Home » Articles posted by Le Bel Inconnu

Author Archives: Le Bel Inconnu

Advertisements

Hasmonean Surnames

A Brief look at the Mattathias and his sons and the surnames or titles that have been recorded for us.

Mattathias the Hasmonean

  • Or Matiṯyāhu ben Hasmonay
  • Patriarch of the Family, of the Joarib lineage.
  • Started the revolt in 167 BC
  • Died 167 of Old Age
  • Surname
    • Meaning Unknown
    • Josephus mentions it comes from a Family Patriarch named Asmoneus or Asamoneus (Hebrew – Hasmonay)
      • Perhaps a corruption of Mattathias’ grandfather Simeon (The Simeon or Ha-Shimon)
    • Perhaps it came from the village Heshbon (Johusa 15.27)

Judas Maccabeus (The Middle Child)

  • Or Judah/Yehuda Maccabeus
  • The Middle or Third Born Son of Mattathias
  • Lead Revolt from 167-160 BC
  • Defeated in the Battle of Elasa by General Bacchides
  • Surname Maccabeus
  • Most Likely Suggestion is that it is perhaps from Hebrew מַקָּבָה or maqqaba “hammer”
    • Could speak of his valor in battle and so Hammerer
    • Or perhaps it speaks of physical appearance and so Mallet-headed
  • Others suggest כָּבָה or chabab “to extinguish or quench” so “Extinguisher” or “Quencher”
    • Speaking of Judah’s quenching the spirit of Hellenism.
  • Perhaps it is stands for innitials for the phrase “Who are like unto Thee, O Lord, among the gods,” which was inscribed upon Judah’s banners.

John Gaddi

  • Or Johanan/Yohanan Gaddi
  • The Eldest son of Mattathias
  • Killed in 160 BC by the sons of Jambri while seeking refuge with the Nabeteans
  • Surname Gaddi
  • Maybe Shorten from of Gaddiel (Numbers 13.10) or the Name Gaddi (13.11)
    • The Name Gaddiel means “God is my Fortune”
    • The Name Gaddi means “my fortune”
  • From Hebrew or Aramaic גָּד gad which means “(good) fortune”
    • So “Fortunate” or “Lucky”
  • Another suggestion is that its related to “round grain,”
    • And so “round headed,” like that of Judah

Eleazar Avaran

  • Or El‘azar Charbon
  • The Fourth Son of Mattathias
  • Died c. 162 in the Battle of Beth-zechariah when slaying a War Elephant
  • Surname Avaran
  • עוּר or ˓wr, ‘ur = “Awake”
    • Perhaps given because he was not a soundly sleeping baby
  • חור Or ḥwr = “to be pale” or “pale(face).”
    • Perhaps he was lighter skin or had a skin disease
  • Perhaps from Arabic havar “to pierce”
    • “The Piercer,” i.e. his killing of the Elephant

Jonathan Apphus (The Youngest)

  • Or Yehonatan Apphus
  • The Youngest Son of Mattathias
  • Lead Revolt from 160-142 BC
    • High Priest from 153-142 BC
  • Treacherously killed by Diodotus Tryphon.
  • Surname Apphus
  • הפץ Or hpṣ, “to seek, search,”
  • חפץ or ḥpṣ, chaphets “to desire.”
    • “Favorite, Beloved, or Desired”
    • This may speak of a child’s nickname, i.e. he was the favorite son.
  • Syraic Version reads Ḥappūs, which points to “the dissembler” or “the cunning”

Simon Thassi

  • Or Simeon/Shimon Tharsi
  • The Second Born of Mattathias
  • High Priest from 142-134 BC
  • Murdered by Son-in-Law Ptolemy son of Abubus, Governor of Jericho
  • Surname Thassi
  • No convincing explanation, could be Tharsi, Thatis, or even Thadsi
  • Thassi could mean “Burning or Zealot”
  • Syria version has Tharsi could mean “The Guide”
    • Fits with 2.65 of him being a “man of counsel”
  • Perhaps from Thassis which would point to “weakling” – weak child?

John Hyrcanus (Son of Simon Thassi)

  • Or Yōḥānān Hurqanōs
  • Youngest of Simon Thassi’s sons
  • Often labeled in Rabbinic Literature as Yoḥanan Cohen Gadol = Johanan the High Priest
  • High Priest from 134-104 BC
  • Gave Sadducees a Prominence Near End of Reign
  • Died of Old Age after a rule of Thirty Years
  • Gave Civil Rule to his wife and religious rule to his son
  • Surname
    • Hyrcanus means “One from Hyrcania,” a reigion on the Black Sea
      • Perhaps because Ancestors were of Hyrcanian descent, known exilic group there.
    • Ancient Writers such as Eusebius and Jerome saw the title stemming from his conquests of the Hyrcanians
      • John did participate in Antiochus VII campaign against the Parthians
    • Herqanosh (1QapGenar) is suggested to equal Hyrcanus
Advertisements

What Ever Happened to the Apostles? – Saint Simon the Less

It’s been a little while since I posted, but I figured why not. Besides I need to finish this series at some point. With this post, half the Apostles are done. I’ll admit this may be a little shorter than others, both because of the lack of data and I spent less time on it. But hey, it’s another one done 😀

New Testament Data

Matthew 10.4 and Mark 3.18 calls Simon the Cananaean which probably comes the Aramaic word, qan’ānā’, which means ‘zeal’ or ‘zealous.’[1] It is likely why Luke (Lk. 6.15; Acts 1.13) simply calls him the Zealot.[2] In all four of his New Testament references then, Simon, is linked with the Zealots.[3]

This may point to his being a part of the Zealot party.[4] However, it’s uncertain how much of a coherent group of revolutionaries known the Zealots were around during the ministry of Christ. It should be noted that some scholars do see its beginning in 6 AD with Judas the Galilean and his “refusal to tolerate the Roman census.”[5]Others are uncertain, seeing no real clear reference to the group until 66 AD and the event surrounding Jerusalem’s fall.[6]

It therefore may be less about his  being a part of group and more about his political leanings that is “Simon was a zealous nationalist prior to his call to follow Jesus.”[7]

Christ’s choice of Simon is still, nevertheless, interesting when compared with his choice of Matthew, both would have been seen as the “opposite ends of the political spectrum.”[8]

Later Traditions

The truth is, little was written of Simon, not only in the four NT passages, but even among the apocryphal writings.[9]

The apocryphal work, the “Passion of Simon and Jude,” places him these two as ministering and facing martyrdom in Persia.[10]   But most like the Diatessaron, Acts of Thomas, and the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, simply mention him in a listing among the twelve.

Later legends will make him one of the Shepherds that visited Christ, the Byzantine Church identieid him as Nathanael of Cana (Jn 21.2) while others thought he was one of the brothers (or cousins) of Jesus, along with Judas of James.[11]

Simon was also confused with Simon, son of Clopas (Jn 19.25) the second leader of the Jerusalem Church and this further makes it hard to figure out his later life.

 

While in the West, he was connected, again to Jude, and both were also associated with Persia and being martyred there.[12]

All of this to say, is that Simon like a few others, is even in tradition little more than a name. While history may have forgotten him, it may still be important to realize that he was a vital part of the early mission of the church, whatever that part was, and that his zeal, came to be a zeal for the gospel.

 

[1] M.J. Wilkins, “Disciples,” in DJD, 181.

[2] ODCC, s.v. “Simon, St, ‘the less

[3] T.R. Schreiner ISBE, Simon (NT), 4:515

[4] ODCC, s.v. “Simon, St, ‘the less

[5] ISBE, 515.

[6]

[7] M.J. Wilkins, “Disciples,” in DJD, 181.

[8] ISBE, 515.

[9] LBD

[10] ODCC, s.v. “Simon, St, ‘the less

[11] The Fate of the Apostles, 246.

[12] LBD

What Ever Happened to the Apostles? – Saint Thomas

What Ever Happened to the Apostles? – Saint Thomas

I’m back hoping to actually continuing a series that I had let other things get in the way of. What follows is some evidence of the 12 disciples/apostles and what we glean from the New Testament data and what happened to them from early witnesses. It is of course admitted that we can’t know for most of them if these are true. Still, some of the evidence is convincing.

For the earlier series post see these links

Today we look at the St. Thomas, known as doubting Thomas by Some and others as supposed gospel writer, while we’ll skip over any discussion of the Gnostic texts, we’ll look instead at what the New Testament and other early documents have to say.

New Testament Data

Thomas was evidently a twin, he is known as Didymus in the gospel of John “Thomas, called Didymus” (Jn. 11.15, 20.24; 21.2).[1] In later tradition, particular Syriac and Gnostic works, he is known as Judas Thomas and some Syriac manuscripts of John, replaces John 14.22’s “Judas (not Iscariot)” with “Judas Thomas.”[2] Moreover the Aramaic behind Thomas tĕ˒omâ is not a known Semitic name, while didymos (both meaning Twin) is.[3] This has led some to believed that Thomas itself might not be a name, but a title or nickname of sorts.[4] Others have pondered if Didymus was the name that Thomas was known among Greek-speaking circles in the church.[5]

We have no biblical data on who Thomas’ twin could have been. Some have speculated that Thomas’ twin brother was Matthew Levi, based in part of the two always being paired together in the Gospel listing of the 12.[6] The apocryphal tradition (often Gnostic in theology) quite frequently claims that he was the twin brother of Jesus.[7] However, most do not hold to this.

