reliability of the new testament.

[Dave_Noonan]

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says of first-century synagogue worship:

Delegate of the Congregation.
Hebrew shelı̄aḥ cibbūr (Rō’sh ha-shānāh 4 9; Berākhōth 5 5). This office was not permanent, but one was chosen at each meeting by the ruler to fill it, and he conducted the prayers. According to Meghillāh 4 5, he who was asked to read the Scriptures was also expected to read the prayers. He had to be a man of good character.

Rosh ha-Shanah and Berakot are later than the first century; probably late second or early third. They may or may not be clues as to what went on in first century synagogue worship.

Best to stick with scholarship that is more current.

 

[melbanglican]

There is a useful summary of the evidence regarding the census in the Catholic Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm. The book by Ramsay referenced at the end is available here: ccel.org/ccel/ramsay/bethlehem.toc.html

If the resurrection accounts in the Gospels agreed in every detail the charge would be that there was collusion between the authors. When there are expected discrepancies, the charge is made that any attempts at harmonization are illegitimate. And yet historians regularly harmonize disparate accounts of events, as do courts of law. Blomberg’s book, which I referenced above, is particularly good on this. A harmonization of the Gospel accounts by one of my own former professors may be found here: answering-islam.org/Bible/Contra/resurrect.html

I haven’t yet had time to return to the write up any more on the question of the high priests, but I will be back to update this thread when I can.

Read E P Sanders, ‘The Historical Figure of Jesus’, pp. 84-91, for the opinion of a universally respected modern biblical scholar on the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem.

Ramsay wrote his book over 100 years ago, when scientific archaeology, as we now know it, was in it’s infancy. What has modern scholarship and archaeology revealed to us about this story, about Luke and about the NT in general?

A good place to commence a search on this matter is:

ntgateway.com/

a site belonging to one of the world’s most respected NT scholars.

Much of the debate we are currently having on the reliability of the NT is ‘old hat’. Scholars have spent 200+ years figuring out how and (roughly) when each of it’s component parts was written. If you want a quick rundown on the various Books, canonical and otherwise, visit:

earlychristianwritings.com/

Whole libraries of information have been produced since Ramsay published his tome. Perhaps new research and insights have rendered his information obsolete? Or perhaps not.

 

[DavidPalm]

Rosh ha-Shanah and Berakot are later than the first century; probably late second or early third. They may or may not be clues as to what went on in first century synagogue worship.

Best to stick with scholarship that is more current.

I’m curious if you have evidence with regard to Rosh Hashanah and Berakot? Not saying you’re wrong, just wondering

But here’s a more modern source (this is considered a standard scholarly work on the topic):

The Scripture readings (the Pentateuch as well as the Prophets) could equally be undertaken by any member of the congregation, even by a minor. . . . Already in New Testament times the reading from the Torah was joined by a section from the Prophets . . . as may be seen from Lk. 4:17, where Jesus reads a section from Isaiah, and from Act. 13:15 . . . as also from the Mishnah, where readings from the Prophets are mentioned (E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, II:450, 452; revised 1979 by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black.)

There’s no hint that there was anything out of the ordinary that Jesus was able to read. I don’t understand why somebody is finding this problematic or questionable.

 

[PennyinCanada]

The power of God is in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit confirms the truth of these words. This trumps all others’ speculations and attempts to discredit.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I’m curious if you have evidence with regard to Rosh Hashanah and Berakot? Not saying you’re wrong, just wondering

But here’s a more modern source (this is considered a standard scholarly work on the topic):

The Scripture readings (the Pentateuch as well as the Prophets) could equally be undertaken by any member of the congregation, even by a minor. . . . Already in New Testament times the reading from the Torah was joined by a section from the Prophets . . . as may be seen from Lk. 4:17, where Jesus reads a section from Isaiah, and from Act. 13:15 . . . as also from the Mishnah, where readings from the Prophets are mentioned (E. Schurer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, II:450, 452; revised 1979 by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black.)

There’s no hint that there was anything out of the ordinary that Jesus was able to read. I don’t understand why somebody is finding this problematic or questionable.

See any scholarly work on the Mishnah and/or Talmud. The Misnah was compiled around 200 AD and the Talmud around 500-600 AD. The basic and extremely serious methodological problem is that few Christian scholars have any understanding of the world of Jewish sources, but willy-nilly retroject Jewish customs from documents that are much later than the time of Christ, back to the Second Temple period. And, what’s much more serious (dishonest really), they don’t TELL you that that’s what they are doing and how tentative their conclusions actually are. IMO, some of the chief purveyors of this are the popular Catholic apologists.

The assumption that anything from the Mishnah (the earliest source) can be pushed back to the time of Christ is truly problematic. What would eventually become Rabbinic Judaism underwent enormous upheaval during the destruction of the Second Temple and there were likely many changes and accommodations that occurred as a result. So it’s difficult to say which traditions originated when. You can make assumptions, but you should tell people that’s what you are doing. It’s some evidence, but extremely flimsy evidence.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with Jesus being able to read; I just have a problem with misleading/dishonest scholarship, particularly where the Bible is involved.

