King Joash Acording to Jewish Legend



JOASH

When the prophet Jonah, doing the behest of his master Elisha, anointed Jehu king over Israel, (1) he poured the oil out of a pitcher, not out of a horn, to indicate that the dynasty of Jehu would not occupy the throne long. (2) At first Jehu, though a somewhat foolish (3) king, was at least pious, but he abandoned his God-fearing ways from the moment he saw the document bearing the signature of the prophet Ahijah of Shilo, which bound the signers to pay implicit obedience to Jeroboam. The king took this as evidence that the prophet had approved the worship of the golden calves. So it came to pass that Jehu, the destroyer of Baal worship, did nothing to oppose the idolatrous service established by Jeroboam at Beth-el. (4) The successors of Jehu were not better; on the contrary, they were worse, and therefore in the fifth generation (5) an end was put to the dynasty of Jehu by the hand of the assassin.

The kings of Judah differed in no essential particular from their colleagues in the north. Ahaziah, whom Jehu killed, was a shameless sinner; he had the Name of God expurged from every passage in which it occurred in the Holy Scriptures, and the names of idols inserted in its place. (6)

Upon the death of Ahaziah followed the reign of terror under the queen Athaliah, when God exacted payment from the house of David for his trespass in connection with the extermination of the priest at Nob. As Abiathar had been the only male descendant of Abimelech to survive the persecution of Saul, so the sole representative of the house of David to remain after the sword of Athaliah had raged (7) was Joash, the child kept in hiding, in the Holy of Holies in the Temple, by the high priest Jehoiada and his wife Jehosheba. (8) Later Jehoiada vindicated the right of Joash upon the throne, and installed him as king of Judah. The very crown worn by the rulers of the house of David testified to the legitimacy of the young prince, for it possessed the peculiarity of fitting none but the rightful successors to David. (9)

At the instigation of Jehoiada, King Joash undertook the restoration of the Temple. The work was completed so expeditiously that one living at the time the Temple was erected by Solomon was permitted to see the new structure shortly before his death. (10) This good fortune befell Jehoiada (11) himself, the son of Benaiah, commander-in-chief of the army under Solomon. So long as Joash continued under the tutelage of Jehoiada, he was a pious king. When Jehoiada departed this life, the courtiers came to Joash and flattered him: "If thou wert not a god, thou hadst not been able to abide for six years in the Holy of Holies, a spot which even the high priest is permitted to enter but once a year." The king lent ear to their blandishments, and permitted the people to pay him Divine homage. (12) But when the folly of the king went to the extreme of prompting him to set up an idol in the Temple, Zechariah, the son of Jehoiada, placed himself at the entrance, and barring the way said: "Thou shalt not do it so long as I live." (13) High priest, prophet, and judge though Zechariah was, and son-in-law of Joash to boot, the king still did not shrink from having him killed for his presumptuous words, not was he deterred by the fact that it happened on a Day of Atonement which fell on the Sabbath. (14) The innocent blood crimsoning the hall of the priests did not remain unavenged. For two hundred and fifty-two years it did not leave off seething and pulsating, until, finally, Nebuzaradan, captain of Nebuchadnezzar's guard, ordered a great carnage among the Judeans, to avenge the death of Zechariah. (15)

Joash himself, the murderer of Zechariah, met with an evil end. He fell into the hands of the Syrians, and they abused him in their barbarous, immoral way. Before he could recover from the suffering inflicted upon him, his servants slew him. (16)

Amaziah, the son and successor of Joash, in many respects resembled his father. At the beginning of his reign he was God-fearing, but when, through the aid of God, he had gained a brilliant victory over the Edomites, he knew no better way of manifesting his gratitude than to establish in Jerusalem the cult of the idol worshipped by his conquered enemies. To compass his chastisement, God inspired Amaziah with the idea of provoking a war with Joash, the ruler of the northern kingdom. Amaziah demanded that Joash should either recognize the suzerainty of the southern realm voluntarily, or let the fate of battle decide the question. (17) At first Joash sought to turn Amaziah aside from his purpose by a parable reminding him of the fate of Shechem, which the sons of Jacob had visited upon him for having done violence to their sister Dinah. (18) Amaziah refused to be warned. He persisted in his challenge, and a war ensued. The fortune of battle decided against Amaziah. He suffered defeat, and later he was tortured to death by his own subjects. (19)

....

Taken from: http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_text_jewslegends4i.htm

