

In 63 BCE, a group loyal to Aristobolus (II) took refuge in the Temple when the Roman general Pompey marched on Jerusalem. In his description of the siege, Josephus describes the Temple and its situation (Ant. 14.4.1-4; 58-73 = War 1.7.2-6; 143-53). "It was this party that made the first move and occupied the Temple, and cutting the bridge that stretched from it to the city [to the west], prepared themselves for a siege" (Ant. 14.4.2; 58). The Temple was a natural fortress because of its height and surrounding ravines. The Temple had its own towers and adjoined the ancient Baris (fortress) which also had defensive towers. There were also smaller tower built into the outer wall of the Temple.

Pompey eventually breached the largest towers with a siege-engine and when the Romans poured through, a massacre ensued (Ant. 14.4.3; 68). Josephus says that Pompey and some of his troops entered the inner court of the Temple and even inspected the Holy of Holies, seeing the golden table, the sacred lampstand, the libation vessels, and the deposits in the Temple treasury. Josephus says that piety kept them from stealing these things, but other sources credit Herod with bribing the soldiers to forego their normal bounty.

Nevertheless, the Romans now controlled Judea, Jerusalem, and the Temple and the Jewish High Priesthood was lost to political appointees (although it had never been properly restored after Onias IV left for Egypt).

And then there was Herod…

Herod (the Great) assumed the position of client king of the Roman provinces of Judea, Galilee and Samaria in 36 BCE (he was named earlier, but didn’t oust Antigonus from Jerusalem until 36 BCE). His reign was marked by murder, intrigue, pogroms, corruption, and a remarkable building program (continued by his successors). Since Jesus was born sometime shortly before Herod’s death (in 4 BCE), he would have witnessed one of the greatest transformations of antiquity – the restoration of Jerusalem and the building of “Herod’s Temple” (or the building of its surrounds as the Temple itself was finished just before Jesus’ birth).

Much has been made of this structure and if it hadn’t been destroyed soon after being finished, we would know it better. Because so much was written about it, we are able to develop reasonable facsimiles…

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

It is the size and scale of the Temple surrounds that are most impressive. The Baris (aka Akra and later Antonia) is the citadel next to the Temple. Not shown (and generally unknown) were the massive catacombs and passages that existed beneath the surface of the main court. We should remember that the “Temple” was far more than the centerpiece, it was a meetingplace, home of the Sanhedrin, a place of higher learning, and both the national treasury and archives. Several times the older Temple had served as a fortress and there should be little doubt that its designers would have built in defensive features.

There are several ancient writers who offer us descriptions of Herod’s Temple, but none are as detailed as the descriptions offered by Josephus. Since he was well travelled (and had been to Rome), his comments have an unique perspective. The royal portico or stoa was only accessible if one climbed the stairs to an overpass that crossed over the main road and the markets that ran by the western wall. This overpass was the width of a four lane highway and possessed an arch made with stones having a combined weight of over 1,000 tons. Josephus describes the stoa that one reached via the overpass as follows: “...It was a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun. The height of the portico was so great that if anyone looked down from its rooftop he would become dizzy and his vision would be unable to reach the end of so measureless a depth.” He also describes the one hundred and sixty two columns that stood in the stoa as being so large that three men standing in a circle could barely reach around one of their bases. The Temple itself was a building of shining white marble and gold with bronze entrance doors. It was said that you could not look at the Temple in daylight as it would blind you. “The Second Temple During the Time of Jesus” by Shelly Cohney from (2011).

Upon Herod's death a riot broke out in the Temple during the Festival of Weeks. Varus, proconsul of Syria, attempted to quell the disturbance (Ant. 17.10.2; 254-64 = War 2.3.2-3; 45-50). According to Josephus, the rioters climbed atop the porticos surrounding the outer court and attacked the Roman legionnaires from above. In retaliation, the Romans burned the porticos feeding the fire with combustible materials until the porticos collapsed. Pushing their way through the fire, the Romans made their way into the Temple treasury (see below), which they proceeded to plunder.

Josephus also offers other stories regarding odd affairs in the Temple. In one account, he describes how Passover service was disrupted when Samaritans scattered human bones throughout the Temple (ritually contaminating it - priests traditionally opened the Temple gates after midnight) (Ant. 18.2.2; 29). Pontius Pilate created one of his many stirs when he expropriated funds from the Temple treasury to build an aqueduct (Ant. 18.3.2; 60-62 = War 2.9.4; 175-77). Emporer Gaius (Caligula) ordered Petronius, proconsul of Syria, to erect a statue of him in the Temple. Petronius protested and delayed, and Gaius died before the order was carried out. Otherwise we would have had yet another revolt over a Roman symbol in the Temple. (Ant. 18.8.2-9; 261-309 = War 2.10.1-5; 184-203). And, Josephus relates how once during a Passover celebration, a Roman soldier caused a riot by standing on the exterior wall of the Temple (grounds) and exposing himself (rear end) to the crowds. When the Roman legionnaires attempted to restore order, another massacre ensued (Ant. 20.5.2; 104-12). It seems that plenty of odd things happened in the Temple during Passover (as per our story).

It is difficult to imagine the size and grandeur of Herod’s Temple. There are numerous books and articles available describing it in great detail and many include models and reconstructions. While our primary interest here is its workings, we should take a short “tour” of some key features (if for no other reason, we can define some necessary terms).

The general size and placement of the Temple and its Surrounds:

Here, a picture (or diagram) is worth a thousand words so the following drawing shows the basic position of the Temple in relation to Jerusalem.

[pic]

No one knows what Herod's Temple looked like or exactly where it was located. We combine general ideas from archaeological excavations (i.e. ), accounts from eyewitnesses to Herod's Temple (e.g. Josephus War 5.5.1-8; 184-247; Ant. 15.11.5-7; 410-25), and details offered in the Mishnah (Middot and other tractates) to guess about its details However, the literary sources are incomplete and sometimes contradictory[315]. Thus, there are a number of on-going debates fueled by the significance of the possible “Third Temple” (a subject worthy of entire books – see .

Dr. Ernest L. Martin offers an alternative interpretation of Josephus and other ancient authors in his "The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot" (2000). The key assumption in his work is that the Temple was built over the Spring of Gihon – which would place the Temple site south of the Haram-esh-Sharif (site of the Dome of the Rock). His debate with Leen Ritmeyer about this topic is most informative (in part at ). I would agree with Dr. Martin’s view that we have made too many assumptions about the Temple based upon what remains. Almost all the visible construction at Haram-esh-Sharif (including the gates and sealed gates) is much newer than that of Herod’s time. If the ancient reports are given weight, then we must accept that Herod’s Temple was removed down to its foundations while Antonia was left intact. However, these authors may well have been referring to the actual Temple and not the surrounding structures and walls – which would have made a nice extension to the adjoining fortress.

[pic]

The other key information used by Dr. Martin focuses upon water. The Letter of Aristeas[316] makes it clear that there was abundant water “conveyed” into Solomon’s Temple and Dr. Martin presumes that this had to come from the only natural water source in Jerusalem – Gihon spring. Instead, archeological finds indicate the Wisdom of Solomon in planning for the Temple’s water needs (and that of the expanding city itself). As part of the building project, Solomon also had an elaborate aqueduct, piping, and storage system built to bring water from Hebron. This system made use of siphons, “lead sealed piping” and other advanced technologies to bring water into a “fountain” within the Temple[317] (see ). Nevertheless, the issue of the Temple’s location is far from settled since we still have contradictory historical information regarding its site. I suggest the following article as a worthy starting point in this discussion: .

Fate of Herod’s Temple:

During the reign of Agrippa II (52-66 CE), the Temple was to undergo renovations because its foundation had begun to sink. Importing huge timbers from Lebanon, Agrippa hoped to underpin the sanctuary and raise it up twenty cubits, but the war with Rome interrupted his work (War 5.1.5; 36). On behalf of the unemployed construction workers, whose jobs were terminated with the completion of the Temple, the people requested that Agrippa II allow the workers to raise the height of the east portico, which Josephus says was built by Solomon. No doubt, he means that the eastern wall that was pre-Herodian since Herod did not rebuild that part of the outer wall (Ant. 20.9.7; 219-22). Unfortunately, before these renovations could be completed, the Jewish revolt began.

Josephus tells us the details of the Temple’s destruction in 70 CE (shortened version):

The Romans routed the Jews and followed in hot pursuit right up to the Temple itself. Then one of the soldiers snatched a blazing piece of wood and, climbing on another soldier's back, hurled the flaming brand through a low golden window that gave access, on the north side, to the rooms that surrounded the sanctuary. As the flames shot up, the Jews let out a shout of dismay that matched the tragedy; they flocked to the rescue, with no thought of sparing their lives or husbanding their strength; for the sacred structure that they had constantly guarded with such devotion was vanishing before their very eyes. Crowded together around the entrances, many were trampled down by their companions; others, stumbling on the smoldering and smoked-filled ruins of the porticoes, died as miserably as the defeated. As the Roman soldiers drew closer to the Temple they pretended not even to hear Titus' orders and urged the men in front to throw in more firebrands.

Titus assumed correctly that there was still time to save the structure and so he ran out and by personal appeals he endeavored to persuade his men to put out the fire, instructing Liberalius, a centurion of his bodyguard of lancers, to club any of the men who disobeyed his orders. But their respect for Titus and their fear of the centurion's staff who was trying to check them were overpowered by their rage, their detestation of the Jews, an uncontrolled lust for battle, and by the expectation of loot (convinced that the interior was full of money and dazzled by observing that everything around them was made of gold).

When the flames suddenly shot up from the interior, Titus and his generals withdrew and no one was left to prevent those outside from kindling the blaze. The attackers plundered the Temple and the city killing countless numbers of people (the Romans had built a wall around the outside of the city to prevent escape). There was no pity for age and no regard was accorded rank; children and old men, laymen and priests, alike were butchered; every class was pursued and crushed in the grip of war, whether they cried out for mercy or offered resistance. The Temple Mount, everywhere enveloped in flames, seemed to be boiling over from its base; yet the blood seemed more abundant than the flames and the numbers of the slain were greater than the number of slayers. The soldiers climbed over heaps of bodies as they chased the fugitives.

Later… The countryside, like the City, was a pitiful sight; for where once there had been a lovely vista of woods and parks there was nothing but desert and stumps of trees. No one - not even a foreigner - who had seen the Old Judea and the glorious suburbs of the City, and now set eyes on her present desolation, could have helped sighing and groaning at so terrible a change; for every trace of beauty had been blotted out by war, and nobody who had known it in the past and came upon it suddenly would have recognized the place: when he was already there he would still have been looking for the City.

Hopes of rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple were dashed under the Emperor Hadrian when he had the Old City plowed up to make way for a new Roman city named Colonia Aelia Capitolina.

Josephus' (Book V) account appears in: “Josephus, The Jewish War “ by Gaalya Cornfield, Ed. (1982); note “History of Rome”, Vol. V by Victor Duruy (1883); "The Romans Destroy the Temple at Jerusalem, 70 AD," EyeWitness to History at (2005). Nota also

[pic]

The Samaritan Temple:

The Jewish Temple on Mount Gerizim is often overlooked in discussions of Temple history since the victors write history and Judean Judaism is prevalent. Besides, the Jerusalem Temple was the one chosen by Jesus and thus it is the one studied in Christianity. The Mt. Gerizim Temple (“Samaritan Temple”, hereafter) has a rich history and tradition and the dispute between Samarian Jews and mainstream Judaism continues to this day – the Samaritan Temple is still in use. The dispute is based upon different readings of the Torah. The Book of Deuteronomy mentions the place where God will choose to establish “His Name” and Judaism takes this to refer to Jerusalem (Deut 12:5). However, the Samaritan version of the same book speaks of the place where God has chosen to establish His Name: Mt. Gerizim.

The split between Judean and Samaritan Judaism occurred around 930 BCE when the Northern Kingdom of Israel was formed (the northern tribes rejecting the House of David). The tribe of Manasseh was part of the kingdom until the Assyrians extorted, invaded, conquered, and took captive the tribes of the Northern Kingdom in 723-22 BCE (taking almost 30,000 captives but leaving the Judeans and Benjamites who held up in Jerusalem). Shalmanesser, the Assyrian King, allowed an unknown people called the Cuthites to occupy “Shomron” ; they became known as “Samaritans” (Greek form of Shomronim). These new Samaritans found themselves plagued by “lions” and asked the King for assistance. He asked some of the captured priests from Israel what they would recommend and they advised him that anyone living in Hashem's Holy Land would be plagued if they didn’t obey the Torah.

So, Shalmanesser sent Kohanim (priests) to teach the Samaritans the Torah. The majority of Samaritans (whether out of fear of God, fear of lions, or fear of Shalmanesser) decided to accept the Torah and began to worship Hashem/Yaweh. And when the lions went away, the Samaritan version of Judaism took hold. (II Kings, Ch. 17). Not surprisingly, the Samaritans declined to accept any book of the Torah which labeled David as King or which was written by a Davidic supporter. That left them with only the Five Books of Moses (the Pentateuch or Chumash) and a different Book of Joshua[318] as their scripture. They also built their own temple on Mt. Gerizim, and there they worshiped according to their version of the Chumash (and apparently tolerated the idolatry of those who didn’t accept the Torah).

When Assyria was later conquered by Babylon and Babylon had been conquered by the Medo-Persians (Cyrus the Great), the same edict that freed Judeans from the Babylonian captivity also freed the other tribes of Israel, restoring members of various northern tribes to their homelands (~ 536 BCE; see ). Zerubbabel, the Prince of the Davidic line, and Joshua, a descendant of the line of the former High Priests, formed the first expedition to Jerusalem to begin re-construction of the Second Temple (see Ezra Ch. 1). What they encountered was a mess – politically and religiously. Jerusalem had been occupied by a mix of Jews and Gentiles: Judeans who hadn’t been captured, Arabs, Samaritans, Ammonites, and Philistines. Few of them were pleased to have Judeans returning from exile to reclaim their city and violence erupted. The old rivalry between Israel and Judah was renewed as the first goal of both returning peoples was to rebuild a proper Temple. Although the Samaritans argued that the Temple on Mt. Gerizim was the proper place[319], they appeared to offer assistance in re-building the Jerusalem Temple (which was refused) . They employed spokesmen and counselors to argue their case before Cyrus and his successors, delaying building until 520 BCE. A crude Temple[320] in Jerusalem was completed around 515 BCE (although the Judeans had their altar in place and worshiped there as early as 535 BCE). Meanwhile, the Samaritans continued to improve their Temple on Mt. Gerizim[321].

The political and religious battles continued between the Samaritans and the Judeans over the next 75 years, but there were several families seeking reconciliation. The governor of Samaria under Darius I[322] was Sanballat[323], a rich Tobiad in the line of Manasseh (descended from Joseph). Ezra (the Prophet) petitioned Artaxerxes for permission to improve the Jerusalem Temple and after the original decree from Cyrus was found, Ezra headed to Jerusalem (457 BCE) with a new decree to take charge of the ecclesiastical and civil affairs of the Jewish nation. (A copy of this decree may be found in Ezra 7:13-28). Ezra left Babylon with a company of Jews that included priests and Levites. (Nehemiah would follow in 444 BCE).

Arriving in Judea with the King’s decree, Ezra was disturbed to find the corruption[324] that had permeated Jews in Judea: intermarriage was common and traditional festivals were being ignored. Ezra sought to repopulate Jerusalem with Judeans and purify the Jewish community. He rigorously promulgated the "law of Moses" (as the “reforms of Ezra”) and enforced both old and new rulings: the cancellation of debts, reinstituting the Feast of Tabernacles, and requiring Jewish men to divorce their non-Jewish wives. It was this last ruling that caused the biggest stir and returns our focus to the Samarians.

Another man named Manasseh, the son of the High Priest Joiada/Eliashib (at Jerusalem) was married to Nicaso, the daughter of Sanballat (the Samarian governor). When Nehemiah arrived in Jerusalem, he found that Eliashib had leased storerooms of the temple to Tobiah and had deprived the Levites of their share of the Temple offerings. He drove Manasseh from the temple, such that he went over to Samaria (Neh. 13:28) and was instrumental in enhancing the Mt. Gerizim Temple (relying mostly on Sanballat's money)[325]. Manasseh's expulsion had the effect of fixing the Israeli and Samaritan religious divide, and separating two kindred peoples who accepted the same God and most of the same beliefs. (The claims that the Samaritans brought in heathen practices after this time are without grounds).

When Alexander the Great entered the region (333 BCE) the Samaritans had their capital at Shechem, (beside/beneath) Mt. Gerizim. Alexander first went to Jerusalem where he was received with a splendid display and while he there the Samarians (“Shechemites” to Josephus) went to him to ask that he also come to their city and honor their temple. He promised to do so upon his return. They then asked him to forgive their tribute every seventh year (as had the Jews) and Alexander asked if they were also Jews. They answered that instead of Jews, they were Hebrews. Alexander then adorned both Temples.

The Samaritan Temple remained on Mt. Gerizim and the Samaritans granted refuge to those charged (“unjustly banished”) by Jerusalemites with some offense or sin (e.g. eating unclean things or violating the Sabbath). Josephus, Ant. 11.342-346. Later (~180 BCE) Jews and the Samaritans debated about their temples before Ptolemy (VI Philometer - in Alexandria, Egypt). The Judeans said that their Temple in Jerusalem was built according to laws of Moses and the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim was an affront to God. They called upon the King to put the Samarians to death. Andronicus persuaded the King that the temple in Jerusalem had been built according to laws of Moses and to execute their Samaritan opponents. Josephus, Ant. 13.74, 77-79. We have no other indication that any such executions took place.

In 168 BCE, the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes ordered the Jews to rededicate their temples to the Greek god Zeus. The Judeans, under Judas the Maccabaean, organized a revolt, captured Jerusalem, and re-purified the Temple of Jerusalem. The Samaritans were more open to Greek culture and chose not to resist Antiochus. The Judeans, liberated from Seleucid rule, became an independent state ruled by Hasmonaeans who also declared themselves the High Priests. This provided further evidence to the Samaritans that the Judean Temple was impure and not the House of God.

When the Judean John Hyrcanus I (the son of Judah Maccabee's brother, Simon) heard of the death of Antiochus VII (129 BCE), he promptly marched out to enlarge his kingdom. He captured Shechem, Mt. Gerizim and the Samaritan nation – destroying the Temple there[326]. But when the Romans took control of Palestine, they made use of religious divisions. For example, they recruited military units from Samaria and used them to occupy Judean towns (including Jerusalem). Not unexpectedly, the Judeans resented having other Hebrews (which they referred to derogatorily and offensively as “Cuthaeans”/foreigners) placed over them.

Meanwhile, under Roman control, the Samaritan community sought to restore their sanctuary and was given permission to do so when Gabinius was governor of Syria (55-57 CE). In 36 CE a man known as the Samaritan prophet gathered a small army and occupied Mt. Gerizim. Pontius Pilate retook the Temple and “dispersed the crowd”, but his actions were deemed too harsh by Emperor Tiberius and Pilate was recalled to Rome. During the Jewish War (66-74 CE), the Fifth Macedonica legion stormed Mt. Gerizim and probably ended yet another attempt to rebuild the temple.

The Samaritan community all but disappeared along with the Judeans until the 3rd or 4th century when the son of the Samaritan High Priest Nethanel, named Baba Rabba (circa 300-362 CE), reorganized the Samaritans and expounded their ideas. With the religious reforms of Constantine, the Samaritans regained a foothold and flourished into late antiquity with synagogues in several places (e.g. Thessalonica and Sicily). The legacy of Baba Rabba was not only the rebuilding of the Temple of Mt Gerezim, but a new state of Sarmara that would remain until the revolt (527CE) and conquests of the Messianic Sarmatian High Priest Julianus ben Sabar.

Emperor Justinian I suppressed the insurrection (531 CE) with ferocity and dispersed the Samaritans/Sarmatians again (Procopius, Secret History, 11.24). The Samaritans fled across the Mediterranean to escape the Holy Roman Empire. The surviving High Priest bloodlines went to the marshes at the mouth of the Po and Piave rivers at the top of the Adriatic Sea. Others landed in Aremorica (Spain) and some went inland into the Caucus mountains - later to become known as the Khazars. The dispersed Samaritans refuges demonstrated amazing cohesiveness, renaming themselves the “Enetoi” (Greek for "praisworthy/chosen" or “Veneti” in Latin) since to be known as a Samaritan was a capital crime under the Holy Roman Empire. The colony in the north Adriatic was named Enetoi , becoming one of the most famous cities in history --Venice.

Today, the Samaritans number in the hundreds and they continue to worship at Mt. Gerizim. . Archeological digs continue there.

*** There are three other related notes that I will mention here for reference:

1. Simon Magnus was a Samaritan (see Appendices XIV and XI).

2. Around 400 BCE, the Jews of Elephantine asked for the help of Sanballat's sons (Delaiah and Shelemiah) in rebuilding their own Temple which had been damaged or destroyed by rioters.

3. There was a known relationship between the Keriates and the Samaritans---

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land and helps you take possession of it, you must pronounce the blessing at Mount Gerizim and the curse at Mount Ebal.” (Deut. 11:29; note Deut. 27:12).

Jewish Temple at Elephantine:

Known to the Ancient Egyptians as Abu or Yebu, the island of Elephantine sat in the Nile river at the border between Egypt and Nubia (now Sudan). The island measures 3/4 mile from north to south and is about 1/4 mile across at its widest point. It was an excellent defensive site and its location just below the Aswan cataract (lowest on the river) made it a natural cargo transfer point for river trade. In ancient times, the island was an important stone quarry providing granite materials that would be transported widely within Egypt for monuments and buildings. It was the site of the ancient Temple of Khnum.

A Jewish military installation at Elephantine was probably a Samaritan group founded during Manasseh's reign (circa 650 BCE) to assist Pharaoh Psammetichus I in his Nubian campaign (See “Investigating the Origin of the Ancient Jewish Community at Elephantine”, noted below). As part of their long-term encampment, the Jews there built a Temple. This Temple would be one of the few temples in Egypt to be spared destruction by Nebuchadrezzar. Most of what we know about it comes from the Elephantine papyri, a cache of Aramaic legal documents and letters covering the period 495 to 399 BCE.

The Jewish Temple apparently functioned alongside the Temple of Khnum (the Egyptian ram-headed deity). The "Petition to Bagoas" is a letter written in 407 BCE to Bagoas, the Persian governor of Judea, appealing for assistance in rebuilding the Jewish temple at Elephantine. The letter states that the Temple had been badly damaged by a riot of the Elephantine community. In the course of this appeal, the letter speaks of the antiquity of the damaged temple:

'Now our forefathers built this temple in the fortress of Elephantine back in the days of the kingdom of Egypt, and when Cambyses came to Egypt he found it built. They (the Persians) knocked down all the temples of the gods of Egypt, but no one did any damage to this temple."

The Elephantine community also appealed for aid to Sanballat I, the Samaritan potentate, and his sons Delaiah and Shelemiah, as well as to Johanan ben Eliashib, the son of the Judean High Priest (who was exiled in Samaria because he had married Sanballat’s daughter. (See the Book of Nehemiah, 2:19, 12:23-4). According to the Elephantine documents, both Bagoas and Delaiah responded in the form of a memorandum to give permission to rebuild the temple:

"Memorandum of what Bagohi and Delaiah said to me, saying: Memorandum: You may say in Egypt ... to (re)build it on its site as it was formerly... Our own land bears no nation that is not conversant in the law or will not be circumcised. Thus, we will send two teachers who may go and instruct the people”. So they sent Rabbi Dosthai the son of Jannai and Rabbi Sabia, who taught them the book of the written law."

We don’t know what happened that led to the final destruction of the Temple at Elephatine, but by the middle of the 4th century BCE, it had ceased to function. There is evidence by the excavations that the rebuilding and enlargement of the Khnum temple under Nectanebo II (360-343) filled the place of the former Jewish Temple. It may well be that the Jewish sacrificing of rams at their Temple caused sufficient hatred on part of the Egyptians to cause the ouster of the Jews.

It is an oddity that the community had its own temple since it seems to be in opposition to biblical law (Deuteronomy 12) where ritual sacrifices are banned at sites other than the one place “where God chooses to establish his name” (using a term that literally points to the mobile Tabernacle). We don’t know who presided over the rituals since many of those services are specifically reserved to the (one and only) High Priest. But, we are not only told that the Elephantine community offered the full range of animal sacrifices, grain offerings, and incense offerings at their Temple, we have a later document stating that permission to rebuild the Elephantine Temple had been granted by the religious authorities in Israel. (This document specifically gives permission to perform grain and incense offerings while not mentioning animal sacrifice).

I would propose that this gives us a strong indication of Samaritan ideas prevailing at the time.

[pic]

(The ruins at Elephantine)

For more information, I suggest .

The Egyptian Temple of Onias (other details above):

The major rift between the Judeans and the Samaritans had to do with the scriptural location of the Jewish Temple first and a legitimate priesthood second. The Onias Temple in Egypt was just the opposite. Because its story focuses upon the Jewish High Priesthood and that story is told in the prior sections, I will summarize it here. But first, another warning: most of the information we have about the Onias Temple comes from Josephus and Judean sources that sought to downplay its significance and minimize the matter of the illegitimate High Priesthood in Jerusalem. We must read their history with that in mind.

We should also note the importance of ritual sacrifice (and offerings) within Judaism – and the scriptural limitation regarding its practice. In essence, the specific rituals involving Jewish sacrifice require a functioning priesthood and that priesthood may only be led by an Aaronite of proper descendancy. In other words, a Jewish temple offering sacrifice that didn’t have a proper priesthood wasn’t a Jewish Temple at all and those who sacrificed there could receive no divine benefit. Thus, the greatest claim the Onias Temple could make was this it was the only legitimate place for divine ritual sacrifice[327] and the fact that many went there for that purpose (and that the Judeans didn’t argue that sacrifice there was illegitimate[328]) speaks volumes. Regardless of what was said by the Judeans, it is readily apparent that many Jews during that time believed that the Onias Temple was the legitimate one[329].

Origins: The story of the Onias Temple begins in 195 BCE with the signing of a treaty after a series of wars between Ptolemy (Egypt) and Antiochus (Syria). The treaty left the Seleucid King Antiochus III in possession of Coele-Syria and Judea. Meanwhile, the Samaritans took land claimed by the Judeans (Josephus). The High Priest Simon II chose a course of conciliation and assigned many Tobians (Samaritans and Benjamites) to important posts. Simon’s sons, Onias III and Jason, would be the last High Priests of his line to serve in Jerusalem until the reign of Herod.

Onias III (known as “the Pious One”) was surrounded by international conflicts and confronted by increasing intra-family tensions, but he repeatedly demonstrated his ability to preserve the prosperity of the country along with the religious and secular authority of his family (contrary to the history written by his opponents). With the Egyptians and the Syrians wanting Jewish support they honored both the Jewish Temples (Jerusalem and Mt. Gerizim) by presenting them with expensive gifts. Onias then allegedly withheld payment of the Egyptian tribute (against the advice of his Tobian advisors and tax collectors)[330].

The Tobians sought favor with the Syrians in a contest for power and wealth against the Oniades. The contest reached a turning point when the head[331] of the Temple - a Tobian named Simeon (bar Bilgah, a Benjamite) - demanded the post of commissioner (“Agoranomos”)[332] from Onias. (II Macc. 3:4). Onias refused and Simeon went to the Syrian King Seleucus and told them about "untold sums of money[333]" held in the Temple treasury. Seleucus dispatched Heliodorus, his chancellor, to investigate and take the money if it was found. Onias remonstrated that the funds held in the Temple were primarily "deposits of widows and orphans" but also included a substantial sum belonging to Hyrcanus, son of Joseph bar Tobias[334] (supposedly consisting of 30,000 pounds of silver and 15,000 pounds of gold) (II Mac. 3).

The traitor Simeon then advised Seleucus that Onias had actually tricked Heliodorus to avoid giving up the treasure. His led to bloodshed between the Oniades and Tobians resulting in the Tobiads being chased out of Jerusalem. Simeon (and followers) ran to Seleucus with further allegations against Onias and asked him to make use of them as his leaders of an expedition into Judea to settle the dispute. Instead, Seleucus allowed the Tobians their own little empire east of the Jordan River (in the vicinity of Heshbon) where they built the castle of Tyre (some sources term this a “temple”), carried on war with the Arabs, and ruled during the remaining seven years of Seleucus’ reign.

With victory over the Tobians came defeat within Onias’ family. With the Tobians gone, other members of Onias’ family assumed vacated positions. Onias’s son Jason obtained access to Temple funds and then went to Seleucus offering an extraordinary sum[335] for the title of High Priest. Even that might not have been enough, but Jason was as willing to sell out his religion as his family and so he also promised to convert Jerusalem into a Hellenized city and to do away with Jewish services. Seleucus took the deal and Onias III was forced into exile (at the sanctuary in Daphne).

Jason proved good to his promises: he built a gymnasium near the Temple and instituted the full range of Greek culture[336] and corruption. He set aside the existing Syrian and Roman concessions[337] to the Jews and modified the Temple and its services. Seleucus was so pleased that he granted the citizens of Jerusalem the privileges and title of citizens of Antioch. But then intrigue shifted the Syrian leadership

and the new King Antiochus required Jason to pay in order to remain High Priest in Jerusalem. Jason continued the conversion of Jerusalem into a Greek-style Polis (re-named Antioch after the king) and abandoned ordinances granting the Judeans religious freedom. Orthodox Jews, including the later Essenes, would view Jason as “the Evil One” and imposter to the High Priesthood.

But then, in 172 BCE, Jason's sent Menelaus, the brother of Simon the Benjaminite, to deliver tribute to Antiochus. Menelaus took this opportunity to "outbid" Jason for the priesthood[338] and Antiochus appointed Menelaus (who was not an Aaronite), as the “High Priest” (given the title but not the religious authority). At this point, we see the unquestionable bifurcation of the High-Priest lineage and the trigger of much confusion among historians regarding the name Onias. After receiving the king's orders he returned to Jerusalem possessing no qualification for the high priesthood, but having the decree of the Syrian King and the enforcement of his army. Thus, Jason supplanted his own brother by bribery and was then supplanted by another through greater bribery.

Menelaus held the title to the office but he was unable to pay the promised bribe. In 171 BCE, Antiochus required Menelaus to appear before him and with his life on the line and desperate for funds, Menelaus stole the golden vessels belonging to the Temple. He left his brother Lysimachus to act as the High Priest while he was away. This started a revolt in Jerusalem and Onias decided that he must go to Antioch and intercede on behalf of his people. But an attempted coup failed when Antiochus IV Epiphanes returned from Rome and installed himself as King Antiochus IV Epiphanes[339]. Menelaus took advantage of the timing and conspired to have Onias assassinated. This action caused great indignation among both the Jews and the Greeks (2 Macc 4:34)[340]. Nevertheless, Menelaus managed to remain in office[341] and further abrogate the Jewish observances.

Upon the killing of Onias III, a group of supporters took his young son, Onias IV, to seek sanctuary from the Court of Alexandria: King Ptolemy VI Philometor and Queen Cleopatra I[342]. The Egyptian royals gladly gave refuge to such a prominent personage who was the enemy of an enemy[343]. Onias IV requested permission to build a Temple in Egypt modeled after the Temple at Jerusalem, reinstating the legitimate Jewish priesthood based upon orthodox traditions. He sold the idea to Ptolemy by suggesting that building an alternative Temple and place of offering would draw many Jews away from the Syrians and the Jewish oppression in Jerusalem. For Ptolemy, a big selling point for accepting the Jewish Temple was the claim that the Jews it attracted would be willing soldiers ("B. J." vii. 10,§2). This was clearly indicated by the fact that Onias also proposed to build a fortress around the temple in order to protect the surrounding territory and to serve Ptolemy with his Jewish army[344]. Ptolemy not only agreed to Onias’ plans, but also provided substantial funding for the "Oneion" project ("B. J." vii. 10, § 3). Thus, in 170 BCE, Leontopolites[345] became a Jewish center within Egypt and construction began on a new Jewish Temple.

Then, in 167 BCE, the deposed High Priest Jason gathered a small army and made a surprise attack on the city of Jerusalem forcing Menelaus to flee. Antiochus took his army to Jerusalem and restored Menelaus as “High Priest”. As punishment for the complicity on the Jews, Antiochus executed thousands of men, women and children, built a citadel near the Temple called the Acra (used later by the Romans as “Antonia”) and decreed most Jewish religious practices unlawful. (See 2 Maccabees 6:1-11). The Temple was desecrated and services were stopped. Judaism in Judea was outlawed and there was no Jewish High Priest in Jerusalem.

All of this seemed to support the prophecy of Isaiah: “In those days, five of Egypt's cities will follow the Lord of Heaven's Armies. They will even begin to speak Hebrew, the language of Canaan. One of these cities will be Heliopolis, the City of the Sun. In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt. When they cry out to the LORD because of their oppressors, he will send them a savior and defender, and he will rescue them. So the LORD will make himself known to the Egyptians, and in that day they will acknowledge the LORD. They will worship with sacrifices and grain offerings; they will make vows to the LORD and keep them. (Is. 19:18-21).

Just as the Onias Temple (with the legitimate High Priest) was consecrated (in 169-168 BCE), the corrupted Temple in Jerusalem was closed. The Judean historians conveniently neglect to record the historical fact: there were several years during this time when Jews who wanted to practice their temple-based religion had no choice but to go outside of Jerusalem. Some would have gone to the Samaritan Temple, but most would have gone to Leontopolis and in doing such would have accepted the legitimacy of its Temple.

The Temple at Leontopolites:

Egypt had special significance to the Jews as “Goshen” was the home of Abraham[346], Joseph[347], and Moses[348]. The part of Egypt which included the area southeast from the Pelusian arm of the Nile towards Arabia and the Red Sea[349], with the Wilderness of Shur on the Sinai Peninsula forming a “no-man’s land” region eastward, was the home of the Israelites from the time of Jacob to that of Moses. Israelites shared Egyptian blood and had deep roots in Egyptian soil.

The ancient capital city with the hieroglyphic name "Oon" (Heliopolis as it was known later in Greek) was a center of worship and place of great learning[350]. The Pharaoh Sesostris I erected a number of obelisks at On[351] and he may well have been the Pharaoh under whom Joseph was vizier. This helps make sense of Genesis 41:45: "Then Pharaoh gave Joseph a new Egyptian name, Zaphenath-paneah. He also gave him a wife, whose name was Asenath. She was the daughter of Potiphera, the priest of On. So Joseph took charge of the entire land of Egypt."

Ptolemy I Soter captured Judea around 320 BCE and led some 100,000 Jewish captives to Egypt (Letter of Aristeas to Philocrates, 12-13). From these captives, he armed tens of thousands and made them part of his army (who were often rewarded for their service with land). Ptolemy II Philadelphus (~285 BCE) initiated a program which freed the Jews and offered them religious tolerance. That combined with favorable immigration practices attracted many Jews away from the Judean battlefield (due to the Syrian Wars) to the fertile soil of the Nile Delta. Egypt became home to over a million Jews, most of who lived in Alexandria[352] and the ancient land of Goshen.

Ptolemy made Onias Ethnarch and Alabarch of the Jews and gave Onias much more than a place to build a temple; he offered an entire region (known as the “Land of Onias” or “Oneion” in Greek) which included “numerous Jewish villages”[353]. The Land of Onias was located in the Nome[354] of Heliopolis and included one of the ancient cities known as “Leontopolis”. (Josephus says that the Onias Temple was in Leontopolis in the Heliopolite Nome and makes reference to Bubastis). There was more than one Egyptian city called “Leontopolis” (city of the lion)[355] and more than one “Heliopolis” (city of the sun). In Ptolemy and Onias' time, the best known Leontopolis was the capital of the Leontopolite Nome and Jospehus confused them. The archeological site of the city of Onias is north of the best known Heliopolis[356] at a place called “Tel el-Yahood or Yahudiya” (“Mound of the Jews" in Arabic) in the cultivated land near Shibbeen.

[pic]

In more ancient times, Heliopolis, Leontopolis (modern Tel el-Muqdam), and Bubastis were primary religious centers. Heliopolis was once the spiritual centre of ancient Egyptian sun (“Ra”) worship. Tefnut[357] was worshiped there as one of the members of that city's great Ennead[358] (related to the purification of the wabet or priest). Her sanctuary there was known as the “Lower Menset”. Heliopolis flourished as a seat of learning during the Greek period; the schools of philosophy and astronomy are claimed to have been frequented by Orpheus, Homer, Pythagoras, Plato, Solon, Eudoxus and other philosophers. It was there that the Greek mathematician Ichonuphys, lecturing in 308 BCE, learned the true length of the year and month.

The Bubastis temples (in use through the time of King David) also included obelisks and a tower-like structure built with large stones (recorded as 60 cubits or 120 feet in height). Herodotus provided us with an eye-witness description of Bubastis as it appeared shortly after the period of the Persian invasion (circa 525 BCE) (Herodotus ii. 59, 60).

"Temples there are more spacious and costlier than that of Bubastis, but none so pleasant to behold. It is after the following fashion. Except at the entrance, it is surrounded by water: for two canals branch off from the river, and run as far as the entrance to the temple: yet neither canal mingles with the other, but one runs on this side, and the other on that. Each canal is a hundred feet wide, and its banks are lined with trees. The propylaea are sixty feet in height, and are adorned with sculptures (probably intaglios in relief) nine feet high, and of excellent workmanship. The Temple being in the middle of the city is looked down upon from all sides as you walk around; and this comes from the city having been raised, whereas the temple itself has not been moved, but remains in its original place. Quite round the temple there goes a wall, adorned with sculptures. Within the enclosure is a grove of fair tall trees, planted around a large building in which is the effigy (of Bast). The form of that temple is square, each side being a stadium in length. In a line with the entrance is a road built of stone about three stadia long, leading eastwards through the public market. The road is about 400 feet (120 m) broad, and is flanked by exceeding tall trees. It leads to the temple of Hermes."

Here is a sketch of the basic layout of the ruins[359].

[pic]

And this map shows the location in general…

[pic]

According to Josephus, the Temple of Leontopolis was situated in the Heliopolitan Nome (Ant. 13:3, 2), 180 stadia (20 miles) northeast of Memphis (Wars, 7:10, 2-4). Thus, it could not have been far from the city of Heliopolis itself. At this place, the modern Bilbeis (map above), there was a temple to the goddess Bast and in the neighborhood there is a Tell el-Yehudiyyeh. Another Tell el-Yehudiyyeh with a Jewish cemetery has been found near Heliopolis. French archaeologist Edouard Naville (~1900) identified this as the capital of “the land of Onias” while Josephus’ “Camp of the Jews” (Ant. 14:8, 2) was also northwest of Memphis[360]. There is every reason to accept that an area resplendent with old pagan temples was given to Onias and remodeled by him. Given the historical strategic importance of this area and the variety of ruins and ancient settlements surrounding the cities of On[361], Tanis, and Memphis, we should recognize that the Onias Temple was only a part of a much larger fortified area that would have included the city and Temple of Bubastis as well as the “Babylonian Fort[362]” east of the Nile (in the modern suburb of Cairo known as Heliopolis). The Temple of Onias was built with stone and brick probably using material from other local ruins[363]. These ideas are supported in a letter written by Onias to Ptolemy (recorded by Josephus - Ant. 8:3):

"Having done many and great things for you in the affairs of the war, by the assistance of God, and that in Celesyria and Phoenicia, I came at length with the Jews to Leontopolis, and to other places of your nation, where I found that the greatest part of your people had temples in an improper manner, and that on this account they bear ill-will one against another, which happens to the Egyptians by reason of the multitude of their temples, and the difference of opinions about Divine worship. Now I found a very fit place in a castle that hath its name from the country Diana; this place is full of materials of several sorts, and replenished with sacred animals; I desire therefore that you will grant me leave to purge this holy place, which belongs to no master, and is fallen down, and to build there a temple to Almighty God, after the pattern of that in Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions, that may be for the benefit of thyself, and thy wife and children, that those Jews which dwell in Egypt may have a place whither they may come and meet together in mutual harmony one with another, and he subservient to thy advantages; for the prophet Isaiah foretold that "there should be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God; and many other such things did he prophesy relating to that place."

Some details regarding the construction of the Onias Temple were recorded by historians (Ant., 13.3.1-3; 6; Wars 7.10,3; and Against Apion 2.5). The main area was roughly triangular with a 767’ stone wall on the east side, an entrance to the enclosure at the west acute angle, and the temple at the south point. The entire enclosure covered between three and four acres. The temple had an inner court that was sixty-three feet long by thirty-two to twenty-seven feet wide and an outer court forty-four feet long by twenty-seven to twenty-one feet wide. The architecture was basically Corinthian with Syrian features. The area was generally proportioned like that of the Jerusalem Temple, but at a reduced scale[364].

But its position atop a hill made it appear larger…

[pic]

The entire circuit of the walls was some three miles in extent. Within the walled enclosure, archeologists have found a large pile of granite-blocks which appear, from their forms and sculptures, to have belonged to numerous obelisks and gigantic propyla. A long ramp (stairs?) led through the walls and up the 400’ vertical slope to the Temple and fortress. Rising above the surrounds, the Fortress and Temple would have appeared more formidable.

The altar and the offerings were similar to those at Jerusalem, but in place of the seven-branched candlestick there was a single lamp of gold suspended by a golden chain. The service was performed by priests and Levites of pure descent; and the temple possessed considerable revenues, which were devoted to their support and to the adequate celebration of the divine ritual (War, 7:10,3; Ant. 13:3,3).

The reputation which the temple of Onias enjoyed is indicated by the fact that the Septuagint (Isaiah 19:18) terms the city of Onias as the "city of righteousness[365]" (πόλις ἀσεδέκ or ‘ir-ha-zedek). The Judean view of the Temple of Onias was mixed: in later times, it was questioned whether the services there were idolatrous (Jeruf. Jinan, 43 ff) but the Mishna decided the point favorably as priests who had served at Leontopolis were forbidden to serve at Jerusalem, but were not excluded from attending the public services. To give us an idea of how mixed the feelings about the temple were, the rulings held that vows could be discharged rightly at Leontopolis as well as at Jerusalem, but it was not enough to discharge it at the former place only (Menach. 109 n, ap. Jost. as above).

Fate of the Temple:

Onias’ timing could hardly have been better since soon after work began on the new Temple and its altar the Jerusalem Temple was taken over by the Hellenists and Jewish services were cut off. With a temple in Egypt, Alexandrian Jews – the largest Jewish population in the world at that time – had a more convenient place for services. Judean Jews had no other choice; not only was their Temple desecrated, their fundamental religious practices were punishable by death. There was no dispute that Onias was a legitimate High Priest (if not the only legitimate one) and the Egyptian Temple became the center of Judaism for several years.

Antiochus's religious persecution proved to be a major miscalculation as it provoked a full-scale revolt (starting in 167 BCE). Mattathias, a Jewish priest, and his five sons Jochanan, Simeon, Eleazar, Jonathan, and Judah (together known as the Maccabeans) led a rebellion against Antiochus. By 166 BCE Mattathias had died, and Judah (who became known as Yehuda HaMakabi "Judah the Hammer") became the leader of the revolt. Through the heroic achievements of Judah (defeating two large and well-equipped armies of Antiochus in 165 BCE) the Jewish revolt against the Seleucid monarchy gained remarkable success: the Jerusalem Temple was liberated, rebuilt according to the Torah, and rededicated to worship (164 BCE) - the December festival of Hanukkah[366] was later instituted to commemorate this triumph. Josephus (Ant. 20:10) relates that the office of High Priest was vacant during this time, but this is highly unlikely since the High Priest was a necessary part of the rites on the Day of Atonement. We don’t know who presided over the Temple during this time, but it may well have been Onias IV.

Some think that “the Wicked Priest” of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Jonathan) attacked and killed the High Priest known as the “Teacher of Righteousness” on the Day of Atonement (when Jews were forbidden by the Law of Moses to defend themselves) and that the Teacher of Righteousness was an Oniade whose name was wiped out by the Maccabeans. That would make sense in the larger historical context.

Later, Ptolemy’s son-in-law Alexander Balas petitioned Jonathan Maccabeus for his support in his bid to become King of Syria and offered him appointment as High Priest and the title of Prince. Jonathan accepted Balas’ offer and during the Feast of Tabernacles in 153 BCE Jonathan put on the High Priest's garments and officiated for the first time (1 Maccabees 9:73-10:66). This was the start of the Hasmonean dynasty in Judea which combined civil rule with the High Priesthood. The orthodox Jews, however, never forgot that the legitimate High Priest was an Oniad.

Onias had not only enjoyed the favor of the Egyptian court, he had succeeded in elevating Egyptian Judaism to a position of greater respect and significance. As he had suggested, a large number of Judeans (called "inhabitants" by the Egyptians) had either accompanied him to Egypt or had followed later. These inhabitants performed military service and served the Ptolemies well enough to be given tracts of land for their own. ("Ant." 11:8,§6). Like the Maccabees and Tobiads, Onias had an army and had fought on behalf of his benefactors. Despite some efforts at reconciliation, the Oniads wouldn’t return to Judea without regaining the High Priesthood, so the Onias Temple continued in operation.

The situation in Egypt changed when peace came to Judea and Ptolemy VI Philometor died in 145 BCE. His wife, Cleopatra II, proposed joint rule with Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (aka “Ptollemy II Physcon”) and he became Pharaoh in 144 (after murdering Cleopatra’s son). The new Pharaoh had been opposed by Alexandrian intellectuals and Jews[367] and he took his revenge on them, engaging in mass purges and expulsions. With the changes in politics in both Egypt and Judea, there were good reasons for the Egyptian Jews to think that it was the right time to restore the legitimate High Priest to the Jerusalem Temple.

It appears as though there was movement in that direction during the reign of Salome Alexandra (who ruled Judea from 75–67 BCE) as she was obviously unable to function as High Priest. But her son John Hyrcanus II was favored by the Sanhedrin (which was controlled by the aristocratic Hellenist Sadducees) and he was made High Priest. The Egyptian Jews supported Julius Caesar at Alexandria, leading him to grant privileges to Jews throughout the Roman Empire in 47 BCE. Thus, when Herod I became King of Judea (37 BCE), he appointed Hananiel/Ananeel[368], an Egyptian Oniad, to the position of High Priest in Jerusalem (under what might be viewed as the worst of circumstances).

The Jewish troops in Egypt were taken over as Roman auxiliaries after 30 BCE and Jewish names in papyri from several places in the Nile Delta suggest a continued Jewish military presence into the 1st century CE. Early in the 1st century, Strabo found the city and temples of Heliopolis almost deserted (unidentified priests were still present).

After the Jewish revolt in 66 CE and destruction of the Jerusalem Temple, some of the fugitives from Palestine attempted an uprising in Alexandria. Although it failed entirely, it gave the Romans an excuse for plundering and (later, in 71 CE) closing entirely the temple at Leontopolis (Josephus, War, 7: 10)[369]. However, the closure of the temple at Leontopolis by Vespasian did not necessarily destroy the Jewish community around it. And although that community was dispersed after the revolt of 115-17 CE, we note that the Babylon Fort (noted above) was then occupied by Coptic “Christians”.

As a final note that has some tie to our story, I will mention “Atum of the sycamore tree” in Heliopolis. This tree was worked into Christian legend where it became “the Tree of the Virgin”, a sycamore that is said to have been planted in 1672 from the shoot of an older tree. According to Coptic Christian tradition, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus rested beneath it on their excursion to Egypt and, even today, it remains a place of pilgrimage. “Heliopolis: Egypt’s radiance“ by Philip Coppens at ; see also “Gods of the Egyptians” by E. A. Wallis Budge, Kessinger Publishing, (2003), p.107[370].

[pic]

Other Jewish Temples:

Of course, there were sites other than “temples” where Jews worshiped. We have discussed the major sites where Jewish altars were erected, some form of High Priest was present, and sacrifices were offered to Yaweh. There are a few others that we should mention.

First would be the Qumran community where we know they opposed the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood. It is unlikely that they would not have arranged some alternative way to worship and sacrifice, albeit in a more ancient manner with a tabernacle and smaller shrine. Given the presence of priests and possible even a legitimate High Priest (in exile), they would have viewed this as a duty.

Next would be the “Temple at Tyre” (near Heshbon or Araq el-Emir, 17km west of Amman in Jordan) built by Hyrcanus bar Joseph, the Tobiad[371], during the period that Onias III was in exile (Josephus Ant. 12:4). We know from Josephus that Joseph bar Tobias (the Benjamite opponent of Onias III) borrowed a large sum (20,000 drachmae) from his “friends in Samaria” (Ant. 12:4) before going to Ptolemy, thus supporting the likelihood that an “old Tobiad-Samaritan association persisted." "Jewish Shrines of the Hellenistic and Persian Periods" by E. F. Campbell, (Cambridge, MA 1979), pp. 162-63. Josephus reported that Hyrcanus had an army of 2,000 before he built his fortress in the TransJordan and warred against the Arabs of the region (Ant. 12.4.11; 230-36). The fortress/temple was two-storied (125 feet long, 62 feet wide, and 40 feet high), had greater than usual courts, was composed of white marble decorated with large images of animals, and was surrounded by a moat and other extensive waterworks. As with the Qumranians, it is unlikely that this substantial group of Jews (2,000?) at Tyre, which could not go to Jerusalem or Mt. Gerizim, would forego ritual sacrifice[372].

Jewish Sects and Groups

Introduction:

As we have progressed with discussion of Jewish history and specific aspects of Judaism, we have encountered numerous sects and groups. Here, we will deal with sects that have familiar names but are generally unknown, sects that are almost totally unknown, and sects which are simply misunderstood., including…

1. The Nazoreans

2. The Essenes

3. The Qumranians

4. The Zealots

5. The Pharisees

6. The Kenites & Rechabites

7. The Sadducees/Zadokites:

8. The Boethusians

9. The Herodians

10. The Priests

11. The Rabbinicals

12. The Hellenists

13. The Gnostics

14. The Baptists

15. The Ebionites

16. The Karaites

Judaism at the time of Jesus was an odd combination of strong core beliefs coupled with diverse methodologies and interpretations. Given their strikingly difficult history, we should not be surprised that Jews were both highly unified and oddly divided.  All Jews shared basic beliefs (monotheism, the Law of Moses, and the coming Kingdom of God) and practiced the same core rituals of their religion, (circumcision, sacrifice, and gatherings)[373]. But different Jewish groups or sects debated, disagreed, and sometimes even fought with each other about the details of their religion and the relationship of their religion with the other parts of their lives (e.g. their government or how to oppose foreign domination). 

Those only familiar with the basic gospel stories have heard the words “Pharisee” and “Sadducee” and know that they refer to Jewish groups during the time of Jesus. Most everyone understands who the Zealots were because of some guys named Simon and Judas (Matt 10:4; Luke 22:3; and John 6:71). More recently we have heard more and more about a group known as the Essenes and some even know that there was an important Jewish sect mentioned in Acts known as the “Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5). For the most part, however, detailed knowledge of these groups has been limited to scholars and devotees. This is easily explained since the writers and editors of the New Testament give them little importance or explanation.

Jesus and some “Pharisees” spar verbally in several biblical scenes (Matt 15:1-3; 23:1-5; 23:31-33). And because of this, the word Pharisee is now heard to mean “marked by hypocritical self-righteousness”. Paul tells us that he was raised as a Pharisee (Phil. 3.4-6), but we are left to imagine what that means. And, all too typically, the description of Pharisaic ideas is left largely to the Christians instead of the Jews. It is a constant surprise to find people who call themselves a “Christian” and follower of Jesus, but who know so little about him that they think “Jesus the Nazarene” refers to his being from a town in Galilee.

I contend that one cannot claim to have a basic knowledge of the life of Jesus without having a rudimentary knowledge of the major social, religious, and political issues of his time – and that a key starting point for that knowledge is to understand the groups that Jesus himself was affiliated with or dealt with directly. I hope that I have gathered and presented that rudimentary information here.

Those who would prefer that the Jewish sects formed nicely defined boundaries (and who attempt to deal with them as such) are destined to confusion and frustration. And, as today, even when a group has a clearly defined purpose or character, it may be difficult to say that a certain person should or should not be considered a member. Since there are entire books written about each of the major Jewish sects from the time of Jesus, the best that can be offered here is succinct summation. We will deal with each group in relation to its significance on the life of Jesus.

As usual, it may pay to take a brief look at the history of sectarianism in Judaism in order to make sense of the situation as it existed during the time of Jesus. The earliest relevant examples might not even be properly considered as “sects”, but they are groups with distinct beliefs and practices. First are the Nazirites as identified in Numbers, chapter 6. As identified there, they are not a sect – instead being those who take a specific vow of devotion. Later, the practice of becoming a life-long Nazirite was so uncommon that those who practiced it were identifiable as a distinct group. Since there is strong empirical evidence[374] that Nazoreans were Nazirites and given the name derivation/linkage, we should recognize the relationship.

The Kenites and Rechabites:

(Note: There are hateful racist groups who misread their scripture to assert that Kenites are demonic and godless – black and Islamic. Their assertions are both incorrect and irrelevant to the sects which is being discussed here).

The Rechabites (a sub-group of the Kenites) have an ancient history. Moses married a Kenite wife and the Kenites found favor with God . Rechab was the father of Jehonadab (“Jonadab” in the Book of Jeremiah) who forbade his descendants to drink wine or to live in cities (leading a nomad life). They were noted for their fidelity to the established traditions and customs as well as obeying their ancestor’s commandments[375]. With the obvious commonality shared with Nazirites (no wine) and one interesting (although obscure) link in the story of Jesus, a need to explore the Rechabites emerges. There is a passage from Hegessipus which tells of a Rechabite (priest) trying to intervene during the stoning of James, the brother of Jesus. We don’t know who this person was or why he would risk his life for James, but others presume that he was some close relation. St. Neilos, the fifth century Ascetic in the Philokalia, wrote about the Rechabites:

"Those of the Jews, on the other hand, who hold philosophy in honour--the Rechabites, the descendants of Jonadab (cf. Jer. 35:6)--do indeed encourage their disciples to live an appropriate way of life. They always live in tents, abstaining from wine and all luxuries; their fare is frugal and provision for their bodily needs is moderate. While devoting full attention to the practice of the virtues, they also attach great importance to contemplation, as the name 'Essene' indicates." (“The Philokalia”, Vol. I, Palmer, Sherrard and Ware, p. 201).

(The parallels to John the Baptist and Jesus seem impossible to miss).

The Hebrews and Kenites lived side by side with each supporting a separate priesthood (two divisions of the Aaronic caste). David was a Kenite and he reflects the Kenite’s spiritual, poetical, and artistic nature[376]. Kenites believed that God found sanctuary in each heart and that each man was a priest. Whereas the Hebrews found righteousness through ritual sacrifice; the Kenite found righteousness through devotion and service (and not sacrifice). The Psalms of David reflect the nature of a Kenite king.

While the names may have had regional or nationalistic origins, the disctinction of Jewish sects under the titles “Kenites” and “Rechabites“ was directed to specific Hebrew groups who had idenitfiable Jewish beliefs with their subset of ideas and practices (just like the other Jewish sects).

From these more ancient groups, we move forward in time to the Hellenization period (starting around 300 BCE) and the anti-Hellenistic movement. The cultural corruption from the Greeks was problematic enough for the orthodox Jews, but when the heterodox Jews started to undermine the very nature of Judaism, a major bifurcation took place.

Antiochus Epiphanes (the Hellenistic King of the Persians) was generally opposed to the Jewish religion and wanted to modernize it. Since the leader of the Jews was their High Priest, Antiochus accepted a bribe from Jason, the younger brother of the High Priest Onias III, and appointed him High Priest (174 BCE). Jason was the leader of the Hellenistic faction of the Jerusalem priesthood and the founder of “the Sadducees” – the group that was intent on adapting the Temple and its services to a Graecized form. The orthodox Hasids had to withdraw, leaving their Temple to the abomination of the Sadducees.

The anti-Hellenists became known as the Hasidim or “Pious Ones” although they didn’t unify into any single organized group. Indeed, there was an early split among the Hasidim when one major group left Judea for the safety of Egypt under Onias IV (around 170 BCE, just after the Hellenists murdered Onias III). That group confusingly became known as the “Zadokites”.

The Hasidim that remained in Judea were ineffectual against the Hellenists until one of them – a priest of the Asmon family in Modein named Mattathias – started an armed revolt (the “Maccabean revolt”) (in 167 BCE). The Hasidim had actively resisted involvement in governmental affairs and, by necessity, the new Hasmonean Hasidim rulers governed. Once the Hasmoneans re-dedicated the Temple in 164 BCE and Jewish religious freedom triumphed, the traditional Hasidim, became increasingly separated from the political scheming of the Hasmoneans. This also involved the Zadokites because they expected the Hasmoneans to return the High Priesthood to the legitimate Oniade holders[377].

The First Book of the Maccabees (7:1-16) offers some explanation of the evolving rift within the Hasidim. In response to the Maccabean revolt, the Syrian king sent Bacchides along with his Hellenist choice for High Priest named Alcimus to take vengeance on the revolutionaries and to reestablish Syrian control over the Temple. A group of Hasidim/Chasidim (“scribes”) gathered before Bacchides to seek peace in the belief that "A man who is priest from the seed of Aaron has come with these forces. He will not wrong us." Alcimus gave them strong assurances that he also sought peace and vowed that "We will not seek evil for you and your friends." The Hasidim believed him and surrendered. Bacchides then arrested sixty men from among them and executed them that day. Thus, the Hasidim picked the wrong side against the Hasmoneans and were treated as enemies by both sides.

Josephus describes an event in line with this idea: John Hyrcanus (grandson of Mattathias Maccabeus) finally achieved political independence in 128 BCE and was approached by a Hasidim named Eleazar who suggested that Hyrcanus should be content to be the “King” and return the High Priesthood to the Oniads[378]. Hyrcannus was offended and a Sadducee named Jonathan told him that this view was common to a large number of the Hasidim that Josephus called the “Pharisees”. This began a rivalry that would last for many generations. But there were other off-shoots that were equally important as the Sadducees and the Pharisees (which are dealt with in detail in Appendix XVI).

Pliny and Josephus both provide information about another key group – the Essenes. Pliny believed that the name Essene was derived from “hesed”. He said that they probably separated from the Judaean Hasidim who aligned with the Maccabbees against Antiochus (Epiphanes IV) back in 160 BCE and that some had been part of the priesthood who broke away (the “Zadokites”). The Essenes were strongly opposed to the illegitimate High Priests and their unclean Temple. One group was centered in Egypt (in the Land of Onias) and another in Qumran (where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found)[379].

Within a few decades after the Hasmoneans consolidated their power and control, the Essenes split into progressives and conservatives; the progressive conservatives retaining affiliation with the name “Pharisees” and the conservatives being the normative “Essenes”. These Pharisees claimed to be just as traditional as the Hasidim, but a whole lot more pragmatic.

The Pharisees were a large and diverse group bound by one common belief: that the Torah (God’s Law) was sufficiently incomplete and unclear that additional “teachings” were required to permit true righteousness. They accepted what is known as the “Oral Tradition” – an expansion of scriptural law into new situations or applications based upon “professional” or “scholarly” interpretation (“scribes” and later, the Rabbis). This put them at odds with the true Hasidim who accepted the Torah as complete and with the mainstream priests who profited greatly as “judges” of the law.

So, to return to our starting premise, we should recognize that one person could easily believe in the Oral Tradition (a Pharisee) while believing that the legitimate High Priests were not in power (a Zadokite) and accepting the broad spectrum of new/non-conflicting ideas of the Essenes. Indeed, this person could have been Jesus.

Within this context there are three other major developments that we should consider. First, there was a growing acceptance of Messianic prophecy and belief. These beliefs were quite diverse and were not necessarily aligned with other divisions. All the major sects had Messianic believers and none of them had a particular view that was widely accepted. Thus, among the Essenes, there were those who believed that there would be two Messiahs (a royal Messiah and a priestly Messiah) and those who believed there would be only one. For sure, the scope of Messianic beliefs is great enough that we’ve devoted an entire section to the topic (below).

Next, there were new ”non-canonical” books that gained popular acceptance among the Hebrews (remember, the canonized scripture was developed later). One was actually a group of works related by the name Enoch[380] consisting of five distinct texts, some perhaps written after the time of Jesus: The Book of the Watchers , The Book of Similitudes (Parables) of Enoch, The Book of the Heavenly Luminaries, The Book of Dreams, and The Epistle of Enoch. It is probable that some of these works were popular among the Essenes and are represented within the Dead Sea Scrolls. (Jude quotes/misquotes The Book of Watchers; Jude 1:14-15).

Also popular among the Essenes was the Book of Daniel (including its non-canonical sections). Daniel’s visions were popularly played out in public performances and his eschatological (end-of time) views seemed to fit the hopes of many. Even if viewed as fanciful or fictional, the stories had significant impact in the popular culture.

Finally, related to both the above, there was new focus upon “mystical” and “eschatological” ideas. The core belief of Judaism had always been the “coming of God’s Kingdom on Earth” – the “end of times”. For Jews, our existence is based upon preparing for this Coming, the preparation is based upon practicing “Righteousness”, and when the end comes, only the righteous will be accepted into God’s Kingdom. This is an eschatological view of existence. Within that larger belief, there has always been plenty of room for interpretation and expansion. Without doubt, the whole theology is built upon doubt. Virtually every aspect of the process and result is “mystical” or not objectifiable.

From Hasidim roots grew many sects who may be regarded as the direct continuation of Hasidism into the times of Jesus. The earliest historical reference to these sects is found in Josephus (Josephus, Antiq. XIII, 5:9), who introduces them along with his own openly biased opinions about them. (Josephus was clearly Sadducean and liked the Essenes, but disliked the Pharisees). He discusses these sects (along with the “Zealots”) as representatives of differing doctrinal viewpoints held at the time (about 145 BCE). Other useful historical references include the Babylonian Talmud (Kidd., 66a – also strongly biased against the Pharisees) and the Christian historian Epiphanius (in “Panarion”).

Interestingly, although Paul called himself a “Pharisee”, the New Testament authors and editors were very much opposed to the Pharisees[381]; so much so that contemporary use of the term has taken on negative connotations. We should wonder why this was the case since the teachings of Jesus were more in line with the Pharisees than the Sadducees (who are largely ignored) and the New Testament references to the Pharisees are generally misrepresentative of their views[382].

So where does all this lead? If you haven’t lost track, it is to the Nazoreans. Unlike Pliny and Josephus, Epiphanius gives us a more complete list of the major Jewish sects at the time of Jesus: “Sadducees, Scribes, Pharisees, Hemerobaptists, Ossaeans [Essenes], Nazarean [Nasaraioi])and Herodians." (Panarion 1:19). Epiphanius viewed the Hemerobaptists as being tied to the Scribes/Pharisees and the Essenes with the Nazoreans. Josephus mentions two Essene branches[383] and when considered with Epiphanius, we can suggest they were the “Ossaeans” and “Nazareans”. The key difference was that Essenes encouraged celibacy while the Nazoreans encouraged marriage. For the most part, the Nazoreans are centered more in the north (especially at Mount Carmel) and the Essenes in the south (with a small “Quarter” of Jerusalem).

The Nazoreans:

“Jesus the Nazorean” is the most significant misdirection in the New Testament. There was no town named “Nazareth” during the life of Jesus and Jesus wasn’t from Nazareth, he belonged to a group or sect called the Nazoreans. Given the significance of this group, an entire section (below) is devoted to the Nazoreans. For your convenience, a summary is offered here.

“Jesus of Nazareth[384]” has been so deeply ingrained into our conceptions that virtually every Christian is sure that Jesus lived in a place called Nazareth. But there was no town called Nazareth in Galilee[385] during the time of Jesus and the whole idea of “Iesou Nazoraios” (Greek transliteration) meaning “Jesus of the Nazorean (Nazarene) sect” is a difficult conversion. That is a little strange because the New Testament makes it clear that “Nazoraios” refers to a group instead of a place: “He is a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes.” (Acts 24:5)… a follower of the Way, which they call a sect.” (Acts 24:14).

To understand this confusion and misdirection, we need to look briefly at the history of the Gospels and New Testament writers (which is detailed below and in “After Jesus”). By the time the New Testament gospels were edited for inclusion in the “canonized Bible”, the authors and theologians were far removed from Judea and Galilee and their Jewish predecessors. Their sources were often vague and awkward, including the tradition of “Jesus the Nazarene”. In addition, those familiar with the sect known as the Nazoreans thought of them as heretics and opponents. Thus, instead of using the obvious meaning of Jesus the Nazarene, they created a place named “Nazareth” and made it the home town of Jesus; Jesus the Nazarene became “Jesus of (from) Nazareth”.

To reinforce this notion, they wrote gospel references and stories that included Nazareth. Wherever the more ancient record clearly should read “Jesus the Nazorean”, they substituted “Jesus of Nazareth”. And, to make the reference seem even more significant, in the gospel of Matthew they fabricated a prophecy that had the Messiah coming from Nazareth: “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets… He shall be called a Nazarene.” (Matthew 2:23)[386] . This idea was echoed in John 1:45 along with Nathanael’s odd reply: “Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46). But, of course, there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament (even though some try to play an odd game of making the Greek root sound like a different Hebrew word (nezer) which is then taken to mean “stem” from Isaiah’s prophecy (at Is. 11:1). See “Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible” by Eugen J. Pentiuc (2006), p.120.

Oddly, even those who should have known better succumbed to this misdirection and so when Bishop Melito of Sardis went to Judea (160 CE) to discover what had become of the legendary Jerusalem Church and the descendants of the apostles, he found no place called Nazareth (and none of the families). He did, however, find a “Gospel of the Nazarenes”. Then, in the fourth century, Helena (Emperor Constantine’s mother) discovered a site she thought was Nazareth and reported her find to Eusebius, the historian (see “Historia Ecclesiastica”, 1:7-14). The place has since been associated with the name “Nazareth” even though there is NO epigraphic evidence (stone engravings, etc.) using the name “Nazareth” dated before 300 CE! Later, by the time the canonical gospels were finalized, there was a place called Nazareth and it is easy to understand how people could have accepted the change: “Notzerim” was taken to mean “Nazarenes,” or folks from Nazareth.