 

[DavidPalm]

See any scholarly work on the Mishnah and/or Talmud. The Misnah was compiled around 200 AD and the Talmud around 500-600 AD. The basic and extremely serious methodological problem is that few Christian scholars have any understanding of the world of Jewish sources, but willy-nilly retroject Jewish customs from documents that are much later than the time of Christ, back to the Second Temple period.

Yes, I know that the problem you highlight does exist. But just because the Mishnah was compiled around AD 200 doesn’t mean that it doesn’t document customs/practices that existed well before that–I’m sure you’ll agree. In this case, for reading in the synagogue by the ordinary folk, Schurer footnotes evidence from Philo as well, so I think we’re on solid ground holding that there would have been nothing out of the ordinary for Jesus to read out in the synagogue. I’m just not seeing where any skepticism about this would be coming from.

 

[DavidPalm]

OK Dave.

Here is something to work on with your scholar pals.

Luke identifies the High Priest whom Paul insulted in the Second Temple as Ananias. This was during the Pentecost of A.D. 58. No scholar will dispute this.

According to Josephus, who worked in the Second Temple during that period as a priest, the High Priest was Ismael.

Error.

Game, set, match.

Hi steve,

I’m going to serve this one back to your for more information. I’m just not seeing the certainty in the scholarly sources to back up your claim above.

Let’s set aside what I mentioned above about legitimate and illegitimate lines of high priests. It’s true that there were such, but it doesn’t appear that it has any bearing on the question at hand. That was just my quick surmise at the time, but it doesn’t pan out. So I’m taking that off the table.

But for starters, I would reiterate that even Josephus still calls men who were former high priests but were deposed “high priest”, just as we call former but living presidents “President X”. So even if Ananias had been deposed when St. Paul appeared before him, it would not be an error for St. Luke to call him “high priest”. It is known from Josephus himself that Ananias remained highly influential even after being deposed and he did not die until c. AD 66 (on this Schurer: “As a result of his wealth, Ananias remained an influential man even after his deposition, but was unpopular on account of his greed” (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II:231). So on these grounds I am not understanding the certainty with which you consider this an error on St. Luke’s part.

But going further, I don’t see the certainty in the scholarly literature that Ananias had been deposed prior to St. Paul’s appearance before him. E. Schurer, whose The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ is a standard scholarly work on the subject, has Ananias the high priest in that office from c. AD 47 - 59. This work was thoroughly revised and updated in 1979 by Vermes, Millar, and Black and they saw no reason to change or challenge this chronology (which they do, by the way, when subsequent studies have called Schurer’s original view into question.)

Josephus (Antiquities 20.8.8-9) places the deposition of Ananias and replacement with Ismael in close proximity to the replacement of Felix by Porcius Festus as procurator of Judea. But the exact date of this happened is unknown–the Jewish Encyclopedia has it in AD 60, many other sources have AD 59, others AD 58.

What’s more, Acts 24:27 says that Felix kept St. Paul in prison for 2 years following his run-in with the high priest, so this would solidify Ananias still being high priest at that time.

But even if it was absolutely certain that St. Paul stood before the high priest during Pentecost of AD 58–I’m not seeing in the scholarly literature the absolute certainty you assert for that specific date, so perhaps you can document the grounds of your certainty–then why is it not perfectly reasonable that St. Paul was before Ananias earlier in AD 58, after which Ananias was deposed and Ismael put in his place by King Agrippa, and sometime thereafter Festus replaced Felix as procurator?

It just seems to me that the level of certainty with which you are mapping out these events–to the point of calling it “Game, set, match”–is not borne out by the sources, nor by the scholarly analysis. But if I’m missing some detail that really nails this down with exactitude then please let us know.

 

[DavidPalm]

The power of God is in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit confirms the truth of these words. This trumps all others’ speculations and attempts to discredit.

Penny touches on an important distinction that I hope I’m not obscuring in this discussion. That the NT documents–and specifically in this case the writings of St. Luke–are generally historically reliable is a related but distinct discussion from whether they are in fact divinely inspired and hence inerrant. I think that the latter position is also reasonable and defensible, but it’s an historico-theological argument and not purely historical.

What I’ve really been objecting to in this thread is the dismissal of the writings of St. Luke as historically unreliable when, I would argue, study after study indicates just the opposite. I would go so far as to say that, since his historical accuracy has been so well established, there are instances in which he should be given “the benefit of the doubt” even on purely secular grounds–again, suspending the question of whether his writings are the product of divine inspiration. (See, e.g., this interesting discussion of the census question: Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation )

Please see again the scholars cited in my post #45. Ramsay is cited there, yes, but also many more recent scholars. I would note too that even Dr. Goodacre, whose site was recommended above, cites many works that are a hundred or more years old. Let’s not commit the chronological fallacy, that just because something is older it is therefore automatically less reliable. melbanglican struck the right note of balance when he said of older scholarship, “Perhaps new research and insights have rendered his information obsolete? Or perhaps not.” I would suggest, in the case of the original insights presented by Ramsay and furthered by subsequent scholars, the answer is, “not”.