Was Daniel an Eyewitness of 6th-Century B. C. Events

Part Two

by Everette Hatcher III

2001 / March-April

---

5 Did the Book of Daniel err when it presented Belshazzar as the King of Babylon (Dan. 5)?
William Sierichs, Jr., asserted that Belshazzar “was never the king” (TSR, Vol. 9.6, p.2), and Dave Matson made this same point twice (TSR, Vol. 9.6, p. 12, Vol. 10.1, p. 15). Moreover, Sierichs and Matson are not the only ones who hold this view (E.W. Heaton, The Book of Daniel, Torch Bible Commentaries, London: SCM, 1956, p. 63; Brodrick D. Shepherd, Beasts, Horns, and the Anti-Christ, Grassy Creek, NC: Cliffside Publishing House, 1994, p. 23; Russell, p. 83). Earlier I quoted the critic Philip Davies concerning this. Davies noted, “This is still sometimes repeated as a charge against the historicity of Daniel, and resisted by conservative scholars. But it has been clear since 1924 (J. A. Montgomery, Daniel, International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh: T and T Clark, New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1927, pp. 66-67) that although Nabonidus was the last king of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, Belshazzar was effectively ruling Babylon. In this respect, then, Daniel is correct” (Davies, pp. 30-31; TSR, Vol. 9.2, p. 4). Evidently, that didn’t convince Dave Matson and William Sierichs, Jr. Therefore, let us look at the two points of evidence that convinced the critic James A. Montgomery. First, a cuneiform inscription revealed that royal dignity was conferred on Belshazzar (Montgomery, pp. 66-67). The text records: “He entrusted a camp to his eldest, his firstborn son; the troops of the land he sent with him. He freed his hand; he entrusted the kingship (sarrutam) to him” (Sidney Smith, Babylonian Historical Texts, [1924], p. 84ff). Second, Belshazzar’s name was coupled with his father’s in prayers and also in an oath. The late R .P. Dougherty of Yale commented, “There is no other instance in available documents of an oath being sworn in the name of the son of the king…. It appears that he was invested with a degree of royal authority, not only at the close of the reign of his father, but throughout a large part, if not the whole, of the reign of Nabonidus” (Montgomery, p. 67; Pinches, Proceedings of the Society of Biblical Archaeology [1882], pp. 167ff; Dougherty, Records from Erech, Time of Nabonidus [Yale Or. Series], 1920, No. 134; Clay, Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection, 1915, No. 39). Daniel recognized Belshazzar as king, and I have a hard time understanding why some critics still have a problem with that. Obviously, the evidence from archaeology seems to confirm the view that Belshazzar was functioning as king.
6. Did the writer of Daniel err when he called the Babylonian king “Nebuchadnezzar” instead of Nebuchadrezzar?
William Sierichs, Jr., said that Daniel used the “biblical, not scholars spelling” (TSR, Vol. 9.6, p. 2, Column 2), and Stephen Van Eck called the “Nebuchadnezzar” spelling “erroneous” (TSR, Vol. 9.6, p. 11). Many critical scholars would agree with these observations (John J. Collins, Daniel, Hermeneia, Minneapolis, Fortress, 1994, p. 133; Samuel Driver, The Book of Daniel: Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: University Press, 1900, p. 3; Heaton, p. 122; Jeffery, p. 362; Montgomery, p. 118; Owens, p. 381). The conservative scholar Dr. Stephen Miller of Mid-America Seminary has noted that “Nebuchadrezzar” is closer to the Babylonian “Nabu-kndurri-usur” (“O Nabu [the god], protect my offspring/boundary”). However, the change of r in Akkadian and Aramaic to n in Hebrew was not erroneous but an accepted philological practice (Daniel, The New American Commentary, Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1994, p. 45 n. 2; Gleason Archer, Jr., Daniel, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985, p. 32; D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon [Oxford: University Press, 1985], pp. 2-3). I don’t know why the critics have chosen this argument in their attempt to late date Daniel, because some other Old Testament books also use “Nebuchadnezzar” (2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther). This argument is weak indeed.
7. Did King Nebuchadnezzar make a solid gold image 60 cubits tall and six cubits broad?
Till correctly noted that an image that size would have contained 270 cubic yards of gold and it would have surely impoverished the supply of gold in the royal treasury (TSR, Vol. 9.6, p. 1, Column 1). However, critical scholars agree that the Bible suggests the statute was gold-plated only (Montgomery, pp. 195-197; Louis F. Hartman and Alexander A. DiLella, The Book of Daniel, Anchor Bible, Garden City: Doubleday, 1978, pp. 160-161; Jeffery, p. 395). J. J. Collins asserts, “Compare Isaiah 40:19 (‘The idol, a workman casts it, and a goldsmith overlays it with gold’); Jeremiah 10:3-4 and Epistle of Jeremiah 8, 55, 57, which refer to gods of wood, overlaid with silver or gold; Bel and the Serpent 7 (‘This is but clay inside and brass outside’). Compare also the altar overlaid with gold in Exodus 30:3, which can still be referred to as ‘the golden altar’(Driver, p. 35; cf. Also Herodotus 2.129; 182)” (Collins, p. 181). Therefore, Till’s criticism is so weak that it is not shared by any other critical scholar that I have come across, and the biblical evidence clearly contradicts his assertion.
8. If Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego were appointed over the affairs of the province of Babylon (Daniel 2:49), then why haven’t their names been found in the Babylonian archives?
Till asks this question (TSR, Vol. 9.6, p.1, Column 2), and the answer can be found on a 5-sided clay prism found in Babylon, now on display at the Istanbul Museum. Dr. William Shea has identified these three Jews in this list of more than fifty government officials (W.H. Shea, “Daniel 3: Extra-Biblical Texts and the Convocation on the Plain of Dura,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. 20 [1982]: pp. 37-50; A. L. Oppenheim’s English Translation of the Babylonian text may be found in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J. B. Pritchard, ed, pp. 307-308). Hananiah is Hanunu (“chief of the royal merchants”); Abednego is Aridi-Nabu (“secretary of the crown prince [i.e., Amel- Marduk]”); and Mishael is Mushallim-Marduk (one of the “overseers of the slave girls”). Two other government officials mentioned both in this list and the Bible are Nabuzeriddinam=Nabuzaradan (2 Kings 25:8, 11; Jer. 39:9-11, 13; 40:01, etc.) and Nergalsharusur (Neriglissar)=Nergal-Sharezer (Jer. 39:3, 13). In Daniel 1:3, we are introduced to Ashpenaz who was an important official in the court of Nebuchadnezzar around 600 B.C. Did this person actually exist in history? The critic Arthur Jeffery asserted: “No satisfactory explanation of the name has been suggested” (p. 364). However, Peter Coxon has noted, “Almost the same consonants (spnz) are found in an Aram incantation bowl from Nippur dated ca. 600 B.C.” (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 1992, Vol. 1, pp. 491). Till scoffs at the view “that absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence” (TSR, Vol. 11.2, p. 2), but as time goes by, the archaeologist continues to unearth evidence that supports the accuracy of the Bible. Nevertheless, when it comes to the Book of Daniel, Till finds the argument from silence very attractive. He states: “If Darius the Mede was a real person, then why didn’t the records of that period mention a ruler of such prominence? We don’t have to wonder if Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar, Cyrus, Evil-Merodach, Artaxerxes, Sennacherib, Tiglath-Pileser, and other gentile kings mentioned in the Bible were actual historical persons, because extrabiblical records confirm that they were real, but we are supposed to believe that a king who conquered Babylon, issued edicts, and made extensive administrative reforms during his reign (Dan. 6) went completely unmentioned in the contemporary records of both Babylon and Persia” (TSR, Vol. 11.1, p. 5).
