“… the plot structure itself draws a comparison between
Tattenai and Haman, backing the view expressed in Rashi
that Tattenai was indeed an enemy of the Jews”.
Zvi Ron
Zvi Ron has proposed that the situation of Tattenai, the “governor of the province of Beyond the River” in Ezra 6, is paralleled in the drama of Haman in the Book of Esther:
There is an unusual reference to Tattenai in the Geonic era work Targum Rishon to the Book of Esther. …. When Zeresh, the wife of Haman, is introduced in Esther 5:10, Targum Rishon writes that Zeresh was “the daughter of Tattenai, governor of the province of Beyond the River.” This is an idea that does not appear anywhere else in Rabbinic literature, even in Targum Sheni to Esther which generally contains more aggadic material than Targum Rishon. ….
It is not immediately clear what is the point of connecting Zeresh to Tattenai. The book Magen David, a 17th commentary on the Targum Rishon, explains that Haman had multiple wives but Zeresh was singled out for mention because she came from an important family, the family of Tattenai. …. However, a close reading of the Tattenai narrative reveals why the Targum made a connection with Zeresh.
Taking the traditional approach that Tattenai was an adversary of the Jews who wanted to halt the construction of the Second Temple, the story of Tattenai can be summarized as follows:
1. Tattenai, a government official, tried to cause harm to the Jews.
2. He turned to the Persian king for support.
3. A forgotten incident is recalled (the permission given by Cyrus).
4. Instead of receiving this support, the exact opposite result is achieved (to assist the Jews with the building of the Second Temple).
In terms of the plot structure, this “Persian backfire” story bears similarity to the story of Haman, (1) a government official who wants to kill Mordecai and (2) enlists King Ahasuerus to write a decree against the Jews. When Ahasuerus cannot sleep he is (3) reminded of how Mordecai saved his life. Ultimately Haman’s plan fails and (4) the exact opposite result is achieved, Haman must honor Mordecai and he is ultimately hanged on the wooden beam he had intended to hang Mordecai from.
This basic plot structure is also seen in Daniel chapter 6. There (1) government officials try to get Daniel in trouble with the king (Daniel 6:6). They (2) trick Darius into writing a decree that outlaws prayer (Daniel 6: 14). Daniel is rescued from death in the lion’s [sic] den, and (4) the king orders the officials to be put to death in the lion’s den (Daniel 6:25). In the Daniel story there is no element of the “forgotten incident”, however there is an element of the king having a sleepless night (Daniel 6:19) as in Esther 6:1. Additionally, there is a reverse parallel in that Daniel is in trouble for bowing in prayer (Daniel 6:11) and Mordecai is in trouble for refusing to bow (Esther 3:2).
The Tattenai/Haman parallel is particularly strong as both narratives not only contain a “forgotten incident” element, they even use a similar term regarding it, the sefer zichronot (book of records, literally “book of memories”) in Esther 6:1 and the decree of Cyrus, called a dichrona (memorandum, an Aramaic term parallel to the Hebrew zichron) in Ezra 6:2. Additionally, the punishment Darius issues for interfering with the building of the Temple, I also issue an order that whoever alters this decree shall have a beam removed from his house, and he shall be impaled on it and his house confiscated (Ezra 6:11), recalls the punishment of Haman, So they impaled Haman on the beam (Esther 7:10) and Mordecai was put in charge of Haman’s property (Esther 8:2). Furthermore, as in the punishment stated by Darius, the beam that Haman was impaled on was from his house (Esther 7:9). Note that “impaling was a Persian practice…generally reserved for the most serious crimes, especially sedition,” … adding an additional irony to the Tattenai reversal. While initially Tattenai accused the Jews of possible rebellion, Darius responds that failure to support the construction of the Temple will in fact make him accountable for treason!
The Targum was sensitive to this parallel between Tattenai and Haman, and so further connected the narratives by making Zeresh the daughter of Tattenai. When we read, There Haman told his wife Zeresh and all his friends everything that had befallen him. His advisers and his wife Zeresh said to him: ‘If Mordecai, before whom you have begun to fall, is of Jewish stock, you will not overcome him, you will fall before him to your ruin’ (Esther 6:13), the question arises, how was Zeresh so sure that Haman would not be able to succeed against a Jew? The answer provided by the Targum is that she knew this from her own experience, seeing her father fail against the Jews at the time of the rebuilding of the Temple. ….
Mackey’s comment: In my estimation, Haman had already been executed before Darius’s response to Tattenai.
Zvi Ron continues:
From this perspective, the plot structure itself draws a comparison between Tattenai and Haman, backing the view expressed in Rashi that Tattenai was indeed an enemy of the Jews.
CONCLUSION Despite the fact that in the Tattenai narrative “the officials give the impression of being about their regular business, reporting on possibly significant developments in the territory under their jurisdiction, and having no axe to grind in local disputes between Judeans and Samaritans” and that the language used “is not charged with any antagonism,”… as noted by Malbim, we have seen that the plot structure of the episode links Tattenai to Haman, an idea reflected in Targum Rishon, and leads to the understanding that Tattenai is indeed to be counted among the many adversaries of the Jews.
Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War
was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ
(the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt),
I would expect that there was.
The first version,found in Antiquities Book XII, is basically recognisable from what we read about the Jewish Revolt against the Macedonian Seleucids in I-II Maccabees.
The second version -Roman era presumably – found early in Antiquities Book XVII, provides us with an account of the Revolt against King Herod, late in life, by the Jewish pair, Matthias and Judas.
Compare Mattathias and his son, Judas Maccabeus.
This continues over in to the time of Herod’s son, Archelaus, whom Saint Joseph feared on the Family’s return from Egypt (Matthew 2:19-21).
This is what Gamaliel was talking about, “Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census”.
The Census, the one that greets us at the beginning of Luke 2 (:1-3):
Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”
In conventional terms, about 170 years separate these incidents, Mattathias and Judas Maccabeus, on the one hand, and Matthias and Judas the Galilean, on the other.
In my scheme, they pertain to precisely the same events.
This is only some several decades before the estimated birth of Josephus (c. 37 AD).
How come, then, that he has it all so badly tangled up?
Though it is not apparent from the Gospels that a War was raging during the Infancy of Jesus Christ (the Holy Family was safely hidden in Egypt), I would expect that there was:
Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus
The third version,found later in Antiquities Book XVII.
Athronges, Josephus’s new name for Judas (without his realising it).
Again, it was the time of Archelaus, son of Herod.
….
7. But because Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors; nor for any great wealth he was possessed of; but one that had in all respects been a shepherd only [were he and his 4 brothers shepherd priests at the time of the Nativity?] , and was not known by any body: yet because he was a tall man [Maccabees likens Judas to “a giant”], and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for King. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that although he should be killed, he did not much care if he lost his life in so great a design. He had also four brethren,20 who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands; and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the Kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own. For those that got together to them were very numerous. They were every one of them also commanders. But when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. While he put a diadem about his head, and assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. And this man retained his power a great while: he was also called King; and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased. He also, as well as his brethren, slew a great many both of the Romans [???], and of the King’s forces; and managed matters with the like hatred to each of them. The King’s forces they fell upon, because of the licentious conduct they had been allowed under Herod’s government: and they fell upon the Romans, because of the injuries they had so lately received from them. But in process of time they grew more cruel to all sorts of men. Nor could any one escape from one or other of these seditions. Since they slew some out of the hopes of gain; and others from a mere custom of slaying men. They once attacked a company of Romans at Emmaus; who were bringing corn and weapons to the army: and fell upon Arius, the centurion, who commanded the company, and shot forty of the best of his foot soldiers. But the rest of them were affrighted at their slaughter, and left their dead behind them, but saved themselves by the means of Gratus; who came with the King’s troops that were about him to their assistance. Now these four brethren continued the war a long while, by such sort of expeditions: and much grieved the Romans; but did their own nation also a great deal of mischief. Yet were they afterwards subdued. ….
It sure beats Gamaliel’s miserable account of Judas the Galilean at least (Acts 5:37).
The fourth version,also found in Antiquities Book XVII, seems to be simply a duplication of Judas the Galilean at the time of the Census.
Certain scholars, at least, identify the two as one (see next):
Leader of a popular revolt against the Romans at the time when the first census was taken in Judea, in which revolt he perished and his followers were dispersed (Acts v. 37); born at Gamala in Gaulonitis (Josephus, “Ant.” xviii. 1, § 1). In the year 6 or 7 C.E., when Quirinus came into Judea to take an account of the substance of the Jews, Judas, together with Zadok, a Pharisee, headed a large number of Zealots and offered strenuous resistance (ib. xviii. 1, § 6; xx. 5, § 2; idem, “B. J.” ii. 8, § 1). Judas proclaimed the Jewish state as a republic recognizing God alone as king and ruler and His laws as supreme. The revolt continued to spread, and in some places serious conflicts ensued. Even after Judas had perished, his spirit continued to animate his followers.
Two of his sons, Jacob and Simon, were crucified by Tiberius Alexander (“Ant.” xx. 5, § 2); another son, Menahem, became the leader of the Sicarii and for a time had much power; he was finally slain by the high-priestly party (“B. J.” ii. 17, §§ 8-9).
Grätz (“Gesch.” iii. 251) and Schürer (“Gesch.” i. 486) identify Judas the Galilean with Judas, son of Hezekiah the Zealot, who, according to Josephus (“Ant.” xvii. 10, § 5; “B. J.” ii. 4, § 1), led a revolt in the time of Quintilius Varus. He took possession of the arsenal of Sepphoris, armed his followers, who were in great numbers, and soon became the terror of the Romans.
When did the Romans come to Judah?
This present article has arisen from a discussion I have recently had with a colleague in which we were trying to determine when the Greek (Seleucid) hold over Judah ceased, and the Romans took over – presuming that this is what actually happened.
That I have trouble with the conventional view of the Romans for this period will be apparent to readers of my article:
To my suggestion that Josephus, a political animal, had a political agenda, my colleague replied (26/04/2024):
Everyone has biases and agendas. That much can be tolerated by the discerning reader. I mean whether he is reliable witness to basic historical events. For instance I could read a newspaper columnist with whom I vehemently disagree but he is going to be working from the same basic historical backdrop – that Anthony Albanese is the prime minister etc. So, if Josephus is a witnesses to 1st century events and he says the Romans destroyed the Temple – then biases and agendas aside – I’d say that’s how it went down. ….
This led me to summarise some of my reasons for my minimilisation of the Romans:
….
Sounds reasonable.
But when do the Romans come into the Judean picture?
….
Augustus writes a decree to the whole Roman world.
Except, the word Roman is not there.
The Romans in Maccabees are allies of the Jews, not invaders. They promise the world, but Judas, then Jonathan, then Simon, all die violently.
What happened to the Roman promise of intervention?
There are Roman centurions in the Bible.
Except, the word Roman is not there.
And a Greek word (hekatóntarkhos), not centurion (centurio), is used.
We know from history that there was a Jewish centurion in the pagan army. May have been others.
My tip is that the centurion (?) Jesus praised was Jewish. No Faith like this in Israel, a builder of a synagogue. Would a Roman centurion build a synagogue?
Pilate writes in Hebrew, Greek, Latin (at least Fr. Brian Harrison reckons that that is the proper order).
Why Greek, before Latin?
Both Pontius and Pilate can also be Greek words.
Caiaphas (from memory) warns that the Romans might come – the only solitary mention of them I have found (except for Maccabees) before Paul.