Epiphanius described a pre-Christian sect of Jewish Nazarenes (Har. Xviii; xxix ) and distinguished them from the later Jewish Christian sect of the same name as well as from the Nasireans (cp. Har., xxix. 5), concluding that all Christians were at first called Nazoreans by the Jews.

Accordingly, if Jesus was so well known as “the Nazorean”, it is essential that we figure out who the Nazoreans were: where they came from, what they believed, and what happened to them. We will start by trying to decipher the name itself. There are several possible starting points:

The word netzer meaning "branch" or "stem" (a reference intended to support the claim that Jesus was a descendant of David), the word “nosri/zozri” which means "one who keeps (guard over)" or "one who observes", or the word “nazir” meaning "consecrated" or "separated" which, as in the root of “nazirite”, refers to a man who is consecrated and bound by a vow to God, (generally symbolized by not cutting his hair or drinking wine). Perhaps it was a variation of “Nazaria” or “Nazurai”, an Essene sub-sect noted by Pliny and Josephus. “Nassarene” could also be a deliberate play on words (combining “Nazirite” with “Essene”).

Commonly, the Nazoreans are viewed as affiliated with the Essenes (below), but then it’s hard to put a finger on what it meant to be an Essene or to say why one couldn’t be both. Oddly, the best historical example of a Nazorean may have been Jesus himself. And, it seems clear that Jesus also had strong affiliations with the Essenes, knowledge of the Pharisees, relationships with various Zealot groups, and ties to lesser known groups such as the Zaddokites and Rechabites. Some of his teachings lean towards Kabbalistic views and the Gnostics have long found him to be one of theirs. And, if all that isn’t enough to make the issue confusing, it seems clear that the Nazoreans have their roots in the Hasidim: the "Godly people." (as above and below).

Epiphanius goes on to say: "The Nazareans - they were Jews by nationality - originally from Gileaditis (where the early followers of Yeshua fled after the martyrdom of James, the Lord's brother), Bashanitis and the Transjordon…They acknowledged Moses and believed that he had received laws [but held that the scriptures of the Pentateuch were not written by Moses]… And so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful to eat meat or make sacrifices with it…This was the difference between the Nazarean and the others…“ (Panarion 1:18).

Conversely, Epiphanius has the Essenes originating from Nabataea, Ituraea, Damascus (as in the place where the “Teacher of Righteousness” took those spoken of in the Damascus Covenant), Moabitis and Arielis (lands beyond the Dead Sea). . . “Though they were different from the other six of these seven sects, they caused schism only by forbidding the books of Moses like the Nazareans”. (Panarion 1:19)

Viewing the Nazoreans and Essenes as related and sometimes confused with each other, we can look to sources which discuss the northern Essenes and regard such as Nazoreans. This is especially true of the “Essenes” at Mt. Carmel[387]. The sacredness of Mt. Carmel was well known in ancient Israel and an altar had been erected in honor of God on its summit. Its ruins were repaired by the prophet Elijah as soon as this could be done safely (1 Kings 18:30). Tradition located the Altar of Elijah on the rocky plateau of el-Muhraqa on the southeast flank of the Mt. Carmel range and excavations in 1958 uncovered what is accepted as Elijah's altar, the cave where he lived, the fountain of Elijah, and the remains of an ancient monastery.

The southern Ossaeans were known as the B'nai-Zadok, or "Children of Zadok." The Qumranians termed themselves “Keepers of the Covenant” which in Hebrew was Nozrei ha-Brit (the origin of the term Nozrim). More information regarding the Essenes and Qumranians appears in the next section.

Mt. Carmel was consecrated to God and the Nazoreans prohibited permanent dwellings to be built on it. Instead, its keepers and pilgrims lived in tents (or yurt-like temporary shelters). Nothing was allowed to be killed there, no blood could be shed, and only plant foods could be eaten on its slopes. “Vulgar” people were prohibited from entering its regions (Iamblichus).

Even more interesting was this historical aside:

After gaining all he could from the [Jewish] Phoenician Mysteries, [Pythagoras] found that they had originated from the sacred rites of Egypt, forming as it were an Egyptian colony. . . . On the Phoenician coast under Mount Carmel, where, in the Temple on the peak, Pythagoras for the most part had dwelt in solitude . . . Mount Carmel, which they knew to be more sacred than other mountains…” (Iamblichus, “The Life of Pythagoras”).

The Nazoreans and Pythagoreans shared many commonalities: vegetarianism, wearing seamless white linen gowns with their hair uncut and parted down the middle with a colorful headband, and a keen interest in Kabballistic studies.

We can re-assemble some of their beliefs through information in the Book of Acts…

“However, I admit that I worship the God of our fathers as a follower of the Way, which they call a sect. I believe everything that agrees with the Law and that is written in the Prophets.” (Acts 24:14).

“And all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need.” (Acts 2:44)

“Go and stand in the temple and speak to the people all the words of The Life.” (Acts 5:20)

“There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.” (Acts 5:34).

“We have found this man to be a troublemaker who is constantly stirring up riots among the Jews all over the world. He is a ringleader of the sect known as the Nazarenes.” (Acts 24:5).

It is unmistakable, “The Way” (of the Nazoreans) was what Jesus and the Nazoreans called their sect. They were not "from Nazareth”; they were not Pharisees or Sadducees or Essenes - they were Nazoreans. “The Truth” was what they sought and what they taught. “The God of Truth” was not just some obscure biblical deity who demanded ritual sacrifices and inane worship. The God of the Nazoreans was a loving God who had given us “The Life” and “The Way”. These ideas dictated how they lived: communally (sharing what they had with one another) and spreading good will, hope, healing, and God’s love.

Moreso, the God of the Nazoreans wasn’t somewhere else waiting to return to earth and establish a kingdom. The creed of the Nazoreans echoes in the Gospels: “Change your life for the Kingdom of God is at hand!” “The Way” was the primary message of Jesus’ ministry: “’Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:28-31; Jesus is summarizing the Torah in a manner similar to Hillel[388] and repeating the commandment of Leviticus 19:18).

There is some speculation based upon modest historical support that both the Essenes and the Nazoreans had ties with the Therapeutae of Egypt[389]. Philo of Alexandria described at length the Therapeutae of Egypt as a Jewish monastic community that bore considerable resemblance to the Qumranian Essenes[390]. These Therapeutae (or Therapeutrides) professed healing skills for both bodies and souls (“pleasures and appetites, fears and griefs, and covetousness, and follies, and injustice, and all the rest of the innumerable multitude of other passions and vices”). The Therapeutae claimed to have been instructed by nature and the sacred laws to serve the living God.

One last little bit of history may add to our understanding of the Nazoreans. In 1870, an Aramaic manuscript titled “The Gospel of the Nazoreans” that had been hidden away for centuries in a Tibetan monastery was discovered, translated and later published. This ancient scripture seems in virtually every respect identical to the work by the same title that was known and widely quoted within the Catholic Church during the first century. Several early church fathers believed that this “Gospel of the Nazirenes” (also known as "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve") was the long-lost original Gospel written by the actual Apostles in the period immediately following Jesus’ death and upon which all of the Biblical synoptic Gospels are based (termed by some the "Q Gospel", but such is unlikely). A complete version of the gospel is available at .

In sum, we should recognize ten things about the Nazoreans:

1. They were one of many Jewish sects that evolved from Hasidim origins where a belief in orthodoxy led to separation.

2. They pre-date the time of Jesus by centuries and grew as some affiliation with the Essenes emerged.

3. They were centered in regions north of Judea and had a special tie to Mt. Carmel and the prophet Elijiah.

4. Their general beliefs seem derived from Nazirites, Rechabites, Kabbalists, Zaddokites, and Essenes.

5. They were closely associated with the Zealots and some of their Hasidim roots had a history of militaristic action.

6. Their Messianic expectations were not those of main-stream Judaism and tended to incorporate broader ideas (including those of the Therapeutae and the Gnostics).

7. They were devoutly Jewish and believed wholeheartedly in following the correct Torah.

8. Their view of God had evolved beyond the more superstitious and archaic views of the Temple priesthood and their religious ideas incorporated newer Pharisaic ideas.

9. They believed the end-of-times were near and that they had the higher purpose of preparing for it.

10. They were a diverse group with many beliefs and differences – bound together strongly by a well known and professed creed: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind and with all your strength. Honor God by loving your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus was the quintessential Nazorean.

The Essenes:

There may no ancient religious group that has gotten as much attention over the last 30 years as than the Essenes. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Essenes have been placed in the bright searchlight of historians, religious writers, and the Christian community. This is somewhat strange and ironic because they have been known well for over 2,000 years and we’re not even sure they had much to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls. Nevertheless, given speculation (some of it “wild” and some by well-respected historians) that Jesus was a member of the Essenes, it shouldn’t be surprising that they have garnered interest and research, especially when the three greatest historical sources of the time have this to say about them…

| |

|"... a race by themselves, more remarkable than any other in all the |

|world." |

|-- Pliny |

|"... they show more love for each other than do others, and live a |

|more moral life. Rightly do they deserve to be called an example for |

|the life of other people." |

|-- Josephus |

|"They live each day in constant and unalterable holiness." |

|-- Philo |

Let us begin by clarifying some serious misconceptions and unfounded assumptions. We need to be careful in making undue association between the larger group known as the Essenes and the small group of likely Essene off-shoots who took sanctuary at Qumran (near where one large group of the ancient documents known as the “Dead Sea Scrolls “ were found). Since the documents may have been stored or hidden there by some group other than the Qumranites/Qumranians, our first risky assumption is that the two are closely related.

But, even if the DSS (our shorthand for the Dead Sea Scrolls) were written and saved by the Qumranians, we aren’t all that certain that the documents relate to the Essenes. The information we have from other historical sources doesn’t help us link the unique ideas and practices described in the DSS to the Essenes generally. Neither are they substantially inconsistent with each other.

Many non-scholars fail to realize that the DSS constitute “the greatest jig-saw puzzle in history” and that we are missing many pieces. We can’t even agree on what the bigger picture is supposed to look like or what many of the individual pieces represent. Nevertheless, the scrolls have been a “god-send” for historians, theologians, and writers. So much of their history, meaning, and effect are lacking objectifiable elements that we can feel free to speculate and theorize. Thus, there are claims they were left there by aliens, written by the hand of God, or recent forgeries. Some think they were actually written by Jesus. Even within the scholarly community, there are charges of conspiracy to defraud and official obstructionism.

We have no need (or desire) to add to the voluminous discussion on any of those topics. In fact, unlike most of the subjects dealt with in these appendices, the problem of explaining the Essenes is more akin to sifting than compiling. (As of this writing, the word “Essenes” gets almost ½ million “hits’ on Google). This surplussage of data only serves to compound the difficulty that will underlie discussion of all the Jewish sects: the historical record is often confused and disjointed[391].

The Essenes, like most of the Jewish sects discussed here, had roots in the Hasidim. Those details are offered there and are not repeated here. And, as mentioned above, the Essenes and Nazoreans were related sects and that relationship is explained in the the section devoted to the Nazoreans. In sum, what that leaves us with are two groups that we will specifically term the “Essenes”: the main body that we will continue to call Essenes and the off-shoot known as the Qumranian Essenes.

Jewish sources hold that the Essenes were an off-shoot of the Pharisees after they became an off-shoot of the Hasidim. Indeed, it is said that “the line of distinction between Pharisees ("Perushim") and Essenes was never very clearly drawn (see "Perishut" in Abot iii. 13; Soṭah iii. 4, xi. 15; Tosef., Soṭah, xv. 11; Ṭoh. iv. 12; B. B. 60b; from the Jewish Encyclopedia). The Essenes were never highly homogeneous as indicated by the many names given to them or their sub-sects:

• "Nekiyye ha-Da'at" (the pure-minded)

• "Yire'e Heṭ" = (fearers of sin)

• “Zenu'im” (the chaste ones)

• "Zanu'a" or "Kadosh" (the Saints)[392].

• “Watikim" (men of firm principles)

• "Kesherim" (the blameless ones)

• “Hashsha'im” (the observers of secrecy)

• "Nahum” (the most holy ones)

• "Banna'im" (builders)

• “Anshe Ma'aseh" (men of miraculous deeds)

• “Kehala Kaddisha” (the Holy Congregation)

The name “Essene[393]” may have its origins in several sources: Pliny’s guess was that the name was derived from the Hebrew “hesed” which supported his belief that their roots were in the Judaean Hasidim[394]; Josephus speaks of the “Essaios” (as a race) and Pliny uses the Latin “Esseni” (sometimes beginning with an “O”)[395]. From this we produced the transliteration (sound-alike) “Essene”. The writers of DSS termed themselves: “osey hatorah” ('Ossim = observers of torah) and that has been shortened and read by some as “Essians”. In Aramaic, the word for “healer” is “aciya/assaya” and given the established relationship between the Egyptian healers (“Therapeutae”) and the Essenes, the name could come from their transliteration[396]. There is an unlikely possibility that the name comes from the Messianic prophecy of Isaiah (11:1) where the word “יִשָׁ֑י” (“branch”) in Hebrew has the sound “yi·shai” making advocates of this prophecy "Jesseans" (and the Essenes seem to have accepted this as a primary Messianic prophecy).

The main body of Essenes had their roots in two other groups: the Judean Hasidim[397] and the Therapeutae (“Healers”) of Egypt. The original Hasidim were the orthodox Jews who opposed the Hellenists (those who wanted to bring more “modern” Greek ideas into Judaism). And, although they were initially unified in their desire to keep Judaism free of corruption, the Hasidim were divided on key beliefs within their religion. The key division related to the very core of Judaism- the Torah. One group believed that the Torah was sufficient exposition of God’s law and that the priests were the appointed human judges of the laws meaning and application. This group eventually becomes the core of the Sadducees (detailed below). The other group believed that the Torah was only the foundation of the law and that those who studied it and were devoted to it could extract and extrapolate from it additional laws (or rules) that would guide everyday behavior. This group became known as the Pharisees and their rules became the “Oral Tradition”.

It may be that the original Essenes were simply Pharisees seeking separation from the name or identification “Pharisee” due to treacherous political situations[398]. In this, the religious differences between the Pharisees/Essenes and the Sadducees were less significant than their different political methodologies: The Sadducees were much more willing to “go with the flow” and align with whoever was in power. (Over time, this led to the Sadducees being largely aristocratic).

Since it is difficult to distinguish the general Essene group from the general Pharisee group, we turn to the various Essene sub-groups or sub-sects that are identifiable mostly by affiliation with other minor sects. As already mentioned, the largest such Essene sub-sect were those who shared beliefs and practices with the Jewish Alexandrian (Egyptian) Therapeutae. (There were non-Jewish Therapeutae throughout the Greek world).

In our discussion below, we find that the Therapeutae were less “religious” than social in their ideas and structure. In modern terms, we might deem them a “professional organization” that avoids politics. As their name implies, they were healers in the broad sense – they not only advanced medical science, they healed spiritually. The Jewish Alexandrian Therapeutae were prominent as both healers and as Jews. They seemed to find a comfortable balance between their religious traditions and the highly Graecized world they lived in. To some extent, this would seem to be directly related to a close relationship with the “opposition priesthood” which had been established for over 150 years ago in the nearby Land of On (See Appendix XVIII).

The Therapeutae Essenes may be distinguished from other Essenes in a few details[399]: Therapeutae Essenes did not eat meat or drink wine, they engaged in daily fasts, they focused on healing (and practiced such as a profession), and they were unusually egalitarian – especially in regard to women. As a subtle way of distinguishing the Therapeutae Essenes, they denied slavery based upon ideals of human equality and justice whereas the Essenes generally denied slavery because of their interpretation of the Torah[400]. The Therapeutae Essenes gathered in enclaves around the Middle East and had “collectives” in most major cities. This leads us to one shared belief common to all Essenes.

Given the contemporary connotations associated with “communism”, it is problematic to apply the word to the Essenes. However, “communistic” best describes their fundamental social system: they believed in communal living and apparently made that work in the idealized manner – “share and share alike”. When others joined the Essenes, they were required to give their possessions to the commune. Their earnings went to the common fund which paid for their food, clothing, and needs. In this way, their dietary restrictions were easily enforced, they shared a common appearance, and they were entitled to share in the community resources. One aspect of such was highly advantageous – when Essenes travelled they were able to stay with other Essenes.

The Essenes made no secret of their affiliation – they wore the same easily identifiable garb and had the same hairstyle. Their basic garment was a one-piece one-cloth one-material “cloak” (per Lev. 19:19) that was usually white. They did not cut their hair and customarily parted it down the middle. They wore a head-band which may have been colored to identify their community or their “rank” (or both).

Their community structure was rather rigid and their leaders elected. The principle leader for the Essenes was the Rabban (or Rabboni) meaning “Master”. The Rabban’s assistant was the Rabbi or “teacher”. The Rabbi was assisted by a rab, or assistant teacher. The community members had ranks that were earned through competence and experience. Initiates went through a three year process just to become members of the community. In the first year they were basically students. In the second, they were allowed to participate in some of the ceremonies and closed rites. Finally, the initiate was required to take a serious (“treacherous”) oath never to reveal the secrets of the Essene order before being allowed to attend the secret Essene meetings called “האדוט” (“hadoth” or go for God’s sake).

The Essene creed required that they practice piety toward God and charity toward fellow humans; that they do no harm to fellow humans either of their own accord or at the command of others; and that they never abuse their authority or put themselves above the others. The Essenes tended to have strict rules enforced within their own community unless the crime was sufficiently serious to have the offender cast out of the society.

While not universal, the following were typical of Essenes:

• They tended toward silence and contemplation (and were referred to as “silent ones”).

• They were opposed to taking oaths - simply answering “yes” or “no” in common conversation.

• They were generally indifferent to worldly possessions and pleasures. Their doctrine was that their physical bodies were corruptible, but their souls were immortal.

• They believed in tithing but not sacrifice. The seventh day (our Sunday) was their Sabbath.

• They believed in and practiced immersion Baptism.

• They believed that the physical body was the temple of the soul.

• They revered The Book of Enoch[401].

• They believed in angels and angelic intervention in human lives (developing the field of Angelology).

• They were expert Kabbalists and accepted mystical practices but were focused upon moral philosophy and ethics.

• They taught piety, holiness, and justice; with focus on the love of God, virtue, and love of humankind.

• Many of the Essenes were great prophets of the future and were seldom wrong in their predictions.

• They were very clean (physically and ritually).

The Essenes had a clear view of their relationship with God and how one lives their life to honor God:

The Torah leads to conscientiousness; this to alertness for holy work; this to blamelessness; this to separation (from common things); this to purity; this to piety; this to humbleness; this to holiness; and this finally to the joining with the Lord[402].

The Essenes were divided into two general groups:

1. Practicai: practitioners who focused on physical survival - clothing, pottery, carpentry, etc.

2. Therapeutici: healers in three categories: Herbalists, Stone Healers, and Spiritual Healers.

They followed two different paths:

1. The “monastic” sects established and lived within communities.

2. The itinerant groups moved from community to community and were akin to Rechabites.

We know that they had “communities” at Lake Mareotis (south of Alexandria in Egypt), in Jerusalem (the “Essenes Quarter” near the “Essene Gate” in the SW part of the walled city), at Mt. Carmel (along the sea in Palestine), and at Qumran and En-gedi (along the west side of the Dead Sea). It is highly probable that they had other communities in regional cities like Pella, Cochaba, and Damascus (and perhaps a few other villages that were wholly Essene).

Some Essenes were celibate while others were householders with families. Josephus writes that they "strove to be like Angels of heaven" and some went so far as to believe that the laws of cleanliness required celibacy. The Essenes were the only major Jewish sect of the time to practice celibacy since most Jews found the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” to be a high priority.

The Essenes at Qumran practiced an unusual form of asceticism that appears to be reflected in the biblical mention of the diet of John the Baptist. Their diet restrictions included the eating of ‘locust’ - the pods from the locust or carob tree, not the insect (although locusts were eaten in Palestine). Their method of baptism (immersion) was also like that practiced by John (those Essenes were called “Baptists”). The Essenes at Qumran also had an unusual prophetic theology that aligned with the small tidbits we can glean from the New Testament[403].

Other writers have surmised characteristics of the Essenes (and generalizing such) to include:

"The Essenes lived on the shores of lakes and rivers, away from cities and towns, and practiced a communal way of life, sharing equally in everything. They were mainly agriculturists and arboriculturists, having a vast knowledge of crops, soil and climatic conditions which enabled them to grow a great variety of fruits and vegetables in comparatively desert areas and with a minimum of labor." “From Enoch to the Dead Sea Scrolls” by Edmond Szekely, (Beekman Publishing, Inc, 1992).

"That the intellectual level of the community was high can be gathered from the historical accounts of the sect. Essenes were selected as teachers of the young and Roman officials residing in Palestine selected these mystics, preferring them to scholars of other Jewish sects or tutors sent from Rome. Under the gentle guidance of these godly men, children received not only learning, but also enlightenment… Some of the Essenes practiced medicine and healed the sick.... They were especially mindful of the poor, who could not afford to engage physicians. When the Essenian doctor attended a patient, he would not only prescribe a remedy, but would also clean the house, do the mending and washing and any other task which sickness had interrupted. If some gift was forced upon him by one of the grateful, it was placed in the general storehouse of the sect… The order adopted orphans and reared them with all tenderness… The aged were held in the highest esteem, and it was remembered that they had worked faithfully and lovingly as long as their strength had permitted. They were given... devoted care and protected from want to the end of their lives." “The Mystical Christ: Religion As A Personal Spiritual Experience” by Manly P. Hall (1994).

"Three basic principles were followed by The Essenes in their healing... First, it was believed that Divinity was expressed in the plant kingdom as an antidote for the illnesses of the human kingdom, that for every illness there existed a palliative in a root, leaf or bark of a tree or plant. The Essenes therefore were herbalists in the highest sense of the word. A second method of healing was to make use of 'healing stones' -- bits of various kinds of rock or hardened earth... The power of such stones in influencing magnetic fields under the direction of one who is versed in this type of therapy became common knowledge at a later period. The Essenes also created salves from natural sources. The clay and spittle Jesus prescribed for the blind man may very well have originated from this source. The third method of healing in which the Essenes were extremely well versed drew upon the healing powers of the invisible worlds around them. They acquired an unparalleled mastery in manipulating these healing powers of the superior spheres...” “The Essenes and their Ancient Mysteries” by Robert Chaney (1968).

Because of their diversity, it is difficult to summarize the Essene sect, but Manly Hall did it well:

"The Essenes resolved to live by the laws of God in a world of men.... By simply permitting consciousness to guide conscience, and conscience to govern conduct, the Essenes unfolded the basic plan for human society. The more devoutly they practiced these principles, the more obvious it became that the program was both possible and practical.... By loving their fellow men and serving them, the Essenes discovered in their own hearts the God of love and service." Hall, ibid.

Qumranians:

“Qumran” began as a Hasmonean “fortress[404]” overlooking the Dead Sea[405]. It is located a hard day’s walk (15.5 miles) from Jerusalem between Jerico and Ein Gedi on a buttress about 200’ above the Dead Sea (adjacent to the seasonal stream called Wadi Qumran). Excavations reveal that the location had been used much earlier (600 BCE) and may have been the place once called Secacah - one of six desert towns mentioned in the Old Testament book of Joshua. We are mainly interested in its history after 150 BCE (early in era of the Hasmonean Dynasty).

If it wasn’t for the accidental discovery of ancient manuscripts in caves near Qumran, we’d know almost nothing about the place. Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (“DSS”)[406] the little community near the Wadi/Nahal Qumran has become the subject of much speculation and conjecture. Of course, most of that is based upon the assumption that the Scrolls themselves are related to the community[407].

So much has been written about the Qumranians (mostly as “Essenes”) that it seems redundant to restate the many views on their “sect”. Frankly, it seems time to acknowledge that the best available archeological evidence indicates that the Dead Sea Scrolls – AT BEST – only partially relate to the Qumranians. It is entirely possible that all of the extant DSS were written elsewhere and later archived in the caves near Qumran. I believe otherwise - while it is clear that Qumran went through several stages and provided different functions at different times, I would agree with those that argue that its primary historical significance arises from the period that it was home to the “Teacher of Righteousness” and the sect that either wrote or accepted the “Manual of Discipline” and the “Damascus Document” (key documents in the DSS). If this belief is wrong, then the references to the “Qumranians” hereafter refer to that group – wherever they were based.

If Qumran began as a “fort”, it wasn’t much of one[408]. Its early use seems to be more as a “lookout” and it grew to a “post” before becoming a fort/villa. The building of an aqueduct and cistern (around 140 BCE) greatly improved the location. I suspect that the Hasmoneans, probably Simon "Thassi" (Ethnarch and High Priest from 141 to 135 BCE), created a huge rift among the Jews when he decided to keep the office of High Priest (after the Maccabean revolt ended) even though he was not legally qualified to hold that office. More so, I propose that in order to reduce any quarrel about the matter he imprisoned the rightful High Priest (the Moreh Tzedek[409] or “Teacher of Righteousness” of the DSS). The place of this forced exile was probably the “fortress” at Qumran.

We don’t know who the rightful heir to the High Priesthood was at this time. Because the rightful heir, Onias IV, had been forced into exile eight years before the Maccabean revolt (which began in 167 BCE), he would have come from the Land of On in Egypt and he would have had broad support among the Jews (but not enough to overcome the armies of the Hasmoneans and their support by the Romans). It seems likely that a deal was struck whereby this rightful High Priest was allowed to live if he would assent (in exile) to Hasmonean rule and control his followers[410]. The best hope of the Teacher of Righteousness was to wait and see if the Hasmoneans could hold power[411] and to do what he could to serve the people until the High Priesthood was restored to its proper holder.

Simon used his position(s) to great advantage: strengthening his defenses, forming alliances, and gaining favor with the people. By the time of his death (murdered in 135 BCE), the Hasmoneans were firmly in control of the Jews and Simon’s third oldest son, John Hyrcanus[412] I, succeeded him[413]. Following the treachery that killed Simon and his sons (as above) and with serious threats from Ptolemy and the Syrians (aka Selecuids), the Jews willingly retained Hyrcanus as their leader. He took advantage of the circumstance and kept the title of High Priest. During his 30 year reign, Hyrcanus managed to defend Judea – at great cost to himself and the nation. To keep power and end the siege of Jerusalem in 134 BCE by Antiochus VII Euergetes (aka Sidetes, the Selecuid King), he raided the tomb of King David for money and gave up his only surviving brother as a hostage (Ant. 13.249).

We don’t know what was going on at Qumran, but as things settled down for Hyrcanus (due to the death of Antiochus VII and Hyrcanus’ use of the tomb funds to hire a mercenary army), the nature of Qumran changed[414]. By the time of Queen Salome Alexandra’s reign[415] (104 BCE) more people were living at Qumran and its function changed. Salome was more tolerant, fair-minded, and conciliatory than her ex-husband, so we should not be surprised that under her reign, the situation at Qumran would improve. It began to take on a monastic “feel” as the Essene Oniades gathered there under the “Teacher of Righteousness” and a “community” was formed.

As noted above, the Essenes have become unduly equated with the sect at Qumran – and vice versa[416]. There are two main reasons why this has happened: (1) we know so little about the Essenes, and (2) there are obvious overlaps in the two sects. But it is clear that the Essenes were a much larger group than the Qumranians, so at best, the sect at Qumran was a small divergent Essene sub-sect[417]. That said, it is wonderful that the Dead Sea Scrolls have given us such insight into this group and that we have been able to relate much of it to the Essenes.

The diversity of the community we are calling Qumranians is indicated by the number of different names the Qumranians called themselves: “the sons of light” (banah ‘owr), “members of the New Covenant” (ish berith chadashah) “the poor” (Evionim)[418], “the devout” or “pious ones” (Hasidim), “chaste ones” (Zenu’im), “humble ones” (anav), “blameless ones” (kesherim), “silent ones” (Hashsha’im), “men of firm principles” (Watikim), “saints” (Kadosh), “builders” (Banna’im),”men of miraculous deeds” (Anshe Ma’asey), “the community” (“Yachad”) and “the assembly” (“’edah”)[419]. Nowhere in the DSS do they mention “Essenes”.

The Qumranians regarded themselves as the true Congregation of Israel and they organized themselves into what may be described as a 'church' archetype. Their organization had a formal constitution (set of foundational principles) and written laws. They shared numerous interesting parallels with the organization of the primitive pre-Christian and “Christian” churches: the very name “'edah” as was used by the early Christians of Palestine for their “Church”; the Qumranians had twelve “men of holiness” who supervised the community under three superiors who were the leaders; and they also had a system of mebaqqerim or 'overseers' equivalent of the Greek episkopoi, or “bishops”. See “The Dead Sea Scriptures” by Theodore H. Gaster (1976).

The Qumranians seemed to share many ideas with the Essenes including their concept of a “Father in Heaven"[420] and their self-image as "the lovers of God" (B. B. 8b; Yoma 28a). They also shared the unifying idea that God unites the brotherhood of the humble ("ḥaburot ha-nemukin")[421]. Like the Essenes, they entered a “new covenant” with God and lived separately from their corrupted Jewish counterparts – generally in encampments with their wives and children. They had their own calendar (solar-lunar verses Jewish lunar calendar) in which all the festivals of the Lord and fast days fell on Wednesdays. The general lack of bones found at the site[422] indicates that they were vegetarians (and did not practice animal sacrifices there).

The Qumranians adopted rigid rules of Levitical purity and aspired to a high degree of righteousness. Their Messianic beliefs were well developed and they were preparing for the One (or two). They accepted a mystical view of the human relationship with God and tried to be in harmony with the great mysteries of Creation. They generally thought that they had a causal affect on the end-of-time that was soon to come.

Their belief in the immediacy of the coming kingdom of God led them to some unusual practices. First, some believed in celibacy since the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” only made sense when the coming was more than a generation away. The Qumranians believed their generation would see God’s Kingdom. (There was also a belief that sexual activity invariably led to some level of ritual uncleanliness and they strove to be continuously “clean”). Secondly, there was little need to prepare for a normal future by stockpiling possessions or engaging in meaningless struggles with those whom God would deal with shortly. Isolation allowed focused preparation and the Qumranians were isolated physically and socially from others…

“Everyone who wishes to join the congregation of the elect must pledge himself to live according to the rule of the community...To love all the children of light and to hate all the children of darkness.” Manual of Discipline (aka Community Rule or Serekh Ha Yah’ad) 1:15.

Despite their preparations for the coming Kingdom, they needed to be self-sufficient (to remain isolated) and they accomplished this through agricultural endeavors and two small industries: pottery work and writing/transcribing. The agricultural activity was actually centered at the nearby oasis of Ein Feshkha (aka Einot Tzukim) where its brackish spring water was only suitable for date palms (used to produce date honey at Qumran)[423].

We have only recently gained evidence to confirm the pottery operation – the mystery of the large number of plates at the site was solved when archeologists found a large amount of clay residue at the bottom of one of the cisterns. However, it has been the scribal activities that have caught the imagination of most researchers – obviously as a result of the scroll findings.

Our evidence strongly supports scribal activities at Qumran[424], even though we know than many of the DSS were not written there. What is often ignored is the fact that scriptural writing or transcription would require someone of substantial priestly authority for oversight and approval. Since some of the material appears to have been written in Jerusalem and sent to Qumran for reproduction, there was some link there. The documents possibly written by Qumranians are the most revealing, including (as suggested by several authors) “The Book of Jubilees”, “The Book of Enoch” and “The Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs.”

An earthquake in 31 BCE caused extensive damage to the structures at Qumran and a major attack in 8 BCE resulted in deliberate destruction by fire – possibly at the instigation of Herod. After that, its use changed and declined until after Herod’s death in 4 BCE. Qumran served as a refuge and secret repository from then until the Jewish-Roman War of 68 CE (when it was razed before the siege of Masada).

The Qumranians then disappeared as a known sect – as did the Essenes.

The Zealots[425]:

How do we pass over the simple fact that at least two of the twelve Apostles[426] are openly acknowledged to be Zealots? Should we ignore the suggestions that at least two others are also Zealots. If 1/3 of the members of your “club” are militant revolutionaries, aren’t you likely to be one yourself?

Clearly, Jesus was not a militant revolutionary and we can credit him with guiding his disciples to a better methodology. But the very fact that they knew each other so well and that these Zealots found enough revolutionary “spirit” in Jesus to align themselves with his mission should tell us something. That Jesus didn’t see these zealous friends and associates as a detraction from his mission should also be revealing. And, of course, we have to accept the possibility – especially with some of the surprising stories[427] in the gospels – that Jesus and his group were more than peace-loving pacifists seeking loving-kindness for their Roman occupiers.

Repeatedly during this period, significant groups gathered around a leader and due to the unusual circumstances would form an identifiable sect, but few of these lasted more than a couple of years. However, just before the birth of Jesus, the "Zealots" appeared as a nationalistic revolutionary party – a group based upon organized resistance to the Romans and their Herodian puppets. We can ascertain that there emerged some type of centralized leadership because individual band leaders appeared and were killed without destroying the Zealot organization. Furthermore, the nature of the resistance changed with the tactics of the Sicarii (named for their common weapon - sicae, or small daggers)[428]. Our discussion here is directed toward that central or main Zealot movement that demonstrated cohesion and longevity (as opposed to the many zealous splinter groups).

Given the nature of their purpose and operation as well as the strength of their enemies, it is not surprising that the Zealots operated with great secrecy and that their history would not be well recorded. Also interesting is that the sect is mentioned often in the New Testament but rarely by other historians. However, history has recorded many actions and deeds which when viewed as Zealot based resistance become revealing.

If we understand the Zealots[429] to be any one of several different groups in existence around the time of Jesus who opposed the Roman occupation of Israel, then we could include most of the Jews of the era as belonging to the Zealots. Even if we narrow the definition to include only the more militant revolutionary groups, there would still be a large number and great diversity. The "Zealots" probably didn’t start out as an organized group, but were basically Jews "zealous" for God's law (Num 25:13; 1 Kings 19:10; Acts 22:3; Gal 1:14). We can witness its early meaning in accordance with Mattathias' call, "Whosoever is zealous of the Law, and maintaineth the covenant, let him follow me" (I Macc. 2: 27).

Josephus[430] ties their origin to that of the Essenes:

Some of the Essenes observe a still more rigid practice in not handling or looking at a coin bearing an image, saying that one should neither carry nor look at nor fashion any image; nor will they enter a city at the gate of which statues are erected, since they consider it unlawful to walk under an image. Others threaten to slay any uncircumcised Gentile who listens to a discourse on God and His laws, unless he undergoes the rite of circumcision and should he refuse to do so, they kill him instantly. From this practice they have received the name of 'Zealots' or 'Sicarii'.” [Emph. mine].

Clearly, from the discussion regarding the Essenes above, this would make them a very distinct sect from the mainstream Essenes. But then, the circumstances were rather extraordinary…

The Jews had emerged from the Alexandrian era with surprising resilience: they had resisted Hellenization and gained autonomy under the Hasmoneans. But they had failed to solidify their future and the corruption of both their rulers and High Priests led them into Roman hands. Herod had been given the kingship of Judea by the Romans and after being chased out of Palestine by Antigonas[431] and his army in 40 BCE, he returned with a Roman army and seized Jerusalem in 37 BCE. There remained, however, pockets of soldiers and rebels who continued to oppose Herod and the Romans. The largest collection of these was in Galilee, particularly around Mt. Arbel (just southwest of Magdala).

Josephus offers an account of how Herod had to subdue and pacify the rebels of Galilee who would become the “Zealots” (although Josephus shows his obvious bias by calling them “robbers”). The Zealots were well entrenched in bunkers protected by the treacherous cliffs of Mt. Arbel. Herod’s army could not reach the bunkers or their fortifications and the Zealots refused to surrender. So Herod had his soldiers lowered down the cliffs in wooden boxes (or “chests”) where the soldiers could set fire to the bunkers (and rebels), killing the men and their families. In other cases, they pulled the Jewish freedom fighters out of the caves with poles and hooks (falling to their death in the rocks below). (Wars I, xvi, 4).

But even that tactic was only partially successful. Eventually, Herod had a wall built (with towers and fortifications) along the top of the ridge behind the cliffs to seal in the Zealots. Parts of that wall are still visible today (the dark line atop the ridge in the picture below).

(In this picture, taken from Mt. Arbel and looking north toward the Nithai Cliffs, Magdala is almost 1,000 feet below – to the right).

With the death of King Antigonus, the resistance was led by Hezekiah ben Garon/Gurion ("Ezekias" in Ant. xiv. 9, §§ 2). Note Talmud (Shab. 12a, 13b, 98b, 99a). Led by Hezekiah, the Zealots (and the remnants of Aristobulus’ army) carried on a successful guerrilla war against the Romans and Herodians. They hoped to maintain the integrity of the Jewish life (living under the Torah) while awaiting the opportunity for a general uprising. Hezekiah gave the Jews hope and they viewed him as the avenger of their honor and liberty (Jewish Encyclopedia). Herod had little choice but to chase down Hezekiah and he did so successfully. After taking him prisoner, Herod had him beheaded without the formality of a trial. This only excited the indignation of more patriots and solidified the Zealot movement into the nationalist party.

Following the death of Hezekiah, Judas of Gamala (Gamla in Galilee) took over the Zealot leadership and continued a less vigorous campaign against both Herod and the Romans. Meanwhile, other relevant events were taking place in Jerusalem. Foremost was Herod’s pogrom to rid him (and his heirs) of competition for the throne. He shrewdly tracked all the royals and royal wannabes and either killed, imprisoned, or exiled them. Several of the exiled “princes” found affiliation with the Zealots or started their own zealot group.

Hezekiah’s son, Hananiah, was not like his father, having been consecrated at birth to the service of God (i.e., a Nazirite). He stood aside from politics and focused on study of the Torah *gaining renown as an expert on the Book of Ezekial). Because of his unique background, Hananiah's home served as neutral territory for meetings between the opposing plebeian and patrician sages - the disciples of Hillel and Shammai.

The two great “houses” of Israel provided more than heated debate regarding scholarly issues – their advocates literally fought and killed each other at times. Shammai had close ties with the Zealots and apparently used their military acumen to his advantage. In one famous incident, sometime between 20-10 BCE, Shammai usurped control over the Great Sanhedrin by killing a number of Hillel's advocates just prior to the vote on the "Eighteen Measures." (BT Shab. 17a; JT Shab. 1:4). This led to a sort of "cold war" between the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai that would endure for decades (and overlap into the feud between the Pharisees and Sadducees).

The next major historical event involving the Zealots occurred between 5-4 BCE when rumors spread that Herod had died (he was deathly ill). Herod had placed a large golden eagle over the great gate of the Temple (which he had just built). Two Zealot scribes, Judah ben Sarifai and Mattathias ben Margalot, initiated a small revolt (involving about forty men) based upon the profound violation of the Mosaic Law (forbidding such idolatry). They pulled down the golden eagle, were captured, and the entire company was burned to death by order of Herod ("B. J." i. 33, § 2; "Ant." xvii. 6, §§ 2-4).

But, soon thereafter (April of 4 BCE), Herod did actually die and that prompted a series of revolutionary acts. Herod had left a will naming his heirs, but over a dozen others thought they had some legitimate claim to the throne. Several decided to use force to “force the issue”. We don’t know the relationship between these royals and the Zealots, and none seemed to gain a primary following among the Zealot party. But they clearly had a shared interest with the Zealots.

Simon of Perea (aka Simon V) was probably the highest ranking Davidic heir[432] at the time and had been living under “house arrest” on the orders of Herod. With Herod’s death, he gained release, took the crown of King Herod and placed the diadem on his head – declaring himself King. However, Gratus (Herod’s military commander) quickly suppressed the mini-revolt and killed Simon before the year’s end. (“Jewish Antiquities”, 17:273-276; Tacitus, Histories 5.9.2).

The highest ranking male heir of the Meshullam lineage was a shepherd named Athronges. Upon the death of Simon of Perea, Athronges also tried to assume his title. With his brothers, a more successful revolution was begun and Athronges captured Jerusalem. He also placed the diadem of Herod on his head and proclaimed the right to the throne. He held Jerusalem for only a short while, but escaped to continue the insurrection in the north. He was killed with his brothers in 5 or 6 CE by the forces of Archelaus (supported by the Romans). Later legend identified the leader of the insurrection as Abba Sakkara, the nephew of Johanan ben Zakkai. We don’t know how they were related to Athronges the Shepherd or the Zealots, but there is speculation that they also led the Zealot party.

It would seem that Judas/Theudas bar Hezekiah of Gamala (also called “the Galilean”), the son of the former Zealot leader[433], led the revolt after Athronges’ death[434]. Following the order of an unpopular census by the Roman Governor Quirinus (6 CE), Judas led an uprising, took possession of the arsenal of Sepphoris, armed a great number of followers and became the terror of the Romans “out of an ambitious desire of the royal dignity” (Josephus). Thus, for a short period, Sepphoris (then a city of about 30,000) was the main fortress where the Zealots concentrated their forces (“Jewish Antiquities"14:15, § 4; 17:10, §5; 18:4-23.). But, within a year or so, Quintilius Varus brought the Roman forces from Caesarea to Sepphoris and supposedly burned it to the ground (although the archeological evidence today disputes this). Judas[435] was killed and many of the population of Sepphoris were sold as slaves. Varus marched some 3,000 of the revolutionaries into Judea and had as many as 2,000 of them crucified there.

Subsequently, the Zealot party held a lower profile and relied upon less overt tactics in their resistance - until the murder of James, the brother of Jesus. That story is told in our sequel – “After Jesus”.

We don’t know if there was general consensus among the Zealots regarding their Messianic views, but two Zealots (Eleazar ben Dinai and Amram) were recorded as “desiring to urge the Messianic deliverance of Israel” ("Gesch." iii. 4, 431). It is also thought that the Zealots were closely aligned with the school of Shammai (Shab. 17a; Weiss, l.c. p. 186; Grätz (l.c.)). It would seem apparent that the Zealots and the Pharisees shared many interests and one noted Zealot, Tahina was also known as the "Pharisaic Saint" (R. Johanan b. Zakkai in Soṭah l.c.). These Zealots and another named Doras were specifically mentioned by Josephus and became proverbial in rabbinical literature.

Pharisees:

The Pharisees have been called “the spiritual fathers of modern Judaism” () and their influence upon Judaism transcends it spiritual realm. Calling themselves “Chasidim” ("pious ones"), they dedicated themselves to the Oral Law that God gave to Moses at Sinai along with the Torah and the realization of the ideas of Ezra: "And now make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers, and do his pleasure, and separate yourselves from the people of the land, and from your strange wives" (Ezra 10:11).

For most non-Jews, knowledge of the Pharisees comes from the New Testament – especially the confrontational interactions between Jesus and the “Pharisees”. (Luke 7:36; 13:31&14:1). In the New Testament, the Pharisees are depicted as self-serving hypocrites who make common cause with the Herodians (and oppose Jesus) (Mark 3:6; 12:13).We hear from a famous Pharisee in Acts (5:34) and are told that Paul was a Pharisee (Phil. 3:4-6).

Otherwise the Pharisees appear as friends of Jesus (Luke 7: 37, 13:31) and of the early Christians (Acts 5: 38, 23: 9; and "Ant."20: 9, § 1)[436]. Only in regard to intercourse with the unclean and "unwashed" multitude, the publican, and the sinner, did Jesus differ widely from the Pharisees (Mark 2:16; Luke 5: 30, 7:39, 11:38, 15:2, 29:7). In other regards, he tends to agree with them (Mark xii. 28-34 original versions). Luke mentions that on two occasions Jesus was invited to dine with a Pharisee (7:36 (Simon); 14:1) and that some Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod wanted to kill him (13:31; cf. also Acts 5:34)[437]. Thus, we must wonder why the NT editors left these contradictions and wanted to offer such a negative view of the Pharisees.

“Owing, however, to the hostile attitude taken toward the Pharisaic schools by Pauline Christianity, especially in the time of the emperor Hadrian, "Pharisees" was inserted in the Gospels wherever the high priests and Sadducees or Herodians were originally mentioned as the persecutors of Jesus and a false impression, which still prevails in Christian circles and among all Christian writers, was created concerning the Pharisees.” (Jewish Encyclopedia).

Ultimately, we find that the NT misrepresentation of the Pharisees is yet another editorial effort by Pauline Christians to re-frame Jesus and his views in order to make them seem more compatible with Paul’s doctrines and theology. Because of this, it is worth taking a deeper at this group.

The Pharisees are another off-shoot of the Hasidim (below) that came into existence as a distinct sect about the third century BCE when Hellenism threatened the core beliefs and practices of Judaism. The more zealous or pious among the Jews drew apart - insistently separating themselves from their increasingly Graecized fellows. Their main distinguishing characteristic was a strong belief in role of the Torah (“Written Law”) as guiding principles and laws that were open to interpretation. They also believed that God had given Moses additional knowledge (inspiration) regarding the meaning and application of the Torah – the “Oral Tradition” (codified later in what is known as the Talmud). The Pharisees accepted that an afterlife existed where God punished the wicked and rewarded the righteous and that a Messiah who herald an era of world peace leading the coming of God’s Kingdom on Earth. They adhered to strict observance of the Sabbath, purity rituals, dietary restrictions, tithing, and circumcision.

The Pharisees admired Ezra (as High Priest and prophet) and adhered to the tenets of his teachings regarding such things as individual prayer, assembly in synagogues, and Jewish purity. Some claim that the Pharisees were generally apolitical, but history would seem to show otherwise. For example, around 80 BCE Alexander Jannaeus (Judean King) had almost 1,000 Pharisees crucified because they had invited Demetrius (the Syrian King) into Judea. (The Pharisees who disagreed with this action by their fellow Pharisees split off and became the Essenes).

The Pharisees became the long-time political and religious rivals of the Sadducees even though the line of distinction between them is often less than clear. While the Pharisees are viewed as the “blue-collar” Jews (being more influential and popular among laymen) their ranks included priests and members of the Sanhedrin (e.g. Gamaliel - Acts 5:34). At times, they were in the favor of the ruling class - such as during the last decade of Alexander Jannaeus and the subsequent reign of Queen Salome[438]. It was their control over the Jewish “schools” and their advocacy of the rabbinical “synagogue movement” that led to their enduring influence (see Rabbis, below).

As with all the other Jewish sects, it is impossible to define any universal set of Pharisaical beliefs, but we can say generally that the Pharisees shared these beliefs:

1. They accepted both the law of the Torah and the "Traditions of the Elders".

2. Along with the priests, they acknowledged scholars (called "rabbis") as qualified to interpret the law and teach it to others.

3. Their ethics were based upon the principle: "Be holy, as the Lord your God is holy" (Lev. 19:2)

4. They sought to imitate God (Sifra and Tan., Ḳedoshim, 1; Mek., Shirah, 3; Sifre).

5. Their principal law is "Love thy neighbor as thyself." (Shab. 30a; Ab. R. N., text B, 26 ; Sifra, Ḳedoshim, 4).

6. They believed in God’s fatherly love (for all). (Shir ha-Shirim Zuṭa, i.; Sifre, 134; Deut. 31, 40).

7. They valued virtues, probity, and benevolence (choosing asceticism and lives of privation). (Mak. 23b-24a; Tosef., Peah, iv. 19; et al.)

8. Their Messianic beliefs required exclusion from worldly kingdoms (whose powers could be identified with idolatry and injustice) so that they tended to yield to temporary powers and enjoin people to pray for their government while waiting for the arrival of their Messiah (and his bringing of the Kingdom of God).

9. They sought spiritual freedom and enlightenment through study of the Law (Abot vi. 2). "He who takes upon himself the yoke of the Torah, the yoke of the worldly kingdom and of worldly care will be removed from him" (Abot iii. 5).

10. They progressed towards a more spiritual (less human) conception of God.

11. They believed in the resurrection of the dead.

12. They believed in human interaction with angels.

Along with developing the rabbinical system, the Pharisees trained "scribes" (Mark 2:16; Acts 23:9) who changed the way in which people interacted with the Law (as below).

Scribes:

Among the Pharisees (but not exclusively) were men specially trained in “legal writing” who were influential as interpreters and teachers of the Law. They were considered essential as agents of the rulers and large merchants since they produced contracts, deeds, and decrees. They also copied scriptures and offered specialized interpretation of the Torah. We might think of them as lawyers, but their function was broader than that of modern lawyers[439].

Any descendant of Abraham could become a Scribe, but the road was hard and long. The study often began in boyhood when they were “interned” to a Master. They stayed with their master until they reached an age of respectable wisdom – usually about the age of 40. Since Scribes and Scribe masters were often poor, they had to work at another trade in order to earn a living.

Upon satisfying their master of their ability and character, they were formally ordained as a scribe and could be addressed as “rabbi”. Scribes were held in great awe and respect throughout the Jewish world since it was generally believed that they possessed secret knowledge of the workings of God. They wore long, flowing robes, fringed at the corners with very long tassels so that they could be recognized on the streets. When seen, ordinary people would stand as a sign of respect and they were given a place of honor at feasts and in synagogues.

Because of their broad diversity and functioning, it is a mistake to generalize their politics or character. Thus, while the NT authors generally portray the scribes as opponents of Jesus (Mark 2:6; 3:22; Matt. 23 et seq.; Luke 23:10) and the early Christians (Acts 4:5; 6:12), there are some notable exceptions (Matt 13:52; Mark 12:28-34; Acts 23:9). Nicodemus and Gamaliel are both reported to be scribes, although it is not surprising that most scribes would find the Messianic claims of the Christians to be ridiculous.

While the sphere of the priesthood became increasingly restricted to the Temple liturgy (and political intrigue seemed to dominate the time and energy of the ranking priests), the “down to earth” functioning of the Scribes gave them direct contact with the people. With the growing synagogue movement, the Scribes were well situated as teachers of the Law and representatives of Moses.

The Scribes were not all Pharisees, as in practice not all Pharisees were Scribes, since one might not have had the necessary education. Scribes were specialists in the Law and could be priest or layman, Pharisee or Sadducee. At the time of Jesus, very few Scribes were priests or Sadducees which explains (in part) why the Gospels appear to link or confuse them.

Among the most famous scribes in Jesus' day were Shammai (a builder) and Hillel (a woodworker). They are discussed below and more in Appendix XIX.

Sadducees/Zadokites:

The Sadducees (or “Tzedukim”) during the time of Jesus were more political party than Jewish sect although their nature changed over the course of their existence. In their earliest form, they were a priestly group (Aaronites) that followed the High Priest Tsadok (Zadok or Tsdoki in Hebrew) – the High Priest that anointed King David. The name” Sadducees” was probably coined by the Hasidim (opponents of the Hellenists) and became over time a name applied to the broad group of aristocrats connected with the High Priests by marriage and other social relations[440]. (Only the highest patrician families intermarried with the priests officiating at the Temple in Jerusalem. Kid. iv. 5; Sanh. iv. 2; comp. Josephus, "B. J." ii. 8, § 14).

After the times of Ezra, the Sadducees re-emerged as major force[441] joining the Hellenists while maintaining that they were rejecting the new Rabbinic/Pharisaic law and not Judaism itself. They believed that the High Priests were also the chief functionaries of state and therefore employed statecraft in political actions with foreign nations. They were skilled manipulators with a consistent goal of increasing their own wealth and power. Their sacerdotal aristocracy led to the destruction of both the nationality and the religion of the Jews. They remained powerful through the Hasmonean rebellion and into Herodian times, but eventually corrupted themselves into unpopular puppets of foreign rulers. During the Roman occupation of Judea, they represented the aristocratic group of the Hasmonean High Priests and were generally associated with the Temple and Sanhedrin leadership. Eventually, to be a Sadducee was tantamount to being a worldly-minded Epicurean.

The Sadducees are sometimes confused with the Boethusians since there seemed to be confusion by Josephus regarding their origin[442]. According to rabbinical legend, Antigonus of Soko, disciple to and successor of Simeon the Just (around 280 BCE - at the time of the influx of Hellenistic ideas[443]), taught the maxim, "Be not like servants who serve their master for the sake of a reward, but be rather like those who serve without thought of receiving a reward." (Avot 1:3). Two of his disciples, named Zadok[444] and Boethus, took differing views of this teaching: Zadok wondered "What servant would work all day without obtaining his due reward in the evening?" and broke away from the Law to live in luxury - pitying the Pharisees for their bitter privation in this world with no hope of another world to compensate them[445]. (The Boethusian view is offered below).

Thus, the core Sadducean belief takes away fate entirely and supposes that God is not concerned in our doing or not doing what is evil or good. One’s destiny is totally at one's own choice and everyone may act as they please. They also take away the belief of the immortal duration of the soul, and the punishments and rewards in Hades...The Sadducees act one towards another wildly and their conversation with those of their own party is as barbarous as if they were strangers to them. (Josephus).

The Sadducees are described in the Book of Enoch (94:5-9, 97-98, 99:2, and 104:10) as: "the men of unrighteousness who trust in their riches"; "sinners who transgress and pervert the eternal law." In the New Testament the Sadducees are mentioned in Matt. 3:7 and 16:1-11, where they are identical with the Herodians (Mark 12:13) or the Boethusians (Matt. 22:23,34; Mark 12:18; Acts 9:1,5: 17, 23:6-8). In John's Gospel they simply figure as "the chief priests" (7: 23, 45; 11: 47,57; 18:3).

Yet again, it is unwise to suggest that all Sadducees shared the same beliefs. So, we generalize beliefs that were common to many which seem to distinguish them from other groups or sects of the time.

• Sadducees rejected the Oral Torah or “Talmud,

• Sadducees rejected the existence of an afterlife,

• Sadducees denied the existence of angels and demons,

• Sadducees advocated a God who was Lord and Master.

Along with these major differences, the Sadducees had rigid views on Temple practices, maintained more distinct classes (priests versus lay), and tended to favor the status quo. To exemplify their thinking, in dating all civil documents they insisted upon use of the phrase "After the high priest of the Most High" while opposing the phrase introduced by the Pharisees: "According to the law of Moses and Israel”.

Boethusians:

The prevailing opinion has been that the Boethusians were merely a variety of the Sadducees, deriving their name from the priest Boethus (see Sadducees, above). During the reign of Herod, Simon bar Boethus was brought from Alexandria to become High Priest in 25 BCE[446]. At the very least, the family of Boethus provided six High Priests from 25 BCE to 64 CE: Simon, Joezer, who filled the office twice (Ant. xviii. 1, § 1), Eleazar (Ant. xvii. 13, § 1); Simon Cantheras – a son-in-law (Ant. xix. 6, § 2) and his son Elioneus (Ant. xix. 8, § 1). The High Priest Joshua bar Gamla, is also included since his wife Martha (Miriam) belonged to the house (Yeb. vi. 4).

According to rabbinical legend, Antigonus (successor to “Simon the Just”) had a disciple named Boethus who distinguished himself from his fellow disciple Zadok and those who would follow him – the Sadducees. While the Zadokites/Sadducees would remain in prominent positions during the period of Hellenization when the Temple was desecrated and the legitimate line of High Priesthood was broken, the Boethusians would seemingly disappear – along with Onias IV (the rightful High Priest ) to Egypt.

We don’t have any historical record of the succession of High Priests in On, but the fact that Simon bar Boethus was brought out of Egypt to become the High Priest during the period when Herod’s Temple was being built – and that there was no recorded upheaval regarding his appointment – strongly indicates that Simon had legitimacy. This could only have come from the line of Onias.

The return of the Onias lineage to the High Priesthood would have been a mixed blessing – they were as strongly anti-Hellenistic as could be[447], but they would be intertwined with the Herodians, the Hasmoneans, and the Sadducees. They were a perfect choice for Herod because they were non-political (unlike the Sadducees) and gave him legitimacy through their own. That Simon retained the post for 20 years was remarkable – Herod had named five other High Priests during his reign (37-4 BCE) and only Hanameel (also an Oniadite) lasted more than two years (in his second appointment).

That the Boethusians compromised beliefs and eventually merged with the Sadducees is evident through the hatred of the Pharisees. Before the final Jewish revolt, Abba Saul bar Baṭnit placed the house of Boethus at the head his list of the wicked and sinful priestly families. (Pes. 57a; Tosef., Men. xii. 23). In the New Testament the Boethusians are treated as being identical with the Herodians and Sadducees (Mark 12:13; Matt. 22:23, 34; Mark 12:18; Acts 9:1,5: 17, 23:6-8). As much about this sect is shrouded in obscurity, so is its duration and end. The Talmud mentions a Boethusian in a dispute with a pupil of Rabbi Akiba ben Yossef (presumably after the destruction of the Temple - Shab. 108a; Soferim i. 2); however, it is lileky that the word as used therein meant a sectarian or a heretic, just as the term "Sadducee" was used in a wider sense later on.

Herodians:

In the context of Jewish sects, “Herodians” refers to a faction that supported the policies and government of the Herodian family as well as the family of Herod itself[448]. (Of course, the term is also used to describe the family of Herod).They were most prevalent during the time of Herod Antipas (4 BCE-29 CE), ruler over Galilee and Perea during the lifetime of Jesus. In Mark (3:6) they conspire fairly early during Jesus' ministry with the Pharisees to kill Jesus and later they join some Pharisees in trying to trap Jesus with a question about paying taxes to Caesar. (Mark 12:13-17 and Matt 22:16).

A large percentage of Herodians were Idumeans who came to Jerusalem to serve Herod, and Herod freely appointed them to a disproportionate share of prestigious positions (including the military leadership). This created an expected amount of animosity that Herod generally ignored. Needless to say, most Herodians were unpopular among the general population. The exception to this was a sizable percentage of the foreigners (including Jews) who were hired by Herod as builders and masters.

Priests:

Strangely, few writers consider the “Priests” as either a sect or independent group among the Jews during the time of Jesus. This may be based upon a misperception of their numbers or their lack of a unifying set of beliefs. In actuality, the Jewish priesthood was a large centralized and very powerful group that included a well defined leadership. The High Priest ranked with royalty in power and although the position was largely corrupted by political appointment, close oversight, and consistent cronyism, it retained surprising prestige among the populace. But the High Priest was assisted by a small army of “Chief Priests”, Temple Priests, and Kohanim - who were responsible for the operation of the Temple. The Herodians and the Romans ruled through might, but the priests were the religious, social, and cultural leaders of the Jewish people.

“And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests,” (Exodus 19:6) was a fundamental principle that all Jews accepted and their kingdom of priests made use of the priesthood as the means to implement God’s Laws. Jews of the time didn’t relegate their priestly functions to the full-time priests; they relied upon the priests to enable them to serve in the manner dictated by God. Thus, the Levites, Aaronites, Zadokites, and Kohenites were installed to represent the people before God. That made them leaders, professionals, and more than holy men.

To fully understand the importance of the priests one needs to start with an understanding of the significance of the Temple to the Jews (discussed more completely in Appendix XIII). Being the Earthly house of God was only a BIG start: the Temple served as the national place of worship, the main gathering place of the people, the largest educational institution, the nation’s highest court, the national “bank”, the national archive, the nation’s central charity, and more. It took over 500 priests to administer to the Temple during non-festival days. We don’t know how many were required during major festivals when well over 100,000 people might offer sacrifices and pay tithes.

We don’t know the total number of Priests during the time of Jesus[449], but we know that Herod was able to take over 1,000 of them and use them exclusively in building the new Temple – without disrupting Temple services (Josephus). From the time of David, the Levites from thirty years old and upward were counted and they numbered 38,000 men[450]. David divided these: 24,000 into 24 courses or divisions (Heb. “Mishmarot”) of priests that rotated Temple service[451] on a weekly basis (with all 24 courses being needed during the pilgrimage festivals). There were 6,000 priests that acted as full-time officers and judges, 4,000 gatekeepers, and 4,000 were musicians.

In Jesus’ time, Jerusalem and the Temple were much larger than in the time of King David, so we can presume that there were well over 20,000 thousand priests scattered throughout Palestine and over 10,000 living in Jerusalem as “full-time” priests[452]. They not only shared a common “profession”, they were paid in the same manner (from the tithes). This gave them a certain cohesiveness that transcended politics and theological distinctions.

We can’t say that the priests had uniform beliefs, but it would seem apparent that they would favor literal interpretation of the Torah. Given that they served at the pleasure of Herod, they either had to have some allegiance to him (see Herodians, above) or be willing to remain silent or covert in their opposition. That the most powerful priests would tend to be Sadducees is supported by the historical record (including the New testament), but the Pharisees grew in power and stature in the lower ranks (and amongst the common people). This might seem odd since they were either behind or supportive of the rabbinical movement.

Rabbinical:

Upon their return from the Babylonian exile, Judaism returned to its centralized religious practice at the Temple in Jerusalem. However, it leader, Esdras (Ezra) created a new and somewhat different view of the law that would eventually lead to a transfer of religious authority. The key to the new authority was that the law had two equal components: the written scriptural law (Torah) and the oral interpretive law that was transmitted to Moses at Mount Sinai at the same time as the written law[453]. While the priests were authoritative in applying the written law, they generally denied the authority of the oral traditions. This was the focal difference between the priestly Sadducees and the rabbinical Pharisees.

When the Hellenists permeated Judaism and its priesthood (especially after 160 BCE), the people found their religious leaders to be less and less trustworthy or authoritative. The priests, acting as judges and interpreters of scripture, created many “loopholes” to justify their own greed and corruption. Meanwhile, they often interpreted the law in harsh and unreasonable ways when it was applied to the average Jew[454]. The Jews found recourse in the oral traditions and began to put into prominence the teachers and expounders of the Oral Law - the Scribes (Heb. “Sopherim”). By the time of Jesus, their popularity and authority often overshadowed the prestige of the priests. (We should view the New Testament references to the “Scribes” with suspicion of bias and skepticism as they generally opposed Paul).

The Sopherim were scholars first and foremost. Their training was rigorous and their unofficial authority was based solely upon respect and reputation. One generally did not claim to be a Scribe until they were forty years old (see Elders, below) and their acceptance was largely based upon the reputation of their life-long teacher. The word "Rabbi" (derived from the Hebrew Rab, "great") was originally equivalent to "my lord" (as in “Your Honor” for our judges) when it became the distinctive title of the scribes (used like our “doctor”). Over time, custom established a hierarchy among these various forms: from Rab (“Mister”) to Rabbi (“Doctor”) to Rabban/Rabboni (“Professor”).

Starting in 142 BCE, with the rise of the independent Judean state under the Hasmoneans (and their lack of legal right to be High Priest), the nature of Judaism changed from a Jewish community connected to God through the High Priest to a community linked to God through the rabbinical schools. The Sanhedrin ("Bet Din ha-Gadol", the “Great Synagogue”, or Jewish Supreme Court) became the highest religious authority as the High Priest became more and more a figurehead (who still ruled the Temple). During this period an interesting quasi-political structure emerged known as the "Zugot" (Heb. “pairs”)[455].

The Zugot were the legal scholars (Scribes/Rabboni) who ruled the Sanhedrin - the pair always stood at the same time at the head of the Sanhedrin. The positions Nasi (“President” or Chief Justice) and Av Beit Din (“father of the court” or Vice President) became irrelevant as the pairs exchanged views. There were five pairs of these teachers (approximate periods):

• Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan (from the Maccabean war)

• Joshua ben Perachyah and Nittai of Arbela (John Hyrcanus I)

• Judah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Shetach (Alexander Jannæus and Queen Salome Alexandra)

• Sh'maya and Abtalion (Hyrcanus II)

• Hillel and Shammai (King Herod)

By the time of Hillel and Shammai, the rabbinical teaching system for scribes had become formalized as the tannaim (“tanna” = one who studies). Schools (Beits or “Houses”) were established by the great masters where dozens of disciples would join and follow their Master. The two great Beits were Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai with the Hillel House being more popular and powerful – at first. Unfortunately, the feud between them grew to such a point that Beit Shammai turned to violence and extortion to gain power, effectively eliminating Beit Hillel. The negative views and methods of the Shammaites eventually led to war with the Romans and the destruction of the Temple. For more details and discussion, see Appendix XIX.

(The section above regarding “Scribes” is also relevant here).

Hellenists:

Jews during the time of Jesus lived in a Graecized or Hellenistic world. The Jewish assimilation of the Greek language and its culture began in the fourth century B.C. and continued until the Diaspora following the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century CE. The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, especially the government and commerce. It changed Jewish public affairs, affecting the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the Jewish people. Those who readily accepted or encouraged this change were the Hellenists.

Hellenistic Judaism had its base in Alexandria (Egypt) where Greek philosophical ideas (including Stoicism) were applied to the Bible. Jewish scripture was translated or “updated” into Greek, including the Septuagint (the popularist “Bible” of the time) as well as the so-called apocrypha and pseudepigraphic apocalyptic literature (such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch, and the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch). Influential Hellenistic Jews of the time included Philo of Alexandria[456] and Flavius Josephus, but they were called υἱοὶ παράνομοι ("wicked men") or ἄνδρες ἄνομοι καὶ άσεβεῖς ("wicked and ungodly men" (I Macc. 1:11; 7: 5) by the orthodox Jews (Hassidim).

Because the Syrians were Hellenists and they controlled who ruled Judea even decades after Hasmonean “independence”, they greatly advanced Hellenistic influence. The Hasmoneans adopted Greek names and were as Hellenistic as possible – except that they allowed the Temple priesthood to retain orthodox practices. When the Romans gained control of Judea, Hellenism declined rapidly. Herod favored the orthodox Jews because they were less threatening to his power than the Hellenists.

The core Judean Hellenists were the aristocracy, the Hasmonean descendants, and the Sadducees whose power and wealth arose under Hellenism and was continued during the realm of Hellenized commerce as it evolved into Roman commerce.

The Hellenists were violently opposed by the Zealots.