Dr. Wayne A. Brindle of Liberty University e-mailed me on January 14, 2000, concerning these comments of Till. Brindle noted: “Till is arguing out of both sides of his critical mouth. Two hundred years ago, critics commonly said that since most such names in the Bible weren’t found in secular literature/inscriptions, those people never existed. Then when they began to be found ­one at a time­ by slow, deliberate archaeological searching, critics were surprised, and some, like Albright, saw the discoveries almost as providing proof of Biblical accuracy and eyewitness testimony. Now Till says that since so many have already been found, the ones that haven’t yet been found never existed. He obviously hasn’t learned much from the past 200 years.”
In addition, not “all” of the Gentile kings have been found in secular histories/inscriptions. The farther back you go, and the farther from Greek and Roman culture you go, the fewer have been found. For example, as far as I know, none of the kings mentioned in Genesis 14 have been positively identified. The finding of the Gallio inscription (Acts 18) in Delphi was a fluke. A number of the kings of Syria and Philistia mentioned in Samuel/Kings/Chronicles have no secular parallel identifications. The reasons for this lack of information are simply that the sources are scarce and archaeologists have barely touched the surface of what might be available throughout the Near East. Many sites, even in Palestine, have not even been touched. In other words, we are not looking for a missing person, but just a missing nickname. However Till’s argument from silence concerning the names Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego has been completely put to flight, and that is why I ranked it as the weakest of the eight arguments presented by critics in The Skeptical Review, (Vol. 9.2 through Vol. 11.3).
II. Six Pieces of Archaeological Evidence that Support the 6th Century View: Since Daniel was an eyewitness to 6th-century events, he could accurately record historical details. The conservative scholar Dr. Stephen R. Miller notes: “In fact, the author of Daniel exhibited a more extensive knowledge of Sixth Century events than would seem possible for a second-century writer.” R. H. Pfeiffer (who argued that the work contains errors) acknowledged that Daniel reports some amazing historical details: “We shall presumably never know how our author learned that the new Babylon was the creation of Nebuchadnezzar (4:30 [Heb. 4:27]), as the excavations have proved… and that Belshazzar, mentioned only in Babylonian records, in Daniel and Bar. 1:11, which is based on Daniel, was functioning as king when Cyrus took Babylon in 538 [Chap. 5]” (Pfeiffer, “Introduction,” pp. 758-759). Harrison comments that the author “was quite accurate in recording the change from punishment by fire under the Babylonians (Dan. 3:11) to punishment by being thrown to lions under the Persian regime (Dan. 6:7), since fire was sacred to the Zoroastrians of Persia” [R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979, pp. 1120- 1121; cf. A. T. Olmstead, History of the Persian Empire, Chicago: University of Chicago press, 1948, pp. 473-474] (Miller, p. 26).
It is true that there are “some amazing historical details” to be found in Daniel, but also there are some small details throughout the book that support the view that its author lived early in the Persian period. For instance, concerning Daniel 6:8, 12, 15, the conservative Dr. John Whitcomb notes, “the mention of Medes before Persians in the phrase, ‘the law of the Medes and Persians,’ is an evidence of the early date of the book; for in later years, the Persians were usually mentioned before the Medes [Esther 1:3, 14, 18, 19, though not 10:2; cf. I Macc. 6:56] (characteristically, the critics find an anachronism in the fact that Darius the Mede is under the law of the Medes and Persians. Cf. Arthur Jeffery, p. 442)” (John Whitcomb, Darius the Mede, [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959], p. 55).
Nevertheless, the critic John Joseph Owens still claims this is a sign of later authorship. Owens asserts, “Esther 1:19 gives the proper evolution of the rank in ‘Persians and Medes’ instead of the later view as in Daniel” (p. 415). Conservative scholars point out that the evidence contradicts this assertion (Miller, p. 181, n.54; E. J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel, [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949], p. 127).
Daniel 6:8, 12, 15 also states that the laws made by the king could not be altered. The critic Carey Moore disputed this in his commentary on Esther (Anchor Bible, Garden city: Doubleday, 1971, pp. 10-11), but many critics will concede that Daniel was correct about this too (Hartman, p. 199; Driver, p. 7; Collins, pp. 267-268). The critic Lacocque observes: “Diodorus of Sicily (XVII, 30) in fact, reports the case of a man put to death under Darius III (336-330) even though he was known to be perfectly innocent. (Darius III) immediately repented and blamed himself for having committed such a great error, but it was impossible to have undone what had been done by royal authority” (Andre Lacocque, The Book of Daniel, Atlanta: John Knox, 1979, p. 113).
Again, Daniel was correct when he placed Susa in the province of Elam (Dan. 8:2). Dr. Gleason Archer, Jr., notes: “From the Greek and Roman historians, we learn that from Persian times Susa, or Sushan, was the capital of the province of Susiana; and Elam was restricted to the territory east of the Eulaeus River. Nevertheless, we know from cuneiform records that Sushan was part of the territory of Elam back in Chaldean times and before. It is very striking that Daniel 8:2 refers to ‘Susa in the province of Elam’­ an item of information scarcely accessible to a second-century B.C. author” (Archer, p. 19).
Daniel 4:30 quotes Nebuchadnezzar: “Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?” Did Nebuchadnezzar actually say these words? Archaeology seems to indicate that he did make a very similar statement: “The fortifications of Esagila and Babylon I strengthened and established the name of my reign forever” (George A. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, Philadelphia: American Sunday School Union, 1916, p. 479). Nebuchadnezzar evidently did have a habit of boasting, which indicated that he was very prideful.
How would a Maccabean author know these details? [1] Belshazzar was ruling during the last few years of the Babylonian Empire. [2] The Babylonians executed individuals by casting them into fire, but the Persians threw the condemned to the lions. [3] The practice in the 6th Century was to mention first the Medes, then the Persians. [4] Laws made by Persian kings could not be revoked. [5] In the sixth century B.C., Susa was in the province of Elam (Dan. 8:2). [6] Nebuchadnezzar had a pride problem (Dan. 4:30) and often boasted about his great building projects.
William Sierichs, Jr., dismisses this kind of evidence, and he boldly asserts that archeology has “trashed all claims to historical accuracy for Daniel” (TSR, Vol. 9.6, p. 2, Column 1). In fact, Sierichs claims that the Persian Verse Account is destructive to the biblical view, even though it was this particular piece of evidence that told us Nabonidus entrusted “kingship” to Belshazzar. Earlier critics considered Belshazzar “a figment of the Jewish writer’s imagination” (Ferdinard Hitzig, Das Buch Daniel, Leipzig: Weidman, 1850, p. 75), but archaeology has forced the critics to abandon that position (Alan Millard, “Daniel and Belshazzar in History,” Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 1985, pp. 74-75). Even a staunch critic like J. J. Collins has admitted: “The fact that Daniel 5 preserved the name of Belshazzar suggests that the underlying tradition had its origin close to the end of the Babylonian era” (p. 33). Nevertheless, Till believes all of Daniel originated during the Maccabean period (TSR, Vol. 9.5, p. 1). However, the evidence from archaeology supports the view that the author came from early in the Persian period.
(Everette Hatcher III, P. O. Box 23416, Little Rock, AR 72221; )
_____________
Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject:

