Apollonius governor of Greater Syria poised as Quirinius of Luke’s Census

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

  

“His position as the Governor (Legate) of Syria at this time is confirmed

by the discovery of a tombstone in Beirut, known popularly as the

Q. Aemilius Secundus inscription. In it, Quirinius is called

the “legato Augusti Caesaris Syria”.”

 Bryan Windle

  

Efforts to correlate the life of Herod ‘the Great’ with the Birth of Jesus Christ, and with the census – and there are many of them – are generally quite tortuous to read, and they tend to arrive at rather unhelpful conclusions.

Here is a part of one such example from the Christian Publishing House Blog:

Reconciling Herod's Death: A Debate Between 4 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Through Biblical and Historical Lenses - Christian Publishing House Blog

 

Are the Conflicting Dates for Herod’s Death Irreconcilable?

 

Exploring the Dispute Over Herod’s Death

 

The timing of Herod the Great’s death has long been a source of discussion in biblical scholarship. Some assert that Herod died in 4 B.C.E., while others maintain that 1 B.C.E. best aligns with the biblical and historical data. This difference greatly affects how one understands the date of Jesus’ birth. There is confidence in the scriptural record that Jesus was born in 01 or 02 B.C.E., an event that occurred near the end of Herod’s reign. Many rely heavily on the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, while those who place greater emphasis on the biblical text look to Luke’s Gospel and related chronological references. The question is whether the data from Josephus, classical sources, and archaeological finds truly conflict with the biblical chronology. A closer look reveals ways to reconcile the debate without undermining the reliability of Scripture.

 

Why the Date of Herod’s Death Matters

 

The sequence of events recorded in the Gospels places the birth of Jesus before the death of Herod the Great. Matthew 2:1 mentions that “Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king.” Herod’s order to slaughter male children two years of age and under (Matthew 2:16) indicates that he was alive for a period following Jesus’ birth. If Herod died in 4 B.C.E., some would argue that Jesus must have been born earlier. However, the biblical evidence places Jesus’ birth in 01 or 02 B.C.E. Luke’s references to the Roman census under Quirinius, a governor of Syria, reinforce that Jesus’ birth took place when Caesar Augustus had ordered a registration (Luke 2:1, 2). Reconciling these overlapping events hinges upon identifying the accurate date of Herod’s death. The entire timeline of Jesus’ early life, including the journey of his family to Egypt and their subsequent return, must align with the time at which Herod was still alive.

 

Josephus’ Accounts and Their Complexities

 

Josephus is often cited as a central figure in placing Herod’s death in 4 B.C.E. He mentions that Herod died shortly after a lunar eclipse but before a Passover (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167, 213 [vi, 4; ix, 3]). An eclipse did occur in March of 4 B.C.E. Many chronologists seize on this partial eclipse as the one referred to by Josephus. However, Josephus’ chronological data sometimes contain inconsistencies. For instance, Josephus dates the capture of Jerusalem by Herod as 37 B.C.E. in one passage but also connects it to the earlier capture of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 B.C.E., creating a potential one-year discrepancy (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]). Josephus also employs Roman consular dating, which can be difficult to correlate exactly with regnal year counting. There is also the question of accession-year versus non-accession-year systems, in which one source might begin counting a king’s reign as soon as he assumed power, whereas another source might start counting only after the next new year. Such details can create apparent chronological variations.

 

Josephus’ reliability is often considered high regarding first-century events he personally witnessed, but the data about Herod’s death occurred decades before Josephus was born (37 C.E.). He relied on records, oral traditions, or earlier sources whose details might have varied.

 

There are also differences in how certain Roman rulers are listed. Josephus identifies Quintilius Varus as governor of Syria during and after Herod’s death. Some interpret these statements as conclusive proof that Quirinius was not governor at that time. Yet Josephus mentions scenarios where two officials in Syria served concurrently (Jewish Antiquities, XVI, 277, 280, 344 [ix, 1; x, 8]), indicating that Roman administrative structures could be more nuanced. ….

[End of quote]

 

The trouble is that, heretofore, we have not had the whole story.