Despite the scene of his doubting following the resurrection of Christ (Jn 20.24), Thomas is seen as one of the more courageous of the disciples i.e. he encourages the other disciples to travel to Judea and face death with Christ (Jn. 11.16).[8] Moreover, after his initial doubts of the resurrected Lord he is seen as showing his faith by gathering with the other disciples (Jn. 21.2) and by his rather dramatic confession after Christ appeared to him (Jon. 20.28).[9]

Thomas’ other appearance in the NT Is during the final discourse of Christ in John, asking Christ how they shall know what to do without him (Jn. 14.5).[10] His presence here shows that not only was he a disciple, but also “a particularly significant witness to the risen Jesus.”[11]

Apocryphal Literature

In the apocryphal literature, Thomas often plays a rather “prominent role,” but few of these traditions if any are reliable.[12] The apocryphal work, “The Acts of Thomas,” records that Thomas went toward India and preached the gospel there before being martyred. This work also gives his name as “Judas Thomas.”[13]

The apocryphal Acts also noted that he ministered to the Gundaphorus, king of India (whose has been found to be historical), and that Thomas was also a carpenter. [14] (Roman Catholicism also appears to accepts this as he is the patron saint of Architects, masons, and stone cutters).[15]

Other apocryphal traditions, often place him as the author of various works, such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, a co-author of the Epistle of the Apostles, most famously he is connected to the Coptic Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, and others.[16] These works are of a later date, however, and are of little use.

Patristic Tradition

Eusebius (HE 3.1) and many other patristic teachers point to Thomas’ mission as going to the Parthians (against various Apocryphal traditions).[17] (Parthia is between the Tigris and Indus rivers).[18]Most see this as the most reliable and think it is acceptable that he could have traveled east first to Parthia and eventually to India.[19] This tradition of his going to India is also found in the 3rd/4th-century work known as the Acts of Thomas.[20] While the Acts of Thomas certainly contain much fiction in them it seems likely that they have at their core a “historic nucleus.”[21] Syrian Christians also say that their tradition places Thomas as ministering in India, as well as being martyred at Mylapore, where he is said to be buried.[22] However, The Roman Martyrology gives the place instead as Calamina, although some connect this to Mylapore.[23]

Concerning his death the Acts of Thomas state that at the end of his ministry in India he was martyred, being killed by being pierced by spears of four soldiers.

168And when he had prayed, he said to the soldiers: ‘Come and fulfill the command of him who sent you!’ And at once the four smote him and slew him. But all the brethren wept. And wrapping him in fine robes and many fine linen cloths they laid him in the tomb in which the kings old were buried.”

We’ll finish this with a quote from Justo L Gonzalez’s The Story of Christianity, Volume 1 pages 29-30.

“The tradition that claims Thomas visited India leaves historians somewhat baffled. It appears for the first time in the Acts of Thomas, which may have been written as early as the end of the second century. But already it is embellished with legendary tales that make the entire account suspicious. We are told that an Indian king, Gondophares, was seeking an architect to build a palace, and that Thomas, who was no architect, offered himself for the job. When the king found that Thomas was giving to the poor the money allotted for the construction of the palace, he had the apostle put in prison. But then Gondophares’s brother, Gad, died and came back from the dead. Upon his return he told his brother of the magnificent heavenly palace that he had seen, which was being built through Thomas’s gifts to the poor. The king was then converted and baptized, and Thomas moved on to other parts of India, until he died as a martyr.

Historians have found that much in this legend is of questionable authenticity, and have often discarded the whole of it as fictitious, for history had no record of Gondophares or of any of the other details of the story. More recently, however, coins have been found that prove that there was indeed a ruler by that name, and that he had a brother named Gad. This, coupled with the undeniable antiquity of Christianity in India, and with the fact that at the time there was significant trade between India and the Near East, makes it more difficult to reject categorically the possibility that Thomas may have visited that land, and that the story may have been embellished with all kinds of legendary details later. In any case, it is significant that from a relatively early date there was a church in India, and that this church has long claimed Thomas as its founder.”

 

[1] M.J. Wilkins, “Disciples,” in DJD, 180.

[2] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:841.

[3] Raymond F. Collins, “Thomas (Person), in ABD 6:528.

[4] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:841.

[5] Raymond F. Collins, “Thomas (Person), in ABD 6:528.

[6] Philip Schaff, History of the Church, 1:613.

[7] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:841.

[8] Wilkins, 180.

[9] Wilkins, 180.

[10] ODCC, s.v. “Thomas, St, Apostle.”

[11] Raymond F. Collins, “Thomas (Person), in ABD 6:528.

[12] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:842.

[13] ODCC, s.v. “Thomas, St, Apostle.”

[14] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:842.

[15] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:842.

[16] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:842.

[17] ODCC, s.v. “Thomas, St, Apostle.”

[18] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:842.

[19] C.L. Blomberg, “Thomas,” ISBE, 4:842.

[20] Raymond F. Collins, “Thomas (Person), in ABD 6:528.

[21] Thomaskutty, 198.

[22] ODCC, s.v. “Thomas, St, Apostle.”

[23] ODCC, s.v. “Thomas, St, Apostle.”

Essenes in Ancient Soucres

The following is a set of some of the earliest of sources concerning the Essenes group which some connect to the Qumran group which left us the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is probably not a totally exhaustive list, but it would certainly be an excellent starting point. As a last note, I have purposefully not left any comments with these.

Philo of Alexandra

The Translations of Philo of Alexandra come from the Loeb Classical Library, Philo Volume IX, they are translated by F.H. Colson.

Every Good Man is Free (Quod Omnis Probus Liber Sit) 75-91

XII. (75) Palestinian Syria, too, has not failed to produce high moral excellence. In this country live a considerable part of the very populous nation of the Jews, including as it is said, certain persons, more than four thousand in number, called Essenes. Their name which is, I think, a variation, though the form of the Greek is inexact, of οσιότης (holiness), is given them, because they have shown themselves especially devout in the service of God, not by offering sacrifices of animals, but by resolving to sanctify their minds. (76)The first thing about these people is that they live in villages and avoid the cities because of the iniquities which have become inveterate among city dwellers, for they know that their company would have a deadly effect upon their own souls, like a disease brought by a pestilential atmosphere. Some of them labour on the land and others pursue such crafts as co-operate with peace and so benefit themselves and their neighbours. They do not hoard gold and silver or acquire great slices of land because they desire the revenues therefrom, but provide what is needed for the necessary requirements of life. (77) For while they stand almost alone in the whole of mankind in that they have become moneyless and landless by deliberate action rather than by lack of good fortune, they are esteemed exceedingly rich, because they judge frugality with contentment to be, as indeed it is, an abundance of wealth.

(78) As for darts, javelins, daggers, or the helmet, breastplate or shield, you could not find a single manufacturer of them, nor, in general, any person making weapons or engines or plying any industry concerned with war, nor, indeed, any of the peaceful kind, which easily lapse into vice, for they have not the vaguest idea of commerce either wholesale or retail or marine, but pack the inducements to covetousness off in disgrace. (79) Not a single slave is to be found among them, but all are free, exchanging services with each other, and they denounce the owners of slaves, not merely for their injustice in outraging the law of equality, but also for their impiety in annulling the statute of Nature, who mother-like has born and reared all men alike, and created them genuine brothers, not in mere name, but in very reality, though this kinship has been put to confusion by the triumph of malignant covetousness, which has wrought estrangement instead of affinity and enmity instead of friendship.

(80) As for philosophy they abandon the logical part to quibbling verbalists as unnecessary for the acquisition of virtue, and the physical to visionary praters as beyond the grasp of human nature, only retaining that part which treats philosophically of the existence of God and the creation of the universe But the ethical part they study very industriously, taking for their trainers the laws of their fathers, which could not possibly have been conceived by the human soul without divine inspiration.

(81) In these they are instructed at all other times, but particularly on the seventh days. For that day has been set apart to be kept holy and on it they abstain from all other work and proceed to sacred spots which they call synagogues. There, arranged in rows according to their ages, the younger below the elder, they sit decorously as befits the occasion with attentive ears. (82) Then one takes the books and reads aloud and another of especial proficiency comes forward and expounds what is not understood. For most of their philosophical study takes the form of allegory, and in this they emulate the tradition of the past. (83) They are trained in piety, holiness, justice, domestic and civic conduct, knowledge of what is truly good, or evil, or indifferent, and how to choose what they should and avoid the opposite, taking for their defining standards these three, love of God, love of virtue, love of men.

(84) Their love of God they show by a multitude of proofs, by religious purity b constant and unbroken throughout their lives, by abstinence from oaths, by veracity, by their belief that the Godhead is the cause of all good things and nothing bad ; their love of virtue, by their freedom from the love of either money or reputation or pleasure, by self-mastery and endurance, again by frugality, simple living, contentment, humility, respect for law, steadiness and all similar qualities ; their love of men by benevolence and sense of equality, and their spirit of fellowship, which defies description, though a few words on it will not be out of place.

(85) First of all then no one’s house is his own in the sense that it is not shared by all, for besides the fact that they dwell together in communities, the door is open to visitors from elsewhere who share their convictions.

(88) Again they all have a single treasury and common disbursements ; their clothes are held in common and also their food through their institution of public meals. In no other community can we find the custom of sharing roof, life and board more firmly established in actual practice. And that is no more than one would expect. For all the wages which they earn in the day’s work they do not keep as their private property, but throw them into the common stock and allow the benefit thus accruing to be shared by those who wish to use it. (87) The sick are not neglected because they cannot provide anything, but have the cost of their treatment lying ready in the common stock, so that they can meet expenses out of the greater wealth in full security. To the elder men too is given the respect and care which real a children give to their parents, and they receive from countless hands and minds a full and generous maintenance for their latter years.