1. The Babylonian Chronicle
of Nebuchadnezzars Siege of Jerusalem
This clay tablet is a Babylonian chronicle recording events from 605-594BC. It was first translated in 1956 and is now in the British Museum. The cuneiform text on this clay tablet tells, among other things, 3 main events: 1. The Battle of Carchemish (famous battle for world supremacy where Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon defeated Pharoah Necho of Egypt, 605 BC.), 2. The accession to the throne of Nebuchadnezzar II, the Chaldean, and 3. The capture of Jerusalem on the 16th of March, 598 BC.
2. Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription.
King Hezekiah of Judah ruled from 721 to 686 BC. Fearing a siege by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, Hezekiah preserved Jerusalem’s water supply by cutting a tunnel through 1,750 feet of solid rock from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city walls (2 Kings 20; 2 Chron. 32). At the Siloam end of the tunnel, an inscription, presently in the archaeological museum at Istanbul, Turkey, celebrates this remarkable accomplishment.
3. Taylor Prism (Sennacherib Hexagonal Prism)
It contains the victories of Sennacherib himself, the Assyrian king who had besieged Jerusalem in 701 BC during the reign of king Hezekiah, it never mentions any defeats. On the prism Sennacherib boasts that he shut up “Hezekiah the Judahite” within Jerusalem his own royal city “like a caged bird.” This prism is among the three accounts discovered so far which have been left by the Assyrian king Sennacherib of his campaign against Israel and Judah.
4. Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically.
In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives;
5. The Discovery of the Hittites
Most doubting scholars back then said that the Hittites were just a “mythical people that are only mentioned in the Bible.” Some skeptics pointed to the fact that the Bible pictures the Hittites as a very big nation that was worthy of being coalition partners with Egypt (II Kings 7:6), and these bible critics would assert that surely we would have found records of this great nation of Hittites. The ironic thing is that when the Hittite nation was discovered, a vast amount of Hittite documents were found. Among those documents was the treaty between Ramesses II and the Hittite King.
6.Shishak Smiting His Captives
The Bible mentions that Shishak marched his troops into the land of Judah and plundered a host of cities including Jerusalem, this has been confirmed by archaeologists. Shishak’s own record of his campaign is inscribed on the south wall of the Great Temple of Amon at Karnak in Egypt. In his campaign he presents 156 cities of Judea to his god Amon.
7. Moabite Stone
The Moabite Stone also known as the Mesha Stele is an interesting story. The Bible says in 2 Kings 3:5 that Mesha the king of Moab stopped paying tribute to Israel and rebelled and fought against Israel and later he recorded this event. This record from Mesha has been discovered.
8. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III
The tribute of Jehu, son of Omri, silver, gold, bowls of gold, chalices of gold, cups of gold, vases of gold, lead, a sceptre for the king, and spear-shafts, I have received.”

 

....

 

View from the dome of the Capitol!9A Verification of places in Gospel of John and Book of Acts.
Sir William Ramsay, famed archaeologist, began a study of Asia Minor with little regard for the book of Acts. He later wrote:
I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.
9B Discovery of Ebla Tablets. When I think of discoveries like the Ebla Tablets that verify names like Adam, Eve, Ishmael, David and Saul were in common usage when the Bible said they were, it makes me think of what amazing confirmation that is of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
10. Cyrus Cylinder
There is a well preserved cylinder seal in the Yale University Library from Cyrus which contains his commands to resettle the captive nations.
11. Puru “The lot of Yahali” 9th Century B.C.E.
This cube is inscribed with the name and titles of Yahali and a prayer: “In his year assigned to him by lot (puru) may the harvest of the land of Assyria prosper and thrive, in front of the gods Assur and Adad may his lot (puru) fall.” It provides a prototype (the only one ever recovered) for the lots (purim) cast by Haman to fix a date for the destruction of the Jews of the Persian Empire, ostensibly in the fifth century B.C.E. (Esther 3:7; cf. 9:26).
12. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription
The Bible mentions Uzziah or Azariah as the king of the southern kingdom of Judah in 2 Kings 15. The Uzziah Tablet Inscription is a stone tablet (35 cm high x 34 cm wide x 6 cm deep) with letters inscribed in ancient Hebrew text with an Aramaic style of writing, which dates to around 30-70 AD. The text reveals the burial site of Uzziah of Judah, who died in 747 BC.
13. The Pilate Inscription
The Pilate Inscription is the only known occurrence of the name Pontius Pilate in any ancient inscription. Visitors to the Caesarea theater today see a replica, the original is in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. There have been a few bronze coins found that were struck form 29-32 AD by Pontius Pilate
14. Caiaphas Ossuary
This beautifully decorated ossuary found in the ruins of Jerusalem, contained the bones of Caiaphas, the first century AD. high priest during the time of Jesus.
14 B Pontius Pilate Part 2
In June 1961 Italian archaeologists led by Dr. Frova were excavating an ancient Roman amphitheatre near Caesarea-on-the-Sea (Maritima) and uncovered this interesting limestone block. On the face is a monumental inscription which is part of a larger dedication to Tiberius Caesar which clearly says that it was from “Pontius Pilate, Prefect of Judea.”
14c. Three greatest American Archaeologists moved to accept Bible’s accuracy through archaeology.
Despite their liberal training, it was archaeological research that bolstered their confidence in the biblical text:Albright said of himself, “I must admit that I tried to be rational and empirical in my approach [but] we all have presuppositions of a philosophical order.” The same statement could be applied as easily to Gleuck and Wright, for all three were deeply imbued with the theological perceptions which infused their work.