 

A new base for yielding proper estimations

 

According to my revised view of the history of this time, greatly affecting early Luke, the Infancy of Jesus Christ occurred during the Hellenistic period when the wicked king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ determined to impose Greek-ness upon the Jews.

It was the desperate era of the Maccabean (Jewish) revolt).

 

This was one of the worst times for the Jews (Israelites) in the entire Bible.

 

Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ was the Caesar, Augustus, who attempted to unify his kingdom, and who called for a census (Luke 2:1): “In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world”. Well, that is the usual translation, but Luke himself says nothing about “Roman” in the Greek original (Ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις ἐξῆλθεν δόγμα παρὰ Καίσαρος Αὐγούστου ἀπογράφεσθαι πᾶσαν τὴν οἰκουμένην).

 

This Caesar Augustus was, in fact, a Seleucid Greek:

 

Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

(3) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

 

The “decree” of Augustus to his whole kingdom would correspond approximately (whether it be the same document, or not) with the far-ranging and vicious edict of Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ addressed “to his whole kingdom” (I Maccabees 1:41-53):

 

Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people and that all should give up their particular customs. All the nations accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the Sabbath. And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane Sabbaths and festivals, to defile the sanctuary and the holy ones, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice pigs and other unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane so that they would forget the Law and change all the ordinances. He added, ‘And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die’.

In such words he wrote to his whole kingdom. He appointed inspectors over all the people and commanded the towns of Judah to offer sacrifice, town by town. Many of the people, everyone who forsook the Law, joined them, and they did evil in the land; they drove Israel into hiding in every place of refuge they had.

 

Luke’s “those days” (2:1), the time of the census, were also, as the Evangelist informed us a bit earlier (1:5) - and as all would accept: “In the time of Herod king of Judea”.

 

King Herod, a close friend to Augustus, was, in my revised context, Philip the Phrygian, the second only to the king himself, and the ruler of Jerusalem (2 Maccabees 5:22): “However, [king Antiochus] left governors behind to oppress the people: at Jerusalem he left Philip, a Phrygian by birth and with a more barbarous nature than the one who appointed him”.

And, when the Seleucid king was dying (I Maccabees 6:14-16):

“Then he summoned Philip, one of his Friends, and put him in charge of his whole kingdom. He gave him his diadem, his robe, and his signet ring, so that he might guide the king’s son Antiochus and bring him up to be king. So King Antiochus died there in the one hundred and forty-ninth year.

 

This Philip, placed in charge of Jerusalem, was also King Herod, therefore, and he was, as well, the second right-hand man to Caesar Augustus, Marcus Agrippa:

 

Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man

 

(4) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man

 

In the standard history, now Herod, now Marcus Agrippa, will die before Augustus.

However, in my revised history, Augustus, as Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, pre-deceased Herod/Marcus Agrippa – who, as said, was also the Philip who outlived his revered king, Antiochus.

 

A re-setting such as this proposed one will obviously impact considerably upon the Lucan scenario involving Caesar Augustus, King Herod, and the Birth of Jesus Christ.

 

It may perhaps even enable for a Maccabean identification of the elusive Quirinius.

 

And although this revised scenario may add another layer to the cake - the Maccabean era now collapsed into the Lucan scenario - it ought, in the long run, to provide a more pleasingly structured dessert. 

 

Indeed, the parallels start rolling in.

 

We have just read of the controlling edict to the kingdom issued by king Antiochus, by Caesar Augustus.

And of a wicked barbarian in charge of Jerusalem.

 

Now, further, I would suggest, as Joseph and Mary went, according to the census edict, to Joseph’s home town of Bethlehem (Luke 2:3-5), so, too, did the Maccabean family of Mattathias recently move from Jerusalem to their ancestral home of Modein (cf. I Maccabees 2:1; 13:25).