 

[steve53]

Hi steve,

I’m going to serve this one back to your for more information. I’m just not seeing the certainty in the scholarly sources to back up your claim above.

Let’s set aside what I mentioned above about legitimate and illegitimate lines of high priests. It’s true that there were such, but it doesn’t appear that it has any bearing on the question at hand. That was just my quick surmise at the time, but it doesn’t pan out. So I’m taking that off the table.

But for starters, I would reiterate that even Josephus still calls men who were former high priests but were deposed “high priest”, just as we call former but living presidents “President X”. So even if Ananias had been deposed when St. Paul appeared before him, it would not be an error for St. Luke to call him “high priest”. It is known from Josephus himself that Ananias remained highly influential even after being deposed and he did not die until c. AD 66 (on this Schurer: “As a result of his wealth, Ananias remained an influential man even after his deposition, but was unpopular on account of his greed” (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II:231). So on these grounds I am not understanding the certainty with which you consider this an error on St. Luke’s part.

But going further, I don’t see the certainty in the scholarly literature that Ananias had been deposed prior to St. Paul’s appearance before him. E. Schurer, whose The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ is a standard scholarly work on the subject, has Ananias the high priest in that office from c. AD 47 - 59. This work was thoroughly revised and updated in 1979 by Vermes, Millar, and Black and they saw no reason to change or challenge this chronology (which they do, by the way, when subsequent studies have called Schurer’s original view into question.)

Josephus (Antiquities 20.8.8-9) places the deposition of Ananias and replacement with Ismael in close proximity to the replacement of Felix by Porcius Festus as procurator of Judea. But the exact date of this happened is unknown–the Jewish Encyclopedia has it in AD 60, many other sources have AD 59, others AD 58.

What’s more, Acts 24:27 says that Felix kept St. Paul in prison for 2 years following his run-in with the high priest, so this would solidify Ananias still being high priest at that time.

But even if it was absolutely certain that St. Paul stood before the high priest during Pentecost of AD 58–I’m not seeing in the scholarly literature the absolute certainty you assert for that specific date, so perhaps you can document the grounds of your certainty–then why is it not perfectly reasonable that St. Paul was before Ananias earlier in AD 58, after which Ananias was deposed and Ismael put in his place by King Agrippa, and sometime thereafter Festus replaced Felix as procurator?

It just seems to me that the level of certainty with which you are mapping out these events–to the point of calling it “Game, set, match”–is not borne out by the sources, nor by the scholarly analysis. But if I’m missing some detail that really nails this down with exactitude then please let us know.

Well, first of all, Josephus places great store on Felix’s execution of the High Priest Jonathan in A.D. 56. Not Ananias, but Jonanthan. It occurred in the courtyard of the Second Temple by the Sicarri, or Jewish assassins. Then Josephus brings in Ismael.
The killing was a huge deal and, according to Josephus, that was the even that turned God away from considering the Jews his “chosen people.” The Romans were doing the bidding of God. That makes Josephus unpopular with the Jews, even today.
Ananias is last heard of after being deposed and sent to Rome for some sort of trial in A.D. 52 or thereabouts.
I think your sources placing Ananias as High Priest all the way up to A.D. 59 are begging the question, using Acts as a source. Remember, the same High Priest two years after Paul’s initial arrest in A.D. 58 still was after Paul. This was Ismael.

Hagan, my source, uses Josephus heavily. The Jewish writings are contentious- who wrote them, why did they write them, and when did they write them? The Jewish “nation” was utterly destroyed in A.D. 70, and, perhaps more importantly, utterly destroyed AGAIN in A.D. 135. All their records are suspect. Sorry.

Josephus, on the other hand, not only trained at the Second Temple, but, as an important aristocrat, he was sent on a mission to Rome by the high Priesthood in A.D. 63. That was the same time that Peter, Paul, and Luke were in Rome. In Jerusalem, Josephus almost certainly personally knew Ananias, Jonathan, Ismael, and Simon Ananus.

Luke admits he uses many sources in his works, and was not an eyewitness for much of what he wrote about. Josephus, in talking about the politics of the Second Temple in the two decades before the first Jewish revolt, WAS an eyewitness for much of it.

Regarding Jesus reading, the Gospel of John doesn’t suggest it, and John was an eyewitness and knew Jesus. Luke, as above, uses a variety of sources, and we don;t know who they were or what they were. Situationally, it is not likely Jesus learned to read as a youth.

