Jesus the Levite

Michael Adi Nachman

Mowinckel I and II

1

Jesus the Levite

Jesus the Levite“Blessed is he who comes in the name Yahuah”

Copyright 2013 by Michael Adi Nachman

All rights reserved.No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage, retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

ISBN 978-1-304-18743-7

2

Jesus the LeviteContents

PageOne Introduction 5TwoA Sources 7B Literature 8

Three MAIN DISCUSSIONEvidence from fathers houses of the Levite

A Beit Hanan ben Sethi 10B Beit Onias/Honi/Yahuchanan 11C Beit Boethus 14D The Lord Whom Ye Seek Will Come to His Temple 15E Theophilus the High Priest and Joanna his Granddaughter 17F A Great Company of Priests:

John the high Priest or Theophilus the High Priest 21G John the Priest 23H The Statement of Polycrates 27

FourEvidences from the use of the Memorial nameA Baptism and the Memorial Yahuah/Iao 30B John the Baptist's Baptism 31C Recieveing the Name 33D Priests and Baptism? 34E Calling on the name Yahuah 36F The Cross and the Memorial 37

Five Conclusion 38

3

Jesus the Levite

One Introduction

This paper presents the thesis that much evidence in the New Testament (NT) indicates that Jesus of Nazareth was not just a son of David but also a son of Aaron. We can understand the events and history of the NT and the early Church better if we focus on Jesus as son of Aaron son of Levi. To do this we look at the father's houses that is family connections as an important part of calling and vocation in first century Israel. The unit of the father's house is one of the key units Yahuah/Iao God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob structures his work and community around (Gen 12:1-3; 1 Chr. 25). If we focus on the father's houses, we can see the connections in the tradition of the early Church much more clearly. The NT shows that there was a competition between beit(house) Yeshua and beit Herod and beit Annas/Hanan especially over Yahuah's temple. The house of Annas (including the son in law Caiaphas) had control of the temple during the entire ministry of Jesus and the first seven years of the Church.

4

However John the Baptist and Jesus had connections to another line of priests through Mary's great grandfather Levi, Matthat ben Levi and Eli ben Matthat and Mary(Matt 1 Tabor 2006)1. This line also related to Zechariah from the the course of Abijah, John the Baptist represents Ithamar ben Aaron as opposed to Eleazar ben Aaron2 who produced Tzadok and thus the Tzadukkim who have produced a number of clans, the sons of Zadok at Qumran, the Oniads and Boethusians(bene Hezir) in Egypt and beit Hanan and beit Phabi in Jerusalem(Schurer 1890; Eisenman 2006)3. Zecharias prophesied the ministry of his son as prophet in the wilderness preparing the way for the horn of salvation from the house of David, the coming of Yahuah. He would give knowledge of salvation through the forgivness of sins(Lk. 1:68-79). The coming of John/Ioannes/Yahuchanan the son of priest Zecharias challenged the beit Hanan hierachy but more than this the coming of Jesus/Yeshua/Yahushua of mixed Davidic and Levite ancestry(Mt. 1, Lk, 3, Tabor 2006). He was accused of planning to destroy the temple the controllers of which were from beit Hanan(Mt. 26:61, Mk 14:58). In fact from the beginning the NT the internal evidence indicates he had come to purify the sons of Levi, that is to continue the work of John the Baptist (Mk. 1:2; Mal 3:1, Mt. 11:10, Lk. 7:27). He challenged the function and desecration of the temple (Jn. 2:15ff; Mt. 21:12, 23:16, 21), and envisioned the temple fulfilling it's true function as Yahuah's house(Mt. 21:13; Is. 56:7). He did not come in the role of a Davidic warrior but rather as a Levitic teacher(Mal 2, Deu 17).

Questions regarding the identity of the Son of Man (bar enosh) and identity of the Messiah were raised in the NT texts and left for men to ponder(Mt. 22:44; 26:64; Mk 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Lk 20:42,43; 1 Cor 15:25). So among some circles the Messiah was understood to be coming from the house of David as son of David promised by Yahuah to David through the prophet Nathan (2 Sam 7; 1 Chr. 17; Mt.1:1; Mk 1:20; Mt. 9:27; Mt. 12:2; Mt 15:22; Mt 20:31; Mt. 22:42; Mk. 12:35) but Jesus and the NT although accepting this designation(Mk. 46-52; Mt 20:30) appeared to be filling the phrase with a spiritual content and challenging the way the scribes (Mr. 12:35)and Pharisees (Mt. 22:42) related the term to the Messiah. Thus 1 If 'Tabor's argument that the Matthew names are always priestly names then Jesus also had some of Aaron's blood in his

legal father Joseph whose grandfather was a Mattahn(Matt. 1:15)2 This from 1 Chronicles 24 where the selection of the courses took one from Eleazar then one from Ithamar. Abijah is the

eight course. Luke seems to be presupposing that the system was still in place as represented by the Chronicler.3 A History of the Jewish People in the time of Jesus Christ (Vol II) p.31

