C
ConfusedTim
Guest
Did jesus ever condemn the levitical priesthood? I know he seemed to have a go at the the Pharisees.
- Status
B
bkayw
Guest
Only 3 foreign magi and 2 Jewish elders either worked their way to or waited to find the Christ child at the Temple. Where were the high priests?
Even after King Herod I asked the priests about the prophecy, there’s no indication that the priesthood took anymore interest in finding Jesus.
I’ve done a bit of research on the Maccabean / Hasmonean priesthood (who were not Levites) and their ultimate demise by King Herod at the time of Jesus birth. Needless to say, the priesthood by the time Jesus was 30, was corrupted by power, money and privledge.
They were not irredeemable.
But, time and time again, Jesus showed them to be unwilling servants, prideful, compassionless, overly concerned with rule creation (613), vindictive, conspiratorial and ultimately willing to commit murder to save their positions.
Even after King Herod I asked the priests about the prophecy, there’s no indication that the priesthood took anymore interest in finding Jesus.
I’ve done a bit of research on the Maccabean / Hasmonean priesthood (who were not Levites) and their ultimate demise by King Herod at the time of Jesus birth. Needless to say, the priesthood by the time Jesus was 30, was corrupted by power, money and privledge.
They were not irredeemable.
But, time and time again, Jesus showed them to be unwilling servants, prideful, compassionless, overly concerned with rule creation (613), vindictive, conspiratorial and ultimately willing to commit murder to save their positions.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
The only hint of a condemnation of the levites seemed to be an implication in the Parable of the Good Samaritan, other than, of course, the high priest.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
I hope you are speaking only of the “high priesthood” and not all priests. The high priest would certainly seem to be corrupted, and Annias seemed to be the most corrupt.
Annias was high priest at one time, then was replaced with his son-in-law Caiaphas. Caiaphas was replaced with 3 or 4 of Annias’ sons in the succeeding periods. It would seem that Annias was able to manipulate these sons into positions of power with the Roman authorities (who appointed the Jewish high priests).
If I recall correctly, the animals sold to the pilgrims for sacrifice in the Temple as well as the money changers did business in a place called “the court of Annias”. Annias would rent out stalls to the people who sold animals for sacrifice and he would get a cut of the profits from the shameless practice of the money-changers.
I also understand that there was a bull sacrificed each day (I’m not sure if it was daily, but it was done regularly) to the Roman Emperor. This had to have been sanctioned by the high priest, even though it would seem to chafe at any devout priest.
P
patrick457
Guest
As far as we know, Jesus did not have much verbal clashes with the priesthood at Jerusalem (though there is this one time where the Gospels record that He talked with ‘Sadducees’, which could be them or their affiliates). Of course, actions speak louder than words, and the one action Our Lord did in the Temple - under priestly, and thus (mainly) Sadducee control - at Jerusalem is to drive out the moneychangers and vendors! Which, as we all know, may have factored in Jesus’ eventual demise.
P
patrick457
Guest
There were actually daily sacrifices offered twice a day for the Roman emperor’s and his family’s well-being as a sort of compromise, because of course the Jews couldn’t and wouldn’t dare offer sacrifice to him or to any other Roman god, as was the case for other pagan peoples. Its suspension was actually virtually tantamount to an open declaration of revolt against Rome!
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Thanks for that. I understand that the Roman emperor was considered a diety, but only after his death… well, at least until Diocletian (or some other idiot emperor late in the 1st or 2nd century).
D
diggerdomer
Guest
P
patrick457
Guest
Good question. BTW, we don’t really know whether there were actually three magi: there could easily have been two, four, or even twelve of them!
P
patrick457
Guest
I just came across a rather interesting page on Caiaphas, and it had this section:
(1) A corrupt priesthood?