XIII. (88) Such are the athletes 88 of virtue produced by a philosophy free from the pedantry of Greek wordiness, a philosophy which sets its pupils to practise themselves in laudable actions, by which the liberty which can never be enslaved is firmly established.

(89) Here we have a proof. Many are the potentates who at various occasions have raised themselves to power over the country. They differed both in nature and the line of conduct which they followed. Some of them carried their zest for outdoing wild beasts in ferocity to the point of savagery. They left no form of cruelty untried. They slaughtered their subjects wholesale, or like cooks carved them piecemeal and limb by limb whilst still alive, and did not stay their hands till justice who surveys human affairs visited them with the same calamities. (90) Others transformed this wild frenzy into another kind of viciousness. Their conduct showed intense bitterness, but they talked with calmness, though the mask of their milder language failed to conceal their rancorous disposition. They fawned like venomous hounds yet wrought evils irremediable and left behind them throughout the cities the unforgettable sufferings of their victims as monuments of their impiety and inhumanity. (91) Yet none of these, neither the extremely ferocious nor the deep-dyed treacherous dissemblers, were able to lay a charge against this congregation of Essenes or holy ones here described. Unable to resist the high excellence of these people, they all treated them as selfgoverning and freemen by nature and extolled their communal meals and that ineffable sense of fellowship, which is the clearest evidence of a perfect and supremely happy life.

Apology for the Jews (Hypothetica)11.1-18

The following extract is made by Eusebius at a later point in the same book of the Praeparatio. He introduces it by saying that the Jewish nation is divided into two sections, (1) the multitude which Moses intended to be guided by the literal meaning (ρητή διάνοια), and (2) the philosophers who can rise from the literal to the higher meaning. As an example of the second class he reproduces Philo’s two accounts of the Essenes, one from the Quod Omn. Prob. (see above), and the following which he quotes from ” “The Apology for the Jews.”

(11.1) Multitudes of his disciples has the lawgiver trained for the life of fellowship. These people are called Essenes, a name awarded to them doubtless in recognition of their holiness.

They live in many cities of Judaea and in many villages and grouped in great societies of many members. (11.2) Their persuasion is not based on birth, for birth is not a descriptive mark of voluntary associations,but on their zeal for virtue and desire to promote brotherly love. (11.3) Thus no Essene is a mere child nor even a stripling or newly bearded, since the characters of such are unstable with a waywardness corresponding to the immaturity of their age, but full grown and already verging on old age, no longer carried under by the tide of the body nor led by the passions, but enjoying the veritable, the only real freedom. (11.4) This freedom is attested by their life. None of them allows himself to have any private property, either house or slave or estate or cattle or any of the other things which are amassed and abundantly procured by wealth, but they put everything together into the public stock and enjoy the benefit of them all in common.

(11.5) They live together formed into clubs, bands of comradeship with common meals, and never cease to conduct all their affairs to serve the general weal. (11.6) But they have various occupations at which they labour with untiring application and never plead cold or heat or any of the violent changes in the atmosphere as an excuse. Before the sun is risen they betake themselves to their familiar tasks and only when it sets force them selves to return, for they delight in them as much as do those who are entered for gymnastic competitions. (11.7) For they consider that the exercises which they practise whatever they may be are more valuable to life, more pleasant to soul and body and more lasting than those of the athlete in as much as they can still be plied with vigour when that of the body is past its prime. (11.8) Some of them labour on the land skilled in sowing and planting, some as herdsmen taking charge of every kind of cattle and some superintend the swarms of bees. (11.9) Others work at the handicrafts to avoid the sufferings which are forced upon us by our indispensable requirements and shrink from no innocent way of getting a livelihood.

(11.10) Each branch when it has received the wages of these so different occupations gives it to one person who has been appointed as treasurer. He takes it and at once buys what is necessary and provides food in abundance and anything else which human life requires. (11.11) Thus having each day a common life and a common table they are content with the same conditions, lovers of frugality who shun expensive luxury as a disease of both body and soul. (11.12) And not only is their table in common but their clothing also. For in winter they have a stock of stout coats ready and in summer cheap vests , a so that he who wishes may easily take any garment he likes, since what one has is held to belong to all and conversely what all have one has.

(11.13) Again if anyone is sick he is nursed at the common expense and tended with care and thoughtfulness by all. The old men too even if they are childless are treated as parents of a not merely numerous but very filial family and regularly close their life with an exceedingly prosperous and comfortable old age ; so many are those who give them precedence and honour as their due and minister to them as a duty voluntarily and deliberately accepted rather than enforced by nature.

(11.14) Furthermore they eschew marriage because they clearly discern it to be the sole or the principal danger to the maintenance of the communal life, as well as because they particularly practise continence. For no Essene takes a wife, because a wife is a selfish creature, excessively jealous a and an adept at beguiling the morals of her husband and seducing him by her continued impostures. (11.15) For by the fawning talk which she practises and the other ways in which she plays her part like an actress on the stage she first ensnares the sight and hearing, and when these subjects as it were have been duped she cajoles the sovereign mind.

(11.16) And if children come, filled with the spirit of arrogance and bold speaking she gives utterance with more audacious hardihood to things which before she hinted covertly and under disguise, and casting off all shame she compels him to commit actions which are all hostile to the life of fellowship. (11.17) For he who is either fast bound in the love lures of his wife or under the stress of nature makes his children his first care ceases to be the same to others and unconsciously has become a different man and has passed from freedom into slavery.

(11.18) Such then is the life of the Essenes, a life so highly to be prized that not only commoners but also great kings look upon them with admiration and amazement, and the approbation and honours which they give add further veneration to their venerable name.

Josephus

The Translations of Josepsus are taken from various places, The Judean Wars (2.8.213) are translated by Steve Mason and in the Brill Josephus translations All other translations come from Todd S. Beall’s Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Life of Josephus 1.2  §10-12

10 When I was about sixteen years old, I decided to get experience of the sects that existed among us. These are three, as we have said many times: the first, that of the Pharisees; the second, that of the Sadducees; and the third, that of the Essenes. For I thought that in this way I would choose the best, if I carefully examined them all. 11 Therefore, submitting myself to strict training and many strenuous labors, I passed through the three groups. Having considered the experience thus gained to be insufficient for myself, and on learning of a certain man named Bannus, who lived in the desert, wore clothing supplied from trees, took as food only that which grew by itself, and washed many times in cold water both day and night for purification, I became his devotee. 12 When I had lived with him for three years and had accomplished my purpose, I returned to the city. Being now nineteen years old, I began to conduct myself according to the rules of the sect of the Pharisees, which nearly resembles that called Stoic among the Greeks.

War of the Jews 2.8.213 § 119-61

119 For three forms of philosophy are pursued among the Judeans: the members of one are Pharisees, of another Sadducees, and the third [school], who certainly are reputed to cultivate seriousness,  are called Essenes; although Judeans by ancestry, they are even more mutually affectionate than the others.

120 Whereas these men shun the pleasures as vice, they consider self-control and not succumbing to the passions virtue. And although there is among them a disdain for marriage, adopting the children of outsiders while they are still malleable enough for the lessons they regard them as family and instill in them their principles of character:

121 without doing away with marriage or the succession resulting from it, they nevertheless protect themselves from the wanton ways of women, having been persuaded that none of them preserves her faithfulness to one man.

122 Since [they are] despisers of wealth —their communal stock is astonishing —, one cannot find a person among them who has more in terms of possessions. For by a law, those coming into the school must yield up their funds to the order, with the result that in all [their ranks] neither the humiliation of poverty nor the superiority of wealth is detectable, but the assets of each one have been mixed in together, as if they were brothers, to create one fund for all.

123 They consider olive oil a stain, and should anyone be accidentally smeared with it he scrubs his body, for they make it a point of honor to remain hard and dry, and to wear white always. Hand-elected are the curators of the communal affairs, and indivisible are they, each and every one, [in pursuing] their functions to the advantage of all.

124 No one city is theirs, but they settle amply in each. And for those school-members who arrive from elsewhere, all that the community has is laid out for them in the same way as if they were their own things, and they go in and stay with those they have never even seen before as if they were the most intimate friends.

125 For this reason they make trips without carrying any baggage at all—though armed on account of the bandits. In each city a steward of the order appointed specially for the visitors is designated quartermaster for clothing and the other amenities.

126 Dress and also deportment of body: like children being educated with fear. They replace neither clothes nor footwear until the old set is ripped all over or worn through with age.

127 Among themselves, they neither shop for nor sell anything; but each one, after giving the things that he has to the one in need, takes in exchange anything useful that the other has. And even without this reciprocal giving, the transfer to them [of goods] from whomever they wish is unimpeded.

128 Toward the Deity, at least: pious observances uniquely [expressed].Before the sun rises, they utter nothing of the mundane things, but only certain ancestral prayers to him, as if begging him to come up.

129 After these things, they are dismissed by the curators to the various crafts that they have each come to know, and after they have worked strenuously until the fifth hour they are again assembled in one area, where they belt on linen covers and wash their bodies in frigid water. After this purification they gather in a private hall, into which none of those who hold different views may enter: now pure themselves, they approach the dining room as if it were some [kind of] sanctuary.