Historical evaluation is crucially dependent on the sources used. I will take Josephus over the Talmud, or even Luke, when talking about the early christian era.

source Hagan “Roman Fires”

ps read the original source- books 18-20 of antiquities.

 

[steve53]

Also, forgot to say that from Acts, Paul spent two years in the prison in Herod’s Palace in Caesarea under the care of Felix, after the confrontation with Ismael in Jerusalem. Felix was removed and replaced by Festus in A.D. 60. Festus immediately wanted to dispose of Paul, but met resistance from the high Priests, who still wanted him dead. Festus held a trial, then ran him by Agrippa and Bernice, who were passing through, and then shipped Paul off to Rome, probably in mid-late A.D. 60.

That’s where the A.D. 58 date came from.

 

[DavidPalm]

Well, first of all, Josephus places great store on Felix’s execution of the High Priest Jonathan in A.D. 56. Not Ananias, but Jonanthan. It occurred in the courtyard of the Second Temple by the Sicarri, or Jewish assassins. Then Josephus brings in Ismael.
The killing was a huge deal and, according to Josephus, that was the even that turned God away from considering the Jews his “chosen people.” The Romans were doing the bidding of God. That makes Josephus unpopular with the Jews, even today.
Ananias is last heard of after being deposed and sent to Rome for some sort of trial in A.D. 52 or thereabouts.
I think your sources placing Ananias as High Priest all the way up to A.D. 59 are begging the question, using Acts as a source. Remember, the same High Priest two years after Paul’s initial arrest in A.D. 58 still was after Paul. This was Ismael.

Okay, now I understand your position better and I think I see where the problem lies.

Josephus Antiquities 20.5.2 talks about the deposition of one high priest and the appointment of Ananius: “But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor.” In 20.6.2 Ananias was sent to Rome to be tried by Claudius Caesar, as you mentioned (c. AD 52). But Josephus later says that he returned to Jerusalem, having been declared innocent.

In 20.8.8 it speaks of the appointment of Ismael to high priest, in close proximity to the transition from Felix to Festus as procurator of Judea, c. AD 59: “About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi.”

In between it speaks of one high priest, Jonathan, who was killed by sicarii assassins c. AD 56. Notice that in Antiquities 20 Jonathan is mentioned without any introduction, as if we already know who he is–that is most likely because he had already been introduced in Antiquities 19. Notice, Josephus never explicitly says that Ananius was deposed or that Jonathan was made high priest during that time. Why? It is probably because this Jonathan was a previous high priest who had been removed from office, c. AD 36. As F. F. Bruce says: “One of the first victims [of the sicarii] was the ex-high priest Jonathan: the part he had played in having Felix appointed as procurator was no doubt a black mark on his record” (New Testament History, p. 345; my emphasis.) An ex-high priest could still called “high priest” and therefore it is reasonable that scholars such as Schurer would see Ananias’ pontificate spanning from A.D. 47 - 59 with no break.

There is another possibility, I supposed, that Jonathan was made high priest during Ananias’ “exile” in Rome. But this, it has to be admitted, is an argument from silence, as Josephus does not say so. Nevertheless, Jonathan was killed c. AD 56, Ananias was returned from Rome and so at the very least it is reasonable in either scenario to say that Ananias held the office between the death of Jonathan and the appointment of Ismael, which Josephus says occurred in close proximity to the transition from Felix to Festus. Bruce says of that, “The date of his [Felix’s] recall and replacement by Porcius Festus is disputed, but a change in the provincial coinage of Judaea attested for Nero’s fifth year points to A.D. 59” (Ibid., p. 345f.)

On either accounting, Ananias was high priest in A.D. 58.

You wrote:

Luke admits he uses many sources in his works, and was not an eyewitness for much of what he wrote about. Josephus, in talking about the politics of the Second Temple in the two decades before the first Jewish revolt, WAS an eyewitness for much of it.

Steve, granted that St. Luke was not an eyewitness, but think for a second about who his source was for St. Paul’s questioning before the high priest Ananias. It was St. Paul himself! It seems like he would be in a position to know.

Regarding Jesus reading, the Gospel of John doesn’t suggest it, and John was an eyewitness and knew Jesus. Luke, as above, uses a variety of sources, and we don;t know who they were or what they were. Situationally, it is not likely Jesus learned to read as a youth.

That remains an argument from silence and a gratuitous assertion on your part. Other first century evidence I have cited weighs against the denial of literacy. Unless you can back your position up with actual evidence, it does not bear any weight.

Historical evaluation is crucially dependent on the sources used. I will take Josephus over the Talmud, or even Luke, when talking about the early christian era.

source Hagan “Roman Fires”

Josephus and St. Luke agree. I submit it is Hagan who has erred in missing the detail that Josephus does not say that Jonathan was appointed as high priest in that interim period, but rather that he was an ex-high priest. The most satisfying view of the evidence is that Ananias held the office from c. A.D. 47 - 59.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Yes, I know that the problem you highlight does exist. But just because the Mishnah was compiled around AD 200 doesn’t mean that it doesn’t document customs/practices that existed well before that–I’m sure you’ll agree.