If they might come, then does that mean that they are not actually there?
Revelation does not name Greek or Roman invaders by those words.
Gog and Magog get a look in late.
In Ezekiel 38, 39, Gog and Magog refer to the Macedonian Seleucids and their array – and, specifically, to the showdown between Judas and Nicanor.
Hence why I have remained non-commital thus far.
(That is not to say that the Jewish Revolt ending in 70 AD was not against Rome. I don’t know). ….
Name “Athronges”
As I noted in my “Religious war …” article (above):
We can even connect the name, Athronges, thought to mean a “citron” (etrog), to the Maccabees, once it is appreciated that the wrongly-named Second Jewish Revolt was actually that of the Maccabees. See e.g. my article:
An academic exchange regarding Hadrian and the Bar Kochba revolt
In 132–135 [sic], the last Jewish leader, Simon bar Kokhba, attempted a final uprising in the hope of restoring Judea’s independence. On his coins, he minted the facade of the temple destroyed sixty years earlier [sic]. We also see a bouquet (lulab) and a citron (etrog), symbols of the traditional cult that Simon intended to restore. We can also read the slogan of the revolt, written in Hebrew: “For the freedom of Jerusalem.” ….
“Next Abimelek went to Thebez and besieged it and captured it.Inside the city, however, was a strong tower, to which all the men and women—all the people of the city—had fled. They had locked themselves in and climbed up on the tower roof.Abimelek went to the tower and attacked it. But as he approached the entrance to the tower to set it on fire,a woman dropped an upper millstone on his head and cracked his skull”.
Judges 9:50-53
Account of Abimelech
Gideon’s illegitimate son, Abimelech (Abimelek), in killing the seventy sons of Gideon as his potential rivals to the rulership (see text below), was setting a precedent that the bloody Jehu of Israel would later follow, when he arranged for king Ahab’s seventy sons to be beheaded (2 Kings 10:1-11).
Judges 9:1-57
Abimelek son of Jerub-Baal went to his mother’s brothers in Shechem and said to them and to all his mother’s clan, “Ask all the citizens of Shechem, ‘Which is better for you: to have all seventy of Jerub-Baal’s sons rule over you, or just one man?’ Remember, I am your flesh and blood’.”
When the brothers repeated all this to the citizens of Shechem, they were inclined to follow Abimelek, for they said, ‘He is related to us’. They gave him seventy shekels of silver from the temple of Baal-Berith, and Abimelek used it to hire reckless scoundrels, who became his followers. He went to his father’s home in Ophrah and on one stone murdered his seventy brothers, the sons of Jerub-Baal. But Jotham, the youngest son of Jerub-Baal, escaped by hiding. Then all the citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo gathered beside the great tree at the pillar in Shechem to crown Abimelek king.
When Jotham was told about this, he climbed up on the top of Mount Gerizim and shouted to them, “Listen to me, citizens of Shechem, so that God may listen to you. One day the trees went out to anoint a king for themselves. They said to the olive tree, ‘Be our king’. But the olive tree answered, ‘Should I give up my oil, by which both gods and humans are honored, to hold sway over the trees?’
“Next, the trees said to the fig tree, ‘Come and be our king.’
“But the fig tree replied, ‘Should I give up my fruit, so good and sweet, to hold sway over the trees?’
“Then the trees said to the vine, ‘Come and be our king.’
“But the vine answered, ‘Should I give up my wine, which cheers both gods and humans, to hold sway over the trees?’
“Finally all the trees said to the thornbush, ‘Come and be our king.’
“The thornbush said to the trees, ‘If you really want to anoint me king over you, come and take refuge in my shade; but if not, then let fire come out of the thornbush and consume the cedars of Lebanon!’
“Have you acted honorably and in good faith by making Abimelek king? Have you been fair to Jerub-Baal and his family? Have you treated him as he deserves? Remember that my father fought for you and risked his life to rescue you from the hand of Midian. But today you have revolted against my father’s family. You have murdered his seventy sons on a single stone and have made Abimelek, the son of his female slave, king over the citizens of Shechem because he is related to you. So have you acted honorably and in good faith toward Jerub-Baal and his family today? If you have, may Abimelek be your joy, and may you be his, too! But if you have not, let fire come out from Abimelek and consume you, the citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo, and let fire come out from you, the citizens of Shechem and Beth Millo, and consume Abimelek!”
Then Jotham fled, escaping to Beer, and he lived there because he was afraid of his brother Abimelek.
After Abimelek had governed Israel three years, God stirred up animosity between Abimelek and the citizens of Shechem so that they acted treacherously against Abimelek. God did this in order that the crime against Jerub-Baal’s seventy sons, the shedding of their blood, might be avenged on their brother Abimelek and on the citizens of Shechem, who had helped him murder his brothers. In opposition to him these citizens of Shechem set men on the hilltops to ambush and rob everyone who passed by, and this was reported to Abimelek.
Now Gaal son of Ebed moved with his clan into Shechem, and its citizens put their confidence in him. After they had gone out into the fields and gathered the grapes and trodden them, they held a festival in the temple of their god. While they were eating and drinking, they cursed Abimelek. Then Gaal son of Ebed said, ‘Who is Abimelek, and why should we Shechemites be subject to him? Isn’t he Jerub-Baal’s son, and isn’t Zebul his deputy? Serve the family of Hamor, Shechem’s father! Why should we serve Abimelek? If only this people were under my command! Then I would get rid of him. I would say to Abimelek, ‘Call out your whole army!’”
When Zebul the governor of the city heard what Gaal son of Ebed said, he was very angry. Under cover he sent messengers to Abimelek, saying, ‘Gaal son of Ebed and his clan have come to Shechem and are stirring up the city against you. Now then, during the night you and your men should come and lie in wait in the fields. In the morning at sunrise, advance against the city. When Gaal and his men come out against you, seize the opportunity to attack them’.
So Abimelek and all his troops set out by night and took up concealed positions near Shechem in four companies. Now Gaal son of Ebed had gone out and was standing at the entrance of the city gate just as Abimelek and his troops came out from their hiding place.
When Gaal saw them, he said to Zebul, ‘Look, people are coming down from the tops of the mountains!’
Zebul replied, ‘You mistake the shadows of the mountains for men’.
But Gaal spoke up again: ‘Look, people are coming down from the central hill, and a company is coming from the direction of the diviners’ tree’.
Then Zebul said to him, “Where is your big talk now, you who said, ‘Who is Abimelek that we should be subject to him?’ Aren’t these the men you ridiculed? Go out and fight them!”
So Gaal led out the citizens of Shechem and fought Abimelek. Abimelek chased him all the way to the entrance of the gate, and many were killed as they fled. Then Abimelek stayed in Arumah, and Zebul drove Gaal and his clan out of Shechem.
The next day the people of Shechem went out to the fields, and this was reported to Abimelek. So he took his men, divided them into three companies and set an ambush in the fields. When he saw the people coming out of the city, he rose to attack them. Abimelek and the companies with him rushed forward to a position at the entrance of the city gate. Then two companies attacked those in the fields and struck them down. All that day Abimelek pressed his attack against the city until he had captured it and killed its people. Then he destroyed the city and scattered salt over it.
On hearing this, the citizens in the tower of Shechem went into the stronghold of the temple of El-Berith. When Abimelek heard that they had assembled there, he and all his men went up Mount Zalmon. He took an ax and cut off some branches, which he lifted to his shoulders. He ordered the men with him, ‘Quick! Do what you have seen me do!’ So all the men cut branches and followed Abimelek.
They piled them against the stronghold and set it on fire with the people still inside. So all the people in the tower of Shechem, about a thousand men and women, also died.
Next Abimelek went to Thebez and besieged it and captured it. Inside the city, however, was a strong tower, to which all the men and women—all the people of the city—had fled.
They had locked themselves in and climbed up on the tower roof. Abimelek went to the tower and attacked it. But as he approached the entrance to the tower to set it on fire, a woman dropped an upper millstone on his head and cracked his skull.
Hurriedly he called to his armor-bearer, “Draw your sword and kill me, so that they can’t say, ‘A woman killed him.’” So his servant ran him through, and he died. When the Israelites saw that Abimelek was dead, they went home.
Thus God repaid the wickedness that Abimelek had done to his father by murdering his seventy brothers. God also made the people of Shechem pay for all their wickedness. The curse of Jotham son of Jerub-Baal came on them.
Afterthe death of Gideon his son Abimelech asserted authority in the land and ruled from Shechem, reigning for 3 years until his death.
“MB IIC at Shechem was a major destruction,
so almost certainly it was the city of Abimelech”.
Dr. John Osgood
SHECHEM OF ABIMELECH
Back in 1980’s, I, then following a pattern of biblical archaeology different from the one that I would embrace today, had raised with Dr. John Osgood this query about the city of Shechem in its relation to the Joshuan Conquest:
“Techlets”, EN Tech. J., vol. 3, 1988, pp. 125-126:
…. I think too that Shechem might be a problem in your scheme of things. From the Bible it would seem that Shechem was a small settlement at the time of Abraham, but a city at the time of Jacob. It seems to me that according to your scheme Shechem would be the same size in Jacob’s time as in Abraham’s.
Correct me if I am wrong. Also Prof. Stiebing, who has criticised at various times the schemes of allrevisionists (see Biblical Archaeological Review,July/August 1985, pp. 58-69), raises the problem of the absence of LBA remains at Samaria as regards theEBA Conquest Reconstruction.
Looking back now on Dr. Osgood’s reply to this, his view on Shechem, at least, makes perfect sense to me. He seems to have arrived at a proper overview of the archaeology of Shechem, from Abraham to Jeroboam I (and beyond).
Here, again, is what Dr. Osgood wrote about it:
Shechem: This is no problem to the revised chronology presented here, since the passage concerning Abraham and Shechem, viz. Genesis 12:6, does not indicate that a city of any consequence was then present there.
On the other hand, Jacob’s contact makes it clear that there was a significant city present later (Genesis 33 and 34), but only one which was able to be overwhelmed by a small party of Jacob’s sons who took it by surprise.
I would date any evidence of civilisation at these times to the late Chalcolithic in Abraham’s case, and to EB I in Jacob’s case, the latter being the most significant.
The Bible is silent about Shechem until the Israelite conquest, after which it is apparent that it developed a significant population until the destruction of the city in the days of Abimelech. If the scriptural silence is significant, then no evidence of occupation would be present after EB I until MB I and no significant building would occur until the MB IIC.
Shechem was rebuilt by Jeroboam I, and continued thereafter until the Assyrian captivity.
Moreover, Shechem was almost certainly the Bethel of Jeroboam, during the divided kingdom. So I would expect heavy activity during the majority of LB and all of Iron I.
This is precisely the findings at Shechem, with the exception that the earliest periods have not had sufficient area excavated to give precise details about the Chalcolithic and EB I. No buildings have yet been brought to light from these periods, but these periods are clearly represented at Shechem.
MB IIC at Shechem was a major destruction, so almost certainly it was the city of Abimelech. The population’s allegiance to Hamor and Shechem could easily be explained by a return of descendants of the Shechem captives taken by Jacob’s son, now returned after the Exodus nostalgically to Shechem, rather than by a continuation of the population through intervening periods (see Judges 9:28, Genesis 34).
For Jeroboam’s city and after, the numerous LB and Iron I strata are a sufficient testimony (see Biblical Archaeology, XX, XXVI and XXXII). ….