Gnostics:

Ouch! Just saying the word is painful. No, I’m not speaking of the great Catholic heresy, but the single most corrupted system of human thought. I daresay that Gnosticism is the most corrupted (not “corrupt”) of all human “religions”(as a systematic method for knowing God). Beginning with a good idea, the Gnostics were overwhelmed by those who took their idea and added theological ideas centered on mysticism, superstition and popular theology. So, I will use the word “Gnostic”, but begin with this caveat: it is quite difficult to separate the corruptions from the core - and a study of Gnosticism requires plenty of sifting and filtering to find something beyond the modern silliness named “Gnosticism.”.

Gnosticism (from the Greek γνῶσις gnōsis = knowledge/wisdom or gnostikos = good at knowing) is a collective name for a large number of greatly-varying belief systems holding that spirit (“pneuma”) is superior to matter and that God (the Creator) must therefore be spiritual[457]. The most common teaching of the Gnostics was that the ultimate end of all being is to overcome material distraction in order to return to the Parent-Spirit (God). Gnosticism is an ancient syncretistic[458] belief system with roots in Egyptian, Syrian, Indian, and Hellenic (Platonic) philosophy. It has many evolved and extended formations, most of which came about after the life of Jesus. However, before and during the time of Jesus, Gnosticism was well established, widely accepted, and highly influential.

More than anything, Gnosticism was an attempt to redefine God and the essence of life[459]. It didn’t take great wisdom to see through the nonsense that had been attached and attributed to God, or to see that many of the rituals, practices, and beliefs associated with God were both anthropomorphic and silly. The Gnostics sought to place God at a higher level while realistically assessing God’s nature and purposes. Unfortunately, Gnosticism could not escape the same corruption of reason and limited thought that led most religions into mystical meaninglessness. Thus, the Gnostics come in many forms under many names. Our interest is in that unnamed sub-group of Gnostics who integrated its beliefs with those of Judaism. (For a more complete discussion of Gnosticism, see the Appendices).

During the reign of the Hasmonean Queen Alexandra Helene Salome (75-67 BCE), a Gnostic group known as the Nasaraioi (“Νασαραίοι“) lived near Apamea/Pella (Pliny the Elder, writing around 25 BCE). By 50 BCE, a group called the “Notzrim” were established in Palestine (perhaps centered at Mt. Carmel). According to Epiphanius, they were members of a non-priestly congregation that counted Jeremiah as an early leader – being that he had received and recorded secret teachings from Moses that were not included in the Torah. They were vegetarians and did not practice Orthodox Judaism – especially the animal sacrifices.

There was also a related group which is not generally named. I will call them the Enochians. We have no distinct historical record of a sect under this name, but it is clear that there were a significant number of Jews who accepted the writings offered under the name Enoch. To understand this group, we need to look back at Enoch and try to make sense out of the later works bearing his name.

According to scripture, Enoch did not die, but was carried up to heaven to walk with God (Genesis 5:18-24). Tradition holds that he will return at the end of time. Thus, the Enochians believe in the "End of Days" and its final judgment. They deny the idea of earthly rewards and reject the Second Temple's sacrifices as impure (Enoch 89:73). They adopted a solar calendar (as opposed to the lunar calendar used in by the Temple priests and believed in an angelic world in the afterlife. Their Messiah would be a pre-existent "Son of Man" with divine attributes who would sit on a throne of glory and act directly in the final judgment (1 Enoch 46:1-4, 48:2-7, 69:26-29).

The Notzrim were Enochian Gnostic Essenes with ties to the Qumranians and Zealots. They would eventually splinter into the Nazoreans and the Baptists.

Baptists:

One of the most important Jewish sects during the time of Jesus is also one of the most overlooked – the Baptists. We have been taught to associate this group with John –“the Baptist”, but it neither started nor ended with him. If we accept the New Testament “history”, then we might think that the Baptists were little more than Jesus followers in-the-making and that John was little more than one “preparing the way” for Jesus. Both of these ideas are mistaken and ignore what Jesus himself is reported to have said: “For I say to you: Amongst those that are born of women, there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist" (Luke 7:24-28). As with Jesus, we learn much about John from his followers – the Baptists. But first, we should look briefly at the origins of immersion purification and John’s ministry.

Mikvah is the Hebrew term that describes the Jewish ritual of purification by immersion. The word "Baptism" (from the Greek “baptizo” or "baptizmo”) comes from a rite found in ablution rituals in a variety of ancient religions[460]. It is related to the purification rituals found in the Jewish Bible (and other Jewish texts) - immersion in water was for ritual purification (or restoration) and for conversion to Judaism. Mikvah yielded qualification for full religious participation in the life of the Jewish community (Num. 19:1; Ezekiel 36:25; B.Talmud, Tractate Chagigah, p. 12). Taken together, the cleanliness laws of Leviticus state: spring (flowing) water is cleansing and those who have become unclean should cleanse themselves by bathing - consecrate yourselves thereby and be holy (Lev. 14:8-9; 11:44).

In the Old testament there are references to people called “Sabeans” (Job 1:15; Isa 45:14; Ezek 23:42; Joel 3:8) and there is a later group known as the Sabians[461]. I agree with Eisenman that this is likely a corruption of Sabaeans and that the Later Sabians descended or derived from the Sabeans. Since the Syriac /Aramaean verb “S-b-” (or "ẓaba'" in Hebrew) means to convert through submersion[462], the name Sabian has a similar meaning. (As discussed below, there are several later groups that are related to the Sabians and their names are confusingly interchanged).

Also in Jewish scripture are numerous references to one who would prepare the way for the coming of the Messiah.

• God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers—it is to him you shall listen. (Deut. 18:15).

• I will cleanse them from all the sin they have committed against me and will forgive all their sins of rebellion against me (Jer. 33:8).

• On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity (Zech. 13:1).

• Then for the unclean person they shall take some flowing water and become clean (Num. 19:17).

• Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean (Ezekiel 36:25).

John the Baptist (aka Yahya) adopted baptismal immersion as the symbolic sacramental ritual in his end-of-times ministry and our concept of “baptism” originates with him (and his follower Jesus, as below). During his lifetime and for several centuries thereafter the group who considered themselves his followers, were known as the Baptists[463]. For them, John was a great preacher and prophet – or even a Messianic candidate[464].

John’s prominence and popularity is apparent even from the New Testament accounts where there is an obvious effort to assure us that Jesus was even greater. Of his life and character Josephus says:

"He was a good man [comp. ib. 1, § 5], who admonished the Jews to practice abstinence [ἀρετὴν = "Pharisaic virtue" = "perishut"; comp. "B. J." ii. 8, § 2], lead a life of righteousness toward one another and of piety [εὐσέβειαν = "religious devotion"] toward God, and then join him in the rite of bathing [baptism]; for, said he, thus would baptism be acceptable to Him [God] if they would use it not simply for the putting away of certain sins [comp. II. Sam. xi. 4] or, in the case of proselytes [see Soṭah 12b; comp. Gen. R. i.], but for the sanctification of the body after the soul had beforehand been thoroughly purified by righteousness. The people flocked in crowds to him, being stirred by his addresses. King Herod Antipas, fearing lest the great influence John had over the people might be used by him to raise a rebellion, sent him to the fortress of Macherus as a prisoner, and had him put to death. ("Ant." xviii. 5, § 2 – the Jewish Encyclopedia).

John was a reforming zealot in a midrashic[465] extension of Elijah (Malachi 4:5-6; note Matt. 17:11-13). He preached an imminent arrival of divine judgment in the end-of-days. He castigated hypocrisy (especially by the royals and officials), demanded repentance, and “prepared the way” for the coming of the Messiah. Much of John's doctrine resembles teachings of the Qumranians (above) and many scholars believe that he once was a Qumranian[466]. (See Appendix XI).

The great “secret” regarding John was that he was a gnostic. We lack direct historical evidence of this, but the indirect and circumstantial evidence is compelling. From John’s disciples, several gnostic groups originate – all of whom are “Baptists”.

Ironically (because the early Catholic Church was so adamantly opposed to gnostic influences), our best evidence for John’s gnostic beliefs comes from the New Testament: “he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit” (“pneumati “, Mk. 1:8). Either John was speaking as a gnostic (since the Jewish concept of the “Holy Spirit” doesn’t work as used by John[467]) or the writer of Mark fabricated this saying (with many negative implications). This is consistent with another little discussed fact – some of John’s disciples and followers were leading Gnostics (e.g. Dositheus and "Simon" [Magnus][468]). Indeed, the early Catholic Church was confronted by the believers and followers of John (including some who believed that he was the Messiah) and the Gnostics. Because there was plenty of overlap, declaring Gnosticism as heretical was an attack on both.

The influence and power of John continued after his death and his fame was not obscured by that of Jesus. His teaching of righteousness (Matt. xxi. 32) and his baptism (Luke vii. 29) created a movement which by no means ended with the appearance of Jesus. Herod even mistook Jesus to be John risen from the dead (Matt. xiv. 1-2 and parallel passages). There were many, like Apollos of Alexandria, who preached only the baptism of John until they gradually merged into Christianity (Acts 18:25, 19: 1-7).

During this time, a new group formed out of a more ancient Syrian sect called the Mandaeans (Aramaic מַנְדַּע mandaʕ/Mandaii = “knowledge”; the Mandæan word “Masbuta”, from the same root, is used for baptism). Eusebius and Epiphanius knew of related Jewish sects called Masbuthaei (or “daily bathers”) and Sampsaeans (aka Haemerobaptists or, later, Elkeasaites[469]). Epiphanius incorporated the Ebionites, the Nasoraeans, the Nazaraeans, and the Osseans with them. Hence, we find a connection between several of the divergent groups or sects of the period – “baptism”.

These groups shared more than the practice of ritual water immersion, they:

• became either a Christian sect or a Christian opponent,

• believed in intervention by angels,

• accepted (the one) God as Heavenly father in a triune divinity,

• had no canonical law,

• no longer lived in the manner of the Jews,

• had ritualized prayer,

• were later deemed heretics by the Catholics.

Closer examination reveals that Sampseans, Mughtasilah-Haemerobaptists, Subba-Sabians, Nasoraeans-Nazerini[470], Elchasaites-Elkasaites, and Mandaeans[471] were the names of the sects within a greater Gnostic movement (as above). John was not the first “Baptist”, but his ministry was successful in greatly expanding the prominence of baptism and after his life John would become accepted as the founder of many baptizing sects. Again, because those sects also accepted Gnostic beliefs, the relationship seems clear even though some of the specifics varied. The common elements among the baptizing sects included: the performance of elaborate baptismal ceremonies on all religious occasions, daily gatherings (prayer) before sunrise[472], and insistance that their lustrations had to be in “yardna” - running or living water.

I share the views of both E. S. Drower and Robert Eisenman that there are many obvious overlaps between the Baptists, Essenes, Nazoreans, and Gnostics – especially their belief in “keeping and observing” ritual law with zealous fidelity while keeping back mysteries considered too deep and too easily misunderstood by the uninitiated (even from their own laity). For the Baptists (and their related sects), the physical world had become corrupt and would ultimately be destroyed. The “Righteous”, however, could/can save their souls by being moral, practicing the prescribed ritual observances and acquiring revealed knowledge.

Ebionites – the Followers of Jesus (the Nazorean):

The name “Ebionite” (Hebrew אביונים /Evionim meaning "the Poor Ones") has been used divergently over time, but originates with that core group who were the followers of Jesus during his life (and immediately after his death)[473]. They were not “Christians” although some may have believed that Jesus was the Messiah. Nor were they “Jewish Christians” since “Christianity” developed much later and took an entirely different direction.

Thus, “Christians” create a paradox when they label Ebionites as heretics since all of Twelve Apostles were Ebionites as were the surviving family of Jesus. However, there is a simple reason why they MUST be labeled “heretics”: the Ebionites knew the truth about Jesus’ birth and life and did not accept his “divinity”. (The Jewish Messianic concept is not like the “Christian” concept of “Christ” even though the word “Christ” is the Greek form of “Messiah”).

Because his followers chose this name for themselves, it makes sense for us to use that name, even though it probably wasn’t used during Jesus’ lifetime. (Their story is the main theme in “After Jesus’, the sequel to “An Amazing Life”). Nevertheless, we might be surprised to think of the Ebionites as one of the largest Jewish sects of the time. Given that they included Essenes, Baptists, Qumranians, Pharisees, Nazoreans, Gnostics, and members of other sects, they were uniquely diverse. Since that diversity included and was inclusive of women, their numbers may have been quite large. What we can discern about the Ebionites includes:

• During his ministry, Jesus had many chosen "disciples" (Mark 1:16-20; 2:13-14) and other followers who came to him (Mark 10:17-31).

• Since he was an itinerant preacher, people literally "followed" him as he journeyed and gathered where he stopped. (Mark 2:15; Luke 9:57-62). At times, they numbered in the thousands. Matthew 14:13–21, Mark 6:31-44, Luke 9:10-17; John 6:5-15 and also Mark 8:1-9 and Matthew 15:32-39.

• He also sent some followers out as "missionaries" or "apostles" (twelve in Mark 3:13-19; 6:6-13; seventy in Luke 10:1-20). If he had seventy chosen followers to send out on missions, he probably had hundreds to choose from.

• After his death, his disciples and relatives formed a community of believers large enough to require “structure”. (Acts 1:13-15; 2:37-47; 6:7; 9:31).

• The disciples of Jesus were mostly Jews, but they were joined by Gentiles (Acts 11:1-21; 12:24; 14:1; etc.).

• They commonly called each other "saints""(Acts 9:13; Rom 1:7; Col 1:2; etc.) or brothers and sisters" (Mark 1:31-35; Rom 1:13; James 1:2; etc.).

• The group was later known by other names: followers of "the Way" (Acts 9:2; 18:25; 19:9, 23; etc.), "Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5), and later some became "Christians" (Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16).

(The Ebionites are dealt with more fully in Book Three - “After Jesus”)

Karaites:

Karaism (Hebrew: יהדות קראית , meaning "readers of the Scriptures") was a Jewish movement characterized by acceptance of the Tanakh as the supreme religious authority. The group is distinct from the Rabbinical Jews who accepted the Oral law or “Talmud” (and subsequent works) to be authoritative interpretations and extensions of the Tanakh.

Disagreements between Jewish sects regarding the validity of the Oral Law pre-date the time of Jesus and some scholars (including Abraham Geiger) place the Karaites as a sub-sect of the Sadducees who also followed the Hebrew Bible literally. The Karaites rejected the Pharisees' notion of an Oral Torah even before it was written. Geiger compares the Karaite and Sadducee halakha: rejecting resurrection or after-life.

The British theologian John Gill noted[474]: During the times of John Hyrcanus and Alexander Janneus, Judah ben Tabbai founded the Karaites in opposition to the Pharisee Simeon ben Shetacb, who had introduced the oral law. Gill also suggests that the Karaite split grew during the disputes between the schools of Hillel the Elder and Shammai in 30 BCE.

Nehemia Gordon suggests that Jesus himself was a Karaite, or “Hebrew Scripturist”, since he also refused to follow the invented commandments of the Pharisaic Rabbis of his day[475]. And, there is an interesting link between the Karaites and the Qumranians known from the find of ancient Qumranian manuscripts in a Karaite “monastery” in Egypt; the Karaites possessed accurate copies of Qumranian (“Dead Sea”) Scrolls long before the discovery of the DSS. Hugh Schonfield deems the Karaites to be the spiritual heirs of Qumran. (“The Essene Odyssey”, (1984), p. 421; see also “The library of Qumran: on the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus” by Hartmut Stegemann (1998), pp. 70-71.

Hillel, Shammai & the “18 Measures”

In the time of Jesus, there were two dominate schools of Pharisaic Judaism[476]: Beit (or “House of”) Hillel and Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel was the more lenient or liberal of the two schools, although both retained the core beliefs of the Hasidim.

Jesus may or may not have been a “Pharisee”, but he certainly wasn’t opposed to or by all Pharisees. He generally followed Beit Hillel (although not always) and was strongly opposed to many of the teachings of Shammai. The murder of some from Beit Hillel by those from Beit Shammai (as below) would have been a major event in the life of Jesus and we should expect it to have influenced his teachings. Unquestionably, the debate between the factions over the conversion of Gentiles lasted well beyond the time of Jesus and was very significant among his followers.

Hillel was born in Babylon[477] and his family migrated to Judea where he supported himself as a woodworker. He was seemingly shy and inauspicious as a person, but he would become one of the most revered and influential rabbis in all Judaism. Hillel demonstrated humility, kindness, and love and is best known for one saying: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.” (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Shabbat 31a). Hillel’s love transcended the Jewish people and he endorsed the inclusion of non-Jewish Gentiles into Judaism (both Ger Tzedek[478] and Ger Toshav), believing that it was important to approach the Gentiles and introduce them to the Jewish God of Creation[479].

Hillel was not well known among his contemporaries. When he was appointed to the position of Nasi (President or “prince”) of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem in 30 BCE, the prior Nasi (Bathyra of the family of Shemaya) had never even heard of Rabbi Hillel[480]. (Pesahim 66A). Our best guess is that he was tied to the Essenes since he was appointed with Menahem the Essene[481] (and Herod had a special fondness for the Essenes). According to a sparse historical record, Hillel and Menahem and had similar views on the Torah and the halakha (the laws on how to keep the Torah). Both shared the traditional view that Gentiles who convert to Judaism (as above) should be accepted as equals.

We know less about Shammai (50 BCE–30 CE) as a person; he was born in Judea and worked as a builder (implied by his name). It was said that his motto was: "Make the study of the Torah your chief occupation; speak little, but accomplish much; and receive every man with a friendly countenance" (Avoth, i. 15). When Menahem the Essene resigned the office of Av Beit Din (or vice-president) of the Sanhedrin in 20 BCE, Shammai was elected to replace him. (Hillel was the President). After Hillel died in 20 CE, Shammai took his place as president and no one from the minority stood opposite him (Hillel’s son Simon declined to serve). This ended the era of Zugot (or “pairs”) where leaders from opposing views stood with each other at the head of the Sanhedrin. Beit Shammai believed that only Ger Tzedek should be allowed to live among the people of Israel or to share in the future a life of the immortal (“Olan Haba”). In regard to Jewish nationalism, Beit Shammai was more zealous and isolationist – sometimes even more militant.

This strong nationalistic view led to an incident with many implications for Jews and Jesus. But first, a little more background…

“Hillel the Elder had 80 disciples, 30 of whom were worthy of the Divine Spirit resting upon them…30 of whom were worthy that the sun should stand still for them…the greatest of them was Jonathan ben Uzziel, the smallest of them was Johanan be Zakkai[482]…” (Talmud, Sukkah 28A; Jerusalem Talmud, Nedarim, end Ch. 5). Without historical explanation, in 20 BCE, Menahem the Essene took 80 “pairs of disciples” (his or Hillel’s) and left Judea for Damascus. (Hagigah 16B). This action opened the door for Shammai to become Vice-President of the Sanhedrin and dramatically changed Jewish history.

Conflict soon arose between Hillel and Shammai (and their followers). Shammai pushed for new rules changing the traditional views and practices for conversion of non-Jews. In the context of Roman occupation and rule by a “convert” (Herod), it is easier to see why this was seen as a BIG issue. Shammai used the Jewish people’s deeply rooted fear - that too much contact with the Romans would weaken their religion and identity as a people - to push his agenda. According to the Talmud (Sanhedrin 85B), Beit Shammai ascended in power and prestige as the spirit of the Zealots increased in Judea. Along with the rising hatred of the Romans, many Jews turned against all “kittim” (foreigners” and goyim (non-Jews). This fragmented the Jews and their leaders into two opposing forces.

Hillel continued to be the most popular and revered of the two scholars (although Hillel and Shammai did not have many substantial differences on fundamental issues, their disciples were in continuous conflict. The Mishnah and Talmud mention over 350 clashes or disputes between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai (generally more akin to a rivalry). Both schools held views that were valid (legally or halakhically), but most scholars sided with Hillel[483]. As the two Pharisee schools grew larger and more polarized, “the Torah became as two Torahs.” (Sanhedrin 88B, 124).

Then, the “Eighteen Measures” - a new set of rules dealing mostly with “ritual cleanliness, and purity” composed by the Shammaites to increase the separation between the Jews and the Gentiles[484] - entered the picture. Hillel strongly opposed these measures and they became the focal dispute (out of several) between the Houses. (The measures themselves are given at Shabbat 13B). To the Shammaites, these “measures” were essential to protect Judaism as a culture[485]. To Hillel, they were divisive and hateful[486]; he taught: "Love mankind and bring them nigh to the Torah" (Avot 1:12).

We don’t know exactly when the debate began or ended. We do know how it ended (we’ll get there in just a moment). Both Hillel and Shammai were present during the debates (Shabbat 14B, 17A and Tosefta Shabbat 1:8), so they occurred before the death of Hillel in 10 CE. Many scholars suggest that these debates occurred during the formative periods of both schools, predominately between 30 BCE and 20 BCE, but that seems too early. I would suggest that they occurred over many years and the final debate came later – close to Hillel’s death.

Given the heat of debate and increasing tensions between the two schools, a neutral ground was proposed for the final debate and vote. The schools agreed to use the home of Hananiah ben Hezekiah (ben Gurion) – a well liked and seemingly neutral scholar who was a leading expert on the Book of Ezekiel. (Shabbat 13B). Unfortunately, Hananiah was more than biased. As the son of the founder of the Zealot Party, he aligned with the Zealots who hated the Gentiles and maintained close ties with Shammai. On the day that the first vote was taken on the “eighteen measures” several disciples of Hillel were killed by the disciples of Shammai (or Zealots who had infiltrated the school)[487].

The Shammaites not only passed the "18 measures" (in what the Jerusalem Talmud holds as troublesome as the making of the Golden Calf[488] - Shabbat 17A), the armed Beit Shammai blocked the exit and prevented each member of Beit Hillel from leaving until they all agreed to uphold the halakha of the minority Beit Shammai. The disciples of Hillel, including his son Simon, gave in.

The subsequent view of the rulings of the School of Shammai came to such a low opinion that all views of Hillel are given supremacy over those of Shammai (Berakhot 36B – “The opinion of Bet Shammai when it conflicts with that of Bet Hillel is no Mishnah”). Indeed, it is stated that “he, who observes the teachings of Beit Shammai, deserves death.” (Berakhot 11A and Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 1:4). The Jerusalem Talmud calls this day the blackest day ever to befall the Jewish people. Jews carry the effects of Beit Shammai's intransigence to this day and the matter was one of great significance during the time of Jesus.

Simeon I, the son of Hillel the Elder, became the Nasi of the Sanhedrin upon the death of his father, but he obeyed the forced oath throughout his life[489]. Thus, although he physically remained a zugot, the effective age of Zugot ended with Beit Hillel’s capitulation to the Shammaites. In the year 10 CE (as the proposed date of the debate and murders), Jesus was 16 or 17 years old and the fact that the Sanhedrin lacked a Zugot led to a shift in power that contributed to Jesus’ demise. (Simeon held the title of Nasi for 20 years - basically as a hostage – and died the same year that Jesus was crucified. His son, Gamaliel, is important in the Book of Acts). A dramatic shift had occurred in Jewish Phariseism.

We should now be able to discern that the several references to “Pharisees” in the gospels refer to those who were part of Beit Shammai. In fact, it is reasonable to suggest that Jesus was a defender of the Beit Hillel and was viewed by the Shammai Pharisees as an opponent. Reviewing numerous New Testament discourses, we can now understand the context:

Jesus condemned the Shammai Pharisees saying, you are of them who killed the prophets - referring to the Shammaites who killed the disciples of Hillel at the house of Hananiah (Matt. 23:29-37; John 8:37-44). Jesus quotes the Pharisees as saying, "We would never have joined in shedding the blood of the prophets had we lived in our father’s day." – acknowledging that they were the sons of those who had (Matt. 23:30). Jesus rightfully feared the Shamaites: "Ye seek to [also] kill me" (John 8:37) because Jesus believed that the Shammaite Pharisees had murdered Zechariah ben Berechiah in the Temple (Wars 4:335; Ant. 18:1-10 & Yevamot 15B; Tosefta Eduyyot 2:2).

Regarding the central issue related to dealings with the Gentiles, we can see that Jesus sided wholly with Beit Hillel: Jesus said that Shammaites "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men" (Matt. 23:13) and directly opposed their decree by teaching: "Make disciples of all nations" (Matt. 28:19). Hillel taught, "If you will come into my house, I will come into your house…" (Tosefta Sukkah 4, 3, 6. Sukkah 53a) and Jesus taught, "If the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it; but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you" (Matt. 10:13). The 18 Measures prohibited entry into a Gentile’s house. Shammai taught, "it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation" (Acts 10:28).

Jesus condemned the Pharisees in Matthew 23:5 by saying, "All their works they do to be seen of men; they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders (tassels) of their garments." But it was the Shammai Pharisees who ruled against Beit Hillel to require that the breadth of one’s tassels must be “four finger breadths wide.” (B. Menahot 41b).

Jesus distinguished his adversaries by criticizing men who make a show of devotion and "love the uppermost places at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogues." The Hillel Pharisees believed "The more possessions, the more distractions…" (Abot 2:7) and that those who accept the pleasures of this world will be deprived of the pleasures of the world to come. The Shammaites favored the rich and were often required to defend their wealth. They liked to be called "Rabbi", "Father", and "Master" (Matt. 23:5-10). But Hillel refused all titles and only accepted the suffix “the Elder”. Jesus said, "I am meek" (Matt. 11:29) and "whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted" (Matt.23:12). "Woe unto you that are rich; for you have received your consolation… Woe unto you when all men shall speak well of you; for so did their fathers to the false prophets" (Luke 6:20-26). "Blessed are you poor; for yours is the kingdom of God" (Luke 6:20).

Hillel's school maintained that "everybody should be taught" while Shammai's tradition was restricted to students who came from good (rich) families (Aboth de R. Nathan1:3). Jesus clearly taught to anyone willing to listen.

The Shammai view was that God’s laws were intentionally rigorous and demanding and that the law should be interpreted that way. Jesus said, "I will have mercy (Hillel’s focus) and not sacrifice (Shammai’s focus)" (Matt.12:7) and "my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."(Matt. 11:30); God's law is not "burdensome" (1 John 5:3). Jesus condemned the Pharisees for permitting people to vow all their belongings to the Temple, thus making it impossible for them to support their father and mother (Mark 7:12; Matt. 15:3-9), but only the Shammaites advocated otherwise.

Jesus condemned the Shammaite teaching "an eye for an eye" (Matt. 5:38-39) "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52). Hillel said, "The more Torah, the more life" (Aboth 2:6) and "In a time when men scatter, gather" (Sifre Zutta). Jesus said, "He who does not gather with me, scatters" (Luke 11:23) and "They that are well need not a physician, but they that are sick" (Matt. 9:12).

Jesus offended the Shammai Pharisees by healing a man on the Sabbath (Matt. 12:9-14). (Tosefta Shabbat 17:14). In Mark 2:27 Jesus says, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath." This was the view of Hillel. Jesus told the healed man to carry his bed away with him (John 5). The Shammaite Pharisees considered the bed to have become “mukzah” (an object one does not intend to use during the Sabbath) after the healing, and therefore forbidden to be moved. This subject was one of the common debates between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai.

Finally, just in case you don’t see how closely Jesus follows Beit Hillel, consider this last example: In Matthew 15, the“Pharisees” complain to Jesus that his disciples do not wash their hands before eating. (Luke 11:37 similarly has a Pharisee surprised when Jesus didn't wash his hands before a meal.) Jesus’reply was, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup…"

Washing hands before meals was a custom that had its origin in the 18 measures requiring that Terumah (the priest's share of the produce) not be eaten by the priests without first washing one’s hands (Shabbat 13B). The washing hands requirement is only related to the "outside of the cup" within the 18 measures and it specifically refers to a dispute between the two schools over WHEN the washing should take place (Mishnah Berakhot 51b). The meals of the Pharisees began with the drinking of a cup of wine, after which they would break bread together. Beit Shammai taught that the hands must be washed before filling the cup of wine, whereas Bet Hillel ruled that the washing should take place later, before partaking of the bread.

The Beit Shammai believed that the cup of wine might become ritually unclean from the hands, whereas Beit Hillel held that a cup that is unclean on the outside is permissible to use[490] (since the contents are still clean). Jesus said these Pharisees "make the commandments of God of no effect by your (Oral) Tradition” (Matt. 15:6) and added "You [Shammai] Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of extortion and wickedness” (Luke 11:39; Mark 7:15; Matt. 15:11; note also Sotah 4b and Shabbath 62b).

There are subsequent references to the Pharisees in the New Testament that are also clearly directed towards the Shammaites: “This is the stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief corner-stone (Rosh pina)”. (Acts 4:8-12). “Shammai” literally meant “builder” so Peter was speaking directly to the Shammaites. The "law of commandments" mentioned in Ephesians (2:14-15) (such as "Jews can't eat with non-Jews, or go into the house of non-Jews.") references the 18 measures. It is the Shammaite Judaizers who would exclude the Gentiles and "forbid us to speak to the Gentiles" (Gal. 4:17; 1 Th. 2:16). The Shammaites aslo forbade non-Jewish milk, bread and oil (Shabbat 13B, 39B).

Politics and Power in Judea

Our understanding of Jesus from the NT gospels has focused our attention upon his “religious” ideas and mission, but it is clear that he was also a political figure. In our story of An Amazing Life (Book Two), it will be necessary to understand the political and social context of Jesus’ life.

There can be little debate that the politics of first century (BCE and CE) Judaism were very complex – even by modern standards. But when you attempt to factor in the complexities of international involvement, royalty, and a highly diversified political scene, the whole matter becomes a confusing mess. As just one common example, trying to ascertain the division of power between the High Priest and the “King” is generally impossible – and it changed frequently. If we took a “snapshot” of the political scene in the year 30 BCE, we wouldn’t have a meaningful grasp of the major political forces in Judea unless we knew the following:

1. The “Ruler” was Herod, but he was a “puppet king” of the Roman Empire[491]. His power originated from his friendly relationship with Mark Anthony – who was about to die in a power struggle with Octavian (who would become Emperor a couple of years later). Thus, Herod was very anxious to secure his power by gaining the favor of Octavian with promises of loyalty and payment of taxes. Herod’s political position was weakened by his lack of royal blood, his not being fully Jewish, his being Idumaean (instead of Judean) and his poor standing with neighboring Kings (especially with King Malichus II of Nabatene and Queen Cleopatra VII - who had died with Anthony, but held rights to major areas and products of Judea). Thus, Herod had no idea whether Octavian would affirm his position or have him executed (as a friend of Octavian’s enemy – Mark Anthony)[492]. Meanwhile, Herod’s brother Pheroras and sister Salome plotted for their own advantage and against the two sons of Mariamne (the Hasmonean princess).

2. The “Rulers” of Judea had been the Hasmoneans and Herod attempted to bring their power under his control by marrying a prominent Hasmonean Princess (Mariamne I, his 2nd wife) and bringing the former King and High Priest, John Hyrcanus II, into his Court. Unfortunately for Herod, his new mother-in-law (Alexandra II) was powerful and conniving, as well as a close friend of Cleopatra VII. A multi-decade feud between Herod’s family and the Hasmoneans would wreak havoc on his Court, his marriages, and his successors. (In 36 BCE, Alexandra had caused Herod to appoint her son Antigonus III as High Priest and then to have Herod tried for the murder of Antigonus a year later).

3. The “Anointed Rulers” of the Jews were the Davidic descendants – the family line chosen by God to hold the throne. So even though a Davidic descendant had not sat on the throne for many generations, it was almost universally accepted among the Jews that anyone lacking Davidic lineage could not be a rightful ruler of the Jews. It was very difficult to determine which of the many Davidic descendants was the rightful heir to the throne, so Herod actively sought to eliminate, exile, or control all possible male heirs while incorporating female heirs into his family by marriage. (See Appendix VIII). Since most of the possible Davidic heirs were competing for supremacy, there was plenty of “behind the scenes” power-grabbing and back-stabbing – all tempered by the fact that there was great risk in being the “front-runner”. In the year 30 BCE, Herod was still encouraging the Davidic princes to accept token positions in the government, but would soon begin their systematic elimination during the Great Davidic Pogrom..

4. The “Religious Rulers” of the Jews were the priests, led by the designated High Priest (“Kohen Gadol”). Since the Jews gave much more weight to their religious leader than their political leaders, the designated High Priest was very powerful and very carefully controlled by Herod. The ability of the High Priest to stir the masses into revolt was evident from history and the priesthood had its own small army (for policing and Temple security). In 30 BCE, the High Priest was Jesus ben Phabi (Yehoshua III), a person about whom we know very little and this indicates how good a choice Herod had made.

This appointment[493] served several purposes for Herod: it appeased many of the Jews who would have viewed the appointment as a return of the rightful lineage to the High Priesthood, it gave Herod great control over the priesthood since Jesus was beholding to him, and it served as the basis for an alliance between the Herodians and the Oniads (a wealthy family aligned with the Zaddokites – a major religious faction sometimes confused with the Sadducees).

5. The Judicial and Legislative Rulers of the Jews were the members (bouleutaí /judges/senators/elders) of the Great Sanhedrin (aka “synedrion”, “gerousía”, or “Beth-Din”), a sixty-nine member body[494] (not including the two leaders) led by a Prince or (“Nasi”) – a position sometimes held by the the High Priest). The “court” also had a powerful vice chief (“Av Beit Din” = head of the house of law) who assumed even greater prominence when the Nasi was the High Priest (and sometimes also “King”). The Av Beit Din presided over the Sanhedrin when it met as a criminal court and when it convened as a 23-member panel (the “Lesser Sanhedrin”) for day-to-day operation.

Herod’s control over the Great Sanhedrin is clear – one of his first actions as king was to kill almost all (45) of the opposition members and appoint replacements. However, Herod was a master of knowing his limitations and he had allowed the highly respected (and opposing) Shammai to remain a member (note below). In 30 BCE, Herod had appointed Yaakov (Jacob) ben Mattat (a Davidic in the Abuidite line) as “Nasi”[495] even though Jacob’s brothers were prominent Zealots (Hizkiah and Judas "of Gamala"). Jacob’s oldest son was the Joseph (Yosef) who was betrothed to Miriam, the orphaned grand-daughter of the High Priest Jesus III around the year 8 BCE. 

(We discuss the Sanhedrin in more detail in the next section).

6. The Intellectual (Rabbinical) leaders of the Jews held a special prominence during this time. The Jews had a long history of favoring intellectuals and with so much political turmoil and the spoiling of their religious leadership, they turned to their academic community with even greater respect and for trusted guidance. The intellectual community of Judaism during 30 BCE was dominated by the Zugot (“pairs”) – a two century old tradition of having two opposing views paired to debate religious issues[496]. The Zugot of Shemaiah and Abṭalion ended with the reign of Herod and the emergence of a new prodigy named Hillel.

The Sadducees and Pharisees were the two major religious/political “parties” of the time and the Sadducees were given control of the Sanhedrin by Herod. Their divisiveness contributed to the atmosphere of “senseless hatred” which prevailed and undermined the unity of the Jewish people. Many scholars recognized the deteriorating effects of this divisiveness along with the yeridot hadorot (“decline of the generations”) associated with Hellenization and a justified distrust of the religious leaders. The Pharisees asked Hillel to return from Babylon and become their leader. His scholarship was so highly respected that he soon became Nasi (replacing Judah ben-Bathyra) with Menehem the Essene as his first Av Beit Din. The Sadducees subsequently appointed Shammia as their leader (he became Av Beit Din) and the most famous (and last) Zugot of Hillel-Shammai began.

For our purposes, the most significant results of this change were rabbinical – the Pharisees were behind the movement to broaden Jewish scholarship outside the priesthood and that movement was led by a cadre of teachers, sages, and judges known as Rabbis and “scribes”[497]. This movement would have profound influence over the future of Judaism and Christianity. (See Appendix XXII).

7. The non-ruling political leaders of Judea were largely divided into two types - economic leaders (aristocracy) and “party” or sect leaders. Wealth translates into power (and often vice-versa), so the situation in Judea at 30 BCE was not much different than today – people with money had great influence and power. The major differences between then and now have to do with the closeness between wealth and ruling: the wealthiest people were necessarily closer to the rulers and rulers simply had to be rich. Because markets were closely regulated (or even assigned) and taxation was both a privilege and a business, wealth was largely a negotiated balance and competition of favoritism, nepotism, cronyism, and pragmatism (someone has to actually grow food and make things).

With the Romans “ruling the world”, great wealth was available to those who could supply the Romans with things wanted or needed and the Judeans were masters of this art. It is not surprising that the Jews of the time were skilled entrepreneurs and arbitrageurs, as well as artisans, builders, and growers. “Merchants” who were granted trade rights or monopolies by the Romans were often as powerful as puppet kings (and in some cases were how people became such). The Jewish aristocracy in Judea was comprised mostly of royalty, royal friends, and Roman friends. Among the most powerful royal “friends” were those given the tax franchises – a business dominated by the Tobiad family.

Party (sect) leaders existed within a full range of types: there were religious-political type parties sanctioned or tolerated by Herod (such as the Sadducees and Pharisees), political parties that were focused upon special interests and accepted persuasive roles (Hellenists, Hasidæans, and Hasmoneans), and political parties that were revolutionary (Zealots and Qumranians). There were non-political parties that were focused upon religious matters (although those interests often collided with political matters) such as the Essenes and Nazoreans. There were quasi-political factions and sects that had historical, economic, social or regional focus such as the Therapeutae, Samaritans, Exilarchs, Alexandrians, and Rechobites. And, there were significant groups that we have no names for, but which Josephus generally termed brigands (rebels, robbers, and revolutionaries). In a few cases we know the names of leaders of such groups and that they had profound economic and political effects.

8. Military power and politics were unquestionably more complex then than now – an era where “might made right”. Two major differences during that period were the ability of small armies to make big differences in the power structure and the ability to put together a meaningful army from the general populace. Political leaders were compelled to carefully control their military leadership (by assuming direct control and dividing them up)[498] and most reached their position through military action. (Herod was both soldier and general – taking an active role in military operations).

Even the great Roman army had difficulty overcoming the major logistical difficulty of distance and transportation (as indicated by their substantial investment in road building). Thus, legions of Roman soldiers were quartered regionally in the hope that such distribution would allow the squelching of revolts while they were small. The leaders of these remote Roman units were carefully selected and quite powerful.

Herod’s army was a regional extension of the Roman army and Herod chose his military leaders from Romans, relatives (such as his cousin Achiabus) and fellow Idumaeans. Thus, although his army was comprised mostly of Jews, they were led by foreigners[499]. This was another major area of contention between Herod and his subjects and a reason why Jewish soldiers remained “loyal” to the unpopular King. (Upon Herod’s death, many of these Jewish soldiers joined the revolt which arose from the masses).

The hated Roman occupation coupled with the unpopular rule of Herod fueled the “resistance movement” and we know that there were powerful militant groups centered in Galilee throughout the period. Such groups could not have survived without local assistance – whether voluntary or forced – and potent leaders. From the time he assumed the throne until his death, Herod would battle these insurgents and upon his death, they emerged with enough strength to capture the armory at Sepphoris and require Roman intervention. At least four prominent rebel leaders are recorded: Hezekiah, his son “Judas of Gamala”, Simon bar Giora, and Eleazor ben Simon[500]. Interestingly, Hezekiah was the brother of Jacob bar Mattat (the grandfather of Jesus), mentioned above, and therefore an uncle of Jesus.

9. The bureaucratic structure of the time would probably seem all too familiar – there were numerous officials and semi-official bureaucrats to deal with and, in sum, they probably ruled more of the everyday lives of the Judeans than the Romans, Herod, or the priests – especially in Jerusalem. Judea , Galilee and other regions had their own governor and Jerusalem its own mayor (or mayors). The Temple precincts had a strong Roman presence (mostly along the upper walls), Herod’s army (roving patrols), the Temple guards (stationed at strategic points and in roving patrols), and Temple priests charged with maintaining order. The city had its own Sanhedrin to issue rulings, make judgments, and settle disputes. There were numerous major building projects underway within the city and there was a concerted effort to modernize the infrastructure (better water access and systematic dung removal). Such things were expensive and taxation and tithing provided the funds. Thus, there was an elaborate infrastructure for assessing and collecting taxes.

Tax collection was a franchise either given to cronies or sold to the highest bidder. One family had established a partial monopoly on the business of tax collection – the Tobiads. They made their profit in whatever taxes they could collect beyond what they had bid to (or promised) the rulers and were wise to not appear overly affluent. Nevertheless, they wielded great power at all levels. Another “tax” came in the form of tithing (a part of which was paid to Herod). This tax was made even more onerous because it had to be paid with special coins purchased with an added exchange rate (the coin changers that Jesus opposed in the Temple).

10. Finally, there were people with powerful ideas. While most are familiar with John the Baptist[501] and Jesus, they were not all that unique – we are aware of several other persons who were highly influential because of their ideas[502]. Indeed, there were other messianic contenders[503], other prominent teachers[504], philosophers, healers, and rebels, and other social leaders who gained power because of popularity or self-promotion.

During the time of Jesus, the political situation in Judea changed dramatically. With the Herodians generally self-destructing, the transition to more complete Roman control was inevitable. This affected the eschatological beliefs of the Judeans and was an apparent influence in the timing of Jesus’ mission and choices.

The other center of political power in Judea was the Sanhedrin…

The Sanhedrin

The Sanhedrin[505] (סַנְהֶדְרִין in Hebrew or συνέδριον in Greek, meaning "sitting together”) was an assembly of Jewish men appointed in the cities and villages of ancient Israel. The assembly was usually made up of twenty-three members[506] and was based upon a Mishna[507] (exegetical derivation) of Numbers 35:24-5 (regarding convictions and exonerations). A Sanhedrin was intended to deal with religious matters, but came to act as a “civil court”. The Great Sanhedrin (בית דין הגדול -sort of a “Supreme Court” in Jerusalem) was made up of a Chief called Nasi (“prince”, a position sometimes held by the Kohen Gadol (High Priest), his vice-chief called Av Beit Din "father of the house of judgment", and sixty-nine general members. The Great Sanhedrin had great power: they could try the king, declare war, extend the boundaries of the Temple, and had the final say in all questions of law.

The origin of the Sanhedrin may be traced to the Council of the Seventy Elders founded by Moshe (Moses - Num. 11:16).The original members were replaced as needed by new members who each underwent Semikhah ordination[508]. This succession continued through the age of the elders, the age of the prophets (including Ezra, Nehemiah), and on to the Knesses HaGedolah or Great Assembly. However, disruptions during and after the Babylonian Exile either caused it to disband or made it an informal body. However, it was recorded that the questions of halachah (law) which arose in the course of re-construction of the Jerusalem Temple after the exile were decided by the Sages of the Sanhedrin, which included several prophets [HOJP I, 25].

Ezra (“the Scribe”) believed that a lack of Torah sages and teachers was the cause of Israel's downfall and slow recovery so he trained and sent scholars, known as the Sofrim (Scribes), out to different communities [HOJP I, 31]. Ezra also saw the need for national spiritual leadership and established the body known as the Knesses HaGedolah, or Great Assembly. Over time, it had 120 members which included the prophets Chaggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Daniel, Chananiah, Mishael, Azariah, Ezra, Nechemiah, Mordechai, and Zerubavel. Among the goals of the Great Assembly was the transmission of the entire Torah to coming generations [HOJP I, 34-35].

Around 200 BCE, a series of events occurred which changed most of the political and religious structure of Judaism. During the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator, a man named Yosef ben Toviah (Joseph ben Tobias) persuaded (tricked) the High Priest Onias II (aka Chonyo) to transfer the authority for collecting taxes from the High Priest to private collectors (the Tobiads). The Sages felt that they could no longer entrust leadership of the High Priest alone (if he could be so easily outwitted by a man of deceit and cruelty)[509]. The Sages designated a pair of scholars named Yose ben Yoezer (of Tzreidah) and Yose ben Yochanan (of Jerusalem) as the Zugot (“Pairs”) whereby the leadership of the Great Assembly was shared by two sages: the Nassi (president with political power) and Av Beis Din (Dean with halachic/religious power).

But Judaism was about to confront one of its “darkest hours”: The Tobiads, who led the Hellenizing Jewish faction in Jerusalem, were expelled to Syria around 175 BCE when the high priest Onias III and his pro-Egyptian faction wrested control from them. Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the son of Antiochus III invaded Judea on behalf of the Tobiads (because of bribes or for military advantage). Antiochus IV Epiphanes recaptured Jerusalem and took Onias III into exile. His soldiers plundered and slaughtered the Jews without mercy, “spoiled the temple and put a stop to the offering of a daily sacrifice” (Wars i:32). Judaism was outlawed, circumcision was banned, an altar to Zeus was erected in the Temple, and pigs were sacrificed at the altar of the temple. For Judeans, Judaism ended and even if some group was gathered to act instead of the Great Assembly, it would not have been properly ordained[510].

Jason (“the wicked”) acted as “High Priest” in a Temple that was defiled and over a religion that was not Judaism. The office of High Priest was given to the highest bidder and Jason was replaced by Menelaus who was replaced by Alcimus.

As discussed in detail above, it was during this time that the son of the legitimate High Priest escaped to Egypt and was given permission by Ptolemy Philometor and Cleopatra II to build a Jewish Temple at Leontopolis. For almost a decade (173-165 BCE), when Judaism was outlawed in Judea, the legitimate High Priest (Onias IV) operated a Jewish Temple only 250 miles away. It is likely that they also established a properly ordained Assembly.

Following the Maccabean revolt and the recapture of Jerusalem by Judas Maccabee (in 165 BCE), the Temple was liberated, a new altar was built, new holy vessels were made, and the Temple was rededicated. The festival of Hanukkah (dedication) was instituted to commemorate this event. Later (around 100 BCE), the Hasmonean ruler Alexander Jannaeus re-established the Great Sanhedrin or “Synhedrion” and presided over it. During that period, the Zugot led the Assembly and power shifted between the Pharisees and Sadducees (as detailed above and below). But, reportedly, for over a century the court convened every day except festivals and Shabbat.

In 57 BCE, Aulus Gabinius, proconsul of Syria, split the former Hasmonean Kingdom into Galilee, Samaria, and Judea, with five districts of legal and religious councils known as sanhedrin (Greek: συνέδριον, "synedrion")[511]: "And when he had ordained five councils (συνέδρια), he distributed the nation into the same number of parts. So these councils governed the people; the first was at Jerusalem, the second at Gadara, the third at Amathus, the fourth at Jericho, and the fifth at Sepphoris in Galilee." (Ant. 14:5:4). For some period, there was no single authority competent to decide the many halachic dispures between the Torah scholars.

When the Romans took over Judea and controlled Jerusalem, the Sanhedrin was re-established in the Temple but it lacked authority being unable to act independently of the Roman officials or their appointed leaders. The Sages transferred some of the basic functions of the Sanhedrin, “including determination of the calendar, to one of the most respected families in Jerusalem, the family of Beseira”[512]. Fortunately under the rule of Herod I “a more effective way to administer the religious and moral life of the people [arose] with the arrival of Hillel.” (Ibid).

While the Sanhedrin regained some of its respectability and power with its most famous Zugot – Hillel and Shammai, their story is one of rigorous dispute and murder (detailed in a prior section). With Herod as King, construction on a new Temple was begun and a new assembly hall was built specifically for the Sanhedrin – a reflection of it continuing importance.

But the Sadducees (who favored Shammai) could not tolerate the raising of the Pharisee Sages and used unlawful ways to regain their lost power and influence. They used force and the office of High Priest to achieve their aims and regain power. Herod began the practice (later followed by the Romans) of bestowing the office of High Priest upon the highest bidder. Since the Sadducees were the aristocratic party, they had plenty of money and offered huge bribes to whoever had the power to name the High Priest. Thus, the office of High Priest became an infallible source of income and lost its prestige among the people.

In 20 CE when the political independence of the people in Judea came to an end (with the loss of Jewish rulers), they were at least granted some degree of local self-government and the Great Sanhedrin was restored to its rightful place in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Its power, though, was limited to applying laws of the Torah in regulation of everyday life and not to governing national affairs. The leaders of the Sanhedrin supervised the Temple service and controlled disbursements from its treasury.

Until the destruction of the Second Temple (70 CE), the Great Sanhedrin met in the “Hall of Hewn Stones” near the north wall in the Jerusalem Temple. After the destruction of the Temple, “Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai established a central yeshiva at Yavneh, where the rule was adopted that in most cases the Halachah follows the view of Beis Hillel”.[513]

For easy reference, here is a list of the High Priests during this era…

• Jaddua, son of Johanan, ca. 371-320 BC (during the reign of Alexander the Great)

• Onias I, son of Jaddua, ca. 320-280 BC

• Simon I, son of Onias, ca. 280-260 BC (ha-Tzadik/the just)

• Eleazar, son of Onias, ca. 260-245 BC (Elzar) brother of Simon I

• Manasseh, son of Jaddua, ca. 245-240 BC (Menashe)

• Onias II, son of Simon, ca. 240-218 BC (Chonyo II)

• Simon II, son of Onias, 218-185 BC

• Onias III, son of Simon, 185-175 BC, murdered 170 BC Chonyo III

• Jason, son of Simon 175-172 BC (Yeshua – the wicked))

• Menelaus 172-162 BC

• Onias IV, son of Onias III, fled to Egypt and built a Jewish Temple at Leontopolis (closed in 66 CE)

• Alcimus 162-159 BC

And these were the Zugot[514]:

1. Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan (at the time of the Maccabean wars).

2. Joshua ben Perachyah and Nittai of Arbela (at the time of John Hyrcanus).

3. Judah ben Tabbai and Simeon ben Shetach (at the time of Alexander Jannæus and Queen Salome Alexandra).

4. Sh'maya and Abtalion (at the time of Hyrcanus II).

5. Hillel and Shammai (at the time of King Herod I).

(End of Book One, Part Two)

An Amazing Life:

The Story of Jesus in Three Parts

Book I - Part Three

By Rich Van Winkle

Overview & Contents

Book One- Part Three:

X. Judaism (III) - Jewish Laws, Customs, and Beliefs

i. Introduction

ii. The Shema

iii. The Jerusalem Temple

iv. Festivals

v. The Sacred Treasures

vi. Family Law

vii. Trials and Punishment

viii. Jewish Gnosticism & Mysticism

ix. The Mashiach/Messiah

XI. Being Jewish – What it Meant to Jesus

XII. Appendix I: Relevant Chronology (Chart of Events – from David to Paul)

Introduction:

We are Israel, a people aspiring to holiness, singled out through our ancient covenant and our unique history among the nations to be witnesses to God's presence”[515].

Judaism is more than a religion and more than a culture. It is one of the most evolved and complex societies in human history and Jews are some of the most diverse peoples. It would take volumes to adequately discuss its intricacies, logic, and silliness. And yet, we must have some understanding of Judaism and Jewishness – as it was experienced by Jesus – to understand either the man or his mission.

In this section we will deal with just a few of the most relevant aspects of Jewish culture, laws, and practices which seem to be misunderstood by many. It has been one of history’s great injustices that what most people think they know about Judaism has been written by Christians. (But then the same could be said about Jesus). Obviously, those who know and understand Judaism best are Jews and wherever possible we should rely upon their view of themselves as being the most useful.

Before moving ahead we should note that Judaism at the time of Jesus was much different than Judaism today. Shortly after the death of Jesus the Jerusalem Temple was destroyed and Judaism changed from a Temple-based religion to something quite different. But even before the Temple was razed by the Romans, Temple based Judaism was dying and Jesus was deeply involved in that death. And Jesus, although most certainly a Jew, was immersed into a society where Greek was the common language, the Romans were the dominant culture, and the Egyptians had strong influence. As a Galilean, local cultural influences were so great that Jesus was immediately identified by others as a Galilean instead of a Judean (Jew).

Having already explored Jewish history, we have encountered a number of cultural issues which are directly related to the life of Jesus. In considering those issues, we face the distortion of time, the filter of our expectations, and the lens of biased historians. Most of the cultural issues and disputes which directly affected his life were resolved long ago and we rarely hear the opposition viewpoint. Many have emphasized that we cannot hope to understand Jesus without understanding his religion. Ironically, many of those same people seem to forget that modern Christian-based conceptions of Judaism are often quite different than the reality experienced by Jesus.

The last part of this book is about being Jewish, specifically what it meant to Jesus to be Jewish. It is essential that we understand Jesus as a Jew – but such is meaningless unless we understand it as he did. That is the reason for this book and we finish by putting the pieces together as best we can.

Jews:

"For you are a holy people to YHWH your God, and God has chosen you to be his treasured people from all the nations that are on the face of the earth." (Deut. 14:2). “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession." (Exodus 19:5). "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you." (Genesis 17:7).

A Jew is a beloved child of God chosen out of God’s greater love for a precious article - the Law (Torah). Every Jew choses to belong to a nation of priests with obligations and duties which flow from that status, especially proclaiming God's message among all the nations. (Exodus 19:6). Having been singled out to fulfill the Will of God, Jews alone will be called upon to “account for your iniquities." (Amos 3:2). Jews who honor God will be rewarded and those who do not are not rewarded and die (see below).

Despite being “God’s chosen people”, Jews do not see themselves as above others or “special” to God. It is well established that "A Gentile who consecrates his life to the study and observance of the Law ranks as high as the high priest"[516] The most expressive statement of Judaism is known as the Shema…

The Shema:

Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One. Blessed be the name of the glory of His kingdom forever and ever.

You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might. And these words which I command you today shall be upon your heart. You shall teach them thoroughly to your children, and you shall speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. And you shall write them upon the doorposts of your house and upon your gates.

And it will be, if you will diligently obey My commandments which I enjoin upon you this day, to love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul, I will give rain for your land at the proper time, the early rain and the late rain, and you will gather in your grain, your wine and your oil. And I will give grass in your fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be sated. Take care lest your heart be lured away, and you turn astray and worship alien gods and bow down to them. For then the Lord's wrath will flare up against you, and He will close the heavens so that there will be no rain and the earth will not yield its produce, and you will swiftly perish from the good land which the Lord gives you. Therefore, place these words of Mine upon your heart and upon your soul, and bind them for a sign on your hand, and they shall be for a reminder between your eyes. You shall teach them to your children, to speak of them when you sit in your house and when you walk on the road, when you lie down and when you rise. And you shall inscribe them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates o so that your days and the days of your children may be prolonged on the land which the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them for as long as the heavens are above the earth.

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the children of Israel and tell them to make for themselves fringes on the corners of their garments throughout their generations, and to attach a thread of blue on the fringe of each corner. They shall be to you as tzizit[517], and you shall look upon them and remember all the commandments of the Lord and fulfill them, and you will not follow after your heart and after your eyes by which you go astray so that you may remember and fulfill all My commandments and be holy to your God. I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt to be your God; I, the Lord, am your God. (Deut. 6:4-9).

Jesus would have prayed the Shema thousands of times (twice every day) and it would have been deeply ingrained in his life. From it, one recognizes that:

1. God is One (and all).

2. God’s Kingdom is all Creation.

3. God has one Great Commandment.

4. God rewards the righteous, but will not reward the unrighteous.

5. God recognizes our self-will and weaknesses (but expects us to manage ourselves).

Note that there is no mention of a Temple, Priests, or Sacrifice. While they were significant in the times of Jesus and are commonly thought to define Judaism, the common peasant Jews of the time relied upon others to define their religion and how they should serve God. Those who profited from the Temple/Priesthood based model had political and social control, but were becoming less and less the foundation of Judaism.

All human cultures have some form of religion and all religions face the same basic questions. The manner in which they answer those questions largely defines the differences in human cultures. Four such questions will help us understand Judaism.

1. What is the nature of God?

2. What is God’s Will and the human role in addressing it?

3. What human practices are essential in honoring God and what are the outcomes?

4. What is God’s future expectation, promise, or role for humans?

The Jewish conception of God is quite complex. While monotheistic, Judaism recognizes both a physical and non-physical aspect of the divine: God the “אָב“ (Father - masculine) and God the “ר֫וּחַ” (Spirit - feminine). YAHWEH[518] is loving and vengeful, loyal and spiteful, reasonable and inexplicable. YAHWEH loves and demands order (the Torah) but acts in mysterious and illogical ways.

One of our faults in describing the religion and culture of Jesus is oversimplification. Merely deeming him a Jew is wholly inadequate as he was a “Rabbinical Jew” who had Essene views, followed the Nazoreans, was a religious “zealot”, and taught conservative or fundamental Judaism. To understand Jesus, we must understand what they all mean. And, while Judaism was his religion, Jesus lived among and taught Gentiles who had other religious views and who brought other cultural perspectives into his life.

Jesus exemplified one of the aspects of Judaism which I most admire and credit their survival and influence to: valuing knowledge and truth. There has been no other human culture which places such high moral and intellectual value upon truth. Jews, more than other cultures, follow the facts to discover the truth and accept such truth regardless of their prejudices. But along with Judaism’s value for knowledge and truth, Jesus also learned from the Hellenists that knowledge does not come from reason alone.

The Jewish Temple:

At the time of Jesus the Temple of Jerusalem remained the cornerstone of religious practice among Jews. However, its operation and management were among the hottest issues of the day and there should be little doubt that Jesus was one of those who questioned its legitimacy. His deeming it a “den of thieves” (Matt. 21:13)[519] and his statement regarding its destruction were “fighting words” for those who remained bound to the traditional notions regarding the Temple and its symbolic significance.

Most of what we know about the Jewish Temple comes from ancient Jewish literature: the Bible provides surprising detail that we know was applicable. Josephus is helpful in describing Temple practices during his time. We start with a brief look at the key Temple functions and then discuss management and operational details that are interesting or informative for our story.

[pic]

(What the Temple Area might have looked like from the east).

Functions of the Temple:

We think of a temple as a place for worship and understand the Jewish Temple as a place for sacrificing to God. While its altars were central to its religious functions and its Holy of Holies was deemed the house of God, it was much more. And, when we refer to the Jerusalem Temple, we generally mean the Temple Complex of which the Temple itself occupied about 10%. The Jewish Temple was an institution in the same manner as the “Catholic Church” and its Vatican.

Along with its religious functions, the Temple provided a broad set of civil and political functions: it was the nation’s bank, its archives, its treasury, its court, its central meeting place, its largest school, and its strongest fortress. Before we look at its religious functions, let us briefly look at these others…

Judicial:

The nation’s “Supreme Court”, the 71 member great Sanhedrin, sat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone ("Lishkat ha-Gazit") on the extreme north end of the priests' hall. Two tribunals of minor Sanhedrin, each composed of twenty-three members, sat on opposite ends of the complex (one by the south gate and one in front of the hall on the north side). Judicial sessions where all sorts of matters were heard and decided were held from the morning sacrifice till that of the afternoon. On Sabbaths and holy days, to facilitate increased business, the major Sanhedrin sat outside (Sanh. 88b), and the minor Sanhedrin assembled in the bet hamidrash situated on the mount (Tosef., Ḥag. ii.). We should note that the Great Assembly acted also as a legislative body except that in Judaism there is no need for “lawmaking” as the Law was given by God. Rules and policies were enacted by the Sanhedrins.

Archives/Treasury:

“The Beit HaMikdash also served as the national archive and because so many nations occupied Israel the scribes took great care in fully preserving accurate genealogical records.”[520] People and rulers deposited within the Temple family records, deeds, wills, and important possessions as we might in a “safe deposit box”[521]. There was little distinction between the “treasury” and the “bank” of the Temple. (Note “Treasury”, in the following section).

Banking & Charity:

Pilgrims coming to Jerusalem would normally have foreign coins and needed to exchange their money for Temple shekels. (The coins of most realms were engraved with the figure of some leader and were unacceptable for use in the Temple). The central “bank” in Jerusalem was at the Temple in the royal portico. And, we know that private money-changers worked from booths or tables around the Temple and within its precincts[522]. Banking was a long-standing institution of the Temple of greatest use and profit to the Temple itself. Early documents indicate that the Temple loaned money (although with the “jubilee” concept[523], where loans were forgiven in 7 year cycles (“Jubilee” years), loans would also have to be re-issued cyclically)[524]. It also appears that the Temple Treasury/Bank was involved in a variety of charitable endeavors, especially to the benefit of widows and orphans: “Then the high priest [Onias] told him [Heliodorus] that there was such money laid up for the relief of widows and fatherless children.” (2 Maccabees 3:10).

Teaching:

We know from NT references that instruction occurred within the Temple (John 7:14-31; Luke 2:39 ff) and from other sources that “academies” were present within the Temple precincts. When we read of Jesus teaching in the temple (“heiron”) we know that it refers not to the Temple itself, but to one of the temple-porches or outer colonnades[525]. We also know that others (e.g. Hillel) used the Temple as the central academy of Judaism.

Fortress:

Nehemiah (fifth century BCE) referred to a בִּירָה ("ha birah" or citadel) at the Temple Mount[526]. This became the Ptolemaic “Baris” which was captured by Antiochus III after he defeated the Ptolemaic army in 200 BCE (during the Fifth Syrian War and mentioned in the Letter of Aristeas from the 2nd century BCE). After Antiochus Epiphanes, the fort was simply known as “Acra” (or Akra, Hebrew: חקרא or חקרה‎, Greek: Aκρα). Later the Hasmoneans restored the “Baris”, sanctified it[527], and the fortress became an official part of the Temple complex. Thus, when Herod I rebuilt the Temple complex (starting in 20 BCE), the predecessor Baris was enlarged and renamed Fort Antonia. Little is known of its form except that it was rectangular and possessed several high towers, one of which was known as "Strato's Tower"[528]. Aside from the adjacent fortress, the Temple compound itself was strongly fortified – a fact made obvious by its ability to withstand a major Roman siege for years (68-70 CE).

During times when Jerusalem was occupied by foreigners or ruled by others, the Acra was held by opposing soldiers. This was clearly true of the Romans during the time of Jesus. It should be apparent that the Temple complex included other fortified structures as it also held stables, barracks, and escape tunnels[529].

Management of the Temple[530]:

The Jewish Temple was a large and complex operation managed by a mixture of full time officers, priests, officials, and workers who took care of everything except the actual administration of rituals and services. Rituals and services were conducted by the part-time “priestly courses” established during the time of David. We should understand that it was considered a great honor and privilege to serve in the Temple and the organization created was intended to provide opportunity as opposed to obligation.

We will begin with an overview of the “full-time staff”. Many of the following details are from the 1st Book of Chronicles.

The governing body overseeing Temple operations was a board of fifteen appointed officers ("Memunnim"). The priestly officials were: the High Priest, his deputy ("Segan"), and his two attendants ("Katoliḳin" = "Catholicus"). Seven trustees ("amarkelim") and three cashiers ("gizbarim" - who had charge of the Temple treasury).

The High Priest:

The best known official in the Temple was the High Priest or Kohen Gadol (“כהן גדול”: Hebrew for "Great Priest"). He was more than the chief of all the priests - he was the anointed[531] religious leader of the Israelites. Initially, one only became High Priest through the right of succession (direct first, but indirect if the direct line failed)[532]. Aside from being free from defect, the high priest was expected to be superior to all other priests in physique, wisdom, dignity, and wealth; if he was poor his brother priests contributed to make him rich (Yoma 18a; "Yad," l.c. v. 1).

A high priest invested with the pontifical garments was known as "merubbeh begadim." This investiture consisted of arraying him in the eight pieces of dress and in removing them again on eight successive days, though anointing and investiture on the first day was sufficient to qualify him for the functions of the office. The only distinction between an "anointed" and an "invested" High Priest is that the only the former may offer the bull for an unintentional transgression (Hor. 11b).

The High Priest was required to be mindful of his honor. He might not mingle with the common people, participate in a public banquet, or permit himself to be seen disrobed or in a public bath. He was allowed visits of consolation to mourners so long as he followed carefully prescribed etiquette (Sanh. 18-19; "Yad," l.c. v. 4). It was said that only the High Priest entered the Holy of Holies[533], and then on only one day of the year - the Day of Atonement[534]. He alone could offer the sacrifices for the sins of the priests or of the people (Lev. iv.) and only he could officiate at the sacrifices following his own or another priest's consecration (Lev. ix.). He offered a meal- offering every morning and evening for himself and for the whole body of the priesthood (Lev. vi. 14-15). He was privileged to take part at his own pleasure in any of the priestly rites. He almost invariably participated in the ceremonies on the Sabbath, the New Moon, and the festivals (Josephus "B. J." 5:5.7). Talmudic law prescribed that the honor of being first called upon for the reading of the Torah belonged to the High Priest (comp. "Yad," Issure Biah, xx. 13; ib. Tefillah, xiv., xv.; Eben ha-'Ezer, 3, 1; Oraḥ. Ḥayyim, 128; 135, 3, 4; Soṭah 38b; Giṭ. v. 8; see, however, Hor. iii. 8).

Originally, the high priest was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. Later tradition had the Pharisaic tannaim (the Zuggim who headed the academies) preside over the great Sanhedrin (note Ḥag. 2:2). However, the sources demonstrate that there were differing situations during and following the Hasmonean Dynasty ("Ant." xx. 10; "Contra Ap." ii., § 23; comp. "Ant." iv. 8, § 14; xiv. 9, §§ 3-5 [Hyrcanus II. as president]; xx. 9, § 1 [Ananus]). During the Maccabean period, the High Priest was both political and religious leader and was looked upon as the supreme authority exercising power over all things: political, legal, and sacerdotal. Thus, even without historical evidence to say such, it is fairly certain that the presidency of the Sanhedrin was vested in the High Priest after the return from exile and through the Maccabean period (see Isidore Loeb in "R. E. J." 1889, xix. 188-201; Jelski, "Die Innere Einrichtung des Grossen Synhedrions," pp. 22-28, according to whom the "nasi" was the high priest, while the "ab bet din" was a Pharisaic tanna)[535].

