Josephus on martyrdom of Apostle James

“The current scholarly consensus is that this text is authentic”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananus_ben_Ananus Josephus's account of the death of James as follows: Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the Sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a Sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.[3] The current scholarly consensus is that this text is authentic.[4][5][6][7] Moreover, in comparison with Hegesippus's account of James's death in his Hypomnemata, scholars consider Josephus's to be the more historically reliable.[8] …. Josephus. "20.9.1". The Antiquities of the Jews. Van Voorst 2000, p. 83. Richard Bauckham states that although a few scholars have questioned this passage, "the vast majority have considered it to be authentic" (Bauckham 1999, pp. 199–203). Feldman & Hata 1987, pp. 54–57. Flavius Josephus & Maier 1995, pp. 284–285. Painter 2004, p. 126.

So sad, you see, this Annas the Sadducee

“When Jesus entered the Temple and overthrew the moneychangers' tables, He caused a real financial hit to Annas and his family. The holy days, when a few million pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem, were their most lucrative times. Jesus' actions shut down their operations for a few days, cutting severely into their bottom line”. John Reiss Article taken from: https://www.cgg.org/index.cfm/library/weekly/id/1002/house-annas.htm The House of Annas by John Reiss CGG Weekly, May 1, 2020 ________________________________________ "There is no safety for honest men but by believing all possible evil of evil men." —Edmund Burke ________________________________________ The evangelist Luke writes in Luke 3:1-2: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, . . . while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness." We know what happened at the end of this story: Pilate condemned Jesus Christ to crucifixion on Passover day in AD 31. But how much do we know about the people who conspired to put Him to death, Annas and Caiaphas, who were high priests at the time? These two men were Sadducees. The Sadducees did not leave any written records themselves, but The Jewish Encyclopedia summarizes their views and principles: • The Sadducees represented the powerful and wealthy, and their interests focused on the here and now. They tended to be astute politicians. • They conducted their lives to enrich themselves and protect their positions of power. • The Sadducees considered only the five books of Moses to be authoritative. In rejecting the prophets, they did not believe in a resurrection (Acts 23:8). The same verse says they did not believe in angels or demons either. • They judged harshly; mercy does not seem to have part of their character. Unlike the Pharisees, who maintained that the Oral Law provided for a correct interpretation of God's Word, the Sadducees believed only in the written law and a literal interpretation of it. For instance, instead of seeing "an eye for an eye" as a principle of comparative compensation, the Sadducees held that it meant a literal removal of the offender's eye. The New Standard International Encyclopedia says that the word Sadducee implies the meaning of "to be righteous," and suggests that they took their name from Zadok, the high priest during David's time, from whom all succeeding high priests claim their descent. Conversely, a legend posits that they took their name from another Zadok who followed Antigonus of Socho. Antigonus taught his disciples to serve God without thought of reward. Instead of recognizing this teaching as a moral principle, Zadok believed that it refuted the ideas of resurrection and life after death, wrongly concluding that people should seek to live luxuriously in the present. The most powerful Sadducee in the first century was Annas, also known as Ananus or Ananias. In Hebrew, his name was Hananiah, meaning "the grace of Yahweh." Because of his descent from Aaron, he was considered a legitimate high priest. He was born around 22 or 23 BC and lived until approximately AD 40, though the actual date of his death is unrecorded. Quirinius appointed him to the position of high priest in AD 6, which he filled until AD 15 when Valerius Gratus deposed him for executing lawbreakers for religious infractions, a practice Rome had forbidden. Evidently, he had a young Sabbath-breaker stoned. Accumulating impressive power at an early age, Annas used it well. Five of his sons, a grandson, and most famously, his son-in-law, Caiaphas, were also elevated to the high priesthood. His son, Eleazar, succeeded him (AD 16-17); then Caiaphas (AD 18-36); four other sons, Jonathan (AD 36-37, 44), Theophilus (AD 37-41), Matthias (AD 43), and Annas II (AD 63); and a grandson, Matthias ben Theophilus (AD 65-66). Historian Alfred Edersheim writes in The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (I, 263) that the Talmud describes the high priests of the time "in terrible language. . . . [The House of Annas] is included in the woes pronounced on the corrupt leaders of the priesthood," whose presence defiled the Sanctuary. Several nineteenth-century commentators speculated that the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16:19-31) refers to the House of Annas, implying their guilt in conspiring to kill Jesus' friend, Lazarus. In the parable, the rich man dressed in purple and fine linen (see Exodus 28:1-8) represents Caiaphas, and the "five brothers" were Annas' sons who followed him in the high priestly office. Although the Roman authorities appointed others to the high priesthood, the Jewish people considered Annas to be the high priest by divine law. Thus, he held authority over spiritual matters. He may also have been the richest man in Judea, controlling all Temple trade, that is, the moneychangers and their ilk. He also maintained his political influence as a kind of "boss of bosses." That the soldiers who arrested Jesus brought Him to Annas' palace first and then to Caiaphas attests to this fact (John 18:13). Annas sought to use his office to protect his power and influence while enriching his family. The House of Annas amassed a fortune by selling at outrageous prices things that faithful pilgrims needed for their sacrifices, including sheep, wine, and oil at the infamous "booths of the sons of Annas" on the Mount of Olives. They also owned market stalls in the Court of the Gentiles, and with this monopoly, they could extort high prices from the faithful. The depth of this family's corruption was notorious, including the huge profits they made from exchanging foreign monies into Temple coins for the required Temple tax. The House of Annas even took advantage of women. When a woman gave birth, the law required her to give an offering at the Temple, usually a sheep, but if poor, she could bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, as a burnt offering and a sin offering (Leviticus 12:6-8). The House of Annas raised the cost of these birds to where poor women could not afford it, perhaps over twelve times the previous value. Matthew 21:12-13 relates the story of Jesus' and the moneychangers: Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers, and the seats of those who sold doves. And He said to them, ‘It is written, ‛My House shall be called a house of prayer,' but you have made it a den of thieves." When Jesus entered the Temple and overthrew the moneychangers' tables, He caused a real financial hit to Annas and his family. The holy days, when a few million pilgrims traveled to Jerusalem, were their most lucrative times. Jesus' actions shut down their operations for a few days, cutting severely into their bottom line. After He overturned the tables, the scribes and the chief priests sought to destroy Him (Mark 11:18). As one commentator, E.G. Lewis, states, "He raised their ire by striking at the source of their wealth and like a typical Mafia chieftain, Annas responded with violence." Joseph Ernest Renan, a French expert of ancient Middle Eastern languages and civilizations, writes in his Life of Jesus, "Annas was the principal actor in the terrible drama, and far more than Caiaphas, far more than Pilate, ought to bear the weight of the maledictions of mankind" (p. 231). As the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states in its article on Annas, "Caiaphas, indeed, as actual high priest, was the nominal head of the Sanhedrin which condemned Jesus, but the aged Annas was the ruling spirit." Such was the official religious authority in Judea during the life of Jesus and the early years of God's church.