[End of quote]
The city of Shechem, which has already figured prominently in this book, will become of most vital significance when, in the era of king Hezekiah of Judah (c. C8th BC, conventional dating), I proceed to discuss the opposing kings, Hezekiah and Sennacherib, and Israel’s famous defeat of the 185,000-strong Assyrian army.
A combination of Dr. Osgood’s identification of Shechem with the northern Bethel, and Charles C. Torrey’s early identification of Shechem as the strategic town of “Bethulia”, which was Judith’s city, has enabled me to bring a full biblico-historical perspective to both the Book of Judith and the Assyrian incident.
[Jan] Simons thinks that the reference in the Vulgate to the Assyrians coming
at this stage to “the Idumæans into the land of Gabaa” (Judith 3:14) should more appropriately be rendered “the Judæans … Gabaa”. Gabaa would then correspond to the Geba of the Septuagint in the Esdraelon (Jezreel) plain.
Let us follow the march of the Assyrian commander-in chief through the eyes of Charles C. Torrey, in his article “The Site of Bethulia” (JSTOR, Vol. 20, 1899), beginning on p. 161:
When the army of Holofernes reached the Great Plain of Jezreel, in its march southward, it halted there for a month (iii. 9 f.) at the entrance to the hill country of the Jews. According to iii. 10, “Holofernes pitched between Geba and Scythopolis.” This statement is not without its difficulties. We should perhaps have expected the name Genin, where the road from the Great Plain enters the hills, instead of Geba. The latter name is very well attested, however, having the support of most Greek manuscripts and of all the versions. The only place of this name known to us, in this region, is the village Geba (Gěba‘) … a few miles north of Samaria, directly in the line of march taken by Holophernes [Holofernes] and his army, at the point where the road to Shechem branches. It is situated just above a broad and fertile valley where there is a fine large spring of water. There would seem to be every reason, therefore, for regarding this as the Geba of Judith iii. 10; as is done, for example, by Conder in the Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, ii, p. 156, and by G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 356. There is nothing in the sequel of the story to disagree with this conclusion. Accordingto the narrator, the vast ‘Assyrian’ army, at the time of this ominous halt, extended all the way from Scythopolis through the Great Plain to Genin, and along the broad caravan track … southward as far as Geba.
Torrey will proceed to make excellent sense of the geography of this impressive (but ill-fated) Assyrian campaign.
Jan Simons (The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1959) will later do a reasonable job of accounting for the earlier part of the Assyrian campaign, from its leaving from the city of Nineveh until its arrival at the plain of Esdraelon – the phase of the campaign that Torrey will dismiss as “mere literary adornment” (on p. 160):
With regard to a part of these details, especially those having to do with countries or places outside of Palestine, it can be said at once that they are mere literary adornment, and are not to be taken seriously. Such for example are the particulars regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s … journey westward ….
I quoted Simons, for instance, in Volume Two, pp. 49-51 of my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
Commentators have not found it easy to unravel geographically, in its various stages, the [Book of Judith] narrative of the Assyrian army’s march westwards (2:19-3:9). A difficulty is that the account of its route, from Nineveh to its eventual arrival in northern Israel, varies from version to version. …. Nevertheless, Simons has made quite a good attempt to unravel [Book of Judith’s] geography here. He begins with the Assyrian army’s departure, from Nineveh: ….
a) v. 21: after mentioning NINEVE [Nineveh] as Holofernes’ starting-point this verse deals with the first stage of the expedition, i.e. a “three days march” which brings the army to the border of the enemy country, viz. to “the plain of Bectileth”, which was apparently the site of a base-camp close to the general area of military operations (similar to the camp on the plain (of) Esdrelon [Esdraelon] … before the final stage of these operations: iii 10);
b) v. 22 relates the opening proper of the military operations, viz. by saying that the army leaves the base-camp on the plain and moves up the mountain-land εἰςεἰς τὴν ὀρεινήν
ὀρεινήν
c) V. 27: (from this mountain-land) the army “descends into the plain of DAMASCUS”, the territory first to suffer;
d) V. 28: the chastisement of the land of DAMASCUS causes a panic in the “coastland” (παραλία) from where several cities mentioned by name send ambassadors to offer submission (iii 1 ff.).
As regards the cartographic interpretation of this part of the expedition preceding that attack on Judaea … itself we submit the following remarks:
Independently of every hypothesis or reconstruction of Holofernes’ expedition it appears that the transmitted text does not mention Cilicia … (v. 21) as its objective or partial goal.
Moreover, “Upper Cilicia” as an indication of the location of “the plain Bectileth” (“Bectileth near the mountain which lies to the left – north – of Upper Cilicia” or Cilicia above the Taurus Mountains) is completely out of the way which starts at NINEVE and is directed towards Syria-Palestine.
We suspect, therefore, thatτῆς ἄνω Κιλικίαςhas been inserted (perhaps in replacement of some another original reading) in order to adjust the account of the campaign to the terms of I 7 and I 12.
Secondly, “the plain of Bectileth” mentioned as the terminus of the first stage of Holofernes’ advance seems to us simply the Syrian beqã‘ … between Libanos and Antilibanos … mentioned in I 7.
Holofernes’ base-camp was not in the centre of the plain (“ἀπὸ Βεκτιλὲθ” must have developed from or be the remaining part of a statement to this effect) but “near the mountains on the left (north) side”, in other words: at the foot of the Antilibanos … (cp. Its modern name “gebel esh-sherqi”: …).
It is this mountain-ridge (ὀρεινή) which the army has to climb (v.22) before “sweeping down (κατέβη) on the plain of DAMASCUS” (V. 27).
In the third place the text names (v. 28) the coastal towns, where the fate of DAMASCUS raises a panic. Most of these names create no problems:
SIDON = saidã
TYRUS = sûr
JEMNAA = Jamnia ….
AZOTUS = isdûd ….
ASCALON = ‘asqalãn ….
Some mss. add: GAZA = ghazzeh.
Though Simons does not specify here to which particular ‘mss.’ he is referring, Moore tells us that “LXXs, OL, and Syr add “and Gaza”.” …. Simons continues:
The remaining two are obscure. OCINA seems to have been somewhere between TYRUS and JEMNAA and is for this reason usually identified with ‘ACCO = ‘akkã …. which neither because of the name itself nor on the ground of its location … can be reasonably considered to render Hebrew “DOR” … is probably but a duplicate of TYRUS (cp. Hebr: SOR). It is possible that the distinction between the island-city and the settlement on the mainland (Palaetyrus) accounts for the duplication.
[End of quotes]
Further down p. 51, and continuing on to p. 52, I wrote – again making reference to Simons:
The next crucial stopping point of the Assyrian army after its raids on the region of Damascus will effectively be its last: “Then [Holofernes] came toward Esdraelon, near Dothan, facing the great ridge of Judea; he camped between Geba and Scythopolis, and remained for a whole month in order to collect all the supplies for his army” (v. 9).
Simons thinks that the reference in the Vulgate to the Assyrians coming at this stage to “the Idumæans into the land of Gabaa” (3:14) should more appropriately be rendered “the Judæans … Gabaa”. …. Gabaa would then correspond to the Geba of the Septuagint in the Esdraelon (Jezreel) plain. (It has of course no connection at all with the ‘Geba’ discussed on p. 6 of the previous chapter, which was just to the north of Jerusalem). Judah’s reabsorbing of this northern region (Esdraelon) into its kingdom would have greatly annoyed Sennacherib, who had previously spoken of “the wide province of Judah” (rapshu nagû (matu) Ya-û-di). …. Naturally the Israelites would have been anticipating (from what Joel called the “northern army”) a first assault in the north. And that this was so is clear from the fact that the leaders in Jerusalem had ordered the people to seize the mountain defiles in Samaria as well as those in Judah ([Book of Judith] 4:1-2; 4-5):
When the Israelites living in Judea heard how Holofernes, general-in-chief of Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians, had treated the various nations, first plundering their temples and then destroying them, they were thoroughly alarmed at his approach and trembled for Jerusalem and the Temple of the Lord their God. … They therefore alerted the whole of Samaria, Kona, Beth-horon, Belmain, Jericho, Choba, Aesora and the Salem valley.
They occupied the summits of the highest mountains and fortified the villages on them; they laid in supplies for the coming war, as the fields had just been harvested.
Here we encounter that “Salem valley” region that I believe was, rather than Jerusalem, the location of the great Melchizedek.
I continue now with Charles Torrey’s article, where he has just noted the crucial strategic importance of Bethulia (p. 162):
This city could ‘hold the pass‘ through which it was necessary that Holofernes, having once chosen this southward route, should lead his army in order to invade Judea and attack Jerusalem. This is plainly stated in iv. 7: …. “And Joachim wrote, charging them to hold the pass of the hill-country; for through it was the entrance into Judea, and it would be easy to stop them as they came up, because the approach was narrow”.When the people of Betylūa comply with the request of the high priest and the elders of Jerusalem, and hold the pass. (iv. 8), they do so simply by remaining in their own city, prepared to resist the approach of Holofernes. So long as they continue stubborn, and refuse to surrender or to let the enemy pass, so long their purpose is accomplished, and Jerusalem and the sanctuary are safe. This is made as plain as possible in all the latter part of the book; see especially viii, 21 ff., where Judith is indignantly opposing the counsel of the chief men of the city to surrender: “For if we be taken, all Judea will be taken … and our sanctuary will be spoiled; and of our blood will he require its profanation. And the slaughter of our brethren, and the captivity of the land, and the desolation of our inheritance, will he turn upon our heads among the nations wheresoever we shall be in bondage. And we shall be an offence and a reproach in the eyes of those who have taken us captive …. Let us show an example to our brethren, because their lives hang upon us, and upon us rest the sanctuary and the house and the altar.”
That is, the city which the writer of this story had in mind lay directly in the path of Holofernes, at the head of the most important pass in the region, through which he must necessarily lead his army. There is no escape from this conclusion.
After making this emphatic statement, Torrey will refer to two other sites “which have been most frequently thought of as possible sites of the city, Sanur and Mithiliyeh” (see below).
The latter of these, Mithiliyeh, or Mithilia, was my own choice for Judith’s Bethulia – following Claude Reignier Conder – when writing my thesis, but it was based more on a romantic view of things rather than on any solid military strategy – though the name fit had seemed to be quite solid. Thus I wrote (pp. 70-71):
Conder identified this Misilya – he calls it Mithilia (or Meselieh) – as Bethulia itself:[1]
… Meselieh … A small village, with a detached portion to the north, and placed on a slope, with a hill to the south, and surrounded by good olive-groves, with an open valley called Wâdy el Melek (“the King’s Valley’) on the north. The water-supply is from wells, some of which have an ancient appearance. They are mainly supplied with rain-water.
In 1876 I proposed to identify the village of Meselieh, or Mithilia, south of Jenin, with the Bethulia of the Book of Judith, supposing the substitution of M for B, of which there are occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature. The indications of the site given in the Apocrypha are tolerably distinct. Bethulia stood on a hill, but not apparently on the top, which is mentioned separately (Judith vi. 12).
There were springs or wells beneath the town (verse 11), and the houses were above these (verse 13).
The city stood in the hill-country not far from the plain (verse 11), and apparently near Dothan (Judith iv. 6). The army of Holofernes was visible when encamped near Dothan (Judith vii. 3, 4), by the spring in the valley near Bethulia (verses 3-7). ‘The site usually supposed to represent Bethulia – namely, the strong village of Sanûr – does not fulfil these various requisites; but the topography of the Book of Judith, as a whole, is so consistent and easily understood, that it seems that Bethulia was an actual site’.