Honoring the High Priest:

Special honor was paid to the high priest: he was attended by three priests, one on his right, one on his left, and one holding up the breastplate that was adorned with precious stones. The high priest entered the Hekal (Holy Place) alone, and after the curtain was lowered, he prostrated himself and retired. The officer who waited in the vestibule, on hearing the sound of the bells on the hem of the high priest's garment, raised the curtain. After the high priest had left, the officer who acted as sagan entered the Hekal and prostrated himself; and on his retirement the other priests entered and followed his example. In case the high priest desired to offer the incense he was assisted by the officer and two attendants.

At the conclusion the priests bearing the five empty vessels—the basket, pitcher, ladle, spoon, and cover—used in the service of the altar, and those carrying the candlestick and incense, stood in line on the staircase of the vestibule, and, raising their hands as high as their shoulders, recited the priestly benediction.

The high priest then offered the libation of wine ("nesakim"). The officer stood in the corner with kerchief (flag) in hand, and two priests; with silver trumpets by the table, the cymbals meanwhile playing between them. The trumpeters sounded "teḳi'ah, teru'ah, teḳi'ah"; the high priest commenced the ceremony of the libation; the officer unfurled the kerchief; the cymbals clashed; and the Levites sang hymns accompanied by music. During the pauses the trumpet sounded "teḳi'ah," and the people in the 'azarah prostrated themselves; at every pause a teḳi'ah and a prostration. The order of the daily Psalms from Sunday to Saturday was as follows: Ps. xxiv., xlviii., lxxxii., xciv., lxxxi., xciii., xciv.J

The Sagan' (or Segen,' or Segan') would officiate for the High Priest when he was incapacitated. In general, he acted as his assistant and oversaw all the priests (thus, in Scripture he is called “second priest” (2 Kings 25:18; Jer 52:24) and in Talmudical writings the “Sagan of the priests”). The two Katholikin were to the Sagan what he was to the high-priest, though in some administrations, their chief duty dealt with the treasury. Similarly, the seven Ammarcalin were assistants of the Katholikin, though they had special charge of the gates, the holy vessels, and the holy vestments.

There were three or seven assistants of the Ammarcalin called Gizbarin'. The title Gizbar' occurs as early as Ezra 1:8, but its exact meaning is unknown. They appear to have had charge of all dedicated and consecrated things, of the Temple tribute, and of the redemption money (also acting as judges in such).

Next in rank to these officials were the heads of each course on duty for a week (as below), and then the heads of the families of every course. After them followed fifteen overseers, including the overseer concerning the times (who summoned priests and people to their respective duties), the overseer for shutting the doors (under the direction, of course, of the Ammarcalin), the overseer of the guards (or “captain of the Temple”), the overseer of the singers and of those who blew the trumpets, the overseer of the cymbals, the overseer of the lots (which were drawn every morning for assignments), the overseer of the birds (who had to provide the turtledoves and pigeons for those offerings), the overseer of the seals (who dispensed the four counterfoils for the various meat-offerings suited for different sacrifices), the overseer of the drink-offerings, the overseer of the sick (the Temple physician), the overseer of the water (who had charge of the water-supply and the drainage), the overseer for making the showbread, and the overseers for preparing the incense, for making the veils, and for providing the priestly garments.

All these officers had, of course, subordinates, whom they chose and employed, either for the day or permanently; and it was their duty to see to all the arrangements connected with their respective departments. Thus, not to speak of instructors, examiners of sacrifices, and a great variety of artificers, there must have been sufficient employment in the Temple for a very large number of persons.

The Mishnah (Sheḳ. v. 1; comp. Maimonides, "Yad," Kele ha-Miḳdash, vii. 1) records the names of one set of officers of the Temple during the 1st century:

Johanan b. Phinehas, in charge of the seals given in exchange for money to purchase sacrifices;

Ahijah, of libations;

Mattithiah b. Samuel, of allotments (i.e., the selection of priests for the day);

Pethahiah, of the nests of fowls (for sacrifices);

Ben Ahijah, of the health department (treating especially a disease of the bowels caused by the bare feet touching the cold marble pavement);

Neḥunya, of the digging of wells (for the pilgrims on the highways leading to Jerusalem);

Gebini (Gabinimus), of announcements (the Temple crier);

Ben Geber, of the gates (opening and closing them at designated times);

Ben Babi, of the wicks for the candlestick ("menorah");

Ben Arza, of the cymbals (leading the music of the Levites);

Hugras (Hugdas) b. Levi, of the musical instruments;

the Garmu family, of the preparation of the showbread;

the Abṭinas family, of the incense;

Eleazar, of the curtains; and

Phinehas, of the vestments.

The ceremonial of consecration, extending through an entire week (Ex. xxviii.; Lev. viii.), included certain rites which all priests were required to undergo: purification; the sacrifices; the "filling" of the hands; the smearing with blood. But Aaron the high priest was anointed with sacred oil, hence the title of the "anointed priest"; other passages have it that all priests were anointed (Ex. xxviii. 41, xxx. 30; Lev. vii. 36, x. 7; Num. iii. 3). The High Priest's vestments of office, which he wore, during his ministrations, above those prescribed for the common priests, were: the "me'il," a sleeveless, purple robe, the lower hem of which was fringed with small golden bells alternating with pomegranate tassels in violet, red, purple, and scarlet; the Ephod, with two onyx-stones on the shoulder-piece, on which were engraved the names of the tribes of Israel; the breastplate ("ḥoshen"), with twelve gems, each engraved with the name of one of the tribes; a pouch in which he probably carried the Urim and Thummim. His Head-Dress was the "miẓnefet," a tiara, or, perhaps, a peculiarly wound turban, with a peak, the front of which bore a gold plate with the inscription "Holy unto Yhwh." His girdle seems to have been of more precious material than that of the common priests.

The Courses:

In the time of Moses, when the Temple services were first established, the priesthood was confined to Aaron and his immediate sons. But by the time of Samuel and David, that family had grown so large that they could not all officiate together at one time in the temple. Thus, Samuel and David divided the priests into twenty-four separate groups, which were called “orders” or “courses” (1 Chron. 24:1 ff). Each course had a title associated with it.

Before Solomon’s Temple was built David showed Solomon how to divide the Kohanic clans (the priests) and the Levites to a weekly watch (משמרת) and how they were to serve in the Temple (1 Chron. 24:1-26:32)[536]. Their duties involved offering the daily and Jewish holiday sacrifices, collectively known as the korbanot in Hebrew, and blessing the people in a ceremony known as nesiat kapayim ("raising of the hands"), the ceremony of the Priestly Blessing. The primary functional divisions (detailed below), included…

• Priests

• Priests' Assistants

• Singers

• Musicians

• Gatekeepers

• Keepers of the Treasure

• Officers and judges who were assigned outside responsibilities.

However, after the Babylonians destroyed the Temple and the Jews returned to Judea from exile (as above), they discovered that representatives of only four of the original twenty-four courses could still be organized (Ezra 2:36–39). Ezra divided the four available courses back into the former number with each course retaining its original name (regardless of the family that headed the new courses)[537]. The length of each course was 7 days beginning and ending on the Sabbath (2 Chron. 23:8). In addition, all the priests served for 3 extra weeks during the year (Deut. 16:16)[538]. As the service was subdivided among the various families which constituted a course, not every priest and Levite in a course served every day. But, when a course was on duty all its members were obliged to be present at the Temple. Also, the number of families in a course varied: the singers had only one family in each course (1 Chron. 25:7-31) whereas the other classes had up to 9 families in a course.

There were a great number of priests and Levites in the Temple at all times: since there were 24,000 priests and priests' assistants, 4,000 gatekeepers, and 4,000 musicians, we know that there were more than 1,300 Levites in the Temple at any given time (even although not all of them were serving on the same day (1 Chron. 23:4-5).

The Daily Duties of the Priests:

Before the break of the day, the priests on duty were assembled to cast lots to decide the assignment of the various tasks. It started with filling the lavers and preparing the altar. At about 9:00 am, they opened the gates and blew the silver trumpets to announce the commencement of the morning service. The service included slaying the sacrificial lamb, salting the sacrifice, trimming the lampstand, burning the incense, presenting the burnt offering and drink offering, blessing the people and blasting the silver trumpets. This was followed by the Psalm of the day, presented by the singers, accompanied by instrumental music.

Immediately after the morning service, the Israelites might bring in their private sacrifices and offerings. This might continue till near the time for the evening sacrifice, which was about 2:30 pm. The evening service was similar to the morning service. It ended at about 4:00 pm. At night, the priests kept watch about the innermost places of the Temple, including the inner court and the Temple itself. They also opened and closed all the inner gates.

On a Sabbath day, there were the weekly renewal of the showbread and an additional burnt offering of two lambs. Before the actual Sabbath commenced, the service of the new course of priests and Levites had already begun. After the evening service, the outgoing course handed over the keys of the sanctuary, the holy vessels, and everything else they had in charge to the new course. At sunset on Friday, the Sabbath began. Immediately followed was the renewal of the showbread. It had been prepared by the incoming course before the Sabbath itself, in one of the side chambers of the Temple. Although the service of the incoming priests had begun, that of the outgoing had not yet completely finished. In fact, the outgoing priests offered the morning sacrifice on the Sabbath (Saturday morning), and then the incoming course performed the evening sacrifice. Both courses spent the Sabbath in the Temple. The Sabbath service was the same as on other days, except that at the close of the morning sacrifice two additional lambs were offered, along with its appropriate meal and drink offerings (Numbers 28:9-10). When the Sabbath was over, the outgoing course left the Temple and parted from each other with a farewell.

The Duties of the Priests' Assistants:

Of the various classes of Levites, the priests' assistants were the most numerous. They were in subordination to the priests. It was their duty to look after the sacred garments and vessels along with the storehouses and their contents. They prepared the showbread, the meal offerings, and the spices. In general, they were to assist the priests in their work, to clean the sanctuary, and to take charge of the treasuries (tithes).

The Duties of the Gatekeepers and Guards:

The gatekeepers assumed the responsibilities of policing the Temple and guarding the outer gates and the storehouse, day and night. The laws of Levitical cleanness were most rigidly enforced upon worshippers and priests. If a leper, or anyone who was defiled had entered into the Temple area, or any priest officiated in a state of uncleanness, he would be dragged out and killed.

A strict watch over the Temple was maintained, the guard being composed of three priests and twenty-one Levites. The priests were stationed one at the Chamber of the Flame ("Bet ha-Niẓoẓ"), one at the Chamber of the Hearth ("Bet ha-Moḳed"), and one at the Chamber (attic) of Abtinas. The Levites kept guard as follows: one at each of the five gates of the mount entrances; one at each of the four corners within the mount enclosure; one at each of the five important gates of the courts; one at each of the four corners within the court; one at the Chamber of Sacrifice; one at the Chamber of Curtains; and one behind the "Kapporet" (Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies). The captain of the guard saw that every man was alert, chastising a priest if found asleep at his post, and sometimes even punishing him by burning his shirt upon him, as a warning to others (Mid. i. 1).

The priests were divided into twenty-four patrols ("mishmarot"), which were changed every week. The patrol was quartered partly in the Chamber of the Flame and principally in the Chamber of the Hearth, both of which were on the north side of the inner court ("'azarah"). The latter chamber was a capacious one, surmounted by a dome. Half of the chamber extended outside the court to the "ḥel," a kind of platform surrounding the courts, which was considered as secular, in contrast to the sacred premises within, where the priests were not allowed to sit down, much less to sleep. A fire was always kept burning in the outer extension, at which the priests might warm their hands and bare feet. Here also they might sit down and rest for a while. At night the elder priests slept here on divans placed on rows of stone steps one above another. The younger priests slept on cushions on the floor, putting their sacred garments under their heads and covering themselves with their secular clothing (Tamid. i. 1). The elder priests kept the keys of the Temple, putting them at night under a marble slab in the floor; to this slab a ring was attached for lifting it. A priest watched over or slept on the slab until the keys were demanded by the officer in the morning.

The Duties of the Singers and Musicians:

The singers and musicians were selected and set apart to their assigned function. There were a total of 288 singers (1 Chron. 25:7-31) and 4,000 musicians (1 Chron. 23:5). They were also divided into 24 courses. Therefore each course had 12 singers and more than 160 musicians. Unlike the singers, the 160 musicians came from several families. The ministry was subdivided among the families, and only one family of 20 to 30 musicians accompanied the 12 voice choir.

The service of praise in the Temple was vocal - the instrumental music served only to accompany and sustain the song. The musical instruments used were mainly the Nevel (harp) and the Kinnor (lyre). The silver trumpets used in the Temple, blown by priests only, were not part of the instrumental music, but were intended for assembling Israel to worship at the Temple. The other musical instrument mentioned was the cymbal. But this "sounding brass" and "tinkling cymbal" also formed no part of the Temple music itself, and served only as the signal to begin that part of the service.

The Levite choir offered praises in the morning and evening services. They were trained in singing and were free from other duties.

Tithing:

In the courts were thirteen contribution-boxes in the shape of shofarim (ram’s horn), with narrow necks and broad bases (Sheḳ. vi.). The half-shekel contribution or tithe for public sacrifices (and other services) was demanded on the first of Adar and was payable by the twenty-fifth of the same month (ib. i. 1, 3). There was a special room, called "Lishkat Ḥashsha'im" (Secret Chamber), for anonymous donations, out of which fund the worthy poor were supported. People tossed donations into the Vessel Chamber with its silver and gold vessels (as below). Every thirty days this chamber was opened by the cashiers; who selected such vessels as could be utilized in the Temple, the rest being sold and the proceeds applied to a fund for repairing the Temple building ("bedeḳ, ha-bayit"; ib. v. 4).

Sacrifice:

An eyewitness offers us a glimpse into the primary function of the temple – sacrifice to the Lord.

“The whole of the floor is paved with stones and slopes down to the appointed places, that water may be conveyed to wash away the blood from the sacrifices, for many thousand beasts are sacrificed there on the feast days. And there is an inexhaustible supply of water, because an abundant natural spring gushes up from within the Temple area. There are moreover wonderful and indescribable cisterns underground, as they pointed out to me, at a distance of five furlongs all round the site of the temple, and each of them has countless pipes so that the different streams converge together. And all these were fastened with lead at the bottom and at the sidewalls, and over them a great quantity of plaster had been spread, and every part of the work had been most carefully carried out. There are many openings for water at the base of the altar which are invisible to all except to those who are engaged in the ministration, so that all the blood of the sacrifices which is collected in great quantities is washed away in the twinkling of an eye.” (“Letter of Aristeas”, date uncertain but cited by Jospehus).

Treasury:

The Roman historian Tacitus describes the Temple as "possessing enormous riches" (Hist. 5.8.1). Seven trustees ("amarkelim") and three cashiers ("gizbarim") had charge of the Temple treasury. Against the wall in the colonnade stood thirteen trumpet shaped chests, where contributions were made toward the upkeep of the temple. The chests were narrow at the mouth and wide at the bottom, so they looked like a trumpet. Coins could be thrown in, making a loud noise as they rolled around. Hence Jesus says not to sound a trumpet when giving alms (Mt 6:2). Each one was labeled for the different contributions:

The first nine were for the obligatory gifts. The first was for the half-shekel temple tax for the current year, and the second for last year’s temple tax. The third was for the money to buy the turtle doves used for the burnt offerings and sin offerings for women's purification after childbirth. For the sake of modesty, women gave the equivalent in money then the offerings were all done together. The fourth was for the offerings of young pigeons. The fifth, sixth and seventh were for contributions for wood, incense and golden vessels used in the temple. The eighth and ninth were for the money left over after buying the sin and trespass offerings. The tenth to thirteenth chests were for voluntary gifts, for the money left over after buying offerings of birds, the Nazarite vow, for cleansed lepers, and for voluntary offerings.

It was in the treasury that Jesus taught on the Feast of Tabernacles, saying "I am the light of the world", and, "If you knew me you would know my Father also" (Jn 8:20). He also sat opposite the treasury and watched the crowd giving, the rich in their abundance, and the poor widow, who put in her last two small coins - the widow's mite (Mk 12:41).

[pic]Solomon’s Portico in Herod’s Temple (re-creation)

Access:

Entrance within the enclosure of the mount was permitted to any one who was decently attired and who carried no burden. Israelites when ritually unclean and Gentiles were not allowed to pass beyond the "soreg," a fence which surrounded the courts at a distance of ten cubits. The outer court, called "'Ezrat Nashim" (Women's Hall), was for the use of ordinary Israelites. The priests' hall was reserved for the priests and Levites; occasionally, however, men and women presenting sin-offerings, sacrifices on which they were required to place the hands ("semikah"), made use of it. At the festivals, to accommodate the large crowds, all Israelites were permitted to enter the priest’s hall, on which occasion the curtain of the vestibule was raised to show the people the interior of the "Hekal". The people, though tightly packed, were able to find sufficient space in which to prostrate themselves, this being one of the miracles associated with the Temple. The people crowded to within eleven cubits behind the Holy of Holies (Yoma 21a). The king when visiting the Temple had no rights beyond those of the ordinary Israelite; only the kings of the house of David were privileged to sit down in the 'azarah (Soṭah 41b; Tamid 27a).

Water-Supply & Bathing:

Another striking feature of the Temple was its water-supply. A spring rising below the Holy of Holies from an opening “as narrow as the antennæ of a locust” increased when it reached the entrance to the Hekal to the size of a warp-thread; at the entrance to the vestibule it assumed the size of a woof-thread; and at the house of David it became an overflowing brook (Yoma 77b, 78a). This spring is referred to in the passage "And behold, waters issued out from under the threshold of the house . . . at the south side of the altar" (Ezek. xlvii. 1, 2); it was the mysterious spring that filled the bath of Ishmael the high priest, situated by the attic of Abṭinas on the south of the court, at the water-gate. There was another bath, in a passage under the Chamber of the Hearth, for the use of any ordinary priest who might become ritually unclean. This was reached by a winding staircase. The priest, having bathed, dried himself by the fire; he then dressed and returned to his comrades above, with whom he waited until the gates were opened, when he left the 'azarah, being unfit for service till sunset of the same day.

Order of Service:

The order of the priests' daily service in the Temple was as follows: One of the priests arose early and bathed before the arrival of the officer, who usually came about cockcrow. The officer knocked at the door of the Chamber of the Hearth, and the priests opened it. He called for the priest who had bathed, and ordered him to decide by lot which of the priests should serve that day. The officer then took the keys and entered through the wicket ("pishpush") of the door to the 'azarah, followed by the priests who formed the patrol, each holding two torches. The patrol was divided into two sections; one going through the colonnade on the east, and one on the west, the sections meeting on the south side at the chamber where they prepared the "ḥabittin" (the baked cake for the meal-offering). The priests now asked one another "Is all well?" and received the answer "All is well." The officer assigned by lot the making of the ḥabittin. Similarly he selected a priest to clean the altar of ashes, his comrades uttering the warning: "Be careful not to touch the sacred vessels before thou sanctifiest [by washing] thy hands and feet at the laver; and see that the coal-shovel ["maḥtah"] is in its place [near the "kebesh," the inclined plank or bridge leading to the altar]." Proceeding without any light save that of the pyre ("ma'arakah") on the altar, he disappeared below, and was next heard operating the machinery for raising the laver from the well. This consisted of a wooden wheel and shaft and a chain, a device designed by the high priest Ben Ḳaṭṭin. The noise caused by this operation fixed the time for washing hands and feet. The priest took the silver "maḥtah" and ascended the altar; pushing the large coals aside, he took a shovelful of ashes and charred wood, and, descending, turned northward and deposited the ashes in a heap on the floor three handbreadths from the "kebesh," where also the ashes from the golden altar and the candlestick were placed. The authorities disagree as to the disposition of the ashes: some say they fell through a grate in the floor; others, that they were removed later. Observing his act, the priest's comrades hurried to wash their hands and feet at the laver. They then took large shovels ("magrefot") and made a heap ("tappuaḥ") of the ashes of the altar in the center, other priests meanwhile using flesh-hooks to place aside the portions of the sacrifices that had not been consumed during the night. When the heap of ashes was sufficiently large it was removed outside the city. The priests now brought pieces of all kinds of wood except olive and vine, and built a new pyre, on which they replaced the unconsumed portions of the sacrifices. For a second pyre, intended for the burning of incense, they selected the best fig-wood. Having lit the two pyres, they descended from the altars.

The Tamid Sacrifice:

The officer then ordered the priests to decide by lot who should slaughter the sacrificial victim, who should sprinkle the blood, who should clean the ashes from the golden altar and from the golden candlestick, and who should attend to the sacrifices in detail. This being done, the officer commanded: "Go ye and see if it is time to commence the sacrificial service!" Mounting to an eminence of the Temple, they looked toward the east, till at length one shouted, "Barḳai!" (the morning light has appeared). Mattithiah b. Samuel said they asked him, "Has the light in the east reached Hebron?" and he answered, "Yes." The mention of Hebron was made to honor the memory of the patriarchs buried there. The officer then said: "Go and fetch a lamb from the Chamber of the Lambs" (situated at the northeast corner of the 'azarah). The priests entered also the Vessel Chamber and took therefrom ninety-three vessels of silver and gold. The lamb was now examined by the light of torches to see whether it was free from blemishes; and water from a golden cup was given it to drink. The priest selected by lot then dragged the animal to the abattoir, north of the altar. Meanwhile other priests advanced with the "ṭeni," a gold dish in the shape of a basket of a "tarḳab" measure; the "kuz," a gold pitcher; and two keys wherewith to open the Hekal, one from the outside and one from within through the wicket or lattice of a cell on the north side of the vestibule. The bolt was thrown back and the doors unlocked, causing a noise which was heard a long distance and which was the signal for the shoḥeṭ to slaughter the perpetual morning sacrifice ("tamid shel shaḥarit.") at the abattoir, while the priest in the Hekal carefully gathered up all the ashes of the golden altar into the ṭeni, put this on the floor, and went out. The priest with the kuz cleared the candlestick of ashes, leaving the two lights nearest to the east to burn till the evening. If he found them extinguished he renewed and relighted them, after which he trimmed the other lamps. In front of the candlestick were three marble steps, on the top one of which the priest stood to trim and light the lamps. When he had finished he put the kuz on the second step and went out. On the first step the tongs and snuff-dishes were placed (Maimonides, "Yad," Bet ha-Beḥirah, iii. 11). The ṭeni was removed by the priest chosen to remove the ashes of the altar after the incense had been offered; the kuz, by the priest who in the afternoon attended to the two lights of the candlestick that had been burning all day.

The Abattoir:

The slaughter of the lamb occurred as follows: The front legs were bound to the hind legs, the head pointing south with its face toward the west. The shoḥeṭ stood facing the west. The morning tamid was slaughtered at the northwest corner, that of the afternoon at the northeast corner, of the altar at the second ring. There were twenty-four rings, in four rows, fixed to the floor on hinges; in these the heads of the animals were held in position. The priest who received the blood in a basin stood facing the south. He sprinkled the blood on both sides of the northeast and south west corners of the altar. The removal of the hide and the dissection of the carcass were shared by the priests, and were followed by the meal-offering (Lev. vi. 13). This accomplished, the priests went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone. There the officer directed them to recite one benediction ("Ahabah Rabbah") and to read the Ten Commandments and the "Shema'," after which they blessed the people. On Sabbaths they blessed also with "love, brotherhood, peace, and friendship" the patrol that was about to go off duty.

The Incense Service:

Finally, the priests drew lots for the incense service, and the various assignments were made, only those who had not been previously selected being admitted to the ballot. The priests that were not to share in the service of the day now removed their priestly garments and then, having delivered them to an attendant who placed them in the proper lockers, dressed themselves in their secular clothes and retired from the 'azarah till their next turn.

During the sacrifice the Levites were at their stations on the steps leading to the priest’s hall, and in front of the dukan; but they did not commence their music until the libation at the conclusion of the service. The musical instrument called the "magrefah," somewhat similar to the organ, stood between the altar and the vestibule. Its tones, which could be heard a long distance, were the signal for the priests to prostrate themselves: this took place after the incense-offering.

Based the growing population of Jews, David enlarged the number of vessels and furniture to be used in the Temple. For example, he designed not 1 lampstand, but 10, as well as 10 tables of showbread and 10 lavers. He also designed vessels that were unique to this Temple. He made special "carts" which transported the lavers from place to place within the Temple. The "brazen sea," a large reservoir of water resting on twelve oxen, was one of the wonders of the ancient world. This water was used by the priests to purify themselves before attending to their sacred duties.

Jesus and the Temple:

NT accounts place Jesus in the “Temple” but never explain such in detail. Each of those references unquestionably refer to the Temple courtyards and not the Temple proper. There is no biblical reference to Jesus offering sacrifice, either in the Temple or otherwise. Indeed, although Jesus is said to have been in the Temple frequently, there are only eight gospel episodes which take place within the Temple complex:

1. “[His] parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law…” (Luke 2:27).

2. Jesus was left behind after Passover at age of 12 and was found in the Temple (Luke 2:41-52).

3. “And [the Devil] took him to Jerusalem, and set him on the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here…’ (John 4:9).

4. Jesus taught in the Temple (Matt. 21:23; Mark 11:27): “Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me” (Matt. 26.56). “And every day he was teaching in the temple[539]. But at night he went out and lodged on the mount called Olivet and early in the morning all the people came to him in the temple to hear him.” (Luke 21.37-38). “So Jesus proclaimed, as he taught in the temple, ‘You know me, and you know where I come from?’” (John 7:28). “Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.” (John 8:2). “These words he spoke in the treasury, as he taught in the temple…” (John 8:20). Jesus was in the Temple often: “When I was with you day after day in the temple…” (Luke 22.53). “I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.” (John 18:20).

5. During the feast of the Dedication: “Jesus was walking in the Temple, in the Portico of Solomon. So the Jews gathered round him and said to him, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly." John 10:23-24).

6. Jesus cleansed the Temple (Mark 11:15–19, 11:27–33, Matthew 21:12–17, 21:23–27 and Luke 19:45–48, 20:1–8)[540].

7. Jesus passed through the Temple: “And he entered Jerusalem, and went into the Temple; and when he had looked round at everything, as it was already late, he went out to Bethany with the twelve.” (Mark 11:11).

8. “Afterward, Jesus found [the man who had been healed] in the Temple...” (John 5:14).

From all of these references, we see that Jesus is not in the “temple”, but inside the temple complex (teaching took place in the porticos and courtyards).

[pic]

A model showing the courtyards around the Temple.[541].

As noted elsewhere, as a “mamzer”, Jesus would have been prohibited from entering the Temple itself[542] and once we understand this, the NT accounts make it clear that Jesus did not enter “the Temple”. Equally clear is that Jesus opposed both the structure and function of the Temple – its sacrifices served the illegitimate and unrighteous priests, not God.

The Temple Treasures and the Ark of the Covenant[543]:

Throughout history the Jews have been blamed (wrongly) for many things and accused of plenty of misdeeds. But few, if any, have deemed them – as a people – stupid. Indeed, just the opposite has been the larger truth – the Jews have been known as forward thinking, intelligent, and wise. Thus, it would be highly unexpected for the Jews to be caught off-guard by something as large (and predictable) as the invasion and capture by the Babylonians, the Syrians, or the Romans. It is obvious to anyone that people who anticipate being killed or captured will hide their treasures and it is clear that some great treasures have been held and hidden by the Jews.

The mystery of the Ark of the Covenant and other Jewish treasures has been the fodder for books, movies, and legends. Their discovery remains one of the highest aspirations for archeologists and historians. Indeed, it is likely that the secret of their whereabouts has been lost entirely. There are a few tantalizing clues for those who would seek the treasures…

“It is also found in the records, that Jeremy the prophet commanded them that were carried away to take of the fire, as it hath been signified… when they see images of silver and gold, with their ornaments.  And with other such speeches exhorted he them, that… being warned of God, commanded the tabernacle and the ark to go with him, as he went forth into the mountain, where Moses climbed up, and saw the heritage of God.  And when Jeremy came thither, he found a hollow cave, wherein he laid the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door. And some of those that followed him came to mark the way, but they could not find it…‘As for that place, it shall be unknown until the time that God gathers His people again together, and receives them unto mercy.’ (II Maccabees 2:1-8).

Jeremiah "being warned of God, commanded the tabernacle and the ark to go with him." He did not take it to Egypt. On the contrary, "went forth into the mountain, where Moses climbed up, and saw the heritage of God" (Mount Pisgah/Nebo). When Jeremiah reached the mountain, "he found a hollow cave, wherein he laid the tabernacle, and the ark, and the altar of incense, and so stopped the door" (II Maccabees 2:4-6).

Thus, Jeremiah the Prophet and Josiah the King appointed their most trusted friends with a divine mission: to hide the treasures of the Temple of Jerusalem in the Judean mountains. Those chosen for this secret operation were[544]:

Shimur HaLevi (the Levite), later the High Priest (Ha Tzaddik) after the exile,

Hezekiah whose identity is yet unknown,

Zedekiah, son of King Jeconiah,

Haggai (aka Chaggai) the Prophet, and

Zechariah, the Prophet (son of Ido, the Prophet).

Starting years before the first invasion by Nebuchadnezzar, these men secretly took large caches of sacred treasuries[545], including:

• ancient gold and silver vessels of the Temple,

• ancient Temple furnishings including a golden table

for showbread and altar of incense,

• the garment and vestments (sacred breast plate, Urim and Thummim) of the High Priest,

• the giant gold menorah, a golden lampstand,

• the entire Mishkhan (the portable dwelling place for the divine presence),

• the Tabernacle of the Congregation,

• Moses’ Ark of the Covenant, and

• the wealth of the treasures that were in Jerusalem,

to the well chosen caves and chambers where they could be preserved for future ages – particularly, the age of the Moschiach (Messiah).

And then, we note…

“Then Jehoiachin king of Judah, his mother, his servants, his princes, and his officers went out to the king of Babylon; and the king of Babylon, in the eight year of his reign, took him prisoner.  And he carried out from there all the treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king’s house, and he cut in pieces all the articles of gold which Solomon king of Israel had made in the temple of the Lord, as the Lord had said.” (1 Kings 24:12-13).

As recorded in the Jerusalem Chronicle (DSS) within the Nebuchadnezzar Tablet, we read

“In the seventh year (598/597 BCE), the month of Kislimu, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and besieged the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Addaru he seized the city and captured the king (Jehoiachin/Jeconiah); He appointed there a king of his own choice (Zedekiah), received its heavy tribute and sent [it] to Babylon.” (Lines 11-13).

Historically, the next records come to us from the time of the Maccabees. An account of the plundering of the temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 170 BC, is given in 1 Maccabees 1:20ff and also was described by Josephus. At that time the temple contained at least an altar of incense made of gold, the table of shewbread, the lampstands, many cups, bowls, and incense holders, crowns and gold plating at the wall where the cherubim had been in days of old. Antiochus also took the "hidden treasures" of the temple site.

When the Roman General Pompey conquered Jerusalem in 63 BCE, he demanded the privilege of entering the Temple’s Holy of Holies. When he did, he came out saying that he could not understand what all the mystery and interest was about since it was only an empty room.

Finally, after the Romans captured and plundered the Temple in 70 CE, it was reported that: “While the holy house (The Temple) was on fire, everything was plundered that came to hand”… the intense flames of the temple fire melted the gold and silver of the temple so that it ran between the cracks of the rocks. Roman soldiers then totally dismantled the temple stone by stone to extract the gold.” (But also see below).

Josephus, who witnessed the Roman attack and gathering of plunder, reported with specifics: “But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem… the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction were now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them. These lamps were in number seven, and represented the dignity of the number seven among the Jews; and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews... But [Vespasian] gave order that they should lay up their Law, and the purple veils of the holy place, in the royal palace itself, and keep them there.” (Wars).

Thus, while it is clear that the Temple was plundered before it burnt, it is also clear that the items taken by the Romans were fakes (as below).

The location of the true treasures remains unknown[546], but the book of Deuteronomy gives us some good clues:

“And Moses went up from the plains of Moav to the peak (Pisgah) of Mount Nebo, facing Jericho, and God showed him all the land of Gil’ad, to Dan, and all of the Naftali, and the land of Efrayim and Manashe, and all the land of Yehudah, as far as the sea, and the Negev, and the plain; the Valley of Jericho, city of palms, as far as Zo’ar”. (Deut. 34:1-3).

Mount Nebo in the land of Moab (now Jordan) has been identified with Jebel Nebah on the eastern shore and the northern end of the Dead Sea, five miles southwest of Heshbon. Its altitude and position offers a view of all of western Palestine including the plains of Moab.

[pic]

Mt Nebo (aka: Mt Pisgah) in Jordan

Fortunately, those who hid the treasures didn’t rely solely upon word-of-mouth to record the secret location(s). Instead, the inventory of caches was documented in detail and preserved in mishnayots (records) called the Emeq HaMelekh (the “Valley of the Kings”). The record of this secret mission was carefully preserved in several engravings on copper scrolls (in bas relief inscription) and on white marble tablets (first discovered at Mount Carmel).

We will add more to this subject shortly…

Festivals:

The Torah describes several festivals and commands a trip to three festivals each year: Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles (Ex. 23:14-17; 34:22-23; Deut. 16:16). However, with Judaism more widespread than in OT times, non-Judean Jews commonly made only one journey a year due to the distances involved. (Ant. 17.9.3; Wars 2.1.3; 2.14.3; Life 345-54). Of course, many could not make any pilgrimage and festivals were celebrated at home. Here we shall take a short look at the major Jewish festivals and a long look at Passover (since it plays a special role in the life of Jesus). But first, we should consider the weekly holy day since it is involved in all the festivals.

Sabbath (Shabbat):

Shabbat is a holy day that begins on Friday evening at sunset, lasting until sunset on Saturday evening. On Friday evening, at the start of the Sabbath, candles are lit in the home. Traditionally, the father of the family says a special prayer called the Kiddush, which asks for his family to be blessed. A service is held during the evening which marks the creation of heaven and earth by God. The Sabbath meal is eaten, and as part of it there are plaited loaves. The dough is intertwined to act as a reminder of the relationship between the Jewish people, the Torah, and God. On Saturday morning, Jews attend the traditional Sabbath service at the synagogue. It has been part of the Jewish tradition that men and women sit separately during the service. It is the norm for men to wear skull caps and a tallit, or prayer shawl. The service in an Orthodox synagogue will be in Hebrew, although in other synagogues it is possible for the service to be held in other languages.

The service starts with prayers and psalms. The rabbi is the spiritual head of the synagogue, but usually does not lead the service. This is done by the chazzan, or reader, who takes a leading role in the singing. The Torah is removed from the Ark and carried through the congregation, where people may touch it. Readings from the Torah then take place. Traditionally it is men who read, but in Reform synagogues, woman may read. There may also be a sermon delivered by the rabbi, which discusses some elements of the reading from the Torah. The rest of the Sabbath day is spent quietly with a short ceremony which ends the Sabbath.

Rosh Hashanah: The New Year:

The Jewish New Year begins in the autumn with the month of Tishri. It is a two day festival and a time to ask for forgiveness and prayers of repentance are made. A ram’s horn “shofar” is blown in the synagogues, calling people to return to God, change their behavior, and be forgive. A meal follows in which bread and apples are dipped in honey to symbolize the hope for a sweet year ahead. It is believed that the heavenly Book of Life is opened and the good and evil deeds of each Jew are counted.

Yom Kippur: The Day of Atonement:

Celebrated in early fall on Tishri 10 of the Jewish calendar, ten days after Rosh Hashanah, the New Year. It is marked by fasting, confession to God of sins committed during the last year, and prayers of forgiveness. Observance begins on Yom Kippur eve with the “kol nidre” service of repentance. Originally, Yom Kippur was the only day of the year when the High Priest entered the inner sanctuary of the Temple (the Holy of Holies) to offer sacrifice. A goat – the so called scapegoat, symbolically carrying the sins of the Jewish people – was then driven into the desert. It is the holiest day in the liturgical year. It is a day of fasting for all fit adults. At the synagogue, the rabbi and may others wear white to symbolize purity.

Sukkoth (Tabernacles) - The Harvest Festival :

Begins five days after Yom Kippur and lasts for seven days. Jews construct leafy booths (“Sukkoth”) in their gardens to commemorate the time when the people of Israel were instructed God to build booths to live in when they were brought out of the land of Egypt. (Leviticus 23:42-43).

Hanukkah: The Festival of Lights:

Two months after Sukkoth on the 25th day of the month of Kislev. It lasts eight days and commemorates a miracle of God in 165 A.D. when a son of the priest Mattathias, a man called Judah, was given the name Judas Maccabbee (meaning “hammerer”) because after three years of fighting he succeeded in defeating the Syrian Greek army. The temple had been seized and a statue of the Greek God Zeus had been installed. Maccabbee cleansed and purified the temple. Having only a single jar of holy oil to keep the eternal light before the ark burning for one day, it miraculously burned for eight days and nights.

Purim: Commemorates the story of Esther in the bible.

Shavuot: The Feast of Weeks: Celebrates the giving of the Ten commandments at Mt. Sinai.

Pesach/Passover: Pesach commemorates the deliverance of the Israelites from Egyptian slavery…

“And this day shall become a memorial for you, and you shall observe it as a festival for the LORD, for your generations, as an eternal decree shall you observe it. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, but on the first day you shall remove the leaven from your homes ... you shall guard the unleavened bread, because on this very day I will take you out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day for your generations as an eternal decree”. - Exodus 12:14-17

Pesach is the first of the three major pilgrimage festivals with both historical and agricultural significance (the other two are Shavu'ot and Sukkot). It also represented the beginning of the harvest season.

Among the Pesach traditions is the Pesach Seder[547]:

“And if your son asks you in the future, saying, What are the testimonies, and the statutes, and the judgments, that the L-RD our God commanded you? You will say to your son, We were slaves to Pharaoh in Egypt; and the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand. The LORD gave signs and wonders, great and harmful, against Egypt, against Pharaoh, and against all his household, before our eyes: And he brought us out of there to bring us in, to give us the land that he promised our fathers.” Deuteronomy 6:20-23

Passover is given great significance and detail among Christians since the gospel accounts have the trial and crucifixion of Jesus tied to a Passover festival.

The Sacred Treasures:

The Gospels of the New Testament make no mention of the sacred vessels, objects, and treasures from the Great Temple. For whatever reason, there has been a general assumption that these objects were lost during the exile, one of several invasions of Judea, or after the Jewish revolt and destruction of the first century. But such an assumption gives the Jews little credit and ignores compelling historical evidence. It is certainly hard to make sense of an intelligent people leaving their greatest treasures exposed to easy theft or simply accepting their loss without more than a passing note.

The basic historical information, gleaned from scripture and ancient history follows this sequence of events…

God gave Moses His Commandments and Covenant upon Mt. Sinai (Ex. 19-24) and then instructed Moses to build a cabinet (“ark”) for keeping the “testimony” God had given Moses[548]. God also instructed Moses to build a tabernacle, stone alter, and specific holy items, including: the mercy seat (or “Kaporet”/ "atonement piece", a cover for the ark) along with its veil, a table for showbread[549], the table accessories (cups, bowls, dishes, pans, and jars), a lamp stand (a 75 pound solid gold menorah), curtains (for the tabernacle) and related claps and hooks, a bronze square altar, a perpetual lamp statue, an incense altar, a bronze laver (for cleansing), and priestly garments and accessories[550]. Along with Divinely ordered sacred objects, God directed the Jews to keep certain things: the actual stone tablets holding the “Ten Commandments”[551], some of the manna from Heaven[552], and Aaron’s staff (rod)[553]. Obviously, Moses’ mighty staff became a venerated and priceless sacred object.

[pic]

[pic] [pic]

Representations of the Sacred Treasures: the Ark and Mercy Seat, Table for Showbread, and Menorah

Scripture provides some historical information regarding these objects: the Ark was in the Tabernacle at Shiloh (1 Sam. 3:3); the Ark was in Gilgal for a season after the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan (before being returned to Shiloh); and, it remained at Shiloh (Josh. 18) until the time of Eli (Jer. 7:12) when it was carried into the field of battle to insure victory to the Hebrews. Instead, the Ark was taken by the Philistines[554] (1 Sam. 4:3-11) to Ashdod and then to Gath only to be returned seven months later when the Philistines tired of the Divine punishment inflicted upon them for holding it. They sent the Ark back to the Israelites, accompanied by expensive gifts, and the Jews took it to Beit Shemesh.

From Beit Shemesh, the Ark was transported to Kiryat Yearim. The Ark was with the army during the siege of Rabbah (2 Sam. 11:11) and when David fled from Jerusalem at the time of Absalom's conspiracy, the Ark was carried along with him until he ordered Zadok the priest to return it to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 15:24-29; about 1000BCE), where it remained until construction of the First Temple (I Sam. 5-6). Solomon placed it in the new Temple and appointed the Levites to minister before the Ark (1 Chron. 16:4). During the reign of Solomon's son Rehoboam, Shishak, the King of Egypt, raided Jerusalem (about 925 BCE) and "took away treasures of the house of the Lord and the treasures of the king's house; he took away everything….” (II Chron. 12:1-12)[555]. This begins an odd history where the same treasures keep getting taken and then mysteriously reappear…

The Jewish king Ahaz (732-716 BCE) supposedly removed the brazen altar, the bases and ornaments of the lavers, the oxen from under the bronze sea, and other temple and palace treasures to pay tribute to Tiglath-Pileser (King of Assyria). He also created a replica altar and had the High Priest Urijah sacrifice upon the replica (II Kings 16:10-17). Hezekiah succeeded Ahaz and did much to restore the Temple until the invasion and siege by Sennacherib (701 BCE). Part of Hezekiah’s success against the siege was based upon his anticipation of the Assyrian invasion and the digging of secret tunnels (the best known was to access the waters of the Spring of Gihon). But the Assyrians had captured most of Israel and Hezekiah’s son, Manasseh (686-642 BCE), re-instituted pagan worship and reversed the religious reforms made by Hezekiah. Nothing is said about the Ark or other sacred treasures, but after a revolt (641 BCE) which killed Manasseh’s son (Amon), the Ark was returned to the Temple by King Josiah (641–609 BC). (2 Chron. 35:3)[556].

But Jerusalem was far from secure and the prophet Jeremiah had a “vision” (or perhaps just common sense) indicating that another invasion was coming. Sure enough, in 586 BCE, the Babylonians invaded Jerusalem and sacked Solomon's Temple. There are conflicting accounts of what happened to the Ark before, during, and after the exile. The Bible specifically offers no record of what became of the Ark, but states that Nebuchadnezzar (the Babylonian King) “brought some of the articles of the house of the Lord to Babylon and put them in his temple [there].” (2 Chron. 36:7). 2 Kings says, "The Babylonians broke up the bronze pillars, the stands (“מְכוֹנָה”) and the bronze basin (“יָ֧ם”) that were at the temple of the Lord and they carried the bronze to Babylon. They also took away pots, shovels, wick trimmers, dishes and all the bronze articles used in the temple service. The commander of the imperial guard took away the censers and sprinkling blows-all that were made of pure gold or silver " (2 Kings 25:13-15; note Jer. 52:17-22).

The extra canonical book 1 Esdras however states that the Babylonians "took all the holy vessels of the Lord, both great and small, and the ark of God, and the king's treasures, and carried them away into Babylon." (1 Esdras 1:54). But this account serves to exaggerate the loss and it seems to make little sense that the earlier accounts which offer substantial detail regarding what was taken lack any mention of the most sacred treasures. The canonized works even distinguish specific gold and silver items, but don’t list the 75 pound solid gold lamp or the golden Ark.

Without more, we might accept that the Jews were incredibly careless with their treasures and had little regard or concern for their loss. Of course, that simply doesn’t make sense and doesn’t fit their history. Nevertheless, what happened to the Ark after the exile remains a mystery. In Second Maccabees[557], Chapter 2, it relates that "Jeremiah, having received an oracle of the Lord, ordered that the tent and the ark and the altar of incense should follow him to the mountain of God [Mt. Nebo, 40 miles to the east of Jerusalem] where he sealed them up in a cave, and he told those who followed him in order to mark the way, but they could not find it, ‘The place shall remain unknown until God gathers his people together again and shows his mercy, and then the Lord will disclose these things, and the glory of the Lord and the cloud shall appear, as they were shown in the case of Moses, and as Solomon asked that the place be specially consecrated.’”(2 Macc. 2:4-8). According to 2 Baruch an angel came into the Holy of Holies and took "the veil, the holy ephod, the mercy seat, the two tables, the holy raiment of the priest, the altar of incense, the forty-eight precious stones and all the holy vessels of the tabernacle before the invasion. (2 Baruch 6:5-9). In the Pseudepigraphal book called "The Paralipomena of Jeremiah" (meaning "the remaining words of Jeremiah" and also known as 4 Baruch) it was written that Jeremiah, in obedience to God's command, hid the sacred objects from the temple just before the destruction of Jerusalem.

At the conclusion of the Babylonian exile – whereupon Cyrus allowed the rebuilding of the Temple and the restoration of Jewish worship there – we have these records: The Book of Ezra says, "King Cyrus brought out the articles belonging to the temple of the LORD, which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem…" and then provides an inventory: 30 gold dishes, 1,000 silver dishes, 29 duplicates; 1030 gold bowls, 410 silver bowls of a second kind and 1,000 other articles making a total of 5,400 gold and silver items. (Ezra 1:8-11). It seemed clear that Cyrus intended to return all of the items taken from the Temple, but the Ark of the Covenant and other major treasures are not listed.

The returning Jews rebuilt the Jerusalem Temple and restored their worship. I would agree with Dr. Prideaux[558] that the Jews found it essential for their worship in the second temple to have those sacred objects which their Lord had specifically commanded they have. Since the Holy of Holies and its sacred veil existed entirely for the sake of the Ark and the Mercy Seat, what need had there been to rebuilt the Second Temple if the Jews didn’t possess an Ark, a menorah to light it, an altar of incense to purify it, and a shewbread table to serve it? Did the High Priest enter an empty room three times every year on the Day of Atonement and confess? And even had the original Ark been lost, was there an injunction against making another? If there had been no Ark, wouldn’t there have been a significant debate about making another?

Moving ahead a few centuries, I Maccabees states, "And after Antiochus had ravaged Egypt in the hundred and forty-third year [169 BCE], he returned and went up against Isreal. And he went up to Jerusalem with a great multitude [167 BCE]. And he proudly entered into the sanctuary and took away the golden altar and the candlestick of light and all the vessels thereof and the table of proposition and the pouring vessels and the vials and the little mortars of gold and the veil and the crowns and the golden ornament that was before the temple: and he broke them all in pieces. And he took the silver and gold, and the precious vessels: and he took the hidden treasures which he found. And when he had taken all away he departed into his own country...” (I Macc. 1:21-24). This tells us that the Jews had recovered or replaced the other holy objects for their Temple before that time. But again, there is no mention of the most significant object – the Ark of the Covenant. Some think that the “other hidden treasures” would have included the Ark, but such seems unlikely. The authors of I Maccabees certainly knew its unique significance and would have mentioned it specifically. What this account reveals is that the Jews did, in fact, attempt to hide their treasures.

I think that it is clear that the Jewish leaders learned their lesson after the Philistines took the Ark – it did not make them invincible and it could be stolen. Thus, by the time of Solomon (who was so “wise”), the Jews had created replicas of their sacred objects and had carefully arranged hiding places for their real treasures. When Shishaq removed all the treasures from Jerusalem, he got a valuable set of replicas. If King Ahaz had tried to sell off the real sacred treasures, there would have been a revolt. Hezekiah was masterful in building secret tunnels and caves and, even after Manasseh had allowed pagan rituals in the Temple (obviously not possessing the Ark), Josiah was able to return the Ark to the Temple (from “the country”).

Jeremiah’s secret about hiding the Ark and other sacred treasures from the Babylonians was well kept, but was also well known centuries later. We have no definitive record of the Ark being seen after that time. And yet, worship in the Temple continued, the Day of Atonement was conducted as normal, and no one specifically mentions that the Holy of Holies is empty until the Romans captured Jerusalem in 63 BCE. When the temple was rededicated under Judas Maccabaeus (in 164 BCE), it was recorded that “They made new holy vessels, and brought the lampstand, the altar of incense, and the [shewbread] table into the Temple.”(I Macc 4:49). Did they make a new Ark? Was it already in the Temple and they merely brought the other new items in?

Elsewhere, I have written about the Jewish High Priesthood and the Temple at Leontopolis, concluding that the proper or authorized High Priest (Onias IV) had escaped to Egypt before Antiochus had taken control of the Jerusalem Temple (by appointing Jason as High Priest in 175 BCE). Would Onias III (the last legitimate High Priest in Jerusalem) not have taken steps to protect his most sacred treasures at a time when the risks were obvious? When Onias and his followers had the only legitimate Temple in operation, did they have the legitimate Ark and other sacred objects as well? (Onias and his group declined an invitation by Judas Maccabaeus to return to Jerusalem. The only reasonable basis for that invitation was that Onias had the sacred treasures. As it turned out, it may have been quite fortunate for the Ark to have remained in Egypt – the Romans were soon to take control of Jerusalem.

“For Pompey and not a few of his men went into [the Sanctuary] and saw what was unlawful for any but the High Priests to see. But though the golden table was there and the sacred lampstand and the libation vessels and a great quantity of spices, and besides these, in the treasury, the sacred moneys amount to two thousand talents, he touched none of these because of piety.” (Jospehus, Ant. 14.4.4; 71-2). “Now Crassus, as he was going upon his expedition against the Parthians (in 53 BCE), came into Judea, and carried off the money that was in the Temple, which Pompey had left, being two thousand talents, and was disposed to spoil it of all the gold belonging to it, which was eight thousand talents. He also took a beam, which was made of solid beaten gold… It was the priest who was guardian of the sacred treasures, and whose name was Eleazar, that gave him this beam [… because he feared] for the entire ornaments of the temple, he gave him this beam of gold as a ransom for the whole… Now this beam was contained [hidden] in a wooden beam that was hollow…” (Ant. 14.7.1; 105-109 & War 1.8.8; 179). Crassus broke his promise and carried away all the gold that was in the temple anyway.

This would seem to settle the matter except for two subsequent records. Jospehus later reports that upon Herod “the Great’s” death [in 4 BCE], his son Archelaus went to the Temple, ascended a platform, and sat on a golden throne (Ant. 17.8.4; 200 & War 2.1.1; 1-2). The only golden throne that could have been allowed to exist in the Temple was the “Mercy Seat”. And, after the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 CE, Titus’ Triumphant Arch in Rome showed the treasures (loot) taken from Jerusalem: including a Menorah, the Table of Shewbread, and some ritual trumpets.

[pic]

But, the carving contains no Ark of the Covenant. About this Josephus wrote,

“But for those that were taken in the temple of Jerusalem, they made the greatest figure of them all; that is, the golden table, of the weight of many talents; the candlestick also, that was made of gold, though its construction was now changed from that which we made use of; for its middle shaft was fixed upon a basis, and the small branches were produced out of it to a great length, having the likeness of a trident in their position, and had every one a socket made of brass for a lamp at the tops of them… and the last of all the spoils, was carried the Law of the Jews… [Vespasian] stored the golden vessels from the Jewish Temple… but their Law and the purple (or crimson) curtains of the Inner Sanctuary he ordered to be deposited in the Royal Palace for safe keeping" (Wars, 7.5.5-6).

The account of Josephus is striking – mostly because he grew up in Jerusalem (his father was a Temple priest) and he would have known exactly what the Temple’s menorah looked like. He also would have known the Ark of the Covenant if he had seen it. What he says, in pretty plain language, is that the Romans didn’t capture the real sacred treasures: “…its construction was now changed from that which we made use of” could mean that the Romans altered it, but that makes no sense. To be perfectly clear, he adds that the sockets at the top were made of brass and Josephus knew that the Temple menorah (by Divine decree) was made of solid pure gold. Josephus was making it clear to Jews that the Romans did not have the sacred treasures – they had replicas. That would mean that they were substituted in preparation for the Roman siege or that the items in the Temple during this entire period were replicas.

[pic]

(Israel Antiquities Authority)

In 2009, Dina Avshalom-Gorni and Arfan Najer unearthed a carving of the first Second Temple era Menorah in a Jewish context. The carving was inside the central chamber of an ancient synagogue at Migdal (Migdala) on the Sea of Galilee. The menorah is flanked by amphorae and pillars and is believed to have been carved by someone who had seen the Temple’s lamp (largely based upon the inscription). Careful inspection reveals substantial differences between this lamp and that depicted on the Titus carving (above).

Before continuing, it is useful to follow the trail of the Roman treasures… They were kept in the Temple of Peace and the Roman Royal Palace until it was sacked by Genseric (or Gaiseric) the Vandal (in 455 CE) who "placed an exceedingly great amount of gold and other imperial treasure in his ship… and among these were the treasures of the Jews." (Procopius, The Vandalic War, III.5.3, IV.9.5). In a similar account, Theophanes[559] tells us that Genseric took "all the money and adornments of the city, he loaded them on his ships, among them the solid gold and bejewelled treasures of the Church and the Jewish vessels which Vespasian's son Titus had brought to Rome after the capture of Jerusalem.”

Later, Justinian sent Belisarius against the Vandals and their “heretic” leader Gelimer. After defeating Gelimer at the Battle of Tricamarum (in 533 CE) Belisarius sent his spoils of war back to Constantinople, including "the treasures of the Jews, which Titus, the son of Vespasian, together with certain others, had brought to Rome, after the capture of Jerusalem" (Procopius ,IV.9.6). However, Justinian feared the power of the relics and sent them to the Jerusalem Christians. (Procopius, IV.9.9). Of course, the Jerusalem Christians were subsequently conquered by the Persians, who slaughtered its Christian inhabitants, sacked and burned the city and took away its plunder[560].

Subsequent legend has placed the Ark in several locations, but all of them are suspicious if not ludicrous. One of the claims says that it had found its way to Ethiopia where it resides in the St. Mary of Zion Church (in the town of Aksum). But, of course, Church authorities refuse to let it be studied. Some believe that the Ark was hidden in a secret passage or chamber beneath the Temple in Jerusalem. But that theory can't be properly tested since the site is now home to the sacred Dome of the Rock. The late Ron Wyatt, amateur archaeologist, said in 1982 that he had found the Ark beneath the hill on which Christ was crucified, but nobody else has ever seen it again. And there is the chance that one or more of the “Holy Grail Legends” could also include the Ark, especially those related to the “Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon” (aka - the Knights Templar). (In “The Sign and the Seal” by Graham Hancock, it is asserted that the Grail story is actually a coded description of the stone tablets stored in the Ark of the Covenant)[561].

I am confident that the real story of the Sacred Treasures involves those Jews who were privy to the secret of Jeremiah, who made use of several sets of replicas, and who were confronted by the ultimate problem: they were entrusted with objects as sacred or more sacred than any others in human history and yet they had no safe place to keep them. These objects needed to be very well hidden, but not so well hidden that they couldn’t be found in a distant future. They needed to keep a huge secret and yet ensure that it wouldn’t be lost over generations – either by revelation or by being truly lost.

I am also confident that the ancient Jews were smart and capable – that they would have acted reasonably, prudently, and intelligently in protecting their most sacred objects. They would have gladly forfeited vast wealth and great power just to ensure that God’s Holy Vessels were protected. Whether or not the copper scrolls found in the Dead Sea area relate to these Holy Vessels, they demonstrate the manner in which the people of the time would have acted to hide and later reveal their treasures. To some extent they relied upon Divine providence, but they also encrypted the information so that only the righteous would grasp the instructions. But above all, they would rather the objects be securely “lost” than fall into the hands of evil men.

For many of us, the sacred Jewish treasures remain merely interesting, but, for those who believe that God’s plan involves the building of another Temple and the restoration of the Holy services that God commanded in scripture, pursuit of the Ark and the sacred treasures is imperative. For those interested in Jesus and his life, it is time to pay more attention to the treasures because their fate was a major issue during his life, and as “An Amazing Life” suggests, perhaps more.

Personal and Family Law:

Judaism focuses upon right moral action. The choice of such action is guided by ethics (rules) and rituals intended to guide right action. Jewish family law is highly complex and variable. It has most assuredly varied since the time of Jesus and clearly varied regionally, sectionally, and positionally during his time. In this section we will deal with a few key areas of Jewish family law as they have particular meaning to the life of Jesus and our view of him.

In Judaism, there are 613 mitzvot (laws derived from the Commandments) which are divided into three groups[562]:

I. Mishpatim (judgments)- laws that have a rational explanation and would be expected to have been enacted even without commandment,

II. Chukim (decrees)- laws that simply have no rational explanation, and

III. Edot (testimonials)- laws that may be understood after explanation but would not likely be legislated without the Torah's command.

Cleanliness and Ritual Impurity[563]:

One of the defining characteristics of the Jewish people has always been “cleanliness” – both practical and ritual. Long before there were known hygienic benefits of cleanliness, the Jews had adapted strict rules for being clean and regaining “cleanliness”. Here, we are concerned with religious or ritual cleanliness – a necessary part of honoring the LORD.

The gist of Jewish belief regarding cleanliness arises from Deuteronomy and a rule regarding military camps: “your camp shall be holy, so that [the Lord] should not see anything unseemly among you and would turn away from you.” (Deut. 23:13-15). Since Judaism holds the human body as the ultimate place where one wants God’s presence, it is apparent that it must be kept “seemly” or clean[564].

The Torah includes definitions[565] of ways by which one becomes “unclean” and associated rituals of purification relating to menstruation, childbirth, sexual relations, nocturnal emission, unusual bodily fluids, skin disease, death, and animal sacrifices. It also has laws regarding clean foods and food preparation (“kashrut”, “sheḥitah” and “bedikah”, as below).

Among the ways a person could become ritually impure were:

• touching a corpse (as part of “Tumat HaMet” – the "impurity of death")

• having signs of leprosy

• emission of semen

• bodily discharge

• menstruation or other prolonged vaginal bleeding (“niddah”)

• childbirth

Touching human impurity also makes a person impure, but only when the person realizes he has done so. Remedies for a person’s being ritually impure include bathing, washing one’s clothes and waiting until evening. A person who became impure by touching someone or something impure was required to confess and make a sacrificial offering to a priest to gain forgiveness for the sin. After a battle, the metal things taken from the enemy that could withstand fire were to be put through fire and then purified with water. Everything else was to be purified only with water.

A mikvah (also pronounced mikveh) is a ritual bath. The purpose of the mikvah is solely ritual purification, not physical cleanliness. One must thoroughly bathe before entering into and being purified by a mikvah. A Mikveh may be either stationary rain water or flowing well/spring water. Oceans, lakes, ponds and springs are all natural catch basins of rainwater, and thus can be used as mikvaot (plural for mikvah). This body of water must contain at least 480 liters of water that has not been drawn or stored in a vessel (Lev: 11:36). Most mikvaot today, which exist in cities, use 480 liters of undrawn water (channeled rainwater or melted snow), and then add water pumped from a faucet to reach a depth comfortable for immersion.

Kashrut (also Kosher or kashrus, כַּשְׁרוּת) is the set of Jewish dietary laws[566]:

Jewish dietary restrictions come straight from the Torah although their details and practical application arise largely in the oral law. They illustrate one important way in which religious ideals, rituals, and ethics coincide in the law. By restricting their food (“keeping kosher”) Jews demonstrate acceptance of God's authority without asking why.

In Kashrut the slaughter of animals must be done in specific ways (“shechita“) that minimize pain (to the point that slaughtering a calf in the presence of its mother is restricted). Only certain animal species are permitted for eating, vegetables grown together (“kilayim”) are forbidden, and food must be prepared in specific ways[567]. Certain foods must be prepared by Jews.

Cleanliness and Jesus:

Our focus upon cleanliness and its significance within Judaism is crucial to our understanding of Jesus. This arises from an incident described in the gospels of Matthew (15:1-28) and Mark (7:1-30): Ignoring the misuse of “Pharisees”, we should see the big question – did Jesus openly ignore and refute a key concept and fundamental laws of Judaism?

The authorities from the Temple (likely to have been Sadducees) observed that the followers of Jesus ate without the required washing (a ritual required by law, not a hygiene issue). The response of Jesus is simply astounding: "[U]nderstand this: nothing outside a man can make him ‘unclean’ by going into him. Rather, it is what comes out of a man that makes him ‘unclean.’ "[It is] from within, out of one’s heart that come evil thoughts… All these evils come from inside and make a man ‘unclean.’" (Mark 7:18-23). In these words Jesus is offering much more than a disagreement with the Temple authorities, he is saying that Jewish law is less about the minute detail than the broader principle (and that the interpretation of the authorities has been wrong for centuries).

Jewish Naming Traditions and Conventions:

It is useful in studying the life of Jesus to understand the manner in which names were given during his time. And, to understand that, we should recognize that he lived at a time and in a place where new and different influences changed such naming traditions and customs.

In Judaism, the naming of a child is a profound and very meaningful occasion. Not only are words given deeper meaningful in Hebrew (especially since they correspond to numbers and there is a belief in numerology or gematria[568]), there is a strong notion of spiritual connection between people who share a name and the characterization of the name[569]. Thus, to be named "Ari" (Hebrew for lion) after one’s grandfather would form a deep connection between the child and their ancestor while encouraging them to become a “go-getter” (especially taking advantage of opportunities to do a mitzvah). It is considered a great honor to use the name of another because that person’s soul is “elevated” from the good deeds of the namesake. Additionally, the child may be inspired by the good qualities of their namesake.

Because Adam looked into the essence of every creature before giving it an appropriate name, Jews believe that their duty in naming their children is at least equally important. According to the Sages (expressing wisdom and tradition), the naming of a child is a profound spiritual moment - a statement of their character, specialness, and path in life. The Talmud teaches that at the beginning of life we give a name and at the end of life a "good name" is all we take with us[570]. It also states that parents receive divine guidance when picking a child’s name[571]. Children were named as part of a formal ceremony (usually either at the bris - circumcision for boys or during a special naming ceremony for girls) where it was customary to explain the child’s name and why the child was named for a particular person or reason. This often expressed the qualities that the parents hoped to see perpetuated in their child.

There were (are) no codified rules for the naming of Jewish children, but Jewish custom has evolved a variety of practices (“minhagim”) generally accepted by Jews:

• It is considered bad luck to name a child after living relatives.

• It is considered bad luck to name a child after someone who died from misfortune.

• The priority of naming follows this sequence (for namesakes who are deceased):

o The father’s father or mother[572]

o The mother’s father or mother

o The father’s grandfather or grandmother

o The mother’s grandfather or grandmother

o The deceased sibling of a parent

o A deceased sibling.

o A favored aunt or uncle of the father

o A favored aunt or uncle of the mother

o A favored or famous ancestor

• A name based upon the Jewish holiday coinciding with the birth.

• A name based upon a special event or blessing received[573].

Hebrew names have three or four parts: a given name followed by ben[574] (son of) or bat (daughter of) followed by their father's Hebrew name. A fourth part may be added if the person has special descendancy:

• If the person is a descendant of Aaron, the name is followed by "ha-Kohein."

• If the person is a descendant of the tribe of Levi, the name is followed by "ha-Levi."

• If the person or his father is a rabbi, the name may include "ha-Rav."

As examples, Moses' Hebrew name was Moshe ben Amram ha-Levi (because his father was Amram and Moses was a member of the tribe of Levi) whereas his brother Aaron was Aharon ben Amram ha-Kohein (because Aaron was a priest). Unlike English/American naming, Jewish surnames are not the same from generation to generation: Abraham's son Isaac is Yitzchak ben Avraham whereas Isaac's son Jacob is Ya'akov ben Yitzchak, and so forth.

Even in ancient times, Jewish parents tended to give their children both a Hebrew name and a popular/secular name. In the time of Jesus, where Greek was the common spoken language, a person would need to have a Hebrew name and a Greek name. In Galilee, Aramaic was commonly spoken, so a person might have three “common” names. Sometimes the common name was a transliteration (sound alike) or sometime it was intended to have the same meaning. For example, Simon was also known as Cephas and Peter: "cephas" is the Aramaic word for "rock" which becomes Πέτρος in Greek (or Petrus, the latin form also meaning "rock"). The name would have been Kepha (כיפא) in Hebrew. But then Latin was the official language in Roman occupied lands and names were translated or transliterated into Latin for official purposes. Thus, in the NT, we have examples of people called by names from several different languages, such as:

• Jesus (from Greek Ιησους Iēsous) and Maria/Mary (from Greek Μαριαμ and Hebrew מרים Miryām) were Latin names.

• Mark comes from the Latin name Marcus.

• Bartholomew was Aramaic (עבד־נגו ʻĂḇēḏ-nəḡô, בר־תלמי Bar-Talmay and תום Tôm).

• Zechariah ( זְכַרְיָה,) and Judah (יהודה Yəhûḏāh) are Hebrew.

• Luke is the Englishized form of the Greek name Λουκας – Loukas or Latin name Lucus.

Other Naming Traditions of the 1st Century Jews:

Although Jewish naming traditions applied to most NT personages, it was far from universal. Hellenization had led to the adoption of some Greek traditions along with many Greek names. Regional influences were common (as indicated above) and nicknames based upon personal character or attributes were widespread.

There was also an unspoken problem of naming children with unknown fathers and a whole separate system used by royal families – which tended to change with whichever major cultural influence prevailed – including Greek, Parthian, Syrian, Arabian, and Roman[575].

Ancestry Law:

Ancestry was (and still is) a very big deal to Jews[576]. For Jews having ties to important families, keeping records of such was both essential and routine. And, for Jews having any royal blood the family lineage was both individually critical and the most important heritage one could pass along to one’s descendants[577]. The significance of bloodline and ancestry is best reflected in the frequency by which it is mentioned in the Tanakh (Old Testament). (The word “son” occurs over 2000 times in the Bible). Even at the time of Jesus, important Jews kept detailed records of their ancestry, had their records verified officially, and had copies stored in the national archives.

Next, we should understand that Jewish law regarding ancestry, lineage, and inheritance is well evolved, complex, and less certain than Anglo-American law (which is hardly a model of clarity and certainty). We should bear in mind that a major cultural feature of Judaism is that the law (“Torah”) has been divinely given and is complete. Jews don’t need a “legislative body” to create laws – only scholars who can interpret and judges who can apply the already existing laws within scripture. Formal interpretations and extensions of the Torah (in the Talmud and other writings) form the halakhah (“the path to walk”)[578]. The Torah authorizes priests to make judgments about the law (Deut. 17:9-11) and their rabbinical laws are considered to be as binding as Torah laws. There are, however, differences in the way laws from the Torah ("d'oraita") and laws from the rabbis ("d'rabbanan") are applied or prioritized. (For a complete explanation, I recommend ).