This important town has, unfortunately, been quite wrongly located:

 

Must look elsewhere for Maccabee town, Modein

 

(5) Must look elsewhere for Maccabee town, Modein

 

That this was no peaceful time for the kingdom of Judea is apparent from the legends about Judas the Galilean and his revolt at the time of king Herod and his son, Archelaus. See e.g.  my article:

 

Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus

 

(4) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus

 

P. G. Cavalcanti has concluded somewhat similarly in his article:

 

Luke’s Census Solution: Judas the Galilean and Judas ben Hezekiah as a Single Seven-Year Revolt

 

(4) Luke's Census Solution: Judas the Galilean and Judas ben Hezekiah as a Single Seven-Year Revolt

 

though without his having recognised that the revolt of Judas the Galilean (and his colleague, Matthias) was the very same revolt as that of Judas Maccabeus (triggered by his father, Mattathias) - that the Maccabean age occurred, partially, during the Infancy of Jesus Christ.

Whereas the Maccabean family found itself right in the wrong place at the wrong time, the Holy Family had providentially escaped to Egypt for the worst of it.

 

They escaped King Herod’s Slaughter of the Innocents (Matthew 2:16-18), a murderous horror which was perfectly in keeping with the infanticidal régime of king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (I Maccabees 1:59-61):

 

On the twenty-fifth day of the month they offered sacrifice on the altar that was on top of the altar of burnt offering. According to the decree, they put to death the women who had their children circumcised and their families and those who circumcised them, and they hung the infants from their mothers’ necks.

 

And Mattathias had lamented before his death (1 Maccabees 2:7-9):

 

‘Alas! Why was I born to see this,
    the ruin of my people, the ruin of the holy city?

The people sat idle there when it was given over to the enemy,
    the sanctuary given over to strangers.
Her Temple has become like a person without honor;

her glorious vessels have been carried into exile.
Her infants have been killed in her streets,
    her youths by the sword of the foe’.

 

All of a sudden our seemingly over-layered cake has begun to look far more tasty.

 

A tyrannical emperor, who has appointed a barbaric governor to Jerusalem, orders a controlling edict for his entire kingdom, and people must return to their ancestral homes for it. Babies are slaughtered, a revolt has erupted.

 

Also, in the books of Maccabees, as in the Infancy accounts of Luke and Matthew, there is abundant angelic activity at the time, as well as signs and portents in the heavens.

 

2 Maccabees 5:1-4:

 

About this time Antiochus made his second invasion of Egypt. And it happened that over all the city, for almost forty days, there appeared golden-clad horsemen charging through the air, in companies fully armed with lances and drawn swords— troops of horsemen drawn up, attacks and counterattacks made on this side and on that, brandishing of shields, massing of spears, hurling of missiles, the flash of golden trappings, and armor of all sorts. Therefore all men prayed that the apparition might prove to have been a good omen.

 

Furthermore – and this is most telling, and could be decisive – there is a revolutionary Judas in both the Maccabean and the Lucan (Acts) layers, and he, in the latter case, coincides with a census.

 

And he coincides in time with the Governor of Syria, Quirinius. 

 

Judas the Galilean

 

Apart from chronological factors and the Roman era location of Judas the Galilean, as opposed to Judas Maccabeus at the time of the (“earlier”) Greek Seleucid invasion – matters with which I have dealt above – Galilee would not be considered to have been from where the Maccabean family had originated.

 

Their ancestral home of Modein has today been fixed rather confidently - and it is quite far from Galilee (about 135 km) - at Modiin-Maccabim-Reut:

Modiin-Maccabim-Reut - Nefesh B'Nefesh

“Strategically located in the center of Israel between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Modi’in offers access to most of Israel quickly and conveniently”. 

 

 

This is demonstrably incorrect - see my “Must look elsewhere for Maccabee town, Modein” above. The Maccabean family could well have hailed from Galilee.

 

If the great Judas Maccabeus was the same as Judas the Galilean, which I believe, then Rabbi Gamaliel does him a great disservice in Acts 5:37: “…  Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered”.

 

That’s it!

 

This slight moved me to write:

 

Judas the Galilean: What was Gamaliel thinking?

 

(3) Judas the Galilean: What was Gamaliel thinking?

 

Quirinius Governor of Syria

 

We know that Luke’s Quirinius was a genuine historical character:

Quirinius: An Archaeological Biography – Bible Archaeology Report

“His position as the Governor (Legate) of Syria at this time is confirmed by the discovery of a tombstone in Beirut, known popularly as the Q. Aemilius Secundus inscription.  In it, Quirinius is called the “legato Augusti Caesaris Syriae.” …. So we know that Quirinius was the Governor (Legate) of Syria … and it would appear he oversaw a census in conjunction with taxing the population. …”.