Visiting Mithilia on our way to Shechem … we found a small ruinous village on the slope of the hill. Beneath it are ancient wells, and above it a rounded hill-top, commanding a tolerably extensive view. The north-east part of the great plain, Gilboa, Tabor, and Nazareth, are clearly seen. West of these are neighbouring hillsides Jenin and Wâdy Bel’ameh (the Belmaim, probably of the narrative); but further west Carmel appears behind the ridge of Sheikh Iskander, and part of the plain of ‘Arrabeh, close to Dothan, is seen. A broad corn-vale, called “The King’s Valley”, extends north-west from Meselieh toward Dothan, a distance of only 3 miles.
There is a low shed formed by rising ground between two hills, separating this valley from the Dothain [Dothan] plain; and at the latter site is the spring beside which, probably, the Assyrian army is supposed by the old Jewish novelist to have encamped. In imagination one might see the stately Judith walking through the down-trodden corn-fields and shady olive-groves, while on the rugged hillside above the men of the city “looked after her until she was gone down the mountain, and till she had passed the valley, and could see her no more”. (Judith x 10) – C. R. C., ‘Quarterly Statement’, July, 1881.
[End of quotes]
But Torrey tells us why neither Mithilia, nor Sanur, would even have figured in the march of Holofernes (p. 163):
This absolutely excludes the two places which have been most frequently thought of as possible sites of the city, Sanur and Mithiliyeh, both midway between Geba and Genin. Sanur, though a natural fortress, is perched on a hill west of the road, and “guards no pass whatever” (Robinson, Biblical Researches, iii. 152 f.). As for Mithiliyeh, first suggested by Conder in 1876 (see Survey of Western Palestine, ‘Memoirs’, ii. 156 f.), it is even less entitled to consideration, for it lies nearly two miles east of the caravan track; guarding no pass, and of little or no strategic importance. Evidently, the attitude, hostile or friendly, of this remote village would be a matter of indifference to a great invading army on its way to attack Jerusalem. Its inhabitants, while simply defending themselves at home, certainly could not have held the fate of Judea in their hands; nor could it ever have occurred to the writer of such a story as this to represent them as doing so.
He the proceeds to contrast the inappropriateness of these sites with the significant Shechem:
Again, having once accepted the plain statement of the writer that the army during its halt extended from Scythopolis to Geba, there is the obvious objection to each and all of the places in this region which have been suggested as possible sites of Betylūa (see those recorded in G. A. Smith, /. c, p. 356, note 2; Buhl, Geographie des alien Paldstina, p. 201, note), that they are all north of Geba.
From the sequel of the story we should be led to look for the pass occupied by Betylūa at some place on the main road not yet reached by the army. It is plainly not the representation of the writer that a part of the host of Holofernes had already passed it.
And finally, Betylūa is unquestionably represented as a large and important city. This fact is especially perplexing, in view of the total absence of any other mention of it. Outside of this one story the name is entirely unknown. On the other hand, nothing can be more certain than that the author of the book of Judith had an actual city in mind when he wrote. Modern scholars are generally agreed in this conclusion, that whatever may be said of the historical character of the narrative, the description of Betylūa and the surrounding country is not a fiction.
Shechem, he says, “meets exactly the essential requirements of the story” – it and no other site in the entire area (p. 164):
… no other city between Jezreel and Jerusalem can compete with [Shechem] for a moment in this respect. When the advance guard of Holofernes’ army halted in the broad valley below Geba, it was within four hours’ march of the most important pass in all Palestine, namely that between Ebal and Gerizim. Moreover, this was the one pass through which the army would now be compelled to proceed, after it had once turned westward at Bethshan and chosen the route southward through Genin. We see now why the narrator makes Holofernes encamp “between Scythopolis and Geba.” It is a good illustration of the skill which he displays in telling this story. Having advanced so far as this, it was too late for the ‘Assyrians’ to choose another road. As for the city Shechem, which was planted squarely in the middle of the narrow valley at the summit of the pass … its attitude toward the invaders would be a matter of no small importance.
As to why Shechem might be called “Bethulia” in the Book of Judith, the explanation may be in the following statement by Dr. John Osgood: “W. Ross in Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1941), p. 22–27 reasoned, I believe correctly, that the Bethel of Jeroboam must be Shechem, since it alone fills the requirements”. https://creation.com/techlets
Both the unidentified woman of Judges 9, and Judith, will slay a male foe, attacking the enemy’s head, in the environs of Shechem.
God also made the people of Shechem pay for all their wickedness.
The curse of Jotham son of Jerub-Baal came on them.
Judges 9:56-57
‘Woe to the nations that rise up against my people! The Lord Almighty will take vengeance on them in the day of judgment; he will send fire and worms into their flesh; they shall weep in pain forever’.
Judith 16:17
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; she will crush your head, and you will strike her heel.
Genesis 3:15
[1]Survey of Western Palestine, vol. II, pp. 156-157. Emphasis added.
Jesus’ whole passion narrative is really a fulfillment of the Scriptures. He’s fulfilling multiple prophecies of the Old Testament. He’s fulfilling multiple events from the Old Testament. He’s fulfilling the Passover of Egypt. He’s fulfilling the fall of Adam and Eve. He’s inaugurating a new Eden and a new creation by going through his passion. So everything he does here is a fulfillment of the Scriptures. And that’s what he says:
At that hour Jesus said to the crowds, “Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs to capture me? Day after day I sat in the temple teaching, and you did not seize me. But all this has taken place, that the scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples forsook him and fled. Then those who had seized Jesus led him to Ca’iaphas the high priest, where the scribes and the elders had gathered.
At this point the disciples flee. They take off. He’s brought before Caiaphas for the trial. Caiaphas demands that he say whether he is the Christ, the son of God, and he does affirm that. And when he affirms it they react to his declaration by saying:
“He has uttered blasphemy. Why do we still need witnesses? You have now heard his blasphemy. What is your judgment?” They answered, “He deserves death.”
Then Matthew says in verse 67:
Then they spat in his face, and struck him; and some slapped him, saying, “Prophesy to us, you Christ! Who is it that struck you?”
Here we see Jesus going to the cross silent like a lamb led to the slaughter, and bearing the spitting and the abuse of the soldiers and of the leaders in Jerusalem, just like the prophecies of the suffering servant had foretold. So he is inaugurating a new Passover. He’s inaugurating a new creation as the new Adam, and he’s also fulfilling the prophecies of the suffering servant.
There’s a fourth element here that’s taking place, a fourth fulfillment. If you keep walking through Matthew’s passion narrative, one of the unique things about the passion in Matthew is that it’s going to tell us about the death of Judas. This is something that only Matthew’s account relays to us. So I’m going to read it and then unpack it from a Jewish perspective. This is what Matthew tells us:
When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death; and they bound him and led him away and delivered him to Pilate the governor. When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
Pause there for second. Why does Matthew tell us about the suicide of Judas at this point? What’s the significance of it? None of the other Synoptics give us this aspect here of Jesus being betrayed by Judas, of him throwing 30 pieces of silver back, and then going off and hanging himself. Well one suggestion that I would make to you is this: that this is another fulfillment of Scripture. Because Matthew would have known, especially as a Jewish writer, that in the Old Testament this isn’t the first time a righteous innocent man has been betrayed for silver. In the book of Genesis 38, Joseph, the son of Jacob, the righteous and innocent son of Jacob, is betrayed by his brother Judah and sold to the Gentile slave traders for 20 pieces of silver. And we know what happens after that, Joseph is put into a pit. He is left for dead and then miraculously–watch this—he, in a sense, comes back to life. He’s risen from the dead because he’s rescued from the pit and he rises to the ranks of second-in-command to Pharaoh in the kingdom of Egypt. So notice the parallel here in the Old Testament. Innocent Joseph is betrayed by one of the twelve sons of Jacob named Judah for 20 pieces of silver. Now Jesus the righteous son of God the father the innocent one is betrayed by one of the 12 apostles named Judas for 30 pieces of silver. That’s not a coincidence, especially when you remember that Judas’s name in Hebrew is Judah. It’s the same name as the brother who betrayed innocent Joseph to the Gentile slave traders.
So what Matthew is highlighting here I think is that Jesus isn’t just a new Moses inaugurating a new Passover. He’s not just the new Adam setting in motion the redemption of the world. He’s also the new Joseph. He is the innocent son whose righteous blood is going to be poured out, who’s going to be betrayed unto death, so that all of his brothers — in this case the disciples — so that they and the whole world might be saved. Not from famine and starvation like at the time of Joseph in Egypt, but from sin and death itself.
the gist of which is that the Wall was constructed later than the time of King Herod:
….
But archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority now say diggers have found coins underneath the massive foundation stones of the compound’s Western Wall that were stamped by a Roman proconsul 20 years after Herod’s death. That indicates that Herod did not build the wall — part of which is venerated as Judaism’s holiest prayer site — and that construction was not close to being complete when he died. ….
I have come across this somewhat compatible piece on the subject by Steve Rudd (Biblical Archeologist):
The temple mount walls are more likely “Hadrian” then “Herodian”:
While most people refer to the border cut around the stones (embossed frames) as “Herodian”, many of Herod’s projects did not cut the “pillow border” into the stones. When Herod did cut the border onto the stones, the work was much sloppier than we see on the temple mount walls. This style was not unique to Herod being used between 700 BC – 1100 AD by many different builders.
A simple glance at the outer walls of the temple mount show that there have been multiple constructions over a thousand years. The wall has been destroyed several time, repaired and endured many earth quakes. The foundation level stones at the bottom of the wall were set it place by either Herod in 25 BC or Hadrian in 135 AD. In addition to the fact that the current size of the temple mount area is twice as large as what Josephus recorded in 70 AD is one piece of evidence that Hadrian, not Herod built the wailing wall. Only a small central section of the outer wall is considered to be built before Herod.
When you compare the temple mount walls with other projects we know for certain he did build, we find some major differences. First, most of Herod’s projects used stones much smaller than the temple wall and most did not have the pillow cut border around each stone. These projects include: Masada, Herodian, Cypros and Jericho, the stones are small, rough and have no cut frames.
Herod’s projects where he used the “embossed frame” include: David’s Tower, Caesaria and Shomron. But workmanship is noticeably different since the cuts are rough and the stones are smaller than the temple mount walls.
The stones that compose the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron are of similar size, quality as the temple mount walls, they are “pillow cut”. However these is no evidence in any literary sources that Herod actually built the structure.
The Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek, Lebanon, has a complex history with no one single builder. Augustus was said to start the project and Hadrian is said to have worked on the temple at Baalbek. It does have the “pillow cut” stones in one portion of the temple. Below is a photo of a man sitting on one set of stones, then the huge “Trilithon” stones, then directly above these on the corner, you can see the “embossed frame” cut stones that are similar in size and design to the wall at the temple mount. (Link to detailed view of the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek)
Both the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek are close matches in their stonework. More work needs to be done to determine exactly who built the Cave of the Patriarchs, which is almost universally ascribed to Herod. We know that Hadrian did not build Cave of the Patriarchs, so if not him or Herod then who? We need proof that it was Hadrian who laid the “pillow cut” stones in the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek. ….