It doesn’t mean that the Mishnah documents these practices and it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t. You just can’t tell, especially with something so specific. Such an approach would be somewhat like trying to understand the customs of Civil War-era America by looking at last week’s copy of Time magazine. Certainly there’s some overall cultural continuity, but once you drill down to specifics, it’s very difficult to tell.

In this case, for reading in the synagogue by the ordinary folk, Schurer footnotes evidence from Philo as well, so I think we’re on solid ground holding that there would have been nothing out of the ordinary for Jesus to read out in the synagogue. I’m just not seeing where any skepticism about this would be coming from.

Philo and Josephus are certainly far superior sources than the Mishnah for what went on in the first century. I would be curious to see the Philo reference? Of course Philo was living in a different part of the world…

 

[steve53]

It is far more of a stretch to say that Ananias was tried by Rome for crimes, and was acquitted, and THEN WAS REAPPOINTED HIGH PRIEST.

There never was a re-appointed high priest (I think). Because they served at the pleasure of Rome, and while Ananias MAY have been acquitted, he was tainted and no way would he be allowed back in as High Priest.

Jonathan, the son of Ananus who served for a single year in A.D. 36-37, was, as I said, the son of Ananus. Ananus was a MAJOR power in the Second Temple, and very tight with Rome. If it had been he who the assassins had killed, Josephus would have made a huge deal about it, and certainly would have at least mentioned that he was the son of Ananus, as he does with all the other sons of Ananus- whom he probably knew personally.

Felix was probably paid off by the Second Temple not to interfere with Temple operations. He would simply not DARE kill a son of the powerful Ananus. In fact, Ananus would not have tolerated a son/High Priest who gave the Roman Procurator such a hard time, and would have put Jonathan in his place if he were his son.

The same High Priest who Paul insulted in A.D. 58 STILL wanted him dead in A.D. 60. i.e. he was still in power.

I think Hagan’s interpretation is the correct.

You are really having poor Ananias twist and turn chronologically in order to fit him into Luke. And it makes little sense for Jonathan, the son of Ananus, to be reappointed High Priest 20 years later.

Hagan, by the way, goes into all this. To say there is an error in Acts is not to be taken lightly.

 

[DavidPalm]

It is far more of a stretch to say that Ananias was tried by Rome for crimes, and was acquitted, and THEN WAS REAPPOINTED HIGH PRIEST.

I don’t hold this. I was pointing out that that was the most you could argue.

There never was a re-appointed high priest (I think). Because they served at the pleasure of Rome, and while Ananias MAY have been acquitted, he was tainted and no way would he be allowed back in as High Priest.

A gratuitous assertion on your part.

Felix was probably paid off by the Second Temple not to interfere with Temple operations. He would simply not DARE kill a son of the powerful Ananus. In fact, Ananus would not have tolerated a son/High Priest who gave the Roman Procurator such a hard time, and would have put Jonathan in his place if he were his son.

Another gratuitous assertion. Josephus said he did.

I think Hagan’s interpretation is the correct.

Hagan’s book is called “Fires of Rome”, by the way, not “Roman Fires”. I’ve looked a bit and I can’t find out just who Hagan is? What are his credentials?

[To be continued…]

 

[DavidPalm]

Hagan is quite mistaken. Let me elaborate still further.

Josephus says in Antiquities 20.10.1 that, “Accordingly, the number of the high priests, from the days of Herod until the day when Titus took the temple and the City, and burnt them, were in all twenty-eight”

Emil Schurer provides this: “a list of Pontiffs of Herodian-Roman times is given here. Josephus says that they numbered twenty-eight, and the following twenty-eight names are arrived at by collating his various accounts” (History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, II:228). There is no place in this list of 28 high priests for Jonathan in between Ananius and Ismael.

What is more, notice that Josephus always gives details on the deposition and

Besides which, he also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. (18.4.3)

Herod the tetrarch and his friends, went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching; and when he had been there, and been honorably entertained by the multitude of the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilus. (18.5.3)

And when Agrippa had entirely finished all the duties of the Divine worship, he removed Theophilus, the son of Ananus, from the high priesthood, and bestowed that honor of his on Simon the son of Boethus, whose name was also Cantheras (19.6.2)

And now king Agrippa took the [high] priesthood away from Simon Cantheras, and put Jonathan, the son of Ananus, into it again, and owned that he was more worthy of that dignity than the other. But this was not a thing acceptable to him, to recover that his former dignity. So he refused it, and said, “O king! I rejoice in the honor that thou hast for me, and take it kindly that thou wouldst give me such a dignity of thy own inclinations, although God hath judged that I am not at all worthy of the high priesthood. I am satisfied with having once put on the sacred garments; for I then put them on after a more holy manner than I should now receive them again. But if thou desirest that a person more worthy than myself should have this honorable employment, give me leave to name thee such a one. I have a brother that is pure from all sin against God, and of all offenses against thyself; I recommend him to thee, as one that is fit for this dignity.” So the king was pleased with these words of his, and passed by Jonathan, and, according to his brother’s desire, bestowed the high priesthood upon Matthias. (19.6.4)

