Two Jewish High Priests: Biblical Error or Historical Fact?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 вер 2024
- Both John and Luke indicate that there were two Jewish High Priests during the time of Jesus. Isn't this a Bible error? The Law of Moses specified only one high priest at a time. However, by examining the historical context, we see that this supposed problem is easily resolved.
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.c...
It always amazes me that skeptics living 1 to 2 thousand years after the fact think that they know more about being a first century Jew living in the Holy Land than a first century Jew living in the Holy Land.
Don't underestimate the PhD and the Bri'ish accent, clearly they are more important than historical context!
So true, the arrogance gets ridiculous. Man I'm sick of the Bart Ehrmans of the world. It's so lame.
Well, they weren't wrong. I don't actually hear an accusation being leveled. They just said that according to the bible the high priest held the office their entire life, TRUE but Roman's had different ideas so the leaders of the synagogue just pretended outwardly to work for the Roman's or Mayne actually too sometimes.
I love how a 1st century Jewish historian is countering 19th-21st century claims trying to disprove Christianity. God moves in mysterious ways! Blessings to you and your wonderful ministry. Keep up the good work!
What's up with this "guilty until proven innocent" mentality among Bible scholars?
Even after 2,000 years, they're still trying to catch the Lord in his words. Mat22:15 is a prescient statement:
Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his talk.
&
And they sent certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. Mrk12:13
@@AnHebrewChild i never really thought about it that way
It's spiritual warfare. They are pawns of Satan.
Real.
As there have been two popes, two dalai lamas etc. At a given times.
No, no there haven't. It's like saying there have been two presidents at once because they call Bush, Obama, not Trump, and Joe Bidden, Mr. President but only one actually is at the time. Yes, the replacement Dalai Llama could be alive when another is towards the end but they never both have power.
@chuckdeuces911 It's maybe more like if some people don't think Biden legitimately won and Trump is the true president. There's a view that the old pope was 'forced' to advocate as the Bishop of Rome for political agenda reasons, but remains the true Pope in the eyes of God.
China seek to determine the next Dalai Lama, while the current one has said their may be numerous simultaneously for the next incarnation, or none at all...
Exactly - and for the same reason as with Anna’s and Caiphas (interference by politics)
In the middle ages we had three popes at one time.
@@chuckdeuces911 How could there be the next reincarnation of Dalai-Lama already alive when the previous one is not yet dead?
Another great video. It’s amazing how confident people (skeptics) can be about how exact functions were carried out 2000 years ago in a city that was completely leveled by the Romans in 70AD.
It’s also a good example of why something established in the Old Testament - hundreds of years prior - were altered by the Jews and the Romans by the time of the New Testament. Just because the high priest position is “for life” in the Old Testament period does not mean it would be the case in the New Testament period.
Jews are known for rejecting the Old testament as much as the New testament
There’s how things are supposed to work and then there’s politics. Some things change but some things stay the same.
That's a good qoute.
Did you come up with that?
@@Servo_M I wouldn’t be surprised if I read it somewhere.
It’s like how sometimes there is a retired monarch along side the actual monarch. The retired monarch is still treated with the same respect as the reigning monarch. Except, in this case, the other high priest is a deposed former high priest. In a similar situation to what happened after Nebuchadnezzar deposed the king of Judah and replaced him with what Neb thought would be a loyal vassal king. You got the vassal king and the exilarch.
Christ died for our sins, was buried, and rose again the third day. I'm trusting in nothing but the blood of Jesus to pay for my sins to keep me out of hell. Just like accepting a plea bargain in court. Thank you LORD!
You wouldn’t even have so called “sins” if your deity wasn’t so stupid/incompetent enough to put a magical tree with magic fruit in a magical garden with a magical talking snake. And then blaming all of humanity for the “crimes” of a mud man and his rib wife eating said magic fruit. Literally all the deity had to do was forgive them in the beginning instead of waiting thousands of years and requiring a blood magic sacrifice of his own son (who is apparently also himself???) to “forgive” humanity. (Which he apparently didn’t do because hell still exists and we still go there despite Jesus “sacrifice” to himself.) I still don’t understand how YOU Christian’s still believe this nonsense about blood magic. 🤣👉🩸🌈
“But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father who is in secret; and thy Father who seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
Matthew 6:6
This doesn’t mean we can’t publicly praise the Lord.