To complicate matters further, King Herod was, according to my revision, an actual contemporary, and sub-king, of/to the emperor Hadrian:
“The tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people
gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the senators
suffered them not to search, or busy themselves about the matter,
but commanded them to honour and worship Romulus as one taken up
to the gods, and about to be to them, in the place of a good prince,
now a propitious god”.
Plutarch: Parallel Lives.
Hugh J. Schonfield (d. 1988) is well known for his controversial book about Jesus, entitled The Passover Plot, which he wrote in 1965.
According to the author, Jesus, desirous of saving his people, actually – and one must think, somewhat incredibly – orchestrated, as far as he could, his own manner of death, so as to accord with the ancient Messianic prophecies. “… the Crucifixion was part of a larger, conscious attempt by Jesus to fulfill the Messianic expectations rampant in his time, and that the plan went unexpectedly wrong”.
I recently read Schonfield’s follow-up book to The Passover Plot, which, written in 1981, he had entitled After the Cross. On pp. 115-117 of this book the author introduced the Greek historian Plutarch’s piece about King Romulus, supposed first king of Rome, beginning with:
Very few Christians would seem to be aware, however, of the strong similarity that exists between the image of the death and resurrection of Jesus and that of Romulus, the eponymous founder of Rome. The latter is set down in Plutarch’s Parallel Lives. Plutarch was born in the reign of the Emperor Claudius (41-54 A.D.) and was a contemporary of the authors of the Gospels. The relevant passage is quoted in full from an old English translation, which gives the flavor of the Authorized Version of the Bible. ….
Before quoting this passage (and I shall be using instead John Dryden’s translation), I should like to preface it by recalling, once again, that Greco-Roman mythology and pseudo-history is replete with appropriations and distortions of the original Hebrew biblical tales. I have written articles on this subject, including the Greek appropriation of King Solomon as Solon.
… whereas Romulus, when he vanished, left neither the least part of his body, nor any remnant of his clothes to be seen. So that some fancied the senators, having fallen upon him in the temple of Vulcan, cut his body into pieces, and took each a part away in his bosom; others think his disappearance was neither in the temple of Vulcan, nor with the senators only by, but that it came to pass that, as he was haranguing the people without the city, near a place called the Goat’s Marsh,
[Comment: “… without the city” is appropriate, as is Goat. Recall the goat for sin offering]
on a sudden strange and unaccountable disorders and alterations took place in the air; the face of the sun was darkened, and the day turned into night, and that, too, no quiet, peaceable night, but with terrible thunderings, and boisterous winds from all quarters; during which the common people dispersed and fled, but the senators [read Sanhedrin?] kept close together. The tempest being over and the light breaking out, when the people gathered again, they missed and inquired for their king; the senators suffered them not to search, or busy themselves about the matter, but commanded them to honour and worship Romulus as one taken up to the gods, and about to be to them, in the place of a good prince, now a propitious god.
The multitude, hearing this, went away believing and rejoicing in hopes of good things from him; but there were some, who, canvassing the matter in a hostile temper, accused and aspersed the patricians, as men that persuaded the people to believe ridiculous tales, when they themselves were the murderers of the king.
Things being in this disorder, one, they say, of the patricians, of noble family and approved good character, and a faithful and familiar friend of Romulus himself, having come with him from Alba, Julius Proculus
[Comment: The wife of Pontius Pilate was Claudia Procula]
by name, presented himself in the forum; and, taking a most sacred oath, protested before them all, that, as he was travelling on the road, he had seen Romulus coming to meet him, looking taller and comelier than ever, dressed in shining and flaming armour; and he, being affrighted at the apparition, said, “Why, O king, or for what purpose have you abandoned us to unjust and wicked surmises, and the whole city to bereavement and endless sorrow?” and that he made answer, “It pleased the gods, O Proculus, that we, who came from them, should remain so long a time amongst men as we did; and, having built a city to be the greatest in the world for empire and glory, should again return to heaven. But farewell; and tell the Romans, that, by the exercise of temperance and fortitude, they shall attain the height of human power; we will be to you the propitious god Quirinus.” This seemed credible to the Romans, upon the honesty and oath of the relater, and indeed, too, there mingled with it a certain divine passion, some preternatural influence similar to possession by a divinity; nobody contradicted it, but, laying aside all jealousies and detractions, they prayed to Quirinus and saluted him as a god.
Romulus, Remus and Old Testament
“The modern [sic] connection of Romulus and Remus would be
the story of Cain and Abel. Remus is like Cain because they are
the jealous brothers, and Abel is like Romulus because they are
the good brothers. In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed [Abel] because he was jealous that God favored Abel’s offering more than Cain’s. But with Romulus and Remus, Remus was jealous of Romulus’s wall around the hill, so they argued and Romulus killed Remus.
Both stories have a sibling rivalry and in the end, both stories have
one brother killing the other. Also in both stories, jealousy is involved,
but both for different reasons”.
Like so many of the Greco-Roman myths – even the so-called history of ancient philosophy – the well-known characters were distorted, garbled versions of originally Egyptian, Hebrew and Near Eastern persons. These being cultures and civilisations far older than those of the Greeks and the Romans. Thus, for instance, in typical Greek fashion, a Hebrew prophet will be re-presented as a philosopher.
We read earlier in this article that the absolutely unique accounts in the Gospels of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ were picked up (albeit messily) in the writings of the approximately contemporary (as is thought) Greek biographer and essayist, Plutarch, and applied to the legendary first king of Rome, Romulus.
‘Socrates’, the renowned, so-called Greek philosopher, I have argued, had no actual historical reality qua Socrates, but, rather, was a biblical composite.
To consider just one of his biblical ‘manifestations’, Socrates, who is so often likened to Jesus Christ, will be found in Plato’s Meno doing what Jesus in fact did: writing on the ground (John 8:6, 8).
But what will Socrates write? Not something ethical.
In typically Greek fashion he will draw geometric figures in the ground.
The mythological Romulus and Remus, too, are biblical composites.
They are commonly compared with Cain and Abel, and also with Moses.
And one could no doubt find other biblical manifestations of them as well (see e.g. previous comparisons with Jesus Christ and Romulus).
Like Cain and Abel
Romulus and Remus were twin brothers and their mother was princess Rhea Silvia.
So, apparently, were Eve’s sons, Cain and Abel, twins:
It is a well-known fact that Jacob and Esau were twins, but what is not commonly known is that Cain and Abel were also twins. In the normal Hebraic accounting of multiple births the conception then birth of each child is mentioned such as we can see in Genesis 29:32-33 where it states that Leah conceived and bore a son, and then she conceived again and bore a son. Note that there are two conceptions and two births. But notice how it is worded in Genesis 4:1-2.
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain; And again, she bore his brother Abel. (RSV)
Notice that there is only one conception, but two births.
The Hebrew word for “again” is asaph, meaning to add something, in this case the birthing of Abel was added to the birthing of Cain. Cain and Abel were twins.
The modern [sic] connection of Romulus and Remus would be the story of Cain and Abel. Remus is like Cain because they are the jealous brothers, and Abel is like Romulus because they are the good brothers. In the story of Cain and Abel, Cain killed [Abel] because he was jealous that God favored Abel’s offering more than Cain’s. But with Romulus and Remus, Remus was jealous of Romulus’s wall around the hill, so they argued and Romulus killed Remus. Both stories have a sibling rivalry and in the end, both stories have one brother killing the other. Also in both stories, jealousy is involved, but both for different reasons. Both stories are involved with marks. Cain is marked so everyone knows he killed his brother, Abel. But in the Roman myth, Romulus marks Rome by naming it after himself.
The tradition of twins as the progenitors of tribal units or city builders is very well documented in Semitic and Indo-European cultures. When birth order is specified, the younger twin always receives the blessing over the first born brother. In the account of the sons of Adam, the first born twin is envious of the second and commits fratricide. There are many variations on this theme in other twin genesis accounts. Jacob is fearful that Esau will kill him, Romulus killed Remus and Gwyn and Gwythurin in Celtic tradition duel every May.
The Gemini twins, Castor and Pollux, shared a mortal and an immortal existence. Castor was killed on a cattle raid but Pollux persuaded Zeus to allow the brothers to switch places periodically. The word Gemini comes from the PIE root *ym which means ‘to pair’. This word is very similar to the Hebrew im mimation suffix but, of course, linguists say they are unrelated (sigh). ….
Parallels to Moses
Romulus and Remus, abandoned on the bank of the Tiber river, were famously suckled by a she-wolf.
From whence did this pagan myth arise?
We well know the Exodus (2:1-10) account of the birth of Moses and the forced abandonment of him due to the decree of the cruel Pharaoh – how the baby Moses was placed in a papyrus basket and set adrift on the river Nile (which the Romans inevitably replaced with their Tiber). Long before the Romans, I suggest, the ancient Egyptians had corrupted the legend of the baby Moses in the bulrushes so that now it became the goddess Isis who drew the baby Horus from the Nile and had him suckled by Hathor (the goddess in the form of a cow – the Egyptian personification of wisdom).
In the original story, of course, baby Moses was drawn from the water by an Egyptian princess, not a goddess, and was weaned by Moses’s own mother (Exodus 2:5-9).
The story evolved from the original Hebrew account, suckled by the mother, to the Egyptian version, suckled by the goddess in the form of a cow, to an entirely bestial suckler in the Roman account, a she-wolf.
Part Two: Apollonius of Tyana
“Presenting further evidence that Philostratus’s biography of Apollonius is in many ways a replica of the life of Jesus, Cardinal Newman writes: The favour in which Apollonius from a child was held by gods and men; his conversations when a youth in the Temple of Aesculapius;
his determination, in spite of danger to go up to Rome;
the cowardice of his disciples in deserting him …”.
The supposed C1st AD character, Apollonius of Tyana, is such a Jesus-like figure in many ways that some commentators would insist that the Gospels were based on the life of this Apollonius. Whereas, as I am arguing in this article, the precedence ought to be given to the Gospel version over the pagan one. And there are very good reasons, again, for claiming this to be correct, given the vagueness surrounding the author of the “Life of Apollonius”, the Greek sophist Philostratus, and that he wrote about Apollonius much later than the Gospels, in the C3rd AD.
I favour Fr. Jean Carmignac’s compelling argument, as set out in his Birth of the Synoptics (1987), that the Synoptic Gospelswere written by eyewitnesses at a very earlydate.
Philostratus
As I have often remarked, one of the most common phrases used by the conventional historians of ancient history is this one, “… little is known about …”.
And that fully applies to Philostratus, who himself, I suspect, may not have been an actual historical character, but a ‘ghost’ based upon some previous person – perhaps upon one of the Evangelists. Thus we read of Philostratus:
Very little is known of his career. Even his name is doubtful. The Lives of the Sophists gives the praenomen Flavius, which, however, is found elsewhere only in Tzetzes. Eunapius and Synesius call him a Lemnian; Photius a Tyrian; his letters refer to him as an Athenian. It is probable that he was born in Lemnos, studied and taught at Athens, and then settled in Rome ….
I rest my case.
But furthermore:
The Lives are not in the true sense biographical, but rather picturesque impressions of leading representatives of an attitude of mind full of curiosity, alert and versatile, but lacking scientific method, preferring the external excellence of style and manner to the solid achievements of serious writing. The philosopher, as he says, investigates truth; the sophist embellishes it, and takes it for granted. ….
That appears to be a very shaky historical foundation, indeed, upon which to raise a life story of one who is considered by some to have been the exemplar for Jesus Christ himself.