5

he asked the Pharisees: “What think ye of the Messiah? Whose son is he?”(Matt 26:64), and he questioned the scribes (Mk 12:35-36). At that time the Pharisees were headed up by Beit Hillel whose head was Gamaliel who was understood to be from the house of David(Nachman 2012). Rabbis and Scholars have often struggled with the question Jesus posited. Some scholars understood Jesus was referring to his dual nature as Son of David and Son of God (Ps 2.7-8; 2 Sam 7; 1 Chr. 17); but it could also be a reference to his family connection to the sons of Aaron, this idea of Messiah of Aaron is reflected by the Damascus covenanters of Qumran who were were expecting a Messiah son of Aaron who is the son of Levi. Jesus who approved the ministry of Yahuchanan the baptist could well have been challenging the perceptions of the Pharisees and the Scribes. Other places in the NT where a teaching prophetic Messiah is in focus rather than a Davidic warrior Messiah include where Jesus asks his disciples: “Who do men say I the son of Man am?” The list of answers does not include son of David. Indeed in Matthew, the first of the gospel according to early Church tradition(Wenham 1992), the order in the canon and textual witnesses, the answers given are John the baptist (ben Levi), Elijah (in Jewish traditon ben Levi), Jeremiah (ben Levi) or one of the prophets (usually associated with benei leviim-1 Chr. 25; 2 Kg. 23:2 with 2 Chr. 34:30). In the eyes of the people then Jesus was wholly connected to the sons of Levi the teachers of Israel (Mt.. 16). The fact that when Herod Antipas heard about Jesus he understood he could be John the Baptist raised from the dead is another indicator that Jesus was doing a levitical Johannine type ministry redeeming Israel of their sins. The Levites were to be the teachers of Israel(Mal. 2:5-9). Jesus became the teacher of the teachers of Israel. He instructed them for example in regard to priorities in Yahuah's service directed their learning focus “Go and learn what this means: I desire mercy not sacrifice”. This was the same issue which was perplexing Johanan Ben Zakkai a first century son of Levi who was also a Pharisee(M. Yad; M. Aboth).He guided them regarding what Yahuah required of them (Matt 23:23). He acted to purify the sons of Levi through his correcting their attitudes and wrong teachings. So he said to some Saducees “You are wrong because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God”. In some circles of tradition relating to first century Israel the pronunciation of the name of Yahuah was exclusively a priestly provenance(M. Sotah 7:6, Toldot Yeshu; Nachman 2012:1). But the NT and Jewish traditon indicate Jesus'

6

connection and use of the name(Toldot Yeshu; Mt. 21:9, 15;23:39 Mk. 11:9; Lk:13:35; 19:38Jn. 12: Jn. 17:6,11,26; Pistis Sophia). The contrast between his attitude to Caiaphas the son of Aaron and Herod Antipas is instructive. To Caiaphas the son of Levi Jesus gave answer but Herod Antipas was ignored. Jesus seems to have modeled his identity and ministry on Elijah and Elisha (Lk. 4). These were men of God and nabiim(prophets) who lived on the gifts and generosity of people much like the Levites(1 Kg 17;2 Kg. 5). Elijah was an expert in sacrifice(1 Kg. 18) and his head disciple and successor was Elisha(2 Kg. 2). Like Jesus Elisha was a man of peace(2 Kg. 6), and succeeded Elijah at the river Jordan (2 Kg. 2) much as Jesus succeeded John the Baptist at the river Jordan(Mt. 3). .

Two

A Sources

Our main sources are the writings of the priest Pharisee Josephus, Wars and Antiquities, Life and Against Appion.The Dead Sea Srcolls and the Apocrypha especially Maccabees. The writings of Luke the Physician, Luke and Acts, and the Johannine writings, the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John and the Apocalypse of the servant of Jesus Christ Ioanne (John). The gospel attributed to Mathew Levi from the tribe of Levi, and Mark. The Epistles of Paul, Peter, James and Jude. The whole Tanakh but especially Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus and 1 Chronicles. The Mishna and especially tractates, Yoma, Tamid, Middot, Berakoth and Sota. The history of the Church by Eusebius and especially the letter of Polycrates which he cites.

B Literature

7

The subject of Jesus and his place in the first century Jewish community has of course seen many many studies. The attitude of some Jews are represented by the pagan Celsus and Toldot Yeshu. These represent him as a sorcerer and lead to the conclusions seen in Smith's Jesus the Magician. This line of thought is schewed by its focus on the outsiders and the opponents of Jesus as his evangelistic movement.The value of this perspective is that they take Jesus reputation as a healer and miracle worker seriously. This contrasts radically with the various so called quests for the historical Jesus, a Jesus without signs, wonders and miracles. These three quests took up the better part of the late nineteenth and the twentieth century. They came under severe criticism from various scholars.

On the whole they have not focused on Jesus the Levite. However studies that have included a focus on Jesus the Jew, NT and include the 19th century work of Geiger. Geiger saw in Jesus a Pharisee. Heschel (1998) in her Geiger and the Jewish Jesus cites Geiger describing Jesus

He was a Jew, a Pharisean Jew with Galilean colouring- a man who shared the hopes of his time and who believed that these hopes were fulfilled in him. He did not utter a new thought, nor did he break down the barriers of his nationality. When a foreign woman came to him with a request to heal her, he said " It is not proper to take the childrens bread and throw it before the dogs" (Heschel 1998 p. 149)

Although Geiger understood Jesus as Pharisee he saw that the NT had much influence of Saducean or at least Levitixcal thinking in it. For him this occurred because many of the priests were converted to the faith(Heschel 1998), they had no where else to go. Thus his explaination of the prevalent levitical concepts in the NT was that many priests were converted and used their terminology in developing the faith. In our study we are going back to one reason why it was the priests who were probably converted in large numbers before the Pharisees. Jesus was tied to them through family and ministry ties.