Finally, we should remember that the Jews have a special focus on the Messianic promises and prophecies – many of which deal with specific tribal and ancestry requirements. It would be inconceivable for a rational Jew to make a Messianic claim or to be seriously considered as a Messianic contender unless there was some clear indication that they met the ancestry and tribal requirements for such. In addition, we can be assured that priests would have felt duty-bound to challenge any Messianic claim and to punish false claimants (probably with death by stoning). Meanwhile, they would not have allowed human machinations or corruptions to end the only royal lineage that could yield a Messiah. In other words, the priests would interpret the law in whatever manner needed to ensure some Messianic lineage.

A brief review of the literature and web resources will reveal the long, vigorous, and complex debate between Jews and Christians regarding the legitimacy of Jesus’ Messianic lineage. Much of that debate is heavily biased and unfounded – and most of the authors are simply repeating someone else’s position and argument without fully analyzing it or understanding it. Full review of the issue shows that both sides have good points – and not so good points. It is not the intent here to argue for or support either viewpoint. Similarly, there is little to gain by repeating the debate within the Christian community about the different genealogies offered in the gospels. Instead, here is a way in which to frame the analysis.

To explain Jewish royal lineage as it would have applied to Jesus, we should start with the manner in which Jews think (or reason) in relation to such matters. A key Jewish cultural difference (with roots in Judaism) is midrashic thought[579] (as a hermeneutic[580]). In the time of Jesus, more than today, midrashic thought was prevalent or dominant. In essence, it is a core means by which rabbis form religious ideas and interpret the law[581]. Its essence is analogy[582] or comparison – deriving ideas and applicability based upon some previous example or analogous situation. The teachings of Jesus repeatedly reflect his midrashic thought and there are numerous examples in the New Testament where midrashic thought is obvious (Mat. 2:15 citing Hosea 11:1 and in Matthew’s genealogy for Joseph).

Our examination of the Jewish Royal Lineage as may have been applied to Jesus must begin with a review of events (or rulings) that occurred in the Torah or earlier in the lineage. From these we have a basis for a midrash.

The laws of Jewish descendancy are derived from both clear legal statements in the Torah and from less than clear examples. Since this is not intended to be a thorough examination of these laws, we will work from a few examples.

• In Genesis 15:2, Abram is concerned that he has no heir and asks God what he should do – suggesting application of the common law of the time that would have one adopt[583] a son as their heir (often a servant such as Eliezer, Abraham’s servant). The passage indicates how all the rights and rank of a house can be transferred to a non-blood relative.

• In Genesis 48: 5, Israel adopts Joseph's two sons, Ephriam and Manassah, who were to be considered equal with Joseph's brothers in inheriting the promises given to Israel (each was entitled to an equal portion of the land). This section also shows that the rights of the firstborn are less than absolute.

• Per Genesis 38:8, when Er died without an heir, Judah told Er’s brother Onan to marry Tamar and “produce an heir for your brother” as the law required. This was an application of the Levirate[584] law later detailed in Deut. 25:5.

• Deuteronomy 25:5 "When brothers live together and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family to a strange man. Her husband's brother shall go in to her and take her to himself as wife and perform the duty of a husband's brother to her. The firstborn whom she bears shall assume the name of his dead brother, so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel.” The object of this custom (and law) was to ensure that a departed relative did not die without an heir when a blood relative could provide one. (But see below).

• In the Book of Ruth there is a detailed example of the ancient custom termed “redemption”. When Naomi’s husband and two sons died (without an heir), she went to Bethlehem with her Moabite daughter-in-law Ruth (wife of the deceased Mahlon). There, she hoped that a relative of her husband (Elimelech) might redeem Ruth. She targeted Boaz, who was not the closest relative, but he agreed to redeem Ruth (as her “goel”). But first, he had to seek out the closest relative in order to honor the closest relative’s right of first refusal (advising him that he intended to redeem Naomi and Ruth). Because the closest relative declined the right of redemption, it was transferred to Boaz (signified by giving him a sandal). Thus, he gained all that belonged to Elimelech and his sons, including the right to marry Ruth and bear a son in Mahlon’s name. Thus, the name of the deceased continued and his inheritance (and birthrights) were maintained: Boaz (via Ruth) begat Odeb who begat Jesse who begat David – the first king of a united Israel and the forbearer of the Messiah.

• In 1 Chronicles 2:34, Sheshan gave his daughter to his slave Jarha as a wife because Sheshan lacked male heirs. Judging by the precedent of the daughters of Zelophehad (below), Sheshan’s name and property would have passed to his son-in-law. Instead, after his daughter bore Attai, Sheshan made him the heir.

• According to 1 Chronicles 23:22 Eleazar bar Mahli died without sons, but had daughters. Their brothers (or better, cousins), the sons of Kish bar Mahli then took them as wives and the lineage continued through their sons. This is one example of Levirate marriage to someone other than an uncle (per Deut. 25:5).

• In Num. 36:6-9, the daughters of Zelophehad are told that they may marry anyone they like, as long as their husband is within their own ancestral tribe[585]. Any inheritance of land they may have must remain within its original tribe such that no grant of land may pass from one tribe to another and each tribe of Israel must keep its allotted portion of land. This shows that the daughters of Zelophehad inherited their father’s ancestral land and given the significance given to owning land, we should presume that they would have the right to inherit anything from their father[586]. (See also Num. 27:6, et seq.).

• From Ezra (2:61) we learn about the sons of three priests: Habaiah, Hakkoz, and Barzillai. Barzillai had taken a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite (Num. 36; 2 Sam. 17:27, 19:32–39; 1 Kings 2:7), and he assumed his name for the sake of taking possession of her inheritance. It is clear that his contracting this marriage did not cause him or his descendants to renounce priestly privileges or status since, when his posterity returned from captivity, they laid claim to priestly status.

• Numbers 27:6-11: "If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses."

The Jewish laws of inheritance seem to align with ancient Mesopotamian legal documents[587]. One example is that under Jewish law relating to “adoption”, it is provided that if a man teaches his adopted son a handicraft, the son is thereby confirmed in all the rights of heirship.” (Accord. Hammurabi's Code, section 188. See Talmage, Jesus the Christ: a study of the Messiah and His mission… (1906), p.90). The classical Jewish statement regarding adoption refers to Michal, the wife of King David: "Merab bore them and Michal brought them up, therefore they are called by her name. This teaches that whoever brings up an orphan in his home, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten him" (Sanhedrin 19b). However, if the adoptive father is a "Kohen" or "Levi" (priest), this status is not passed on to the adopted child. Conversely, if a Jewish baby whose biological father is a "Kohen" is placed for adoption, (theoretically) that child will always remain a "Kohen." If the baby is the firstborn of a Jewish mother, he requires a Pidyon HaBen (the ritual redemption of the firstborn), even if the adoptive parents have other children. As the Mishnah says,” If a man says 'this is my son', he is to be believed.” (Baba Bathra 8:6).

Finally, we should note that it was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, "A mother's family is not to be called a family." This raises the issue of how one would trace the lineage of a woman or trace a lineage that passes its titular right through a woman’s inheritance. The apparent answer is that you would have to use the name of her husband. (eg. Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63).

It is hard to generalize from these examples, but the one clear aspect shown is that Jewish law was flexible and interpreted reasonably as much as rigidly. Judgments were driven by both necessity and circumstance in conjunction with precedent. With this in mind, we may proceed to the real issue at hand, the royal lineage as it related to Jesus. We begin with the historical metaphors that guide our midrash.

Laws of the Mamzerut:

In some of the most unexpected passages in the NT, people essentially accuse Jesus of being “illegitimate” (“porneia” in the Greek, John 8:41). A comment in the gospel of Mark has people in his home town refer to Jesus as the "son of Mary" instead of "son of Joseph" – a distinct insult within the culture (Mark 6:3). It is quite apparent from these references and subsequent writings by Christian historians (e.g. Origen) that Jesus’ mother was known and accepted as Mary but that the identity of his father was uncertain or contested.

Here is the account offered by Matthew:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by Joseph her husband. Being faithful to the law and yet not having the heart to forsake her publicly, he intended to divorce her quietly and send her away secretly. But while considering this, he had a dream where it was revealed that he should not be afraid to take Mary as his wife…and so he took Mary as his wife.” (Matt. 1:18…)[588]

And here is what the Torah states:

"If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor's wife.” (Deut. 22:23-24).

Let us begin by stating clearly that a mamzer is not a “bastard” or a “mongrel” and within Judaism the word mamzer and its interpretation are quite different than these other notions[589]. The origin of the term and its meaning are taken directly from scripture, as detail below. However, the law of the mamzer, like much of Jewish law, is subject to divergent interpretation and application. That interpretation has changed substantially over time and so contemporary views of the laws of the Mamzerut often do not apply to the time of Jesus.

According to the Torah, a mamzer was the product of a union that was forbidden because the couple was not permitted to marry and procreate (Deut. 23:2). Regardless of the status of the couple who had the sexual contact, their offspring was what some may call a changeling (a term which better conveys the sense of mamzer than "bastard" or "mongrel"). But the word may not communicate the sense of abhorrence or rejection involved as the primary scriptural restriction states that a mamzer may not “enter the assembly of the Lord, nor may his descendants down to the tenth generation.” (Deut. 23:3)[590]. Here, we should note that the stricture of mamzerut was also applied when the father of a child could not be properly or assuredly identified (since it was not known to have been permitted – sort of a presumption of impropriety).

Around the time of Jesus, the rabbinical leaders (Rabban Gamaliel[591] and Rabbi Eliezer), taught that the testimony of a mother suffices to establish fatherhood. But the traditional view (argued by Rabbis Joshua ben Hananiah and Simeon ben Azzai [592]) required evidence – perhaps in the form of knowledge of the couple’s common domicile – to remove any dispute. Because the punishment of death by stoning was inflicted where the offender was not married, but betrothed (Deut. 21:23-24), the rules of evidence would have applied to any such charge (Deut. 17:6, 19:15). This creates a difficulty for convicting a woman unless her accuser was her husband (who would have to claim that the child could not have been his). The decision of Joseph was both practical and kindhearted.

Another scriptural provision provided the chosen alternative: when a man takes a wife and marries her and then finds “some indecency in her”, he may write and put into her hand a certificate of divorce and send her out from his house. (Deut. 24:1-4). According to the NT, this was to be Joseph’s choice until he had his dream. I suggest that the procedure had gotten this far as that explains why the gospel writers were forced to deal with the issue – there was the possibility of a written divorce certificate out there somewhere.

In the NT, Joseph decided to divorce Mary quietly after discovering she was pregnant before their cohabitation. (Matt 1:19). The Mishnah, specifically addresses such a dissolution of the contract between betrothal and cohabitation (Sotah 4:1)[593] where the contract is voided and no formal charge of her adultery is required. In that circumstance, the child is not a mamzer. However, Rabbi Joshua says, that we should not rely upon the mother’s statement and that the assumption of having become pregnant by a Netin or a mamzer remains until she brings evidence for her testimony – the child is a mamzer until the evidence says otherwise.

So, if we return to the NT detail, we find that some people directly questioned the parentage of Jesus and if Mary told the story as related in the NT, she would have been doubted and Jesus would have been deemed a mamzer. There should be little doubt that the precise gospel description of Mary’s pregnancy as having occurred after a contract of marriage was accepted and before the actual “marriage” or cohabitation of the couple (per Matt. 1:18) would have put Jesus into the awkward position of being considered a mamzer by some and not by others (especially considering that Jesus and his followers tended to side with Gamaliel).

It makes little difference whether one believes that Jesus’s father was an angel or the Divine father or Joseph (as told in the NT) or any other man to whom Mary was not married while she was betrothed or married to Joseph (as suggested outside the NT), Jesus was a “mamzer” as generally understood at the time. Thus, we cannot suggest that we understand Jesus or his life unless we understand the laws of the Mamzerut and how being deemed a mamzer influenced Jesus’ life.

The first and foremost affects were in relation to the Temple and to marriage. The direct prohibition of Deuteronomy would have prevented Jesus from entering the Temple itself (but not the Temple surrounds or courtyards). Some might say that he would have been prevented from entering some synagogues, but that practice is unknown or unclear. In his time, the synagogues were less formal and were not seen as “holy” in the way they were after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (a generation after the death of Jesus). It is noteworthy that whereas the gospel accounts have Jesus appearing in “the Temple” on several occasions, none of those express his presence within the Temple proper or his offering of sacrifice within the actual Temple (as above).

Secondly, the “rules’ of the mamzerut would have prevented Jesus from marrying any “normal” Jew. He could have married another mamzerut, a Gentile convert, or a Gentile. Their offspring would have been mamzers through the tenth generation. Of course, the gospel accounts have Jesus as unmarried – a striking departure from the norm and a clear violation of the presumed requirement to “be fruitful and multiply” (which was viewed as legally requiring Jews to marry). However, because of the restrictions imposed upon mamzers, there was a necessary acceptance of “single” mamzers.

Finally, a restriction which would not have affected many mamzers probably affected Jesus adversely. A mamzer could not become a priest. If our indications are correct, then the family of Jesus followed a Rechabite tradition of consecrating their firstborn sons into the priesthood. Since Jesus would not have qualified, his oldest male sibling would have been so consecrated. Of course, James, the oldest brother of Jesus was a “nazirite from birth” and was a famous priest.

I agree with those who suggest that Jesus’ mamzer status probably contributed to his understanding of and empathy for others who were marginalized or socially degraded. It kept him out of the priesthood, prevented him from marrying his “true love” (Mary M.) and clearly influenced his beliefs regarding sacrificial practice in the Temple. It would also seem that his mamzer status may have influenced his eschatological beliefs for the coming of the New Kingdom was held to be the only cure for mamzerut in the view of Tosefta (Qiddushin 5:4; noting Ezekiel 36:25).

While these are profound influences, there were likely others we will never guess[594].

Trials and Punishment[595]:

Because the trial of Jesus is such an important and disputed part of the gospel accounts, it is useful to know what was normal and required under Jewish law at the time. Of course, the trial may not have been normal and the authorities may not have felt bound by either tradition or law. Nevertheless, once we understand how much the trial and punishment of Jesus diverted from the expected, we can both better assess the validity of the stories and understand the critics who believe the purpose was to shift blame for Jesus’ fate from the Romans to the Jews.

Judaism has a core value of justice and Jewish legal procedure was highly evolved by the time of Jesus. The value of justice is reflected within the procedures and practices developed to help ensure that criminal trials were fair and produced a just outcome. And, of course, the ultimate result required that the authorities actually follow the law of trial and punishments.

Within the Torah there are a strikingly large number of offenses for which the death penalty is proscribed[596]. However, under Jewish law the death penalty is more of a principle (warning/deterrent) than a practice. This is due to the rigorous protections and high standards of proof required to judicially inflict the penalty. (Of course, the penalty was too often inflicted by mobs). Within Judaism it is well accepted that "It is better and more satisfactory to acquit a thousand guilty persons than to put a single innocent one to death[597]."

Jewish legal protections are centered upon requiring valid evidence and assuring the reliability of witnesses[598]. They include[599]:

1. Two witnesses were required. Acceptability was limited to:

I. Adult Jewish men who were known to keep the commandments, knew the written and oral law, and had legitimate professions;

II. The witnesses had to see each other at the time of the sin;

III. The witnesses had to be able to speak clearly, without any speech impediment or hearing deficit (to ensure that the warning and the response were done);

IV. The witnesses could not be related to each other or to the accused.

V. The witnesses had to see each other, and both of them had to give a warning (hatra'ah) to the person that the sin they were about to commit was a capital offense;

a) This warning had to be delivered within seconds of the performance of the sin (in the time it took to say, "Peace unto you, my Rabbi and my Master").

2. In the same amount of time, the person about to sin had to:

I. Respond that s/he was familiar with the punishment, but they were going to sin anyway; and then

II. Begin to commit the sin/crime.

3. The Beth Din (Sanhedrin or court) had to examine each witness separately; and if even one point of their evidence was contradictory - even if a very minor point, such as eye color - the evidence was considered contradictory and the evidence was not heeded.

4. The Beth Din (in capital cases) had to consist of minimally 23 judges.

5. The majority could not be a simple majority - the split verdict that would allow conviction had to be at least 13 to 11 in favor of conviction.

6. If the Beth Din arrived at a unanimous verdict of guilty, the person was let go - the idea being that if no judge could find anything exculpatory about the accused, there was something wrong with the court.

7. The witnesses may be appointed by the court to participate in the execution.

Here, we can appreciate the difficulty in prosecuting a legal conviction for a capital crime: two witnesses are required to testify not only that they witnessed the act for which the criminal has been charged but that they had warned him beforehand that if he carried out the act he would be executed. The offender had to accept the warning, stating his willingness to commit the act despite his awareness of it being a capital offense. The offender's own confession is not accepted as evidence and circumstantial evidence is not allowed. Also of note are these requirements that capital charges must be tried during the day[600] and may only be concluded on the same day with a favorable verdict (or on the following day with an unfavorable verdict). Thus, trials could not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or festival. (Sanh. 32a).

One does not have to be an expert to quickly realize that the trial of Jesus as described in the NT gospels is far removed from what Jewish law required. Thus, the idea of even calling it a trial is misleading. One must wonder why the authorities would make the mistake of having a public trial and then subjecting themselves to criticism (and penalty) for violating the law in doing such. (If you’re going to do something wholly unlawful, why try to use the law to justify it?)

The Torah only mentions three methods of executing criminals: stoning, burning, and hanging. The Talmud adds “strangling”[601]. There is an interesting argument that Jews also used crucifixion as a punishment – and there is significant scriptural and historical implication that they did. Deuteronomy states: "if there shall be against someone a crime judged worthy of death, and he be put to death and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree: but you shall bury him on the same day, for cursed of God is anyone hanged." (Deut. 21: 22-23). Josephus wrote that in 88 BCE the Hasmonean king and Jewish High Priest Alexander Jannaeus ordered the crucifixion of 800 Pharisees. (Ant. 13:14:2). Given the erroneous anti-Semitic beliefs of some Christians, it is difficult to understand why this fact is not widely mentioned.

We should also note that the NT accounts make it clear that most Jewish religious crimes were not taken to trial. Mobs were happy to gather stones and threaten to kill Jesus (on several occasions: John 10:30-39; 8:58-59) and Jesus rescued the adulteress from stoning by a mob (John 8:4-6). Where the law reflects such harsh deterrents and yet makes their punishment nearly impossible, people will tend to vigilantism.

Finally, we should dispel one of the silliest ideas promulgated by some writers – that Jews lacked the “authority” to execute offenders. Since the very writing they promote as divinely inspired and inerrant has the authorities kill Stephen and since Paul makes it clear that he killed followers of Jesus under authority of the Temple priests, proof to that the authorities either had the authority to execute offenders or went ahead without “authority” is clear.

In addition, we now have archeological proof that the Romans specifically permitted the Temple authorities to enforce the death penalty:

[pic]

This sign was one of many posted around the Court of the Gentiles in the Jerusalem Temple. It reads:

NO FOREIGNER

IS TO GO BEYOND THE BALUSTRADE

AND THE PLAZA OF THE TEMPLE ZONE

WHOEVER IS CAUGHT DOING SO

WILL HAVE HIMSELF TO BLAME

FOR HIS DEATH

WHICH WILL FOLLOW

“The Romans permitted the Jewish authorities to carry out the death penalty for this offence, even if the offender were a Roman citizen.”[602]

Jewish Gnosticism & Mysticism:

"Gnosticism" is derived from the Greek adjective gnostikos ("γνωστικός” = learned" or "intellectual") and is perhaps best translated from “Gnosis” as “wisdom”. The term has received different meaning over time and was eventually used by Christians to describe a heretical belief. However, at its core a gnostic is merely a person who believes that salvation is gained through the acquisition of divine knowledge (or gnosis). Thus, a Gnostic Christian may believe that the knowledge necessary for salvation has been revealed through Jesus. Gnostics accept that the world is subject to powers that may distort our concept of reality and distract us from Divine awareness. As Jesus explained, "The shadows of this world are perceived by mortals, and they think they know the Truth, but the reality which casts the shadows is hidden from them, and they do not perceive the Light." (Thomas -“Sayings of Jesus” 2:2)[603]

Jewish Gnostics were known during the reign of the Hasmonean Queen Alexandra Helene Salome (75-67 BCE). According to Pliny the Elder, writing around 25 BCE, their group was known as the Nasaraioi (“Νασαραίοι“) and lived near Apamea/Pella. By 20 BCE, a group called the “Notzrim” were established in Palestine (perhaps centered at Mt. Carmel). According to Epiphanius, they were members of a non-priestly congregation that counted Jeremiah as an early leader – being that he had received and recorded secret teachings from Moses that were not included in the Torah. They were vegetarians and did not practice Orthodox Judaism – especially the animal sacrifices.

There was also a related group which is not generally named. I will call them the Enochians. We have no distinct historical record of a sect under this name, but it is clear that there were a significant number of Jews who accepted the writings offered under the name Enoch[604]. To understand this group, we need to look back at Enoch and try to make sense out of the later works bearing his name.

According to scripture, Enoch did not die, but was carried up to heaven to walk with God (Genesis 5:18-24). Tradition holds that he will return at the end of time. Thus, the Enochians believe in the "End of Days" and its final judgment. They deny the idea of earthly rewards and reject the Second Temple's sacrifices as impure (Enoch 89:73). They adopted a solar calendar (as opposed to the lunar calendar used in by the Temple priests and believed in an angelic world in the afterlife. Their Messiah would be a pre-existent "Son of Man" with divine attributes who would sit on a throne of glory and act directly in the final judgment (1 Enoch 46:1-4, 48:2-7, 69:26-29). Does this sound familiar?

As previously noted, the Notzrim were Enochian Gnostic Essenes with ties to the Qumranians and Zealots. They would eventually splinter into the Nazoreans and the Baptists. Because of their importance after the death of Jesus, Gnostics are dealt with in detail as an Appendix to “After Jesus”.

Jewish mysticism[605] has been around even longer than Gnosticism. Indeed, one could claim that Judaism began as a mystical religion and has never lost that essence[606]. Here, we are concerned with the mainstream mystical aspect of Judaism known as the Kabbalah (קַבָּלָה‎ ="receiving/tradition"). According to Kabbalah, God is so transcendent that we cannot describe God’s essence. At best, we can describe what God is not. This true essence is termed “Ein Sof” ("without end") and coincides with the conception of infinite and omnipresent. This Ein Sof is also transcendent and cannot have any direct interaction with the Universe and must therefore work through emanations or manifestations known as the Ten Sefirot[607].

In Hebrew, each letter also has a numeric value. Gematria is the mystical process which seeks insight into interrelationships between different concepts, words, and ideas by calculating the numerical equivalence of their letters, words, or phrases. Such mystical use of letters and numbers may have begun during the Babylonian exile[608] where Jewish sages explored the creative power of various Egyptian intonations as applied to the Hebrew letters. This led to the writing of the "Sefer Yeẓirah" (aka "The Book of Formation" or "The Book of Creation"), the oldest and most mysterious of all Kabbalistic texts. By the second century BCE, a work, entitled Κοσμοποιία ("Creation of the World") circulated in many forms among the Gnostics and Jewish Mystics. It combined Jewish, Hellenistic, and Egyptian elements and ideas to define the unity which is God and to describe God’s Creation through text (sefer), with number (sefar), and by communication/telling (sippur)[609].

The many similarities between the "Sefer Yeẓirah" and the various Gnostic systems show their distinct relationship and likely co-evolution. Both systems find great significance in the power of the combinations and permutations of the letters to explaining the genesis and development of multiplicity from unity. And, both systems utilize a theory of contrasts in nature (חָבַר or chabar in Hebrew; syzygies or "pairs" to the Gnostics). I think these concepts and their significance are best reflected in a prayer of the Pythagoreans:

"Bless us, divine number, thou who generated gods and men! O holy, holy Tetractys, thou that containest the root and source of the eternally flowing creation! For the divine number begins with the profound, pure unity until it comes to the holy four; then it begets the mother of all, the all-comprising, all-bounding, the first-born, the never-swerving, the never-tiring holy ten, the key-holder of all."[610]

The relationship between the geometrical correlations in the Tetraktys and the first four Sephirot unveils the relevance of the the Tetraktys in understanding the Tree of Life.

[pic] [pic]

The tetractys, a mystical symbol of the Pathagoreans and a Hebrew tetractys using the letters of the Tetragrammaton (the four lettered name of God – YHWH – or יהוה in Hebrew) inscribed on the ten positions of the tetractys, from right to left.

While all this may seem quite an aside from the life of Jesus, we should not ignore the influence of the philosophical derivations taken from the Gnostics and Mystics. Although Christians have chosen to negate that influence, we know from early church history that many early followers of Jesus believed that Gnosticism best reflected his teachings. It is certainly clear that many of Jesus’ teaching have mystical elements[611]. For example,

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. . . . The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light, but if your eye is unhealthy your whole body will be full of darkness. . .” (Matthew 5:8; 6:22-23).

“But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.” (John 14:26).

“[T]he kingdom is inside you and outside you.When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and embody poverty." Sayings of Jesus (aka the Gospel of Thomas), Saying 3.

[pic][pic]

Two representations of the Sephirot (סְפִירוֹת) or emanations - the 10 attributes of the mystical Kabbalah revealing God’s step-by-step process ("ratzon") as it unfolds itself in Creation.

"[Jesus] allowed us to communicate of those divine Mysteries, and of that holy light, to those who are able to receive them. He did not certainly disclose to the many what did not belong to the many; but to the few to whom He knew that they belonged, who were capable of receiving and being moulded according to them. But secret things are entrusted to speech, not to writing, as is the case with God." “Stromata” by Clement of Alexandria, Vol. I[612]

The Mashiach:

The Basics:

There are few subjects in Judaism more complex and convoluted than that of the Mashiach ("messiah" i.e. "anointed one" from מָשִׁיחַ or Mašíaḥ/masah which in Greek is Χριστός or Khristós/chriein). Volumes have been written about single aspects of the Messiah within Judaism. The Christian literature is even more voluminous. An excellent summary has been provided by S.H. Levey[613]:

“The Messiah will be the symbol and/or the active agent of the deliverance of Israel. He will be of Davidic lineage, though he may have a non-Davidic predecessor, the Ephraimite Messiah, who will die in battle. Elijah will herald his coming and will serve as His High Priest. A world conflict will rage between Rome, variously identified with Gog, Amalek, Edom, and Armilus, on the one hand, and Assyria or Eber, on the other, indicating that to the Targumist, Assyria and not Babylon was the real enemy of Israel, and this will result in the annihilation of both at the time of the Messianic advent; the enemies of Israel will be shattered either by divine or Messianic intervention. The Messiah will bring an end to the wandering of Israel, and the Jewish people will be gathered in from their Dispersion to their own land; The Northern Kingdom will be re-united with Judah. The drama of the Exodus from Egypt will be re-enacted; in this drama Moses may participate, made possible by a resurrection of the dead. The Messiah will live eternally. He will restore the Temple and rebuild Jerusalem, which will enjoy divine protection for itself and its inhabitants. He will have sovereignty over all the world and make the Torah the universal law of mankind, with the ideal of education being realized to the full. The Messiah will have the gift of prophecy, and may have intercessory power to seek forgiveness of sin, but he will punish the unrepenting wicked of his people, as well as of the nations, and have the power to cast them into Gehenna. There will be a moral regeneration of Israel and of mankind. The Messiah will be a righteous judge, dispensing justice and equity, the champion of the poor and the oppressed, the personification of social justice. He will reward the righteous, who will surround him and eternally enjoy the divine effulgence. The essence of the Messiah will be faith in God; and he will vindicate that faith, and the faithfulness of Israel, in the eyes of all the world.”

We literally have thousands of years of analysis, commentary, opinion, and discussion to work from and the conclusion is simple – it’s too complex an issue. We can’t even decide it its one person, two people, or more. We certainly have no clue as to when the messiah is coming, even though people have been predicting “any day now” for three millennia. Some think that he has already come and gone. Luckily, it is not our goal here to work all that out. We are only interested in the messianic expectations and beliefs as were common during the time of Jesus and that were accepted by John, Jesus, and James. I suppose, out of necessity, we should briefly discuss why those beliefs are different than Paul’s.

The Source:

The Hebrew verb “Mashiah” (of which “Messiah” is the Anglicized form) was derived from the Egyptian word “messeh” which is “the holy crocodile”. Its use derived from the fat of the messeh being used by the Pharaoh's sister-brides to anoint their husbands upon marriage. (The Egyptian custom arose from a similar practice in old Mesopotamia)[614]. Originally, in the Hebrew Bible, “mashach” simply meant “anointed” and referred to Aaron and his sons who were anointed with oil to be consecrated to the service of God. (Ex. 28:41; 30:30; Lev. 8:12). The word is later used in the Hebrew scripture to describe a special divine status in relation to Cyrus the Great of Persia (who freed the Israelites from their Babylonian captivity):

"Thus said the Lord to His Anointed [מָשִׁ֫יחַ - mashiyach] to Cyrus whose right hand I have holden to subdue nations before him... (Isaiah 45:1).

Later, the Jewish High Priest was termed 'the Anointed [Mashiah] of God” as when the Jewish monarchy was established, the same term was applied to the king. He was “the Anointed of the Lord” because he was installed in the high office by receiving the sacrament of anointment (1 Sam. 9:13; 10:1; cf. 16:13 where David is anointed). In 1 Kings, Solomon is anointed by Zadok, thereby becoming “ha-mashi'ah”, “the Anointed One” (1 Kings 1:39). Finally, we read of a prophet receiving holy anointing: Eliza was commanded by God to anoint Jehu as king over Israel and Elisha as prophet (1 Kings 19:16).

But there was another use of the term that evolved over time – an “anointed one” would usher in the ultimate ending of Judaism: the coming of God’s Kingdom on Earth. This concept seems to originate in other more ancient religions (e.g. Zoroastrianism/Mazdaism[615]) but was written into the Hebrew Bible early on. (Note Gen. 49:10[616]). After the Babylonian exile, the idea of a “savior Messiah” grew continuously until the Roman occupation of Judea which many Jews believed was the primary sign of the end-of-times.

Fundamental to understanding the Messiah concept is knowing that the Jews believed they were “the chosen” priestly nation with the God-given duty to provide a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” as a model for all other nations. This purpose required a state of perfect “righteousness” – complete obedience to the Will of God. But when the Israelites proved unable to manifest such piety, despair led to a different hope: that God would intervene through God’s chosen “Anointed Ones” - a prophet like Moses, a perfect Priest, and/or a righteous King (of the line of David). This Messiah would usher in the “End of Days” where the righteous would rule God’s Earthly Kingdom.

The Prophecies (and resultant expectations):

A quick look at the key messianic prophecies shows the diversity (and vagueness) of the concept:

• He was to be a “second” Moses (prophet)

• He was to be a “second” Davidic king (descended from David) (Isaiah 11:1 via Solomon; 1 Chronicles 22:8-10, 2 Chronicles 7:18).

• He was to be a “second” Melchizedek (Kingly Priest)

• He was to be a faithful priest (as opposed to Eli)

• He was to be a Rejected and Betrayed

• The whole world was to worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:11-17).

• He was to be a killed-and-resurrected Davidic king

• He was to come in power ‘on clouds’

• He was to re-establish the Sanhedrin (Isaiah 1:26).

• He was to come in weakness ‘on a donkey’

• He will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with "fear of God" (Isaiah 11:2)

• He was to be a Teacher of the Gentiles

• He was to be a “Breaker” (Micah 2.12-13) of both external enemies and of internal power elites within Israel (and ‘stone of stumbling’)

• He was to be a Suffering Servant

• He was to be Ruler of All Nations (and destroyer of all wicked, so there could be peace in the world). Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance (Isaiah 2:4).

• He was to be sacrificed for the sins of Israel

• He was to Redeem (Release) Israel from bondage to foreign powers

• He was to Save (in the future) all those who believed (in the present)

• Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)

• He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)

• He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)

• He will give you all the worthy desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)

• He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9)

As a result of the Messiah’s arrival and actions, the following specific outcomes are expected:

• The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)

• Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)

• The Temple will be rebuilt resuming many of the suspended mitzvoth (ritual cleansing) (Ezekiel 37:26-27).

• Jews will know the Torah without study (Jeremiah 31:33)

• The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)

• There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)

• Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)

• The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)

• Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)

• All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)

• All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)

• Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9)

• Peace will endure among all nations (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3)

• Perfect harmony and abundance in nature (Isaiah 11:6-9)

• All Jews return from exile to Israel (Isaiah 11:11-12; Jeremiah 23:8; 30:3; Hosea 3:4-5)

• Universal acceptance of the Jewish God and Jewish religion (Isaiah 2:3; 11:10; 66:23; Micah 4:2-3; Zechariah 14:9)

• No sin or evil; all Israel will obey the commandments (Zephaniah 3:13; Ezekiel 37:24)

Ezekiel 37:24-28 sums up many of these requirements when it proclaims:

“And David my servant shall be king over them; and they shall all have one shepherd. they shall also follow my judgments and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Yaakov my servant, in which your fathers have dwelt and they shall dwell there, they and their children, and their children's children forever; and my servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover, I will make a covenant of peace with them, it shall be an everlasting covenant with them, which I will give them; and I will multiply them and I will set my sanctuary in the midst of them forevermore. And my tabernacle shall be with them: and I will be their God and they will be my people. Then the nations shall know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel, when My sanctuary will be in the midst of them forevermore.”

Christians speak of Jesus’ total fulfillment of messianic prophecies while ignoring the obvious facts. When you point out the fact that many of these clearly defined prophecies haven’t happened, they answer that they will when Jesus returns in the “second coming”. Others, they say, were fulfilled in some figurative or imaginative manner. And, of course, they refuse to acknowledge that the New Testament writers took great liberty in writing in fictional episodes specifically to have Jesus fulfill prophetic expectations (e.g. virgin birth, born in Bethlehem, pierced by sword, etc.).

Messianic Claimants:

As the Seed of a woman, the Messiah had to come out of humanity. As the Seed of Abraham, the Messiah had to come from the nation of Israel. As the Seed of Judah, he had to be of the tribe of Judah. And, as the Seed of David, he had to be of the family of David. At the time of Jesus, there were thousands of potential Messiahs. It is worthy to note that there have been many messianic claimants. I offer just the list that appears in the writings of Josephus as an indication of how widespread and varied messianic belief was at the time (there were earlier and later claimants as well).

As Messianic Kings:

• Judas (of Sepphoris, Galilee), son of Hezekiah the "brigand chief".

• Simon of Perea, a former royal servant.

• Athronges, the shepherd Prince of Judea.

• Judas (of Gamala), the Galilean (mentioned in Acts 5.37).

• Menahem, so or grandson of Judas the Galilean.

• John of Gischala, son of Levi.

• Simon bar Giora of Gerasa.

• Jesus, a wise man condemned by Pilate (generally acknowledged as a later insertion).

As Messianic Prophets:

• The Anonymous Samaritan.

• Theudas (mentioned in Acts 5.36).

• The Anonymous Egyptian (Jew).

• An Anonymous "Impostor".

• Jonathan the refugee.

Because none of these individuals achieved even a small part of the required accomplishments of the Messiah, we can be certain they were either imposters or were wrongly accepted as a Messiah by others. But that in itself reflects how desperate the people were for a “savior”.

Being Jewish (for Jesus)

So here we are – ready to put all this contextual information to use. Before we move to the story of An Amazing Life it seems useful to look at what it meant to be Jewish at the time of Jesus and in the circumstance of Jesus’ life. It may seem odd to have a Gentile discuss being Jewish, but when dealing with Judaism at the time of Jesus we are really dealing with something quite different than modern Judaism. Hopefully, we have reached the point where it is clear that Judaism at the time of Jesus was complex, diversified, and changing. The labels we have used to define Judaism, such as “Pharisee” and “Essene” are poorly understood and generally misused. Terms we should be using, such as “Rechabite”, “Mamzer”, and “Nazirite” are generally unknown. And, even when we get the terminology right there is a strong tendency to overgeneralize and depersonalize the application. In this section, I hope to pull together what we know about “zero century” Judaism and Jesus to describe what it meant to Jesus to be Jewish.

Being born as one of God’s Chosen People was both privilege and curse. The privilege was based upon a conditional promise (salvation for the righteous) and the curse was both circumstantial (due to history) and self-created (due to choices). The first meaning we will discuss is the isolation of Jews from the larger society. For Jesus, this isolation would have been compounded by his family heritage and his unusual social status.

Jews were isolated from the Greco-Roman Gentiles, who controlled Galilee. Galilee was isolated from the Jewish center – Jerusalem in Judea. Nazareth (as was named later) was isolated from Sepphoris, the capital of Galilee. The Nazoreans were isolated from other Jews by distinct religious and political beliefs. The Rechabites were distinct among the Nazoreans and the Family of Jacob was distinguished among the Rechabites. Jesus, the grandson of Jacob, was the mamzer son of Joseph the Galilean Rechabite who was a leader among the Nazoreans. At an early age, Jesus would have known the meaning of isolation.

The son of Joseph and Mary would have been circumcised eight days after his birth when he was also named. In a Jewish tradition, he would have been named after a grandfather and thus the name Yehoshua[617] was given him. There is both scriptural and historical basis to suggest that Joseph and Mary took their new son to Egypt for an unknown period, most likely to the Land of Onias where Jews lived mostly in isolation from other Egyptians.

At some later time, the family returned to Galilee and Joseph worked in Tzippori (aka Sepphoris). They lived outside the city (near Jacob’s Well) where other Nazoreans gathered. It was the nearby large city which would have influenced Jesus with its culture. Thus, while Jesus lived in the rural/agricultural surrounds of Tzippori, the city provided a backdrop for vivid contrast to his way of life.

[pic]

From the labeling of this map, one might think that Nazareth and Sepphoris were about the same size. Actually, they never co-existed as indicated: by the time Nazareth was named, Sepphoris was known as Autocratoris and then Diocaesarea.

[pic]

At the time of Jesus’ birth, Tzippori was a distinctly Roman city along an ancient route linking Damascus to Ptolemais. Its residents were almost exclusively Jews (having been converted during the time of Aristobulus I[618]), but these Galileans had the reputation of “someone who's not really an old Jew of the traditional sort.”[619] More so, the area was considered a hotbed of political activism and “brigandry”. At an early age, Jesus could have witnessed Galilean insurrection at its worst[620]:

• In 4 BCE, upon the death of Herod I, a bandit chief named Judah bar Hezekiah gathered forces and attacked the king's palace near Sepphoris. After seizing the weapons and treasures stored there, they began a revolt with the intent of deposing the Herodians. But Varus sent his armies to recapture Sepphoris whereupon they ransacked the city.

• In 6 CE, Judah the Galilean (of Golan/Gamala) and Zaddok rebelled against the census (taxation) of Quirinius and began what Josephus termed “the fourth of the philosophies” – the Zealots (although he says that they profess themselves to be Pharisees). In response, the Romans sent legions into Galilee, took Sepphoris, burned the city, enslaved its citizens, and crucified thousands[621].

Afterwards, Herod Antipas decided to rebuild “Sepphoris” and named the new city “Autocratis” - known as the "Ornament of Galilee." (Ant. 18:27). It served as Antipas’ capital and was “the nerve center for the government’s control of Galilee and Perea[622],” until Antipas built Tiberias (about 20 CE)[623].

[pic]

Artist’s depiction of Jacob’s Well (“Nazareth”) with Sepphoris on the center hill behind.

[pic]

Aerial view of Tzippori National Park in Israel

Jesus would have heard the Shema (Deut. 6:4) recited daily and it was likely the first prayer that he would have been taught (as a bedtime prayer). Aside from influencing his conception of God, the Shema reflected the importance given to both ritual and religious duty by Jews. Highest among those duties was to know and follow the Torah and to do so required study and careful consideration. To be a Jew meant that one had a duty to learn: the laws of God, the ways of God, and the Will of God. The early life of Jesus would have focused upon learning[624].

Jews were isolated culturally, socially, politically, and religiously. At the time of Jesus they were also separated by their level and nature of devotion to God, the Creator, Father, and Lord. Among the first things Jesus would have understood about himself was that he was not like Gentiles – especially the Romans. Also early in life, he would have learned that he was not like other Jews. While it is easy to say that no two Jews are alike, it may be hard to say exactly how they differ. In the case of Jesus, it is easier because we have every reason to believe that he was raised as a Nazorean. And, although we have less historical information regarding the Nazoreans (as compared to say the Essenes or Sadducees) we can ascertain plenty with careful analysis (as elsewhere herein).

Jesus was a Galilean Jew and Galilean Jews had been forced to convert to Judaism just a century earlier. But the Nazoreans had been around longer and it would seem that Jesus and family were more recent immigrants to Galilee. Following the Rechabite tradition, they were wanderers and made their living with skills and trades which did not tie them to a place – i.e. they were tent dwellers. Their “community” then was made up of fellow Rechabites and Nazoreans who banded and travelled together. Thus, they were accustomed to being strangers and to the designation of “pious outcasts”.

Because the Rechabites consecrated their first qualified son to the priesthood (as a lifetime Nazirite) Jesus would have seen his younger brother James off to Jerusalem. Being Jewish meant sacrifice to God and for his family such sacrifice was neither tokenized nor ritualistic. What is clear from his teachings is that Jesus was taught to view God as a Father worthy of loving devotion and as a Lord willing to return such devotion with love.

Being Jewish meant accepting God’s Will. Belonging to God’s chosen people at a time when God was allowing the Romans to oppress and rule them forced the Jews to reconcile reality and belief. As a recurring problem in Jewish history, the Jews had worked out their resolution: God was punishing the Jews for their failure in righteousness. The immediate difficulty was determining just what lack of righteousness was behind God’s disappointment[625].

The Judean answer was (and long had been) to offer up greater tokens to God as appeasements. This solution was promulgated by the Temple priesthood (who took their “cut” from the offerings) and its supporting aristocracy (largely the Sadducees). But the Judaism that Jesus understood didn’t focus on tokenized ritualistic sacrifice. Neither did it accept the mainstream concept of “death”. At the time of Jesus, the conception of “Heaven” and “Hell” was in early evolution: the common belief was that people died and went to Shoel (e.g. the grave within the earth[626]) or Hades (as in Gehenna – the place of eternal flames), the destination of the wicked.

The Pharisees[627] read Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12:1-3 to express a different idea - the possibility of earthly existence in “Paradise[628]” (or “the kingdom[629]”) after being resurrected[630]. It seems likely that Jesus grew up with a very orthodox (Torah based) Judaism but was later influenced by Pharisaic ideas (which may have arisen after the death of Joseph when Jesus and family were taken in by his uncle Clopas/Alphaeus[631]). Of course, Jesus was later influenced by the teachings of his cousin, John the Baptist, where the reward for righteousness is here, now, and within.

Being Jewish also brought a concurrent conception of salvation through Divine intervention – the Mashiach. While Jesus never claimed to be the Mashiach[632] and his followers could hardly have thought of him as such, the hope was great enough that we cannot discount the accounts of people wondering if he might be the expected “Savior”. Either Jesus would have had to have a much different conception of the Messiah than his contemporaries or he would have had to acknowledge that he was obviously NOT him. Instead, we have compelling evidence of Jesus’ thoughts on the matter…

At no time does the NT account suggest that Jesus redefined or corrected the common conceptions or expectations of the Mashiach. Instead, he redirects questions and answers in terms of his fulfillment of specific expectations. For example, "The woman said to Him, 'I know that the Mashiach is coming and when that One comes, He will declare all things to us.' Jesus answered her, 'I who speak to you am he.'" {John 4:25-26). Christians read this to say that Jesus is claiming to be the Mashiach, but what is being said is merely that he is the one who “will declare all things to us”. Jesus believed that he knew God’s Will and could explain God’s desires for us, enabling him to declare all things to us. This is much more akin to the traditional conception of the Prophets than the Mashiach.

So, despite the nonsensical attempts of the Pauline Christians to have Jesus declare himself as the Mashiach[633], Jesus’ words and actions prove that he would have ridiculed such an idea. Instead, Jesus offered an alternative means to the same end: instead of some priestly, royal, general who would vanquish Jewish oppressors and set up a Davidic-like kingdom, he offered himself as a divinely inspired leader who would guide individuals to God’s Kingdom through righteousness. As explained in the Bible Gateway commentary:

“Jesus does not claim to be Messiah in their understanding of that term… the Jews were not expecting a messiah who shared in God's divinity, and thus these opponents could not see his messiahship and were scandalized by his claims to equality with God.”[634]

As a Jew, Jesus was a scholar, a prophet, and a problem. He was somewhat an outcast. He understood the history of his people and their religion, saw the deep corruption within and distraction surrounding it, and sought to enlighten those who had ears and would listen. His deep-felt personal relationship with the loving God left him no option but to honor his “Father’s” Will. Unfortunately, his circumstance and cultural learning also led him to believe that he could prompt God’s action through specific actions and sacrifices – a misunderstanding that led to his demise.

The Judaism of Jesus was a personal and active belief in the goodness of God. Jesus thought that a loving God would intervene so that one as holy and righteous as he could not be killed by the corrupt and unholy oppressors of God’s chosen people. His story proves only that he was wrong in believing in God’s favoritism for any one group and that God responds in human-like ways to human events.

Appendix A: Relevant Chronology

A story must start somewhere. Some stories have obvious starting points and for others it just doesn’t matter. A story about Jesus could logically begin with his birth. But, as we shall see, determining something as basic as that is problematic when we’re looking backward over 2,000 years.

In this section we will deal with the sequence and timing of events in Jesus’ life. For the most part, the story is more concerned with the sequence than the timing. But some of the events in the life of Jesus have important timing and for those events we want to spend extra effort to use reliable dating methods. Unfortunately, there are actually NO reliable dates during the life of Jesus. Don’t be misled by those who create elaborate schemes that appear to yield results accurate down to the minute (generally is relation to Jesus’ trial, death, and resurrection). To understand the reasons for this, we need some background and that is where we’ll start…

In the Beginning… – but when was that?

We keep track of dates using a handy thing called a “calendar”. Because most of us use the same calendar, it is easy to refer to dates as corresponding to when events happened. Odds are good that the calendar you use is the “Gregorian calendar”, named for Pope Gregory XIII. Prior to his update in 1582, the dominant calendar was the Julian version. The Gregorian calendar added leap years – that extra day in February – necessary to keep the calendar in synch with passage of days determined by our orbit around the sun. The Georgian calendar is synchronized with the solar year to within one day over a period of 3,300 years.

But wait. If we’re looking backwards at events that occurred before the Gregorian calendar even existed, how can we affix a date? If we use the Gregorian calendar we can all agree on a date even if that date occurs before the calendar’s inception[635]. But such dates will NOT coincide with a date taken from the Julian calendar. Any date recorded under the Julian system has to be adjusted to the Gregorian. (Unless otherwise noted, all dates given hereafter are Gregorian dates).

If only it were that simple. The Julian calendar (not surprisingly) originated with the Roman Emperor Julius Caesar. The early Romans numbered their years “ab urbe condita”, that is: "from the founding of the city" (abbreviated “a.u.c.”). In 48 BCE (Before the Common Era, the proper way to note “B.C.” dates) Julius Caesar asked the Alexandrian (Egyptian) astronomer Sosigenes to redesign the calendar. Sosigenes made the remarkable decision to rely upon the earlier (generally unaccepted) work of the Alexandrian Aristarchus. He was the first person known to advocate a heliocentric[636] model of the “universe” and his calendar (from 239 BCE) consisted of a solar year of twelve months and 365 days with an extra day every fourth year[637]. The calendar which Julius Caesar adopted in the year 709 a.u.c. (what we now call 46 BCE) was identical to this calendar.

If only it were that simple. Sosigenes proposed that the year 46 BCE should have two intercalations: the first being a customary intercalation of 23 days following February 23 and a second "to bring the calendar in step with the equinoxes[638]”. This extra insertion totaled 67 days and made the year beginning on the 1st of March, 45 BCE 445 days long[639]. OK, that would have been just fine, but then the Roman date-keepers misunderstood Caesar's instructions and made every third year (instead of 4th) to be a leap year. We don’t know which years from 43 BCE through to 8 CE (“Common Era”, the proper designation for “A.D.”) were actually leap years.

If only it was just that complex. When the months were renamed as “Julius” (July) and “Augustus” (August), it was decided that August couldn’t have fewer days than July (after all, Augustus was equal to Julius), so a day was taken from February and added to August. There is still uncertainty regarding the timing of this change, so Julian dates prior to 4 CE are uncertain. But then there’s the whole matter of splitting the calendar into two parts: “A.D.” and “B.C.”[640] Around 527 CE, the Roman Abbot Dionysius Exiguus decided that the Incarnation of Jesus had occurred on March 25 in the year 754 a.u.c., with his birth occurring nine months later. The Julian calendar was reset so that 754 a.u.c. became 1 A.D. That might have been helpful except that his assumptions or computations were wrong. We will return to that issue shortly.

Which Calendar Works Best? The answer is that none of them work. Dates of events around the time of Jesus are almost never more than good guesses. Far too often, historians attempt to reconcile a date based upon correlation of events. If an ancient historian gives us an actual date using the contemporary calendar, we still can’t be certain how that date relates to the modern calendar(s) or to other ancient calendars[641].

Indeed, one of the big issues around the time of Jesus was which calendar should be used by the Jews – the ancient lunar calendar or the more modern and accurate solar calendar. With so many traditional events scheduled under lunar references, changing to something more accurate was difficult (we still use a lunar calendar to set the date for Easter[642]. In all, we have probably spent way too much time trying to reconcile or compute dates staring from conflicting event data, best-guess dating under ancient calendars, and then uncertain conversion to modern dates. But when you’re trying to figure out the birth date of Jesus or when the end-of-times will begin, dates have great significance.

A Significant Example:

Having a workable chronology is important for several reasons: proper historical context, correct sequencing, showing relationships between events, and presenting an accurate narrative are a few. In this chronology we are going to work hard at finding and using accurate dates, but acknowledge up front that we lack validation tools and sources to make this “scientific”. Since it is not the purpose of this work to thoroughly explore all the issues regarding dates in the life of Jesus, we will not be discussing each date’s derivation in detail. Instead, we will point to sources relied upon and overviews where needed. However, it might be useful to show how we approached the determination of one date in the life of Jesus and to discuss why it was chosen and why it is different than that derived by others. That date is Jesus’ birthday.

We can start with some certainty that Jesus was not born on 25 December in the year 1 CE. When Dionysius Exiguus picked the Roman Year 754 as the year of Jesus’ birth, he was simply wrong. According to Matthew (2:1 and 2:16), King Herod I (“the Great”) was alive when Jesus was born, and he ordered the “Massacre of the Innocents” in response to Jesus’ birth. The Gospel of Luke [1:5] states that Jesus was conceived during the reign of Herod I and was born when Cyrenius (or Quirinius) was the governor of Syria. Luke adds that there was a correlation between the birth of Jesus and a census of Judaea (Luke 2:1-3). Finally, Matthew records a special star that appeared during the time of Jesus’ birth (2:1-4). With these events to correlate – periods of rule, census, and unusual appearance of a star – we should be able to narrow down or even determine the year of Jesus’ birth.

Herod was a Roman appointed king and we have historical record of his date of death – March or April of 4 BCE[643]. This date is based upon the record of Josephus (Jewish Roman historian) who places Herod’s death shortly after a lunar eclipse that occurred the evening following the execution of two prominent zealots (Judas and Matthias). Josephus does not give a year, but the context leads to a common belief that this particular eclipse was the one which took place on the 15th of Adar (the Hebrew calendar’s 12th month) in the year 750 a.u.c. That date corresponds to March 13, 4 BCE.

If the “Massacre of the Innocents” story is given weight then it is obvious that Jesus could not have been born later than 5 BCE and 6 BCE makes more sense. With that as a baseline, we can look to see whether the other events might align.

The census of Quirinius has long been an issue for biblical scholars and historians. The problem arises from this passage in the New Testament (“NT”):

“In those days [after the birth of John the Baptist] a decree went out from Emperor Augustus [who ruled Rome from 27 BC until his death in AD 14] that all the world [oikoumene οἰκουμένη or the "inhabited world” = Roman Empire] should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered.” (Luke 2:1-7).

We might shrug this off as a mistake or an attempt to have Jesus’ birth fulfill a prophecy regarding the Messiah[644]. But there are those who continue to try and find a way to maintain the illusion of NT inerrancy. So, let’s take a moment and look at the facts and their argument.

Quirinius was not a major figure in Roman history, but the Romans kept pretty good records and we have many of them. Thus, we know quite a bit about Quirinius – personally and professionally. In 15 BCE, Augustus appointed him as governor with the rank of proconsul over the provinces of Crete and Cyrenaica (he was of the “equestrian class”). In 12 BCE, Augustus promoted him to “Consul[645]” (the highest elected or appointed office of the Romans below Emperor), a sign of his success and the favor he enjoyed. As Counsel, Quirinius was assigned as adviser to Caius Caesar (a nephew and adopted son of Augustus) while he was engaged in the Armenian Campaign against Parthia. During this time he secretly paid court to Tiberius despite friction between him and Caius. In 4 CE, Caius Caesar died of wounds received during the siege of Artagina (Armenia). Tiberius becameTiberius Caesar – in line to be Emperor[646].

Meanwhile, C. Sentius Saturninus held the office of “Legate[647]” to Syria[648] from 9 (or 8) BCE until the first half of the year 6 BCE. He was succeeded by P. Quinctilius Varus who continued until 3 BCE. It is uncertain who served as governor between 2 BCE and 1 CE, but there is evidence[649] that it was G. Calpurnius Piso. He was succeeded by Gaius Caesar (born Gaius Vipsanius Agrippa), along with Lucius Aemilius Paullus, who served together from 1 to 4 CE. Gaius was wounded during a campaign in Armenia (2 CE) and died two years later in Lycia. L. Volusius Saturninus then served until 6 CE[650]. With the banishment of Herod Archelaus in 6 CE, a new and different situation arose in the Syrian sub-province of Iudaean (which included Samaria, Judea and Idumea). Augustus made the sub-province into a new imperial procuratorial Province under direct Roman administration. He appointed Coponius as prefect of Iudaea at the same time Quirinius was appointed Legate of Syria. Josephus states that Quirinius was given the rank of “dikaiodotes” (governor/judge) in the sense of one having extraordinary judicial powers[651]. The reason for this was the need to distribute the property of Herod and to assess the Iudean Province for taxation purposes[652] since its citizens would be paying taxes to Romans instead of Herod[653].

This leads us to the “census” and its issues. If the scenario above is correct, then Luke is incorrect. Luke is tightly boxed – his “registration” occurred “while Quirinius was governor of Syria”. Luke knew the difference between a governor and a procurator and specifically says “of Syria” not “in Syria”. Nevertheless, Christian “historians” suggest that Luke’s statement is true IF Quirinius ordered some type of census while working for the governor of Syria during the reign of Herod “the Great”. Although there is NO evidence of such, this idea is still presented as “historical”.

Here’s what we can say with some confidence. Augustus is known to have taken a census of Roman citizens at least three times: in 28 BCE, in 8 BCE, and in 14 CE[654]. Some claim that the Romans took a census every 14 years, but there is no reliable historical indication of such. Basically, the Romans avoided both the cost and disruption of such a census unless some circumstance called for it. The census of Quirinius recorded in history and noted above is a good example in several regards: it was not a general Roman census and yet it was significant enough to be reported by Josephus; it was the result of a specific need under a special circumstance, and it caused a revolt. I would add that there were no similar “registrations” recorded during the Roman era for any independent kingship (such as Herod’s). It is inconceivable that the Romans would require such a census from a “client state” without the local ruler’s consent and involvement. If such a thing had happened during the reign of Herod, it would have been recorded in history as such by the Romans, the Jews, or both.

Some have suggested that Luke’s note that this was the “first registration” implies that there was another – and it was the other non-first census recorded to have happened in 6 CE. But we know that any census taken after 28 BCE could not be the “first” (as above), so either Luke is incorrect in this also or Quirinius was unrecorded as the governor of Syria and Jesus was much older than the other evidence suggests. In short, the Christian idea that Quirinius ordered a census of Judea during the reign of Herod lacks both historical support and rationality. But there is another problem with Luke’s testament: All went to their own towns to be registered. (Luke 2:1-7).

In what should now be apparent as a persistent problem, Christian historians have also re-written history in an attempt to make this “own town” statement fit. Aside from the fact that no other historian records any similar “registration”, we can question this statement on two obvious logical grounds: there is nothing to be gained by having people return to their “own town” and the disruption such a requirement would cause is unimaginable. Besides, there is the problem of determining what is one’s “own town”. It is clearer here than anywhere that it is Luke’s intent to support the “Bethlehem” prophecy rather than offer history. We will take a moment to look at Roman census taking.

Firstly, we should understand that to the Romans the census – a census of Romans - was considered a foundation of their civilization: “It made them a populus, a people, capable of collective action”[655]. In early Roman times it was repeated every five years (a “lustrum”) in connection with religious gatherings. “The census of the Roman provinces, introduced much later, was quite distinct from this census of citizens, the difference corresponding to that between the Roman people as conqueror and the provinces as conquered. Since in this light the provincial census was designed to regulate not the rights but the obligations of those enumerated, it served only to define military service and tribute. The forms of the latter in the various provinces showed great diversity.” [656]

Records from Egypt have been cited as supporting a provincial census that requires people to return to their homelands. Specifically, an edict issued by Gaius Vibius Maximus, the Prefect of Egypt from 130-107 CE, declared:

“The census by household having begun, it is essential that all those who are away from their nomes be summoned to return to their own hearths so that they may perform the customary business of registration and apply themselves to the cultivation which concerns them.”[657]

While Christians have claimed that this edict proves that Luke’s “homeland census” is factual, it does nothing of the sort. The social and political situation in Egypt 100 years after the life of Jesus was hardly comparable to the reign of Herod I. The declaration by a calvary officer (later accused of having sexual relations with another Roman) is written in Greek (whereas Latin was the language of Roman officialdom) and is unclear about what “home” means or whether the return there is inherently linked to the “census”. It remains difficult to give weight to Christian arguments when they so frequently distort facts and extrapolate without reason. Ultimately, “there are no literary or epigraphic traces of an [such a] census in the time of Augustus, and such an event could not have occurred without leaving some traces.” (Schaff-Herzog, ibid).

The New Testament helps us little in determining when Jesus was born. The astrological signs mentioned by Matthew (the “star of Bethlehem”)[658] have been used by some to help ascertain the time of Jesus’ birth, but this too seems more a fulfillment of expectation than a useful historical assertion. This “star” could have been the Comet Halley, but it was described in 6 or 12 BCE by a Chinese author: "The comet heads east with its tail pointing west at night (appearing in the sky for more than 70 days)". Christians have suggested this as an independent record of the "star of Bethlehem", but they fail to acknowledge the description itself and the failure to note that comets were considered bad omens. Others have suggested that a planetary conjunction (Jupiter and Saturn in the constellation of Pisces) of 15 September 7 BCE would have produced a notable sight similar to that reported in Matthew[659].

Lastly, it should be noted that there are two other useful clues that some scholars have built upon: A statement in the Gospel of John (8:57) where Jesus’ critics say: "thou are not yet fifty years old" has been used to place Jesus’ birth as early as 18 BCE and two statements about Jesus’ age in Luke (“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry” (Luke 3:23) and Jesus’ baptism by John the Baptist which, according to Luke 3:1-2[660], began in the "15th year of Tiberius[661]") that suggest a date of birth around 2 BCE[662].

To summarize this section, I agree with most historians and scholars that Luke’s account “raises greater difficulty ... Most critics therefore discard Luke"[663]. However, I will offer this summarized view of a rational apologetic Christian: Luke’s census is not a historical impossibility, rather at all points, historical analogies can be drawn. Quirinius was not the official governor of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth - the Syrian records and the current accepted chronology of Jesus’ life simply prevent this conclusion. However, Quirinius’s personal chronology is not fully known, particularly around the years of Jesus’ birth. Thus, it is not impossible that he held another office at the time which Luke appropriately describes. In short, it is most likely under this otherwise unattested office that Quirinius officiated over what Luke describes. To say more would go beyond the present evidence; to say otherwise, would strain the syntax. Luke’s historiographical track record (well-documented in other places) and the implausibility of such a monumental miscalculation, especially considering his method of and purpose for writing (cf. Luke 1:1–4), should forestall the rather premature conclusion of inaccuracy. Further evidence may eventually vindicate Luke’s statements more conclusively. (Adapted from “Once More: Quirinius's Census” by Jared Compton (2009))[664]

From this discussion (or debate) we should recognize that any attempt to develop a chronology of the life of Jesus is both difficult and contentious. There are no answers – only guesses – although some guesses are better supported than others. My guess is that Jesus was older than generally thought, being born in the spring of 7 BCE and being crucified close to Passover in 36 CE. I suggest that his ministry overlapped that of John and lasted longer than suggested in the gospels (which give it a minimum of three years). In all cases, I have considered dates on a basis similar to the discussion above attempting to reconcile conflicts, view the larger picture, and avoid the traps of prophetic expectation. However, I will add that I would term this chronology as nothing more than my best guess. Instead of citing my numerous sources, I will only cite sources who offer a good historical foundation, comprehensive analysis, and balanced views (preferably with their own listing of good sources).

Some authors attempt to identify dates that are approximations or in dispute. I would say that every date from the time of Jesus is uncertain (or an approximation) and disputable. My interest is more in the sequence of events than in their exact dating, but I have included dates as a general guide. Those dates are based upon my own analysis, the best sources I could find, and comparison of numerous sources.

Since I am not interested in making doctrinal or theological assertions, it matters little to me if a given date was a “Passover” or other religiously significant event. Those who attempt to build a chronology around such have often made a mockery of historical research[665]. Here, the story determines the significance of a date instead of the opposite.