....

Taken from: http://thedailyhatch.org/2013/03/07/was-daniel-an-eyewitness-of-6th-century-b-c-events-part-2/

"The worship of the golden calf of old (cf. Ex 32:15-34) has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money ..."

 

ADDRESS OF POPE FRANCIS TO THE NEW NON-RESIDENT AMBASSADORS TO THE HOLY SEE: KYRGYZSTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, LUXEMBOURG AND BOTSWANA Clementine Hall Thursday, 16 May 2013 Your Excellencies,   I am pleased to receive you for the presentation of the Letters accrediting you as Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to the Holy See on the part of your respective countries: Kyrgyzstan, Antigua and Barbuda, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Botswana. The gracious words which you have addressed to me, for which I thank you heartily, have testified that the Heads of State of your countries are concerned to develop relations of respect and cooperation with the Holy See. I would ask you kindly to convey to them my sentiments of gratitude and esteem, together with the assurance of my prayers for them and their fellow citizens. Ladies and Gentlemen, our human family is presently experiencing something of a turning point in its own history, if we consider the advances made in various areas. We can only praise the positive achievements which contribute to the authentic welfare of mankind, in fields such as those of health, education and communications. At the same time, we must also acknowledge that the majority of the men and women of our time continue to live daily in situations of insecurity, with dire consequences. Certain pathologies are increasing, with their psychological consequences; fear and desperation grip the hearts of many people, even in the so-called rich countries; the joy of life is diminishing; indecency and violence are on the rise; poverty is becoming more and more evident. People have to struggle to live and, frequently, to live in an undignified way. One cause of this situation, in my opinion, is in the our relationship with money, and our acceptance of its power over ourselves and our society. Consequently the financial crisis which we are experiencing makes us forget that its ultimate origin is to be found in a profound human crisis. In the denial of the primacy of human beings! We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf of old (cf. Ex 32:15-34) has found a new and heartless image in the cult of money and the dictatorship of an economy which is faceless and lacking any truly humane goal. The worldwide financial and economic crisis seems to highlight their distortions and above all the gravely deficient human perspective, which reduces man to one of his needs alone, namely, consumption. Worse yet, human beings themselves are nowadays considered as consumer goods which can be used and thrown away. We have started a throw-away culture. This tendency is seen on the level of individuals and whole societies; and it is being promoted! In circumstances like these, solidarity, which is the treasure of the poor, is often considered counterproductive, opposed to the logic of finance and the economy. While the income of a minority is increasing exponentially, that of the majority is crumbling. This imbalance results from ideologies which uphold the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation, and thus deny the right of control to States, which are themselves charged with providing for the common good. A new, invisible and at times virtual, tyranny is established, one which unilaterally and irremediably imposes its own laws and rules. Moreover, indebtedness and credit distance countries from their real economy and citizens from their real buying power. Added to this, as if it were needed, is widespread corruption and selfish fiscal evasion which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The will to power and of possession has become limitless. Concealed behind this attitude is a rejection of ethics, a rejection of God. Ethics, like solidarity, is a nuisance! It is regarded as counterproductive: as something too human, because it relativizes money and power; as a threat, because it rejects manipulation and subjection of people: because ethics leads to God, who is situated outside the categories of the market. God is thought to be unmanageable by these financiers, economists and politicians, God is unmanageable, even dangerous, because he calls man to his full realization and to independence from any kind of slavery. Ethics – naturally, not the ethics of ideology – makes it possible, in my view, to create a balanced social order that is more humane. In this sense, I encourage the financial experts and the political leaders of your countries to consider the words of Saint John Chrysostom: "Not to share one’s goods with the poor is to rob them and to deprive them of life. It is not our goods that we possess, but theirs" (Homily on Lazarus, 1:6 – PG 48, 992D). Dear Ambassadors, there is a need for financial reform along ethical lines that would produce in its turn an economic reform to benefit everyone. This would nevertheless require a courageous change of attitude on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and farsightedness, taking account, naturally, of their particular situations. Money has to serve, not to rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but the Pope has the duty, in Christ’s name, to remind the rich to help the poor, to respect them, to promote them. The Pope appeals for disinterested solidarity and for a return to person-centred ethics in the world of finance and economics. For her part, the Church always works for the integral development of every person. In this sense, she reiterates that the common good should not be simply an extra, simply a conceptual scheme of inferior quality tacked onto political programmes. The Church encourages those in power to be truly at the service of the common good of their peoples. She urges financial leaders to take account of ethics and solidarity. And why should they not turn to God to draw inspiration from his designs? In this way, a new political and economic mindset would arise that would help to transform the absolute dichotomy between the economic and social spheres into a healthy symbiosis. Finally, through you, I greet with affection the Pastors and the faithful of the Catholic communities present in your countries. I urge them to continue their courageous and joyful witness of faith and fraternal love in accordance with Christ’s teaching. Let them not be afraid to offer their contribution to the development of their countries, through initiatives and attitudes inspired by the Sacred Scriptures! And as you inaugurate your mission, I extend to you, dear Ambassadors, my very best wishes, assuring you of the assistance of the Roman Curia for the fulfilment of your duties. To this end, upon you and your families, and also upon your Embassy staff, I willingly invoke abundant divine blessings. Thank you.
© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/may/documents/papa-francesco_20130516_nuovi-ambasciatori_en.html

Pope Francis condemns hypocrisy

 

 

(Vatican Radio) Christianity is not simply the study of laws or commands: this is an impediment to understanding and living the truth that God is joy and generosity. This was the message of Pope Francis at Mass celebrated this morning in Casa Santa Marta.