“Of all men mentioned in the crucifixion records, Caiaphas is surely the most despicable. He was that not uncommon phenomenon - a man of low character in a high place. In religion he found, not a conviction, but a career; and so there fell upon him the nemesis of those who traffic in high things, without making to them an adequate spiritual response” (Hastings’ Dictionary). [3]
“From at least the time of Malachi there had been protests about the priests, whose corruption meant that the sacrifices offered in the temple were neither pure nor pleasing to the Lord” (M. D. Hooker). [4]
“There is significant evidence of greed and corruption among the ruling priests, particularly some of the ruling families (especially that of Annas)” (C. A. Evans). [5]
Taking a relatively uncritical approach, older scholarship tended to be interested in Caiaphas’ character and motivation. Hastings’ estimate (cited above) represents a valiant attempt to flesh out his personality, though it is clearly heavily dependent on the presentations of the Gospels (perhaps also in a sense that the enemies of Jesus must have been despicable men and that cultic worship by its very nature must have been superficial). Modern scholarship tends to be much more cautious, avoiding in particular any discussion of the high priest’s disposition, but still charges of “corruption,” “greed,” “bribery,” and “collaboration” are routinely brought against him. (This is the case in both Christian and Jewish writings; while texts involving Pharisees are nowadays read with a high degree of suspicion, those involving Sadducees or priests are not. It is tempting to imagine that it suits a wide range of scholars to lay accountability for Jesus’ death on a small band of aristocratic leaders with no modern-day successors to champion their cause).
One of the things which struck me as I researched the book was how little evidence there is for any of these frequent charges:
“From at least the time of Malachi there had been protests about the priests, whose corruption meant that the sacrifices offered in the temple were neither pure nor pleasing to the Lord” (M. D. Hooker). [4]
“There is significant evidence of greed and corruption among the ruling priests, particularly some of the ruling families (especially that of Annas)” (C. A. Evans). [5]
Taking a relatively uncritical approach, older scholarship tended to be interested in Caiaphas’ character and motivation. Hastings’ estimate (cited above) represents a valiant attempt to flesh out his personality, though it is clearly heavily dependent on the presentations of the Gospels (perhaps also in a sense that the enemies of Jesus must have been despicable men and that cultic worship by its very nature must have been superficial). Modern scholarship tends to be much more cautious, avoiding in particular any discussion of the high priest’s disposition, but still charges of “corruption,” “greed,” “bribery,” and “collaboration” are routinely brought against him. (This is the case in both Christian and Jewish writings; while texts involving Pharisees are nowadays read with a high degree of suspicion, those involving Sadducees or priests are not. It is tempting to imagine that it suits a wide range of scholars to lay accountability for Jesus’ death on a small band of aristocratic leaders with no modern-day successors to champion their cause).
One of the things which struck me as I researched the book was how little evidence there is for any of these frequent charges:
- Many of the texts commonly cited are to be found in rabbinic literature which is extremely difficult both to date with any kind of accuracy and to interpret correctly. V. Eppstein’s suggestion, for example, that Caiaphas himself introduced the dove-sellers into the Court of the Gentiles in 30 CE in a fit of pique against the sons of Hanan who had set up shop on the Mount of Olives is commonly cited, though it is – as B. Chilton notes – “a tissue of speculation.” [6]
- That the high priest had a monopoly on the Temple sacrifices or allowed his staff to charge inflated prices (though clearly possible) cannot be substantiated by any contemporary text.
- The incident recorded by the priestly Josephus in which the servants of the high priest Ananias stole the ordinary priests’ tithes from the threshing floor (Ant 20.204-10) if historically true (Josephus had told the same story earlier in War 2.272-6 without any antipathy towards the high priest) belongs in any case to the turbulent years prior to the outbreak of war and cannot be used as evidence for “ordinary” high priestly conduct in an earlier phase, still less as evidence for Caiaphas’ behavior.
- Bribery was a common feature of first-century Mediterranean society (and was presumably rife among all who had anything worth having), but while it is possible that Caiaphas offered “gift” and “incentives” to Pilate now and then, it is unlikely that he maintained his post simply due to bribery – as D. R. Schwartz points out, it is inherently unlikely that the incumbent should offer the highest bribe for all eighteen years of Caiaphas’ tenure. [7]
- With the charge of “collaborator,” we at first appear to be on solid ground; Caiaphas clearly owed his position to Roman good will, and the Gospels present both men working together in the execution of Jesus. It is often suggested that Caiaphas’ lack of intervention – or even presence – during the series of uprisings against Pilate narrated by Josephus and Philo, suggests a willingness to bow at all times to Roman control. But here, too, we need to be cautious – most of the incidents known to us occur at feasts (when Caiaphas would have been occupied with his high priestly duties in the Temple); it is therefore difficult to know what to make of his absence. The fact that the two men maintained peace for over a decade is a sign of a good (or at least functioning) working relationship, but not necessarily “collaboration” (in its more negative sense). If D. R. Schwartz is correct in his suggestion that by the time of Caiaphas high priests were appointed and deposed by the Syrian legate rather than the Judaean prefect, [8] Caiaphas might well have felt less beholden to the Roman governor than his predecessors.