(*=significant apparent disagreement in sources)

|Date BCE |Event(s) |Sources/Notes |

|1003 |David takes Jerusalem and becomes King of Israel |Ryrie S.B.[666] (“RSB”) |

|959 |Solomon Completes Temple at Jerusalem |RSB |

|740-680 |Life of Isaiah the Prophet |RSB |

|587-6 |Babylonians capture Jerusalem. Jews begin |RSB |

| |Babylonian exile. | |

|538 |Cyrus of Persia assumes throne and allows Jews to |RSB |

| |return to Judea and begin rebuilding Temple. | |

|515 |Temple construction completed in Jerusalem |RSB |

| |(Zecharia) | |

|340 |Onias I is High Priest in Jerusalem. See Appendix |Extrapolated |

| |VII. | |

|336 |Alexander (son of Phillippus) becomes king of |Jerome[667] |

| |Macedonia | |

|332 |Alexander the Great in Judea. Founds Alexandria in|Jerome/Jerusalem Talmud |

| |Egypt. He is greeted by Simon bar Onias (“the |(“JT”) Yoma 69a; Josephus |

| |Just”) |(l.c. xi.8, § 4); 2 |

| | |Maccabees ii. |

|324 |Alexander dies in Babylon (at 32 years of age). |Jerome |

| |The fight to divide his empire begins among his | |

| |generals. | |

|320~ |Simon the Just becomes High Priest |Jewish Encyclopedia[668] |

|320 |Seleucus becomes the satrap of Babylon | |

|305 |Ptolemy I assumes the title of Pharaoh of Egypt. | |

|280 |Eleazar assumes High Priesthood as Onias II is too| |

| |young | |

|276 |Manasseh assumes High Priesthood when Eleazar dies|Josephus[669] "Ant." xii. |

| |and Onias II is still too young |4, § 1-10 |

|274-71 |First Syrian war (of six). Antiochus I, the | |

| |Seleucid king, tried to expand his holdings in | |

| |Syria and Anatolia. Ptolemy proved to be a more | |

| |skilled general and won a major vistory. | |

|270 |Onias II (bar Onias I) becomes High Priest. | |

| |Josephus (a Tobiad) wrongly maligns him as a | |

| |“cheapskate”. | |

|261 |Ptolemy II commissions 72 scholars to translate | |

| |the Torah (5 books of Moses) into Greek – the | |

| |“Septuagint”. | |

|260-53 |Second Syrian War. Antiochus II had more success | |

| |against Ptolemy than his father. The war was | |

| |concluded with the marriage of Antiochus to | |

| |Ptolemy's daughter, Berenice Syra. Antiochus | |

| |repudiated his previous wife, Laodice, and turned | |

| |over substantial domain to her. She then poisoned | |

| |him. | |

|246-41 |Third Syrian War (aka Laodicean War). Antiochus II| |

| |(d. 246 BCE) left two ambitious mothers (Laodice | |

| |and Berenice Syra) in a competition to put their | |

| |respective sons on the throne. Berenice asked her | |

| |brother Ptolemy III, the new Ptolemaic king, to | |

| |come to Antioch and help place her son on the | |

| |throne, but when Ptolemy arrived, Berenice and her| |

| |child had been assassinated. He declared war on | |

| |Laodice's newly crowned son, Seleucus IIand | |

| |campaigned with great success. | |

|218 |Simon II (bar Onias II) becomes High Priest | |

|185 |Onias III (bar Simon II) becomes High Priest | |

|175 |Jason (“Jesus”) bar Simon II becomes High Priest. | |

| |The Hellenizing of Jerusalem and Judaism begins. | |

|172 |Menelaus becomes High Priest. He was the brother | |

| |of Simeon – the Benjamite who had denounced Onias | |

| |III to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and revealed to the| |

| |Syrians the existence of the treasure of the | |

| |Temple. | |

|170 |Onias III murdered. Supporters take Onias IV (bar | |

| |Onias III) to Egypt where he is granted asylum by | |

| |Ptolemy. | |

|170 |Antiochus IV Epiphanes attacks Egypt but is | |

| |repelled. | |

|169 |Ptolemy grants Onias IV permission to build a |Jerome |

| |Jewish Temple in the nome of Heliopolis. The | |

| |Samaritans give Antiochus permission to build a | |

| |temple to Zeus atop Mt. Garizim. | |

|168 |Antiochus leads a second attack on Egypt. Before | |

| |he reached Alexandria, the Roman ambassador | |

| |delivered a message from the Roman Senate | |

| |directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies or | |

| |consider themselves in a state of war with the | |

| |Roman Republic. Antiochus withdrew. | |

|167 |Meanwhile Jason takes Jerusalem and forces |2 Maccabees 5:11-14 |

| |Menelaus into hiding. Antiochus (returning from | |

| |Egypt) ousts Jason and restores Menelaus. | |

|167 |Antiochus outlawed Jewish religious rites and |2 Maccabees 6:1-11 |

| |traditions and ordered the worship of Zeus as the | |

| |supreme god. When most Jews refused, Antiochus | |

| |sent an army to enforce his decree. Because of the| |

| |resistance, the city was destroyed, many were | |

| |slaughtered, and a military fortress (the “Acra”) | |

| |was established next to the Temple. Jewish Temple | |

| |worship is suspended in Jerusalem. | |

|167 |A Jewish priest in Modiin (Judea) named Mattathias|1 Maccabees |

| |the Hasmonean refused to worship the Greek gods | |

| |and triggered a revolt against the Seleucids and | |

| |their Jewish collaborators – the Maccabean revolt.| |

|166 |Mattathias is killed and his son Judah takes over |1 & 2 Maccabees, |

| |leadership of the revolt. Was succeeded as army | |

| |commander by his younger brother, | |

|165 |Jerusalem was recaptured by Judah Maccabee and the|The Biblical World[670] |

| |Temple purified – the beginning of the holiday |10:127 |

| |“Chanukah”. But the Jews were still in political | |

| |subjection to Syria, and there still existed a | |

| |strong Hel- lenizing party opposed to the | |

| |Maccabees. With a view to acquiring political | |

| |independence, Judas made a treaty with the Romans.| |

|162 |Alcimus procures the title “High Priest” (without | |

| |being from a priestly family), but soon dies. | |

| |Judas Maccabaeus assumes the title – even though | |

| |he is also not entitled to it. | |

|161 |Judas is killed in the battle of Eleasa against |TBW 10:128 |

| |Demetrius. Jonathan Maccabaeus succeeded him. | |

|157 |Jonathan made treaties with various foreign |Jerome |

| |states, causing further dissent between those who | |

| |merely desired religious freedom and those who | |

| |sought greater power. | |

|153 |Onias IV has a son named Ananias (aka Onias V). |Hughes |

| |Temple services continue in Egypt under legitimate| |

| |High Priests. | |

|148 |Judeans and Samaritans argue before Ptolemy |Jerome |

| |regarding the honors due their respective temples.| |

| |Ptolemy decides that the Jerusalem Temple is | |

| |primary. | |

|142 |Simon, second and last surviving son of |TBW 10:129 |

| |Mattathias, secured the recognition of the freedom| |

| |of Judea from Demetrius II. Jews reckon their | |

| |political independence from this date. | |

|141 |The reconstituted Sanhedrin declared Simon the |See note[671] |

| |High Priest and Ethnarch (ecclesiastical, | |

| |military, and civil head of the nation) and these | |

| |offices are made hereditary. The Oniads are forced| |

| |into exile at Qumran. | |

|139 |Simon obtained a Roman guarantee of unrestricted | |

| |Jewish possession of their territory. | |

|135-134 |Ptolemy, son-in-law of Simon, sends troops to kill|1 Macc 16:18-22; Ant. |

| |(John) Hyrcanus, his brother-in-law, who is |13.7.4-8.1; 229-35 |

| |residing in Gazara, where he serves as governor | |

| |(stratêgos). (John) Hyrcanus is informed about | |

| |this plan and avoids being killed because he has | |

| |the support of the people of Gazara. (John) | |

| |Hyrcanus, now High Priest, takes control of | |

| |Jerusalem before Ptolemy can, and then besieges | |

| |Ptolemy at Dagon (Dok), near Jericho. (John) | |

| |Hyrcanus is prevented from capturing the fortress,| |

| |however, because Ptolemy has his mother as a | |

| |hostage. Because it is a sabbatical year, the | |

| |siege is lifted and Ptolemy escapes to | |

| |Philadelphia, which is under the rule of Zenon | |

| |Cotylas, but only after killing (John) Hyrcanus' | |

| |mother. | |

|135-34 |In the first year of (John) Hyrcanus' reign, |Ant. 13.8.2-3; 236-48; War|

| |Antiochus VII Euergetes (Sidetes) invades Judea, |1.2.5; 61; Diod. 34/35.1; |

| |and lays siege to Jerusalem. In order to conserve |Eusebius, Chron.; Justin |

| |provisions, (John) Hyrcanus sends out the |36.1 |

| |non-combatants out of the city, but Antiochus does|*In War 1.2.5; 61, |

| |not let them pass; only for the festival of |Josephus contradicts |

| |Tabernacles are they allowed back into the city. |himself (see Ant. 7.15.3; |

| |After a long siege, (John) Hyrcanus comes to terms|393 cf. Ant. 13.8.4; 249 |

| |with the Seleucids, who had already proven himself|where Antiochus lifts the |

| |conciliatory to the Jews by sending offerings for |siege after successfully |

| |the festival of Tabernacles. He pays tribute for |negotiating (John) |

| |Joppa and other cities conquered. But he does not |Hyrcanus, who opens the |

| |allow the Akra to be occupied by Seleucid (Syrian)|tomb only after Antiochus |

| |troops again, as Antiochus VII originally demands.|departs. |

| |Instead, they send hostages and five hundred | |

| |talents of silver; Antiochus VII also demolishes | |

| |the city walls. Stress on the separateness of the | |

| |Jews and their desire not to have contact with | |

| |other peoples is cited as the motive for not | |

| |surrendering the Akra. (The account of the Jews in| |

| |Diod. 34/35.1 is slanderous, claiming that the | |

| |ancestors of the Jews were lepers expelled from | |

| |Egypt. Because of their resentment, the Jews | |

| |became xenophobic and "haters of humanity" | |

| |[misanthropoi].) | |

| | | |

| |Hyrcanus opened the tomb of David and took 3,000 | |

| |talents, 300 of which he used to bribe Antiochus | |

| |to lift the siege. | |

|135-104 |The Pharisees and those who support them oppose |Ant. 13.10.5-7; 288-99; |

| |(John) Hyrcanus' rule and unsuccessfully try to |War 1.2.6; 67 |

| |remove him from power in a popular rebellion. At | |

| |this time, (John) Hyrcanus breaks his allegiance | |

| |with the Pharisees; the breaking point comes when | |

| |the Pharisee Eleazar tells (John) Hyrcanus that he| |

| |should resign as High Priest because his mother | |

| |was taken captive during the time of Antiochus IV.| |

| |(The implication is that he was raped, which would| |

| |disqualify her as the wife of a priest [see Lev | |

| |21:14].) He is furious with the insinuation about | |

| |his mother, which he denies, but even more angry | |

| |when the Pharisees will not agree with his | |

| |recommendation that Eleazar be executed for his | |

| |impertinent remark. From this point, (John) | |

| |Hyrcanus allies himself with the Sadducees. How | |

| |long the Pharisees have been allies of the | |

| |Hasmoneans is not explained. | |

|130-129 |Antiochus VII Euergetes (Sidetes) compels (John) |Ant. 13.8.4; 249-53; War |

| |Hyrcanus to send troops in support of his campaign|1.2.5; 61; see Diod. |

| |against the Parthians (Phraates II). After some |34.15-17; Justin 38.10; |

| |initial success against the general Arsaces, |Livy, Epit. 59; Appian, |

| |Antiochus VII is defeated and killed in battle. |Syr. 68; Eusebius, Chron. |

| |Josephus quotes Nicolas of Damascus to the effect |1.255 on Antiochus' |

| |that the Jews under his command request that |Parthian campaign. |

| |Antiochus VII not march out for two days after a | |

| |victory over the Parthians because this was the | |

| |beginning of Pentecost; the Jews are not required | |

| |to march on the Sabbath or on the first day of a | |

| |festival. Demetrius II once again takes control of| |

| |the Seleucid Kingdom; he was held prisoner by the | |

| |Parthians. | |

|130-29 |In order to strengthen his position, (John) |Ant. 13.9.2; 260-66 |

| |Hyrcanus sends envoys to the Roman senate, | |

| |requesting that the Romans condemn Antiochus VII | |

| |Euergetes (Sidetes) for taking from the Jews | |

| |control of Joppa, Gazara and Pegae and other | |

| |cities. The senate reaffirms their support of the | |

| |Jews, but postpones making a decision about their | |

| |request. | |

|129? |Taking advantage of the death of Antiochus VII |Ant. 13.9.1; 254-58; War |

| |Euergetes (Sidetes), (John) Hyrcanus attacks the |1.2.6; 62-63. |

| |trans-Jordan cities of Medaba and Samoga; he also | |

| |takes the Samaritan cities of Shechem, Garizein | |

| |and conquers the Cuthaean nation, also known as | |

| |Samaritans.The temple on Mt. Gerazim is also | |

| |destroyed, some two hundred years after its | |

| |construction. (John) Hyrcanus also turns south and| |

| |takes the Idumean cities of Adora and Marissa, and| |

| |forces the Idumeans to live as Jews, which | |

| |requires first circumcising them. | |

| |*According to War, (John) Hyrcanus began his | |

| |campaign when Antiochus VII leaves to wage war | |

| |against the Parthians, whereas Ant. places it | |

| |after his death in 129 BCE | |

|128-122 |Demetrius II goes to war against Ptolemy VII |Ant. 13.9.3; 267-69; see |

| |Physcon, king of Egypt, and creates ill-will |Justin 39.1; Eusebius, |

| |between himself and those in his kingdom. As a |Chron. 1; Appian, Syr. 68;|

| |result, Ptolemy VII, at the urging of the Syrian |Livy, Epit. 60 |

| |troops, puts forth a rival to the Seleucid throne,| |

| |Alexander surnamed Zebinas. The Egyptian king | |

| |sends Alexander with an army against Demetrius II,| |

| |who is defeated. He flees to his wife, Cleopatra, | |

| |in Ptolemais, who does not receive him, and then | |

| |on to to Tyre, where he is killed (126-25 | |

| |BCE). Alexander Zebinas is friendly to (John) | |

| |Hyrcanus, but is defeated by Antiochus VIII | |

| |Gryphus, the son of Demetrius II, and executed | |

| |(123-22 BCE). | |

| | | |

| |*According to Justinus, Alexander was the adopted | |

| |son of Antiochus VII Sidetes (39.1.4), whereas | |

| |Porphyry says that he was the son of Alexander | |

| |Balas (Eusebius, Chron. 1.257). | |

|122-111 |Antiochus VIII Gryphus rules the Seleucid kingdom | |

| |until 113 BCE, when he is deposed by Antiochus IX |Ant. 13.10.1; 270-74; see |

| |Cyzicenus, son of Antiochus VII Sidetes and |Diod. 34/5.34; see 35.1; |

| |step-brother and cousin of Antiochus VIII Gryphus,|Justin 39.2-3; Appian, |

| |who rules for two years. (The two had the same |Syr. 69 |

| |mother, Cleopatra, who had been married to |(39.8.9).  |

| |Demetrius II and Antiochus VII Sidetes, and their | |

| |fathers had been brothers.)  In 111 BCE, Antiochus| |

| |VIII Gryphus re-takes part of the kingdom from | |

| |Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, who now rules only | |

| |Coele-Syria. During this period, both kings leave | |

| |(John) Hyrcanus in peace. (John) Hyrcanus is not | |

| |subject to either Antiochus. | |

| | | |

| |According to Josephus, Antiochus VIII Gryphus had | |

| |to fight constantly against his brother (Ant. | |

| |13.10.1; 270-72), whereas Justinus says that he | |

| |had eight years of eight years of peaceful rule | |

| |before he is challenged by Antiochus IX Cyzicenus | |

|122 -107 |(John) Hyrcanus lays siege to the city of Samaria,|Ant. 13.10.2-3; 275-83; |

| |and entrusts the outcome to his two sons, (Judas) |War 1.2.7; 64-66 (see |

| |Aristobolus and Antigonus. The Samaritans appeal |1.2.8; 68-9) |

| |to the Seleucid king, Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, for |*In Ant. 13.10.2; 276-77 |

| |help, whom (Judas) Aristobolus defeats and pursues|and 13.10.3; 282, |

| |as far as Scythopolis in Samaria. The siege of | |

| |Samaria is then resumed. The Seleucid king appeals| |

| |to Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus for military support, | |

| |contrary to the will of his mother and co-regent, | |

| |Cleopatra III. He ravages Jewish territory in an | |

| |attempt to force (John) Hyrcanus to lift the | |

| |siege. Ptolemy VIII leaves Callimandrus and | |

| |Epicrates to direct the war against the Jews. They| |

| |are ultimately unsuccessful, however, due to | |

| |ineptitude and corruption. After besieging the | |

| |city for a year, (John) Hyrcanus' troops destroy | |

| |it completely. They also destroy Scythopolis, in | |

| |part due to Epicrates' betrayal of the city. On | |

| |the day on which Samaria fell, (John) Hyrcanus | |

| |while serving as High Priest in the Temple is said| |

| |to have heard God tell him that his two sons had | |

| |just defeated Antiochus IX. | |

| | | |

| |Josephus says that the Samaritans called on | |

| |Antiochus IX Cyzicenus for help against the Jewish| |

| |assault on the city of Samaria, which would date | |

| |the siege to before 113 BCE. In War 1.2.7; 65, he | |

| |said that it was Antiochus surnamed Aspendius | |

| |(a.k.a. Antiochus VIII Gryphus) who came to the | |

| |aid of the Samaritans.  | |

|107-102 |Cleopatra III engages in a struggle for power with|Ant. 13.10.4; 284-87 |

| |her son Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus. She relies upon two| |

| |Jewish generals, Chelkias and Ananias, sons of | |

| |Onias III. | |

|135-104 |The Pharisees and those who support them oppose |Ant. 13.10.5-7; 288-99; |

| |(John) Hyrcanus' rule and unsuccessfully try to |War 1.2.6; 67 |

| |remove him from power in a popular rebellion. At | |

| |this time, (John) Hyrcanus breaks his allegiance | |

| |with the Pharisees; the breaking point comes when | |

| |the Pharisee Eleazar tells (John) Hyrcanus that he| |

| |should resign as High Priest because his mother | |

| |was taken captive during the time of Antiochus IV.| |

| |(The implication is that he was raped, which would| |

| |disqualify her as the wife of a priest [see Lev | |

| |21:14].) He is furious with the insinuation about | |

| |his mother, which he denies, but even more angry | |

| |when the Pharisees will not agree with his | |

| |recommendation that Eleazar be executed for his | |

| |impertinent remark. From this point, (John) | |

| |Hyrcanus allies himself with the Sadducees. How | |

| |long the Pharisees have been allies of the | |

| |Hasmoneans is not explained. | |

|104 |(John) Hyrcanus dies, leaving five sons. He is |Ant. 13.10.7; 299-300; War|

| |said to have received the three highest |1.2.8; 67-69 |

| |privileges: rule of the nation (archê tou | |

| |ethnous), high priesthood, and the gift of |Ant. 13.11.1; 301-302; War|

| |prophecy. He is said to have foretold that his two|1.3.1; 70-71. |

| |eldest sons would not masters of affairs in the | |

| |state: (Judas) Aristobolus and Antigonus. |Strabo, 16.2.40 (762) |

| | | |

| |(John) Hyrcanus stipulates in his will that his | |

| |wife should assume political power and his son | |

| |(Judas) Aristobolus the high priesthood. (Judas) | |

| |Aristobolus, however, usurps power from his | |

| |mother, and puts her in prison, where she dies of | |

| |starvation. He also imprisons all his brothers | |

| |with the exception of Antigonus. (Judas) | |

| |Aristobolus transforms the government into a | |

| |monarchy, assuming the title of king (basileia), | |

| |as noted by Josephus, 481 years and three months | |

| |after the Babylonian exile. 4Q448 col. b probably | |

| |refers to Alexander Jannaeus as "king Jonathan" | |

| |(hmlk Ywntn) and also refers to his "kingdom" | |

| |(mmlktk). | |

| | | |

| |Strabo says that it was Alexander Jannaeus who | |

| |first assumed the kingship, but possibly | |

| |Aristobolus's reign was so short as to be | |

| |overlooked. | |

|104-103 |During his one year reign, (Judas) Aristobolus |Ant. 13.11.3; 318-19; |

| |wages war against the Itureans, and annexes part |Strabo 16.2.40 (753-56) |

| |of their territory (probably Galilee). He requires| |

| |that they be circumcised and live according to the| |

| |Jewish laws if they want to remain in their | |

| |territory. (Judas) Aristobolus is supposed to have| |

| |called himself "Philellene," presumably indicating| |

| |his preference for Hellenism. | |

| | | |

| |Strabo quotes the work of the historian Timagenes.| |

| | | |

| |*According to Timagenes, as quoted by Strabo | |

| |(whose work is then quoted by Josephus), | |

| |Aristobolus was a kind or moderate (eipeikes) man | |

| |who benefited the Jews greatly, since he expanded | |

| |his kingdom; this is at odds with the depiction of| |

| |him as matricide and fratricide. | |

|104-103 |(Judas) Aristobolus tragically has his brother |Ant. 13.11.1-3; 303-19; |

| |Antigonus killed, whom he wrongly suspects of |War 1.3.2-6; 72-88 |

| |disloyalty. (Judas) Aristobolus is actually a | |

| |victim of court intrigue. Judas the Essene, known | |

| |as a prophet, foretells the death of Antigonus. | |

| |Later, Aristobolus has great remorse for ordering | |

| |his brother's death, and he develops a fatal | |

| |illness. | |

|103 |Upon his death, (Judas) Aristobolus' widow, |Ant. 13.12.1; 320-23; War |

| |(Salome or Salina) Alexandra releases his brothers|1.4.1; 85 |

| |from prison, and makes (Jonathan or Yannai) | |

| |Alexander both High Priest and king (Jannaios is | |

| |the Greek version of Yannai). (He is commonly | |

| |known as Alexander Jannaeus.) She also marries | |

| |him. Alexander was disliked by his father, who | |

| |preferred Aristobolus and Antigonus, but in a | |

| |dream it was revealed to (John) Hyrcanus that | |

| |Alexander would be his successor. Alexander puts | |

| |to death one of his brothers, who is a potential | |

| |rival for the throne, but allows the other | |

| |brother, Absalom, to live, since he has no such | |

| |ambition. | |

|96 |Alexander Jannaeus attacks Ptolemais, because |Ant. 13.12.2-3; 324-33 |

| |Antiochus VIII Gryphus (Antiochus Philometor) and | |

| |Antiochus IX Cyzicenus are both preoccupied with | |

| |their internal struggle for supremacy in the | |

| |Seleucid kingdom. Zoilus, who holds Straton's | |

| |Tower, comes to the aid of Ptolemais, but is only | |

| |marginally effective. The city appeals to Ptolemy | |

| |VIII Lathyrus, son of Cleopatra III, who, having | |

| |been driven from Egypt by his mother, now rules in| |

| |Cyprus. Hoping to find allies among Zoilus and the| |

| |people of Gaza, Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus travels from| |

| |Cyprus with his troops and lands at Sycamina, near| |

| |Ptolemais. In the meantime, however, those in the | |

| |city change their mind about accepting help from | |

| |Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus, because they do not want to| |

| |be subject to him and out of fear of reprisal from| |

| |Cleopatra III and her son Ptolemy IX Alexander. | |

|96-95 |For fear of Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus, Alexander lifts|Ant. 13.12.4-6; 334-47 |

| |the siege. He requests that Cleopatra III come to | |

| |attack her son, and deceitfully makes an alliance | |

| |of friendship with Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus. When he | |

| |discovers Alexander's deceit, Ptolemy VIII | |

| |Lathyrus besieges Ptolemais, and invades Judea, | |

| |attacking Asochis and Sepphoris in Galilee. Under | |

| |the command of Philostephanus, his troops cross | |

| |the Jordan River to engage the army of Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus at Asophon. After a long battle, the | |

| |troops of Alexander Jannaeus are forced to flee. | |

| |The army of Ptolemy VIII overruns Judea, | |

| |slaughtering many. He also takes Ptolemais. | |

|88 |Cleopatra III, fearing the growing strength of her|Ant. 13.13.1-2; 348-55; |

| |son, sends troops under the command of Chelkias |War 1.4.2; 86 |

| |and Ananias, two Jewish generals in her service, | |

| |and her other son Ptolemy IX Alexander. Ptolemy | |

| |VIII Lathyrus attempts to take Egypt, while its | |

| |army is absent, but fails, and takes refuge in | |

| |Gazara. Following the advice of Ananias, Cleopatra| |

| |III makes an alliance with Alexander Jannaeus, and| |

| |does not appropriate any of his territory. Ptolemy| |

| |VIII Lathyrus returns to Cyprus. | |

|88 |Alexander Jannaeus marches on Coele-Syria, and |Ant. 13.13.3; 356; War |

| |takes the cities of Gadara and Amathus. But |1.4.2; 86 |

| |Theodorus , son of Zenon, ambushes Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus and plunders his baggage and kills some | |

| |10,000 Jews. | |

|86-80 |Roughly coincidental with the death of Antiochus |Ant. 13.13.3; 357-64; War |

| |VIII Gryphus, Alexander Jannaeus takes the cities |1.4.2; 87 |

| |of Raphia and Anthedon, and lays siege to Gaza | |

| |(Gazara). Because of the treachery of Lysimachus, | |

| |who murders his brother Apollodotus, the general | |

| |of the Gazaeans, and makes an alliance with the | |

| |Jews, Alexander Jannaeus gains admittance to the | |

| |city, whereupon his troops loot and murder. | |

|79-76 |Antiochus VIII Gryphus dies as a victim of a plot.|Ant. 13.13.4; 365-71 |

| |After his death, his son, Seleucus VI Epiphanes | |

| |Nicator defeats Antiochus IX Cyzicenus and kills | |

| |him, whose son, Antiochus X Eusebes Philopator, in| |

| |turn, drives Seleucus out of Syria. Seleucus takes| |

| |refuge in Cilicia, where he rules, until he dies | |

| |in a popular uprising in Mopsuestia. Antiochus, | |

| |the brother of Seleucus, wages war against | |

| |Antiochus XI Epiphanes Philadelphus, but is | |

| |defeated and dies in battle, whereupon another | |

| |brother, Philip I Epiphanes Philadelphus puts on | |

| |the diadem and begins to rule in part of Syria. | |

| |Ptolemy VIII Lathyrus sends for a fourth brother, | |

| |Demetrius III Theos Philopator Soter (nicknamed | |

| |Eukaros but called Akairos by Josephus), to come | |

| |from Cnidus, who then begins to rule in Damascus | |

| |along with Philip I Epiphanes Philadelphus.These | |

| |two brothers are opposed by Antiochus X Eusebes | |

| |Philopator, but he soon dies in fighting the | |

| |Parthians. | |

|76-67 |The subjects of Alexander Jannaeus are not |Ant. 13.13.5-14.1; 372-78;|

| |entirely pleased with his rule.This becomes clear |War 1.4.3-5; 88-95 |

| |when, once during his officiating at the Festival | |

| |of Tabernacles, the celebrants pelted him with the| |

| |kitrons that they hold as part of the ritual. In | |

| |retaliation, he has c. 6,000 of them killed. | |

| |Later, Alexander wages war against the Nabateans | |

| |east of the Jordan and demolishes Amathus. He also| |

| |engages Obedas, the Nabatean king, but is defeated| |

| |at Garada, a village in Gaulanis. Barely escaping | |

| |with his life, Alexander Jannaeus discovers upon | |

| |his return to Judea that his opponents (including | |

| |the Pharisees) have risen in revolt against him. | |

| |He wages a six-year civil war against his | |

| |opponents, during which many die. His opponents | |

| |entreat Demetrius III Theos Philopator Soter to | |

| |come to their aid against Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus. (Both armies consist of Greek | |

| |mercenaries and Jewish soldiers.)  Demetrius III | |

| |defeats Alexander near Shechem. | |

| | | |

| |Josephus says that Alexander had 6,200 mercenaries| |

| |and 20,000 Jews and Demetrius had 3,000 horses and| |

| |40,000 foot soldiers, whereas in War, Alexander | |

| |had 9,000 mercenaries and 10,000 Jews, whereas | |

| |Demetrius 3,000 horses and 14,000 foot soldiers. | |

|75 |Alexander Jannaeus flees to the mountains, but |Ant. 13.14.2; 379-83; War |

| |many of the Jews who opposed Alexander Jannaeus, |1.4.6; 96-98; 4QNahum |

| |after his defeat at the hands of Demetrius III, |Pesher 1 |

| |suddenly switch their allegiance to Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus. At this Demetrius III withdraws, | |

| |realizing his precarious situation. With his | |

| |renewed support Alexander Jannaeus subdues those | |

| |Jews who still oppose him, who take refuge at | |

| |Bethoma. He brings these opponents to Jerusalem, | |

| |where he crucifies some 800 of them and, while | |

| |they are dying, kills their wives and children | |

| |before their eyes. This spectacle serves as | |

| |entertainment for him and his concubines while | |

| |dining. The remaining opponents, some 8,000 Jews | |

| |flee Jerusalem. During the civil war, Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus must concede control of territory taken | |

| |from the Nabatean king in exchange for his | |

| |neutrality. (The Jews nicknamed him "Thracian" | |

| |because of his cruelty.) | |

|72 |Antiochus XII Dionysius, brother of Demetrius II, |Ant. 13.15.1-4; 387-97; |

| |who also has designs on the throne, seizes control|War 1.4.7-8; 99-106 |

| |of Damascus; he then begins a campaign against the|*In War, Josephus says |

| |Nabateans. (In the meantime Philip I Epiphanes |that Alexander took  Pella|

| |Philadelphus both gains control of Damascus and |and Gerasa, whereas in |

| |loses it again.)  Alexander Jannaeus attempts to |Ant. he took Dion and  |

| |impede his progress by building a trench and a |Dion and Essa, but Essa |

| |wall with towers intended to stop the Syrian |last is probably |

| |advance. Antiochus XII Dionysius meets his death |corruption of Gerassa. |

| |in battle, and cannot retaliate against Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus. The Nabatean king Aretas becomes ruler | |

| |of Coele-Syria (the territory around Damascus) and| |

| |successfully invades the territory of Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus, defeating him at Adida; Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus is forced to conclude a peace treaty with| |

| |the Nabateans. Alexander Jannaeus takes Dion, | |

| |Pella, Gerasa, Gaulane, Seleucia, the so-called | |

| |"ravine of Antiochus," and Gamala during a | |

| |three-year campaign. Alexander Jannaeus destroys | |

| |Pella because its inhabitants would not agree to | |

| |adopt the customs of the Jews. | |

|67 |Alexander Jannaeus develops an illness, related to|Ant. 13.15.5; 398-404; War|

| |his excessive drinking; after three years of being|1.4.8; 105-106 |

| |ill, he dies in the territory of the Gerasenes | |

| |while besieging Ragaba. Before he dies, he advises| |

| |his wife, (Salome) Alexandra, to whom he bequeaths| |

| |his kingdom, to make peace with the Pharisees and | |

| |allow them a certain amount of political power. He| |

| |recognizes that for his wife to rule effectively | |

| |and in peace she needs the support of the | |

| |Pharisees, who have the support of the general | |

| |populace. (Salome) Alexandra conceals her | |

| |husband's death from his soldiers, finishes | |

| |capturing Ragaba, and returns to | |

| |Jerusalem. Thereupon she allies herself with the | |

| |Pharisees, who eulogize Alexander Jannaeus to the | |

| |people and provide him a honorable burial. | |

|38 |(Salome) Alexandra becomes queen and appoints her |Ant. 13.16.1-3; 405-17; |

| |eldest son, Hyrcanus II, as High Priest. It is |War 1.5.1-3; 107-14 |

| |said that, unlike her husband, she is godly and | |

| |therefore loved by the people, and there is peace | |

| |and prosperity during her reign. She gives to the | |

| |Pharisees authority to rule, and they reimpose | |

| |regulations made in accordance with the traditions| |

| |of their fathers that were annulled by Hyrcanus | |

| |II, when he broke with the Pharisees in favor of | |

| |the Sadducees. They are also allowed to free | |

| |prisoners and to recall exiles with Pharisaic | |

| |allegiance. Taking revenge on their enemies, the | |

| |Pharisees convince (Salome) Alexandra to allow | |

| |them to kill those who during the reign of | |

| |Alexander Jannaeus advised the king to execute his| |

| |(Pharisaic) opponents. The leading citizens, led | |

| |by her son Aristobolus II, however, protest to | |

| |(Salome) Alexandra, and she puts a stop to the | |

| |executions. (Salome) Alexandra increases the size | |

| |of her army and hires mercenary soldiers. | |

|37 |(Salome) Alexandra sends her son Aristobolus II on|Ant. 13.16.3; 418; War |

| |a military expedition to Damascus, but with no |1.5.3; 115-16 |

| |results. | |

|36 |(Salome) Alexandra's kingdom is threatened by |Ant. 13.16.4; 419-21; War |

| |Tigranes, king of Armenia, who controls parts of |1.5.3; 116 |

| |Seleucid  kingdom. She forestalls an invasion of | |

| |her territory by sending  gifts to Tigranes. | |

| |Tigranes, however, is forced to flee back to | |

| |Armenia, when he learns that the Roman general | |

| |Lucullus has attacked his homeland. | |

|36 |(Salome) Alexandra becomes seriously ill. With the|Ant. 13.16.5-6; 422-32; |

| |goal of  usurping power from his mother, brother |War 1.5.4; 117-19 |

| |and the Pharisees, Aristobolus II takes advantage | |

| |of his mother's illness by taking possession of | |

| |the fortresses, where the supporter of Alexander | |

| |Jannaeus were exiled, appropriating the financial | |

| |reserves there, and recruiting a mercenary | |

| |army. In response to the complaints of Hyrcanus | |

| |and the elders of the Jews (probably Pharisees), | |

| |(Salome) Alexandra detains the wife and children | |

| |of Aristobolus II in the Baris, the fortress | |

| |adjacent the Temple. She dies, however, before the| |

| |threat posed by Aristobolus II has been | |

| |neutralized. | |

|36-5 |Herod and Romans besieged and captured Jerusalem. | |

| |Antigonus was carried away to Antioch and | |

| |beheaded. | |

|35 |Herod plundered Jerusalem in order to give gifts |Ant. 15.1.1-2; 1-10; War |

| |to Antony (and others). He killed forty-five |1.18.1-4; 347-59; see |

| |members of the Sanhedrin and rewarded those who |Plutarch, Ant. 36 |

| |supported him during the siege including the | |

| |Pharisee Ptollion (Abṭalion) and his disciple | |

| |Samaias (Shemaiah). Famine struck Judea. | |

|35-4 |Herod appoints the Egyptian (some say Babylonian) |Ant. 15.3.8; 79; 4.1; 95; |

| |Hananel/Ananel (of a High-Priestly family) as High|War 1.18.4-5; 360-62; see |

| |Priest. This encouraged the Qumranians and since |Plutarch, Ant. 36; Dio |

| |they were tied to the Essenes, Herod generally |Cassius 49.32.4-5 |

| |left them alone. | |

| |Antony gives Cleopatra control of Coele-Syria, the| |

| |coastal region from the Eleutherus River to Egypt,| |

| |Cilicia and Cyprus. Cleopatra also has designs on | |

| |Herod's kingdom as well as that of the Nabataean | |

| |king Malchus, and tries to convince Antony to | |

| |grant to her these territories. | |

|34 |Hyrcanus II was released from his Parthian | |

| |imprisonment and went to reside in Babylonia. | |

| |Herod feared that he might lead the Parthians | |

| |against him and invited him to Jerusalem where | |

| |Herod is outwardly respectful to him. | |

| | | |

| |Herod begins the systematic elimination of all | |

| |opponents to his title either through | |

| |assimilation, marriage, imprisonment, exile, of | |

| |murder. See Appendices VIII and IX. | |

|32 |Herod's mother-in-law enlists the aid of Cleopatra|Ant. 15.2.1-3.4; 11-61; |

| |to persuade Antony to appoint her son Aristobolus |War 1.22.2; 437 |

| |as High Priest. (Aristobolus was the brother of | |

| |Mariamme, Herod's wife, son of Alexandra and | |

| |grandson of Hyrcanus II and Aristobolus II.) Herod| |

| |finally relented and replaced Hananel with | |

| |Aristobolus. Herod restricted Mariamme to the | |

| |palace, being suspicious of her loyalty to him; | |

| |she appealed to Cleopatra for help and she advised| |

| |her to steal away to Egypt with her son. Her | |

| |attempt to leave Jerusalem is thwarted, but Herod,| |

| |fearing Cleopatra, took no punitive measures | |

| |against her personally. He did, however, arrange | |

| |to have Aristobolus drowned at his villa in | |

| |Jericho (he was High Priest for less than a year).| |

| |  | |

|31 |Hananel is re-appointed as High Priest. The | |

| |Qumranians and the Essenes enjoyed a decade of |Ant. 15.3.5-9; 62-87 |

| |prosperity as Herod was occupied by other matters.| |

| | | |

| |L. Munatius Plancus made Legatus of Syria. | |

| | | |

| |Alexandra appealed to Cleopatra for justice in the| |

| |matter of Herod's murder of her son. Cleopatra | |

| |convinced Antony (who is in the process of | |

| |marching against the Armenians) to summon Herod to| |

| |Laodocia (near Antioch) for an inquiry. | |

|31 |Herod leaves his brother-in-law, Joseph (married | |

| |to Herod's sister Salome), with orders to kill | |

| |Mariamme if he should die. Joseph, in an attempt | |

| |to prove Herod's love to Mariamme and Alexandra | |

| |reveals Herod's instructions. In Herod's absence, | |

| |the rumor arises that he has been executed; | |

| |Alexandra persuades Joseph to let them take refuge| |

| |with the Roman legion stationed near the city. | |

| |Herod is exonerated by (his longtime friend) | |

| |Antony and when he returns to Jerusalem, his | |

| |sister Salome reveals the plan of Alexandra and | |

| |Mariamme to flee and accuses Mariamme of | |

| |infidelity with Salome's husband Joseph.  Mariamme| |

| |denies the accusation, but Herod still has Joseph | |

| |killed. | |

|30 |While on his Armenian campaign, Antony grants |Ant. 15.4.1-88; see |

| |Cleopatra portions of Herod's kingdom, the balsam |Plutarch, Ant. 36; Dio |

| |plantations near Jericho, as well as parts of the |Cassius 22; 32; 49.32.5 |

| |Nabatean (Arab) kingdom. Herod is forced to lease |(Both, however, date these|

| |back the territorial concessions from |concessions to 36 BCE.) |

| |Cleopatra. Returning to Egypt, after accompanying | |

| |Antony as far as the Euphrates River, Cleopatra | |

| |visits Jerusalem, and tries to seduce Herod.  He | |

| |refuses her advances, and contemplates killing | |

| |her, but does not for fear of Antony. | |

|29 |Jacob[672] “the Patriarch”, son of Matthan ben |Ant. 15.4.4-5.1; 107-20; |

| |Eliezar, becomes a principal emissary for Herod |War 1.19.1-4; 364-69 |

| |(having close ties with the Egyptian Court). | |

| | | |

| |Herod and Malchus (the Nabataean king) pay the | |

| |tribute to Cleopatra - for a while. When Malchus | |

| |ceases his tribute payments, Antony orders Herod | |

| |to make war against him. Herod suggests, instead, | |

| |that Antony use Herod's soldiers in his war | |

| |against Octavius. | |

| | | |

| |Herod initially defeats the Nabataeans in | |

| |Coele-Syria but is then attacked and defeated by | |

| |Cleopatra's general Athenion in charge of her | |

| |forces in Coele-Syria (taking the Jews by | |

| |surprise). Then the Nabateans return and deal the | |

| |Jews even more losses. | |

|28? |There is a springtime earthquake in Judea which |Ant. 15.4.2-5; 121-60; War|

| |kills thousands and destroys much property |1.19.3-6; 367-85; |

| |(including several structures at Qumran). The |Livius[673] |

| |Nabataeans plan to attack the Jews thinking that | |

| |the earthquake has weakened the nation and its | |

| |army. The Jews defeat the Nabataeans near | |

| |Philadelphia (across the Jordan River). | |

| | | |

| |L. Calpunius Bibulus became Legatus of Syria. | |

|28 |Octavius, backed by the Roman senate, defeats |Ant. 15.6.1-7.3; 161-214; |

| |Antony at the battle of Actium. Antony and |War 1.20.1-3; 386-95; see |

| |Cleopatra escape to Alexandria. Herod leaves Judea|Dio Cassius 51.1-18; |

| |under the care of his brother Pheroras, and |Plutarch, Ant. 56-65 |

| |appears before Octavius in Rhodes, | |

| |unapologetically conceding his former loyalty to | |

| |Antony and promising to be equally loyal to | |

| |Octavius. Octavius reinstates Herod as king. | |

| | | |

| |Relations between Herod and Mariamme deteriorate, | |

| |in part due to rumors spread by his sister Salome | |

| |against her and her mother Alexandra. | |

|27? |Herod has Hyrcanus II killed for treason. |Ant. 15.6.1-7.3; 161-214 |

| |Allegedly, Hyrcanus sent a letter to Malchus | |

| |asking refuge for his family in case Herod seeks | |

| |to do away with them. Joshua ben Fabus (Jesus bar | |

| |Phabes) replaces Hananel (aka Ananelus) as High | |

| |Priest. | |

| | | |

| |Herod sends Jacob as envoy to Octavius. His | |

| |success yields the reward of marriage to Cleopatra| |

| |VIII – aka “Cleopatra of Jerusalem”. | |

| | | |

| |Q. Didius Became Legatus of Sysia. | |

|27 |Antony and Cleopatra commit suicide. Herod meets |Ant. 15.7.3-7; 215-46 War |

| |Octavius in Egypt, who returns the territory |1.20.3; 396 |

| |previously appropriated by Cleopatra. He also adds|  |

| |Gadara, Hippus, Samaria, Gaza, Anthedon, Joppa and| |

| |Straton's Tower. | |

| | | |

| |Joseph bar Jacob born in Jerusalem. | |

| | | |

| |Marcus Cicero appointed governor of Syria. | |

| | | |

| |When Herod returned to Jerusalem, he had Mariamme | |

| |executed for her alleged disloyalty. Afterward, | |

| |Herod had great remorse for his deed. Herod | |

| |contracted an illness, which many see as divine | |

| |retribution. | |

| | | |

| |The Roman senate changed Octavius' name to | |

| |Augustus and gave him the titles Princeps and | |

| |Imperator. M. Valerius Mesala appointed as Legatus| |

| |of Syria.(Possibly with M. Tullius Cicero as | |

| |co-Legatus). | |

|26? |During his illness, Herod absents himself to |Ant. 15.7.8; 247-52; |

| |Samaria. In Jerusalem, Alexandra conspires to |Livius |

| |usurp control from Herod; she attempts to convince| |

| |the commanders of the two fortresses in Jerusalem | |

| |to rebel against the ailing Herod, but to no | |

| |avail. They betray her to Herod, who has her | |

| |executed. He also executed the Sons of Baba. | |

| | | |

| |Famine and plague in Judea, but Herod still hosted| |

| |games in Jerusalem. | |

| | | |

| |Herod married Malthace (sons Antipas, Archelaus, | |

| |and Olympias). | |

|26 |A Roman census is taken and 4,164,000 Romans are |Jerome |

| |counted. | |

|25 |Herod has Costobar (Herod's sister Salome's second|Ant. 15.7.9-10; 253-66 |

| |husband whom she divorced), executed for his role | |

| |in hiding the sons of Baba, members of a family of| |

| |supporters of the Hasmonean Antigonus whom | |

| |Costobar allowed to escape and concealed from | |

| |Herod. Salome betrays her former husband. The sons| |

| |of Baba are killed also. Herod also executes | |

| |Antipater, Lysimachus and Dositheus for allegedly | |

| |conspiring with Costobar against him. | |

| | | |

| |Marcus Terentius Varro named first Propraetorial | |

| |Imperial Legatus of Syria. (It is 730 a.u.c.). | |

|24 |Egypt and Syria are made Imperial Provinces. Syria| |

| |governed by a Prefect as “Legatus Caesaris”. | |

|24-23 |In honor of Caesar Augustus (the former Octavius),|Ant. 15.8.1-4; 267-91; War|

| |Herod introduces a quinquennial (every 5 years) |1.21.8; 415 |

| |athletic competition. He builds a theater in | |

| |Jerusalem and an amphitheater near the city in the| |

| |plain, offending many Jews who take offense at the| |

| |practice of having condemned criminals killed by | |

| |wild animals as entertainment and having images of| |

| |men on trophies displayed in Jerusalem (as | |

| |idolatrous). Herod alleviates the religious | |

| |concerns of most, but some continue to be offended| |

| |and plot to assassinate Herod. The conspiracy is | |

| |discovered and those involved are | |

| |executed. Herod's informant is murdered | |

| |afterwards. | |

|23 |Herod sends 500 soldiers to Aelius Gallus to be |Ant. 15.9.3; 317; see |

| |used in a war against Sabaeans of Arabia.They are |Strabo , Geog.16.4.23 |

| |defeated by disease and mismanagement. | |

| | | |

| |The twins Ptolas and Clopas born to Jacob and | |

| |Cleopatra. | |

|23-22 |Herod rebuilds the city of Samaria and renames it |Ant. 15.8.5; 292-98; War |

| |Sabaste (Greek for Augustus). He builds a temple |1.21.2; 403 |

| |to Caesar in the center of Sabaste and fortresses | |

| |in Gaba (in Galilee) and Hesebonitis (or Heshbon) | |

| |in Perea. | |

| | | |

| |Herod accuses Jacob of sedition and has him | |

| |executed. Two years later, Herod would marry | |

| |Cleopatra (“of Jerusalem”). | |

| | | |

| |Hillel the “Babylonian” and Menahem the Essene | |

| |become the Zugot: Hillel as Nasi (president) and | |

| |Menahem as Av Beit Din (vice-president) of the | |

| |Sanhedrin. | |

| | | |

| |Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa named Legate of Syria. | |

|22 |Palestine is beset by a two-year drought (the 13th|Ant. 15.9.1-2; 299-316 |

| |year of Herod’s reign). Thousands die during this | |

| |period, but when Herod converts his gold and | |

| |silver palace ornaments into coinage and uses them| |

| |to buy grain from Egypt, his beneficence gains him| |

| |much gratitude and respect from the Jews and other| |

| |nations. | |

|21 |Herod built himself a palace in Jerusalem, and |Ant. 15.9.3; 317-22; |

| |married the daughter of Simon bar Boethus – a |17.1.3; 19-22;War 1.21.1; |

| |second wife named Mariamme (see 29 BCE). He |402; 16.28.4; 562-63 |

| |appointed Simon High Priest in place of Jesus son | |

| |of Phabes. (Mariamme bears a son who is named | |

| |Herod - one of two). | |

| | | |

| |An unusually good harvest during the Sabbatical | |

| |year. | |

|21-20 |M. Vipsanius Agrippa is made special Legatus of |Hagigah 16B |

| |Syria and governs from Lesbos. | |

| | | |

| |Herod's oldest daughter Salampsio (by Mariamne I) | |

| |was married to Phasael II (the son of Herod's | |

| |older brother by the same name). They had 3 sons &| |

| |2 daughters, the youngest of whom, Cypros III | |

| |(named after Herod's mother) was married to her | |

| |cousin Agrippa I (the son of her mother's brother,| |

| |Aristobulus IV) and their son was Agrippa II. | |

| |(Marrying daughters to uncles or cousins was | |

| |common and was one of several practices that make | |

| |family relationships and naming complex. | |

| | | |

| |Menahem the Essene took 80 “pairs of disciples” | |

| |(his and Hillel’s) and left Judea for “Damascus”. | |

| |Shammai was elected to replace Menahem as Av Beit | |

| |Din (or vice-president) of the Sanhedrin (making | |

| |him and Hillel the last zugots). | |

| | | |

| |The daughter of the High Priest Yehoshua, Hannah | |

| |(aka Anne), married Alexander III Helios. | |

| | | |

| |Philo of Alexandria[674] (Philo Judaeus) born. | |

|20 |Herod sent his sons (by the first Mariamme) |Ant. 15.10.1-3; 342-50; |

| |Alexander and Aristobolus to Rome for their |War 1.20.4; 398-400 |

| |education. Caesar Augustus added the territories | |

| |of Trachonitis, Batanaea and Auranitis to Herod's | |

| |kingdom. Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa went to | |

| |Mytilene, where he met with Herod and some | |

| |Gadarenes who came to complain about Herod. | |

| |Agrippa put them in chains and handed them over to| |

| |Herod, who released them. Herod’s son, Archelaus, | |

| |was born. | |

|Starting in |Herod began rebuilding of the port city of |Ant. 15.9.6; 331-41; War |

|the 20s |Straton's Tower, which he renamed Caesarea in |1.21.5-8; 408-16 |

| |honor of Caesar Augustus. He had built a large | |

| |circular breakwall to create a harbor suitable | |

| |for large fleets of ships. Herod also rebuilt | |

| |Anthedon, and renamed it Agrippium, in honor of | |

| |Marcus Agrippa. (Jerome says “Antipatris”). Gadara| |

| |rebelled against Herod. | |

| | | |

| |Alexander III Helios and Anne have a daughter – | |

| |Mary. | |

|20 |Augustus grants the Samaritans independence. |Jerome at 190.4 |

|20 |Herod builds the fortress named the Herodion 7 |War 1.21.10; 419-21 |

| |miles south of Jerusalem.   | |

|19 |Herod announces his plan to rebuild the Temple and| |

| |Temple Court in Jerusalem. See Appendix XIII. | |

|18 |Herod forbids public gatherings and requires all |Ant. 15.9.5; 326-30; |

| |citizens to take an oath of loyalty to him, which |15.10.4; 365-72; 16.1.1; |

| |most do. Those who do not cooperate with Herod's |1-5; 16.5.2-3; 142-49; War|

| |policies are secretly executed. Polion, the |1.21.9; 417-18; 21.11; |

| |Pharisee, Samaias and most of their disciples |422-25; 21.12; 428 |

| |refuse to take an oath of loyalty, but are | |

| |exempted from punishment, on account of Pollion's | |

| |earlier support of Herod. Herod punishes thieves | |

| |severely, by selling them into permanent foreign | |

| |slavery, which is contrary to the Jewish law.  | |

|17 |Remembering that the Essene Manaemus predicted |Ant. 15.10.5; 373-79 |

| |that he would be king of the Jews when he was | |

| |still a youth, Herod summons him to ask him how | |

| |long his reign would be. Manaemus replies that he | |

| |has twenty or even thirty years as king. Because | |

| |of Manaemus, Herod holds the Essenes in high | |

| |esteem and the Essenes are exempt from taking | |

| |Herod’s oath. | |

|16 |Caesar Augustus visits Syria, and gives Herod |Ant. 15.10.3; 354-64; War |

| |equal authority with the Syrian procurators. Herod|1.20.4; 399; 24.5; 483; |

| |is then the third most influential man in the |see Dio Cassius 54.7.4-6; |

| |Roman empire, behind Augustus and Agrippa. Herod |9.3 |

| |obtains the  tetrarchy of the trans-Jordanic Perea|*In War 1.20.4; 399 |

| |for his brother Pheroras. Josephus says that | |

| |Augustus appointed Herod as procurator | |

| |(“epitropos”) of all Syria – which is very | |

| |unlikely and possibly indicative of a bias. | |

| |Nevertheless, as one of the procurators of Syria, | |

| |Herod gained additional income, autonomy, and | |

| |status. | |

| | | |

| |Some historians have M.T. Cicero, son of the | |

| |famous orator, as Legatus to Syria. | |

| |In order to alleviate the growing dissatisfaction |Ant. 15.11.1-2; 380-87; |

| |among Jews with his rule, Herod remits one third |11.6; 421-23; War 1.21.1; |

|16 |of the taxes. |401 |

|15 |The Temple is completed (1 ½ years after begun). | |

| |It is described as one of the most magnificent | |

| |structures in the world. Construction on its | |

| |surrounds would continue for another 50+ years. | |

|15-14 |Herod visits Caesar Augustus in Italy and brings |Ant. 16.1.2; 6-11 |

| |back Alexander and Aristobolus (as above). They | |

| |resent their father for his execution of their | |

| |mother, and Herod hears of this and becomes | |

| |disaffected with them. Aristobolus marries | |

| |Berenice, the daughter of Salome, Herod's sister, | |

| |and Alexander marries Glaphyra, the daughter of | |

| |Archaelus, the king of Cappadocia. | |

| | | |

| |Herod rebuilt Samaria and named it Sebaste (Greek | |

| |for Augustus). He also built the so-called Panium | |

| |at Paneas. Augustus granted freedom to the | |

| |Samians [Samaritans - Ar.]. | |

| | | |

| |Zecharias and Alexander III Helios executed. | |

| |Elizabeth and Anne are taken in by Joseph of | |

| |Arimathea. | |

|14 |Herod married Pallis (son named Phasael), Phaedra,|Livius |

| |and Elis. | |

|13 |M. Agrippa again named as Legatus to Syria. | |

|12 |Marcus Agrippa headed to Asia and Herod went to |Ant. 16.2.1-2; 12-26; see |

| |meet him. The Jews of Ionia (in Asia) complain to |Philo, Legatio 37; 294-97 |

| |Agrippa in Herod's presence that they are being | |

| |deprived of their right to live according to their| |

| |own laws and practice their religion without | |

| |interference (contrary to Roman law). Nicolas of | |

| |Damascus, who is traveling with Herod and Agrippa,| |

| |addresses Agrippa in support of the complaints of | |

| |the Ionian Jews and Agrippa upholds the rights of | |

| |the Ionian Jews.  | |

| | | |

| |Herod befriends Nicholas and they become close. | |

| |Herod convinces Agrippa to come to Jerusalem | |

| |(after a side trip). When Herod returns to | |

| |Jerusalem, he explains how he was instrumental in | |

| |guaranteeing the rights of Jews in Asia.  He also | |

| |remits one quarter of the taxes. | |

|11 |Herod, Agrippa, and Nicholas toured the cities |Ant. 16.2.3-5; 27-65 |

| |that Herod had constructed or rebuilt. When | |

| |Agrippa arrived in Jerusalem, he was well received| |

| |by the populace (or at least those who were | |

| |allowed to appear). | |

|10 |Increasing dissension disrupted Herod’s household.|Ant. 16.3.1-3; 66-86; War |

| |Alexander and Aristobolus wanted to rule. Herod's |1.23.1-2; 445-51 |

| |sister Salome and Pheroras were enemies of these | |

| |two sons of the first Mariamme. They started a | |

| |rumor that they were plotting with the king of | |

| |Cappadocia (the father-in-law of Alexander) to | |

| |influence Augustus to have Herod removed from | |

| |power. In turn, Herod brought his son Antipater | |

| |and his mother Doris went to Herod’s Court and | |

| |Antipas was declared to be heir to Herod's throne.| |

| |Herod sent Antipater to Rome with Agrippa as a way| |

| |of commending him to Augustus. It is 740 a.u.c. | |

|10-9 |In Rome, Antipater continued his effort to |Ant. 16.4.1-3; 87-126; War|

| |undermine Alexander and Aristobolus and Herod |1.23.3; 452-54 |

| |sought to have them killed. Herod went before | |

| |Augustus in Rome and accused Alexander and | |

| |Aristobolus of plotting and attempting to poison | |

| |him. Alexander defends himself and his brother | |

| |successfully and Augustus reconciled the | |

| |antagonists while affirming Herod’s freedom to | |

| |choose whomever he considers the most worthy heir.| |

| | | |

| |M. Titius named as Legatus to Syria. | |

| | | |

| |Ptolemy Bar Mennius, the Exilarch, was deposed and| |

| |fled to Parthia (with his wife Alexandra III). | |

|9 |On his return trip from Rome, Herod stops in |War 1.21.12; 426-28; Ant. |

| |Athens, and donates funds to endow the then ailing|16.5.3; 149; 16.45-6; |

| |Olympic Games. He is given the position of |127-35;  War 1.23.4-5; |

| |president of the celebration. Then, on his way to |455-65 |

| |Jerusalem, Herod visited Archaleus, Alexander’s | |

| |father-in-law. Back in Jerusalem, Herod announced | |

| |publicly his intention to divide his kingdom among| |

| |Antipater, Alexander and Aristobolus. | |

| | | |

| |Aretas IV becomes King of Nabatea | |

| | | |

| |M. Agrippa died. | |

|8 |Herod celebrates the completion of the rebuilding |Ant. 16.5.1; 136-41;179-83|

| |of Caesarea and the Outer Temple, but his building| |

| |projects are emptying his coffers. Herod plundered| |

| |the tomb of David and Solomon but was blocked by | |

| |an apparition. Revolt against Herod in | |

| |Trachonitis. | |

| | | |

| |Herod invests Antipater, Aristobuls, and Alexander| |

| |with “insignia of Royalty”. Aristobulus’ son | |

| |Agrippa born. | |

|7 |Dissension reaches a new peak in Herod's court |Ant. 16.7.2-6; 188-228; |

| |with more in-fighting, accusations, and |16.8.1-5; 229-60; War |

| |back-stabbing. Herod began to believe everything |1.24.1-6; 467-87; 488-98 |

| |that he heard about everyone. Charges are made and| |

| |plots unfold. Under torture, three of Herod’s | |

| |eunuchs disclosed that Alexander is hostile to | |

| |Herod and has made preparations to assume the | |

| |kingship. Herod sends spies, and soon everyone is | |

| |betraying everyone else, even those who are | |

| |innocent. Many die under torture to extract from | |

| |them incriminating evidence. One associate of | |

| |Alexander revealed under torture that Alexander | |

| |and Aristobolus had a plan to kill Herod. Herod | |

| |imprisons Alexander and tortures more of | |

| |Alexander's associates getting more confessions | |

| |and accusations. Herod believes this report and | |

| |Alexander discloses that Pheroras, Salome and many| |

| |of Herod's trusted "friends" are involved. Some | |

| |were imprisoned; others he executed.  | |

|7 |Archaleus went to Jerusalem and convinced the |Ant. 16.8.6; 261-70; War |

| |easily confounded Herod that Alexander was not |1.25.1-6; 499-511 |

| |disloyal. Herod blamed the conspiracy on and his | |

| |brother Pheroras, but they reconciled. Herod, | |

| |grateful for Archaleus’ assistance, travels with | |

| |him to Antioch on his way to Rome. | |

|7-6 |After returning from Rome, Herod warred with the |Ant. 16.9.1-4; 271-99; |

| |Arabs who had given refuge to brigands from |9.8; 335-55;  |

| |Trachonitis and who refused to pay a debt owed to | |

| |Herod. Syllaeus, the Arab leader, complained to | |

| |Augustus about Herod’s attack. Augustus was | |

| |angered that Herod took military action without | |

| |permission outside of the borders of his kingdom | |

| |and Augustus couldn’t be assuaged. Herod sent a | |

| |delegation led by Nicolas (of Damascus) who was | |

| |successful in restoring Herod to a position of | |

| |favor by proving that Syllaeus had lied. | |

| |Nevertheless, relations with Rome continued to | |

| |sour. | |

| | | |

| |John (the Baptist) born to Zecharias and | |

| |Elizabeth. | |

| |Joseph and Mary betrothed. | |

| | | |

| |Publius Quinctilius Varus named Legatus of Syria. | |

|6 |Eurycles from Lacedemon arrived at Herod's court |Ant. 16.10.1-7; 300-34; |

| |and managed to inveigle his way into the |War 1.26.1-27.1; 513-36 |

| |in-fighting of Herod’s clan. An incriminating | |

| |letter allegedly written by Alexander surfaced and| |

| |Herod puts the brothers in chains before sending a| |

| |delegation to Augustus to bring charges against | |

| |them. | |

| | | |

| |Herod sent troops to destroy Qumran. The community| |

| |is temporarily disbanded. | |

| | | |

| |Jesus is born to Joseph and Mary. | |

|5 |Augustus advises Herod to convene a council at |Ant. 16.11.1-7; 356-94; |

| |Berytus to determine what should be done about |War 1.27.1-6; 536-51 |

| |Alexander and Aristobolus. It was revealed at that| |

| |time that Alexander had the support of some of the| |

| |military, with whom he had conspired to kill | |

| |Herod. Herod has his sons executed in Sabaste and | |

| |certain members of the military killed for their | |

| |involvement. | |

|5 |Antipater was named Herod's successor and he | |

| |arranged marriages for the children of  Alexander | |

| |and Aristobolus to prevent them from contending | |

| |with him for power. With supremacy in the court | |

| |and the support of Pheroras, Antipater grew | |

| |increasingly bold. But they favored the Pharisees | |

| |and Salome favors the Sadducees. She went to Herod| |

| |to report on the activities of Antipater's | |

| |supporters and Herod has the Pharisees (who had | |

| |made a prediction of his dynastic demise) killed. | |

| |. | |

|5 |Herod ordered Pheroras to send his wife away, but |Ant. 17.1.1-3; 1-22; |

| |he refused. So   Herod told Antipater and his |2.4-3.2; 32-53; War |

| |mother to have nothing to do with Pheroras or his |1.28.1-29.2; 552-73 |

| |wife, but secretly Antipater continues to meet | |

| |with them. Antipater decided to go to Rome and | |

| |avoid the intrigue. | |

|5 |Antipater presented Herod's will to Augustus |Ant. 17.3.2; 54-57; |

| |naming him as successor. Herod’s son by the second|War1.29.2-3; 573-77 |

| |Mariamme, named Herod, is listed as the second in | |

| |line to the throne. | |

|5 |Herod finally banished Pheroras and his wife, and |Ant. 17.3.3; 58-60; War |

| |Pheroras soon died. Herod found evidence that |1.29.4; 578-81; Ant. |

| |Pheroras had been poisoned at the instigation |17.4.1-2; 61-78 |

| |of Syllaeus. He also discovered the depth of |War1.30.1-7; 582-600 |

| |Antipater's animosity to him, and that both | |

| |Antipater and Pheroras had met secretly. |Jerome |

| | | |

| |Antipater, still in Rome, had forged letters sent | |

| |to Herod incriminating two of Herod's other sons | |

| |(Archaleus, son of Malthrace, and Philip, son of | |

| |Cleopatra of Jerusalem) studying in Rome. | |

| |Antipater didn’t know of the disclosure of his | |

| |plot to kill his father. | |

| | | |

| |Herod banished Doris from the court, because she | |

| |was identified as the major cause of the | |

| |dissension. Under torture Herod learned of more | |

| |plots against him and so he divorced Mariamme and | |

| |removed her son, Herod, from his will. | |

| | | |

| |Herod Kills his sister Salome’s husband, forces | |

| |her to marry another and then kills him. Salome | |

| |then married Alexas. | |

| | | |

| |He also removed his father-in-law, Simon, as High | |

| |Priest in favor of Matthatias ben Theophilus from | |

| |Jerusalem. | |

| | | |

| |When Antipater returned to Jerusalem, he learned | |

| |of his plight. Herod and Quintilius Varus, | |

| |proconsul of Syria, convene a council to determine| |

| |Antipater’s fate. Antipater was found guilty and | |

| |placed in chains. Herod sends envoys to Augustus | |

| |with a letter accusing Antipater. | |

| | | |

| |Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt (with Jesus). | |

| | | |

| |Simon ben Boethus removed as High Priest. | |

|5 |According to the NT (Matt.) Herod orders that all |Matt 2:13-18; Saturnalia |

| |infant boys (two years old or younger) be killed |2.4.11 |

| |in Bethlehem. Augustus remarked that "it was | |

| |better to be Herod's pig than his son" (a Greek | |

| |pun). Herod executed Aristobolus, Alexander and | |

| |Antipater. | |

|4 |At nearly 70 years of age, Herod rewrote his will |Ant. 17.6.1-4; 146-67; War|

| |to name Antipas as his heir, bypassing his two |1.32.7-33.1-5; 645-56 |

| |eldest sons, Archelaus and Philip. Herod became | |

| |seriously ill and rumors started that he had died.| |

| |Judas and Matthias, two "most learned of the Jews | |

| |and interpreters of the ancestral laws" induce | |

| |some of their students to pull down an idolatrous | |

| |golden eagle placed by Herod over the great gate | |

| |of the Temple. Herod punishes Matthias and Judas -| |

| |some others involved are executed. Herod also | |

| |removes the High Priest Matthias, since he | |

| |believes that he was involved, replacing him with | |

| |Joazar, the brother of his second wife named | |

| |Mariamme. | |

|4 |As Herod's illness worsened and cures are not |Ant. 17.6.5-6; 168-81; |

| |working, he devises a plan to order hundreds of |17.7; 182-87; 17.8.1; |

| |leading Jews to be led into the hippodrome where, |188-92; 17.8.2-3; |

| |upon his death, they would be killed. Jews would |193-99;War 1.33.5-6; |

| |lament even if it was for him. |656-601.33.7; |

| | |661-641.33.7-8; |

| |Augustus sent a letter to Herod giving him |664-691;33.8-9; 665-73 |

| |permission to deal with Antipater as he sees fit. | |

| |Rumor spreads (again) that Herod has died and when| |

| |Antipater hears of it he tries to bribe a guard to| |

| |release him. The guard informed Herod who then had| |

| |Antipater executed. Herod changed his will so that| |

| |Antipas was designated as tetrarch of Galilee and | |

| |Perea, Philip as the tetrarch of Trachonitis, | |

| |Batanaea and Paneas, and Archelaus as tetrarch | |

| |Judea and Samaria. Salome was to receive Jamnia, | |

| |Azotus and Phasaelis. | |

| | | |

| |Herod died in Jericho five days after Antipater's | |

| |execution (March). Before Herod's death became | |

| |widely known, Salome and her husband Alexas | |

| |released the leading Jews who had been assembled | |

| |in the hippodrome. Herod received a splendid | |

| |funeral and was buried at the Herodion. | |

| | | |

| |Prince Simon V and Athronges launched bids for the| |

| |throne. | |

| | | |

| |A revolt begins in Gallilee and the leader | |

| |Hezekiah the Zealot was captured and killed. He | |

| |was succeeded by his son Judas. | |

| | | |

| |Jacob (James) is born to Joseph and Mary. | |

| | | |

| |Herod Antipas took over rule of Galilee and the | |

| |east bank of the Jordan as a tetrarch; Philip | |

| |became tetrarch of the Golan heights in the | |

| |north-east; and Archelaus named the Ethnarch | |

| |('national leader') of Samaria and Judaea (as | |

| |below). | |

| | | |

| |Eleazar ben Boethus named High Priest. | |

|3 |Herod Archelaus becomes Ethnarch of Judea, | |

| |Samaria, Idumea[675]. | |

| |Herod Philip becomes Tetrarch[676] of Ituraea, | |

| |Trachonitis. | |

| |Herod Antipas becomes Tetrarch of Galilee and | |

| |Perea. | |

| |Herod Agrippa I becomes Tetrarch of Chalcis[677] | |

| | | |

| |Joshua (Jesus) ben Sie named High Priest. | |

| | | |

|1 BCE |Gaius Julius Caesar Vipsanianus named Legatus of | |

| |Syria. | |

|0 |(There was no year zero). We enter the Common Era | |

| |(aka “A.D.”) | |

|1 CE |Simon is born to Joseph and Mary | |

|4 |Lucius Volusius Saturninus named Legautus of | |

| |Syria. | |

|6 |Joseph and Mary move from Egypt to Galilee. They | |

| |travel through Jerusalem on Passover and leave | |

| |James for the priesthood. | |

| | | |

| |Territories of Judea, Samaria, and Idumea come | |

| |under direct control as the Roman province of | |

| |Judea.Coponius named Procurator of Judea. | |

| | | |

| |Annas becomes High Priest. Publius Sulpicius | |

| |Quirinius named Legatus of Syria and Census | |

| |ordered. | |

|9 |Marcus Ambibulus named Prefect of Judea. | |

|10 |The first vote was taken on the “eighteen |Shabbat 13B |

| |measures” where several disciples of Hillel were | |

| |killed by the disciples of Shammai (or Zealots). | |

| | | |

| |Hillel died and was replaced as the Nasi of the | |

| |Sanhedrin by his oldest son Simeon I. | |

|12 |Quintus Caecilius Metellus Creticus Silanus named | |

| |Legatus of Syria. Annius Rufus named Prefect of | |

| |Judea | |

|13 |Archelaus is deposed and replaced with | |

| |prefects/procurators. Annas appointed high priest.| |

|14 |Augustus died (August 19) and is deified by the | |

| |Roman Senate. Tiberias named as Princeps. | |

|15 |Valerius Gratus named Prefect of Judea. He deposed| |

| |the High Priest Ananus and substituted Ismael ben | |

| |Fabi. Then promptly replaced him with Eleazar ben | |

| |Arianus who he soon replaced with Simon ben | |

| |Camith. | |

|17 |Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso named Legatus of Syria. | |

|18 |Joseph ben Caiaphas named high priest. | |

|19 |Gnaeus Sentius Saturninus named Legatus of Syria. | |

|20 |John bar Zacharias (“the Baptist”) begins his | |

| |ministry. | |

|21 |Andrew bar Jonah joins John in his ministry | |

|22 |Lucius Aelius Lamia named Legatus of Syria. | |

|26 |Pontius Pilate made Prefect of Judea. Pilate had | |

| |his soldiers bring the ensigns of Caesar into the | |

| |Temple and thereby created conflict with his | |

| |Jewish subjects. On appeal, the ensigns were | |

| |removed. | |

|26 |Jesus joins the ministry of John. | |

|27 |An imperial edict is issued prohibiting divining | |

| |and astrology. | |

|29 |Gamaliel (grandson of Hillel) replaces his father | |

| |as leader of the Pharisees, but no longer | |

| |functions as a Zugot. The role of Nasi is taken by| |

| |the High Priest (Caiaphas). | |

|30 |“Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of |Ant. XVIII:5:4[678] |

| |our country, and divorced herself from her husband| |

| |[Herod II] while he was alive, and was married to | |

| |Herod Antipas.” John publically criticizes the | |

| |marriage and is arrested. | |

|32 |Lucius Pomponius Flaccus named Legatus of Syria. | |

|33 |John the Baptist executed. Jesus begins “preaching| |

| |ministry”. | |

|34 |Philip the tetrarch dies without leaving an heir. |John 2:13 |

| |Tiberius annexes Iturea and Trachonitis to the | |

| |Roman province of Syria. Phasaelis, daughter of | |

| |Aretas IV Philopatris (King of Nabataea) returns | |

| |to her father in disgrace. | |

| | | |

| |First Passover in Jerusalem as recorded by John. | |

|35 |Aretas (joined by fugitives from the former |John 6:4 |

| |tetrarchy of Philip) attacked territories along | |

| |the West Bank of the Jordan River defeating Herod | |

| |Antipas’ army. With those areas and the areas | |

| |around Qumran captured, H. Antipas appealed to | |

| |Tiberias for help. | |

| | | |

| |Second Passover in Jerusalem as recorded by John. | |

|36 |Jesus and followers returned to Jerusalem for |John 13:1 |

| |Passover. Jesus was arrested by the Romans and | |

| |Pilate ordered him crucified as a rebel. | |

| | | |

| |James became leader of the movement, Matthias | |

| |named to the Twelve. | |

| | | |

| |Pilate sent troops to Samaria to suppress an | |

| |“uprising” (or to merely harass a group gathered | |

| |to seek religious artifacts). Samaritans protest | |

| |to Vitellius, Roman governor of Syria, who sends | |

| |Pilate to Rome to answer charges of abuse (and is | |

| |then exiled). | |

| | | |

| |No Procurator of Judea. | |

|37 |Death of Tiberius (March 16). Marcellus becomes | |

| |interim governor of Jerusalem. Stephen the | |

| |"Deacon" is martyred. The followers scatter. | |

| | | |

| |Jonathon (Theophilius) ben Annas replaces Caiaphas| |

| |(Annas' son-in-law) as High Priest. | |

|38 |Caligula (Gaius Caesar) becomes Emperor. He | |

| |appoints Marullus as Prefect of Judea. Paul | |

| |receives a letter from the High Priest authorizing| |

| |arrest of Jesus’ followers. Paul’s “conversion” in| |

| |Damascus. | |

|39 |Paul Travels to Arabia and remains there. Herod |(Gal 1:17) |

| |Antipas tried to take Agrippa's royal title, but | |

| |Caligula intervened and exiled Agrippa's uncle to | |

| |Gaul. Iturea, Trachonitis (previously ruled by | |

| |Philip), Galilee, Peraea, and Abilene (previously | |

| |ruled by Lysanias) were transferred to Agrippa’s | |

| |control. | |

| | | |

| |Death of Seneca the Elder. | |

|40 |Agrippa to Alexandria – the Jews there riot; Paul | |

| |escapes Damascus. King Aretas of Syria died. | |

| |Philip the tetrarch dies without leaving an heir. | |

| |Tiberius annexes Iturea and Trachonitis to the | |

| |Roman province of Syria. | |

|41 |Caligula is determined to turn the temple at | |

| |Jerusalem into a Roman shrine to include a statue | |

| |of himself (posing as Jupiter). The Jews are | |

| |equally determined to accept no such thing and | |

| |prepare to revolt. The Syrian Governor (Legate) | |

| |Publius Petronius attempted to negotiate a | |

| |settlement, but with the statue being constructed | |

| |in Sidon and two legions of Roman troops waiting | |

| |on the border of Galilee to enforce the imperial | |

| |order, war seemed imminent. Only the intervention | |

| |of Agrippa I with Caligula avoided the conflict. | |

| |Soon afterwards Caligula was assassinated and | |

| |Agrippa's advice helped to secure Claudius' | |

| |accession as emperor. As a reward for his | |

| |assistance, Claudius gave Agrippa dominion over | |

| |Judea and Samaria, while the kingdom of Chalcis in| |

| |Lebanon was at his request given to his brother | |

| |Herod. He took the appellation of "king." | |

|42 |Agrippa spends lavishly on building projects. In |(Acts 9:30) |

| |Berytus (a "pagan" city in Lebannon) he | |

| |constructed a modern Greek style theater. In | |

| |Jerusalem he repaired numerous buildings | |

| |(including some within the Temple) and finished an| |

| |aqueduct that his father had started. Paul escapes| |

| |Jerusalem. | |

|43 |Agrippa begins his campaign against the Galilean | |

| |revolutionaries – the Jesus movement | |

|44 |James bar Zebedee, the brother of John, was killed|(Acts 12:1-3) |

| |by Herod Agrippa I. Peter imprisoned on the orders| |

| |of King Herod Agrippa I. Herod Agrippa I died. | |

| |Cuspius Fadus became Procurator of Judaea. | |

|45 |Famine strikes Judea. Paul and Barnabas journeyed | |

| |to Jerusalem to support from Antioch. | |

|46 |Tiberius Julius Alexander became Procurator of | |

| |Judaea. | |

|47 |Ananias is appointed High Priest in Jerusalem. In |(see Galatians 2:11-14) |

| |Antioch, apparently at Paul’s suggestion, Jews and| |

| |Gentiles share meals and Peter joined the | |

| |practice. When James heard about this he sent | |

| |people to investigate and ruled the practice | |

| |unlawful for the Jews (violating the Torah’s | |

| |kosher food laws) . Peter and Barnabas (Paul’s | |

| |friend) discontinue the practice which infuriates | |

| |Paul. | |

|48 |Ventidius Cumanus became Procurator of Judaea. The|(Acts 11:26) |

| |name "Christian" (Greek Χριστιανός) was first | |

| |applied to the disciples in Antioch[679]. | |

|49 |Meeting of the Council of Jerusalem where James | |

| |decides the circumcision and kosher food | |

| |questions. | |

|50 |Claudius expels “Christians” from Rome. Paul spent| |

| |18 months in Corinth. Herod Agrippa II is | |

| |appointed king of Chalcis by Emperor Claudius. | |

(*=significant apparent disagreement in sources)[680]

The chronology is expanded in “After Jesus” (Book Three).