The hypocrites who “lead the people of God down a dead-end street” Pope Francis said, are the subject of today’s Gospel. The Pope reflected on the famous passage of Matthew’s Gospel that contrasts the behaviour of the scribes and Pharisees – who make a show of praying, fasting, and almsgiving – with the path indicated by Jesus, Who points out to His disciples the proper attitude to assume in the same circumstances: giving alms and praying “in secret.” “And your Father, Who sees in secret, will reward you.”

Pope Francis criticized not only the vanity of the scribes and Pharisees, but also those who impose “so many precepts on the faithful.” He called them “hypocrites of casuistry,” “intellectuals without talent” who “don’t have the intelligence to find God, to explain God with understanding,” and so prevent themselves and others from entering into the Kingdom of God:

“Jesus says: ‘You do not enter yourselves, nor do you allow entrance to others.’ They are ethicists without goodness, they do not know what goodness is. But they are ethicists, aren’t they? ‘You have to do this, and this, and this . . .’ They fill you with precepts, but without goodness. And those are some of the phylacteries, of the tassels they lengthen, so many things, to make a pretence of being majestic, perfect, they have no sense of beauty. They have no sense of beauty. They achieve only the beauty of a museum. They are intellectuals without talent, ethicists without goodness, the bearers of museum beauty. These are the hypocrites that Jesus rebukes so strongly.

“But He doesn’t stop there,” Pope Francis continued. “In today’s Gospel, the Lord speaks about another class of hypocrites, ‘holy rollers’ [It: quelli che vanno sul sacro]:

“The Lord speaks about fasting, about prayer, about almsgiving: the three pillars of Christian piety, of interior conversion, that the Church proposes to us all in Lent. There are even hypocrites along this path, who make a show of fasting, of giving alms, of praying. I think that when hypocrisy reaches this point in the relation with God, we are coming very close to the sin against the Holy Spirit. These do not know beauty, they do not know love, these do not know the truth: they are small, cowardly.”
“We think about the hypocrisy in the Church: how bad it makes all of us,” Pope Francis said candidly. Instead he pointed out another “icon” for imitation, a person described in another passage of the Gospel: the publican who prayed with humble simplicity, “Have mercy on me, O Lord, a sinner.” This, the Pope said, “is the prayer we should say every day, knowing that we are sinners” but “with concrete sins, not theoretical [sin].” And this prayer, he concluded, “will help us to take the opposite road,” the road opposed to the hypocrisy that we are all tempted to:

“But all of us also have grace, the grace that comes from Jesus Christ: the grace of joy; the grace of magnanimity, of largesse. Hypocrites do not know what joy is, what largesse is, what magnanimity is.”
The Holy Father concelebrated Mass with Cardinal Marc Ouellet and Archbishop Lorenzo Baldisseri, the prefect and secretary of the Congregation for Bishops; and with Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia and Bishop Jean Lafitte, the president and secretary of the Pontifical Council of the Family. Members of the Congregation of Bishops and of the Pontifical Council of the Family were in attendance at the Mass.

Listen:


Text from page http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/06/19/pope_francis_condemns_hypocrisy/en1-702937
of the Vatican Radio website

“Ginzberg furnishes substantial evidence that Mordecai and Haman were both Jews who knew each other well”.

 

 

 



Power struggle between Jews

Clever Queen Esther takes a chance and manages to create harmony.
EUGENE KAELLIS

Purim is based on the Book of Esther, the most esoteric book in the Hebrew Testament. Accepting a literal interpretation of the book is impossible. It is laden with evident exaggerations and inventions that defy what is known of Persian history and conventions. Its hidden meaning can be uncovered only by combining a knowledge of Persian practices during the Babylonian Captivity, the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Great, his Edict (sixth century BCE) and Ginzberg's Legends of the Jews which, despite its name, contains a great deal of relevant and credible history.

Using these sources, one can arrive at a plausible interpretation completely in accord with historically valid information. Esther, it turns out, describes an entirely intra-Jewish affair set in the Persian Empire, with the two major antagonists as factional leaders: Mordecai, whose followers advocate rebuilding the Jerusalem Temple, and Haman, also a Jew, whose assimilationist adherents oppose the project.

Ginzberg furnishes substantial evidence that Mordecai and Haman were both Jews who knew each other well: they were co-butlers at a royal feast and journeyed together to India to put down a rebellion against Persia. Moreover, Haman's mother had a Hebrew name and his descendants are said to have taught Torah in Akiva's academy.

The multi-ethnic Persian Empire had significant religious freedom and communal authority, as exemplified by the Edict of Cyrus, permitting Jews to return to Judah and rebuild their Temple, destroyed by the Babylonians, and allowing the inclusion of members of various ethnic and religious groups under Persian rule, offering them some representation and influence at the royal court. However, it is untrue that Mordecai or Esther achieved the high positions attributed to them in the book. Queens and chief ministers always had to have impeccably Persian ancestry. More likely, Mordecai was a spokesperson for much of the Jewish community and Esther, a harem consort.