 

And now it should be quite easy to find him in our ‘parallel universe’ of the Maccabees as the Governor of Syria right at the beginning of the revolt of Judas (the Galilean).

He is “Apollonius, the son of Menestheus and governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia”.

 

For an early account of the apparently malicious Apollonius, before king Antiochus had turned fully rogue, we go firstly to 2 Maccabees 4:4-6:

 

Onias recognized that the rivalry was serious and that Apollonius, the son of Menestheus and governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia, was intensifying the malice of Simon. So he betook himself to the king, not accusing his fellow citizens but having in view the welfare, both public and private, of all the people. For he saw that without the king’s attention public affairs could not again reach a peaceful settlement, and that Simon would not stop his folly.

 

Next, to vv. 21-22:

 

When Apollonius the son of Menestheus was sent to Egypt for the coronation of Philometor as king, Antiochus learned that Philometor had become hostile to his government, and he took measures for his own security. Therefore upon arriving at Joppa he proceeded to Jerusalem. He was welcomed magnificently by Jason and the city, and ushered in with a blaze of torches and with shouts. Then he marched into Phoenicia.

 

But Judas Maccabeus, early, would bring the career of this Apollonius (my Quirinius) to a shuddering halt (I Maccabees 3:10-12):

 

 Then Apollonius gathered together nations and a large force from Samaria to fight against Israel. When Judas learned of it, he went out to meet him, and he defeated and killed him. Many were wounded and fell, and the rest fled. Then they seized their spoils, and Judas took the sword of Apollonius and used it in battle the rest of his life.

 

 

Julius Caesar a fictitious composite

 

 

“The main body of Livy’s history, through book 45,

mentions neither the name nor the character of Julius Caesar”.

Lleland Liam Maxwell

  

We read at: Livy Only Proves that Julius Caesar is Fake

 

Livy Only Proves that Julius Caesar is Fake

 

Oct 05, 2024

 

Last week I published a thorough historiography of “Julius” Caesar, tracing the literary evolution of the title Caesar, the name Gaius, and the name Julius back through the ancient sources that shape their characters. One of the most surprising and fruitful discoveries came from Livy, a Latin author who is one of the founders of Roman history. Livy offers my case in point, showing that the character of Julius Caesar is partly ripped off of lesser characters named Gaius Julius.

 

The main body of Livy’s history, through book 45, mentions neither the name nor the character of Julius Caesar. The character of the “great” Caesar eventually shows up in a series of very brief fragments, comprising “books” 46-140, beginning in book 103. Even in these sorry fragments, Livy does not refer to Julius Caesar, only to Gaius Caesar.

 

Yet Livy does mention two different individuals named Gaius Julius who lived in two different time periods long before Caesar, and the biographical details of both were later integrated into the official biography of Gaius Julius Caesar.

 

Livy writes “In the three hundred and first year after Rome was built, the form of the government was a second time changed” (5th century BC). A dead body was found in the house of a patrician named Publius Sestius, causing a scandal. Then a decemvir named Gaius Julius “appointed a day of trial for Sestius, and appeared before the people as prosecutor (in a matter) of which he was legally a judge; and relinquished his right [to judge]” (Livy 3.33). The fate of Publius Sestius in Livy is unclear.

 

Some 400 years after Livy’s “Gaius Julius” declined to judge Publius Sestius, Julius Caesar also pardoned a Publius Sestius. This second Sestius was a friend and ally of Cicero who fought for Pompey, but after Pompey’s defeat, Caesar pardoned him. Thus we see not only the proper names from Livy, but also the themes of judgment and pardon, have been mashed together in the biography of Caesar.

 

There is a second example of this, because Livy mentions another Gaius Julius in one of the first fragments. This text describes the events of 143 BC, when “Gaius Julius, a senator, writes the history of Rome in the Greek language” (Livy 53). Julius Caesar also became known as a Roman historian with his “memoir” of the Gallic wars. Thus two different characterizations of two Gaius Juliuses from two time periods in Livy were rolled into the eventual character of Gaius Julius Caesar.