130 After they have seated themselves in silence, the baker serves the loaves in order, whereas the cook serves each person one dish of one food.

131 The priest offers a prayer before the food, and it is forbidden to taste anything before the prayer; when he has had his breakfast he offers another concluding prayer. While starting and also while finishing, then, they honor God as the sponsor of life. At that, laying aside their clothes as if they were holy, they apply themselves to their labors again until evening.

132 They dine in a similar way: when they have returned, they sit down with the visitors, if any happen to be present with them, and neither yelling nor disorder pollutes the house at any time, but they yield conversation to one another in order.

133 And to those from outside, the silence of those inside appears as a kind of shiver-inducing mystery. The reason for this is their continuous sobriety and the rationing of food and drink among them—to the point of fullness.

134 Whereas, then, in these other matters there is nothing that they do without the curators’ having ordered it, these two things are matters of personal prerogative among them: [rendering] assistance and mercy. For helping those who are worthy, whenever they might need it, and also extending food to those who are in want are indeed left up to the individual; but in the case of the relatives, such distribution is not allowed to be done without [permission from] the managers.

135 Of anger, just controllers; as for temper, able to contain it; of fidelity, masters; of peace, servants. And whereas everything spoken by them is more forceful than an oath, swearing itself they avoid, considering it worse than the false oath; for they declare to be already degraded one who is unworthy of belief without [resorting to] God.

136They are extraordinarily keen about the compositions of the ancients, selecting especially those [oriented] toward the benefit of soul and body. On the basis of these and for the treatment of diseases, roots, apotropaic materials, and the special properties of stones are investigated.

137 To those who are eager for their school, the entry-way is not a direct one, but they prescribe a regimen for the person who remains outside for a year, giving him a little hatchet as well as the aforementioned waist-covering and white clothing.

138 Whenever he should give proof of his self-control during this period, he approaches nearer to the regimen and indeed shares in the purer waters for purification, though he is not yet received into the functions of communal life. For after this demonstration of endurance, the character is tested for two further years, and after he has thus been shown worthy he is reckoned into the group.

139 Before he may touch the communal food, however, he swears dreadful oaths to them: first, that he will observe piety toward the deity; then, that he will maintain just actions toward humanity; that he will harm no one, whether by his own deliberation or under order; that he will hate the unjust and contend together with the just;

140 that he will always maintain faithfulness to all, especially to those in control, for without God it does not fall to anyone to hold office, and that, should he hold office, he will never abuse his authority —outshining his subordinates, whether by dress or by some form of extravagant appearance;

141 always to love the truth and expose the liars; that he will keep his hands pure from theft and his soul from unholy gain; that he will neither conceal anything from the school-members nor disclose anything of theirs to others, even if one should apply force to the point of death.

142 In addition to these, he swears that he will impart the precepts to no one otherwise than as he received them, that he will keep away from banditry, and that he will preserve intact their school’s books and the names of the angels. With such oaths as these they completely secure those who join them.

143 Those they have convicted of sufficiently serious errors they expel from the order. And the one who has been reckoned out often perishes by a most pitiable fate. For, constrained by the oaths and customs, he is unable to partake of food from others. Eating grass and in hunger, his body wastes away and perishes.

144 That is why they have actually shown mercy and taken back many in their final gasps, regarding as sufficient for their errors this ordeal to the point of death.

145 Now with respect to trials, [they are] just and extremely precise: they render judgment after having assembled no fewer than a hundred, and something that has been determined by them is non-negotiable. There is a great reverence among them for—next to God—the name of the lawgiver, and if anyone insults him he is punished by death.

146 They make it a point of honor to submit to the elders and to a majority. So if ten were seated together, one person would not speak if the nine were unwilling.

147 They guard against spitting into [their] middles or to the right side and against applying themselves to labors on the seventh days, even more than all other Judeans: for not only do they prepare their own food one day before, so that they might not kindle a fire on that day, but they do not even dare to transport a container —or go to relieve themselves.

148 On the other days they dig a hole of a foot’s depth with a trowel —this is what that small hatchet given by them to the neophytes is for—and wrapping their cloak around them completely, so as not to outrage the rays of God, they relieve themselves into it [the hole].

149 After that, they haul back the excavated earth into the hole. (When they do this, they pick out for themselves the more deserted spots.) Even though the secretion of excrement is certainly a natural function, it is customary to wash themselves off after it as if they have become polluted.

150 They are divided into four classes, according to their duration in the training, and the later-joiners are so inferior to the earlier-joiners that if they should touch them, the latter wash themselves off as if they have mingled with a foreigner.

151 [They are] long-lived, most of them passing  years —as a result, it seems to me at least, of the simplicity of their regimen and their orderliness. Despisers of terrors, triumphing over agonies by their wills, considering death—if it arrives with glory—better than deathlessness.

152 The war against the Romans proved their souls in every way: during it, while being twisted and also bent, burned and also broken, and passing through all the torture-chamber instruments, with the aim that they might insult the lawgiver or eat something not customary, they did not put up with suffering either one: not once gratifying those who were tormenting [them], or crying.

153 But smiling in their agonies and making fun of those who were inflicting the tortures, they would cheerfully dismiss their souls, [knowing] that they would get them back again.

154 For the view has become tenaciously held among them that whereas our bodies are perishable and their matter impermanent, our souls endure forever, deathless: they get entangled, having emanated from the most refined ether, as if drawn down by a certain charm into the prisons that are bodies.

155 But when they are released from the restraints of the flesh, as if freed from a long period of slavery, then they rejoice and are carried upwards in suspension. For the good, on the one hand, sharing the view of the sons of Greece they portray the lifestyle reserved beyond Oceanus and a place burdened by neither rain nor snow nor heat, but which a continually blowing mild west wind from Oceanus refreshes. For the base, on the other hand, they separate off a murky, stormy recess filled with unending retributions.

156 It was according to the same notion that the Greeks appear to me to have laid on the Islands of the Blessed for their most courageous men, whom they call heroes and demi-gods, and for the souls of the worthless the region of the impious in Hades, in which connection they tell tales about the punishments of certain men —Sisyphuses and Tantaluses, Ixions and Tityuses —establishing in the first place the [notion of] eternal souls and, on that basis, persuasion toward virtue and dissuasion from vice.

157 For the good become even better in the hope of a reward also after death, whereas the impulses of the bad are impeded by anxiety, as they expect that even if they escape detection while living, after their demise they will be subject to deathless retribution.

158 These matters, then, the Essenes theologize with respect to the soul, laying down an irresistible bait for those who have once tasted of their wisdom.

159 There are also among them those who profess to foretell what is to come, being thoroughly trained in holy books, various purifications, and concise sayings of prophets. Rarely if ever do they fail in their predictions.

160 There is also a different order of Essenes. Though agreeing with the others about regimen and customs and legal matters, it has separated in its opinion about marriage. For they hold that those who do not marry cut off the greatest part of life, the succession, and more: if all were to think the same way, the line would very quickly die out.

161 To be sure, testing the brides in a three-year interval, once they have been purified three times as a test of their being able to bear children, they take them in this manner; but they do not continue having intercourse with those who are pregnant, demonstrating that the need for marrying is not because of pleasure, but for children. Baths [are taken] by the women wrapping clothes around themselves, just as by the men in a waist-covering. Such are the customs of this order.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.1.2, 5 § 11, 18-22

11 There were three philosophies among the Jews inherited from the most ancient times: that of the Essenes, that of the Sadducees, and the third the ones called the Pharisees. Indeed, I happen to have spoken already about them in the second book of The Jewish War, but I shall still give an account of them briefly here.

18 The doctrine of the Essenes is that they like to leave all things to God. They regard souls as immortal and believe that the path of righteousness is worth striving for.

19 Sending votive offerings to the temple, they offer sacrifices [E and Lat. both have the negative here – they do not offer sacrifices] with a difference in the rites of purification that they employ; on account of this they are excluded from the common court and offer their sacrifices by themselves. Otherwise they are the noblest men in their way of life and have dedicated themselves to work entirely in agriculture. 20 They are worthy of admiration above all those who lay claim to virtue, because such (qualities) did not exist among any Greeks or barbarians, not even to a small degree; but they have been with (the Essenes) for a long time and they have not been hindered in their pursuit of them. In addition, they hold their possessions in common, and the wealthy person does not benefit any more from his household possessions than the man who owns nothing at all. The men who live in this way are over four thousand in number. 21They neither bring wives into (the community) nor do they seek to acquire slaves, since they consider that the latter leads to injustice and the former inclines towards causing factions. Rather, they live by themselves and practice service for one another. 22 They elect good men as treasurers of their revenue and what the land yields, and priests for the preparation of their bread and their food. They live no differently from, but most similarly to those who among the Dacians are called Ctistae.

Minor Notices of the Essenes in Josephus

These are various minor mentions of the Essenes throughout Josephus. Some involve tales of certain prophets others mere name drops. Josephus furthermore has at times related an account in both Jewish Wars and Antiquities with minor differences.

Judas the Essene

Judean Wars 1.3.5 §78-80

Now any one would be astonished at Judas on this occasion. He was an Essene by background, and there was never an occasion when he erred or spoke falsely in his predictions. At that time, when he saw Antigonus passing through the temple precincts, he cried out to his acquaintances (for not a few of his disciples were attending upon him), “Alas! It would be better for me to die, since the truth has already died before me and one of my predictions has proven false. For Antigonus lives, this one who ought to have been killed today; the place fated for his murder was Strata’s Tower, and that is six hundred stades from here, and it is already the fourth hour of the day. So time knocks out prediction.” Having said this, the old man remained downcast in his meditation. A little later it was announced that Antigonus had been killed in an underground place that was also called Strata’s Tower, by the same name as the Caesarea Maritima. This, then, had thrown the seer into confusion.

Antiquities of the Jews 13.11.2 §311

And especially one might marvel at a certain Judas, an Essene by background, who had never been faulted in the truth in his predictions. For when he saw Antigonus passing through the temple precincts, he cried out to his friends and acquaintances, who were with him for the sake of instruction in foretelling things to come, that it would be better for him to die, since he had spoken falsely about Antigonus who was (still) alive. He had predicted that he would die today at the place called Strato’s Tower, and (now) he was seeing him going about alive. For the place where he had foretold that Antigonus would be killed was six hundred stades away from where he was then, and the greater part of the day was already over, so that his prophecy was likely to be false. Now as he was saying these things and was dejected, it was reported that Antigonus had been killed in the underground place that was also called Strato’s Tower, by the same name as the Caesarea Maritima. It was this, then, which had thrown the seer into confusion

Simon the Essene

Judean Wars 2.7.3 §111-113

Now Archelaus, when he had taken possession of his ethnarchy, according to his remembrance of old quarrels, treated savagely not only Jews, but also Samaritans. Both of them sent envoys against him to Caesar, and in the ninth year of his reign he was banished to Vienne, a city of
Antiquities of the Jews 17.13.3 §346-48

But when they [interpreters of Archelaus’ dream] differed with one another (for all their interpretations did not come to one conclusion), Simon, an Essene by background, sought for assurance and said that the vision signified a change in the affairs of Archelaus, and not for

Judean Wars 2.7.3 §111-113

Gaul, and his possessions were assigned to Caesar’s treasury. Before he was summoned by Caesar, it is said that he saw a dream such as this: he seemed to see nine full and large ears of grain being devoured by oxen. Having summoned the soothsayers and some of the Chaldaeans, he asked them what they thought it signified. When one after the other gave their interpretations, Simon, an Essene by background, said that he thought the ears of grain were years and the oxen a revolution, since in plowing they alter the land; so that he would reign the same number of years as the ears of grain and would die after various revolutions. Five days after he heard these things, Archelaus was summoned to his trial.
Antiquities of the Jews 17.13.3 §346-48

the better. For the oxen signify both misery, since this animal suffers in its labors, and change in his affairs, since the land plowed by their toil cannot remain in the same state. The ears of grain, of which there were ten, designate the same number of years, since in the course of each year there is a harvest, and thus the time of the reign of Archelaus has expired. In such a way did this man interpret the dream. On the fifth day after Archelaus first had this vision, the other one called Archelaus, who had been sent to Judaea by Caesar, arrived.

John the Essene’s Military Exploits

Judean Wars 2.20.4 §566-68

Other generals were chosen for Idumaea: Jesus, son of Sapphas, one of the chief priests, and Eleazar, son of the high priest Neus; and they ordered Niger, then governor of Idumaea, who was of a family from Peraea beyond (the) Jordan (hence he was called the Peraean), to submit to these generals. Nor did they neglect the other regions: Joseph, son of Simon, was sent to be in command at Jericho; Manasseh was sent to Peraea; John the Essene was sent to the toparchy of Thamna – Lydda, Joppa, and Emmaus were also allotted to him; John, son of Ananias, was designated commander of Gophna and Acrabetta; and J osephus, son of Matthias, of the two Galilees. Gamala, the strongest city in that area, was also added to his command.

Judean Wars 3.2.1 §9-11

Now the Jews, after the defeat of Cestius, uplifted by their unexpected military successes, were unrestrained in fervor, and as though stirred up by good fortune, extended the war further. Immediately, then, all their best warriors were mustered and pressed forward against Ascalon. This is an ancient city, about 520 stades from Jerusalem, which had always been odious to the Jews; because of this at that time it seemed nearer for the first attacks. This raid was led by three men outstanding in both courage and intelligence, namely, Niger the Peraean, and Silas the Babylonian, and besides them was John the Essene. Now Ascalon was strongly fortified with walls, but was nearly destitute of assistance, for it was garrisoned by one cohort of footsoldiers and by one troop of horsemen, which Antonius commanded.

The Gate of the Essenes

Judean Wars 5.4.2 §142-145

Now of the three walls (of Jerusalem), the most ancient, on account of both the ravines and the hill above them, upon which it was built, was almost impregnable. But in addition to the advantage of its position it was also strongly built, since David and Solomon and the kings who followed them prided themselves on the work. Beginning on the north at the tower called Hippicus, it extended to the Xystus; then joining the council chamber, it terminated at the western colonnade of the temple. Beginning at the same place in the other direction, it reached down westward through the place called Bethso, to the gate of the Essenes; and then it turned to the south above the fountain of Siloam, from which also it again inclined to the east towards Solomon’s pool, and passing through to a certain place they called Ophlas, joined the east colonnade of the temple.

View on Fate

Antiquities of the Jews 13.5.9 § 171-73

Now at this time there were three sects of the Jews, which held different opinions concerning human actions: the first was that of the Pharisees, the second the Sadducees, and the third the Essenes. Now the Pharisees say that somethings, but not all, are the work of fate; some are going to happen or not, depending on ourselves. But the sect of the Essenes maintains that fate is ruler of all things, and that nothing happens to people except it be according to its decree.

Minor Mention

Antiquities of the Jews 13.10.6 §289

…But concerning these two sects [i.e., the Pharisees and Sadducees], and that of the Essenes, it has been accurately reported in the second book of my Judaica (i.e., Jewish War).

Menahem’s Prophecy

Antiquities of the Jews 15.10.4-5 §371-79

And those who are called Essenes by us were also pardoned from this necessity [viz., taking an oath of loyalty to Herod]. This is a sect that practices a way of life introduced to the Greeks by Pythagoras. Now I shall explain about these people more clearly elsewhere. But it is proper to state here the reasons why (Herod) held the Essenes in honor and why he thought more highly of them than their mortal nature would require. For the matter does not appear to be improper for this genre of history, since it will set forth the prevailing opinion about these men.

One of these Essenes was named Menahem, whose entire course of life testified to his virtue, and who had foreknowledge from God of the future. This man, upon seeing Herod (while he was still a child) going to his teacher, greeted him as “king of the Jews.”

But Herod, thinking that the man either did not know him or was bantering him, reminded him that he was an ordinary citizen. But Menahem, smiling gently and slapping him on the backside, said,’ ‘But you shall indeed be king, and you shall exercise the reign well, for you have been found worthy by God. And remember the blows given by Menahem, so that this too may be a symbol to you of the changes of fortune. For the best attitude would be if you love both justice and piety towards God, and equity towards the citizens. But I know that you will not be such a one, since I understand everything. You will spend your life in such good fortune as no other person, and you will gain lasting glory, but you will forget piety and what justice means. These things, however, will not escape the notice of God, when at the end of your life his wrath will call these things to mind.” At that very time Herod paid little heed to these words, lacking any hope of their fulfillment; but after gradually being raised to both kingship and good fortune, at the height of his reign, he sent for Menahem and questioned him about the length of time he would reign. But Menahem did not tell him at all. In view of his silence, Herod asked him only whether he would reign for ten years; and he said, “For twenty or thirty years,” but he did not set a limit for the end of the appointed time. Yet Herod was satisfied even with these words and dismissed Menahem with a friendly gesture. From that time on he continued to hold all the Essenes in esteem. Now we have thought it proper to explain these things, however astonishing they may be, to our readers, and to reveal what has happened among us, since many of these people [Essenes] have because of their virtue been thought worthy of this acquaintance with divine things

Important Non-Jewish Sources

Pliny the Elder (23-79 AD)

The Translations of Pliny the Elder come from the Loeb Classical Library, Pliny: Natural History II, they are translated by H. Rackham.

Natural History Book 5.15.73

On the west of the Deed Sea, but out of range of the noxious exhalations of the coast, is the solitary  tribe of the Essenes, which is remarkable beyond all the other tribes in the whole world, as it has no women and has renounced all sexual desire, has no money, and has only palm-trees for company. Day by day the throng of refugees is recruited to an equal number by numerous accessions of persons tired of life and driven thither by the waves of fortune to adopt their manners. Thus through thousands of ages (incredible to relate) a race in which no one is born lives on forever: so prolific for their advantage is other men’s weariness of life!

Dio Chrysostom (c. 140-120 AD)

Sive de Suo Ipsius Instituto 3.2

Furthermore, he somewhere [else] praises the Essenes, an entire happy city (polis) beside the dead water in the interior of Palestine, lying somewhere near the [place of] Sodom itself.

Solinus (3rd Century?)

Collectanea 35.9-12

[In] the interior of Judaea [is a city(?)] the Essenes hold. [They are those] who, possessed by a remarkable discipline, retreat from the universal observance of people, to this way of excellence supposedly destined by providence. The place itself is dedicated to virtue, into which none is admitted, unless he is accompanied by merit, with continence, trust and innocence. For whoever is guilty of even a small thing, however much he wants to advance, is removed by the divinity.

 

The High Priests of the Persian Era – From Jeshua to Jaddua- Wait Who?

Today we’ll look at who were, or who it seems were the High Priest of the Persian Period. We’ll move past the Biblical record and see a little of what Josephus and others have to say.

Persian Period 

Jeshua (Joshua)

High Priest after the return from the exile and the son of Jehozadak who had gone into the exile (1 Chr 6.14-15). Jeshua was related to Ezra the Scribe (Ezra 7.1). It appears that he was born in the Exile and raised in Babylon before returning with the Exiles. He was one of the leaders of the early returning exiles. He is connected with rebuilding the temple (Ezra 5.2; Sirach 49.12)

Jeshua received an oracle from both Haggai and Zechariah , Haggai who encouraged him to work at rebuilding ht temple (Hag. 1.12, 14) and Zechariah who made it clear that Joshua was one of two ordained leaders (Zech 6.11), the other being Zerubbabel. Likely the same person as the Jeshua of Ezra 10.18, which shows that some of his descendants had married foreign women.

It also seems likely that his tenure as High Priest lasted a long time, perhaps into beginning of the fifth century as VanderKam notes.

Joiakim (Joachim)

The high priest when Xerxes ruled and the son of Jeshua who served as High Priest in the 5th century. Easily lasting until 460-450 BC. Little is known of Joiakim. Josephus notes that he died during the feast of Tabernacles, his son, Eliashib served during Nehemiah’s time (Neh 12.10, 12, 16). (Josephus Ant 11.5.5)

It is very likely the Joakim mentioned in Judith was a reference to this High Priest.

Eliashib

High Priest certainly by the time of 445, and who may have be in office until around 433 BC. This was the High Priest during ht time of Nehemiah’s governorship, who helped in Nehemiah’s Wall rebuilding efforts (Neh 3.1). The house of Eliashib indicates the wealth and high social standing that he possessed and indicated the increasing importance of the High Priest (Neh 3.20-21).

He may be the same Eliashib of Nehemiah 13, but it seems odd that he would help in the refortifaction of the walls despite Sanballet, Tobiah, and others protest (Neh 4.1-3) and yet would show favoritism toward Tobiah (Neh. 13.4-5).  However, even though it seems likely the two are different, as High Priest he would have likely have known of Tobiah’s presence and we see that his grandson would intermarry into the family of Tobiah (Neh 13.28) so perhaps  the two families were closer than realize.

Joiada (Jehoiada)

The High Priest around 433 BC to 410 BC. Little is known of Joiada outside of his mention in genealogies (Neh 12.10-11, 22; 13.28) and that his son married the daughter of Sanballat the Horonite (13.28).

Johanan

The Likely High Priest from around 410 BC to at least 370 BC (or later), assuming that Johanan attained the High Priesthood at an early age. He followed Joiada, his father (it seems likely that Jonathan is a scribal error in Neh. 12.11). Johanan was High Priest around the time of Darius’ II reign (ca. 410), based on his name appearing in the Elephantine papyri and Nehemiah 12.22.

According to Josephus, Johanan murdered his brother Jeshua inside the temple  (Antiquities 11.7.1).

Jeshua appears to have been favored by the Governor Bagohi to be made the next High Priest, but his

Note that some propose this to be another High Priest, in the reign of Artaxerxes III and not Artaxerxes II, but I find it more likely that Josephus was referring to the Biblical Johanan and the governor Bagohi.

Jaddua

He was one of the Post-exilic High Priest, mentioned in Nehemiah (12.11, 22), likely his father was not Jonathan, but Johanan (an easy error to make when copying the text). His reign appears to have been a long one, 370 to 333 BC and it appears he was quite aged when Alexander defeated Darius III. Alexander evidently saw Jaddua has the Leader of Judah for he wrote to him according to Josephus (Ant. 11.317).

Josephus also relates another interesting story, which showed that intermarriage continued to be a problem for the Jewish Elite, for Jaddua’s brother Manasseh, married the daughter of Sanballet, Nikaso. (Ant. 11.7.1-8.7).

Josephus also mentions that he “shared” the office with Manasseh early during the reign of Alexander the great (Ant. 11.8.2), but it is uncertain what Josephus meant by this. It could simply mean that Manasseh was Jaddua’s assistant, his sāgān.

The people requested that Manasseh divorce his wife or lose his position, but Manasseh was offered a temple in Samaria by Sanballat and a High Priesthood if he did not divorce his daughter, Manasseh agreed and a number of priests and levites left with him according to Josephus.

His name being mentioned in Ezra-Nehemiah is a clue to the text final form, or may simply be the fact that his name was added into the text late. He is the last High Priest mentioned within the Protestant Old Testament.

Finally it s should be noted that according to Josephus, Jaddua received Alexander the Great (Ant. 11.8.4-6). The tale tells of the meeting of Jaddua and Alexander, after the former had refused to change his support from Darius III to Alexander, which did not please the conqueror. Alexander upon meeting with Jaddua explains seeing him in a dream and Jaddua showing Alexander the work of Daniel and proclaiming the prophet had foretold his coming.

“And, when the book of Daniel was shown to him, in which he had declared that one of the Greeks would destroy the empire of the Persians, he believed himself to be the one indicated; and in his joy he dismissed the multitude for the time being, but on the following day he summoned them again and told them to ask for any gifts which they might desire.” Josephus Antiquities 11.8.5

Alexander is well pleased by all of this and instead of destroying the Jews, promises them many benefits and marches onward to Egypt.

The tale is likely fictitious, and has no mention in any Greek Histories, but helps to show the likely importance of the High Priest in the Persian and Hellenistic era. That already by the time of Jaddua (and likely prior) the High Priest has morphed from just a spiritual leader to a political one as well.

So Far

  • Jeshua – High Priest who helped rebuild Temple
  • Joiakim – Little is known of him.
  • Eliashib – High Priest who helped rebuild Jerusalem’s walls
  • Joiada (Jehoiada) – Little is known to him, his son (Jeshua?) married Sanballet’s daughter
  • Johanan – Long tenure, according to Josephus, he killed brother in temple.
  • Jaddua – Last High Priest mentioned in Old Testament, brother Manasseh married Sanballet’s daughter, maybe met with Alexander the Great

I’m going to wait until a later post (likely the last posting on this) to do another propose listing of the High Priests, so refer to earlier posts for a listing from Eli to Jeshua.

High Priest of Israel Part Three: From Zadok to Jehozadok

Listing So Far

Wilderness Period

  • Aaron – The First High Priest, of the tribe of Levi of course, High Priest during the Wilderness Journey, died shortly before its ends.
  • Eleazar – Aaron’s eldest sons, Nadab and Abihu were killed for using strange fire, thus the High Priesthood came to him. Aaron’s fourth son is Ithamar. Eleazar is High Priest during the Joshua Conquest, dies after Joshua (Josh. 24.33).

Judges Period

  • Phinehas – Noted for his loyalty and zeal during the Peor Incident (Numbers 31), served at Bethel (Judges 20.28) during the time of the war with Benjamin.
  • Abishua – Mentioned only in Genealogies – 1 Chronicles 6.5 and Ezra 7.5
  • Bukki – Mentioned only in Genealogies – 1 Chronicles 6.5 and Ezra 7.4. 2 Esdras 1.2 he is called Borith and 1 Esdras 8.2 Boccas. Note that Samartians split the High Priesthood here, Shesha is said to have succeeded instead, Shesha being a different son of Abishua.
  • Uzzi – Mentioned only in Genealogies – 1 Chronicles 6.5 and Ezra 7.4
  • Note there may be a gap here or Zerhiah and Meraioth may belong here, of them we know nothing save their names in genealogical listing. (See Lightfoot Temple Service IV Sec. 1)
  • Eli – No longer from the descendents of Eleazar, but instead from Aaron’s fourth son, Ithamar, High Priest for forty years during the waning years of the Judges who served at Shiloh. His sons misdeeds caused the High Priesthood to be removed from Ithamar in time to the specific descendants of Eleazar the Zadokites.
  • Phinehas – Not High Priest, but likely preformed duties as Eli grew old and his eyes dimmed

Early Kingdom Period

  • Ahitub – Brother of Ichabod, only mentioned in connection to his sons Ahijah and Ahimelech
  • Ahijah – or Ahiah, ministered at Shiloh, wore ephod early in Saul’s reign, who consults the ephod on whether Saul would win a battle or not
  • Ahimelech – Brother of Ahijah, ministered at Nob, unwittingly helped David against Saul, in revenge, Saul would kill Ahimelech with 84 other priests at Nob
  • Abiathar and Zadok – Both were High Priests during the reign of David and early reign of Solomon, Abiathar is eventually dispose for supporting Adonijah, Zadok becomes sole High Priest and his line is seen the legitimate priestly line.
  • Ahimelech (II) – Son of Abiathar, but never high priest, but like Phinehas may have done some High Priestly duties as Abiathar was quite old during Solomon’s time.
  • Ahimaaz and Azariah (I) – See Below

High Priests of the First Temple Period

Ahimaaz

The son of Zadok, Is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6.9 and nowhere else, it seems likely, however, that he was not ever High Priest, noting Zadok’s presence in the early part of Solomon’s reign and Azariah’s presence at the temple building. Zadok did live to a long age and so perhaps Ahimaaz died before having a chance at becoming High Priest or like others, perhaps he preformed High Priestly duties though never officially one.