(End of Book One, Part Three)

-----------------------

[1] “The secret of the kingdom of God” (Mark 4:11-12); “God's secret wisdom” (1 Cor. 2:7); the secret things of God” (1 Cor. 4:11); “Lord…you have hidden these things” (Matt. 11:25-26); “higher knowledge”, Eusebius (History 2.1); a “spiritual resurrection through this secret knowledge” Clement of Alexandria quoting “The Secret Gospel of Mark”; See “The Secret Tradition” by Margaret Barker at .

[2] In most cases, I use my own translations from whichever source(s) I deem most reliable. If I specifically use one of the other common translations, such as the King James Version, I note such.

[3] Born soon after the death of Jesus.

[4] “[Josephus] was conceited, not only about his own learning but also about the opinions held of him as commander both by the Galileans and by the Romans; he was guilty of shocking duplicity at Jotapata, saving himself by sacrifice of his companions; he was too naive to see how he stood condemned out of his own mouth for his conduct, and yet no words were too harsh when he was blackening his opponents; and after landing, however involuntarily, in the Roman camp, he turned his captivity to his own advantage, and benefited for the rest of his days from his change of side.” “Josephus, Flavius: The Jewish War” Translated by G. A. Williamson, introduction by E. Mary Smallwood. Penguin (1981), p. 24.

[5] “The Books of the People of the Book”, an introductory article to the Hebraic Collection at the Library of Congress. .

[6] Credited to Winston Churchill, but certainly not a new idea.

[7] It surprises most to learn that more Jews lived in Alexandria and spoke Greek than lived in Judea and spoke Hebrew.

[8] The Tanakh (ê·¼à·"Ú° - pronounced taÈ[9]naÇ) is a name for the canon of the Hebrew Bi Judea and spoke Hebrew.

[10] The Tanakh (תַּנַ"ךְ - pronounced taˈnaχ) is a name for the canon of the Hebrew Bible. It is also known as the “Masoretic Text” or the Miqra ("that which is read") and is comprised of 28 books. The Torah is its first five books.

[11] The concept or view of God is not specifically spoken of in the Torah and clearly evolves over time. Elohim is a “managerial” view of God where God functions as an overlord and distant supervisor. The word Elohim (אֱלֹהִ֔ים) is the same as the usual plural of “el” meaning magistrates and is found in Ugaritic where it is used for the pantheon of Canaanite Gods. As used in Jewish scripture, it is plural and we should use the pronoun “they” instead of “he”.

[12] Terah, the tenth in descent from Noah, fathered Abram – the “father of Judaism”.

[13] Interestingly, the prohibition against murder was based upon man being made in the image of God. Cf with “man’s evil heart”.

[14] “Ehyeh”, as a name of God, has become contracted as “I AM”. The word “Ehyeh” may be a first-person derivation of the Tetragrammaton - YHWH.

[15] Clearly, these suggest that there are other gods (or at least the writers of the scripture thought such) and that Yaweh is simply the Lord of Hosts (gods). The point is that “monotheism” was not a sudden or complete transformation, as also indicated below.

[16] “No Other Gods: Emergent Monotheism in Israel” by Robert Gnuse, Continuum International Publishing Group (1997), pp. 30-32 citing Joseph Callaway and Israel Finkelstein among others.

[17] “Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible” by Karel Van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Peter Willem van der Horst, Eerdmans (1999), pp.911-915.

[18] Amorites (Hebrew 'emôrí, Egyptian Amar, Akkadian Amurü, Sumerian MAR.TU or Martu) is a term used variously to refer to people who occupied the Levant from the second half of the third millennium BCE. They were supposedly of great stature and are represented on Egyptian monuments with fair skin, light hair, blue eyes, curved or hooked noses, and pointed beards. Their origins are unknown. In the Bible, the name is used more generically and mistakenly. Note “Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic” by Frank Moore Cross, Harvard University Press (1973), pp. 10, 57–58.

[19] The Masorah defines the books of the Jewish canon as well as their precise letter-text and their vocalization and accentuation (since the ancient Hebrew did not include vowels).

[20] One of Rambam’s principles of Jewish faith is the belief that Moses was the greatest of all prophets and that all his prophecies are correct.

[21] Let us remember that the names given to various peoples which reflect Biblical influence are only convenient and most certainly wouldn’t reasonably apply to peoples before Biblical times.

[22] Attempting to kill the newly-chosen prophet Moses. Exodus 4:24-27 – a strange passage for sure.

[23] Preventing Moses from entering Canaan without cause.

[24] “I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God…” Exodus 20:4-5.

[25] “Vengeance is mine…” Deut. 32:35. See .

[26] Confusing mankind's language at Babel. Genesis 11:5-8.

[27] Note “The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures” by Michael D. Coogan, Oxford University Press (2010); see also .

[28] Note that the Tanakh specifically describes Solomon's worship of Ashtoreth (1 Kings 11).

[29] We will discuss the Zadokites in detail later. Zadok was the patrilineal descendant of Phinehas (son of Eleazar). Although God had promised Phinehas an everlasting hereditary Priesthood (Num. 25:12), at some point the Priesthood and its succession was transferred to the line of Eli and his son Ithamar. The prophecies dealing with the return of the priesthood to the house of Phinehas are after-the-fact and apologetic. 1 Sam. 2:30. It seems far more likely that the Samaritan account of a civil War between the Sons of Ithamar (House of Eli) and the Sons of Phinehas (House of Eleazar) is correct. See Appendix ??? for more details.

[30] We should recall that Manasseh made a carved image of Asherah and set it up in the Jerusalem Temple and that Solomon was a devotee. 2 Kings 21:7;23:13; 4-7.

[31] To ensure that the people saw this as a good deal, Yahweh adds: “I have taken the Levites instead of all the firstborn among the children of Israel.” If you want to keep your firstborn, accept the Levites as “ordained”.  

[32] The Levites inherited 42 cities scattered throughout the land apportioned to the other tribes. There, the Levites served as spiritual teachers and judges. Levites received required tithes and food gifts of others. (There was even a mitzva upon the people of Israel not to abandon the Levi). Levites were exempt from general military service and were relieved of the specific mitzva of waging war. Under most rulers, they paid no taxes.

[33] Mélekh ha-Mashíaẖ. The “Yemot HaMashiach” refers to the "days of the mashiach". The Hebrew term "mashiach" is NOT related to the Hebrew term "moshiah" (savior). Although they may sound similar, they have different roots and are as distinct as the English words “ring” and “surfing”. Judasim 101: .

[34] Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings 12:5, Maimonides quoting Isaiah 11:9.

[35] Including the idea that there will be two Mashiachs – one royal and one priestly. See Appendix VI.

[36] Midrash is both a way of thinking and a method of interpreting scripture. Instead of using lineal and direct interpretation, the midrashic process seeks to fill gaps, improve understanding, and resolve problems within a textual work using hermeneutics and philology. The result has been a distinct perspective of the laws, customs, and doctrines of both the Jews and their religion derived from scripture and the noblest ideas and teachings of the Jewish sages. Note Matt. 22:29.

[37] Of course, we should not confuse this historical term with its more modern use.

[38] Again, we will discuss the Mashiach/Messiah conceptions in detail in a subsequent section.

[39] We will be discussing the Nazoreans in detail as we progress. They should be viewed as a Jewish sect, much like the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes.

[40] Genesis Ch. 37… Jacob was later known as “Israel” and was the source of that name for his people.

[41] The Deuteronomists were those writers who pieced together the Jewish scriptural history into what would become the canonized version of the “Tanakh” or “Old Testament”. Their basic tenant was that a covenant existed between God (“Yahweh”) and God’s chosen people (the Jews) which required the Jews to live according to God’s law in order to retain their special status and rewards. This law was given through Moses and was subsequently revealed to prophets and administered by designated priests in the designated place (later identified as Jerusalem).

[42] In the rabbinical sources, Ephraim was given precedence because of his modesty, selflessness, and a prophetic vision of Joshua. (JE).

[43] The loose confederation of Israelite tribes had no central government and ad hoc leaders known as Judges led the people.

[44] According to the biblical genealogical tables, Samuel’s father, Elkanah, was a Levite who lived at Ramah (land of the Benjamites) (1 Chronicles 6:16-30). However, Elkanah’s lineage was from Jeroham, Elihu, Tohu, and Zuph (of Ramathaim-Zophim), of the tribe of Ephraim. See 1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11; cf 28:3 and1 Chron. 6:3-15 - the lineage of the Kohathites. Samuel was born at Shilo (in Ephraim) and was raised at its shrine by the high priest Eli (.

[45] The biblical account regarding Saul tending donkeys and encountering Samuel is a Deuteronomist myth (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16). See "Saving Saul from the Deuteronomist" by Schleffer, Eben in “Past, Present, Future: the Deuteronomistic History and the Prophets” edited by Johannes Cornelis de Moor and H.F. Van Rooy, Brill (2000), pp.263-71 citing and noting "Saul and the Rise of Israelite State Religion” by Karel van der Toorn, VT 43

(1993), pp. 520-42.

[46] David had married Michal, Jonathan’s sister and according to 2 Samuel 9:11, David adopted Jonathan's son Mephibosheth as his own. (But see below).

[47] Although some is clearly not truthful – David did not kill Goliath: the story was changed from the original version in the Hebrew Bible which has 2 Sam. 21:19 stating that Elhanan bar Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew Goliath the Gittite. See .

[48] Saul had offered him his daughter Merav as a wife, but he later reneged on this promise and offered David Michal (his second daughter) in exchange for 100 (or 200) Philistine foreskins.

[49] Saul gave David’s wife Michal to another man.

[50] On his flight from Saul, the priest Ahimelech of Nob gave David weapons and upon hearing this Saul sent Doeg the Edomite to kill 85 of the city’s priests.

[51] Earlier, Samuel had travelled to Bethlehem where David (youngest son of Jesse) was called out of the field and anointed by Samuel without the knowledge of Saul. (1 Sam. 16, et seq.)

[52] Abiel bar Zeror (a Benjaminite) was the grandfather of King Saul and of his commander Abner (1 Sam. 14:51).

[53] Joab later dispatched his military rivals, Abner and Amasa, and was sufficiently powerful that David, on his deathbed, advises Solomon to arrange his death (1 Kings 2:5 - 6).

[54] David was only 30 years old at the time, and had ruled over Judah for about seven years.

[55] Saul was promised by David that he would not destroy Saul’s descendants or wipe out Saul’s name, but David didn’t honor that promise.

[56] The biblical account notes a second revolt led by Sheba bar Bichri, but David and Joab crushed the rebellion and killed Sheba.

[57] The lack of archeological evidence regarding David’s reign has led some to suggest that he was a fictional character. See “The Historical David” by P. Kyle McCarter Jr., Interpretation 40.2 (Apr 1986), p. 117 and “The Israelites” by B.S.J. Isserlin, Thames & Hudson (1998), p. 81.

[58] _2009/2003/9/King%20David%20and%20Jerusalem-%20Myth%20and%20Reality. The article notes recent finds which are ambiguous at best.

[59] “David’s Secret Demons: Messiah, Murderer, Traitor, King” by Baruch Halpern, Eerdmans (2001).

[60] The Jebusites are identical with the Hittites. (Jewish Encyclopedia).

[61] See david.html#jerusalem citing "Pharaohs and Kings" by David Rohl, Three Rivers Press (1997),pp. 196-200.

[62] David ruled Judea until 970 BCE.

[63] The dating of the Egyptian rulers is difficult and varies by historian. See “The History of Egypt: From the Earliest Times Till the Conquest by the Arabs”, Vol. 1, by Samuel Sharpe, G. Bell & Sons (1885) available at .

[64]See “Old Testament Life and Literature” by Gerald Larue (1968), Ch. 11 citing “The History of Israel” by Martin Noth, Harper(1960), pp. 184 ff - available at . This is also the point where David arranged the return of his former wife Michal dau Saul.

[65] Negotiating from a weaker position, Ish-bosheth accepted David's demand for the return of Michal and recognized David's claim to the throne of Saul (I Sam. xxv. 44; II Sam. iii. 14 et seq.).

[66] Most likely 1007-1005BCE.

[67] I think that David was behind the assassination and his “sorrow” and the vengeance regarding it were part of the “cover-up”.

[68] .

[69] Her “real” name was Bathshua (1 Chron. 3:5). Oddly, in the Rabbinical literature (Sanh. 69b), Bathsheba was said to be only eight years and eight months of age when Solomon was born.

[70] Since possession of the royal concubines was a key identifier of the true ruler, it is incredulous that David would leave them to “guard the palace” as specifically claimed at 2 Sam. 20:3.

[71] Larue, supra.

[72] I have relied upon “Naram-Sin and Jeroboam” by Carl D. Lewis within “Scripture in Context II: More Essays on the Comparative Method” edited by William W. Hallo, James C. Moyer, & Leo G. Perdue, Eisenbrauns, (1983), pp. 114-122 in writing this section.

[73] Also “Zeruah”which translates as “leperous”. She is called a widow (1 Kings 11:26-28) and in a note of the Septuagint after 1 Kings 12:24 she is termed a “harlot”. This harsh treatment is unexplained unless we take it as a direct attempt to discredit Jeroboam’s lineage and Seruah was actually the sister of Saul – making him a younger half-brother of Joab and a cousin of Solomon. Such “would explain his rise, first to the government of a province, and then to a throne” .See “The History of the Hebrew Nation and Its Literature: with an appendix on the Hebrew chronology” by Samuel Sharpe, Williams and Norgate (1890), p. 103.

[74] They were not slaves – such forced labor was an alternative to taxes.

[75] “The house of Joseph probably means the ten tribes, who always considered themselves to be a separate party in the nation, and were called the house of Joseph even in the days of the Judges”, Rev. C. Waller in “A Homiletic and Illustrative Treasury of Religious Thought: or twenty thousand choice extracts, selected from the works of all the great writers, ancient and modern with copious indices”, Vol. 6 by Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones, Charles Neil, & Joseph Samuel Exell, Dickinson (1889), p. 271.

[76] The identification of this “Pharaoh” is problematic as is establishing a chronology which aligns the Egyptian records with the Biblical accounts. The word “Pharaoh” was probably misapplied here, but was in general use by the Egyptian kings later – when this passage was written.

[77] I Kings 11:28 - LXX., 2d recession; The Biblical story also states that Solomon had also married one of “Pharaoh’s daughters. See “History of Israel in Specific Examples” by Hugo Winckler, Phiffer, (1895). However, I would agree with the Egyptologists and literary analysts who say that the Egyptian kings of this era did not allow princesses to marry foreign leaders and that the whole story (fabrication) is the handiwork of the deuteronomists.

[78] Jeroboam’s Egyptian “princess” is named Ano and Hadad’s is named Tahpenes – both are supposedly the sisters of Shishak’s wife “Thekimina”. But Shishak’s only known wife was named Karamta and no other record lists the names Tahpenes or Thekimina. See “A Dictionary of the Bible”, ed. by Sir William Smith, Little-Brown (1863), p. 1431.

[79] “Solomon's palace was a major building operation, requiring thirteen years to complete, as compared to seven for the temple. Standing near the temple, the royal complex must have somewhat overshadowed the building designed for the deity.” “Old Testament Life and Literature” by Gerald A. Larue (1968), Ch. 12.

[80] Jeremiah 22:30.

[81] For a worthy analysis of the differing biblical accounts of Rehoboam, see “Rehoboam in Chronicles and Kings” by Ralph W. Klein at .

[82] We should note that Shechem was a Levitical city and a city of refuge. It was where Abraham pitched his tent after entering Canaan and where Joseph was buried.

[83] We don’t know what happened with the Levites (priests) but clearly many or most stayed with the new Temple while others served at shrines outside of Judea. Supposedly, Jeroboam appointed priests who were not Levites (1 Kings 13:33) – probably returning priestly status to the descendants of Eli/Abiathar and recognizing the High Priest Uzzi ben Bukki at Mount Gerizim.

[84] Actually, the “golden caves” were not worshiped – they were symbols of fertility and virility used as counterparts to the cherubim in the Jerusalem Temple (representing the presence of Yahweh along with Yahweh’s strength and dignity). See “The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity” by Jules Francis Gomes, Walter de Gruyter (2006), p.25.

[85] ejud_0002_0011_0_10083.html

[86] Working form I Chron. 16:39 and comparison to I Kings 3:4.

[87] Ithamar stood at the head of the children of Gershon and Merari, the carriers of the Tabernacle and Ark.

[88] Descendency = Aaron>Ithamar>??>??>Eli>Phinehas>Ahitub (brother of Ichabod)>Ahimelech/Ahiah>Abiathar. (1 Samuel 22:20; 1 Samuel 14:3; Josephus AJ, VIII.I.3; VI.XII.8; VII.V.4. Saul attempted to destroy this priesthood at Nob.

[89] Descendency = Aaron>Eleazar>Phinehas>Abishua> Bukki>Uzzi>Zerahiah>Meraioth>Azariah>Ahitub>Zadok (not related to Ahibud bar Phineas). Ezra 7:1-5. 1 Chron. 16:39; cf 1 Kings 3:4.

[90] The ark was brought to his house when retrieved from the Philistines and remained there for over 20 years. (1 Sam. 7:1-2.). He was the father of Eleazar and lived in Kirjath-jearim. (1 Sam. 7: 1-2; 2 Sam. 6:3; I Chr. 13:7-10).

[91] 2 Sam. 20:26… Ira, a descendant of Jair, was David's personal priest. The Hebrew for “priest” here is כהן לדויד (cohen ledavid) and is properly translated in the Vulgate, Septuagint, Syriac, and Arabic as Priest, not “Ruler”.

[92] 2 Sam. 6:12… So David went and brought up the ark of God from the house of Obed-edom into the city of David…

[93] Jacob’s father-in-law. Note”Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel by Eugene H. Merrill, Baker Academic (2008), pp.62-3 & “The Jezebel Letters: Religion And Politics In Ninth-century Israel” by Eleanor Ferris Beach, Fortress Press (2005), pp. 37-8.

[94] Joshua 24:25; Judges 9:46.

[95] 1 Chron. 2 et seq.;6:7; 9:19-21. Note “The tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE” by Norman K. Gottwald, Continuum International Publishing (1999), p. 173 citing 2 Sam. 5:3.

[96] Here are the key passages which lead to my extrapolation and conclusions: 1 Sam. 23:6: Abiathar, the fourth and only living son of Eli was the only Priest who escaped Saul’s massacre of the Levite priests at Nob. He turned to David, who was then in the cave of Adullam (1 Sam. 22:20-23; 23:6) and David named him High Priest (1 Sam. 30:7; 1 Chron. 15:11; 1 Kings 2:26 - also the "king's counselor" (1 Chr. 27:33-34)). 1 Kings 4:4: After David (via Joab) “captured” Jerusalem – and without explanation – Zadok, of the house of Eleazar, was also named as High Priest such that Abiathar and Zadok both serve as High Priest until David’s death when Abiathar is deposed and exiled by Solomon to Anathoth (his home). Thus, the Judean/Jewish priesthood was taken from the house of Ithamar and was given to the house of Eleazar. (Ezra 7:1; 1 Sam. 2:30-36; 1 Kings 1:19; 2:26, 27; 2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 24:3). 2 Sam. 20:26: And Ira the Jairite was a chief priest (“Kohen”). 2 Sam. 6:10-11: A Gittite to whose house the Ark was taken when removed from that of Abinadab in Gibeah. It remained with Obed-edom three months before it was carried to the City of David; and God "blessed Obededom and all his household".

[97] We don’t know why Zibeon is singled out for mention in Gen. 36:5 and 36:14..

[98] Interestingly, Heman is also termed an Ezrahite in Psalm 88.

[99] Merari>Mushi>Mahli> Shemer> Bani> Amzi> Hilkiah> Amaziah> Hashabiah> Malluch>Abdi> Kishi>Ethan.

[100] Even the terminology of the Bible reflects the transition – initially Saul is titled “nagid” (commander) and only later is called “melech” (king). It is likely that some tribes refused to deem him “King”.

[101] See 1 Sam. 21 and 22.

[102] It would seem apparent that the basis for this slaughter was more than the Biblical tale offers and that Doeg had ulterior motives.

[103] “וַיִּתֶּן־לֹ֥ו הַכֹּהֵ֖ן קֹ֑דֶשׁ כִּי֩ לֹא־הָ֨יָה שָׁ֜ם לֶ֗חֶם כִּֽי־אִם־לֶ֤חֶם הַפָּנִים֙ הַמּֽוּסָרִים֙ מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֔ה לָשׂוּם֙ לֶ֣חֶם חֹ֔ם בְּיֹ֖ום הִלָּקְחֹֽו׃” (Hebrew OT).

[104] Midrash Tehillim lii. 4; ed. Buber, p. 284.

[105] Yeb. 76b, 77a; Midrash Shmuel xxii. Samuel interposed in David's favor with a new/novel view of the law.

[106] Despite the claims of vast wealth in I Chron. 28:1-19, II Chron. 2-4, and I Kings 6-7, it is clear that most of the Temple’s wealth was contributed after David’s death and that most of David’s wealth went to his tomb with him.

[107] Prior to David’s (and Samuel’s) revisions, there were eight priestly courses or Mishmarot (משמרות). Each group's members were responsible for maintaining the schedule of offerings at the Temple in Jerusalem. Each of the 24 groups consisted of six priestly families with each serving one day of the week and all six working on the Shabbat. The 24 groups changed every Sabbath at the completion of the service (1Chron. 24:3-5). See Appendix XIII.

[108] The “outward business” (הַחִיעונָה לַמְּלָאכָה) over Israel is curious phrasing – the word melakah is usually translated as “work” and only here is translated as “business”. It is unclear what the outside work was, but this probably covered a wide range of functions and was a very significant function.

[109] Melchizedek of Salem is identified as a "priest" (kohen) to El Elyon (Gen. 14:18) and Jethro was a priest in Midian.

[110] As one example and for a thorough discussion, see “The Secret Society of Moses: The Mosaic Bloodline and a Conspiracy Spanning Three Millennia” by Flavio Barbiero, Inner Traditions / Bear & Co. (2010), esp. pp. 37-42.

[111] The Horites were riverside dwellers who ruled in clans from Africa to India and worshipped Horus and his mother Hathor-Meri (whose animal symbol was a cow or calf). The Horites provided Judaism with the archetype of a savior who is miraculously born, epitomizes lovingkindness, and rises from death on the third day. The Horite belief in physical resurrection and expectation of a deified king who would rise from the grave and deliver his people from death appears to form the core of later Messianic belief.

[112] See . Genesis 4, 5, 10, & 11.

[113] The traditional expectation would have had Reuben's family chosen for the ministry of the new altar, but according to the biblical narrative it was Aaron who was chosen for the role by God.

[114] “The descendants of Jonathan made express claim to lineal descent from Moses (comp. I Sam. ii. 27; Judges xviii. 30; the reading "Menashshch" in Judges xviii. 30 is, as the suspended נ shows, due to a later change of the original "Mosheh," a change which is frankly acknowledged in B. B. 109b; comp. also Rashi and Ḳimḥi ad loc., and to ib. xvii. 7); in fact, their claim is supported by Ex. xxxiii. 7-11, according to which not Aaron, but Moses, was the priest of the "tent of meeting" (R. V.) in the wilderness, while Joshua kept constant guard over it.” JE (“Priest”).

[115] Compare Ex. 27:1; Num. 1:48 et seq.; Num. 3:3-10;8:14; 8:19; 8:24-26; 18:1-7; 1 Chron.6:33 et seq. From “The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day”, Volume 10, edited by Isidore Singer & Cyrus Adler, Funk & Wagnalls Company (1907), p. 194.

[116] Abiathar ben Ahimelech had two sons, Ahimelech and Jonathan, and both were prominent in the priestly service (1 Sam 21:1-9; 22:7 ff; 2 Sam 8:17; 15:27 ff; 1 Ch 18:16; 24:3,6,31; 2 Sam 15:35; 2 Sam 20:25, cf 2 Sam 8:17 and 1 Chron 24:6). In certain key matters recorded in scripture, the interests of the line of Ithamar are not represented by Abiathar, but by Ahimelech (1 Ch 24; 18:16; 2 Sam 8:17). The Deuteronomists seem to have confused Father, son, and grandson.

[117] “Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible” by Karel Van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Peter Willem van der Horst, Eerdmans (1999), pp.911-915.

[118] In the rabbinical writings, it is generally accepted that “Jethro” had seven names: "Reuel", "Jether", "Jethro", "Hobab", "Heber", "Keni" (comp. Judges 1:16, 4:11), and "Putiel"; Eleazar's father-in-law (Ex. 6:25). JE. Also note Num. 10:29 and Judges 4:11.

[119] Jethro’s descendants were the Rechabites. Note “Understanding the Bible” by Stephen L. Harris,Mayfield (1985).

[120] The Talmud identifies "ha-yoẓerim” of I Chron. 4: 23 as the Rechabites because they observed ("she-naẓeru") the commandment of their father. In the Talmud, the words "ha-noẓerim" or "diligent observers" is used instead of "ha-yoẓerim" and may explain the term "Migdal Noẓerim" for the habitation of the Rechabites in II Kings 17:9 & 18: 8. The appellation of "Noẓerim" or "Noẓerites" is perhaps changed from "Nazarites" as indicative of the temperate life of the Rechabites. JE citing B. B. 91b. The Nozerim were either Rechabites or cloely aligned with them.

[121] Julius Wellhansen viewed the exile as a defining event in his analysis of Judaism and the composition of the Bible. His analyses helped elevate the exile to its current role in biblical criticism. Per Wellhansen, we know the exile marked a dramatic change in the Hebrew language: Biblical texts written before the exile are described as "Classical Hebrew" whereas later Biblical texts (such as Ezra-Nehemiah, Daniel, and Esther) are categorized as "Late Biblical Hebrew." The exile radically altered the political, religious, and cultural institutions of ancient Israel. Per “How the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel” by William M. Schniedewind, Cambridge University Press (2005), pp. 139-140.

[122] According to the Book of Jeremiah 4,6000 Jews were deported in the second wave, but since only the men were counted, it follows that the total number taken was over 10,000 (Jer. 52:28-30).

[123] An unknown number of Jews fled to Egypt before or during the exile. See (2 Kings 25:22-24, Jer. 40:6-8; 44:1).

[124] Although it appears that Judea was wracked by famine during the exile (according to Lamentations which was probably written in Jerusalem during the exile, the entire situation seemed to be one of infinite despair).

[125] A key factor in this was that Aramaic (a Semitic language) was the international language of the ancient Near East. Being closely related to Hebrew, it was the language in which most of the Talmud was written and remained the common spoken language of the Jews even after the return to Judea (and until the time of Jesus).

[126] The Babylonian exiles were allowed an appointed leader from among their nobles - a Jew given the title “Resh Galusa” (in Aramaic or Rosh Galut in Hebrew = "Head of the Diaspora or Dispersion." The Resh Galusa was a direct descendant of the House of David and these Exilarchs held that title for over 1,500 years.

[127] They called themselves the "gola," ("exiles"), or the "bene gola" ("the children of the exiles").

[128] The Talmud goes so far as to say that one who lived in Babylon lives in the Land of Israel and will be spared the “birth pangs of the Messiah,” the terrible sufferings that will herald his coming. (Kesubos 111a).

[129] Aka Amil-Marduk or Awil-Marduk meaning "man of Marduk”. The Bible transliterates the name as "Evil-merodoch" which has no evil aspect (2 Kings 25:27).

[130] Including the indifference and impiety on the part of the masses (Isa.65:3 et seq.;cf 66:17).

[131] “[T]hey are called ‘Jews’ from the day that they came up from Babylon’ (Ant. 11.173). The Samaritans continued to call themselves “Hebrews... but not Jews.” (Ant. 11.344).

[132] Persian influence is immediately noticeable within Jewish apocalyptic literature where symbolic good vs. evil, angelology, and personified evil are prevalent features.

[133] God’s laws allegedly passed down orally and not recorded in Scripture.

[134] The mastery and transmission of existing tradition.

[135] From .

[136] “There is no dispute amongst scholars about the fact that there was a dynasty of rulers of the Jews in exile called 'Exilarchs' and that these rulers were accepted as descendants of King David by both the Jews themselves and those under whose rule they lived”. From - with more details.

[137] We here note and explain below that the Egyptian Jews at Elephantine maintained a working Temple during the entire exile and afterwards.

[138] “History, Prophecy and the Monuments: To the End of the Babylonian Exile” by James Frederick McCurdy, Macmillan and Company (1901), pp. 381-382; see also “A History Of The Jewish People During The Babylonian, Persian And Greek Periods” by Charles Foster Kent, Kessinger Publishing (2004).

[139] This was certainly true for those who aligned with the Exilarchs – the Davidic heirs who remained in Babylon. We will discuss them subsequently and mention them occasionally.

[140] The fact that Jesus chose to travel through Samaria (John 4:4, et seq) is striking under the circumstances and norms of the time. His favorable references to the Samaritans are also revealing.

[141] See Matt. 2:13. Of course, the NT account tells very little about the time between the flight to Egypt and Jesus being at the Temple at age 12 (Luke 2:41-52). The tale in Matt. 2:23 regarding their dwelling in Nazareth is plain fiction-to-fulfill-prophecy (and incorrectly reads the prophecy). Note “Jesus in Egypt: Discovering the Secrets of Christ’s Childhood Years” by Paul Perry, Ballentin Books (2003) – at least an interesting read.

[142] That is until it passed to the family of Eleazar's brother Ithamar during the time of Eli (1 Sam. 2:23).

[143] The Tobiads and Oniads were two of the most powerful families in ancient Palestine – aligned and often in conflict. The Tobiads were tax collectors, the Oniads were priests (and thus also tax/tithe collectors).

[144] Perhaps a hint at the “ones who seek smooth things” mentioned later.

[145] “On is affrighted, the tents of Cushan are in dread, the tent curtains of Missur tremble.” (Hab. 3:7, restored version). There was also a Palestinian area named On and some think that On is a corruption of the Egyptian “Iunu” for “place of pillars”.

[146] Alexander the Great, on his march from Pelusium to Memphis, visited Heliopolis (Arrian, iii. 1).

[147] Although most of the obelisks were removed (London, Paris, and New York) one still stands where it did thousands of years ago and is known today as the Pillar of On.

[148]

[149] That is until it passed to the family of Eleazar's brother Ithamar during the time of Eli (1 Sam. 2:23).

[150] Antigonus first took Judea following the death of Alexander but Ptolemy I (Soter) seized Jerusalem in 320 BCE.

[151] Sirach 1:1 and Ab. i. 2.

[152] Peace is a relative term here and is relevant only to the Jews in Judea. Over a century of war would ensue after the death of Alexander the Great as his generals divided up his kingdom (especially Seleucid in Syrian and Ptolemy in Egypt). Judea was caught in the middle and was passed back and forth until Antiochus defeated the Ptolemies in 198 BCE and took control for most of the next 150 years.

[153] An assembly of 120 scribes, sages, and prophets that had existed from the end of the era of prophets.

[154] Of course, in “representative” type governments, the idea is that the government officials use the taxes in a manner consistent with the purposes and priorities of the people they represent (ideally).

[155] With the translation of Jewish scripture into Greek (the “Septuagint” from Alexandria beginning in 300 BCE) and its widespread dissemination, there was a decentralization of Jewish learning and religious teaching akin to what happened when King James had the Bible translated into English.

[156] These and other sects are discussed in detail below)

[157] Antiochus repudiated his previous wife, Laodice (who was also his cousin), but turned over substantial domains to her.

[158] The High Priesthood of the Samaritans is not significant in the life of Jesus and is therefore not a subject of this work. Certainly, the history of dispute between the Samariatns and the Judeans was significant and it seems clear that Jesus and the Samaritans were friendlier than expected – he travelled freely through Samaria and spoke favorably of them.

[159] The historical record, and thus some historians, confuse the names and dates during this period such that Onias is sometimes called Simon and the designations of Onias II, III, IV, and V are confused.

[160] Josephus seemed to be descended through the Tobian line and wanted to establish their Davidic lineage and legal ascension to the High Priesthood for his own purposes. His works written for the Romans regarding Jewish history include “Jewish Antiquities” (Book 12), where he offers what has become known as the Tobian Romance. See “Did Moses speak Attic?: Jewish historiography and scripture…” by Lester L. Grabbe 2001 (pp 137-38). His pro-Samaritan stance is readily recognized elsewhere.

[161] Under non-Jewish tax collection, the taxes included crown-money (tribute paid by the local government), one third of the field-crops, half of the produce from lumber, and a tax on the Levitical tithes and on all revenues of the Temple. There was a royal monopoly on salt and the forests so 100% of their production was taxed in some fashion. We don’t know how this changed under the Tobians, if at all.

[162] The commissioner controlled such things the price of goods and public employment – acting effectively as mayor of Jerusalem.

[163] “In the treasuries of Jerusalem are stored many thousands of private deposits, not belonging to the temple account, and rightfully the property of King Seleucus.” (IV Mac. 2:19).

[164] Joseph had seven sons by his first wife but then married the daughter of his Alexandrian brother Solymius. Their son, Hyrcanus, was his father's favorite and primary heir.

[165] 440 talents of silver and other bribes.

[166] “He induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat.”

[167] The Roman concessions had been secured under the leadership of Onias by John, the father of Eupolemus, who had travelled to Rome and established friendship and alliance with the Romans.

[168] Heliodorus is a fascinating character in history – he later served as ambassador to King Antialkidas (Antialcidas), travelled to India, converted to Hinduism, and befriended King Kasiputra Bhagabhadra.

[169] By three hundred talents of silver.

[170] Seleucus' true heir, Demetrius, was still a hostage in Rome.

[171] Josephus (Ant., XII, v, 1) says that "on the death of Onias the high priest, Antiochus gave the high-priesthood to his brother Jesus (Jason)," but the account of 2 Macc given above is the more probable and is followed herein.

[172] It is clear that both the authors of the books of the Maccabbees (along with Josephus) intended to depreciate the worth of the Temple of Onias in Egypt and consistent with that intention they tend to uphold the dignity of the temple of Jerusalem. Related details were ignored and invented.

[173] Antiochus (III) knew that the Romans would not permit him to keep the lands taken during his attack in 200 (and victory at Panium 198 BCE), so he told them that he wanted to make peace with Ptolemy (V) and offered the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra (I) as a showing of good faith.

[174] The Ptolemy and Seleucid families had been at war almost continuously since the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE. See the Syrian Wars… .

[175] In 172 BCE, Antiochus initiated another attack on Egypt but before he reached Alexandria a Roman ambassador delivered a message from the Roman Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw his armies from Egypt (and Cyprus) or consider himself at war with Rome. Antiochus wisely chose to not cross the line drawn in the sand by the ambassador. Rabbinical sources refer to him as הרשע harasha ("the wicked").

[176] See "Topography of Jerusalem" by E. Robinson, Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review, Vol. XII (1846), pp. 630-631.

[177] There were two ancient cities named Leontopolis in Egypt and a nome named Leontopolites (the 11th nome). They are often confused by historians. The nome of Leontopolites was the site of the City of Onias and the Temple.

[178] Antiochus was busy in Parthia and had sent a large force to Judea under Lysais, Ptolemy bar Dorymenes, Nicanor and Gorgias. Judah defeated the armies of Nicanor and Gorgias near Emmaus in 166 BCE and then defeated Lysias and Ptolemy at Bethsura the following year.

[179] An eight day celebration of songs, lights, and sacrifices.

[180] Also known as the “Assideans”. According to First Maccabees, the forces of Lysias massacred a group of Hasidim who had fled but would not resist or fight on the Sabbath. (1 Macc. 2:42 and note 2 Macc. 8:1).

[181] Also known as Jacimus , Joachim or the Hebrew Eliacim. There is confusion about the time period during which Alcimus held this office because different dates (and even descriptions of the office) have been offered in the primary sources (I Mac. 7:21, II Mac. 16:13, and Josephus). Alcimus described his title as being inherited from his ancestors (II Macc. xiv. 7), but this is surely ficticious since only the Oniades properly held the High Priesthood lineage. Alcimus could only have meant that his forbearers held some other high priestly office. Some scholars and writers seem to overlook this fact and perpetuate Alcimus' uncertain status.

[182] Although First Maccabees tells us "the Assideans were the first who sought peace" after the appointment of Alcimus. (1 Macc. 7:13).

[183] There is doubt about what office Alcimus held because different terms have been used to describe it in different sources (I Mac. 7:21, II Mac. 16:13, and Josephus). Alcimus describes his title as being inherited from his ancestors (II Macc. xiv. 7). Since there is no doubt that only the Oniades properly held the high-priesthood, Alcimus could only have meant some higher priestly office that had been held in his family for some generations. Some scholars seem to overlook this issue and perpetuate Alcimus' uncertain high-priesthood.

[184] We don’t know how well Physcon distinguished Alexandrian from Oneon Jews, but we do know that but both Chelkias and Ananias, the sons of Onias, performed military service and acted as generals under Cleopatra III. (117-81; "Ant." xiii. 10, § 4). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Onias did not suffer the same disfavor as most Alexandrian Jews.

[185] In the Flinders Petrie dig of 1905/6, he identified remains of this temple.

[186] Actually there had already been a Jewish Temple at Elephantine a century or so after the time of Isaiah.

[187] The “abomination of desolation” referenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[188] Also called Jacimus, or Joachim (Ἰάκειμος); Alcimus is from the Greek Alkimos (Ἄλκιμος), "valiant" or Hebrew Elyaqum, "God will rise".

[189] Because of conflicting historical references and the dispute over the high priesthood, there is some question of whether or not Alcimus actually held the title of High Priest. Thus, the listing of Jewish High Priests for this period varies or is incomplete. Alcimus died in 161 BCE - while the wall of the Temple that divided the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of the Israelites was being torn down.

[190] Books III and IV of the Maccabees were not canonized but offer additional details.

[191] Between 319 and 302 BCE alone, Jerusalem changed hands seven times. See "Yavan in the House of Shem. Greeks and Jews 332–63 BC" by Richard Hooker, World Civilizations Learning Modules. Washington State University (1999) available at .

[192] See 4Q448 (DSS).

[193] According to Josephus, Jannaeus crucified 800 Jewish rebels in Jerusalem in 87 BCE. See also the Nahum Pesher.

[194] "The Hebrews: The Diaspora" by Richard Hooker, Richard, World Civilizations Learning Modules. Washington State University (1999) at .

[195] Antipater had been made general of all of Judea by Alexander Jannaeus, father of Hyrcanus and Antigonus.

[196] Hyrcanus renounced his throne and the office of High Priest, but retained revenues from the latter office.

[197] Perhaps related to the fact that Aristobulus II had been poisoned in Rome. (Dio Cassius 41:18, 1).

[198] Interestingly, when Caesar besieged Alexandria in pursuit of Pompey, Hyrcanus sent him reinforcements and wrote a letter asking the Jews in the "territory of Onias" to grant Caesar’s army clear passage. This was almost certainly Antipater’s doing. .

[199] In 47 BCE.

[200] Which included a main line of Davidic descendents.

[201] Herod also executed dozens of the most prominent of Antigonus' supporters, confiscating their estates. All members of the Sanhedrin, with the exception of Pollio (Abṭalion) and Shemaiah, were slain.

[202] There is a historical conflict as some sources say that Hyrcanus was named President of the Sanhedrin, but such is unlikely. The Zugots were in place and one of them would have been “Nasi”.

[203] The events and characters from Judea are mostly from the historical record – those from and regarding Egypt are speculative.

[204] There is historical confusion regarding the names and actions of these Zugot: שמעיה or Shemaiah/Sameas was confused with the later Zugot named Shammai and Avtalyon (not a Hebrew name, but written as אבטליון‎) was confused with “Pollion” (Josephus). See “Studies in Hellenistic Judaism”, Louis H. Feldman, Brill (1996), pps. 45-51.

[205] There was some record that Herod had replaced this Zugot with Idumeans, but such seems very unlikely. Since both Shemaiah and Avtalyon were of foreign descent (Bab. Yoma, 71b; 'Eduy. v.6; Giṭ. 57b; Yer. M. Ḳ. iii.81b), their opponents may have equated them to the hated Idumeans. Note Josephus, Ant. xv.1, § 1. Shemaiah and Avtalyon were given the informal title of darshan or “preacher” (Pes. 70a), the first to be so honored.

[206] Both Shemaiah and Avtalyon had spent significant time in Alexandria when younger and knew plenty about the Oniads of Egypt.

[207] Herod wisely did not include royal or priestly tombs in this promise and the raiding of David’s, Solomon’s and other tombs helped fund many of Herod’s building programs.

[208] It is clear from records of the time that written legal contracts were widely used.

[209] See, “The History of the Second Temple” by Joseph Klausner (5 vols., 6th ed. Achiasaf , Jerusalem (1963), €4.12.

[210] In 39 BCE Herod married Mariamne (known as Mariamne I), the teenage niece of Antigonus, in an attempt to improve his claim to the throne. Herod already had a wife named Doris and their child Antipater.

[211] Herod first ridded himself of Hyrcanus (II) by alleging tyranny between Hyrcanus and Aretas - Hyrcanus was executed.

[212] Herod met Octavius en route to Egypt (at Ptolemais) with supplies and forces and then Escorted Octavian to Antioch after Egypt was settled.

[213] This migration of Jews from Egypt to Judea and surrounds was one of the largest transfers of wealth in all of history – not including the sacred treasures discussed below.

[214] aka Yehoshua III, Joshua ben Fabus, or “Jesus bar Phabet” (according to Josephus).

[215] In Appendix XXVIII it is explained that Yehoshua was secretly the biological son of Hanan.

[216] We should recall that our image of the “Temple” may include courtyards and structures which were added later. Here we are dealing with the single structure known as Solomon’s Temple (which was actually a far lesser reconstructed and war-torn version that had stood for some 400 years.

[217] This historic function led to several interesting stories where invaders, usurpers, and foreigners had attempted to steal these treasures. Mysterious things happened to those who tried such thievery and the legends served to protect the Temple’s vaults as much as guards, cleverness, and luck. To a large extent, the modern Swiss Banks also enjoy the benefit of having customers from a wide base of friends and enemies.

[218] Within the Herodian Court and the “royal families” there was an amazing combination of relationships that included the incestuous and the ridiculous. Wives were exchanged, children were born to secret fathers, and alignments were arranged specifically for political advantage. Herod maneuvered women around like chess pieces, taking them from their husbands or fathers and giving them away as prizes. Most of this occurred as a result of his desire to so completely confuse the bloodlines that no one could contest Herodian regality. This required the control of four different lineages: the line of David, the line of the High Priest, the Hasmonean line, and Herod’s own line. In short, Herod’s approach was an ancient one: to kill or imprison the male competition and to breed the females.

[219] Simon held the purse strings for the project and answered only to his brother.

[220] Jeremiah hid the Jewish sacred objects from the Jerusalem Temple (the Ark of the Covenant and its mercy seat, a golden table for showbread, a 75 pound solid gold menorah, a square bronze altar, a perpetual lamp, an incense altar, and a bronze laver) just before the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE. It is most likely that the original objects remained in hiding even after the Temple was restored and that replicas were made to permit services in the restored Temple. See Appendix XXVII.

[221] Each puzzle was different and required that four pieces be brought together and deciphered such that the locations were revealed. Each puzzle set was distributed to two different groups so that 24 people held pieces and six different combinations could come together to reveal the secret locations.

[222] Special screens and scaffolds were utilized so that only small parts of the Holy of Holies were visible at one time.

[223] Different groups had different rates of taxation based on their social class – and social class was complex in itself.

[224] Jesus’ Grandmother.

[225] Husband of Herod’s sister Salome, father of Princess Berenice.

[226] Herod finally had Jacob executed in 23 BCE on a charge of sedition.

[227] Soon afterward, a major drought struck the region and the people blamed Herod’s actions for angering God.

[228]  Luke 1:5 – “There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah.  His wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.”

[229] Hanna was his second wife. His first was Alexandra III who was taken from him to wed a Herodian.

[230] Approximately 1 in 5 boys during this period were named Simon. Shemayah was a Zugot and Nasi with both Davidic ancestry and ancestry from the Assyrian king Sennacherib. See Git. 57b and Avot. 1:10.

[231] Augustus gave up his permanent consulship after a serious illness. Being near death, he revealed his intended succession and that created a crisis in Rome which led to the “Second Settlement” and Agrippa’s assignment as super-governor (imperium proconsul maius) of all the eastern provinces.

[232] Herod had converted his gold and silver Palace ornaments into coinage and used them to buy grain from Egypt which he then distributed to both Judeans and those outside of his kingdom. This charity resulted in gratitude and respect which increased his power and security.

[233] The second most powerful man in the Roman Empire, Agrippa was the son-in-law of the Emperor Augustus, father-in-law of the Emperor Tiberius, maternal grandfather of the Emperor Caligula, and maternal great-grandfather of the Emperor Nero.

[234] This story has another component worthy of interest – Herod had murdered his 2nd wife (also named Mariamne) and was both guilt-ridden and regretful about her loss. It was thought that the young and beautiful Mariamne II was his replacement for his lost love.

[235] Ant. xv. 2, § 4; 3, §§ 1, 3.

[236] In office less than a year before being killed by Herod.

[237] Appointed upon Herod’s death.

[238] Gadara was a city of the Decapolis approximately six miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee, two miles south of the Yarmuk River, and 12 miles north of Pella.

[239] Meanwhile, similar fake caravans had headed for five other locations where fake operations had been set up and activities akin to those at Gadara were conducted as a ruse. In each case, select persons were given a coded “secret” that led to the wrong site.

[240] The Jewish Temple had served as a safe place for riches during the Hasmonean era and neither the Romans nor the Herodians were willing to start a civil war by ransacking it. Indeed, Herod chose to use it for keeping much of his own wealth.

[241] Herod had plenty of reason for paranoia – much of it caused by his own actions. Aside from a slew of Jewish contenders for his throne, Herod was basically at war with Malchus (King of Nabataea) while trying to retain favor with the Romans.

[242] The Jewish Zealot movement was diverse and not easily generalized in the manner historically convenient. See Appendix XVI for more information.

[243] We don’t know how this would have worked for festivals and Temple services.

[244] Essenes were exempted from the oath as were the Pharisees Polion and Samaias because of their prior support of Herod.

[245] This section contains a quasi-historical narrative regarding the High Priesthood in Egypt. This narrative is consistent with the known records, but includes speculative content (to fill some of the gaps).

[246] See “The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ” by Robert Eisenman, Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. (2006), p. 123.

[247] Hegesippus – Vol. 5 of his Five Books of Commentaries on the Acts of the Church. (From Jerome).

[248] Aaron was a member of the Tribe of Levi and therefore all kohanim and Aaronites were Levites by direct patrilineal descent.

[249] The best reading of Numbers 25:6-9 indicates that they were having public intercourse within the Tabernacle when suddenly Phinehas rose up from among the observers and thrust both of them through with a spear.

[250] According to the Samaritans, a civil war broke out between the Sons of Itamar and the Sons of Phinehas resulting in the division of the High Priesthood between those who followed Eli and those who followed Uzzi ben Bukki (to Mount Gerizim in Samaria). Thus, the Samaritans maintained a separate priesthood and Temple.

[251] The three lists are derived from I Chronicles 5:30-40, the Book of Ezra 7:1-5, and Antiquities of the Jews 10.8.6.

[252] According to the Samaitan list. (Shesha was the father of Bukki).

[253] Zadok and Abiathar apparently served jointly.

[254] Josephus lists 17 Priests in Antiquities 10:151-153 but also mentions Seraiah as High Priest in 10:149.

[255] Antigonus first took Judea following the death of Alexander but Ptolemy I (Soter) seized Jerusalem in 320 BCE.

[256] Sirach 1:1 and Ab. i. 2.

[257] Peace is a relative term here and is relevant only to the Jews in Judea. Over a century of war would ensue after the death of Alexander the Great as his generals divided up his kingdom (especially Seleucid in Syrian and Ptolemy in Egypt). Judea was caught in the middle and was passed back and forth until Antiochus defeated the Ptolemies in 198 BCE and took control for most of the next 150 years.

[258] An assembly of 120 scribes, sages, and prophets that had existed from the end of the era of prophets.

[259] The High Priesthood of the Samaritans is not significant in the life of Jesus and is therefore not a subject of this work. Certainly, the history of dispute between the Samariatns and the Judeans was significant and it seems clear that Jesus and the Samaritans were friendlier than expected – he travelled freely through Samaria and spoke favorably of them.

[260] The historical record, and thus some historians, confuse the names and dates during this period such that Onias is sometimes called Simon and the designations of Onias II, III, IV, and V are confused.

[261] The commissioner controlled such things the price of goods and public employment – acting effectively as mayor of Jerusalem.

[262] “In the treasuries of Jerusalem are stored many thousands of private deposits, not belonging to the temple account, and rightfully the property of King Seleucus.” (IV Mac. 2:19).

[263] Joseph had seven sons by his first wife but then married the daughter of his Alexandrian brother Solymius. Their son, Hyrcanus, was his father's favorite and primary heir.

[264] 440 talents of silver and other bribes.

[265] “He induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat.” 2 Maccabees 4:12.

[266] The Roman concessions had been secured under the leadership of Onias by John, the father of Eupolemus, who had travelled to Rome and established friendship and alliance with the Romans.

[267] By three hundred talents of silver.

[268] Seleucus' true heir, Demetrius, was still a hostage in Rome.

[269] Josephus (Ant., XII, v, 1) says that "on the death of Onias the high priest, Antiochus gave the high-priesthood to his brother Jesus (Jason)," but the account of 2 Macc given above is the more probable and is followed herein.

[270] It is clear that both the authors of the books of the Maccabbees (along with Josephus) intended to depreciate the worth of the Temple of Onias in Egypt and consistent with that intention tends to uphold the dignity of the Temple of Jerusalem. Related details were ignored and invented.

[271] Antiochus (III) knew that the Romans would not permit him to keep the lands taken during his attack in 200 (and victory at Panium 198 BCE), so he told them that he wanted to make peace with Ptolemy (V) and offered the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra (I) as a showing of good faith.

[272] The Ptolemy and Seleucid families had been at war almost continuously since the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE. See the Syrian Wars… .

[273] See "Topography of Jerusalem" by E. Robinson, Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review, Vol. XII (1846), pp. 630-631.

[274] There were two ancient cities named Leontopolis in Egypt and a nome named Leontopolites (the 11th nome). They are often confused by historians. The nome of Leontopolites was the site of the City of Onias and the Temple.

[275] The festival of Hanukkah, an eight day celebration of songs, lights, and sacrifices, was instituted to celebrate this event.

[276] First High Priest after the restoration of the Temple (~515-490 BCE).

[277] Joiada is only found in the lists of Neh 12:10-11, 22 and in Neh 13:28. His oldest son was driven out of the Temple by Nehemiah.

[278] In Egypt only.

[279] Also known as Jacimus , Joachim or the Hebrew Eliacim. There is confusion about the time period during which Alcimus held this office because different dates (and even descriptions of the office) have been offered in the primary sources (I Mac. 7:21, II Mac. 16:13, and Josephus). Alcimus described his title as being inherited from his ancestors (II Macc. xiv. 7), but this is surely ficticious since only the Oniades properly held the High Priesthood lineage. Alcimus could only have meant that his forbearers held some other high priestly office. Some scholars and writers seem to overlook this fact and perpetuate Alcimus' uncertain status.

[280] There is doubt about what office Alcimus held because different terms have been used to describe it in different sources (I Mac. 7:21, II Mac. 16:13, and Josephus). Alcimus describes his title as being inherited from his ancestors (II Macc. xiv. 7). Since there is no doubt that only the Oniades properly held the high-priesthood, Alcimus could only have meant some higher priestly office that had been held in his family for some generations. Some scholars seem to overlook this issue and perpetuate Alcimus' uncertain high-priesthood.

[281] “A dictionary of the Bible: comprising its antiquities ...”, Volume 1, Part 1; By Sir William Smith, John M. Fuller; p.84

[282] At the battle of Azophon, Jannaeus suffered a devastating defeat at the hands of Ptolemy’s much smaller force. Jannaeus allowed the enemy to cross the Jordan River unimpeded intending to trap Ptolemy between his army and the water. Instead, the army of Ptolemy struck the Jewish camp killing men, women and children (supposedly the corpses were hacked to pieces, flung into caldrons and boiled).

[283] The Pharisees opposed the marriage of Jannaeus with his brother’s widow, which was forbidden by Torah law.

[284] Jannaeus had caused irritation when he had the inscription “King Alexander” minted onto his coins. To the Pharisees, the house of David was the only legitimate royal house, all others being usurpers of the royal title.

[285] An act for which he appears as a “wicked tyrant” in the Talmud under the name King Yannai (Jonathan).

[286] See “The Dead Sea scrolls and the Hasmonean State” by Ḥanan Eshel (pps. 22-28).

[287] This incredible account is supported by Josephus, in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the Nahum Pesher.

[288] The fate of those who went to Syria was equally sad; the greater part of them were massacred near Chalcis.

[289] One of the most prominent of those who escaped to Egypt was Judah ben Ṭabbai.

[290] On his deathbed, Jannaeus warned Alexandra: “Fear neither the Pharisees nor those that are not Pharisees, but guard thyself against the dyed ones [hypocrites] who do the deed of Zimri and expect the reward of Phineas.” This apparently refers to Jews allied with some other nation who intend to claim the priesthood (Phineas was rewarded with the Levite priesthood that God had already been bequeathed to his father, Aaron). See Num. 25:11-13.

[291] According to the Talmud, Honi was famous for his ability to successfully pray for rain by drawing circles around himself and praying to God that he would not leave the circle until it rained (Mishnah Ta'anit 3:4).

[292] A fortified castle built by Jannaeus on a mountain between Scythopolis and Jerusalem.

[293] The Idumaens were the Edomites of old and had a long rivalry with the Jews of Judea (Note Exodus 17:10). When Judas Maccabbee defeated the Idumaens in 164 BCE and John Hyrcanus (in 123 BCE) forced them to adopt Judaism (including circumcision), animosity grew and continued for generations.

[294] Or “Sanhedrin” - Greek: συνέδριον, "synedrion".

[295] Malichus, a rival who aspired to an influential position in Judea, hired an assassin to poison Antipater.

[296] Antigonus II Mattathias was the only anointed King of the Jews (messiah) historically recorded to have been scourged and crucified by the Romans. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."

[297] Hyrcanus lived in Syrian exile until 36 BCE when Herod (who feared that Hyrcanus might induce the Parthians to help him regain the throne) invited him to return to Jerusalem and offered him the presidency of the Sanhedrin. By the year 30 BCE, Herod was secure enough in his rule that he charged Hyrcanus with plotting a revolt with King Aretas and had him executed.

[298] Herod had an Idumaen father and an Arabian mother (who had been forcibly converted to Judaism). Jews generally looked down upon the Idumeans as racially impure and it was commonly held that one could only be a Jew when one was born from a Jewish mother.

[299] Some sources say that Hananiel was from “Babylon”, but this misses the generic sense of the word as used during the time.

[300]Aristobulus III was the paternal grandson of Aristobulus II and the last of the Hasmoneans to serve as High Priest.

[301] The Boethusians were later considered to be a variety of the Sadducees because of later relatives. It is uncertain whether the sect known as the Boethusians were related to the priestly family.

[302] See “Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature”, Volume 9  By John McClintock, James Strong (1889) pp. 240-242.

[303] Both of these sons had been educated in Rome as guests of the Emperor.

[304] The rabbinic literature associates Joseph ben Elim (son of the mute) with the office of Segan – the coadjutor of the High Priest. He was probably the son of Matthias ben Theophilus as Joseph “ben Elim” is a nickname. He was from Sepphoris in Galileee. There is speculation that he was the father of Mary, mother of Jesus.

[305] The word Tetrarch means “ruler of a quarter“. See next footnote.

[306] Jamnia, Azotus, Phasaelis (and the palace at Ashkelon).

[307] This was the year 4000 in the Jewish system.

[308] Ant. XVIII.ii.1.2 (29) – the quote is not from Josephus and is not substantiated. Christians use this cite to incorrectly suggest that the Jewish priests had no power of execution.

[309] Kohanim are also called Levites. Non-Kohen Levites (i.e. all those who descended from Levi, the son of Jacob, but not from Aaron) performed a variety of non-priestly Temple roles, including Shechita, song service by use of voice and Musical instruments, and various tasks in assisting the Kohanim in performing their service. Most religious services (i.e. the Korbanot) could only be conducted by Kohanim.

[310] Hiram, King of Tyre, supplied cedar wood and cypress wood; 70,000 men were employed in transporting wood from Joppe (Jaffa) to Jerusalem and 80,000 more in quarrying stone. The splendid monument was completed, as to its essential details, in seven years and a half, and with great pomp the Ark of the Covenant was brought from the City of David to the new sanctuary (2 Samuel 6).

[311] All of which had been restored by Cyrus the Great.

[312] In the Flinders Petrie dig of 1905/6, he identified remains of this temple.

[313] Actually there had already been a Jewish Temple at Elephantine a century or so after the time of Isaiah.

[314] The “abomination of desolation” referenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[315] Also called Jacimus, or Joachim (Ἰάκειμος); Alcimus is from the Greek Alkimos (Ἄλκιμος), "valiant" or Hebrew Elyaqum, "God will rise".

[316] Because of conflicting historical references and the dispute over the high priesthood, there is some question of whether or not Alcimus actually held the title of High Priest. Thus, the listing of Jewish High Priests for this period varies or is incomplete. Alcimus died in 161 BCE - while the wall of the Temple that divided the Court of the Gentiles from the Court of the Israelites was being torn down.

[317] For a start, I recommend the following: “On The Location of the First and Second Temples in Jerusalem” by Lambert Dolphin and Michael Kollen available at , “The Jerusalem Temple and the New testament” at , “Herod’s Mighty Temple Mount” by Meir Ben-Dov, BAR 12:06, Nov/Dec 1986, and for Temple related general archeological information.

[318] “The Temple faces the east and its back is toward the west. The whole of the floor is paved with stones and slopes down to the appointed places so that water may be conveyed to wash away the blood from the sacrifices (for many thousands of beasts are sacrificed there on the festival days). There is an inexhaustible supply of water because an abundant natural spring gushes up from within the temple area. There are also wonderful and indescribable cisterns underground, [] and each of them has countless pipes so that the different streams converge together. These were fastened with lead at the bottom and at the sidewalls and over them a great quantity of plaster had been spread. [] There are many openings for water at the base of the altar which are invisible to all except to those who are engaged in the ministration so that all the blood of the sacrifices which is collected in great quantities is washed away in the blink of an eye.” Letter of Aristeas (~ 250 BCE), adapted from R.H. Charles (1913).

[319] Given the historical record (Josephus) regarding Pilate’s raiding of the Temple Treasury to build (re-build?) an aqueduct to the city and the Temple, we can hardly deny the feasibility of such. The presence of ancient pools and the many ritual baths around the Temple bespeak an abundant availability of water (although it may not have been refreshed as often as we might think). But it was the washing away of blood that required the most water and we should appreciate the elaborate system that must have existed to process the vast quantities of carcasses resulting from a festival day’s sacrifice of (tens of ?) thousands of animals.

[320] There continues to be a long existing debate regarding the Torah and Book of Joshua between Samaritans and Judeans. For a starting point on that debate, see . It is also significant that the Samaritans reject the Judean Talmud and have developed their own body of post-biblical law and tradition called “hillukh”. (The Karaites have done similarly, calling theirs “sevel ha-yerushah” (the burden of tradition)).