Apollonius of Tyana
Most commentators simply presume the historicity of Philostratus when considering the Apollonius of Tyana of whom he wrote. Two such, who would regard Apollonius as being modelled upon Jesus Christ, were F. Bauer and Cardinal Newman:
Even as late as 1832, [F.] Bauer attempted to show that not only were there resemblances between the “Life of Apollonius of Tyana” and the Gospels, but that Philostratus deliberately modeled his hero on the type set forth by the Evangelists. He was followed in this view by Zeller, the celebrated Greek historian.
Typical of latter nineteenth century views on the subject is that of Cardinal Newman, a Catholic apologist, who, admitting the identity of Apollonius and the Gospel messiah, considers the former an imitation of the latter, in spite of the fact that he preceded him by three centuries (For the Jesus of the Gospels was evidently born in the year 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicea, rather than when the star appeared over Bethlehem).
To support his view, Newman mentions certain typical examples, such as Apollonius’s bringing to life a dead girl in Rome, which he considers as “an attempt, and an elaborate, pretentious attempt, to outdo certain narratives in the Gospels (Mark v. 29, Luke vii. John xi: 41-43, Acts iii: 4-6). This incident, is described by Philostratus.
Presenting further evidence that Philostratus’s biography of Apollonius is in many ways a replica of the life of Jesus, Cardinal Newman writes: The favour in which Apollonius from a child was held by gods and men; his conversations when a youth in the Temple of Aesculapius; his determination, in spite of danger to go up to Rome; the cowardice of his disciples in deserting him; the charge brought against him of disaffection to Caesar; the Minister’s acknowledging, on his private examination, that he was more than man; the ignominious treatment of him by Domitian on his second appearance at Rome; his imprisonment with criminals; his vanishing from Court and sudden reappearance to his mourning disciples at Puteoli–these, with other particulars of a similar cast, evidence a history modelled after the narrative of the Evangelists. Expressions, moreover, and descriptions occur, clearly imitated “from the sacred volume.”
Reville, another Catholic apologist, thinks as does Newman that “the biography of Apollonius is in great measure an imitation of the Gospel narrative.’* (*Reville bases his argument on the similarity of the characters of Apollonius and Pythagoras (which is natural in view of Apollonius following Pythagoras as his example); and he seeks to prove that Apollonius, rather than Jesus, is a fictitious creation, rather than an historical character. Reville writes: “It is hard to say whether the Pythagoras of the Alexandrians is not an Apollonius of an earlier date by some centuries, or whether the Apollonius of Julia Domna, besides his resemblance to Christ, is not a Pythagoras endowed with a second youth. The real truth of the matter will probably be found to lie between the two suggestions.”
[End of quotes]
Philostratus’s account of the life of Apollonius of Tyana is thought to have been written as late as the 220’s/230’s AD, which is obviously later than the Gospels.
Wikipedia gives these:
Similarities shared by the stories about Apollonius and the life of Jesus ….
Birth miraculously announced by God
Religiously precocious as a child
Asserted to be a native speaker of Aramaic
Influenced by Plato/ reflected Platonism (Jesus)
[Renounced/ denounced (Jesus)] wealth
Followed abstinence and asceticism
Wore long hair and robes
Was unmarried and childless
Was anointed with oil
Went to Jerusalem
Spoke in [metaphors/ parables] (Jesus)
Saw and predicted the future
Performed miracles
Healed the sick
Cast out evil spirits/ Drove out demons (Jesus)
Raised the daughter of a [Roman official/ Jewish official (Jesus)] from the dead
Spoke as a “law-giver”
Was on a mission to bring [Greek culture/ Jewish culture (Jesus)] to [the “barbarians”/ the ” nations” (Jesus)]
Believed to be “saviors” from heaven
Were accused of being a magician
Were accused of killing a boy
Condemned [by Roman emperor/ by Roman authorities (Jesus)]
Imprisoned [at Rome/ at Jerusalem (Jesus)]
Was assumed into heaven/ Ascended into heaven (Jesus)
Appeared posthumously to a detractor as a brilliant light
Had his image revered [in temples/ in churches (Jesus)]
“St. John Paul II commented on how many events and figures of the Old Testament found their fulfillment in the New Testament in his encyclical Redemptoris Custos”.
14. After the presentation in the Temple the Evangelist Luke notes: “And when they had performed everything according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom; and the favor of God was upon him” (Lk 2:39-40).
But according to Matthew’s text, a very important event took place before the return to Galilee, an event in which divine providence once again had recourse to Joseph. We read: “Now when [the magi] had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, ‘Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there till I tell you; for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him'” (Mt 2:13). Herod learned from the magi who came from the East about the birth of the “king of the Jews” (Mt 2:2). And when the magi departed, he “sent and killed all the male children in Bethlehem and in all that region who were two years old or under” (Mt 2:16). By killing them all, he wished to kill the new-born “king of the Jews” whom he had heard about. And so, Joseph, having been warned in a dream, “took the child and his mother by night, and departed to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son’ ” (Mt 2:14-15; cf. Hos 11:1).
And so Jesus’ way back to Nazareth from Bethlehem passed through Egypt. Just as Israel had followed the path of the exodus “from the condition of slavery” in order to begin the Old Covenant, so Joseph, guardian and cooperator in the providential mystery of God, even in exile watched over the one who brings about the New Covenant. ….
Joseph in the Old Testament shares many similar traits and events with St. Joseph in the Gospels.
St. Joseph is sometimes called the “New Joseph,” referring to the similarities he shares with the “Old Joseph” featured in the Bible’s Book of Genesis.
St. Bernard of Clairvaux shared his thoughts on the two Josephs in one of his homilies.
What are we to think of the dignity of Joseph, who deserved to be called and to be regarded as the father of our Savior? We may draw a parallel between him and the great Patriarch. As the first Joseph was by the envy of his brothers sold and sent into Egypt, the second Joseph fled into Egypt with Christ to escape the envy of Herod.
The chaste Patriarch remained faithful to his master, despite the evil suggestions of his mistress. St. Joseph, recognizing in his wife the Virgin Mother of his Lord, guarded her with the utmost fidelity and chastity.
To the Joseph of old was given interpretation of dreams, to the new Joseph a share in the heavenly secrets.
His predecessor kept a store of corn, not for himself, but for the whole nation; our Joseph received the Living Bread from heaven, that he might preserve it for his own salvation and that of all the world.
St. John Paul II commented on how many events and figures of the Old Testament found their fulfillment in the New Testament in his encyclical Redemptoris Custos.
The oft-repeated formula, “This happened, so that there might be fulfilled,” in reference to a particular event in the Old Testament, serves to emphasize the unity and continuity of the plan that is fulfilled in Christ.
With the Incarnation, the “promises” and “figures” of the Old Testament become “reality.”
The Joseph of the Old Testament was in many ways preparing the way for the Joseph of the New Testament, both participating in God’s divine plan. They both had their role to play in salvation history, echoing each other’s lives in many ways.
What’s in a name? Do people with the same name sometimes have much in common? We can look at two famous men in the Bible, both named Joseph, and see their similarities.
Joseph of the Old Testament is the first Joseph. The Church refers to him as a type, or foreshadowing, of Christ. But many saints hold that the first Joseph is also a prefigurement for St. Joseph. Let us consider ten parallels between Joseph of the Old Testament and St. Joseph.
First, both of them had a father named Jacob. Remember the biblical references to the great patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Jacob’s son was Joseph. Matthew’s gospel, which traces the family tree of Jesus, says that Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary of whom Christ was bom.
The second parallel is that both of them were royalty. The first Joseph was a patriarch, following the great line of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He was the last and perhaps the greatest of the Old Testament patriarchs. St. Joseph also was royalty since he was a descendant of King David. Some Scripture scholars speculate that if Rome had not occupied Palestine at the time, and if the Davidic line was still intact, St. Joseph would have been eligible for the throne.
The third parallel between the first Joseph and St. Joseph is that both of them suffered and put up with the difficulties of their daily life without complaint. The first Joseph was minding his own business going out into the fields to see his brothers, and they plotted to kill him. They seized him, stripped him and threw him into a well. Then, when they saw a caravan of gypsies going to Egypt, they sold him into slavery. Joseph could have said, “Lord, here I am; a good man. Why are you allowing this suffering in my life?” Isn’t that what we say at times? When we have difficult times in our life, we often ask “God, why me? What have I done wrong?” But, sometimes God allows us to go through suffering and pain for a greater good, just as he did with Joseph in Egypt. Because Joseph was able to interpret Pharaoh’s dreams, Pharaoh made him lord and ruler over his house.
Joseph, formerly a shepherd boy, was now one of the most important men in Egypt.
St. Joseph had to go through many sufferings as well. Mary was well along in her pregnancy when, as members of the House of David, they had to journey to Bethlehem to take part in the census ordered by the Roman rulers. That involved a difficult journey of perhaps 85 miles on a donkey with no advance lodging reservations. But Joseph obeyed the law. He went and could find no lodging since Bethlehem was packed with other visitors who came for the same purpose. He kept knocking at the doors, but found no room. Think what was going through Joseph’s mind. He was the husband, the provider, and knew that Mary’s child was of divine origin. Finally, they found a cave in the countryside where the shepherds tended their sheep, and Jesus was bom in a place where animals were sheltered. The King of heaven and earth was laid in a manger – a trough where the animals ate. Think of the suffering, the difficult time that Joseph went through. But, looking at it, good came from even that trying experience. For example, the prophecy that the Messiah was to be bom in Bethlehem was fulfilled. It was not the prophecy that the Messiah was to be born in Nazareth. Additionally, the Holy Family had more privacy in the cave than they would have had in the crowded inn. A secondary benefit is that now we can sing songs like “Away in a Manger” rather than “Away in a Marriott.”
The fourth similarity between Joseph and St. Joseph is that both left their homes and went to Egypt. Joseph was sold into slavery and taken to Egypt. St. Joseph fled to Egypt with his family to escape Herod’s wrath.
The ability to understand dreams is their fifth similarity. In the Old Testament, Joseph gained fame for this ability. While still in prison, he was able to interpret the dreams of the baker and the cupbearer of Pharaoh. When Pharaoh had a strange dream of 7 fat cows being devoured by 7 skinny cows, he couldn’t understand it.
Pharaoh also had the dream of the stalk, which had seven healthy ears of corn. Suddenly there was a stalk with 7 withered ears of corn, which swallowed the healthy stalk. Pharaoh couldn’t understand these dreams, so he called his magicians but they could not interpret the dreams. Pharaoh had heard of Joseph’s ability, so he sent for him and asked him to interpret these dreams. Joseph gave Pharaoh the interpretation – that God was going to bless Egypt with 7 years of plenty, but after that would come 7 years of terrible famine. Because of this insight into the future, Pharaoh picked Joseph to be the manager of his house and ruler over all his possessions.
St. Joseph also understood the meaning of his dreams. The New Testament relates four dreams, which St. Joseph understood and unhesitatingly acted upon. The first was when he had doubts about whether to take Mary as his wife. The angel said “Fear not, Joseph, to accept Mary as your wife. It is by the Holy Spirit that she has conceived this Child.” Joseph recognized the guidance in the dream as coming from God and followed the angel’s bidding. Likewise, he recognized the urgency of the message conveyed in the second dream – “flee into Egypt. Herod is trying to kill the Child.” In the third dream, Joseph understood that it was safe to return to Palestine since Herod was dead. Lastly, in the fourth dream, Joseph accepted the angel’s advice to return to Nazareth because Herod’s son had become king. St. Joseph’s ability to recognize the divine guidance sent to him in dreams literally saved the Holy Family on several occasions.