In the Persian Empire the king's harem typically had ethnic "representatives." Vashti, Esther's predecessor, was a member of the Hamanite faction. In a typically irreverent manner, she had forced her Jewish handmaidens to violate the Sabbath. After Vashti's dismissal, widespread rebellion and Jewish inter-factional fighting flared up, calmed only by Mordecai's elevation and the appointment of Esther, who, in a measure of intrigue, initially conceals her ethnic and factional identification. Her original name was Hebrew, viz., Hadassah; Esther is Persian, derived from Astarte or Ishtar.

The book states that Mordecai first discovered a plot to kill Ahasuerus, the king. It is more likely that he was apprised by Esther who, being in the harem, a traditional centre of intrigue and espionage, would have picked up this intelligence. A more plausible explanation is that the incident was a conspiracy arranged by Mordecai, the two allegedly guilty harem eunuchs becoming dupes in a plot designed to be exposed in order to discredit the Hamanite faction and win favor for Mordecai and his followers.

Nevertheless, Haman initially gains the upper hand by convincing Ahasuerus that Mordecai's faction threatens the king's hegemony, an argument given credence by the plan of the pro-Temple faction to construct a wall around the rebuilt Temple, perhaps to defend against Persian armies after the Jews had declared their independence. Haman also probably bribes the king with promises of a share of the plunder expropriated from the wealth of the pro-Temple faction after its members are killed.

After Haman's appointment, when he and the king sat down for a drink, "Susa was perplexed," the text states, indicating that the Jews of Susa, a city with a large Mordecai-supporting faction, were outraged that someone they considered a heretic would henceforth officially advise the king regarding the Jewish community.

As Haman puts his plan in motion, Mordecai warns Esther, and the pro-Temple Jews demonstrate their solidarity with her. During the three days of fasting, while Esther prepares to petition the king, Mordecai is busy collecting a counter-bribe, referred to as "relief and deliverance ... from another quarter," which he had earlier promised Esther while trying to assuage her fears about her own safety following the disclosure of her true allegiance.

The Mordecai faction succeeds and the tolerant but venal king switches his support. Esther gathers information on Haman's collaborators and denounces him. In a staged event in the royal apartment, with the king's co-operation, she frames Haman on an assault charge, providing Ahasuerus with a face-saving device to explain the dismissal and subsequent execution of someone he had so recently elevated.

Ahasuerus, now convinced that the pro-Temple faction does not threaten him with its walled city plans, provides help from forces he had formerly promised to Haman, allowing the Mordecaite Jews to eliminate the Hamanites, but keeping his well-greased hands out of the more violent aspects of the conflict.

The book states repeatedly that the pro-Temple faction members kept no plunder derived from the defeat of their rivals, indicating that this benefit of their triumph went to Ahasuerus. The story goes on to declare that, with the victory of the Mordecai faction, "many people of the country declared themselves Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them." Why would ordinary Persians or Babylonians, now part of the Persian Empire, fear Jews to the point of embracing a minority religion in their own country? It is more reasonable to assume that the now religiously enthusiastic Jews who had become fearful of Mordecai were assimilated Jews who had identified themselves as Persians and who had formerly allied themselves with the Hamanite faction or had previously faltered in their allegiance to the pro-Temple faction.

Purim is at once the least and the most profound of Jewish holidays. The Talmud tells us that even after the Messiah comes and the mandated holidays of Pesach, Shavuot and Sukkot are no longer celebrated, Purim will be retained. Why? Because the story reminds us that, even when obscured by bizarre circumstances, there is a continuous presence of God, often in the guise of "chance," which explains why Purim is known as the Feast of Lots.

The mood in the synagogue celebration of Purim is one of noisy revelry, even inebriation, and self-ridicule as if the participants somehow know that the book's story is a cover up for a series of dramatic and fateful events and they are winking at it and themselves.

Dr. Eugene Kaellis is a retired academic living in New Westminster.

....

Taken from: http://www.jewishindependent.ca/Archives/Mar05/archives05Mar18-07.html

Archaeologists May Have Found Tomb of Prophet Zechariah

Feb 3, 2011 – 3:05 PM

Text Size

1554302

Hugh CollinsContributor

Archaeologists in Israel believe they may have stumbled upon the tomb of the biblical Prophet Zechariah in a newly discovered church.The church, which is more than 1,300 years old, contains massive marble columns as well as exquisite mosaics, the Israel Antiquities Authoritysaid in a statement.Archaeologists believe that the church, uncovered in Hirbet Madras in central Israel, is the location marked on the Madaba Map as the tomb of Zechariah, according to Haaertz.

 

Menahem Kahana, AFP / Getty Images

 

Israeli archaeologist Amir Ganor shows the mosaic floor of a Byzantine-period church, which was discovered following excavations in Hirbet Madras, near the Israeli town of Beit Shemesh, on Wednesday. Some scholars believe it may be the residence and tomb of the Prophet Zechariah.

The Madaba mapis an ancient mosaic map of the region that includes modern Israel. It was found in a sixth-century church in Jordan."The researchers believe that in light of an analysis of the Christian sources, including the Madaba Map, the church at Hirbet Madras is a memorial church designed to mark the tomb of the prophet Zechariah," the IAA said.The agency stressed that this is just a theory and requires more research for confirmation."This issue will be examined and studied in the near future," the IAA said.Zechariah is believed to have lived around 500 B.C., according to the website of the Vatican Museums. The book of Zechariah speaks of the return of the Jews from exile in Babylon as well as the coming of the Messiah.
The archaeologists began excavating the site following a robbery there, Haaertz said. It was the first dig at the site, even though a piece of a doorway had been spotted poking out of the ground there in the 1980s.

Months of diggings led to the church, which is about the size of a basketball court.To the archaeologists' surprise, they found that the church sits on what looks like a structure from the Roman era, as well as a large complex of caves and tunnels used by Jewish rebels fighting the Romans during the Bar Kokhba revolt of A.D. 132.Besides the ancient church, archaeologists found coins, stone vessels, lamps and ancient pottery."There is no doubt the discovery is extraordinary and of great importance in terms of research, religion and tourism," the IAA said, according to Agence France-Presse.

"Ramses II could have never been the Pharaoh of the Exodus": Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim.

Egypt’s Antiquities Minister on the Pharaoh of the Exodus

Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs in Egypt, Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim, asserted that he would never allow the analysis of King Ramses II’s mummy to confirm whether or not he was the long-disputed Pharaoh of the Exodus. Ibrahim said: “What is being rumored in this context is utterly non-scientific and not founded on any sort of evidence”.
In an exclusive interview conducted with the minister in his Zamalek-based office in Cairo, Mohammed Ibrahim stated that Ramses II’s mummy had previously been flown to the French capital of Paris during the 1980s to analyze the water within it, and try to treat the artifact. “But to speak now of the mummy’s examination and analysis is a matter I can never allow because Ramses II is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus and we should not build upon wrong assumptions in the first place.”
Ibrahim cited evidence for his argument with verses from the Holy Quran and the Book of Exodus in the Old Testament, especially the 14th Chapter. “The scenario and sequence of events clearly show that Ramses II could have never been the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Based on several given facts and not just one piece of information, inferences have been drawn concluding that the Pharaoh of the Exodus ruled toward the end of the 19th Dynasty. The facts confirm that Ramses II’s reign did not witness any state of unrest, contrary to what is widely known about the Pharaoh of the Exodus’s reign. Moreover, Ramses II’s rule was marked by power and construction. Hence, we can’t say that either Ramses II or his successor Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.”
Regarding the allegation that the Grand Egyptian Museum – currently under construction on the Cairo–Alexandria desert road – has a design featuring the Star of David, thereby not expressing Egyptian identity, Dr. Ibrahim asserted that “This argument is groundless. From a geometric point of view, it is utterly invalid. And from an archeological point of view, the formation and direction of the exhibits is yet to be conclusively decided, for those that say they will face Jerusalem. For example, some have alleged that the statue of Ramses II will be displayed in a certain fashion towards a specific direction.”
Dr. Ibrahim added that there was no prearranged plan to display the antiquities in a particular manner expressing a precise orientation. “Actually, I am amazed at the link between these claims and the argument that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This is a completely baseless argument, and there is no scientific evidence whatsoever corroborating that, as I mentioned earlier.”
Regarding the eternal controversy in Egypt about Egyptian antiquities exhibitions being staged abroad, Dr. Mohammed Ibrahim maintained that “those (exhibitions) are organized in accordance with the law which allows [certain] antiquities to travel abroad. The only exceptions are the unique and unparalleled pieces which are protected and preserved by heightened security measures. Through their sharpened skills and expert abilities, archeologists can identify cloned pieces no matter how accurate and precise the forgery is. Moreover, we have an electronic fingerprint for every archeological piece.”
Dr. Ibrahim revealed that his ministry is currently studying the possibility of tracking antiquities via satellites, stating that “we are looking to cooperate with a foreign partner to implement this.” However, he declined to disclose its details, stressing that they were highly confidential.
Dr. Ibrahim has refused to engage in overseas battles in order to restore the most precious antiquities that Egypt had always yearned for their return. The most notable of such pieces are the renowned Rosetta Stone in the British Museum, and the famous Nefertiti bust on display in the Berlin Museum. Dr. Ibrahim argued that “the restoration process is the task of the forthcoming government and parliament. Today, our ministry is only performing a limited role. Hence, we can’t take any kind of action or engage in battles that might provoke other countries.”
With regards to the political rise of the Islamists, and the fears of some that they might adopt a different stance towards the protection of antiquities, Dr. Ibrahim described all that has been circulated about this issue as “scaremongering hyped up by the media. In answer to this, it is suffice to say that I recently received a request for information from a Salafi MP, inquiring into the occurrence of acts of plunder in ancient tombs. Of course this rumor is completely false; none of our ancient tombs have been violated.”
The minister added that “[Nevertheless] the fact that Islamist MPs requested information about the plundering of ancient tombs indicates their care and concern for our antiquities. Therefore, it is very unlikely they would take an opposing position towards antiquities, or desecrate them in any way.” The minister went on to say that “My dealings with Muslim Brotherhood and Salafi MPs in parliament have revealed to me how keen they are on protecting and preserving our antiquities, even more so than others. Furthermore, I have found them to be very keen on preserving the Ministry of Antiquities in the forthcoming government, without any thoughts of dissolving it.”
In connection to rumors of the military police carrying out acts of torture against vandals arrested for breaking in to the Egyptian Museum premises near Tahrir Square, the minister stated that “such rumors are utterly false.” He maintained that “ever since I assumed responsibility (more than three months ago), no vandals have entered the Egyptian Museum in any fashion. During the first anniversary of the revolution, I was present in the museum and there was not a single attempt made by anyone to enter the building. The museum enjoys the security and protection of the revolutionary youths.”
The Minister of Antiquities regarded the current situation, with protests ongoing on the Egyptian street, as “a matter that is having a negative impact on the influx of tourists and sightseeing trips. This will have implications on the ministry’s revenue, which relies on the income generated by sightseeing trips.”
Dr. Ibrahim revealed that his ministry has been suffering a slump with over a 65 percent reduction in its revenue, ever since the start of the revolution. He added that “Despite the debts originally burdening the shoulders of the ministry, I am now trying to offset part of them to stimulate the work process at archeological sites to some extent.” Dr. Ibrahim, moreover, pledged to never cover up for any kind of corruption. He said that “I am not going to allow any measure of corruption, even if it is slight. Many legal cases have already been referred to the administrative prosecution service or the public funds prosecution. Upon assuming responsibility, I became highly suspicious of corruption in some projects, so I referred them to the cabinet which subsequently referred them to the Attorney General. This is concrete proof that we won’t cover up for any suspicion of corruption no matter how small it might be.”

....

Taken from: http://www.aawsat.net/2012/04/article55242593