And now he took the high priesthood away from Matthias, and made Elioneus, the son of Cantheras, high priest in his stead. (19.8.1)

Accordingly, Herod removed the last high priest, called Cimtheras, and bestowed that dignity on his successor Joseph, the son of Cantos. (20.1.3)

But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. (20.5.2)

But then when he mentions Jonathan, after the appointment of Ananias, he says nothing of Ananias being deposed or of Jonathan being appointed high priest, nor does he tell us what Jonathan he’s talking about (Jonathan son of ???). Why? Because he has already introduced the famous Jonathan before. We already know who this is. It’s not a new appointment, it’s the ex-high priest.

Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest he should himself have complaints made of him by the multitude, since he it was who had desired Caesar to send him as procurator of Judea. So Felix contrived a method whereby he might get rid of him, (20.8.5)

Josephus then resumes this pattern of detail on deposition and appointment:

About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. (20.8.8).

As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest. (20.8.11)

But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. (20.9.1)

king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. (20.9.1)

But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents . . . So the other high priests acted in the like manner, . . (20.9.2)

Notice that they are still called “high priest” even though they do not hold the office any more.

And now Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, became the successor of Jesus, the son of Damneus, in the high priesthood, which the king had taken from the other; on which account a sedition arose between the high priests (20.9.4)

Again, the ex-high priests are still called “high priest”.

He also deprived Jesus, the son of Gamaliel, of the high priesthood, and gave it to Matthias, the son of Theophilus (20.9.7)

Steve, the record is clear. There were twenty eight high priests in this period according to Josephus himself. There is no place for a high priest between Ananias and Ismael. By Josephus’ own testimony Ismael was appointed right about the time Festus took over from Felix, c. AD 59. Ananias was the high priest when St. Paul was in Jerusalem, just as St. Luke says. Josephus and St. Luke agree. Hagan has gotten this wrong.

 

[steve53]

Your point about Jonathan being the son of Ananus, and a former high priest, is contentious and somewhat convoluted.

In Josephus, note that he says “…Jonathan, the High Priest…”.

Now, it is customary for former US Presidents to still be called President. BUT…Jimmy Carter is referred to as “President Carter”, and NOT “Jimmy Carter the President” because he is not the current President.

Calling Simon Ananus “High Priest Ananus” is a lot different than saying “Ananus, the High Priest.” He is NOT the High Priest, but as an honor has assimilated the office appellation in his own name “High Priest Ananus”.

Could be a translational thing, admittedly.

And I stand by the assertion that being a son of Ananus is a big deal. Josephus spends a paragraph on one of Ananus’ sons who was captured and held for ransom. From Josephus, you can make a case that Josephus and Ananus, the son of Ananus (former High Priest" were great friends. Josephus would have noted it if Jonathan was the son of Ananus, and this Jonathan is mentioned in both Wars and Antiquities.

If the Sicarri executed a FORMER High Priest, would it be as big a deal? And if a former High Priest were giving Felix a hard time, well, how much of a hard time could a FORMER High Priest give the Roman Procurator? Felix could kill him anywhere and at anytime.

But Felix wanted to send a message. He executed the actual High Priest in the Second Temple itself. Jonathan. Gauntlet thrown down. Don’t mess with Felix.

To think that the High Priesthood didn’t pay off the Judean Prefect is a bit naive. That’s how the world worked back then. And today. That’s why Caiaphas was confident that Pilate would execute Jesus. He had to. That’s what he was PAID for, and handsomely.

High Priests, once removed from office, didn’t get reappointed. Remember, Jonathan, the son of Ananus, was removed by General Lucius Vitellius himself. Hagan said it might have been related to the stoning of Stephen and Jonathan’s unleashing of Saul and his buddies on the Christians. But to reappoint a High Priest that had been removed by Roman order, well, I think that would be seen as Rome as an act of defiance. It would not happen.

Too, it was a singular honor to be a High Priest. You were a demi-god and your name would be a recorded part of Jewish History forever. It was a sought-after position, and there were no shortage of candidates. That one would be reappointed does not make sense, especially one with a tarnished reputation like Ananias.

 

[steve53]

Hi steve,

I’m going to serve this one back to your for more information. I’m just not seeing the certainty in the scholarly sources to back up your claim above.

Let’s set aside what I mentioned above about legitimate and illegitimate lines of high priests. It’s true that there were such, but it doesn’t appear that it has any bearing on the question at hand. That was just my quick surmise at the time, but it doesn’t pan out. So I’m taking that off the table.