The sixth parallel is that of being the ruler of the king’s house and possessions. Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, made Joseph ruler and lord over all his possessions in Egypt. St. Joseph, as head of the Holy Family, was ruler over the King of the Universe’s home in Nazareth. Jesus, the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords, the Alpha and the Omega, chose Joseph to be the head of the Holy Family, to be the lord, master and ruler over the house.
The seventh similarity between the Joseph of the Old and Joseph of the New Testament is their purity and chastity. Remember what happened to Joseph. Joseph was a very strong man, a very handsome man, and Potiphar’s wife fell in love with him and tried to seduce him. Day after day she would ask him and try to lead him into having an adulterous affair, but Joseph steadfastly refused. Eventually, she lied and told Potiphar, “Look what this Hebrew tried to do to me.” Potiphar put Joseph into prison, where he stayed for two years.
In the New Testament, St. Joseph is the virginal husband of Mary.
St. Joseph, the most pure and chaste man that God ever created, married the Blessed Mother. They lived a virginal life their entire marriage. The beautiful virtues of purity and chastity are thus exemplified in both Joseph of the Old and St. Joseph of the New.
The eighth parallel is that they both experienced poverty. Joseph of the Old Testament had everything material taken from him – his brothers stole his inheritance, he was sold into slavery and owned nothing, and he was unjustly imprisoned for a few years.
St. Joseph knew poverty as well. We are told in the gospels that he was a carpenter, a member of the working class.
When he uprooted his family and went to Bethlehem and then to Egypt, he probably took his tools with him so he could continue earning a living, but that is about all he had in terms of material goods. We also know that the Holy Family was poor because at the Presentation they gave two turtle doves, the offering of the poor.
Both Josephs were responsible for feeding the entire world, which is their ninth similarity. Because of Joseph’s advice, Egypt was the only country in the world that had grain during the famine. The other nations came to Egypt to buy their grain. Thanks to Joseph, the peoples of the world had food, and Pharaoh became even richer and more powerful. How does that relate to St. Joseph? St. Joseph was the nurturer and the one who fed Jesus. He practiced his trade and earned the money to buy the food, which fed Jesus. St. Joseph, as head of the Holy Family, taught Jesus a trade and provided his initial religious instruction. He helped Jesus grow to manhood and become for us the Eucharist, feeding us with his own Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. Thus, indirectly Joseph has fed the entire world with the Bread of Life.
Lastly, we can go to both Josephs in times of need. The people of Egypt and the other nations went to Joseph for the grain they needed during the great famine. During this time of suffering there was a saying, “Go to Joseph for what you need.” Because Joseph had such tremendous influence with the Pharaoh, many peoples’ petitions were answered. We priests, religious and lay people can go to St. Joseph in our time of need. Whatever difficulties and sufferings we have, we go to Joseph because he has great influence with his Son, the King of the Universe. Jesus, good Son that he is, still follows the precepts of the Fourth Commandment and, so long as it is in accord with the will of the Father, does as his mother and foster father ask.
These, then, are ten similarities between Joseph of the Old Testament and St. Joseph, two of the greatest figures in the Bible. Let us now recognize how they have experienced many of the same trials and sorrows we face, and let us follow their example of steadfast love and service of God. They stand ready and able to help us, if we but “go to Joseph.”
Brother rivalry in the story of Joseph in the Bible
and in the life of King Esarhaddon
A father prefers one of his younger sons to his older sons. The younger son is promoted—to the envy of his older brothers—and the older brothers turn against him. When an opportunity presents itself, they manage to depose him. The younger brother ends up in a foreign land—dispossessed of his rights as heir. However, rather than wasting away in this foreign place, he thrives. Eventually, he rises to a high political office, and his original rights as an heir are restored.
Does the above paragraph describe the story of Joseph in the Bible or the life of King Esarhaddon of Assyria? The answer—rather surprisingly—is both.
Eckart Frahm, Professor of Assyriology at Yale University, probes the many similarities between Joseph and Esarhaddon in his article “Surprising Parallels Between Joseph and King Esarhaddon” in the May/June 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review. Not only are there the obvious connections, but there are even more parallels when one delves into the textual evidence.
The story of Joseph appears in the Book of Genesis in the Hebrew Bible, and the account of Esarhaddon’s rise to power is chronicled in the Assyrian text Nineveh A. Both Joseph and Esarhaddon are the younger sons of their fathers, and both deal with brother rivalry because their fathers favor them over their older brothers. In both of these instances, the brother rivalry is so intense and bitter that Joseph and Esarhaddon are forced to leave the land of their birth. While Joseph is sold as a slave by his brothers and taken to Egypt, Esarhaddon flees the Assyrian capital of Nineveh and takes refuge in the West for his own safety. Further, both of their fortunes are eventually restored. Beating incredible odds, they both rise to powerful positions: Joseph becomes second-in-command in Egypt, and Esarhaddon becomes king of Assyria.
….
While the story of Joseph is familiar to many, the story of Esarhaddon is not as well known. Eckhart Frahm summarizes the Assyrian tale of brother rivalry below:
Esarhaddon reports with unusual candor [in Nineveh A] that he was not the oldest son of his father and predecessor Sennacherib. Esarhaddon had a number of elder brothers. Nonetheless, at some point Sennacherib decided to make Esarhaddon his heir apparent. Liver divination undertaken in the name of the sun-god Šamaš and the weather god Adad confirms the appointment. And both the people of Assyria and Esarhaddon’s brothers swear loyalty to the new crown prince.
The brothers, however, are not happy with this course of events. Jealous and full of resentment, they conspire against Sennacherib’s new succession designation. Sennacherib is affected by their machinations and finally distances himself from his newly minted heir. Secretly, however, Sennacherib continues to wish that Esarhaddon will become king after him. In the meantime, Esarhaddon leaves the capital Nineveh and takes refuge in an unspecified safe location somewhere in the West. Soon after, the brothers “go mad” and commit “deeds that are deeply offensive to the gods and mankind”—a thinly veiled allusion to the fact that, as other sources indicate, they murdered Sennacherib …
But the brothers are not to reap any rewards from their actions. Esarhaddon returns to Assyria with a small army, chases the regicides away and, encouraged by prophetic oracles, ascends the Assyrian throne.
What do all of the parallels between the two accounts mean? Are the similarities no more than chance—just two tales of brother rivalry, exile and restoration? Or did one of these stories borrow from the other?
While there are many similarities between the accounts of Joseph and Esarhaddon, there are also some significant differences, such as the resolution. Whereas Joseph forgives his brothers and saves their lives, Esarhaddon does not reconcile with his offending brothers. Although their exact fate is unknown, Esarhaddon’s older brothers flee Nineveh and seek refuge with the king of Urartu. They live as exiles for the rest of their lives—unforgiven by Esarhaddon and unwelcomed in Assyria. This and other parts of departure between the two accounts show that one tale is not an exact copy of the other—despite their many similarities. ….
[End of quote]
For an analysis of the comparisons between the stories of Joseph and Esarhaddon, read the full article “Surprising Parallels Between Joseph and King Esarhaddon” by Eckart Frahm in the May/June 2016 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Even though he was not the oldest of his brothers, Esarhaddon was named heir apparent of his father Sennacherib, ruler of the Assyrian empire. But because of his jealous brothers, Esarhaddon had to leave Nineveh and take refuge elsewhere. The pattern of jealous brothers, exile and eventual success is also seen in the Biblical story of Joseph. How does one tale inform the other? …
A huge new dimension may be added to all of this, notably the interpretation of a ruler’s dreams, if I am correct in identifying Esarhaddon as King Nebuchednezzar:
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar
mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors”.
Marvin Vining
I: “Herodians”
Marvin Vining, author of the controversial book, Jesus the Wicked Priest. How Christianity was born of an Essene Schism (2008), considered an insight into the subject by Otto Betz to have been crucial for his own biblical identification of the enigmatic Essenes. And I, in similar fashion, owe it entirely to Marvin Vining for his having fully identified the Essenes, who would probably otherwise have continued to remain a complete mystery to me.
Vining’s important chapter 2, “Identifying the Essenes in the New Testament”, will break completely new ground as far as I am concerned. In # 13 of that chapter, “Herodians”: A Minor New Testament Name for the Essenes”, he writes, leading up to Betz (p. 28):
Many scholars have contributed to the identification of the Essenes in the New Testament. C. Daniel once uncovered a key historical reference to the Essenes that unraveled a great many mysteries. … He found that Josephus recorded the story of an Essene named Manaemos (Ant. 15.371-79). When Herod the Great was still a school boy, long before he took the throne, Manaemos predicted that Herod would become king.
This prediction by Manaemos found favour with Herod, as Vining tells continuing Josephus.
“And”, Josephus writes, “from that moment on [Herod] continued to hold the Essenes in honor” (Ant 154.379). The Essenes became Herod’s favorite sect, on whom he would often bestow special favors. For example, Herod excused them from an oath of loyalty (Ant 15.371). It is reasonable, then, to conclude that the common people would have nicknamed the Essenes the “Herodians”.
That the Essenes were the “Herodians” already opens up for us a whole new vista.
Thus Vining continues (pp. 28-29):
….
We now have good reason to believe the Essenes were called Herodians. How does that help us? The Gospels of Mark and Matthew contain references to the Herodians (Mk 3:6; 8:14-21; Mk 12:13 // Mt 22:16), and these passages answer a great many open questions. Otto Betz (a leading Dead Sea Scrolls scholar with whom I had the honor of corresponding before he died) commented that New Testament scholarship has always had difficulty identifying the Herodians, for it was assumed that they must have been political delegates of King Herod. … But who: Herod the Great? Herod Antipas? Herod’s dynasty? None of these interpretations ever made sense. The Herodians we find in the Gospels appear to be a priestly sect in league with the Pharisees against Jesus. The Herodians’ interests were not merely political but religious in nature, primarily so. Like the Pharisees they were concerned with what Jesus had to say about the Torah and the prophets.
The new identification of the “Herodians”, as Essenes (and there is more to come, see II:), will marvellously enable Marvin Vining to explain one of Jesus’s seemingly most obscure parables, “The feeding of the multitudes” (Mark 8:14-21). P. 29”: “[Jesus] phrased a warning to the disciples in what seems to my generation’s eyes just about the most esoteric parable that Jesus ever gave”. Vining, after recounting this parable, will proceed on p. 30 to tell of how the meaning of this parable had long “baffled” him, with no commentator on it being helpful. “Only when I read the fine work of Yigael Yadin, who published the Temple Scroll found in Cave 11, did I finally discover the accurate interpretation. Here follows Vining’s account of it:
Yadin found a passage in the Temple Scroll that dealt with rituals accompanying the Feast of Milluim, a time of ordination, a dedication of the priesthood during the first seven days of the month of Nisan (Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27).