 

For more on the subject of Julius Caesar, and Rome, see e.g. my (Damien Mackey’s) articles:

 

Julius Caesar legends borrowed, in part, from life of Jesus Christ

 

(2) Julius Caesar legends borrowed, in part, from life of Jesus Christ

 

Horrible Histories. Retracting Romans

 

(2) Horrible Histories. Retracting Romans

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

(2) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

(2) Rome surprisingly minimal in Bible

 

 

 

 

 

Righteous priest Simeon a witness to when Child Jesus brought to Temple

 

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

“For now in my old age, people—including the evangelist St. Luke—describe me

as “righteous and devout” (v. 25)—a man who lived a life that was oriented to God and in accordance with the will of God, committed, in other words, to hearing 

and obeying the word of the Lord”.

 

 

https://emmausinstitute.net/now-dismiss-nunc-dimittis-your-servant-in-peace-o-lord/

Adapted from “Biblical Meditations for a Blessed Advent: The Nativity Hymns in Luke’s Gospel”

 

Presented by The Emmaus Institute for Biblical Studies Faculty
December 7, 2019

~~~

Candlemas, 2021

 

Now Dismiss [Nunc dimittis] Your Servant in Peace, O LORD

 

Greetings, Good Friends. Please allow me to introduce myself.

 

My name is Šimʿôn. You probably know me as Simeon, and you can read the story I am about to tell you in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 2, verses 22-35.

 

Like my namesake, Simeon in the Old Testament, my name derives from šāmaʿ, meaning “to hear.” His parents, Jacob and Leah, named him that because the LORD heard his mother’s affliction and rewarded her with the gift of a son (Gen 29:33). In my case, I have always wondered if my parents might have named me Šimʿôn in hopes that I would grow up to be a man who hears the voice of the Lord. If so, their hopes and aspirations for me were realized.

 

For now in my old age, people—including the evangelist St. Luke—describe me as “righteous and devout” (v. 25)—a man who lived a life that was oriented to God and in accordance with the will of God, committed, in other words, to hearing and obeying the word of the Lord. In fact, because I listened so closely to what God had said through his prophet Isaiah, I was among the faithful who were “looking for the consolation of Israel” (v. 25; cf. Isa 40:1; 49:13; 51:3; 61:1; 66:13)—waiting and longing for the coming of the Messiah to bring salvation and peace to my people and to the world. That was my consuming focus in life; everything else was secondary.

 

There’s one more thing you should know about me personally, and then I will stop talking about myself and get on with my story.

 

I do not say this presumptuously or boastfully, but I was a man deeply attuned to God’s presence—“the Holy Spirit was upon [me]” (v. 25), as he was earlier upon Mary (1:35). The Holy Spirit illumined my thoughts, guided my actions, and inspired my words. And like Mary before, I heard when the Spirit spoke, and I obeyed his voice.

 

And this is where my story begins to get interesting. For you see, “it had been revealed to [me] by the Holy Spirit that I should not see death before I had seen the Lord’s Christ” (v. 26), the promised Messiah, for whose coming I had longed and waited. Mind you, the Spirit did not say simply that I would not die before the Messiah had come, but that I would not “see death” before I had actually seen the Messiah! In case you missed it, that’s a lot of emphasis on seeing. You’ve probably heard it said that “seeing is believing.” For me, it was precisely the other way around: I had long believed in the Lord and in his Holy Word; and it was my believing that led to my seeing—in a more profound way than you might imagine. Let me explain.

 

As I was introducing myself a few moments ago, I failed to mention that I lived in Jerusalem, not far from the Temple. As you know, that was the place where God was especially present. One day the Holy Spirit directed me to go into the Temple. And so I did. Call it coincidence or call it Providence—I prefer the latter—it just so happened to be the very day when Jesus’ “parents” brought their infant to the Temple “to present him to the Lord . . . according to the custom of the law” (vv. 22, 27). Let me fill in a little of the background.

 