But for starters, I would reiterate that even Josephus still calls men who were former high priests but were deposed “high priest”, just as we call former but living presidents “President X”. So even if Ananias had been deposed when St. Paul appeared before him, it would not be an error for St. Luke to call him “high priest”. It is known from Josephus himself that Ananias remained highly influential even after being deposed and he did not die until c. AD 66 (on this Schurer: “As a result of his wealth, Ananias remained an influential man even after his deposition, but was unpopular on account of his greed” (The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ II:231). So on these grounds I am not understanding the certainty with which you consider this an error on St. Luke’s part.

But going further, I don’t see the certainty in the scholarly literature that Ananias had been deposed prior to St. Paul’s appearance before him. E. Schurer, whose The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ is a standard scholarly work on the subject, has Ananias the high priest in that office from c. AD 47 - 59. This work was thoroughly revised and updated in 1979 by Vermes, Millar, and Black and they saw no reason to change or challenge this chronology (which they do, by the way, when subsequent studies have called Schurer’s original view into question.)

Josephus (Antiquities 20.8.8-9) places the deposition of Ananias and replacement with Ismael in close proximity to the replacement of Felix by Porcius Festus as procurator of Judea. But the exact date of this happened is unknown–the Jewish Encyclopedia has it in AD 60, many other sources have AD 59, others AD 58.

What’s more, Acts 24:27 says that Felix kept St. Paul in prison for 2 years following his run-in with the high priest, so this would solidify Ananias still being high priest at that time.

But even if it was absolutely certain that St. Paul stood before the high priest during Pentecost of AD 58–I’m not seeing in the scholarly literature the absolute certainty you assert for that specific date, so perhaps you can document the grounds of your certainty–then why is it not perfectly reasonable that St. Paul was before Ananias earlier in AD 58, after which Ananias was deposed and Ismael put in his place by King Agrippa, and sometime thereafter Festus replaced Felix as procurator?

It just seems to me that the level of certainty with which you are mapping out these events–to the point of calling it “Game, set, match”–is not borne out by the sources, nor by the scholarly analysis. But if I’m missing some detail that really nails this down with exactitude then please let us know.

Game set match- all in good fun.

The key is the killing of Jonathan, and Josephus doesn’t suggest he was anything other than the High Priest, and that it happened in A.D. 56. Afterwards Paul confronted the replacement High Priest, and spent a couple years in prison. There is a run-in with the Egyptian that is mentioned in both Acts and Josephus, which helps place things. And I have never seen any other year for Festus’ start “date” than A.D. 60.

As an aside, the reason I like Hagan is that right out of the blocks he defines the sources he uses, and those that he discards. And he uses original sources as much as possible- the NT, Tacitus, Josephus, Philo, etc. There aren’t many. So many of these “historical” works pull out dreck from the Talmud to support contentious points.

But as much as you twist and turn, it is a tough sell that Ananias was the actual High Priest that Paul insulted. And it was a High Priest. If Ananias was called high Priest just out of respect, would Captain Lysias be so fearful of him? If the REAL High Priest were about the picture, Lysias would have involved him in the affair. But the High Priest (you say Ananias, I say Ismael) had so much power that Lysias spirited Paul out of Jerusalem by night with a 500 man escort to insure Paul’s safety (Paul being a Roman citizen.)

Now, if you had said that it was really Simon Ananus who was the insulted man, then you might have more of a point. It could have been a copying error.

BUT…by all indication, Ananus was a solid guy who was a champion of the common Jew, as much as any of the aristocrats were. He was probably very concerned over what Caiaphas did to Jesus, and might have encouraged Vitellius to remove him- according to Hagan.

To the original question, I have no doubt that Luke believed that everything he wrote was true. His mistakes were not intentional, but they are there.

 

[DavidPalm]

Hey Steve,

You have five points that you have yet to solve.

1. There is no room for Jonathan between Ananias and Ismael in the count of twenty eight high priests for the timeframe that Josephus lists. E. Schurer lays out the 28 high priests, with references to Josephus for each and every one (no “dreck” from the Talmud necessary), and Jonathan isn’t in that gap. The obvious solution to this, so simple that all mainstream scholars accept it, is that Jonathan was an ex-high priest.

There is absolutely no twisting and turning necessary on my part. Ananias was appointed high priest, he held that position until he was replaced by Ismael, c. A.D. 59. In the interim was was sent to Rome but was acquitted and returned to Jerusalem. He was the high priest when St. Paul appeared there, just as St. Luke says, just as Josephus says. They agree. Hagan has gotten it wrong.