According to the Temple Scroll, the Essenes had modified the Torah’s procedure for cleansing of the altar during the Feat of Milluim (11Q19 XV, 9-14; cf. Ex 29; Ez 43:18-27). Instead of offering up twelve baskets of bread for each of the twelve weeks of the Holy Presence in the Temple, as did the Pharisees, the Essenes altered their ritual. On each of the seven days of celebration, the Essenes gathered a basket of bread together with a ram, as a waive offering. Thus when Jesus warned the disciples to “beware the leaven of the Pharisees and the Herodians”, and then, in that corresponding order, reminded them of the number of baskets gathered after his two feedings, (a sympathetic association: Pharisees = twelve baskets, Herodians = seven baskets), he was referring to the respective rituals of each for the Feast of Milluim. Jesus saw himself as the “bread of life” (Jn 6:33-35), who, as God’s Son, could offer eternal life.
He was both the single sacrificial lamb and loaf of bread the disciples needed (Mk 8:14), by whom they and the multitude had all just been consecrated priests of the new era. The miraculous feeding of the multitudes was an ordination from God. ….
In James H. Charlesworth’s Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls … a chapter written by Otto Betz offers an additional correlation between the Essenes and Herodians by bringing forth another passage in which they are mentioned, Mark 3:6. In so doing, Betz confronts me with a stunning revelation that appears in chapter 7 (section 73).
That one piece of scholarship is the cornerstone for this entire restoration, as you will eventually see. For now it is enough that we confirm that the Essenes were called Herodians in the Gospels, where they are in league with the Pharisees against Jesus. This is easily done, for Mark records that Jesus antagonized two Jewish sects in the synagogue, the “Pharisees and Herodians” (3:1-6). The latter sect, the Herodians, were singled out for their extremely rigid observance of Sabbath laws, a characteristic trait of the Essenes (War 2:143-49). Betz mentions a parallel situation to this incident found in Matthew…. where Jesus cited and ridiculed a statute peculiar to the Scrolls, the prohibition against rescuing an animal fallen into a pit on the Sabbath (Mt 12:11; cf. CD XI, 13-14). Betz rightly concludes that the Herodians mentioned in Mark are the Essene Scrolls authors. With this knowledge, we are immediately able to assess Jesus’s relation with the Essenes.
We are given solid biblical evidence that Jesus directed much of his preaching against the Essenes, just as he did his other well-known spiritual enemies, the Pharisees. Clearly the Essenes/Herodians were opposed to Jesus, as we expected to find given their vast differences in doctrine. But this is just the beginning.
Though now entirely confident that the Herodians of the Gospels were the Essenes, Vining must yet come to terms with the meagre references to the Herodians as opposed to the historically well-known Essenes.
He commences on p. 33:
The Herodians are very seldom mentioned in the Gospels, so seldom that it seems unreasonable to believe they were the popular Essenes that Josephus, Philo, and other historians record. Could the Herodians have been a derogatory nickname the Gospel writers used only on occasion? It seems so.
This opens the way (his # 14 “A Door is Opened”) for Marvin Vining to identify the Essenes by the name by which they are more frequently known in the Scriptures:
A parallel citation to Betz’s synagogue incident, Mark 3:1-6, is found in Luke 6:6-11. The two groups in league against Jesus are not called Pharisees and Herodians, as in Mark’s version; Luke calls them Pharisees and scribes (Mk 3:6 // Lk 6:7). A little faith that the citations are indeed parallel, that they refer to the same event and persons, and we have just uncovered an unbelievably valuable prooftext. The Essenes/Herodians must have been the same New Testament group as the scribes. What a door has just opened!
Now that the biblical identity of the Essenes has been fully established, this may be a good opportunity to return to Josephus’s tale (considered in I:) of Herod ‘the Great’ and Manaemos. According to my reconstruction of this Herod, he was a Phrygian. Hence it is somewhat unlikely that he would have had contact with an Essene when Herod “was still a school boy”.
There may be a different underpinning to this story.
It calls to mind the account in Matthew 2 of the encounter between King Herod and the Magi, seeking the “infant king of the Jews”. It is notable, now, that King Herod enquired of the scribes, that is, the Essenes (2:4): “[King Herod] called together all the chief priests and the scribes of the people, and enquired of them where the Christ was to be born”.
Here we have the key elements of Matthew’s account: King Herod; a boy who would be king; and the Essene scribes, who were very Messianic in their outlook.
The Essene scribes would immediately have been able to inform Herod that the Christ was to be born (v. 5): “At Bethlehem in Judaea”, based on the prophet Micah (5:1). Perhaps Manaemos was one of their number, who stepped forward at the critical moment to provide the king with this biblical information.
Whether King Herod rewarded with favours the scribes for their assistance in this most pressing matter, we cannot say at this stage.
Marvin Vining will go on to develop this identification wonderfully and convincingly.
This is a must read.
There are other parts of his book, albeit interesting, that I would not endorse – some of which I would vehemently disagree with.
III: Meaning of the name, “Essenes”
In his # 16 “Etymology: the Essenes are “the Pious”,” pp. 37-39, Vining arrives at what is probably the true origin and meaning of whom we call “Essenes”:
… we must seek the etymology for the name Essenes in … the historical writings.
The English Essenes comes from the Latin Essenei, which was used by Pliny the Elder. In the Greek, the order is called Essaioi by Philo, and Essenoi by Josephus and an early Church father, Hippolytus. Epiphanius, also an early church father, described two divisions of Essenes, the Nazareans … in the north and the Osseaens in the south (Proem I 3.1-5; 19.1.1-3).
Scholars have determined that these writers are all referring to the same group by examining their common doctrine, location, and similar characteristics. But the etymology still remains an enigma, for the name Essenes held no intrinsic meaning in Latin of Greek.
It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that the name had meaning in the original Semitic, which has probably come to us as a transliteration, such as Sadducees, meaning descendants of the Zadokite priests. If we are lucky, a word will pass meaningfully from one language and alphabet to another.
…
Why create confusion where none exists? If we place some faith, as we must, in the scholastic integrity of those who have gone before us, we see that Josephus and Philo were trying to translate as best they could from the original Semitic.
…,
Clearly the Essenes derived their name from and were known as the “holy” or the “sanctified”. Within the same word-field, it is not difficult to imagine that they were known as the “pious”, sometimes translated in the Bible as the “faithful ones” or “saints” (I Sam 2:9a; Ps 30:4a). It is the last derivation that finally allows us to translate back into the Semitic.
The work has already been done. Nearly a hundred years ago, an excellent scholar named Ginsburg collected more than twenty possible derivations from various scholars and concluded that the most logical was the Aramaic hsa, whose plural is hysn, the equivalent of the Hebrew hasid, usually translted as “the pious”. … Several nineteenth-century scholars had independently arrived at this conclusion – most notably Emil Schürer – and it is still the reigning view. The only apparent weakness of the derivation is that hysn, the plural of hsa, never occurs in Palestinian Aramaic, but only in Syrian Aramaic, the first Yiddish, the Jewish language of the Persian exile. Yet … this is hardly a weakness. It only stands to reason that the Essenes originally drew their name from Syrian Aramaic, for it is during the Persian exile that they first emerged.
“Easter begins by upsetting our expectations”, according to pope Francis.
Our God is a God of surprises. He upsets our ancestral traditions, good as some of those may appear to be. ‘You have heard it said …. But I tell you’.
Pray for your enemies; don’t lust after any person; restrain your anger.
The Hebrews thought that they had God pretty well worked out (as do today’s Fundamentalist Christians; ISIS; theoretical physicists). He was basically like they were. All you need to say is ‘’God [Allah] wills it”, and He just falls into line. He made us in his own image and likeness. Why not now re-make him in ours?
Scientists can turn God into a complex (though completely meaningless) mathematical equation, then declare that they have Him fully defined.
Job’s three friends, likewise, had God all (mathematically) cut and dried:
The Lord rewards the good and punishes the wicked – even in this life.
That idea was still circulating at the time of the Apostles (cf. John 9:1-3), who themselves apparently had not learned the lesson of their ancient Book of Job.
No, that old saying is clearly not true, exclaimed the righteous Job, who had grown up with this kind of thinking, but who now had serious cause to reject it. He was righteous – {had not God even declared him to be such?} – yet here was God attacking Job as if he were His own mortal enemy.
Well, you must have strayed from your formerly righteous ways, declared the three friends, Eliphaz, Bildad and Zophar. So now God is justly punishing you. Repent and return to what you were like before, and all will be well with you again, and with your family.
It was left to the wise young Elihu (was he the contemporary prophet Ezekiel?) to correct these three older ‘sages’, and to serve as something of a bridge between Job and God.
…..
But why focus so much upon the prophet Job in an article presumably about Habakkuk?
Well, you see, Habakkuk was Job!
Habakkuk (a name only a mother could love) was grappling with the same sort of problem that had so occupied the mind of Job (also of Jeremiah). Basically, it was ‘the problem of evil’, which a quick glance at the Internet tells is this:
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil
and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God.
Specifically, Job-Habakkuk was wondering why God, who the prophet dearly wanted to be God, and to act like God (Habakkuk 3:2):
I have heard of your fame; I stand in awe of your deeds, Lord.
Repeat them in our day, in our time make them known [,]
had seemingly ceased to act like a just God (Habakkuk 1:2-4):
‘How long, Lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save?
Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrongdoing? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds.
Therefore the law is paralyzed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted’.
We know what you are capable of, Lord. Have not our ancestors passed on to us the accounts of your mighty deeds, such as at the time of the Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus. Here we are today oppressed by, not the Egyptians any more, but by those horrible Chaldeans. ‘Do those mighty things again in our day, in our time make them known’.
Had not the Chaldeans, with their basest of kings, Nebuchednezzar (Prayer of Azariah 1:9): ‘And thou didst deliver us into the hands of lawless enemies, most hateful forsakers of God, and to an unjust king, and the most wicked in all the world’,
who were making life miserable for Habakkuk and his compatriots, been the same people who had despoiled the hapless Job at the beginning of his troubles? (Job 1:17):
While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said,
‘The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels
and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!’
This is clear evidence that the elderly Job (young Tobias of the Book of Tobit) had belonged to the same era of Habakkuk, the era of the Chaldeans, and not – as many think and argue – to the Ice Ages, or to the time of the ancient Hebrew patriarchs, or, perhaps, to the Judges.
That name, Habakkuk (close your eyes now and try to spell it).
Habakkuk (חֲבַקּוּק) is not actually a Jewish (Hebrew) name.
It is Akkadian, khabbaququ, the name of a garden herb. We would expect Tobias (Job) to have had an Akkadian name in Nineveh, just as Daniel and his three companions were given Babylonian names (Shadrach looks Elamite, Shutruk).
Strangely, Habakkuk, had never been to Babylon.
Thus he tells the angel, who is about to take him by the hair – the first ever [h]air flight to southern Iraq: ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon …’.
Daniel 14:33-36:
Now the prophet Habakkuk was in Judea; he had made a stew and had broken bread into a bowl, and was going into the field to take it to the reapers. But the angel of the Lord said to Habakkuk, ‘Take the food that you have to Babylon, to Daniel, in the lions’ den’. Habakkuk said, ‘Sir, I have never seen Babylon, and I know nothing about the den’. Then the angel of the Lord took him by the crown of his head and carried him by his hair; with the speed of the wind he set him down in Babylon, right over the den.
As a young man, Tobias, living in Nineveh, had needed an angelic guide, archangel Raphael, to show him the way to “Media” and “Ecbatana” (Bashan), beyond Charan (Haran) (Tobit 11:1, Douay). No doubt the same angel who lifted into the air an older Tobias-Job (= Habakkuk) and carried him to Babylon.
Again, presumably the same being as Job’s mysterious Advocate in heaven (Job 16:19).
Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD 