Where Jesus and John Essenes?

[jc49]

What happened to Joseph, the carpenter? When did he leave the scene?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

??? Who knows?

and what happened to the donkey that Jesus rode to enter Jerusalem? sorry...just being silly....

[Guest Zayit]

Jesus was not referring to the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, but instead to Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, who was murdered by Christ's contemporaries. That the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 is not the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is evident by examining the fathers of the two men; the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 is "son of Berechiah," while the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is "son of Jehoiada"--thus the two men are not the same. Furthermore, the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 was murdered in the courtyard--not between the Temple and altar as Jesus describes in Matthew 23:34-36. So then, who is the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36? Early statements by the first Christians taught that the Zechariah slain at the altar of the Temple was, in fact, the father of John the Baptist who was murdered by Christ's contemporaries. The 2nd century work the "Protoevangelium of James" records his death:

"Now Herod sought for John, and sent officers to Zacharias, saying: Where hast thou hidden thy son? And he answered and said unto them: I am a minister of God and attend continually upon the temple of the Lord: I know not where my son is. 2 And the officers departed and told Herod all these things. And Herod was wroth and said: His son is to be king over Israel. And he sent unto him again, saying: Say the truth: where is thy son ? for thou knowest that thy blood is under my hand. And the officers departed and told him all these things. 3 And Zacharias said: I am a martyr of God if thou sheddest my blood: for my spirit the Lord shah receive, because thou sheddest innocent blood in the fore-court of the temple of the Lord. And about the dawning of the day Zacharias was slain. And the children of Israel knew not that he was slain. XXIV. 1 But the priests entered in at the hour of the salutation, and the blessing of Zacharias met them not according to the manner. And the priests stood waiting for Zacharias, to salute him with the prayer, and to glorify the Most High. 2 But as he delayed to come, they were all afraid: and one of them took courage and entered in: and he saw beside the altar congealed blood: and a voice saying: Zacharias hath been slain, and his blood shall not be wiped out until his avenger come. And when he heard that word he was afraid, and went forth and told the priests. 3 And they took courage and went in and saw that which was done: and the panels of the temple did wail: and they rent their clothes from the top to the bottom. And his body they found not, but his blood they found turned into stone. And they feared, and went forth and told all the people that Zacharias was slain. And all tile tribes of the people heard it, and they mourned for him and lamented him three days and three nights. And after the three days the priests took counsel whom they should set in his stead: and the lot came up upon Symeon. Now he it was which was warned by the Holy Ghost that he should not see death until he should see the Christ in the flesh." --Protoevangelium of James (2nd Century)

So we see, the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 slain at the altar was most likely referring to Zechariah, father of John the Baptist. Jesus was indicting his own generation of men for that murder, and such would have been naturally understood by Christ's original hearers who were participants of--and eyewitnesses to--that unrighteous act. That the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 is the father of John the Baptist is the most sensible fit for the following reasons: (1) He, Jesus, is clearly rebuking Israel for murdering all her prophets down through the ages, from the very first murder of Abel up until the present day, his present day. The very latest murder, before the beheading of John, was that of Zachariah described in The Protoevangelium of James. (2) Why would Jesus frame his rebuke form the first murder to some murder at least 500 years, possibly 800 years old by his time. That's like saying "from A to M" or "A to P" instead of the all encompassing "A to Z." Christ surely meant all of history up until his present time. (3) It was Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, who was murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. As the document says he was in the vestibule, between the sanctuary and the altar, and his clotted blood was observed beside the altar.

Y'howyada means YHWH knows and Barachias mean the L-Rd blesses.

[Guest shiloh357]

Jesus was not referring to the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21, but instead to Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, who was murdered by Christ's contemporaries. That the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 is not the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is evident by examining the fathers of the two men; the Zechariah of Matthew 23:34-36 is "son of Berechiah," while the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20-21 is "son of Jehoiada"--thus the two men are not the same.

That does not mean that the two men were not the same. It was not uncommon for Jewish men to have more than one name. I demonstrated that in my last post.

The prophet Zechariah was the son of a man named Barakhyah according to Zech. 1:1. Barakhyah was the son of Iddo. Iddo was a priest according to Zechariah 12:

Now these are the priests and the Levites that went up with Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and Jeshua: Seraiah, Jeremiah, Ezra, Amariah, Malluch, Hattush, Shechaniah, Rehum, Meremoth, Iddo, Ginnetho, Abijah,

(Nehemiah 12:1-4)

Now according Ezra, Zechariah was the son of Iddo. This is not a problem seeing that in Hebrew, there is no word for "grandfather." Even a great grandson is still the "son" of his great grandfather at least where the Scripture's accounting is concerned. Jesus is the son of David, though they were several generations apart.

Notice the following two verses in Ezra.

Then the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem in the name of the God of Israel, even unto them.

(Ezra 5:1)

And the elders of the Jews built, and they prospered through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they built, and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the commandment of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.

(Ezra 6:14)

So we can establish that Zechariah the son of Barakhyah (possibly known as Jehoiada as well) (Zec 1:1) was both a post-exilic prophet and a priest. He was a contemporary with Haggai, and Ezra and was probably an infant when he returned to the Land of Israel.

So it was that prophet/priest son of Barakhyah that was most likely slain in the courtyard in front of the Temple steps between the Temple and the altar according to 2Cron. 24:20-22.

So you put alot of stock in the Protoevangelium of James? You shouldn't; it is a work of fiction. Even the the name is fictitious. It is purported to be written by James the Just, the brother of Jesus.

It is dated at c. 150-175 A.D. and puts forth the myth about Mary's sinlessness, and perpetual virginity. That fact alone shows that it would not have been written by James, as there would be no way she could have remained a virgin and yet have given birth to Him. Much of what we see concerning the veneration of Mary can be traced back to this document.

Another problem with the document is two-fold. It records the death of Zechariah at the hands of Herod, where Jesus says that it was done at the hands of the religious leaders of the Land of Israel. According to the Gospel of James it was for political reasons, but Jesus lays the blame on the religious leaders of Israel and not Herod.

The second part of this two-fold problem is that John and His Father Zechariah, would have not have been living in Bethlehem that the time of Herod's slaughter of the innocents. They lived in a city, in the hill country of Judah. Herod sent his men to Bethlehem and the surrounding hamlets to kill Jesus. It was a surgical strike, and not aimed at every city in Judah.

Another problem with this document, some scholars say, is that it shows a great deal of inaccuracies where Jewish customs are concerned, which also lends to the fictitious nature of this document. Had it been written by the one who claims to have written it, it would have contain these errors.

You are going to have to do better than the Gospel of James, a Catholic document, to convince me. I believe that we have a greater degree of certainty from the Scriptures that it was Zechariah the prophet who was also a priest who was slain, and not the father of John the Baptist.

[Guest Zayit]

It seems by this article http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/packa...pel/lukesgospel  that back in the 4th century that Johns father was murdered.

The letters are inscribed vertically on the monument and run together. They are of a different height and are actually crooked. The inscription says the monument is the tomb of "Simeon who was a very just man and a very devoted old (person) and waiting for the consolation of the people." Simeon is the Greek version of Simon. The words are identical to Luke 2:25 as they appeared in the 4th-century Bible, also called the Codex Sinaiticus, notes AP. The Zachariah inscription reads: "This is the tomb of Zachariah, martyr, very pious priest, father of John."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have not answered this, why would 4th century Christians be of the belief that Johns father was murdered?

[Guest Zayit]

While modern-day graffiti is considered ugly and destructive, it is said that time sanctifies graffiti, and impromptu ancient inscriptions can be illuminating. Imagine the surprise of archaeologist Joe Zias when, in June of last year, he found an inscription on a 60-foot-high funerary monument at the foot of the Mount of Olives that read,

[Guest Zayit]

Jesus neither draws from, nor is the source for, Essene culture. The Essenes had a totally different view of Jerusalem than Jesus did, and had no love for those outside their sect. They considered the Temple unclean, but Jesus did not. Any comparisons or similarities you see are purely superficial/coincidental. There may be some similarities since the Essenes were Jews and did maintain some of their Jewish customs such as the mezuzah, and Tefillin.

That is not what I meant, what I meant was that their purpose was of holiness, separateness from the corruptness that was going on in Jerusalem.

And I do believe that Yeshua found the temple unclean, that is why he finallly 'cleansed' it one day. It was also defiled by the corrupt priesthood that presided there, but no, he did not separate himself out from that how could he reach the lost sheep if he were not amoung them?

Luke 15:4What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? 5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. 7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Using comparisions of the Essenses because they were Jewish and maintained some of the customs is no where near what I was talking about. But this conversation is futile. I only wanted to discuss what I saw as similarities, but you have chosen to lable me with others that have seen the same and make a whole dispute of this. That was not my original intention, this was to be a discussion, not a debate. You can consider yourself the winner as that seems to be your only purpose in participation in this thread.

Shalom

[Guest shiloh357]

First of all the articles you cite, do not support your conclusion. One articles makes mention that it was 4th century inscription. Your idea that Zechariah in Luke is the one murdered is based on early Christian MYTH, and not upon Scriptural fact. You are trying to support this because you (for some strange reason) are wanting John the Baptist to be connected to the Essenes. You are trying to, based up unreliable documents, and myths based upon such documents, force a connection does not exist. Even IF Zechariah died when John was young, why do you presume he was raised by Essenes? It is customary in Jewish culture for us too look after our own. We don't give our children to someone else to raise, certainly not a bunch of weirdo separatists.

QUOTE

Jesus neither draws from, nor is the source for, Essene culture. The Essenes had a totally different view of Jerusalem than Jesus did, and had no love for those outside their sect. They considered the Temple unclean, but Jesus did not. Any comparisons or similarities you see are purely superficial/coincidental. There may be some similarities since the Essenes were Jews and did maintain some of their Jewish customs such as the mezuzah, and Tefillin.

That is not what I meant, what I meant was that their purpose was of holiness, separateness from the corruptness that was going on in Jerusalem.

And I do believe that Yeshua found the temple unclean, that is why he finallly 'cleansed' it one day. It was also defiled by the corrupt priesthood that presided there, but no, he did not separate himself out from that how could he reach the lost sheep if he were not amoung them?

No, Yeshua did not find the Temple unclean. He found what was being done in the Temple to be unclean. The Essenes considered the Temple and Jerusalem as a whole, corrupt. So corrupt that it was not worth having them live within its walls.

Jesus came nowhere near the Essene extremism. Yes, Jesus did not like the Temple being profaned by the dishonest dealings there, but He was not similar in that sense to Essenes at all.

I only wanted to discuss what I saw as similarities, but you have chosen to lable me with others that have seen the same and make a whole dispute of this.

Really? What did I label you as? I am simply saying that any similarities are not as they appear. Often the Essenes might use the same verbiage that you find Scripture, but mean something totally different.

I don't think it was just to discuss similarities. You have made a concerted effort to tie both Jesus and John the Baptist in with the Essenes. Your interest in this runs a little deeper than you want to admit.