Maccabees and Crusaders are substantially identical

“Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical”. Elizabeth Lapina See also Damien F. Mackey’s related article: Maccabees may aptly be compared with Crusaders (4) Maccabees may aptly be compared with Crusaders | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Elizabeth Lapina has written most intriguingly on this subject in her article: “Maccabees and the Battle of Antioch (1098)” (4) “Maccabees and the Battle of Antioch (1098)” | Elizabeth Lapina - Academia.edu …. It is unclear what exactly the crusaders and medieval chroniclers of the Crusades knew about the importance of Antioch within the cult of the Jewish martyrs in Late Antiquity. When describing the city, crusading sources do not mention the Maccabees. One of the rare exceptions is the so-called Charleville Poet, who claims that Antioch was very ancient: “the book of Maccabees asserts its [Antioch’s] existence, when the priest is said to have perished, next to Daphne.” the poet is apparently alluding to the assassination of the pious Priest Onias in the vicinity of the city, described in the Second Book of Maccabees (2 Macc 4:34). …. In general, medieval writers of history were always eagerly looking for biblical prototypes of later events and figures. While Maccabean martyrs hardly resembled crusaders, Maccabean warriors did. Maccabean warriors shared the name of the Maccabean martyrs, but, of course, not their fate, fighting Antiochus actively under the leadership of Judas Maccabeus. Both the Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought for control of the city of Jerusalem and took pride in the restoration of holy sites. While the Maccabees fought against a Pagan enemy, crusaders struggled against Muslims, whom they frequently associated with Pagans. Last but not least, both profited from divine help on the battlefield. Modern authors tend to accept as an axiom that in the twelfth century, there existed a strong identification between crusaders and the Maccabean warriors. Penny Cole wrote, for example, that “in all essential ways the struggles of the Maccabees against the persecutor Antiochus . . . and by association, of the crusaders against Muslim infidel, are substantially identical.” Indeed, Baldwin I, the second ruler and first Latin king of Jerusalem, was called a “second Maccabee” in the laudatory inscription on his tombstone. Describing the Battle of Tall Danith, in which Prince Roger of Antioch emerged victorious, Fulcher of Chartres exclaims as follows: “For when did victory of fighters ever depend upon the number of men? Remember the Maccabees, Gideon, and many others who confided not in their own strength but in God and in that way overcame many thousands.” …. For instance, in the ninth century, Rabanus Maurus, a monk and the archbishop of Mainz, argued that Mattathias (the father of Judas Maccabeus) was a “type” of Christ and his sons signified the community of saints. In the late tenth or early eleventh century, Aelfric, an abbot at the Anglo-Saxon monastery of Eynsham, included the story of Judas Maccabeus in his collection of saints’ vitae compiled for the edification of the laity. On the one hand, Aelfric acknowledged that warfare in defense of one’s home and one’s faith, such as the one that Judas Maccabeus had undertaken, was just. On the other hand, he emphasized that spiritual combat is of greater value than actual warfare. In the aftermath of the First Crusade, there was considerable questioning of old paradigms regarding warfare. Some began to argue that crusaders fought “for Christ” and hence could almost be equated with monks. This revalorization of warfare led, at least in part, to the increasing popularity of the Maccabean warriors. However, many authors writing about the First Crusade found the very outward resemblance between the Maccabees and crusaders disturbing. From their perspective, if the wars of crusaders were both physical and spiritual, the wars of the Maccabees lacked a spiritual dimension, since, of course, they had nothing to do with the Christian faith. Damien Mackey’s comment: But, see my articles: Religious war waging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus https://www.academia.edu/107036451/Religious_war_raging_in_Judah_during_the_Infancy_of_Jesus and: Shepherds of Bethlehem and the five Maccabees https://www.academia.edu/111517720/Shepherds_of_Bethlehem_and_the_five_Maccabees Elizabeth Lapina continues: …. Both Cafaro and Fulcher saw the crusaders as “new Maccabees” of a hybrid variety: they resisted actively, with sword in hand, just like Judas Maccabeus, but at the same time they were martyrs, just as the Priest Eleazar, the seven brothers and their mother. In this manner, the connection between the crusaders and Maccabees acquired a new meaning: the deeds of the crusaders surpassed the military exploits of the Maccabean warriors and, at the very least, equaled the spiritual victories of the Maccabean martyrs. …. The moment when crusaders came closest to resembling the Maccabees was during the Battle of Antioch. According to a number of sources, crusaders were able to emerge victorious thanks to divine intervention. For instance, the anonymous author of Gesta Francorum, one of the earliest narratives of the First Crusade, writes that there “appeared from the mountains a countless host of men on white horses, whose banners were all white.” he crusaders realized that “this was the succor sent by Christ, and that the leaders were St. George, St. Mercurius and St. Demetrius.” An obvious parallel to this and other narratives of celestial intervention in the Battle of Antioch is to be found in the Second Book of Maccabees, where there are several similar episodes. In one battle, for instance, “five resplendent men from heaven on horses with golden bridles . . . led on the Jews” (2 Macc 10:29–30). They “showered arrows and thunderbolts on the enemy till, blinded and disordered, they were utterly bewildered and cut to pieces” (2 Macc 10:30–31). There are several other biblical and non-biblical texts that mention celestial warriors or an entire celestial army. However, the only parallel that chroniclers of the Crusades acknowledge overtly is with the Second Book of Maccabees. William of Malmesbury, who included an extensive narrative of the First Crusade in his Deeds of the English Kings, uses the reference to the Maccabees to demonstrate that the miracle of saintly intervention in the Battle of Antioch was credible. Ater describing the miracle, he adds: “nor can we deny that martyrs have aided Christians, at any rate when fighting in a cause like this, just as angels once gave help to the Maccabees.” According to William, both the Maccabees and crusaders were fighting for a worthy cause and thus deserved divine help. Thus, William’s reference seems to be an example of a conventional use of Jewish heroes as prototypes of medieval warriors. …. Orderic Vitalis, the author of Ecclesiastical History, most of which was written between 1123 and 1137, represents the fourth strategy for undermining the standard connection between the crusaders and Maccabees. Orderic’s presentation of the Battle of the Field of Blood seems a response to that connection as raised, for instance, by Fulcher in the framework of the Battle of Tall Danith. As discussed above, Fulcher compared crusaders to Maccabees, who frequently won battles regardless of their numerical inferiority. he Battle of the Field of Blood took place just four years ater the Battle of Tall Danith; it was also fought relatively close to Antioch and involved the same crusading leader, Prince Roger of Antioch. But as its name suggests, the Battle of the Field of Blood was an unprecedented disaster for crusaders, with Prince Roger killed and his entire army annihilated. According to Orderic, just before the battle’s beginning, Bernard of Valence, the Patriarch of Antioch, warned Roger against engaging the enemy, begging him to wait for reinforcements. Abandoning the discourse of divinely-sponsored victory of the few over many, the patriarch gave Roger highly practical advice: “Temper your zeal with prudence, valiant duke, and wait for King Baldwin and Joscelin and the other loyal lords who are coming early to our assistance. Rash haste has brought many men to ruin and deprived great princes of life and victory.” The Patriarch supported his admonitions by citing historical precedent: Study ancient and modern histories, and ponder seriously over the fates of some remarkable kings. Call to mind Saul and Josiah and Judas Maccabeus, and the Romans who were defeated by Hannibal at Cannae, and take great care not to drag your subjects with yourself into a disaster of the same kind. Wait for your worthy allies . . . …. The Maccabean warriors and crusaders fought their wars on the same terrain, with Jerusalem being the ultimate goal. Both referred to the restoration of sites of worship and the possibility of freely practicing their faith in the city as the aims of their fighting and both profited from a remarkably similar type of miracle: the intervention of celestial agents on the battlefield. …. In canto XVIII of Dante’s Paradiso, completed shortly before the author’s death in 1321, the narrator meets eight rulers who have been admitted to paradise. The attribute shared by all eight is having defended the “true faith,” whether Judaism or Christianity, against “infidels.” Among these individuals, the narrator meets Duke Geofrey of Bouillon, one of the leaders of the First Crusade, and “the great Maccabee” (alto Maccabeo), presumably Judas. Clearly, by the fourteenth century, the controversy surrounding the comparisons between Christian and Jewish warriors was a thing of the past. It was no longer disquieting to find a crusader and a Maccabean warrior as neighbors in paradise.

Diocletian, rhyming with, or repeating, Augustus?

by Damien F. Mackey “The purpose of the Roman empire’s subdivision by Diocletian and his tetrarchy was to permanently end the civil wars that had been raging since 88 BC (Marius [died 86 BC] against Sulla [died 78 BC]). This transformation from a more central to a more decentralized administration did not take place 300 years after these massive internal conflicts, but during the time that Augustus was still emperor. Diocletian did not organize decentralization to weaken Rome, but to protect the capital. Diocletian was not an imitator of Augustus's reforms. He was directly responsible for their implementation”. Gunnar Heinsohn More on the historical revision of antiquity by professor Gunnar Heinsohn (RIP): https://q-mag.org/rome-and-jerusalem-a-stratigraphy-based-chronology-of-the-ancient-world.html Rome and Jerusalem - a stratigraphy-based chronology of the Ancient World Professor Heinsohn’s parallels between Augustus and Diocletian I find to be most interesting, indeed, presuming that they are accurate. So far I have not thoroughly checked all of them: https://www.q-mag.org/gunnar-heinsohn-augustus-and-diocletian-contemporaries-or-three-centuries-apart.html Gunnar Heinsohn (15 June 2019) AUGUSTUS AND DIOCLETIAN: CONTEMPORARIES OR 300 YEARS APART? This all becomes especially intriguing for me in light of my article of somewhat similar parallelism between Augustus and Hadrian: Hadrian a reincarnation of Augustus https://www.academia.edu/43238752/Hadrian_a_reincarnation_of_Augustus To recall a few examples of what I wrote there: When reading through Anthony Everitt’s 392-page book, Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome (Random House, NY, 2009), I was struck by the constant flow of similarities between Hadrian and Augustus - which the author himself does nothing to hide. Here are some of them: Pp. 190-191: Ten years into his reign, Hadrian announced to the world that, speaking symbolically, he was a reincarnation of Augustus. P. x: … Augustus, whom Hadrian greatly admired and emulated. P. 145: Flatterers said that [Hadrian’s] eyes were languishing, bright, piercing and full of light”. …. One may suspect that this was exactly what Hadrian liked to hear (just as his revered Augustus prided himself on his clear, bright eyes). P. 190: … the true hero among his predecessors was Augustus. For the image on Hadrian’s signet ring to have been that of the first princeps was an elegantly simple way of acknowledging indebtedness …. Later, he asked the Senate for permission to hang an ornamental shield, preferably of silver, in Augustus’ honor in the Senate. P. 191: What was it that Hadrian valued so highly in his predecessor? Not least the conduct of his daily life. Augustus lived with conscious simplicity and so far as he could avoided open displays of his preeminence. P. 192: Both Augustus and Hadrian made a point of being civiles principes, polite autocrats. …. Whenever Augustus was present, he took care to give his entire attention to the gladiatorial displays, animal hunts, and the rest of the bloodthirsty rigmarole. Hadrian followed suit. …. Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus “Diocletian's goal was to wipe out the Church. He hunted down Christians and their Scriptures. He especially loved to get hold of church leaders”. Christian History for Everyman The career of Gaius Aurelius Valerius Diocletianus (formerly Diocles) (c. 300 AD, conventional dating), follows a pattern remarkably similar to that of the Seleucid tyrant king, Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes’. This pattern can partly be perceived from the following comparison of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ and Diocletian, as provided at: https://housetohouse.com/the-indestructible-word-2/ …. When Antiochus Epiphanes became ruler in Syria in 175 b.c. [sic] he destroyed the Jewish temple, sold the people of Jerusalem into slavery, and sought to do away with their sacred writings, forcing Greek culture upon the Jews. This was all done in an effort to substitute Zeus worship for the worship of God. Frank E. Hirsch in, “Abomination of Desolation,” wrote, “The observance of all Jewish laws, especially those relating to the sabbath and to circumcision, were forbidden under pain of death. The Jewish cult was set aside; in all the cities of Judaea, sacrifices must be brought to the pagan deities. Representatives of the crown everywhere enforced the edict. Once a month the search was instituted, and whoever had secreted a copy of the law or had observed the rite of circumcision was condemned to death.” However, God saw to it that efforts to destroy the sacred writings of the Old Testament failed. Roman emperor Diocletian decreed death for any person who owned the Bible. After two years he boasted, “I have completely exterminated the Christian writings from the face of the earth.” In fact, he is said to have erected a monument over the ashes of burned Bibles. However, when Constantine came to the throne and desired copies of the Bible, offering a reward to anyone who could deliver one, within twenty-five hours fifty copies of God’s word were offered to the emperor. Voltaire was a notorious French infidel. In 1778, he boasted that within one hundred years the Bible would be no more. Later, the very press that printed the blasphemous prediction was used to print Bibles, and the house in which he lived was used by the Geneva Bible Society to store Bibles and as a distribution center. Bob Ingersoll, an American agnostic, once held a Bible up and boasted. “In fifteen years I will have this book in the morgue.” Within fifteen years, Ingersoll was in the morgue; however, the word of God lives on. —Wendell Winkler Regarding the ‘Great Persecution’ of Diocletian – most reminiscent of that of king Antiochus – we read at: https://www.christian-history.org/diocletian.html Diocletian and the Great Persecution I won't spend a lot of time on the details of Diocletian and his Great Persecution. We have a higher goal than the details. The Great Persecution, from A.D. 303 to 311, was a time of sudden transition and massive change in the history of Christianity. It's the change and what caused it that we want to focus on. To do so, I want to rename the Great Persecution and give you my unique (but historically accurate) perspective. Let's call it ... The Great Judo Throw I took judo for several years as a child. Even though I was very small, I was pretty good at it. In Judo, you don't have to be stronger than your opponent. Instead, you make your opponent's strength work for you. I must have had a good teacher because I remember lots of surprise on the faces of larger kids as they crashed to the ground. There's a secret to getting your opponent to help you throw him. You push really hard. Your opponent automatically pushes back. When they push, you pull and rotate into a throw. It's amazing how far their momentum will carry them. The Push: Diocletian Persecutes the Church Though it's popular to believe that Christians were always being persecuted in the Roman empire, it's not true. Empire-wide persecutions were rare, and the Great Persecution under Diocletian was the only one of any great length, lasting eight years. The "Great" Persecution? It is argued that the Great Persecution was hardly great. It was possibly sporadic in the west and occasional in the east. Constantius and Maximian, co-emperors in the west, were not interested in it. However, there is no doubt about the effects. At least the leaders of the churches were very affected, and many showed up at the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325) bearing scars from the persecution. It was intense. Diocletian's goal was to wipe out the Church. He hunted down Christians and their Scriptures. He especially loved to get hold of church leaders. Note: Diocletian retired in 305 (the only Roman emperor ever to voluntarily retire), and the persecution was carried on the east by Galerius. Constantius (then Constantine) and Maximian (then Maxentius) in the west had little interest in the persecution. Mackey’s comment: But see my article on Constantine: Constantine ‘the Great’ and Judas Maccabeus (4) Constantine ‘the Great’ and Judas Maccabeus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The article continues: He was trying to turn them back to paganism, to the old Roman religion with the emperor as a God. Therefore, anyone he caught and tried could be released by offering a sacrifice to the gods or to the emperor. They could also gain great favor by turning over copies of the Scriptures to be burned. In addition, Diocletian destroyed their church buildings. This was something that couldn't be done earlier, as Christians rarely had devoted meeting places in the 2nd century. It was too easy to see them destroyed or taken over. While empire-wide persecutions were rare, local persecutions at the whim of a governer or prelate were not. It was a horrible, difficult time for Christians (at least for the leaders). Many Christians fell away, and many others were tortured, thrown in a dungeon, or put to death. …. The following piece, by Rev. Adrian Dieleman, appropriately lumps together, as ‘Antichrist’ types, Antiochus, Herod and Diocletian: http://www.trinityurcvisalia.com/OTSer/dan11.html …. Antiochus, however, will not be completely successful in his campaign against the "holy covenant." Daniel reminds and assures us that "the people who know their God will firmly resist him." Those, in other words, who live for the Lord, who walk with Him, who read His Word, who spend time in prayer, who faithfully attend worship, have the tools they need to fight off the attacks of the evil one. As I said before, those who put on the armor of God will be able to take their stand against him. Daniel's message is that God will always preserve for Himself a church; no matter how hard the Antichrist tries, he will never succeed in total destroying the "holy covenant." Of course, he won't be the first to discover this. Pharaoh discovered the church can't be wiped out. Jezebel and Ahab and Herod found that out too. The emperor Diocletian set up a stone pillar on which was inscribed these words: For Having Exterminated The Name Christian From the Earth. If he could see that monument today, how embarrassed he would be! Another Roman leader made a coffin, symbolizing his intention "to bury the Galilean" by killing His followers. He soon learned that he could not "put the Master in it". He finally surrendered his heart to the Savior, realizing that the corporate body of Christ and its living Head, the Lord Jesus, cannot be destroyed. Like Antiochus Epiphanes, the Antichrist will attack the "holy covenant." Though his attacks are directed against the church, the real object of his attacks is God. Says Daniel, (Dan 11:36) "The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He would love to defeat God and sit on God's throne as King of heaven and earth. But since he cannot do that, he decides instead to establish his throne on earth and pretends that he is God. Daniel says he has no regard for any god, "but will exalt himself above them all" (vs 37). http://www.korcula.net/history/mmarelic/diocletian.htm “Diocletian's retirement, an act of self-denial, which in its intentions and results, recalled the abdication of Sulla, threw the constitution back into the melting pot. Diocletian's great palace and his luxurious baths were dedicated in 305-306 A.D [sic]”. Did Diocletian, too, die the same disgusting, wormy death as did Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, as did Sulla, as did a Herod, as did Galerius? He was not supposed to have died well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocletian#Retirement_and_death “Deep in despair and illness, Diocletian may have committed suicide. He died on 3 December 312”.

Martyrdom of the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah

by Damien F. Mackey ‘And so upon you will come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the Temple and the altar’. Matthew 23:35 Could he be the same as Zechariah son of Jehoiada? Since Zechariah, son of the high priest Jehoiada, was a holy prophet murdered in the Temple court in Jerusalem at the command of king Joash of Judah, who is the same as Uzziah: Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah (DOC) Early prophet Zechariah may forge a link with Joash, Uzziah of Judah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu then he is a prime candidate for the holy man to whom Jesus Christ will refer in Matthew 23:35 and Luke 11:51 (who, however, omits any reference to “Berechiah”). It is hard to shake off the idea that Jesus must be referring to this Zechariah whom “they plotted against … and by order of the king they stoned him to death in the courtyard of the LORD’s Temple” (2 Chronicles 24:21). In this article, I shall be testing the validity of four possible candidates for the martyred “Zechariah son of Berechiah”, based on a few key points such as: era; name and patronymic; location of death by martyrdom As to era, Zechariah, son of the high priest Jehoiada, might seem somewhat too early to qualify. Jesus is giving a vast sweep of persecuted prophets, from the very beginning, Abel, until, one might presume, his own approximate time. Since the death of this first Zechariah, there were other martyrdoms as we are going to find. As to his name, Zechariah is, of course, a perfect fit. But his patronymic, Jehoiada, is not – differing, as it does, from Berechiah. Name difference, though, does not necessarily rule out identification. As to location of death by martyrdom, Zechariah, son of the high priest Jehoiada, might superficially appear to be, again, a perfect fit. However, on a closer inspection, while he was slain in the Temple courtyard, the Zechariah referred to by Jesus perished ‘between the Temple and the altar’. This is quite a serious difference. Conclusion Zechariah, son of the high priest Jehoiada, fits our criteria perfectly only as to his name, Zechariah, which is indeed a perfect fit. Could he be the same as Zechariah son of Jeberechiah? “The LORD said to me, ‘Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz’. So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah as reliable witnesses for me”. Isaiah 8:1-2 Could Jesus have been referring to the Zechariah son of Jeberechiah, one of Isaiah the prophet’s reliable witnesses (as named in Isaiah 8:2)? Let us again apply out test: era; name and patronymic; and location of death by martyrdom. As to era, Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah may still perhaps be, like Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, somewhat too early to qualify. As to his name, Zechariah is, of course, a perfect fit. And even his patronymic, Jeberechiah, is close to perfect, the name being related to Berechiah: Jeberechiah | The amazing name Jeberechiah: meaning and etymology (abarim-publications.com) As to location of death by martyrdom, this is quite irrelevant at this early stage, for we are not told that anyone of this exact description, “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah”, was ever martyred. Conclusion The names, Zechariah and Jeberechiah, are close to being a perfect fit. But, at this early stage, we have no evidence that this particular Zechariah experienced martyrdom. Could he be the same as the martyr Uriah (Urijah)? Whilst the later era is the most promising so far, the names, Uriah and Shemaiah, do not fit at all. Nor are we told that Uriah was martyred in the Temple. Surely, I had begun to think, Jesus was referring to the Martyrdom of Isaiah. This was significantly later in time than was the martyrdom of Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada. And it was later even still in my revised scheme, that collapses the era of king Hezekiah of Judah into the era of king Josiah of Judah, with my identification of the martyred Uriah, at the hands of king Jehoiakim, being the same incident as the famous martyrdom of Isaiah at the time of king Manasseh (= Jehoiakim). See e.g. my article: God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon (DOC) God can raise up prophets at will - even from a shepherd of Simeon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Let us once again apply our test: era; name and patronymic; and location of death by martyrdom. As to era, Uriah (Urijah), son of Shemaiah, is, as already noted, more promisingly later than was Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada (and Zechariah son of Jeberechiah). As to his name, Uriah is not a name related to Zechariah (though it could perhaps be construed as an abbreviation of the name). Moreover, his patronymic, Shemaiah, does not relate at all to Berechiah. I was still optimistic, however, considering that I have identified multiple names for Isaiah and his father: (i) Father of Isaiah was: Micaiah = Micah = Micah (of Judith) = Amos = Eliezer = Merari (Beeri) = Amittai = Zephaniah (ii) Isaiah was: Isaiah = Hosea = Uzziah (of Judith) = Jonah = Nahum = Asaiah = Uriah (Urijah) Surely, I had anticipated, the names Zechariah and Berechiah - or, at least, variants, thereof - will be findable amongst this vast litany of names of, respectively, Isaiah and his father. But where are they? As to location of death by martyrdom, it was definitely in Jerusalem (Jeremiah 26:20-23): Now Uriah son of Shemaiah from Kiriath Jearim was another man who prophesied in the name of the LORD; he prophesied the same things against this city and this land as Jeremiah did. When King Jehoiakim and all his officers and officials heard his words, the king was determined to put him to death. But Uriah heard of it and fled in fear to Egypt. King Jehoiakim, however, sent Elnathan son of Akbor to Egypt, along with some other men. They brought Uriah out of Egypt and took him to King Jehoiakim, who had him struck down with a sword and his body thrown into the burial place of the common people. However, this incident could have occurred in a public place in Jerusalem, or in the palace. At least there is nothing in the prophet Jeremiah’s account of it to suggest that it had occurred in the Temple itself. Conclusion Whilst the later era is the most promising one so far, the names, Uriah and Shemaiah - even given all of my multiple alter ego names for Isaiah and his father - do not fit at all. Nor are we told that Uriah was martyred in the Temple. There was a prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah “In the eighth month of the second year of Darius, the word of the LORD came to the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah, the son of Iddo …”. Zechariah 1:1 Let us apply our usual test to this later prophet Zechariah, to determine how well he may fit the martyred “Zechariah son of Berechiah” referred to by Jesus Christ. As to era, Zechariah son of Berechiah, being considerably later than our previous latest one, Uriah, at the time of king Jehoiakim of Judah, would qualify very well indeed considering that, as I think, Jesus was giving a vast sweep of persecuted prophets, from the very beginning, Abel, until, one might presume, his own approximate time. As to name, Zechariah is, of course, a perfect fit. But so also, this time, is his patronymic, Berechiah. Namewise, at least, it is not difficult to imagine the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah being Jesus Christ’s Zechariah son of Berechiah. As to location of death by martyrdom, there does not appear to be any scriptural evidence that the prophet Zechariah son of Berechiah was, under this specific name, actually martyred. Nor does there appear to be any solid extra-biblical tradition that Zechariah son of Berechiah had undergone martyrdom. Conclusions so far The first two martyrs considered in this series, Zechariah son of Jehoiada, and Uriah son of Shemaiah, are – I would estimate – (and apart from other considerations) too early in time to qualify for the Zechariah son of Berechiah to whom Jesus Christ had referred in Matthew 23:35. Jesus there is giving a vast sweep of persecution history, from the very beginning, to, one would imagine, his own approximate time. The so-called Minor Prophet, Zechariah son of Berechiah, son of Iddo is a far better prospect for Jesus’s prophet, having an identical name and patronymic, and being notably later than the other two. But, as pointed out above, there is no evidence whatsoever of his martyrdom specifically under the name of Zechariah son of Berechiah. This is obviously quite a substantial problem. A new consideration However, there may be a way out of this dilemma, but only in the context of a substantially reduced chronology such as mine, according to which the Maccabean age was far closer in time (than is customarily thought) both to the prophet Daniel and the Birth of Jesus Christ. On this, see e.g. my article: Jesus Christ himself is the ‘stone’ of Daniel 2 (4) Jesus Christ himself is the 'stone' of Daniel 2 | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The aged Maccabean martyr, Eleazer, now could then fit Jesus’s description as to chronology - closeness to his own time - and place of martyrdom, in the Temple. 2 Maccabees 6:18-31: The Martyrdom of Eleazar Eleazar, one of the scribes in high position, a man now advanced in age and of noble presence, was being forced to open his mouth to eat swine’s flesh. But he, welcoming death with honour rather than life with pollution, went up to the rack of his own accord, spitting out the flesh, as all ought to go who have the courage to refuse things that it is not right to taste, even for the natural love of life. Those who were in charge of that unlawful sacrifice took the man aside because of their long acquaintance with him, and privately urged him to bring meat of his own providing, proper for him to use, and to pretend that he was eating the flesh of the sacrificial meal that had been commanded by the king, so that by doing this he might be saved from death, and be treated kindly on account of his old friendship with them. But making a high resolve, worthy of his years and the dignity of his old age and the grey hairs that he had reached with distinction and his excellent life even from childhood, and moreover according to the holy God-given law, he declared himself quickly, telling them to send him to Hades. ‘Such pretence is not worthy of our time of life,’ he said, ‘for many of the young might suppose that Eleazar in his ninetieth year had gone over to an alien religion, and through my pretence, for the sake of living a brief moment longer, they would be led astray because of me, while I defile and disgrace my old age. Even if for the present I would avoid the punishment of mortals, yet whether I live or die I will not escape the hands of the Almighty. Therefore, by bravely giving up my life now, I will show myself worthy of my old age and leave to the young a noble example of how to die a good death willingly and nobly for the revered and holy laws.’ When he had said this, he went at once to the rack. Those who a little before had acted towards him with goodwill now changed to ill will, because the words he had uttered were in their opinion sheer madness. When he was about to die under the blows, he groaned aloud and said: ‘It is clear to the Lord in his holy knowledge that, though I might have been saved from death, I am enduring terrible sufferings in my body under this beating, but in my soul I am glad to suffer these things because I fear him.’ So in this way he died, leaving in his death an example of nobility and a memorial of courage, not only to the young but to the great body of his nation. Conclusion The 90-year old Eleazer would be my favoured candidate for Jesus’s Zechariah son of Berechiah, as to era; he being later than all of the others considered above, and thereby allowing for an historical sweep by Jesus: namely, Jerusalem (Eden) from Abel right down to his own era. name and patronymic; Here I would have to posit as second name for my candidate, as the name Eleazer does not appear to be related to Zechariah. Also, we are not given a patronymic in this case. location of death by martyrdom This is where I think that we really score, with Eleazer having been slain in Jerusalem, in the Temple, in the place of sacrifice, just like Zechariah son of Berechiah was.

Location of the Temple built by King Solomon

“Can you imagine the upheaval in political and religious thinking if the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is not the site of Solomon's [Temple]? And what if the stones of the Wailing Wall are not what tradition says?” Temple: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything about the Location of Solomon's Temple Paperback – April 30, 2014 by Robert Cornuke Dr (Author) ________________________________________ In a book that is being heralded as "an investigative masterpiece" with "astounding archaeological and prophetic implications," TEMPLE: Amazing New Discoveries That Change Everything About the Location of Solomon's Temple, by Robert Cornuke, is sending shockwaves through the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian worlds. Can you imagine the upheaval in political and religious thinking if the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is not the site of Solomon's [Temple]? And what if the stones of the Wailing Wall are not what tradition says? In this highly-researched, exciting book, the author proposes from current archaeological excavations and Scriptural corroboration that the true temple location is not where tradition teaches. This is must reading for anyone who wants to fit together the pieces of biblical records, current geo-politics, and prophecy. Says the author, "Let the adventure begin as we now take the Bible in one hand and a shovel in the other and dig up some long-lost buried bones of biblical history. Along the way we will walk unknown passageways, known only to the prophets of old, as we search for the true location of the lost temples …. https://www.amazon.com.au/Temple-Robert-Cornuke/dp/193977909X ________________________________________

King Jehoiakim cancelled out from Matthew’s Genealogy?

by Damien F. Mackey Why are several significant kings of Judah apparently missing from Matthew’s list of Davidic kings (1:6-11)? I have broached this subject once before. On that occasion, I was prepared to defer to a reasonable view that – [somewhat like with the cancel culture of today] – certain kings were deemed by St. Matthew to have been unworthy of their generation, and hence got cancelled out by the wise Evangelist. Apparently (and this is the operative word) missing are the following names when compared with a fuller list of Judaean kings in 1 Chronicles 3:9-17: AHAZIAH JOASH AMAZIAH …. JEHOIAKIM Four kings of Judah apparently missing from Matthew’s list. But what, then, about two other kings of Judah, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, who get left right out of the conversation? Suggestions as to why omissions may be the case have not really been convincing. For instance: - An argument that these names were omitted because they were unworthy kings falls flat when, say, goodish-baddish kings, Joash and Amaziah, are compared with such bad, but non-omitted, kings as Ahaz (1:9) and Manasseh (1:10). - And, shortness of reign cannot be a criterion for omission even though the omitted Ahaziah only “reigned for one year” (2 Kings 8:26), for the combined total reigns of two omitted kings, Joash and Amaziah, was a massive 70 years. Moreover, King Amon who only “reigned for 2 years” (2 Kings 2:19), has not been omitted (Matthew 1:10). What may be the solution? Returning to my “operative word” apparently (missing), I shall be proposing here that Joash, Amaziah and Jehoiakim do feature in Matthew’s list, but under other names (alter egos). Since I first wrote this, I have tentatively concluded that even Ahaziah, Jehoahaz and Zedekiah are not missing from the Genealogy of Matthew. At this stage, though, I have only developed Jehoahaz in this regard: Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? (3) Whatever did happen to King Jehoahaz of Judah? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Joash is listed there as Azariah (= Uzziah) (1:8); and King Amaziah, as Jotham (1:9). But my main character of interest here is Jehoiakim, who, I believe, is to be found in Matthew’s genealogical list as Manasseh (1:10). Now, to identify the extremely wicked Jehoiakim with the likewise apostate Manasseh immediately solves some problems (though it will play havoc with the conventional chronology). To think of just a few problem solvers: 1. The already mentioned one of why Matthew apparently omitted Jehoiakim; 2. Why the prophet Jeremiah would name “Manasseh son of Hezekiah” as a cause of the Babylonian Exile (Jeremiah 15:4), when Jeremiah was an actual contemporary of the exiled Jehoiakim; 3. Jeremiah’s supposed prediction of the fate of Jehoiakim can puzzle biblical scholars. Thus Fr. G. Couturier (article “Jeremiah”, TJBC 19:68): “The burial of an ass (v. 19; cf. 36:30) has always troubled scholars, for Jehoiakim seems to have had a normal burial (2 Kgs 24:10)”. 4. Tradition, but not the biblical accounts, regarding King Manasseh, have the prophet Isaiah martyred during his reign. However, a prophet is pursued to his martyrdom during the reign of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 26:20-23). Isaiah under an alternative name? 5. My re-arrangement serves to restore the biblical “Nebuchadnezzar” (see my relevant articles). There are obvious apparent chronological problems with my new interpretation of identifying a king, Jehoiakim, with one, Manasseh, of a presumed three generations earlier. That does not affect only Judaean history, but also the related Assyro-Babylonian history. For, whereas Manasseh is known to have been taken captive to Babylon by Ashurbanipal (of 43 years of reign), Jehoiakim is said to have been taken captive to Babylon by Nebuchednezzar (of 43 years of reign): [Hold that last thought] 2 Chronicles 33:11: “So the LORD brought against them the army commanders of the king of Assyria, who took Manasseh prisoner, put a hook in his nose, bound him with bronze shackles and took him to Babylon”. 2 Chronicles 36:6: “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon attacked him and bound him with bronze shackles to take him to Babylon”. The Bible’s treatment of the reign of King Jehoiakim (qua Jehoiakim) is brief. As with King Nebuchednezzar of Babylon, a much fuller picture emerges when the king is re-assembled through all of his component parts. A NEW HISTORY OF KING MANASSEH -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My own account of King Manasseh is totally different from this – only eleven years of his reign actually occurred while he was seated upon the throne of Jerusalem, the rest was tallied up whilst he was still alive but no longer reigning. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The typical view of King Manasseh, son of the pious king Hezekiah, would be that approximately a decade of his long reign of 55 years had passed in co-regency with his father (c. 697–687 BC; sole reign; 687–643 BC, conventional dating). After that, Manasseh had embarked upon a long phase of wickedness, interrupted when Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal took him with hooks and chains to Babylon. Whilst in Babylon, Manasseh underwent a profound conversion to Yahweh. He was returned to Judah where he, at some point, involved himself in a massive re-building and fortifying program in Jerusalem, its Temple, altar, walls. This all occurred, presumably, about half a century or more before the reign of King Jehoiakim (who is my alter ego for Manasseh). But why did Jerusalem then need to be re-built? No enemy had attacked the city. Certainly Manasseh had profaned the Temple, but he had not pulled it down. My own account of King Manasseh is totally different from all of this – only eleven years of his reign actually occurred while he was seated upon the throne of Jerusalem, the rest was tallied up whilst he was still alive but no longer reigning. King Manasseh, now as Jehoiakim, an evil king, reigned for only 11 years before being dragged off to Babylon by King Nebuchednezzar (= Esarhaddon-Ashurbanipal). There, the king of Judah underwent a massive conversion and, afterwards, returned to Jerusalem. But no longer as king. For more on all this, see e.g. my article: De-coding Jonah (3) De-coding Jonah | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Manasseh’s 55 years of reign must therefore be counted like those of his son, Coniah (Jehoiachin), whose 37th year, when he was set free in Babylon, occurred whilst he was in exile, in Babylon (2 Kings 25:27): “In the thirty-seventh year of the exile of King Jehoiachin of Judah, Evil-merodach ascended to the Babylonian throne. He was kind to Jehoiachin and released him from prison on April 2 of that year”. Evil-merodach was the elusive “King Belshazzar”, son of Nebuchednezzar, of Daniel 5 and Baruch 1:11, 12. He released Coniah and exalted him. (2 Kings 25:28): “He spoke kindly to [Coniah] and gave him a seat of honor higher than those of the other kings who were with him in Babylon”. A few years later, now during the Medo-Persian era, King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther would similarly exalt Coniah, whose alter ego was Amon (an Egyptian name). He, King Amon of Judah, was the Aman, or Haman, of the Book of Esther. Esther 3:1-2: After these events, King Ahasuerus honored Haman son of Hammedatha, the Agagite [should read “captive”], elevating him and giving him a seat of honor higher than that of all the other nobles. All the royal officials at the king’s gate knelt down and paid honor to Haman, for the king had commanded this concerning him. But Mordecai would not kneel down or pay him honor. “Hammedatha”, above, was a woman, Hamutal, the queen mother at the time of Coniah-Haman (see e.g. Jeremiah 52:1).