[321] Cyrus died and was replaced by Bardiya, then Darius I, followed by Xerxes I ('Ahasuerus') and then Artaxerxes.

[322] “Does anyone remember this house--this Temple--in its former splendor? How, in comparison, does it look to you now? It must seem like nothing at all!” (Hag. 2:3; Ezra 3:12).

[323] For a good general refence in this area, I suggest “Archaeology and Bible History” by Joseph P. Free, Howard F. Vos, Zondervan (1997), especially chapter 22).

[324] Esther, a Jewress, became Queen of Persia with King Ahasueraus (Xerxes). She was unable to convince him to permit the rebuilding of the Jerusalem Temple, but when her husband died she convinced her son Darius to let the Jews rebuild the Holy Temple. (Book of Esther).

[325] Sanballat the Horonite was a very wealthy and opulent contemporary of Ezra and Nehemiah. Nehemiah bar Hachaliah was probably a resident of Hawara (Horon - located near Mt. Gerizim) before he was taken into exile. While in exile, he became “cup-bearer” (or perhaps the eunuch mentioned in Esther) for Artaxerxes.

[326] The primary offense was that the Jews failed to separate themselves from the impure Gentiles and their idolatry.

[327] This proved fateful for the Judeans because in 410 BCE, Manasseh’s younger brother became High Priest. Johanan was a wicked man, having murdered his brother Jesus (who had been promised the High Priesthood) in the Temple precincts to secure that position. Artaxerxes II's general Bagoses forbid Johanan to enter the temple and commanded the Jews be charged a tribute and the temple dismantled. Another brother, Manasseh, built the Samaritan temple.

[328] There is linguistic evidence that the Samaritan Torah was rewritten at about this time – perhaps as a direct response to the destruction of their Temple.

[329] As well as the fact that the Temple tribute was collected in Egypt with no less punctuality than in Palestine. (Philo, de monarch. ii. 3).

[330] “The Jews of Egypt: from Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian” by Joseph Modrzejewski, Jewish Publication Society, (1995), p.128; but compare m. Menah. 13:10.

[331] We might also recall that over 1 million Jews lived in Egypt – more than in Palestine. In the 1st century, more Jews lived in Alexandria than in Jerusalem.

[332] Since Jerusalem was under Syrian control, the alleged tribute to Ptolemy made little sense. Josephus either misleads or was misled.

[333] An administrative position instead of a priestly one – remember the Temple was more than a religious institution.

[334] The commissioner controlled such things the price of goods and public employment – acting effectively as mayor of Jerusalem.

[335] “In the treasuries of Jerusalem are stored many thousands of private deposits, not belonging to the temple account, and rightfully the property of King Seleucus.” (IV Mac. 2:19).

[336] Joseph had seven sons by his first wife but then married the daughter of his Alexandrian brother Solymius. Their son, Hyrcanus, was his father's favorite and primary heir.

[337] 440 talents of silver and other bribes.

[338] “He induced the noblest of the young men to wear the Greek hat.”

[339] The Roman concessions had been secured under the leadership of Onias by John, the father of Eupolemus, who had travelled to Rome and established friendship and alliance with the Romans.

[340] By three hundred talents of silver.

[341] Seleucus' true heir, Demetrius, was still a hostage in Rome.

[342] Josephus also makes it clear that the death of Onias III was a fact of historical importance: As a result, not only the Jews, but many people of other nations as well, were indignant and angry over the unjust murder of the man. It’s said that the Greeks and Jews told Antiochus IV about this and that the king wept in memory of the noble Onias and had Andronicus led around the city and put to death in the same spot Onias was killed.

[343] Josephus (Ant., XII, v, 1) says that "on the death of Onias the high priest, Antiochus gave the high-priesthood to his brother Jesus (Jason)," but the account of 2 Macc given above is the more probable and is followed herein.

[344] Antiochus (III) knew that the Romans would not permit him to keep the lands taken during his attack in 200 (and victory at Panium 198 BCE), so he told them that he wanted to make peace with Ptolemy (V) and offered the marriage of his daughter Cleopatra (I) as a showing of good faith.

[345] The Ptolemy and Seleucid families had been at war almost continuously since the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE. See the Syrian Wars… .

[346] The sons of Onias Chelkias ben Onias and Ananias ben Onias, performed military service and acted as generals under Cleopatra III.

[347] There were two ancient cities named Leontopolis in Egypt and a nome named Leontopolites (the 11th nome). They are often confused by historians. The nome of Leontopolites was the site of the City of Onias and the Temple. However, Ptolemy mentions “Onias” as the capital of the Heliopolite Nome. See “A Dictionary of the Bible” by Sir William Smith, S.S. Scranton & Co. (1898) under “Onias”.

[348] Abram was born in Ur, but traveled to Egypt and married Hagar, the daughter of a Pharaoh (Gen. 16). Among his sons were Ishmael and Isaac (or Yitzchak in Hebrew) – the father of the Jewish people and grandfather of Jacob (aka Yisrael or "Israel"), the father of Joseph/Yosef).

[349] Joseph was sold into Egyptian slavery by his jealous brothers, but managed to become the most powerful man in Egypt next to the Pharaoh. He married Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah the Priest of On. He brought the “sons of Israel” down to Egypt, where they settled in the Egyptian country called “Goshen” (Gen. 31; 41ff).

[350] Moses was adopted as a foundling by the Egyptian royal family near Rameses/Tanis, where the exodus began.

[351] Cellaring, Shaw, and others, suppose it to be the region around Heliopolis, not far from the modern Cairo, whereas Bryant places it in the Saitic Nome. But most modern interpreters agree that it was the part of Egypt eastward of the Delta. Josephus evidently reckons Heliopolis to Goshen (Ant. ii. 7:6) and the Septuagint version of Exodus (1: 11) lists the cities built by the Israelites including On. Dictionary of the Holy Bible By Augustin Calmet, Crocker and Brewster, 1832, pp. 464, 714.

[352] Alexander the Great, on his march from Pelusium to Memphis, visited Heliopolis (Arrian, iii. 1).

[353] Although most of the obelisks were removed (London, Paris, and New York) one still stands where it did thousands of years ago and is known today as the Pillar of On.

[354]

[355] “Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto: Identità politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia” by Livia Capponi, Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia dell'Università di Pavia 118, (2007).  

[356] Today's use of the Greek Nome rather than the Egyptian term Sepat came about during the Ptolemaic period.

[357] Eustathius of Thessalonike (probably citing Stephanus of Byzantium) (12th century) reported that Leontopolis was even an alternative name for Alexandria. See “Notes on the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis” by Abraham Wasserstein, Illinois Classical Studies Vol. 18 (1993), p. 126.

[358] This Heliopolis was well known to the ancient Greeks and Romans, being noted by most major geographers of the period, including: Ptolemy, iv. 5. § 54; Herodotus, ii. 3, 7, 59; Strabo, xvii. p. 805; Diodorus, i. 84, v. 57; Arrian, Exp. Alex. iii. 1; Aelian, H. A. vi. 58, xii. 7; Plutarch, Solon. 26, Is. et Osir. 33; Diogenes Laertius, xviii. 8. § 6; Josephus, Ant. Jud. xiii. 3, C. Apion. i. 26; Cicero, De Natura Deorum iii. 21; Pliny the Elder, v. 9. § 11; Tacitus, Ann. vi. 28; Pomponius Mela, iii. 8. The city also merits attention by the Byzantine geographer Stephanus of Byzantium.

[359] Who was also worshiped with Shu as a pair of lions in Leontopolis.

[360] The group of nine gods that embodied the creative source and chief forces of the universe.

[361] These ruins are situated southwest of Tanis to the east of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. The tombs at Bubastis were the principal depository of the mummies of various feline deities. On the north side of the city, Pharaoh Neco’s Great Canal (between the Nile and the Red Sea) began. In 352 BCE, Bubastis was taken by the Persians who dismantled its walls. Significant ruins would have remained.

[362] According to James Strong, the town of Onias was probably only twelve miles distant from Heliopolis in a northerly direction, but a little to the eastward. “Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature”, Volume 7 by James Strong (1894).

[363] On (or Onion by Ptolemy) was also known as Heliopolis (where Moses was from). In Genesis (41:45 and 46:20) it is known as “Beth Shemesh” - the temple or city of the sun. Jeremiah (43:13) also agrees with the Egyptian name.

[364] The so called Babylon Fortress was an ancient fortress city located in the area known today as Coptic Cairo. It was situated in the Heliopolite Nome near the commencement of the Pharaonic Canal (also called Ptolemy's Canal and Trajan's Canal) which linked it with the Red Sea. The fort was expansive with forty foot high outer walls, two monumental gates, a moat, and a very successful port (taxes for river traffic and use of the canal were collected there). The fort's name has been a matter of controversy - the dominant is that the name was a corruption of the ancient Egyptian “per-hapi-n-On” (House of the Nile of On). See “Fort Babylon In Cairo” by Jimmy Dunn at .

[365] Other masonry material came from an immense stone wall of an ancient Hyksos camp which was close to the Onias settlement. See “Hyksos and Israelite Cities” by Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie, John Garrow Duncan, British School of Archaeology University College, London (1906) – the definitive archeological work on the area.

[366] “The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge” by Johann Jakob Herzog, Philip Schaff, Albert Hauck (1901), pp. 458-59.

[367] The intensely jealous Judeans altered “cheres” to “heres” to make “city of the sun” read “the city of destruction”. There is an issue regarding the timing of the related references – whether the reference was written before Onias came to Egypt or afterwards.

[368] An eight day celebration of songs and sacrifices.

[369] We don’t know how well Physcon distinguished Alexandrian from Oneon Jews, but we do know that but both Chelkias and Ananias, the sons of Onias, performed military service and acted as generals under Cleopatra III. (117-81; "Ant." xiii. 10, § 4). Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Onias did not suffer the same disfavor as most Alexandrian Jews.

[370] Although termed “the Babylonian”, this was an incorrect reading or misunderstanding – he was from Egypt.

[371] Josephus says that the Onias Temple had existed "343 years" at the time of its destruction, but it is clear that the text is corrupt and should have said 243 years (War, 7:10, 4).

[372] Other sources used for this section include: “A Dictionary of the Bible” by Sir William Smith, S.S. Scranton & Co. (1898); "Temple and Rival Temple: The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis" by Jorg Frey in Gemeinde Ohne Temple (1999); “Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue” by Bernadette Brooton (BJS 36, Chicho, Scholar’s Press – 1982) p. 78-83: Tombstone inscription at Leontopolis: “O Marin, priest (“hierisa”) and good friend to all.” (feminine forms) – a female priest?? (1982), pp. 73f, 88f, 134; “Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis” by Gideon Bohak, Atlanta (1996); “The Manners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians” by John Garner Wilkinson, Volume 3, London: John Murray (1837); “Building Jewish in the Roman East” by Peter Richardson, Baylor Univ. Press (2004) - Women in priestly roles – Therapeutae, sacrificed at temple, diagram. @ p. 168-175.

[373] These Tobiads were probably associated the servant mentioned by Nehemiah as an Ammonite (Neh. 2: 19) who consequently came from the Transjordan area and with the Tubieni, who were the enemies of the Jews. “Juden und Griechen vor der Makkabäischen Erhebung” by Hugo Willrich, Göttingen (1895), pp. 64–107. II Macc. 12:17; I Macc. 5:13.

[374] See intest/Hist1.htm. Hyrcanus never finished this facility and after he committed suicide in 175 BCE, it was taken over by Antiochus.

[375] See Covenants and Pillars of Ancient Judaism for more information.

[376] James the Just and John the Baptist stand out as examples.

[377] And Jeremiah said unto the house of the Rechabites, Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Because ye have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts, and done according unto all that he hath commanded you: (v. 19) Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not want a man to stand before me forever." Jeremiah 35:6-19.

[378] The derivation of the name Kenite is from “metal worker”.

[379] A fuller discussion of this important issue is contained in prior sections and within the Appendices.

[380] Part of this suggestion was based upon Hyrcanus' mother having been a captive of the Seleucids before his birth and therefore his Jewishness was uncertain.

[381] We should avoid the common mistake of thinking that the Qumranians wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls (although they may have written some of them) and that they represented the Essenes generally. It is difficult to “pigeonhole” the Qumranian groups and they represented only a very small portion of the Essenes.

[382] Enoch/Hanoch are related to the Hebrew "chinuch" = enlightenment, wisdom, spirituality.

[383] This was probably because the post-Destruction Jews (after 70 CE) were more Pharisaical and they opposed the Christian interpretation of Jesus as Messiah.

[384] For example, Mark wants to point out how excessively strict the Pharisees were by having them seek punishment of Jesus for healing a man's withered hand on the Sabbath (Mk. 3:1-6). However, no historical Rabbinic rule has been found according to which Jesus would have violated the Sabbath. The old Hasidæan Sabbath laws were extremely severe and the Shammaites (Sadducean leaning) adhered to them rigidly. But the more commonly accepted Pharisaical view was that of the Hillelites, who accepted: "Where a life is at stake the Sabbath law must give way" and "The Sabbath is handed over to you, not you to the Sabbath" (Mek., Ki Tissa). Jesus, followed the majority Pharisaical view and performed cures on the Sabbath (Mark ii. 27, iii. 1-16, and parallels; Luke xiii. 10-21, xiv. 1-8); “but that the Pharisees should on this account have planned his destruction, as the Gospels record, is absurd”. (Jewish Encyc.) Note Luke 6:4 in the Codex Bezae version where Jesus offers a genuinely Pharisaical view: “The same day, [Jesus] saw a certain man working on the Sabbath and said to him: ‘Man, if you know what you are doing, you are blessed. But, if you do not know, you are accursed, and a trespasser of the law’.”

[385] Wars II.8.2-13

[386] Different authors, often speaking with different accents and even languages, did not employ universal spelling when speaking of “Nazarenes” and thus, one finds many alternate forms: Nasarenes, Nazarenes, Nasarenes, Nasorenes, Nazaroi, Nazareaen, Nazarites, N'Tzrim, etc.

[387] "There is no such place as Nazareth in the Old Testament or in Josephus' works, or on early maps of the Holy Land." (Holley , 1994, p. 190). "There is, in fact, no record of Nazareth's existence at that [Jesus'] time...Nazareth is not to be found in any book, map, chronicle or military record of the period so far discovered." (Gardner, 2007, p. 53). ”There exists no epigraphic or archaeological evidence that a city called Nazareth even existed prior to 60 or 70 CE at the earliest… It was actually a tiny, unnamed collection of about a dozen huts near the town of Gat-Hyefer, and was never known by the name of Nazareth until it was picked by a fifth-century Christian Roman emperor to be ‘Nazareth’, because he was embarrassed by the fact that no town by that name actually existed."– "The Case Against 'The Case for Christ', Scott Bidstrup, (1998), p.102. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Jewish Old Testament, among the 63 towns named in the Talmud (the Jewish law code), the Apocrypha, nor in Paul’s letters. It does not appear in any early rabbinic literature. Nazareth was not included among the 45 cities of Galilee that were mentioned by Josephus (37 CE-100 CE), a widely traveled historian with ties to Galilee who voluminously described the region. Excavations by Benedict Vlaminck (1892), Prosper Viaud (1889-1909) and Bellarimo Bagatti (1950s) uncovered pre-Israelite, Canaanite tombs (2000-1000 BCE) and some Israelite tombs from about 200 BCE, but almost no evidence of habitation until after 135 CE. “Nazareth in History and Archaeology,” Jack Finegan.

[388] “καὶ ἐλθὼν κατῴκησεν εἰς πόλιν λεγομένην Ναζαρέτ• ὅπως πληρωθῇ τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν ὅτι Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται.” Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear). “The tradition that Jesus lived at one time in Nazareth rests upon a misinterpretation of the term Nazorean, which … is not derived from ‘Nazareth’.” J. Spencer Kennard Jr. from Benedict College.

[389] The northern Nazoreans were known as the B'nai-Amen, or "Children of God" whereas the southern Ossaeans were known as the B'nai-Zadok, or "Children of Zadok."

[390] Hillel was famously asked to summarize the Torah while standing on one foot and he replied: “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation.” (Shabbat 31a).

[391] “… the Therapeutae have all the characteristics of a Pythagorean Judaic sect..” “The Essenes and The Dead Sea Scrolls”, by Michael Baigent. © 2000. Epiphanius surmised that the "Jessasans" (Essenes/Nazoreans) were connected with the Therapeutae of Philo. (Har. xx and xxi).

[392] Baigent disagrees: “Vermes seems to consider that a link existed with the Alexandrian Therapeutae described by Philo in “On the Contemplative Life”, but in this he is undoubtedly in error since the Therapeutae have all the characteristics of a Pythagorean Judaic sect rather than of the Dead Sea Scroll sect. citing Vermes, ‘The Etymology of ‘Essenes’, Revue de Qumran, 7, ii (1960), p.439. From “The Essenes and The Dead Sea Scrolls”, by Michael Baigent. © 2000.

[393] Here, as elsewhere, it has seemed logical to rely heavily upon the closest and most knowledgeable source regarding the Jews – the Jews themselves. Thus, for more info, a good starting point would be: .

[394] "Such is he called who sanctifies himself, like the 'Nazir,' by abstaining from enjoyments otherwise permissible" Thus, the Essene Menahem bar Simai is called "son of the saints" (Pes. 104a).

[395] Pliny and Philo use "Essaeans." Hippolytus has "Essenus." Epiphanius also uses "Ossaei". We’ll use “Essenes”.

[396] The transition would result in from the Aramaic equivalent of hasidim (“pious”) - Hesi'im (or pl. hasya) - where the pronunciation emphasizes the middle syllable as it does with “Essene”.

[397] In Philo's dictionary of Hebrew names "Essene" is explained as "in silence" (Philo, "De Vita Contempla tiva," ed. Conybeare, p. 247).

[398] Or from the similar sounding Hebrew word אָסָא “asa”.

[399] This is NOT a group related in any meaningful way with more recent groups who share only the name.

[400] At various times during the reign of the Hasmoneans, Pharisees were killed or imprisoned by the hundreds for opposing the illegitimate Hasmonean High Priests.

[401] Note “From the Maccabees to the Mishnah” by Shaye J. D. Cohen (1989) pps. 171-73: describing differences, but concluding that “the overall resemblance of the two groups is remarkable.”

[402] One view was that under the Torah a slave could never be “clean” and to have one meant the owner was continuously (and impractically) forced to cleanse themselves. This view was not just that of the Essenes, but the Essenes were unwilling to take the steps others did to avoid the problem – such as hiring a gentile slave manager.

[403] But did not accept the “Keys of Enoch”.

[404] Adapted from a saying by Phinehas ben Jair as recorded in Ab. Zarah 20b.

[405] In the ‘Community Rule’ of the Essenes of Qumran, their goal is described as: “To prepare the way for the Messiah in the desert wilderness... to prepare the people to meet the Master.” In the New Testament, John declares: “I am a voice crying out in the desert wilderness, make straight the way of Yahweh.” (John 1:23).

[406] See “The Fortress at Qumran” at

[407] “The whole of these ruins stand on a commanding position, surrounded on all sides, and especially to the south, by steep declivities; at one point at the northwest corner, however, a narrow neck connects it with the plateau to the west. From this site, every point of the ‘Ain Feshkhah’ oasis and all its approaches can be overlooked; it is, also, a fresher, healthier station than any spot in the plain below…The site is just such a one as would have been chosen… to protect the springs and the road [below]… along the shore around Râs el-Feshkhah.” "Ain el-Feshkhah, el-Hajar, el-Asbah, and Khurbet Kumrân" by Ernest William Gurney Masterman, (1902), 162.

[408] For a good start in learning more about the Dead Sea Scrolls, try and to read portions of the scrolls, I suggest:

[409] That assumption is far from certain, especially since we know that some of the manuscripts pre-date the community.

[410]For a pictorial “tour” of the site, see .

[411] “Tzedek” has become almost universally translated as “righteousness”, but may also mean “justice” and is so translated in the Talmud. In the Kiddushin (71A), there is an enigmatic statement that the “secret Names of God” were entrusted to the Tzanua (modest person) of the priesthood. (Ibid page 40 also B. Kiddushin 71A, Eccl. R. iii. 11; Yer. Yoma 39d, 40a).

[412] In the “Manual of Discipline”, it is said that the Qumranians were without their leader for 20 years.

[413] Simon was caught in the struggle between Rome and Syria and correctly sided with Rome. He was also elderly, so the Hassidim may have thought his rule would end soon.

[414] The name “Hyrcanus” is somewhat mysterious (perhaps meaning “escapee”), but Yohanan Girhan’s choice of using a Hellenized regal name started a precedent that his descendants followed – much to the chagrin of orthodox Jews and the Hassidim..

[415] Although the international situation was again in doubt as the Syrians had started another war (in 136 BCE) which involved Simon’s son-in-law Ptolemeus. Ptolemeus invited Simon to dine with him at the fortress of Docus (near Jericho) and then killed Simon and his two oldest sons, Mattathias and Judah. John was the next oldest son.

[416] The unique layout and structures of Qumran, with ritual baths, many large halls, and the relatively small number of living-quarters points to its serving as a center for gatherings. It probably had fewer than 40 permanent residents most of this period.

[417] While Hyrcanus’ wife Salome was given regal control after his death, his son Judas Aristobulus was given the High Priesthood.

[418] See “Qumran and the Essenes: a re-evaluation of the evidence” by Lena Cansdale (1997), p.79.

[419] We don’t know the number of Qumranians, but the dining hall could seat about 150. The number appears to have varied over time from a few to a couple of hundred.

[420] The title adopted by the family and followers of Jesus after his death – the Ebionites.

[421] Within their Manual of Discipline, the three most common names are: Hasidim, Zenu’im and Anav. See “Jesus the Pharisee, A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus”, by Rabbi Harvey Falk (1985), p. 41).

[422] See Yalḳ. Mekiri to Ps. xviii. 36; Yalḳ. to II Sam. xxii. 36; cf. Sifre, Deut. 49.

[423] Tan., Wa'era, ed. Buber, 3.

[424] Bones found in jars were likely from animals “sacrificed” for leather – the material used for their writing.

[425] There is scant evidence to suggest that balsam (oil) was also produced or processed at the site.

[426] “The library of Qumran: on the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus” by Hartmut Stegemann (1998), p.52.

[427] Two years after this section was written, Reza Aslan released his book “Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”, Random House (2013). It offers worthwhile additional content and analysis - taking the position that Jesus was a zealot for God but not the Zealot Party. See also the odd book by Michael Biagent: “The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History”, Harper One (2007) where he argues that the Zealots directly opposed Jesus who was one of them but betrayed them in the end.

[428] In Luke 6:15, one of Jesus' apostles is called "Simon the Zealot" (not the same as Simon Peter). Most scholars now agree that in the epithet “Judas Iscariot” the "Iscariot" is a Hellenized transformation of “sicarius” (changing the suffix to denote membership).

[429] We know that the Apostles carried weapons, acted instinctively with violence (John 18:10), and that Jesus wasn’t adverse to violent action or the use of weapons (Luke 22:36,38; Matt. 21:12; John 2:12-25).

[430] The Sicarii were more than assassinators as indicated by the fact that after the fall of the Temple (70 CE), the Sicarii became the dominant Jewish revolutionary party. See Josephus' Jewish War (VII).

[431] The “Zealots” were also called “the Kanna'im" - the collective name for Jews who were “zealous” for the sanctity of the Torah (Law).

[432] As preserved by Hippolytus and cited in "Origenis Philosophumena sive Omnium Hæresium Refutatio," ix. 26 (ed. Dunker, 1859, p. 482).

[433] Antigonus II Mattathias was the last Hasmonean (independent) king of Judea. In 40 BCE, he bribed the Parthians to assist him in seizing Judea by force (with additional assistance from his brother-in-law, Ptolemy Mennei).

[434] He was the last of the Tobiad Lineage.

[435] Not to be confused with another Judas who was also involved in the revolt following Herod’s death.

[436]Josephus reports that his “partner was the Pharisee Zaddok,” but we know nothing more about him.

[437] Judas’ son, Menahem, became the leader of the Sicarii and for a time had much power; he was finally slain by the high-priestly party ("B. J." ii. 17, §§ 8-9). Two other sons, Jacob and Simon, were crucified by Tiberius Alexander ("Ant." xx. 5, § 2).

[438] See “Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: a sociological approach” by Anthony J. Saldarini (2001).

[439] Graham N. Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus, The Oxford Bible Series (1989), paperback, p. 241.

[440] Simon bar Shetah, brother of Queen Salome and a leading Pharisee, was not afraid to tell King Jannaeus that he was wrong. Under the influence of the Sadducees, Jannaeus had him banished, but after he nearly lost his reign (and life) under a popular revolt (around 85 BCE), Jannaeus followed his wife’s urging and appointed Rabbi Simon as head (Nasi) of the Sanhedrin. Simon promptly appointed Pharisees to replace Sadducees and winnowed the Sadducees out of the Priesthood. Equally important (especially over the long term) the Pharisees regained control over the Jewish educational system (the “Golden Age” of Judaism). Although they would last for another 200 years and enjoy periods of resurgence, the Sadducees would never again regain the same level of power or influence.

[441] Luke uses the specific Greek term for "lawyer" – nomikos (Luke 7:30; 10:25; etc.) whereas Mark and Matthew use "scribe" –grammateus.

[442] The word "Sadducees" approximates the Hebrew tsaddiqim ("righteous ones") and may refer to the way they wanted to be thought of.

[443] Thus when Hezekiah put a question to the priests and Levites generally, the answer was given by Azariah, "the chief-priest of the house of Zadok" (2 Chron. 31:10) and Ezekiel pre-eminently distinguishes "the sons of Zadok," and " the priests and the Levites of the seed of Zadok," as the faithful guardians of the Lord's sanctuary (Kzek. xl, 46; xliii, 19; xliv, 15; xlviii, 11).

[444] According to at least one scholar, the Sadducees operated the Temple at On - discussed in Appendices VII and XV. It seems much more likely that it was the Boethusians. (“Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash”, G. Stemberger (1999), pp. 431-434).

[445] Antigonus is one of the first prominent Jews to be known only by his Greek name.

[446] Perhaps the source of the Sadducee name.

[447] It is rather strange and ironic that some would suggest that the Sadducees got their start with Antigonus since his teachings have a distinctive Pharisaic character.

[448] Herod wanted to marry his daughter Mariamne - a mésalliance (Josephus, "Ant." xv. 9, § 3; xix. 6, § 2).

[449] Their patriarch, Onias III, had been murdered by the Hellenists/Sadducees.

[450] Note the references to the friends and court officials of Herod at Mark 6:21, 26, Matt 14:1-12 & Luke 23:7-12.

[451]In the census of Ezra (2:36–39; Neh. 7:39–41) upon return from Exile, only four priestly families were listed with a total of 4,289 priests – about 10% of the total number of Jews counted.

[452] 1 Chron. 24:2-6.

[453] The primary function of the priests centered on the offering of sacrifices; where several thousand animals had to be prepared and/or burnt every day. Because these animals had to be ritually killed and prepared, a large percentage of priests acted as butchers on any given day (the daily duties were assigned by “lot” so each course had to be skilled in each area of service).

[454] There are widely divergent estimates on the population of Jerusalem during this period, but it is highly unlikely that more than 30,000 lived within the city walls (about 230 acres).

[455] Moses is said to have transmitted this oral law to Joshua; Joshua in turn to the seventy Elders; the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets to the Great Synagogue (Rabbis). The Talmud is viewed as a codification of the oral law, and is just as binding as the Torah itself.

[456] One of the earliest differences we know of related to the ketubah or marriage contract – the Sopherim favored new language which expanded the rights of women and promoted family stability.

[457] The term Zugot is also used to name this period – the (təqūphāth) hazZūghôth.

[458] Philo emphasized monotheistic doctrine (heis theos), and represented reason (logos) and wisdom (sophia) as emanations from God. His ideas became the core for Gnosticism.

[459] A cursory look at “Gnosticism” in the references will reveal great confusion regarding its meaning and application. One is forced to look beyond the more modern accretions to understand its merits.

[460] A fusion of ideas (coherence of dissenters) – most gnostic ideas were “borrowed” from existing religions.

[461] Gnostics thought that individuals could discover divine consciousness within themselves whereas Orthodox Jews believed that divine awareness was only given to priests and prophets.

[462] The ancient Egyptian “Book of Going Forth” describes the baptism of newborn children (based upon the power of water from the Nile). Ritual immersion was part of the initiation ceremony for the followers of Isis.

[463] Who are not the same as the followers of Mohammad called Sabians.

[464] The Syriac and Hebrew nouns derived from the same root are used to identify proselytes.

[465] Some of them became followers of Jesus, but others maintained that John was earlier and more important than Jesus.

[466] See the Mandaean Ginza Rba.

[467] "Midrash" is both a form of exegesis and mode of thought which goes beyond the literal or superficial to penetrate into the spirit of the matter, thereby deriving broader interpretation and deeper meaning. The Talmud compares midrashic exposition to a hammer which awakens the slumbering sparks in the rock (Sanh. 34b).

[468] His unusual lifestyle (as portrayed in the New Testament) is consistent with that of a Qumranian who has left the sect but honored his oath.

[469] The “Simonites”, see Appendix XXI. Note Origen, Against Celsus, 1.57.

[470] John had thirty apostles, of whom Simon Magus claimed to be the chief (Clementine, Recognitions, i. 60, ii. 8; ib. Homilies, ii. 23). If true, Jesus most certainly knew Simon.

[471] "[A]s we know from the recently edited Cologne Mani Codex, a Greek text from fourth or fifth century Egypt… this community [Elkesaite] had specifically Jewish traditions, apparently going back as far as the Qumran community. Though rooted in that tradition, it regarded itself as a Christian community as far back as its founder Elchesaios, who must have preached his message around 100 A.D. Gnostic tendencies may have already had an impact on the thinking of the community…", “Gnosis on the Silk Road” by Hans Joachim Klimkeit (1993).

[472] Epiphanius specifically identified Nazarenes with the “Daily Baptists” or Hemerobaptists.

[473] Mandæans specifically call their doctrine and their priestly caste “Nasurai” and their chosen name is Nasoraeans, meaning those who “watch over”, “guard”, or “protect”. They were “keepers” of the sacred secret knowledge.

[474] They practiced repeated immersions unlike the single initiation ceremony in Christianity. It is also interesting that the Essenes were known to welcome the rise of the sun with ceremony and prayer (and practice repeated baptisms).

[475] “Blessed are you Poor Ones, for yours is the Kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20 from “The Original Aramaic New Testament in Plain English”; probably based upon Isaiah 66:2).

[476] “A Collection of Sermons and Tracts…”, Vol. 3 by John Gill (1767), p. 538.

[477] “The Hebrew Yeshua vs. the Greek Jesus: New Light on the Seat of Moses from Shem-Tov's Hebrew Matthew” by Nehemia Gordon (2005), pp. 23-28. Also note “As It Is Written: A Brief Case for Karaism” by Shawn Lichaa; Nehemia Gordon; and Meir Rekhavi (2006).

[478] The Pharisees were considered by the common Jews to be the trusted teachers and guardians of the Torah (Law).

[479] Babylon was used to denote several areas outside of Judea and we are unsure where Hillel was born. It may well have been Alexandria. We don’t know the year of his birth: he died in 10 CE at the reported age of 120 years.

[480] The distinction involved the two types of Jewish converts: the Ger Tzedek and the Ger Toshav. The Ger Tzedek converted to Judaism by accepting the God of Israel and agreeing to accept and follow all 613 commandments of the Torah, including circumcision and ritual immersion. The Ger Toshav accepted the God of Israel but only agreed to follow and observe the seven ancient Noahide Commandments.

[481] Recall that most Gentiles of the time were what some would term “pagans”.

[482] Hillel suggested that his appointment as Nasi was mostly due to the fact that no other candidate was considered a man of sufficient learning and integrity. (Avot 2:5). “Where there are no men, strive to be a man.”

[483] It was this “Menahem the Essene” that was identified by Josephus (“War”, 2:159) and Rabbi Jehiel Heilprin (Seder Ha-Dorat 2:271) who prophesized to Herod that he would rise to power over Judea. Also note ("Ant." 15:10, § 5).

[484] Who was chosen as Nasi after the fall of Jerusalem to the Roman armies in 70 CE.

[485] For an interesting and well-considered discussion, see“Jesus the Pharisee, A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus”, Rabbi Harvey Falk, (1985), pps. 49-50).

[486] See “Darke-ha mishnah” by Zacharias Frankel, (Leipzig, 1859).

[487] The decrees were termed 'Gezeyra' or “gezerot” from 'Gezer', indicating that they were necessary to ensure the future of the Jewish nation and included kashrut gezerot that exist to this day.

[488] For example, the 18th Measure prohibited Jewish boys from playing with Gentile boys because the Gentile boys practice sodomy. See “The Illustrated Mishnayoth Shabbath” by ʻOvadyā Berṭinôrâ (1999) pp. 20-23.

[489] It is likely that Jesus was referring to this event in a scathing rebuke of those Pharisees in Matthew 23.

[490] From Exodus 32:1-10: an idol that led the Jews away from God.

[491] Simeon is not quoted or discussed once in the Talmudic literature, indicating that that he had no say in the affairs of the Sanhedrin.

[492] Rabbi Hillel had argued that "If a vessel's outer part was rendered unclean ... its inner part ... remains clean. But if its inner part becomes unclean the whole is unclean" (Mishnah Kelim 25:6).

[493] The Roman hierarchy placed Judea in the control ("jus gladii”) of the Syrian Legate, but since Herod had the title “Basileus” (Greek Βασιλεύς), he answered directly to the Imperator (Emperor).

[494] In a significant historical irony, Herod was probably saved because he was so busy meeting the demands of Cleopatra that he wasn’t able to assist Mark Anthony at the battle of Actium (31 BCE) where Octavian prevailed over Anthony

[495] Jesus ben Phabi succeeded Hananeel the Egyptian, Herod’s first and third appointee to the office. It is likely that the two were related – Phabi may have been the brother of Hananeel and served as his Av Beit Din.

[496] The Great Sanhedrin was a tribunal body consisting of three chambers: the Chamber of the Chief Priests; the Chamber of the Scribes; and the Chamber of the Elders (sometimes called counsellors). These three chambers were divided into 23 members each, which when combined constituted a body of 69 members.

[497] Jacob had represented Herod before Octavian (before he was made Emperor Augustus) at Rhodes and was credited with convincing the new Emperor to keep Herod as king even though he had supported Octavian’s rival Mark Antony until his death.

[498] Until Herod, the tradition had become that of having the Zugot stand at the at the head of the Sanhedrin – one as Nasi and the other as Av Beit Din. Since Herod’s restructuring of the Sanhedrin, the Zugot were still prominent as “schools”.

[499] The term scribe (skrīb) was used in different ways: earlier as a specific reference to the sopherin (counters of the Torah) and later to mean any quasi-official interpreter of the law. Scribes could be Sadducees, Pharisees, or belong to any group. We should not mistake the NT translations/interpretations in this regard as many do (Jesus referred to his followers who would go to proclaim the truth as "scribes" (Matt 23:34). Hillel, Nicodemus, and Gamaliel were scribes as was the young “ruler” who Jesus told "Thou art not far from the kingdom of God," (Mark 12:32-34).

[500] The Roman army had an incredibly “flat” hierarchy - the legion commanders (“legati”) reported directly to the head of the civil administration, usually a provincial governor or “legatus Augusti pro praetor”, who reported directly to the Emperor (there was no army general staff).

[501] Herod distrusted his family enough that he formed his royal bodyguard from German, Celtic, and Thracian mercenaries – one explanation for his longevity.

[502] While he was governor of Galilee (49-43 BCE), Herod had killed Hezekiah. Judas (Judah) of Gamala, also called Theudas, was one of the many insurgent leaders who arose in Palestine shortly after the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE. He marched on Sepphoris with over 2,000 rebels, seized its arsenal and triumphed until Varus, the Roman legate, defeated him, burned Sepphoris to the ground, and sold its inhabitants into slavery.

[503] He denounced the Sadducees and Pharisees as a "generation of vipers," and warned them not to assume their heritage gave them special privilege. He warned tax collectors and soldiers against extortion and plunder. His doctrine and manner of life stirred interest, bringing people from all parts to see him on the banks of the Jordan River. (Luke 3:8).

[504] Such as Philo Judeaus of Alexandria.

[505] Simon of Peraea (aka Simon bar Joseph) – see and .

[506] Such as Gamaliel the Elder, the grandson of Hillel and Simon Magnus.

[507] A great source for more information is .

[508] The minimum size of a "community" is 10, but since Exodus 23:2 states that a simple majority cannot convict an additional judge is required. (10+10+1+1=22, but an even number can deadlock, thus 23 members.

[509] The Mishna is the codified version of the sixty-three tractates of the Jewish Oral Law. Here, Mishna Sanhedrin 1:6.

[510] Semikhah ordination began with God’s instruction to Moshe Rabbeinu (Rabbi Moses): “Take Joshua son of Nun, a man of spirit, and lay your hands on him.” (Num. 27:15-23, Deut 34:9).

[511] "History of the Jewish People", Vol. I (2nd Temple Era) by Rabbi Hersh Goldwurm, the ArtScroll History Series by Mesorah (based on Yekutiel's Friedner's Divrei Yemei HaBayis HaSheni) (1986), pp. 56-58.

[512] From both Josephus and the Book of Maccabees. See also, “Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh” by Lester L. Grabbe, Routledge (2000), p. 59 ff.

[513] Josephus uses “συνέδριον” for the first time in connection with this decree ("Ant." xiv. 5, § 4). But we are fairly certain the term was used prior to that. See JE referencing Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament at .

[514] citing HOJP I, pp.142-143. See also .

[515] HOJP I, pp.144-146.

[516] JE:Sanhedrin

[517] Statement of Principles for Reform Judaism, adopted at the 1999 Pittsburgh Convention, Central Conference of American Rabbis.

[518] JE citing R. Meïr as derived from Lev. 18:5; II Sam.7:19; Isa. 26:2; Ps. 33:1, 68:20, 75:4.

[519] The specially knotted ritual fringes worn by observant Jews attached to the four corners of their tallit (prayer shawl). See Num 15:38 and Deut. 22:12. It is intended to remind Jews of their religious obligations.

[520] The scriptural names for God (or the Mashiach) indicate the diverse conception of the Hebrew God: Everlasting Father - Isaiah 9:6, Foundation - Isaiah 28:16, Fountain - Zechariah 13:1, Guide - Psalm 48:14, High Priest - Hebrews 3:1, Holy One of Israel - Isaiah 41:14, I Am - Exodus 3:14, Jehovah (YAHWEH) - Psalm 83:18, Mighty - Isaiah 9:6, Purifier - Malachi 3:3, Redeemer - Isaiah 41:14, Refiner - Malachi 3:2, Refuge - Isaiah 25:4, Righteousness - Jeremiah 23:6, Rock - Deuteronomy 32:4, Rose of Sharon - Song of Solomon 2:1, Savior - 2 Samuel 22:47, Servant - Isaiah 42:1, Shiloh - Genesis 49:10, Stone - Isaiah 28:16, , Wonderful Counselor - Isaiah 9:6.

[521] In Mark 12:40-42 and Luke 20:47; 21:2 Jesus accuses the Temple authorities of thieving and names poor widows as their victims as they could not afford grander sacrifices and had to buy doves (at inflated Temple prices). According to Mark 11:16, Jesus then put an embargo on people carrying any merchandise through the temple—a sanction that would have disrupted all commerce within the Temple precincts.

[522] "Thought You Would Want to Know" by Rabbi Ya'acov Farber, CMY Newsletter, Vol. 9 No. 10 (Jun 10, 2004).

[523] See “Ancient to Modern Jewish Classification Systems: An Overview from the Beit HaMikdash Temple Archive to H.A. Wolfson, G. Scholem, A. Freidus, D. Elazar, & LC”, by David B. Levy at .

[524] It is from the “heiron” or the court of the Gentiles that Jesus expelled the money-changers and merchants. See “The Temple Mount and Fort Antonia” at .

[525] At the end of each seven year cycle and of seven Sabbatical years (“Shmita”), a collection of scriptural laws were applied. Lev. Ch. 25) whereby slaves would be liberated, land is left to lie fallow, and personal debts which are due during that year are considered nullified and forgiven. See also Ex. 23:10-11; Deut. 15:1-6.

[526] “Temple Cleansing and Temple Bank” by Neill Q. Hamilton, Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Dec., 1964), pp. 365-372.

[527] “Word Studies in the New Testament”, Vol. I, Marvin R. Vincent, Hendrickson Publishers (1985) p.50.

[528] Nehemiah 2:8, 7:2.

[529] Before Herod rebuilt the Temple complex, the High Priest resided in the Baris. See also Ant. 15:11:4.

[530] The name was actually Astoreth Tower but was corrupted in early texts.

[531] One estimate states that there are over 60 miles of tunnels and caves beneath the complex with one going all the way to En Gedi (40 miles).

[532] I have relied heavily upon the “Jewish Encyclopedia” and within this section.

[533] Scripture stated emphatically that every new high priest must be anointed and commands that the official garments worn by his predecessor shall be worn by the new incumbent while he is anointed and during the seven days of his consecration (Lev. 21:10; Ex. 29:29ff; Comp. Num. 20:28; Ps. 133:2).

[534] One could succeed as High priest via a collateral line only if the minimal fitness requirements were fulfilled (ib. 20; Ket. 103b; Sifra, Ḳedoshim).

[535] Which was not true, as we see below.

[536] The High Priest was distinguished by the fact that his sins were regarded as belonging also to the people (Lev. iv. 3, 22) and on the Day of Atonement, he atoned for both his house and for the people (Lev. xvi.).

[537] There was an obvious exception during the reign of Salome Alexandra and the circumstances were much different under the Romans.

[538] When the Temple existed, most services (i.e. the korbanot) could only be conducted by kohanim. Non-kohen Levites (i.e. all those who descended from Levi, the son of Jacob, but not from Aaron) performed a variety of other Temple roles, including washing the hands and feet of the kohanim before services.

[539] As examples, Zechariah (father of John the Baptist) belonged to the Abijah course. Josephus, the Jewish historian, was also a priest of the Jehoiarib course.

[540] Since the Jewish calendar had only 51 weeks in a year and each of the 24 courses served twice a year plus 3 weeks they all served, their schedule filled a normal year. However, every 2 or 3 years there is a leap year which adds a leap month. We don’t know how these extra days were handled.

[541] "How is it that this man has learning, when he has never studied?" John 7:16.

[542] The event which is described near the beginning of John (John 2:13–16) probably describe the same event although John’s account includes more than one Passover.

[543] From a remarkable model of the Temple by Alec Gerrard. See

[544] Deuteronomy 23:2: “A mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of Yehowah; even the tenth generation shall not enter into the assembly of Yehowah.” See “Jesus and Archaeology” edited by James H. Charlesworth, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (2006), pp. 62-63.

[545] For a complete scriptural history of the Ark, see .

[546] Other names found within these Mishnahs include: Ezra the Cohen (priest) the scribe, Hilkiyah the Scribe (Mishnah 7), Beruch ben (son of) Neriah with Zidkiyah (Mishnah 9 and 10), and Hiluk, the son of Shimur HaLevi (Mishnah 12).

[547] See

[548] The claims that Ron Wyatt unearthed the Ark are worse than spurious. See for a good example of how to mislead the uninformed. Although the earliest written copies of Masonic ritual state that the ancient masons found the Ark of the Covenant hidden in a cave under the site of King Solomon's Temple, we should also reject that hoax. See “In Search of Temple Treasures: The Lost Ark and the Last Days” by Randall Price, Harvest House (1994).

[549] The text of the Pesach Seder is written in a book called the Haggadah which tells the story of the Exodus from Egypt and explains some of the practices and symbols of the holiday. See .

[550] The construction of the Ark was commanded while the Jews were still camped at Sinai (Ex. 25:10-22; 37:1-9).

[551] Shewbread was literally "the bread of the Presence" consisting of twelve loaves which corresponded to the twelve tribes of Israel.

[552] Ex. 25-30.

[553] "And you shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give you.” Ex. 25:16. Some think that this included the manna, but see 1 Kings 8:9.

[554] ‘Take an omer of manna (a portion for one person) and keep it for the generations to come, so they can see the bread I gave you to eat in the desert when I brought you out of Egypt.’” (Ex. 16:32).

[555] ‘Put back the staff of Aaron before the testimony, to be kept as a sign for the rebels, that you may make an end of their grumblings against me, lest they die.’” (Numbers 17:10)

[556] To exemplify how much this loss meant, the priest Eli fell off his seat and died when he heard the news of its loss. (1 Sam. 4:12-18).

[557] See also .

[558] The priests had removed the Ark from the Temple to avoid profanation and carried it between safe places in the country. Josiah’s decree brought it back to the Temple and specifically forbade them to carry it around again (the “burden on their shoulders”), (2 Chron. 35:3).

[559] One of the three related Jewish Deuterocanonical books.

[560] See “The Old and New Testament connected: The history of the Jews and Neighbouring Nations” by Dr. Humphrey Prideaux, Knaplock & Tonson, 1725, pps. 220-222.

[561] “The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History, AD 284-813”, translated by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott with contributions by Geoffrey Greatrex, Clarendon Press , 1997.

[562] _romana/imperialfora/vespasian/judaeacapta.html.

[563] See also .

[564] See “The Logic of the Mitzvot” based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe at

[565] See more at: .htm#sthash.huDa4GTS.dpuf.

[566] Hillel the Elder considered that the act of bathing is an act of caring for the vessel containing the divine spirit (Lev. R. 34:3).

[567] “Tum'ah” (טָמְאָה = "impurity") is the state of ritual impurity.

[568] For a well written analysis see “Clean and Unclean Meats” by William H. Shea, Biblical Research Institute (1998) available at

[569] For a full explanation, try “The laws of kashrus: a comprehensive exposition of their underlying concepts and applications” by Rabbi Binyomin Forst, Artscroll (1993), p. 32 et seq.

[570]

[571] “Kishmo ken hu” -"Like his name, so is he" (1 Samuel 25:25).

[572] Talmud - Brachot 7b; Arizal - Sha'ar HaGilgulim 24b.

[573] One-sixtieth of prophecy - an angel whispers to the parents the Jewish name that the new baby will embody.

[574] “Papponymy” was practiced more often than “Patronymy” or “Matronymy” and is the basis of this priority. The recurrence of names made nicknames essential. See “Families and Family Relations: As Represented in Early Judaisms and Early Judaisms and Early Christianities: Texts and Fictions”; Papers Read at a NOSTER Colloqium in Amsterdam, June 9-11, 1998 by Jan Willem Van Henten, Athalya Brenner, Uitgeverij Van Gorcum (2000).

[575] Leah named her son Yehudah because the word it comes from has the meaning "thanks." Leah wanted to particularly express her "thanks to God." (Genesis 29:35). (The Hebrew letters of Yedudah can be rearranged to spell out יהוה (YHWH), the holy Name of God). Reuben (ראובן) means "Look, a son."

[576] Which became “bar” in Aramaic and Syriac.

[577] Sources for this section include… A_Name.shtml which reprinted from “Celebration and Renewal: Rites of Passage in Judaism”, edited by Rela M. Geffen (Jewish Publication Society). See also .

[578] It was the custom of the Jews, to whom tribal and family descent meant so much, to keep copies of the genealogical records of the people in the public archives. Josephus, in De Vita, §1, draws his own lineage from the public archives; and cf. Contra Apion. I. 7.

[579] “A few of the careful, however, having obtained private records of their own, either by remembering the names or by getting them in some other way from the registers, pride themselves on preserving the memory of their noble extraction. Among these [we]re… the relatives of the Saviour according to the flesh [who] drew the aforesaid genealogy from memory and from the book of daily records as faithfully as possible.” The Church History of Eusebius (Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine)(7:14).

[580] The Torah (“Written Torah”) contains formal legal principles (called "Halakhah") and many other important moral and philosophical lessons (called "Aggadah"). The Talmud and related works ("Oral Torah") contain historical, narrative, and teaching material largely derived from the "Written Torah" by the method of interpretation known as "Midrash". The collection of works known as the "Midrash" summarize the non-Halachic material in the Talmud.

[581] See “The Midrashic Imagination: Jewish exegesis, thought, and history” by Michael A. Fishbane (1993).

[582] A method of interpretation.

[583] As opposed to the "Midrash": a work that summarizes the non-Halachic material in the Talmud.

[584] Another way to view midrashic thought is to form understanding based upon thematic recapitulation - where a pattern of events replays the same theme repeatedly.

[585] There is no equivalent to “civil adoption” in Jewish law, which requires the adopters to assume all rights and responsibilities towards the child, becoming the legal parents in every way. In fact, there is no word in classical Hebrew that means "adoption”. The word "ametz" ("a branch transplanted to another tree") is used in modern times (see Psalms 80:15-16).

[586] This is not a Hebrew word; it is from the Latin “levir" (a husband's brother), and refers to an ancient custom.

[587] The restriction involving marriage within one’s tribe concerned only heiresses and the penalty for choosing otherwise was merely forfeiture of their inheritance of tribal property (cf. Josephus, Ant. IV. 7. 5).

[588] The debate regarding Mary’s inheritance and tribe is generally based upon an out-of-context misreading of this text. The land (and only the inherited land) had to remain within its original tribe because that division was ordained by God (and maintaining the integrity of tribal boundaries was at stake).

[589] Sumerian text Gudea statute B [c. 2150 b.c.]; Alalakh [eighteenth century b.c.]; Nuzi; and Emar). Matthews, V. h., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary : Old Testament (electronic ed.) (Nu 27:11). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[590] Using, in part, Munster's Hebrew Gospel.

[591] For example, when a Gentile or a slave had has a child with a Jewish woman, the result was a mamzer (Qiddushin 70a). Also note Nehemiah 6:17-18.

[592] See also Mishna Yebamoth 8:3. Note “Jesus and Archaeology” edited by James H. Charlesworth, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing (2006), pp. 86 et seq.

[593] Who seemed particularly aware of the social problems inherent in a broader interpretation of mamzerut status.

[594] Who also broadened the grounds for finding mamzerut status to include adultery.

[595] “This mishnaic tractate cites Deuteronomy 23:2 explicitly, moving into a case of adulterous relations by way of application of the statute. The connection of ideas is easy to follow because the themes of virginity, adultery, rape, and incest are developed in Deuteronomy (22:13-30) just before the mention of the mamzer; the punishment for such crimes (sometimes expressly demanded in this chapter of Deuteronomy) is stoning.” “The Mamzer Jesus and His Birth” by Bruce Chilton (2005) at .

[596] Among my key sources for this section were:“The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes” by Herbert Danby, Oxford University Press (1933). “Rabbi Jesus: An Intimate Biography” by Bruce Chilton. Doubleday (2002), pp. xxii + 330. “Jesus as Mamzer: A Response to Bruce Chilton's Reconstruction of the Circumstances Surrounding Jesus' Birth in ‘Rabbi Jesus’” by Charles Quarles at Bulletin for Biblical Research 14.2 (2004) 243-255. “The Mamzer Jesus and His Birth” by Bruce Chilton (2005) at .

[597] My best resource for this section was “The Criminal Code of the Jews: According to the Talmud, Massecheth Synhedrin” by Philip Berger Benny. As usual, Wikipedia helps frame the discussion (but is not a “valid witness”).

[598] There are at least 32 such offenses with four different means of execution.

[599] Jewish legal scholar Rabbi Moses ben Maimon (aka “Maimonides”) in his Mishneh Torah - Hilchoth Sanhedrin (12th century). According to Misnah, “The Sanhedrin3 that executes one person in seven years is called ‘murderous’." Tractate Makkoth (7a).

[600] See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Book of Judges, Sanhedrin, chapter XII.

[601] Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin, page 17a. Also Maimonidies, ibud, Ch. 9. See .

[602] See “Revolution in Judea: Jesus and the Jewish resistance” by Hyam Maccoby, Ocean Books (1973), p. 202 ff. and “The life of Jesus” by Marcello Craveri (translated by Charles Lam Markmann), Secker & Warburg (1967), p. 380.

[603] Sanh. 52b, 84b, 89a – as a more humane and less mutilating punishment. Also note .

[604]Emph. Added…

[605]

[606] Because 1 Enoch (1 En 1:9) is quoted in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14–15) some believe that it should be considered canonical. See .

[607] Mysticism has various conceptions, but as used here it refers specifically to the spiritual quest for union with God and the perception of God’s essence (“oneness”) and centers upon the belief that direct knowledge of God (as an inspired spiritual truth) can be attained through non-objective experiences.

[608] Note "The Freedom" by Yehuda Ashlag, "Baal HaSulam" and see .

[609] These originate from I Chronicles 29:11(as translated from the Hebrew): “Yours, oh Lord, is the greatness (gedulah), the strength (gevurah), the glory (tiferet), the power (netzach), and the majesty (hod). The other six are the crown (Keter), wisdom (Chokhmah, understanding (Binah), mercy (Chesed), foundation (Yesod) and sovereignty (Malkut). See for a 24 part introductory course. Note that the Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism were traditionally not taught to people until the age of 40, when they had completed their education in the Torah and Talmud.

[610] Perhaps working from ideas of Pythagoras regarding the numerical relationships of spheres, the Phonecian letters, symbols of the Egyptian gods, and cosmic "elements".

[611] See Sefer Yetzirah 1:1.

[612] “Number: The Language of Science” by Thomas Danzig, Plume (2007), p.42 – a masterpiece on the history of numbers.

[613] See “The Mysticism of Jesus and of Paul” by John W. Buckham, The Biblical World, The University of Chicago Press, Vol. 41, No. 5, May, 1913, pp. 309-14 at : “When we approach Jesus with the measuring wand of mysticism, we are not left long in doubt as to the positive character of the result. Evidences of the presence of the mystical in Jesus are undeniable, even in the Synoptic Gospels. One can hardly think of him at all without feeling his intimate mystic sense…”

[614] Available at ).

[615] “The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation”, Monograph of the Hebrew Union College 2:, S.H. Levey, Cincinnati (1974), pp.142f. (as derived from the Jewish Targums).

[616] "The Hidden History of Jesus and the Holy Grail", Sir Laurence Gardner, (lecture notes, 30 April 1997).

[617] See Zarathushtra’s Yasna 30.3-5, Hom Yasht 30:9 and related.

[618] Here we can see the evolving concept in the newer texts of Jewish scripture. The original Hebrew text of Genesis 49:10 reads: “The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs and the obedience of the nations is his.” However, in the Greek (LXX) version, it reads: “A ruler shall not fail from Judah, or a prince from his loins, until there come the things stored up for him; and he is the expectation of the nations.”

[619] In Hebrew the name comes from the successor to Moses and means “Yahweh helps”, “Yahweh saves”, or “Yahew is salvation”). It was commonly shortened to Yeshua or Yeshu and generally meant “freedom”. Yehoshua III ben Phabet was Mary’s grandfather.

[620] Aristobulus I was nicknamed "the Greek-lover"; and although he compelled the Ituraeans and the inhabitants of Galilee to be circumcised and to live according to the laws of the Jews (if they chose to remain in the territory), their culture was largely Hellenized. Ant. 13.301, 318.

[621] “Politics of Galilee” by Michael White, Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin, from Frontline: From Jesus to Christ at

[622] See generally: “Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of Jesus” by Mark Chancey, Cambridge University Press (2005). Josephus’ Antiquities is available at .

[623] Josephus says the crucifixions took place outside Jerusalem, but the Romans likely crucified many around Galilee to demonstrate their power and deter further revolt.

[624] “Jesus and the Forgotten City : New Light on Sepphoris and the Urban World of Jesus” by Richard Batey, Baker Publishing Group (1991),

[625] “Sepphoris: Sepphoris was the "ornament of all Galilee." by James F. Strange (University of South Florida) September, 2001 at .

[626] We will not follow the NT misdirection suggesting that Joseph was a “carpenter” (“tekton”) and that Jesus was a simple woodworker following his father’s trade. Aside from the claim of royal status and the wealth of their friends and relatives, the family of Jesus was incredibly pious and sagacious. One does not earn the title “Rabboni” through casual study at home (John 20:16). See .

[627] The dominant belief was that the clearest expression of God’s favor was blessings through health, wealth, and offspring.

[628] See Job 7:9 and Psalm 86:13.

[629] The Sadducees and Pharisees disagreed sharply concerning angels, souls, and resurrection with the Sadducees holding the more traditional views. “[The Sadducees] would not accept the Pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection (Sanh. 90b; Mark xii. 12; Ber. ix. 5, "Minim"), which was a national rather than an individual hope. As to the immortality of the soul, they seem to have denied this as well (see Hippolytus, "Refutatio," ix. 29; "Ant." x. 11, § 7).” (JE).

[630] A place just beneath the earth’s surface where the righteous dwelt. Note Luke 16:19 et seq. and 23:43).

[631] Commonly viewed as the restored Garden of Eden. See “Hades, Hell,” by Richard Bauckham, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, Doubleday (1992), III:14.

[632] A concept further developed in 1 Enoch – a Jewish writing from the period between the Old and New Testaments which Jesus seemed to know.

[633] Clopas is likely a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name Alphaeus.

[634] “Messiah”, when used herein, refers to the Christian conception of a divine/spiritual savior. See the related section above.

[635] In Mark 14:61-62, we have the only NT reference in which Jesus is supposed to have acknowledged his being the Mashiach: telling the High Priest (during a trial no disciple could have witnessed): “I am [the Messiah, the son of the Holy One] and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven." Not only is it ridiculous to suggest that the High Priest would have worded his question in this manner, the question and answer obviously reflect Pauline doctrine.

[636] - actually in reference to John 10:31-32.

[637] A calendar obtained by extension earlier in time than its invention or implementation is called the "proleptic" version of the calendar and thus we have both proleptic Gregorian and proleptic Julian Calendars.

[638] Placing the Sun, not the Earth, at the center.

[639] The average length of a year in the Julian calendar is 365.25 days (one additional day being added every four years). The difference of the length of the Julian calendar year from the length of the solar year accumulates so that after about 131 years the calendar is out of sync with the equinoxes and solstices by one day. Thus, the Gregorian “calendar reform” in 1582 that omitted ten days and changed the rules for leap years.

[640] To be achieved by inserting two additional months between the end of November and the beginning of December.

[641] There were politics involved here since the Roman senate started its annual session on January 1st , the start of the Roman civil year.

[642] The idea of “Anno Domini” and “Before Christ” might be fine for those who view Jesus as God and Messiah, but is inappropriate for general use. Thus, we have “before the common era” (BCE) and the “common era” (CE).

[643] Of course, the Jews have their own calendar and dates can also be examined from it. See

[644] The First Council of Nicaea (325 CE) established that the date for Easter should be the first Sunday after the full moon (the “Paschal Full Moon”) following the northern hemisphere's vernal (spring) equinox. Ecclesiastically, that equinox is reckoned to be on 21 March (even though the equinox occurs, astronomically speaking, on 20 March in most years), and the "Full Moon" is not necessarily the astronomically correct date. Thus, the date of Easter therefore varies between 22 March and 25 April.

[645] Although this date is disputed – see “Herodian Messiah”, Jospeh Raymond, Tower Grove Pub., 2010, pp. 49-66.

[646] In 1839, David Strauss broke new ground in “Das Leben Jesu” (the Life of Jesus) by rejecting the Christian apologetic arguments and affirming that Luke's account was fiction:"we have before us two [Matthew and Luke] equally unhistorical narratives … composed … quite independently of each other… intended to show the birth of Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy.” See “Luke vs. Matthew on the Year of Christ's Birth” by Richard Carrier, Ph.D. (2006) at .

[647] One reference states that there were 83 Consuls during the entire reign of Augustus. It was an exclusive title.

[648] See .

[649] A Roman “Legatus Propraetor” was a consul or ex-consul who was generally appointed by the Emperor as governor of a Roman province with the magisterial powers of a praetor. In some cases, this gave him command of four or more legions (1/6th) of the Roman Army. In a province with only one legion, the Legatus was also the provincial governor, but in provinces with multiple legions, the provincial governor had overall command while each legion had its own Legatus.

[650] The governorship of the Syrian province was one of the top such positions because of its strategic importance and wealth. However, the regional procurators were often given great autonomy even though they were lower in rank.

[651] An inscription found in Antioch in the 1700s called the Lapis Tiburtinus. See below and Endnote #1.

[652] As indicated in a coin found in Antioch dated 4 CE. See “Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels” by Paton J. Gloag (2007), p. 281. Accord, “The history of the Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135)” by Emil Schürer, Géza Vermès, Fergus Millar (1885;1973; 2000), pp. 258-259.

[653] Justin (2nd Cent.) states that Quirinius was a “procurator” (i.e. “hegemon”) at the time of Jesus’ nativity, a note seldom mentioned by historians. Its implication is important because a procurator was normally a personal advocate of the emperor with special authority quite distinct from or beyond that of the residential governor. Some interpret this to refer to a position he held under the governorship of Sentius Saturninus where he could have conducted the census asserted by Tertullian (in “Against Marcion” 4:7) (3rd century). It’s a stretch.

[654] See and .

[655] "Thus in 6 or 7 C.E., Augustus commissioned the newly appointed Legate of Syria, Quirinius, to carry out the census." "The Jewish people in classical antiquity: from Alexander to Bar Kochba” by John Hayes, John Haralson, and Sara R. Mandell (1998) pp. 153-154.

[656] “The Expansion of the Empire under Augustus” by Erich S. Gruen in The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume X: The Augustan Empire, 43 BC - AD 69, (1996).

[657] From society/society.html.

[658] “The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge: embracing Biblical, historical, doctrinal, and practical theology and Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical biography from the earliest times to the present day” by Johann Jakob Herzog, Philip Schaff, and Albert Hauck (1908), p. 494.

[659] From a document written in Greek found in Egypt in 1905 dated to the end of the first century.

[660] “Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose (in the east) and have come to worship him.”(Matt. 2:2).

[661] Note "The Magi and the Star" by Simo Parpola in Bible Review, December 2001, p. 16-23, and p. 52 & 54 – suggesting a December date. See “The Pentecost Revolution: The Story of the Jesus Party in Israel” by Hugh Schonfield (1974) p. 55.

[662] For full discussion of this topic (that I partly disagree with), see “New Testament Chronology” by Kenneth F. Doig (1990), ch. 12.

[663] Tiberius assumed power as early as 4 CE (with the death of the heir Gaius Caesar and Augustus’ adoption of him). However, Augustus lived until either 10 or 14 CE. Some place the time of Tiberius’ reign as early as 1 CE under the practice of antedating imperial reigns. Since the Roman custom was to count the first full calendar year of an emperor's reign as year one, the start of Tiberius’ reign could range from 1 to 15 CE. Note .

[664] For analysis of the age of Jesus at baptism, see “At What Age Was Jesus Baptized?” By David Tidd at . I would argue that the date for the start of Tiberius’ reign is either 13 or14 CE depending upon how that is figured – from the date he was awarded the throne or the date he actually took control. See .

[665] “The Oxford Companion to the Year: An Exploration of Calendar Customs and Time-reckoning” by Bonnie Blackburn & Leofranc Holford-Strevens (2003) p.770.

[666] .

[667] Dating the death of Jesus has become increasingly important to those who are attempting to fix the prophesized “end-of-days”, “apocalypse” or “rapture”. They’ve been getting it wrong for 2,000 years using the same twisted logic and “facts”.

[668] I have relied heavily upon the timelines and dating of the Ryrie Study Bible (Expanded Edition – Moody Bible Institute) NASB (1995 Update).

[669] From St. Jerome’s (Hieronymous) Chronological Tables for Olympiads 170-203 (Armenian Translation).

[670] The Jewish Encyclopedia as reproduced at . (“JE”).

[671] Flavius Josephus, the Jewish-Roman Historian, “Josephus” hereafter. Cites to his primary works are noted only by “Ant.” For “Antiquities of the Jews”, “War” for Wars of the Jews”, and “Hist” for “History of the Jews”

[672] “The Biblical World”, Volume 10 edited by William Rainey Harper, Ernest De Witt Burton, Shailer Mathews (1897), p. 128. (“TBW”).

[673] Since almost all of the dates during the century of the Hasmoneans come from Josephus and the Books of the Macabbees, I will not cite these sources.

[674] Here I will begin denoting ancestors of Jesus with enhanced text.

[675] From , including .

[676] Philo was a contemporary of Jesus whose family had ties to the High Priesthood in Judea, the Hasmoneans, the Herodians, and the Julio-Claudian dynasty in Rome.

[677] Although Herod I dies in the spring of 4 BCE, his succession did not take effect until a year later.

[678] The term Tetrarchy (from the Greek for "leadership of four [people]") describes any form of government where power is divided among four individuals.

[679] In an obvious attempt to avoid an unpleasant truth, Josephus ignores the fourth ruler of the Tetrarchy (which is followed by the vast majority of historians). Herod Agrippa I (aka Philip the Tetrarch) is an often ignored key figure of the time. He is often confused/conflated with Herod Philip (I). Aka Herod III whom some writers call Herod Philip II. Note Luke 3:1.

[680] “Herodias [] was married to Herod, the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon [Boethus] the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [II], her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus the son of Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus.”

[681] Among themselves, they were called “disciples” and “brethren”, and by the Jews, men "of the Way" (Acts 9:2) or "Nazarenes" (Acts 24:5), Epiphanius (Panarion 29) says they were called Jessaeans before they took the name of Christians. John of Antioch said: "Evodus, the first after the Apostle Peter, being chosen bishop of Antioch, the great city of Syria, became a patriarch, and under him they were called Christians: for this same bishop, Evodus, conferring with them, put this name upon them, whereas before the Christians were called Nazarenes and Galilaeans.'' Gill’s Exposition citing Apud Gregory's Notes, &c. p. 155, from “Historia Chronike” (640 CE).

[682] Key sources for this section: (St. Jerome / “Hieronymus”: Chronological Tables) .

-----------------------

Above, is an alternative concept of the Temple based upon Earnest Martin’s reading of Josephus.

................
................