When Jesus was born to Mary, and Joseph her husband became his foster father, he was born to parents who not only complied with the law of the Lord concerning the rite of a mother’s purification after childbirth, but who actually exceeded its strict requirements. After all, the circumstances of Mary’s conception and Jesus’ birth had not rendered her ritually unclean, as it did under normal conditions of pregnancy and birth. Yet, she and her husband followed the legal regulations just the same, voluntarily, as a model of humility and to avoid scandalizing others. And so they brought to the Temple that day “a pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons,” as permitted by the law in the case of the poor (v. 24; cf. Lev 12).

 

(It’s important to note, parenthetically, that he who would one day minister to the poor “came by it naturally,” as we might say. He was born into poverty.)

 

There was a second reason for Joseph and Mary’s coming to the Temple that day—not only for purification, unnecessary as it was, but also for presentation—to hand over their newborn Son to the Lord, to offer him up completely in the service of God, his Father (v. 22). This too not only accorded with the law of the Lord, but exceeded what was stipulated there (cf. Exod 13). For rather than “redeeming” or “buying back” their Son, so to speak, by paying a small monetary offering to support the Levitical priests in their duties at the Temple—a provision entirely permissible by law—they had brought their Son to the Temple as an act of pure and complete devotion. Although Jesus would return to Nazareth with his parents (v. 39), he would remain wholly and permanently dedicated to God (cf. 1 Sam 2:35; Heb 2:17).

 

You’re probably getting the impression by now that I was not the only one “righteous and devout” and well-versed in God’s word. Jesus’ parents were carefully devoted to living in full accordance with whatever pleased the Lord, even surpassing the strict requirements of the law—all as an expression of their great love for and desire to please God. “Just the bare minimum” was not a category known to them. They loved the Lord their God with all their heart and with all their soul and with everything they had, including their newborn Son.

 

Returning then to my story, so there we were in the Temple—the five of us: Mary, Joseph, the infant Jesus, myself, and the Holy Spirit who was upon me and who had guided me to the Temple that day.

 

And now for the moment to which all of this has been building. It was there, in the Temple, that my eyes first fell on “the Lord’s Christ” (v. 26); and receiving him into my arms, knowing him to be the One for whom I had been longing, I offered my song of blessing to God:

 

“[Nunc dimittis] Now dismiss your servant in peace, O Lord,
      according to your word;
for my eyes have seen your salvation
      which you have prepared in the presence of all the peoples,
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel” (vv. 29-32).

 

I uttered these words because I knew that when my eyes fell upon the child Jesus, I had seen the salvation of the Lord—exactly as it had been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit, that I would not see death until I had seen the Lord’s Christ. I knew in that moment that the Child now cradled in my arms was not only a future Savior-Deliverer of my people, but the One who embodied salvation itself. To see him was to see salvation. Salvation, in other words, was not just an event or an experience; it was a Person (cf. Lk 3:4-6). And having seen salvation, nothing else mattered. I was prepared to depart in peace—the very peace about which the angels had sung: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased” (Lk 2:14). Humbly, I knew myself to be such a man.

 

There was more to the words I uttered in blessing to the Lord that day. In fact, every line in my song was pregnant with meaning drawn from the prophecies of Isaiah. My mention of peace, of salvation for all peoples, a light shining on the Gentiles and the glory of Israel—all of these lines and images were drawn from the pages of Isaiah over which I had pored (e.g., Isa 40:3-5; 42:5-6; 46:13; 49:6; 52:9-10; 56:1; 60:1).

 

True to my name, as I previously explained, I had heard the word of the Lord, the Scriptures; and it informed my understanding of the One whose coming I had long anticipated. I had seen the imprint of the Messiah in the words of God’s prophet.

So there we were in the Temple—the Holy Spirit upon me, the Child Jesus in my arms, his parents standing nearby. In that moment, it was clear that heaven had come to earth. What creation longed for was coming to fulfillment. The glorious purposes for which God had called Israel into existence as his covenant people had been realized in their bringing forth the Lord’s Messiah. God had heard the prayerful cries of his people, and light had come to dispel the darkness in which the nations had wandered. In the infant Jesus the glory of the Lord was at long last returning to the Temple in fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy (cf. Ezek 43).

 