Azariah (I)

1 Kings 4.2 – Azariah, is the son rather than grandson of Zadok.

Mentioned in the Chronicle’s genealogy, 6.9, as son of Ahimaaz, note, however that many scholars feel that the mention in verse 10 of the priest serving in the temple should moved down to verse 9, and thus 9 should read:

Ahimaaz was the father of Azariah (it was he who served a priest in the house which Solomon Built in Jerusalem).” Azariah was the father of Johanan

1 Kings 4.2 also mentions Azariah called the son of Zadok (most likely in a generic sense), and so should be read as descendent or grandson of Zadok. From this we gather that not only was he in charge of the temple, but helped to supervised the priest in an official way.

At this point Chronciles divegers from the listing in Josephus’ and  ‘Olam Zuta.

Johanah

Nothing is really known of him, except for his appearance in the Genealogy, 1 Chr 6.1-15, he was a son (or descendent) of Azariah I, High Priest during Solomon’s time. If son, he was likely the High Priest during Rehobaom’s reign, but if he is a descendent that would place him as being the father of Azariah (II)

This appears to be a gap between Johanah and Amariah, certainly,  Johanah was not High Priest from Rehoboam to Jehoshaphat, but we have no other biblical data from the genealogies or mentions of High Priest in the reign of Rehoboam, Abijah, or Asa.

Whoever was the High Priest during Abijah’s reign which was only three years was likely either the priest during a part Rehoboam’s rule or Asa’s.

Amariah (I)

The High Priest during Jehoshaphat’s reign was Amariah (2 Chr 19.11), during this time he was placed in charge over ecclesiastical and religious matters. 19.11, does not mention his father, and so Amariah may be the same as seen in Chronicles Genealogies, or one of the High Priest not listed in it.

Jehoiada

Jehoiada is a prominent High Priest connected with the story of Joash and Athaliah (see in 2  Kings 11 and 2 Chronicles 22) His wife, Jehosheba saved Joash from death when Athaliah tried to kill all the Davidic heirs and he raised Joash in the temple until it was the right time to bring about a coup to reinstate Joash. Jehoiada lived to an advance of 130 and in his death was buried among the kings of Judah because of his service to the crown. He may be referenced to in Jeremiah 29.26, but this is uncertain. Due to his long life it is not inconceivable that he was High Priest after Amariah (I)

Who was between Jehoiada in the latter end of Joash’s reign and the Azariah in Uzziah’s reign?

Could Zechariah, the descendent of Jehoiada have been a High Priest?

Josephus at this point may point to Pediah as being Jehoiada’s son. (If one equates Axioram an obviously corrupted name with Jehoiada and Phideas with Seder Olam’s Pediah). It, furthermore seems unlikely that Zechariah was Jehoiada’s son whose advange age is noted in the text. Thus it would seem likely, that Zechariah’s father, perhaps the Pediah mentioned was High Priest.

Is there another gap here in the biblical record? Or did Pediah finish out Joash’s reign and was the same High Priest during Amaziah’s?

Azariah (II)

Azariah (II) is likely the same as Azariah son (as in descendent) of Johanan of 1 Chr 6.10. This is the Azariah who appears during King Uzziah’s reign. Specifically, we’re told that Uzziah tried to enter the temple to burn incense and Azariah opposed his actions (2 Chr. 26.17, 20).

Was he High Priest during Jotham’s rein as well, or at least a part of it? Was it Uriah? Josephus and Seder Olam both mention a Joel and Jotham prior to Uriah. With Joel at times being equated with Azariah (II), which would mean a High Priest Jotham reigned prior to Uriah. But is unmentioned for some reason.

Uriah

Kings, Chronicles, and Isaiah, point to Uriah (Urijah) as the High Priest during  the reign of King Ahaz. Ahaz we’re told ordered Uriah to build an Assyrian styled altar and to offer sacrifices to that instead of Solomon’s altar (2 Kings 16.10-16). In Isaiah, Uriah is one of the persons whom Isaiah called to witness the authenticity of his oracles (Isaiah 8.2), despite Uriah’s missteps, he was still held in esteem by the people. It is for participation in false worship that some wonder if he was omitted from the list.

Azariah (III)

The Chief priest during the reign of Hezekiah (2 Chr. 31.10, 13), who speaks favorably about the donations that the people have given. He may also be the same Azariah who the father of Joel, a Levite who helped in cleaning the temple (2 Chr. 29.12)

Complications

At this point the Chronicle genealogies seem to have been corrupted. We now have three (Chronicles/Ezra) or four names (Nehemiah) which fit with the reign of Manasseh and Amon, Josiah’s high priest clearly being Hilkiah. While Manasseh reigned for around 50 years, Amon’s reign was only two years.

Moreover, it seems slightly suspicious that Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok would appear in the list together again, in the same order as earlier in the list.

Should Josephus and Seder Olam be considered at this point?

Instead of four names, Seder Olam has two, Hoshaiah (Manasseh) and Shallum (Amon). Josephus after Urijah has three names, Nerias (Was this Azariah III?), then Odaias and Saloum, that is Shallum.

Going back to these three names of Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, copyist error may not be the only answer, it could be that the chronicler was not so much saying that these were the men descended from Azariah (III), but perhaps noted that with Shallum, the High Priesthood was returned to the Zadokite line. Perhaps during the years Manasseh’s apostasy he had corrupted the High priesthood?

Amariah (II)

Noted in 1 Chronicles 6 and Ezra genealogies, nothing else is known, perhaps a literary device speaking of Shallum’s/Hilkiah’s ancestry.

Ahitub (II)

Noted in 1 Chronicles 6 and Ezra genealogies, nothing else is known, perhaps a literary device speaking of Shallum’s/Hilkiah’s ancestry.

Meraioth

Noted in 1 Chronicles 9.11 and Nehemiah 11.11 contra 1 Chronicles 6.12 and Ezra  7.2 if the names here are correct. Note that Nehemiah 12.15 speaks of this as a priestly house during the days of Joiakim. The Meraioth reference seems odd.

Zadok (II)

Noted in 1 Chronicles 6 and Ezra genealogies, nothing else is known, perhaps a literary device speaking of Shallum’s/Hilkiah’s ancestry.

Shallum

Noted in 1 Chronicles 6 and Ezra, outside of his famous son nothing is known. Likely he is to be equated with Meshullam in Nehemiah 11.11 and 1 Chronicles 9.11

Hilkiah

High Priest under Josiah, Hilkiah found the book of the law (2 Kings 22.8) and he helped in the religious revival of Josiah (2 Kings 23.4), and helped to celebrate Passover (2 Chr. 35.8). Hilkiah really stands as one of the best of the Old Testament high priests.

Azariah (IV)

Noted in 1 Chronicles 6.13 and Ezra 7.1, as well as in 1 Esdras 8.1; 2 Esdras 1.1, but outside of this nothing is known.

Seraiah

High Priest in Jerusalem during the Babylonian Conquest, he is one of the officials executed at Riblah (2 Kings 25.17-21; Jer. 52.24-27). Outside of his death and position nothing else is known.

Jehozadak

The Son of Seraiah, who the Chronicler reports was taken into exile (2 Chr. 6.15).

“and Jehozadak went into exile when the LORD sent Judah and Jerusalem into exile by the hand of Nebuchadnezzar.”

Very likely, Jehozadak was never the High Priest, but his son (direct descendent?), Jeshua will help lead the people back to the land after 70 years of Exile.