1. You admit that Jonathan was assassinated in AD 56 but Ismael was not appointed until the transition from Felix to Festus, which you say was AD 60 (and I say probably 59), so you haven’t filled the gap as to who was high priest. Again, the simple answer to this is that Ananias held the position all the way through the period and that Ismael was appointed just when Josephus says, after St. Paul appeared before the high priest (Ananias).
2. You haven’t interacted with the fact that Josephus tells us explicitly each time there is a deposition of a high priest and gives details on who was the replacement (Such and Such, son of or brother of So and So). But he says no such thing about any appointment of Jonathan as high priest between Ananias and Ismael. In Book 20 he introduces Jonathan without any “son of X” or “brother of Y” and says nothing of him being appointed high priest in place of Ananias. There is a simple explanation for this: Jonathan had already been introduced in Book 19 and he did not succeed Ananias as high priest, he was an ex-high priest.
3. You have not yet interacted with the fact that St. Luke’s source for this information was St. Paul himself. It’s not like he had to sift through all sorts of esoteric tomes that were four or five times removed. St. Paul was there.
4. Internationally recognized scholars such as E. Schurer, Joachim Jeremias, and F. F. Bruce recognize that Ananias was high priest through this whole period, that there is no place for a high priest in the 28 that Josephus lays out between Ananias and Ismael. Just who is this Hagan? What are his credentials? Why should we believe him?

There are much more challenging examples than this one, such as the census question which was discussed above. This one seems very straightforward to me: Josephus was right, St. Luke was right and agrees with Josephus. Hagan got it wrong.

 

[steve53]

And now king Agrippa took the [high] priesthood away from Simon Cantheras, and put Jonathan, the son of Ananus, into it again, and owned that he was more worthy of that dignity than the other. But this was not a thing acceptable to him, to recover that his former dignity. So he refused it, and said, “O king! I rejoice in the honor that thou hast for me, and take it kindly that thou wouldst give me such a dignity of thy own inclinations, although God hath judged that I am not at all worthy of the high priesthood. I am satisfied with having once put on the sacred garments; for I then put them on after a more holy manner than I should now receive them again. But if thou desirest that a person more worthy than myself should have this honorable employment, give me leave to name thee such a one. I have a brother that is pure from all sin against God, and of all offenses against thyself; I recommend him to thee, as one that is fit for this dignity.” So the king was pleased with these words of his, and passed by Jonathan, and, according to his brother’s desire, bestowed the high priesthood upon Matthias. (19.6.4)

And now he took the high priesthood away from Matthias, and made Elioneus, the son of Cantheras, high priest in his stead. (19.8.1)

Accordingly, Herod removed the last high priest, called Cimtheras, and bestowed that dignity on his successor Joseph, the son of Cantos. (20.1.3)

But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. (20.5.2)

But then when he mentions Jonathan, after the appointment of Ananias, he says nothing of Ananias being deposed or of Jonathan being appointed high priest, nor does he tell us what Jonathan he’s talking about (Jonathan son of ???). Why? Because he has already introduced the famous Jonathan before. We already know who this is. It’s not a new appointment, it’s the ex-high priest.

Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan, the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest he should himself have complaints made of him by the multitude, since he it was who had desired Caesar to send him as procurator of Judea. So Felix contrived a method whereby he might get rid of him, (20.8.5)

Josephus then resumes this pattern of detail on deposition and appointment:

About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. (20.8.8).

As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest. (20.8.11)

I think you prove Hagan’s very reasonable assumption. Jonathan refuses to be reappointed earlier. As well documented by Josephus. For him to reverse his decision would be extraordinary. And Josephus, as I said, would at least have called him the son of Ananus. It was killing of this man, as I said, in the Temple that Josephus asserted made God turn his face away from the Jews. And when talking in other places about Ananus and his sons who became High Priests, Josephus certainly would have mentioned that one of them had been assassinated by the Roman procurator.
Gratuitous? Well, this is ancient history, after all, with limited resources.
The fact remains that Ananias is not mentioned after the incident with the High Priest Jonathan.
Are you pinning everything on the “28” figure of Josephus? Sounds a bit tenuous. But you admit that it is a gray area- admittedly unusual for Josephus, who was alive during those times and was usually meticulous about his High Priests. I will take the reasoning of Hagan. But even Hagan doesn’t say these things are written in stone.

Do you accept that three million Jews attended the Passover of A.D. 66? Or that 40,000 Jews lost their lives at Jotapata? Or that Josephus’ trained a Jewish army of 100,000 men when he was a general there? Josephus and numbers!

By the way, Hagan’s point in raising questions about the Ananias/Ismael aspect of Luke is that Ismael resigned as High Priest and was a part of Nero and Poppea’s salon in Rome in the period just before the persecutions of the Christians, when Paul was in Rome as well. Very unusual in itself.

 

[DavidPalm]

I think you prove Hagan’s very reasonable assumption. [etc.]

I’m back to not understanding your position. At any rate, I think I’ve pointed out many reasons that Hagan’s position doesn’t hold up. If I can’t convince you personally of that, oh well. I’ve enjoyed exploring the issue and hopefully the discussion with be helpful to others to establish the reliability of St. Luke.