@@justanotherbaptistjew5659 That is true, but I feel this comment isn’t really that relevant to the topic explored in the video.
It could simply be a misunderstanding, and if so I apologize. At the same time, I’m weary about comments that seem to be almost copied and pasted from video to video. It personally seems disingenuous to me.
@@roamandread1451 I love this, people don't say this enough. It seems like people declare this on UA-cam so they can claim someday that they said it. It's one of the most annoying things I read on UA-cam. I dislike this more than someone who's just says their peace whether it's wrong or not.
I think here, is that Annas was the de facto high priest while Caiaphas is the actual high priest.
So a de facto high priest and the actual high priest may work in the time of Jesus.
Wait this is unlisted…. Am I a hacker?
Yes
We've infiltrated the mainframe
Of course
Welcome to the dark web!
The content of your videos are so well-researched, and I appreciate being able to watch them and being filled in on historical debates that I didn't even know about before! They help me to become a more informed and better Christian. Thank you!
According to the Mosaic Law, the office of high priest was for life, but the Romans didn't about such the said legal code. There is supposed to be one pope at a time, but there was a time when there were three of them in office at once.
Love how you are digging up all these old scholars who refute the modern skeptics.
This view count is criminally low.
it's not published yet
@@TestifyApologetics aha, the old playlist loophole… I accidentally got early access again.
Good video! Americans still call Barack Obama, "President Obama," even though he is no longer the current presiding US President. Same goes for other past presidents.
For those who wish to do further digging into the question, John Gill's commentary on Luk3:2 is a great read. Gill includes other possibilities such as include Talmudic citations, for example,
GILL: It seems most likely therefore, that [Annas] was the "Sagan" of the priests, of which office mention is frequently made, in the Jewish writings; *_f._* yea, we often read of Chanina, or Chananiah, or Ananias, perhaps the same with this Annas, who is called,סגן כהנים, "the Sagan of the priests." *_g._* This officer was not a deputy high priest, or one that was substituted to officiate occasionally, in the room of the high priest, when any thing hindered him, or rendered him unfit for his office; as on the day of atonement, if the high priest contracted some pollution, they substituted another to minister. *_h._* This was not the "Sagan", but another priest; and even such an one was called an 'high priest,' as appears from the following story: *_i._*
"It happened to Simeon ben Camhith (a predecessor of Caiaphas), that he went out to speak with the king, on the evening of the day of atonement, and the spittle was scattered from his mouth, upon his garments, and he was unclean; and his brother Judah went in, and ministered in his stead in the high priesthood... (etc, etc)"
--
*f.* Targum in 2 Kings xxiii. 4. & xxv. 18. & in Jer. xx. 1. 3. & xxix. 26, & lii. 24.
*g.* Mishnah. Shekalim, c. 6. sect. 1. T. Babylonian T. Yoma, fol. 8. 1. Juchasin, fol. 57. 1
*h.* Mishnah. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 1.
*i.* Talmud. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 38. 4. Megilla, fol. 72. 1. Horayot, fol. 47. 4. Talmud. Bab. Yoma, fol. 47. 1. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 180. 3.
Thanks!
Thank you 🙏
2:41 I think "high priest that year" refers to the liturgic functions of high priesthood.
That would explain if Zacharias was performing the High Priest role of Yom Kippur, even if (as I recall) he was not listed as a (ruling) high priest in Josephus.
This is a really cool video. I had never heard of either the objection nor the response before. I'm glad to see it!
I've also seen folks saying that Luke got Herod wrong in Acts, specifically because Agrippa, the grandson of one of the Herods, was reigning at the time. This has struck me as an odd objection and one that I think would be reasonable to address. The book I remember it from was Miller's (I think) text on Second Temple Judaism.
Robert Tailor would also say "There's never but 1 pope."