Propose List of High Priests from Aaron to the Exile

  • Exodus to Conquest Period
  • Aaron – The First High Priest, of the tribe of Levi of course, High Priest during the Wilderness Journey, died shortly before its ends.
  • Eleazar – Aaron’s eldest sons, Nadab and Abihu were killed for using strange fire, thus the High Priesthood came to him. Aaron’s fourth son is Ithamar. Eleazar is High Priest during the Joshua Conquest, dies after Joshua (Josh. 24.33).
  • Judges Period
  • Phinehas – Noted for his loyalty and zeal during the Peor Incident (Numbers 31), served at Bethel (Judges 20.28) during the time of the war with Benjamin.
  • Abishua – Mentioned only in Genealogies – 1 Chronicles 6.5 and Ezra 7.5
  • Bukki – Mentioned only in Genealogies – 1 Chronicles 6.5 and Ezra 7.4. 2 Esdras 1.2 he is called Borith and 1 Esdras 8.2 Boccas. Note that Samartians split the High Priesthood here, Shesha is said to have succeeded instead, Shesha being a different son of Abishua.
  • Uzzi – Mentioned only in Genealogies – 1 Chronicles 6.5 and Ezra 7.4
  • Note there may be a gap here or Zerhiah and Meraioth may belong here, of them we know nothing save their names in genealogical listing. (See Lightfoot Temple Service IV Sec. 1)
  • Eli – No longer from the descendents of Eleazar, but instead from Aaron’s fourth son, Ithamar, High Priest for forty years during the waning years of the Judges who served at Shiloh. His sons misdeeds caused the High Priesthood to be removed from Ithamar in time to the specific descendants of Eleazar the Zadokites.
  • Phinehas – Not High Priest, but likely preformed duties as Eli grew old and his eyes dimmed
  • Early Kingdom Period
  • Ahitub – Brother of Ichabod, only mentioned in connection to his sons Ahijah and Ahimelech
  • Ahijah – or Ahiah, ministered at Shiloh, wore ephod early in Saul’s reign, who consults the ephod on whether Saul would win a battle or not
  • Ahimelech – Brother of Ahijah, ministered at Nob, unwittingly helped David against Saul, in revenge, Saul would kill Ahimelech with 84 other priests at Nob
  • Abiathar and Zadok – Both were High Priests during the reign of David and early reign of Solomon, Abiathar is eventually dispose for supporting Adonijah, Zadok becomes sole High Priest and his line is seen the legitimate priestly line.
  • Ahimelech (II) – Son of Abiathar, but never high priest, but like Phinehas may have done some High Priestly duties as Abiathar was quite old during Solomon’s time.
  • First Temple Period
  • Ahimaaz – Son of Zadok, like Ahimelech (II) while never stated to be a High Priest he may have done certain High Priestly duties
  • Azariah (I) – Officer in Solomon’s court, and likely the one reference in 1 Chronicles 6 as serving in Solomon’s Temple also notw 1 Kings 4.2
  • Johanah – Mentioned only in Genealogies – 1 Chronicles 6.5 and Ezra 7.5
  • Uncertain, but there seems to be a gap, clearly the biblical record gives the name of Amariah and Jehoiada, but the genealogies do not, which is especially strange for Jehoiada! Who were the Priests in Abijah and Asa’s reign?
  • Amariah (I) – Served in Jehoshaphat’s court over religious matters (2 Chronicles 19.11)
  • Jehoiada – One of the most famous High Priests who did so much for Judah that he was buried among the kings (2 Chronicles 24 and 2 Kings 12)
  • Pediah – Not Biblical, but assuming Josephus and Seder Olam may have other sources, this would make Zechariah the grandson of Jehoiada, not son
  • Was Zechariah the son or grandson of Jehoiada and was he a High Priest or not?
  • Azariah (II) – The priest who stood against king Uzziah who wanted to burn incense in the temple (2 Chronicles 26.20)
  • Urijah (Ahaz) – High Priest who built pagan altar, may be why he was omitted from genealogies.
  • Azariah (III) (Hezekiah) (2 Chronicles 31.10)
  • Odeas/Hosaiah – Not Biblical, but assuming Josephus and Seder Olam may have other sources. Note Amariah (II), Ahitub (II), Meraioth, Zadok (II) are mentioned only in Genealogies, most likely textual corruption or reinforcement that Hilkiah was a Zadokite priest.
  • Shallum– Only mentioned in Genealogies
  • Hilikiah (Josiah) (2 Kings 22; 23; 2 Chronicles 34)
  • Azariah (IV) – Only mentioned in Genealogies
  • Seraiah (Zedekiah) High Priest during the exile and executed by Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah (2 Kings 25.18; Jeremiah 52.24)
  • Jehozadak – Seraiah’s son, but likely never actually the High Priest.

The Seder Olam Zuta

  • Zadok (Solomon)
  • Ahimaaz (King Rehoboam)
  • Azariah (I) (Abijah)
  • Johoram (Asa)
  • Joahaz (Jehoshaphat) Identical with Amariah (I)?
  • Jehoiarib/Jehoiada (Jehoram)
  • Jehoshaphat/Joshua (Ahaziah)
  • Jehoiada (Athaliah and Joash)
  • Pedaiah (Joash)
  • Zedekiah (Amaziah)
  • Joel (Uzziah) Identical with Azariah (II)?
  • Jotham (Jotham)
  • Uriah (Ahaz)
  • Neriah (Hezekiah) Identical with Azariah (III)?
  • Hoshaiah (Manasseh)
  • Shallum (Amon)
  • Hilikiah (Josiah and Jehoahaz)
  • Azariah (IV) (Jehoiakim)
  • Seraiah (Jehoiachin)
  • Jehozadak (Zedekiah)

Josephus’s Listing

  • Zadok
  • Ahimaaz High Priest
  • Azariah (I)
  • Joram
  • Isus (Jos) – Jehoshaphat?
  • Axioram – Jehoiada?
  • Phideas – Pediah?
  • Soudai/Sudaiah – Zedekiah? Zechariah?
  • Jouel/Joel
  • Jotham
  • Ourias/Urijah
  • Nerias – Neriah
  • Odaias /Odaiah – Hoshaiah?
  • Shallum
  • Hilikiah
  • Azariah (IV)
  • Seraiah
  • Jehozadak

The Angelic Women of Zechariah 5.9-11

In 5.9 of Zechariah, the prophet is confronted with a vision of wickedness (seen as a woman) being removed from the land. In that vision, the prophet also sees two women with wings like storks who do the job of flying wickedness away.

The question is who are these women? Especially as it seems that the prophet knew, after all, he does not ask about them, but modern scholars certainly have.[1]  Are they the agents of Yahweh or rather are they demonic forces who bends to his will?

They are described as having “wind/spirit is in their wings,” and having “wings like the wings of the stork.” The former statement implies that they have wings and they are airborne.[2] The use of the Hebrew term ר֫וּחַ, rûaḥ, also suggests that these figures are God’s servants. The word which can be translated as wind or spirit, could be a sign of God’s spirit “empowering the two,” just as God’s spirit strengthened Zerubbbabel (Zech. 4.6).[3]  God’s rûaḥ worked in creation (Gen. 1.2), opened and shut the Red Sea (Ex. 15.8,10, 2 Sam 22.16), in Ezekiel it brought the dead to life (37.1-14).[4] Thus because of the “words double meaning” it could be translated as “the Spirit was in their wings,” and points that the removal of Wickedness is from God’s hand.[5] The wind can be seen as Yahweh’s agents in several other passages (Gen. 8.1; Ex 15.10; Jer. 10.13; Num. 11.31).[6]

Scholars have also noted that these angelic woman share certain affinities with the cherubim seen in other Old Testament passages. For example, “the wind in their wings” is a similar phrased used of cherubim in 2 Samuel 22.11; Psalm 17.10 “wings of the wind” and in Hosea 4.19 “wind in its wings.”[7] This in itself would seem to indicate that these angelic-like creatures are Yahweh’s agents.[8] (See Above)

Their task in Zechariah 5.9-11 is also similar to the task of the Cherubim in Ezekiel 8-11 and other divine creatures. For example, Ezekiel 11.22-23 the Cherubim remove God’s glory from Jerusalem as the winged women here remove personified wickedness from Judah.[9] One could also note that the winged move in the same space as that of the prophet Ezekiel (Ezek 8.3) and the Angel of the Lord (1 Chr 21.16) another indication they are YHWH’s agents.[10] Their motions also seemed similar to that God’s chariot in Ezekiel’s initial vision.[11]

They are given the task of caring the ephah to Babylonia, but do they do this of their volition or not? As Sals noted, “that they carry unrighteousness away is surely to Israel’s advantage.”[12] Moreover their task, ridding the land of wickedness-sin, is one which only Yahweh can do, and a major theme of Zechariah seems to be of God’s divine actions.[13]

Most scholars agree that these figures should not be seen as female cherubim. These winged women seem the only ones fit to carry the ephah to Shinar, perhaps because, of the Cherubim general proximity to Yahweh, compared to these figures.[14] Or as Peterson noted, “Yahweh could not touch the evil and sin-guilt, but he could provide the power for its removal.”[15]

Their wings are likened to that storks. The majority of scholars think the liking of the wings have some “symbolic significance.”[16]

For some, they look at the negative connotations of the stork, specifically, Leviticus 11.19 and Deuteronomy 14.18 the stork are listed as an unclean animal, and some argue their unclean status would make them “suitable carries of the guilt.”[17] (See Rudman “Zechariah and Priestley Law” and Merrill Zechariah) Others point to the negative image given to it in Exodus 11.13-19.[18] (Conrad Zechariah 120).

Others maintain that it may be positive. For example, the Hebrew word for stork “חֲסִידָה” has its root חָסַד which means “to be kind” or to “show mercy,” perhaps a reflection of how the bird cares for its young.[19] Others point to Jeremiah 8.7 where the stork is seen as a “pious, compassionate, and true to God.”[20] As “This same tender care,” George Klien noted of the Storks, “for the helpless young marks the Lord’s treatment of his “young,” the Israelites.”[21]

It could also be simply that Zechariah was trying to describe the wings of these women as best as he could.[22] Or that the women went north worth, as a stork migrates, and so the writer associated their wings with that.[23]

While there can be no certainty with what these creatures are I think that Tiemeyer concluded correctly that, “the textual evidence in Zech 5:9-11, as well as the comparable biblical and non-biblical material, implies that the two winged women are God’s agents.”[24]

Endnotes:


                                [1] Lena-Sofia Tiemeyer, Zechariah and his Vision (New York: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2015), 228

                                [2] Ibid., 228.

                                [3] Ibid., 229.

                [4] Joyce G. Baldwin, vol. 28, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1972), 128.

                                [5] Ibid., 137

                [6] David L. Peterson, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8 (Old Testament Library), (The Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1984) 259.

                                [7] Tiemeyer, 228.

                                [8] Ibid.

                                [9] Ibid.

                                [10] Ibid.

                                [11] Ibid.

                [12] Ulrike Sals, “Reading Zechariah 5.5-11: Prophecy, Gender and (Ap)Perception,” in Athalya Brenner Prophets and Daniel (A Feminist Companion to the Bible. Second Series, (Sheffield Academic Press, New York, 2001), 199.

                [13] George L. Klein, vol. 21B, Zechariah, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing Group, 2008), 179.

                [14] Tiemeyer, 228-29.

                [15] Peterson, 259.

                [16] Tiemeyer, 230.

                [17] Tiemeyer, 231.

                [18] Ibid.

                [19] Ibid., 230.

                [20] Ibid., 230-31.

[21] Klien, 179

                [22] Tiemeyer, 232.

                [23] Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Haggai, Zechariah 1-8: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, Includes Indexes. (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2008), 306.

                [24] Tiemeyer, 233.