It was a moment like no other—little wonder that Jesus’ father and mother “marveled at what was said about him” (v. 33) in the words of my blessing-song to the Lord.

 

This article will conclude with the remainder of Simeon’s wonderful ‘autobiography’.

 

But, now, I want to set the whole incident in a greatly revised historical context.

 

Tracing back the priest Simeon’s

exceptionally long life, and Anna

 

Whereas the Maccabean age - when the pious Jews fought against the Seleucid Greek invader, to protect the Temple in Jerusalem - is customarily dated to about two centuries before the Birth of Jesus Christ, I have collapsed this era, in part, right into the time of the Nativity.

 

The evil Seleucid persecutor, king Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, now becomes the Census emperor of Luke 2:1, “Caesar Augustus” (actually a Greek, not a Roman), who is also the Grecophile emperor, Hadrian:

 

Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

(2) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus

 

Now, all of a sudden, with Augustus Hadrian ruling during the Infancy of Jesus Christ, it becomes possible that some of the Maccabeans had actually seen – had certainly heard about – the Advent of the Christ Child.

 

And so I have suggested, for instance, that the widow with seven sons, traditionally known as Hannah (one version, at least), was none other than the aged prophetess, Anna, who had, with the priest Simeon, actually laid eyes on the baby Jesus:

 

Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom

 

(3) Hadrianic patterns of martyrdom

 

“Nameless in 4 Maccabees, the mother is dubbed … Hannah …

in the rabbinic tradition …. The tyrant in the rabbinic versions, however,

is not Antiochus Epiphanes but Hadrian:

“Hadrian came and seized upon a widow …”.”

 

Stephen D. Moore

 

 

If this be the case, then Anna (Hannah) must have been so greatly strengthened by having seen and proclaimed the Messiah, that she was able to face martyrdom, and also to urge her seven sons to do the same (Luke 2:36-38):

 

There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

 

Might not also our priest, Simeon, who was there in the Temple with Anna at the time of the Presentation, re-emerge in the tales of the Maccabees? Let us see.

 

The former High Priest, Jesus (Joshua)

 

Two themes will enable me to condense the long life of our NT priest, Simeon - both of these themes being rather singular.

 

-         The first will be the utterly singular fact of having been in a fire.

-         The second will be his reputation as a Father of the Jews.

 

It is not every day that someone is in the heart of a fire yet emerges therefrom unharmed.

That I believe to have been the situation with the young (i) Azariah of Daniel 3; with (ii) the high priest, Jesus (Joshua), “plucked out of the fire” (Zechariah 3:2); and with (iii) Jesus ben Sirach (Sirach 51).

 

Thus I have merged all three (i-iii) of these as one in my article:

 

High Priest, Jesus (Joshua), brand plucked out of the fire

 

(3) High Priest, Jesus (Joshua), brand plucked out of the fire

 

This means a dramatic shortening of the Chaldean era (Azariah); the Medo-Persian period (Jesus/Joshua); and the Hellenistic period (Jesus ben Sirach).

 

Now, the life of the long-lived Ezra (120 years, according to tradition), priest-scribe, also spanned the Chaldean to Medo-Persian eras, and we find him still publicly proclaiming the Torah even in Maccabean times.

For Ezra (Esdras) was the same as the Maccabean priest, Esdrias, and also Razis, with whom Ezra shares the epithet, “Father of the Jews”:

 

Ezra ‘Father of the Jews’ dying the death of Razis

 

(4) Ezra 'Father of the Jews' dying the death of Razis

 

He, too, as Razis will, like Hannah and her sons, die a most violent death.

Whereas Hannah’s persecutor was the king himself, Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’ (Hadrian), the persecutor of Razis was the king’s general, Nicanor.

 

In these articles I have put it all together as follows:

 

Ezra (Azariah) was son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah.

The high priest, Jesus, was son of Jehozadak, son of Seraiah.

Jesus (author of Sirach), was son of Eleazer, son of Sira[ch].

 

As Azariah, Ezra was in the Burning Fiery Furnace.

As the high priest, Jesus, he was “plucked out of the fire”.

And so, apparently, as Jesus ben Sirach, was he “in the heart of a fire”

(Sirach 51:1, 2, 4):

 