- Appeal to texts such as the Testament of Moses, the Testament of Levi, or the Dead Sea Scrolls does not help much – the texts are too uncertain historically and are highly polemic in nature. What they provide, however, is evidence of intra-Jewish disputes over the Temple, proper cultic observance, and the conduct of the priesthood, together underlining the immense importance of the Temple within first-century society. If we are to reject the common picture of Caiaphas as little more than a corrupt, self-serving cleric, then, it is primarily in his relation to the Temple that the “historical Caiaphas” must be situated.
N
NotWorthy
Guest
Although Caiaphas was certainly corrupt, I think Annas was the one who was the man behind the scenes (Think of George Soros and the Progressive movement of today). Again, he had 3 sons and 1 son-in-law who were chosen by the Romans to be high priest, in addition to his role as high priest.
BTW, if I recall correctly, wasn’t it his son (or grandson), the high priest Annas, who had James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, martyred. This event so offended the Christian AND JEWISH community, that both appealed to Rome and Annas was removed from his position by the Romans.
R
rcjones
Guest
Pharisees and Sadducees were political classes, so they included some who were priests. It is akin to a priest being a Democrat or Republican. Generally as a population, then, they came under the same condemnation.
Their official duties should have kept them separate from the worldly affairs of politics, and their involvement would be a type of mixing since it included the joining with the common people from whom they were to be set apart, and which is prohibited by the spirit of the law. The picture of holiness is broken by such mixing.
The priesthood had a long history of being corrupt even before the Romans. The sons of Eli stole the sacrifice from the pot. They foreshadow the priesthood in Jesus time just as Samuel foreshadows Christ.
Unlike our political parties which are secular, these were religious parties and were ‘sons of the priest’.
The names of the sons of Eli were ‘pugilist’ and ‘mouth of brass’. As for pugilist, we find the people of Israel being beaten by the law in the time of Jesus, who called their yoke heavy. And physically being beaten by members of the political parties, for which the priests were ultimately responsible, being the moral guides of Israel.
Brass is a word having the root of ‘serpent’. And so Phineas represents those who were called ‘a brood of vipers’ by Jesus.
Their official duties should have kept them separate from the worldly affairs of politics, and their involvement would be a type of mixing since it included the joining with the common people from whom they were to be set apart, and which is prohibited by the spirit of the law. The picture of holiness is broken by such mixing.
The priesthood had a long history of being corrupt even before the Romans. The sons of Eli stole the sacrifice from the pot. They foreshadow the priesthood in Jesus time just as Samuel foreshadows Christ.
Unlike our political parties which are secular, these were religious parties and were ‘sons of the priest’.
The names of the sons of Eli were ‘pugilist’ and ‘mouth of brass’. As for pugilist, we find the people of Israel being beaten by the law in the time of Jesus, who called their yoke heavy. And physically being beaten by members of the political parties, for which the priests were ultimately responsible, being the moral guides of Israel.
Brass is a word having the root of ‘serpent’. And so Phineas represents those who were called ‘a brood of vipers’ by Jesus.
R
rcjones
Guest
Hair splitting a preposition in Greek is difficult since the same word can be used for ‘for’ and ‘to’.
It is just as difficult in Hebrew.
P
patrick457
Guest
I wasn’t talking about Greek there, though.
P
patrick457
Guest
Again, as my quote shows, whether the popular picture of a ‘corrupt’ high priesthood is actually historically reliable is actually a point of debate, because most surviving sources are either biased or “extremely difficult both to date with any kind of accuracy and to interpret correctly”. While much light has been shed on the Pharisees beyond the rather negative portrayals found in the New Testament, leading to a reevaluation of who they were and a partial rehabilitation, the same has not yet happened for the Sadducees/priests. That doesn’t mean, however, that we can’t assume that there were weeds among the wheat.
BTW, I actually heard of an interpretation that Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus is actually a veiled satire of Annas’ family:
Rich man “clothed in purple and fine linen” - Caiaphas
“My father” - Annas (Joseph Caiaphas’ father-in-law)
Five brothers - Annas’ five sons: Eleazar, Jonathan, Theophilus, Matthias, Ananus (aka Annas Jr.)
Oh yes, James the Just (aka Adelphotheos, ‘brother of God’)!
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 sanhedrim 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 sanhedrim 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.
- Status