This is no different than how from 2013 to 2022 there were 2 Popes. Yes, after the abduction of Benedict XVI, Francis was the Pope and had all papal authority. However, it was still proper to refer to Benedict XVI by his papal name and as "Holy Father" until his death
Historical fact. Caiaphas was the high priest according to the law of Moses but the Romans imposed Annas so there were effectively two high priests operating together during the time of the Messiah.
Simonline🏴🤔🇮🇱
Great video as always
The elder priest his father was corrupt and against God, they younger priest the son, is whom Jesus refers to because they are faithful to the lord.
Historically informative. The Bible is accurate in everything we can check so far.
Please make a video about the authenticity of the book of Daniel
When I clicked on this video, I thought it was about the time of David, when there very clearly were two high priests, Abiathar and Zadok.
The record in Acts 23:1-5 where Paul say "I did not know he (speaking of Ananias) was the high priest" has a better (I believe) explanation. At the Mount of Transfiguration the Father ordains Jesus as the High Priest and Paul had to have come to this realization some time after his conversion. So, his comment in Acts 23 should have the emphasis "I did not know HE was the High Priest.." meaning that the Lord has taken the role for Himself and therefore Ananias' claim to it is superfluous.
yep I talk about that in that other video
@@TestifyApologetics I will look for it. I am grateful for your research.
Interesting idea. But can you help me out with this passage from Acts22?
And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished.
- Saul / Paul
@@AnHebrewChild Acts 22 is Paul's recounting his "conversion" and apparently is referring to the source of his authority namely the Hebrew high priest. In Acts 23 the accusation was "are you reviling God's high priest?" My take is that Paul was correcting the questioner by calling into account that Ananias was not "God's High Priest" as Paul knew the Lord Jesus occupied that role. Paul knew full well the position Ananias occupied for the religious hierarchy. At least that is my take..
@@jgrahamiii7749 in other words, you're suggesting that when Paul refers to the High priest in Acts 22 he does so, as it were, with "air quotes"? He's using the term merely as a convenient identifier? Something like that?
Loving this series!
Gotta appreciate how majestic John is in this drawing
Thanks!
Without the benefit of research, my guess was going to be that there had been a high priest, and then an equally qualified man at the ready in case of sudden uncleanness, so the work could cary on.
I'm glad I know now it was just the Romans setting up "high priests" of their own choosing, like that one OT king of Israel, whose name I forget off hand but who was definitely not like his father David.
It wasn't even rare to have two high priests. Obvious example was Zadok and Abiathar during the time of David.
I wonder if the high priests had ever made kitchen sink installation tutorials. Maybe that would've made their positions much more stable.
Love it. keep up the good work brother
Always great content!
Annas kept his high priest clout after going behind closed doors, like the mob boss uncle to Caiaphas, who ran the laundromat for the Romans.
Again my brother. Your videos are not showing up! What's wrong with youtube?
It's not public yet you just found the not so secret backdoor.
@@TestifyApologetics aaa okay 😂 God bless you my brother
1:31 Did he forget the time there were four Popes? When Rome makes the rules, anything is possible.
Christ is King
Thank you
If you study judaism in some rare cases there would be two high priests. In 1 century judaism I believe it was john the baptist and caiphas
John the Baptist is an aaronite but he is not a high priest
@@negativedawahilarious how come? His dad was a high priest?
Historical fact for sure!
Good one!
I agree. There would never be more than one high priest, just like there has never been more than one pope at a time… oh wait.
Since the Torah indicated the role was High Priest for life, it's highly likely the dismissed High Priests were still considered to have the title. Pope Benedict XVI retained title as 'pope emeritus', so there were two popes.
I'm interested to know if there is ANY apparent contradiction that is unsolved or troublesome. I've never found one.
This is sort of a lame attempt to strawman a strawman. The context of which the 19th century scholar is not completely clear although you say he's trying to be slick. Was he wrong? No, he wasn't wrong that's why the story tells of two high priests. The elder was the
high priest and the other was in name only per Roman dictate. Which is obvious when they talk about him being the father in law. I've never even understood this in any other way. Good production though.