‘I will give thanks to you, Lord and King … for you have been protector and

support to me, and redeemed my body from destruction … from the stifling

heat which hemmed me in, from the heart of a fire which I had not kindled’.

 

From all of this we learn that Ezra had been the High Priest, and, most surprisingly, that he died violently under persecution from the Greeks.

 

Judas Maccabeus would later order the beheading of Nicanor (2 Maccabees 15:30).

 

Ok, so the great Ezra began as young Azariah in Babylonian Captivity, and later, in the Medo-Persian period, returned to officiate as High Priest when the Second Temple was completed.

As a wise and learned sage and scribe, he wrote the wisdom Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and fought and preached during the Maccabean wars.

 

But what has any of this to do with Luke’s priest, Simeon?

 

Well, chronologically, a connection of Ezra with Simeon has become possible, now, with my folding of the Maccabean era, when Ezra was still alive, with the Infancy period of Jesus Christ.

And, while we do not wish to multiply names – we already have Ezra (Azariah, Esdrias, Razis - good fits) and Jesus (Joshua, Jesus ben Sirach - good fits) – how does the name Simeon become relevant.

 

The name gets mixed into the pure sequence of Jesus ben Sirach’s genealogy, “Jesus, son of Eliezer, son of Sira,” where the name Simeon intrudes as the son of Jesus:

Ben Sira - Wikipedia

"Shimʽon, son of Yeshuaʽ, son of Elʽazar ben Siraʼ" (Hebrew: שמעון בן ישוע בן אלעזר בן סירא) …”.

 

If we combine Simeon here with Jesus, then this enables for our long-lived priest to be also Simeon, and, perhaps, even the Simeon of Luke 2.

 

Would it be pushing matters too far to say that the righteous Simeon of Luke was the famous Simeon (or Simon) the Just?

 

Now, finally, we can let old Simeon finish his story:

 

And so I blessed them as well, with an oracle directed specifically to Mary, his mother—a second stanza to my song. Unlike the first stanza, however, this one sounded its ominous notes in a minor key, casting a shadow over the Child’s future. For at the climax of his life, this baby, come of age, would reenter the Temple, this time for the purpose of passing judgment on it and declaring his own body as the new Temple. And shortly thereafter, on the Cross, he would offer that body to the Father in a final Temple sacrifice.

 

And so, the joy of stanza 1 turned to sorrow in stanza 2, as I warned the infant’s mother of the difficult path that lay ahead for both him and her:

 

Behold, this child is appointed for the fall and rising of many in Israel,
      and for a sign that is spoken against;
(and a sword will pierce through your own soul also),
      in order that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed (vv. 34-35).

 

Here, too, I drew on what I had read and heard from Isaiah, who prophesied that the Lord would exalt the lowly and bring down the proud (Isa 2:11, 17; cf. Lk 1:52-53), “as a stone of offense, and a rock of stumbling to . . . Israel” (Isa 8:14). Alongside the social upheaval the Messiah would bring, truly his Cross would be a “sign of contradiction”—a sign that works precisely against the mindset and methods of the world, that realizes its objective not through power over, but through power under, and accordingly is opposed, spoken against, contradicted. The Messiah will draw a line in the sand of Israel, causing a division between those who accept him and those who reject him, between those who take the side of God’s mission in the world and those who oppose it, between those who choose and those who refuse the gift of salvation. Such is the scandal of the Cross.

 

And offering a prophecy, with the Holy Spirit upon me, I warned Mary of what she might already have suspected, that suffering lay ahead for her as well—“a sword will pierce through your own soul also.” The Cross of radical contradiction against the Son would be directed against his mother as well, and it would cut to the heart. And like her Son, who came to his own and his own received him not (Jn 1:11), and who agonized over their refusal to be gathered together, united in him (Lk 13:34-35).

 

If it seems like a strange and unlikely way to “bless” Jesus’ parents, it would be precisely by means of the sword of pain and anguish, in which Jesus’ mother participated with her Son, that the inmost thoughts of many hearts would be exposed—some accepting, others rejecting. Jesus must suffer, and with him Our Lady of Sorrows, in order that others might see themselves in the light of infinite love and open their hearts to the salvation that comes by way of the Cross.