Three MAIN DISCUSSION

Evidence from fathers houses of the LevitesA Beit Hanan ben Sethi

8

If our hypothesis is correct we will see evidence of this in Jesus connection with the benei levi who ruled in the first century, his intention being to purify them. The connection of the house of Yeshua to the house of Annas/Hanan, a Saducee house may be seen in a disciple companion to Peter(Jn.8:15,Eus. 5:24), a Joanna/Yahuchana great grandaughter of Hanan(Lk. 8:3; 24:10) and granddaughter of Theophilos (Anderson 1996) and daughter of Yahuchanan (Barag et. Al 1986; Anderson 1996) and a multitude of priests being won to the cause(Ac. 6:7; Marshall 1980; Bruce 1971). Theophilus was a catechumen or associate of Luke the doctor(Lk. 1, Acts 1) and grandfather of Joanna/Yahuchanah (Anderson 1996) who was a follower of Yahushua and witness of the resurrection(Lk. 8:3;Lk. 24:10) along with Maria Magdalene. Joanna was a wealthy woman, healed of a sickness or delivered of demons(Lk 8:3) who gave offerings or maybe even tithes to the house of Yahushua(Lk.8:3). She was married into the house of Herod Antipas through Chuza4 Antipas' epitropos(Lk. 8:3). As Antipater, Antipas' grandfather had been rewarded by Caeser with Roman citizenship and the title epitropos “trusted adminstrator or governor” of all Judah(Simmons 2008, p.209; J.W. 1:199-200; Ant. 14:143) Chuza was epitropos for Antipas Herod in Galilee and Perea(Lk 8:3) and so Yahuhana connected the House of Yahushua to the house of Herod (Lk. 9:9; Marshall 1971) as well as that of Hanan. The House of Herod which appointed at least 20 of the 28 high priests from Herod the great onward(Davis 1944, Vermes 2005), rebuilt the temple Yahuah originally built by Zerubabel's generation, and had started the process of appointing high priests after their selection and had taken control of the high priests garments. They started building it in 20B.C. Under Herod the Great but it was not completed until 64A.D., under King Agrippa II(Merten 1978).

The house of Hanan got concerned about Yahushua and decided to kill him because of his powerful influence on the nation(Jn. 11:49-52). The house of Hanan percieved Yahushua the Nazarene as politically dangerous to the nation of Israel evidencing his influence among all the people including thus people in high places and throughout the nation(Jn. 11: 50; Jn 3; Mt. 27:57; Mk. 15:43; Lk. 23:51; Jn. 19:38) which would be enough to upset Pilate and thus Rome. The houses of Hanan and Shammai5(Pharisees 4 Since Chuza had so much responsibility in Herod's estates it is highly likely he was part of the house of Herod.5 During this period Gamaliel would like have been head of the house of Hillel which represented one house of the

Pharisees, the other may have been the house of Shammai, who are more likely to have been opposed to JesusJewish 9

probably connected to the priesthood)6contracted a disciple to act as double agent, Judah of Kerioth, then arrested the head of the house of Yahushua7, just after he completed his “high priestly prayer”(Jn. 17-18), on the orders of Hanan and Joseph Caiaphas/Yosef Kaiafa the high priest with the Pharisees that is beit(house of) Hillel under Gamaliel and one from beit Shammai(Nachman 20128) (Jn 18). Even as the house of Annas had concerns the House of Herod also had concerns. Herod the Great in order to secure his throne and place among the Israelites had married daughters of families of Levi. He married Marramme of beit Hasmon and Mariamme of beit Boethus in Egypt. It seems Anitpas's epitropos Chuza the Herodion followed this pratice of marrying into families of Levi by marrying into the house of Hanan, the most powerful Aaronic house in first century Jerusalem (Tabor 2006).

B Beit Onias/Honi/YahuchananHe had married Marrianmme daughter of Boethus. Boethus was a high priest in the temple of Yahuah in Leontopolis(Eisenman 2006; Feather 2006). This meant his line was related to Onias III/IV who had fled to Egypt around 177B.C. The line of the Zadokites had ruled the high priest from the time of the exile under Nebuachanezzar (588B.C. Faulstich 1990). In 312B.C., the era of the Greek Seleucid rule in Israel began.. However in 301 B.C the Ptolemies won the land(Nachman 2012, p.605). They ruled for about a century until the Battle of Banias between Ptolomy V Epiphanes and Antiochus III the Great(Bruce 1963 p.126-127; Nachman 2012 p. 605). Jerusalem came under the house of Antiochus IV in 198B.C.,(Bruce ibid, p. 127). This is exactly 390 years from the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar in 588B.C.(Faulstich 1990). The Damascus Document among the scrolls of the sons of Zadok points to a 390 year period connected to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. “In the era of wrath -390 years- at the time he handed them over to the power of Nebuchanezzar king of Babylon- he took care of them

tradition remembers this period as a period of great division where even the Torah became two torahs (Rosner F. (1995) Maimonides Introduction to his commentary on the Mishna, (London: Jason Aronson)

6 We see in M.Hagigah 2:2 that Menachem a priest was sitting opposite Hillel. He left the position of father of the court and was replaced by Shammai. Two traditions explain where Menchame may have gone. One say he went to work for Herod the Great and the other that he joined the Essenes.

7 Which is branch of the house of Joseph which came from the house of David king of Judah and Israel8 Nachman M.A, (2012) 'Elder Gamaliel the Honourable Saint' in The King is Here (Bloomington : Iuniverse) p. 76-102)

10

and caused to grow from Israel and from Aaron a root of planting to inherit his land”(Wise et.al. 1999 p.52; Damascus Document (DD) A1:5-7). Those he took care of are identified as the remnant. However DD adds another 20 years to 198 B.C. The remnant grope around like blind men for 20 years bringing the date to 1978/1977 B.C. The focus of the explanaion is on Israel and Aaron, Aaron points to the high priest. At that point the remnant are considered to have searched for Yahuah with all their heart and so a teacher of righteousness was raised up to them. Many scholars have speculated on the identity of the teacher of righteousness. Feather (2006) gives 7 candidates with the scholars who propose them, some of which work on a completely different chronology9. Our interest is not to identify the teacher of righteousness(moreh tzedek) but to point out the priestly connections whose descendants influence the purification work of the house of Yahushua in first century Israel. The first is the house of Zadok (Bruce 1963). from 350B.C. Until 174B.C. They produced the priests who ruled in Jerusalem Jaddua, Onias I, Simon I, Eleazar, Manasseh, Onias II, Simon II (228-198 B.C.) and Onias III (198-174B.C.), Jason. When Antiochus took over in 200 it was Simon II who was high priest. He and a council elders welcomed Anitochus IV to the city. Bruce (1963) considers that he may be the Simon the Just of Jewish tradition (p.128; M. Avoth 1:2), he would be the generation preceding Antigonus of Socho. He is succeeded by Onias III. Onias is the hellenized form of Honi(Bruce ibid p.129). Honi is a shortened from of Yahuchanan/Yochanan(Bruce ibid.). Simon II was son of Yahuchanan (Honi) and is praised in the contemporary book Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach. “ The leader of his brethren and the pride of his people was Simon the high priest , son of Onias” (Eccl. 50:1-2; Bruce ibid. p.128).10. This was all during the 20 years of groping described by DD. Sirach thanks Yahuah for choosing the Zadokites as priests “”Give thanks to him who chooses the sons of Zadok for priests”(Bruce ibid. p. 129; Ez. 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). A competing house to the house of Yahuchanan in that days was the house of Tobias(Bruce

9 These include Ezekiel, Onias IV, an unknown priest, Hycanus II, Yahushua, John the Baptist and James the brother of Jesus. See Feather R.(2006) The secret Initiation of Jesus at Qumran (London: Watkins) for details and bibliography.

10 The Wisdom of Sirach a document contemporary to Simon II also gives us some insight into succession in the house of Aaron. “Just as a covenant was established with David son of Jesse of the tribe of Judah, that the king's heritage passes from only son to son, so the heritage of Aaron is for his descendnants alone”(Sir 45:25; Risley 2009). Risley(2009) comments on this text “the descent in the Davidic line works differently from the descent of the children of Aaron. . Descent in the Davidic line is only from father to son, while descent from Aaron passes through all children, male and female”(ibid 2009, p.1)“New Testament People. Jesus son of David son of Aaron” Recovered from http://www.jeanrisley.org/W2articles/WhoArtAaron.htm (Feb 14 2013)

11

ibid).Beit Honi and beit Tobiah inter married. The house of Onias were more conservative than the house of Tobias. Simon a captain of the temple who may have been from the house of Tobias (Bruce ibid. 133) had a quarrel with Onias III and began to slander him to the Syrian authorities. He informed the Syrian, Apollonius the governor of Coelesyria, about wealth available in the Temple in Jerusalem. The king of Syria was informed and sent his chancellor Heliodorus to Jerusalem. He was welcomed by Honi III, but when against the appeals of the priests he tried to take the temple treasury, including that belonging to widows and orphans he had a divine encounter with a divine being and felt he just escaped with his life(II Macc; Bruce ibid, 123). He left. However the feud between Simon the captain and Honi III continued until Honi III felt he should go to Antioch to clear his name.While he was there King Seleucus was assassinated by Heliodorus. Because of this Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne. Honi III was still in Antioch. Jason/Iesoun/Yahuahua the brother of Honi III approached Antiochus IV. He got approval of Antiochus and was appointed high priest despite his brother still being alive. When the time to pay the tribute came Jason appointed Menelaus/Menachem(Bruce 1963) as envoy. Instead of simply paying the tribute he outbid Jason telling Antiochus IV he could raise more funds. Although he was not of the house of Zadok he won the priesthood((Bruce ibid p.137). Jason escaped to transjordan (p.137)11. Menachem bribed Andronicus a military officer of Antiochus IV to assassinate Honi III. He was killed in the precincts of Daphne12. Onias IV13 on the other hand fled to Egypt ca. 177-175B.C.(Nachman, Song. 2012, p.605). He got permission from Ptolemy VI Philometer in 170B.C. to build a temple in Leontopolis near heliopolis (Feather 2006, p.72)14. Thus with the desecration of the Jerusalem temple Honi IV15 moved with his house to Egypt.

The battle over the temple went on in Jerusalem and the house of Hashmon rose to prominence. They were from the benei Jehoiarib the first division of the sons of Aaron(1 Chr. 24) . They won the war and cleansed the temple in 164B.C. They were lead first by Matthatiyahu, then his son Yahudah (166-160), Yahunathan his brother (160-143), and Simon their

11 Feather (2006) maintains he left to Egypt.12 There seems to be some disagreement in the sources as to whther he was killed or he was the one to escape to

Leontopolis, Egypt13 Or Onias III14 The place is now known as Tel el Yahudiya the mound of the Jews.15 Feather believes Honi IV was Jason brother of Honi III

12

brother (143-134). In 140B.C., there was an assembly in Jerusalem where it was agreed Simon would receive the title ethnarch, kohen gadol, and supreme commander of the Jewish people. These titles were declared hereditary until a true prophet should arise(Nachman. Song 2012, p.606). Simon was followed by descendants John Hyrcanus(134-104), Alexander Yannai (103-76). In this period a conflict arose between the Tzadukim (Saducees) and the Perushim (the Pharisees). Alexander was succeeded by his wife Shlomzion Alexander (76-67), it was from her descendants that Herod the Great took his wife Marriamme Hashmon. In 63B.C. Rome invaded Palestine under Pompeii and a new era began. Thus with the fall of the house of Zadok from control of Jerusalem, at least three groups of kohenim arose which would later impact the house of Yahushua's work. The house of Honi in Egypt who were perhaps related to the sons of Boethus. The house of Hashmon which ministered in Jerusalem as high priest from 164B.C., to 36 B.C., and the house of the sons of Zadok or the yachad which made a covenant in Damascus (Wise et.al. 1996, p. 156; D.D A6:5;6:1916). They do the opposite of Jason Onias and Menachem “separating from corrupt people , avoiding filthy wicked lucre taken from what is vowed or consecrated to God or found in temple funds”(Wiseman et. al., ibid. D.D. A 6:15-17). Unlike Jason they must “never betray a family member(D.D. A7:1). They expect a leader who would arise and shatter the sons of Sheth/Seth17., he is an interpreter of the Torah who would come to Damascus, although the covenant is made in the land of Damascus. The location of priestly families in Leontopolis, Damascus, Jerusalem and all over the land of Israel is not surprising because the Levites were given residences all over the land of Israel. Honi IV saw himself as fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah 18 by locating in Leontopolis and the sons of Zadok saw themselves as fulfilling many prophecy but for the Damascus residency Amos 5:27.

C Beit BoethusA rock cut tomb with the name “Tomb of Zechariah” acts as a funerary monument for a catacomb of the priestly house bene hezir located in the

16 From the list of requirements it is clear Feather is mistaken when he argues Jason is Onias IV and thus the teacher of righteousness.

17 Could this refer to Sethi father of Annas, father in law of Caiaphas?

13

Kidron valley (Eisenman 200618; Murphy-O'Connor 198019) the tomb of the course of Hezir. Like the course of Abijah from which John the Baptist came this is another one of the twenty four courses mentioned by the Chronicler (1 Chr. 24:15). They are the 17th in the cycle and so would be connected to Eleazar and at the time of David with Zadok not Ahimelech(1 Chr. 24:6). The inscription on the tomb makes it clear it was a mausoleum of the priestly house known to Josephus and the Talmud as the Boetheusians “an incredibly wealthy family High- Priestly clan that Heord imported from Egypt after marrying a daughter of a scion of this line”(Eisenman 2006, p. 62) Simon ben Boethus was likely the high priest in the year Jesus was born or just before it. Beit Hashmon had held the priesthood until Simon's time. But Herod having executed Mariamme Hashmon for adultery (Eisenman 2006, p. 62) married a Mariamme from the Egyptian priestly line the Boethusians. Simon ben Boethus, her father and Herod's father in law was appointed high priest in Jerusalem from 23 to 5 B.C20. The Boethusians produced at least five more high priests in Jerusalem Joazar ben Simeon, Eleazar ben Simeon, Simon Kantheros, Elion son of Kantheros. Joazar ben Simeon ministered twice as high priest and after hos second period 6A.D. He was succeeded by Annas ben Sethi. Herod the Great and his sons Archaelus and Agrippa I appointed the Boethusians. Herod 's marriage to Mariamme grandaughter of Hyrcanus II(Ant. 14:353;15:23, Simmons 2008, p.213) from the family of the Hasmonean priests who descended from the house of Jehoiarib, the first of the 24 watches of the priests (1 Chr. 24). This indicated they were from Eleazar ben Aaron(1 Chr. 24). The last Hasmonean priest king was drowned in 36B.C.(Merten 1978). In 37 B.C. Herod separated the priesthood from the king. However Mariamme Hasmon produced Aristobulus who married Bernice, daughter of Herod the Great by the Idumean Costobarus. They produced Herod King of Chalcis (44-49A.D) , Agrippa I, King of Judea(37-44A.D), Mariamme who married Archelaus the Ethnarch of Judea (4B.C.-7 A.D) and Herodias who married Herod Philip in the first instance and later on Herod Antipas the tetrarch of Galilee and Perea. Herod Agrippa I (King of Judea) married Cypros and produced Agrippa II, King of Galilee (54-68A.D) 18 Eisenman R., (2006) The New Testament Code, The Cup of the Lord, The Damascus Covenant and the blood of Christ,

(London: Watkin's Publishing)19 Murphy-O'Connor, J., (1980) The Holy Land An Archaeological Guide from Earliest times(Oxford :OUP)20If the traditon in Origen's Book of James or bodmer papyus Birth of Mary: Revelation of James, that the Simon who blessed Jesus as a child in the temple and who prophesied over him, it would apply here. That Simon in Luke would be Simon Ben boethus who finishes his ministry in 5B.C., about the time of the birth of Christ.

14

and his sister Bernice (Acts 23). We survey the evidence showing how much the house of

Jesus(Yahushua) and the sons of Aaron especially the first century house of Annas interacted.The evidence points to the fact that during the first decades of the Church of Jesus Christ/Yahushua ha mashiach was closely associated with the priesthood. The tradition of the Church is that the Church even supplied to Jerusalem and Israel their most holy person, the high priest in the person of the disciple whom Jesus loved, a John and had as catechist a son of Annas ben Sethi, head of the most powerful priestly house in first century Jerusalem(Vermes 2005) named Theophilus (Acts 1; Luke 1, Vermes 2005).

D The Lord who ye Seek will come to His Temple We have seen some of the connections Yahushua had to the benei Levi

in Jerusalem. The fact that Yahushua went to Yahuchanan the baptist for the initiation of his preparation for public ministry is not without significance. Yochanan was from the benei Abiyah21. The eighth division of the sons of Aaron. He being a direct descendant of Aaron sees a greatness in Yahushua which he himself did not have. One way this could be explained in family terms is if Yahushua was a level of holiness above Yahuchanan. Since Levi was the holiest tribe in Israel and the tribe set apart as being the representatives of Yahuah, and lived of the tithes and offerings of Israel, for Jesus to be holier than Yahuchanan meant he had to most likely be also from the tribe of Levi. This sense of the holy superiority of Levi is seen both in the Damascus document, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. In Israel's tradition only Moses was more holy than Aaron.22 This connection to Levi is confirmed by the citation of Malachi 3 as relating to the ministry of Yahushua and Yahuchanan. In Matthew Jesus applied the passage to Yahuchanan; Yahuchanan sent disciples to ask Yahushua if He was the one to be expected or if they should expect another. When we read this term “expect” in regard to first century Israel, different Jewish groups are found to be expecting different characters. Many scholars associate the Baptist with the sons of Zadok in Qumran(Tabor 2006; Feather 2006). According to their documents they were expecting the Messiah of Aaron and Israel. The Damascus covenant states “Those who are faithful to him are the poor ones of the flock. 21 This formulation follows that of the inscription on the Tomb of Zechariah where the mauseleum is called that of the bene

hezir another of the 24 courses.22 And perhaps Yahushua his successor who was specially selected from Israel to lead thm in the war of possessing the

land and spent more time in the holy place than Moses did.15

These shall escape in the age of visitation; but those that remain shall be delivered up to the sword when their comes the Messiah of Aaron and Israel(CD-A19:9-11). Other Qumran documents expected two Messiah's one of Aaron and one of Israel(1 QS9:9-11). Jeiwsh traditions reflected in the Mishna and the Talmud expected Elijah and /or the Holy Spirit before the resurrection of the dead(Mt. 17:11; Eleazar ben Jair) or they expected a Messiah ben David and a Messiah ben Joseph.Yahushua sends an answer to Yahuchanan and when Yahuchanan's disciples were leaving, said to the crowd: “What did you go out to the desert to see? ...A prophet? Yes, I tell you and more than a prophet, this is the one about whom it is written “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you”(Mt. 11:10; Mal 3:1).” Yahushua is clearly alluding to Malachi 3:1. By citing this we see Yahushua placing Yahuchanan in the role of the one preparing the way for the coming messenger of the covenant (Mal 3:1). One of the messenger's tasks was to purify the sons of Levi(Mal 3:3). In Mark's Gospel, a citation is made from Malachi 3 “See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me.”

The Damascus Covenanters marked some of the criticisms of Malachi and had specific rules to avoid making the same errors23. The book contains a specific blessing for those who feared YAHUAH and honoured His name. They were written into a scroll of remembrance (sepher zichron) and would be His jewels (segulah) who would be spared in the future. And as noted in Mark, one of the special focuses of Malachi is referred to John the Baptist, and as a result the prophecy applies also to Jesus. So, baptism connects with the forgiveness of sins which was a priestly operation in the Jewish culture. In the normal context people would turn to Jerusalem, to where YAHUAH had placed his name(1 Kg. 8:30-60). They would then confess the name Yahuah and turn from their sins and God would forgive(1 Kg. 8:35), for His eyes and His heart were on Jerusalem because His name was there. We see this in the prayer of Solomon24. However, in the first century John had gone out to the desert (as had the Essenes whom he may be connected with) to the Jordan. And people were flocking to him to receive the forgiveness of sins. This indicates that YAHUAH’s name must have been with him as it was afterwards with Jesus (Jn 17).

23 CD 6:13, 4Q265 41-2, CD 20:19-20.24 1 Kings 8

16

E Theophilus the Priest and Joanna The Disciple who was known to the High Priest but not as a DiscipleThe writer of the gospel of John is a priest(Westscott; Edersheim) from the evidence present in the gospel. His detailed knowledge of Jewish practices in the Gospel of John point to this idea, at the same time he was a close disciple of Jesus. We now come to a possible priest who was not the writer of a gospel but the recipient. The most excellent Theophilus of Luke1and Acts 1. Luke and Acts were written specifically for one person, even if they would be read by many. We should expect therefore that they would contain some information specifically of interest to that one person. In ths case of Theophilos one lady appears in the gospel and as a witness of the resurrection who does not appear in any of the other books of the New Testament. Her name is Joanna/Yahuhana and she is very wealthy. We first look at the secret disciple in John and try to draw possible deductions using the house model. John records: “Simon Peter was following Jesus, and so was another disciple. Now that disciple was known to the high priest, and entered with Jesus into the court of the high priest” (Jn.18:15)

While the text does not say specifically that he was a priest, there are evidences evincing this fact25. This disciple had the ability to influence the girl watching the door and to get Peter into an area where only certain people were permitted. The Church then had connections not just close to the priesthood but to the high priest. The interesting thing is that if you look through the gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke this disciple is not present with Peter. He is completely alone. Even in his own gospel, John, he does not give his identity. We may ask why it is that both the synoptic and the gospel of John appear to conceal this character. It is clear that if Annas ben Sethi knew that this person was a disciple of Jesus and one of His family members or colleagues in the priesthood, he would have been upset and it would have led perhaps to problems for this disciple.

The question then is who could this mysterious disciple be? This disciple could let Peter in but did not necessarily have to be the writer of the gospel.

25 If this is John son of Zebedee and he was a priest so was his brother Jacob and his father Zebedee or Zabdai. Zabdai is known as a name among priest. Zabdai ben levi was a palestinian amora from the third century. It is quite possible that Zebedee bore two names as Joseph Caiaphas and Nathaniel bartholomew. There are two other Amoraim called zabda and three zebids see Dicitonary of Ancient Rabbi’s Ed Jacob Neusner, (2003)

17

The author in this paper suggests this disciple who got Peter into the high priests house was John father of Joanna. Joanna is one of the witnesses of the resurrection. In Luke 8.3, Jesus is at the house of Simon a Pharisee. He blesses a woman with the priestly act of forgiving her sins which was associated usually with the name Yahuah26. He then leaves the house and went to proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom. Then Luke relates “And certain women who had been healed of evil spirits and sicknesses - Mary called Magdalene, out of whom had come seven demons and Joanna the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, and Susanna and many others who provided for him from their substance”. It seems that Jesus was surrounded by some wealthy women. Joanna the wife of Chuza may have meant something for Theophilus to whom Luke has written this gospel. She may have been his granddaughter. Anderson’s (1996) thesis is presented first in the Evangelical Quarterly under the heading ‘Theophilus: a proposal’. Here he presents the not unreasonable proposition that the Most Excellent Theophilus of Luke is the son of Annas son of Sethi, Theophilus. Josephus mentions him but as Vermes says about Theophilus “no record has survived” about him (Vermes, 2005, p. 153).

Luke says “And Joanna wife of Chuza Herod's steward and Susanna”. The word for steward epitru means “one to whose charge or control a thing is left, a steward, bailiff, manager”. If then Chuza is Herod, the tetrarch’s manager, he is very likely quite wealthy and powerful as Luke implies his wife is (Luke 8:3). If, as Anderson (ibid.) maintains, Joanna is granddaughter to Theophilus, it is clear he will know who Chuza is and probably by association who Susanna27 is. Johanna is the Greek form of Yehohanna and the feminine of John. Now we can begin to see how the Church could have made in-roads into the high priesthood. Joanna is following Jesus because he healed her either of a sickness or delivered her of demons. She has moved away from her father’s house, and is living with her husband, who since he is Antipas Herod’s manager is probably living with Herod Antipas tetrarch of Galilee (Luke 3:1). According to some scholars, he had responsibility for Herod’s palace and may have been equivalent to Herod’s finance minister (Studie Bibelen Bind II, 1996, p. 138). Herod the tetrarch reigned until 39 26 In the torah the altar for sacrifices is the place where the name of Yahuah is remembered. Ex 20:2427 I would not be surprised Susanna, another anna turns out to be Joanna’s sister, but that is for another paper.

18

AD and lived in Tiberias which he built in 21 AD. Since Tiberias is but 15kms from Capernaum28, it would have been easy for Joanna to connect with the ministry of Jesus, headquartered there, and at the same time her grandfather would not know she was a disciple.

Joanna means ‘Yahuah is gracious’; the same as John. Anderson (ibid.) also shows that Joanna stands at the centre of a chiastic structure in Luke 24:8-1129. In this case, Luke does not need to mention who she is married to, Theophilus knows who she is. Joanna is made a witness of the resurrection in Luke. Support for Anderson’s thesis comes from a ossuary which has been found and reported by Barag and Flusser (1986) in The Ossuary of Yehohanah grandaugher of the high priest Theophilus. This ossuary is very interesting for in our case. The inscription is in three lines:

Yehochanah Joanna Yehochanah bat Yehohanan Joanna daughter of John

Bar Theopholos hakohen hagadol Son of the high priest

This was according to Barag and Flusser (ibid.) “the first known mention of a high priest in an ossuary inscription” (p. 41), although the inscription is in Aramaic, the title of the high priest appears in Hebrew. According to the two authors, Yehohanah could not have died before her grandfather’s appointment as high priest in the spring of 37AD. She may have lived to see her uncle Ananus son of Annas have Jacob the Just killed30, and her uncle Matthias be the last legitimate high priest. Another interesting point is that “the reference to the high office of her grandfather indicates that she was probably not

28 I nsight vol II 1988,109929 A they remembered

B the eleven C the others/rest (sam greek as C) D Mary Magdalene X Joanne D Mary Mother of Jacob C the other / rest of the women B the Apostles A The did not believe his words. In a blog R Andersen says “A chiasmus is a literary device

that arrnages words and ideas into two parllel and inverted passages , with an odd member placed at the vertex, where the two passages intersect. I am sorry i haven’t been able to locate the blog again. 30 Why was Ananus son of Ananus so upset with Yaacov ha tzaddik? According to Hegesippus Jacob had prayed in the holy of holies and wore the petalon. This report we have from Eusebius and Epiphanius both using hegessipus.

19

buried in the in the tomb of her family, for reason which elude us”. Barag and Flusser (ibid.) go on to say in the foot note that “the family tomb may have been inaccessible after 70 CE. Another possibility is that Yehohanah suffered from an incurable disease such as leprosy.” If then we maintain that this great granddaughter of Annas and granddaughter of Theophilus was a disciple of Jesus and who came to him for help with her sickness (Luke 8:3), this might explain the reason why she was buried apart from her family. The year 37 AD is exactly when the persecution broke out against the Church because of the speech of Stephen and his insult to the temple31, which the people didn’t take too kindly too32. Another interesting observation is that “The name of her father, Yehohanan, was with Eleazar the most common names of priest in antiquity”. We notice also that both the name of the father and the daughter contain yod heh and vav the full version theophoric names containing Yahuah. For Aramaic names this is impressive. For after the exiles the Aramaic names tended to be shortened removing heh and some vav so Jehozadak in Ezra is Jozadak and Yehoshua became Yeshua. This priestly family clearly saw it as important to preserve the name Yahuah.

Let us turn out attention back to this Yehohanan father of Joanna, or rather John father of Joanna. Who among the first century high priests could possibly be identified as John the Apostle? If we review the first century high priests, we find that only one bears the name John and he was the son of Annas the most powerful high priest in the first century and the one, according to the gospel of John, who had the first cross-examination of Jesus. John then becomes the high priest who inherits the petalon which bears the name Yahuah. The priestly line finds its continuation in John as does the promise of Yahuah that he would always protect the family of Levi. The Church then literally inherits the priesthood and the name Yahuah find its dwelling place in the Church, with that petalon.

31 “A great many priests of the priests . Many of the ordinary priest were humble and pious men, unlike the wealthy ecclesiastical politicians of the high priestly families. If members of the temple staff werattaching themselves to the church, such activites as Stephens was bound to produce tension with his more conservative fellow Christiansas wellas with the ewish rulers” Donald Guthrie in IVP One VolumenCommentary 1970 32 On the other hand it is just after many priests turned to the faith and in Luke it is the first time a disciple was arrested and the chief priests are not mentioned as being involved in the arrest. In addition the high priest says very little to Stephen, just “Are these things so?”. The rest is the mob.

20

F A Great Company of Priests: John the high Priest or Theophilus the High Priest

Strong support for this position, that the Church impacted the priesthood greatly and continued its work, is also represented by the witness of Luke in Acts. There, he records “And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, and a great many of the priests were becoming obedient to the faith”. This phrase “a great many” is clearly important in this respect. Who were these priests and why did they become obedient to the faith at that time? There were a large number of priests who joined the Church just before the martyrdom of Stephen. Luke has been established by the works of such scholars as Hemer(1989) and Gasque(1975), Bruce (1990) and Marshall (1980)as a first class historian. When he says a large number of priests we need to take him seriously. Marshall (1980) simply skips over the verse. However, Ellicot (1971) picks up the significance:The fact is every way significant. No priest is named as a follower of our Lord’s. None, up to this time, had been converted by the apostles. The new fact is connected with the new teaching of Stephen. And the main feature of that teaching is an anticipation of what was later proclaimed more clearly by Paul: that the time for sacrifices has passed away, and that the Law and the Temple were decaying (p. 871).

Ellicot’s (ibid.) observation is significant; although to assign the cause to Stephen cannot gain support, for his case is taken up following the conversion of many priests. Bruce (1970) observes that “Many of the ordinary priests were humble pious men unlike the wealthy ecclesiastical politicians of the high priestly family” (p. 980). He does not say much more. Baird(1971) notes that, “This summary refers again to the increase in the Churches membership. It includes the only record of converts from the Jewish priesthood. Apparently the Church had little impact on the cultic leaders of the Jews and, in contrast to the sect of the Dead Sea Scrolls, had little interest in priestly tradition” (p. 736). It is this last statement I that we take issue with. What is more reasonable is that the priest saw in the teaching of the Church something connected with their work not simply its nullification. We see that the Church was not only interested in priestly tradition, which itself is centred on the name Yahuah, but they were

21

establishing the priestly tradition of the kingdom of God, which began with John the Baptist. The Life Application(1991) Bible notes that “Jesus had told the disciples that they were to witness first in Jerusalem(Acts 1:8). In a short time, their message had infiltrated the entire city and all levels of society. Even some priests were being converted, an obvious violation of the wishes of the council that would endanger their position.”

The Life Application Bible down plays the numbers of priests and seems to see their conversion as surprising. But with Luke’s historical assertion of their conversion, we need to perhaps wonder what the possible causes of their conversion were. The first cause may have been the signs, wonders and healing which were taking place at the hands of the apostles. According to Acts 5, two persons in the congregation dropped dead having had their sins exposed. Immediately afterwards, it is recorded that they were highly regarded by the people but no one else dared to join them. The level of holiness demonstrated when Ananias and Saphira dropped dead may have impressed priests who were used to the idea of those violating God’s holiness dropping dead, as with two sons of Aaron and possibly any high priest who entered the holy of holies unworthily. The Mishna asserts that on approaching the Day of Atonement, a second high priest should be available in case the first one dropped dead, and the first entered with a rope around his leg in case he dropped dead and had to be pulled out.

Secondly, with the head on clash with the high priests over the name and the trial with the Sanhedrin, it is clear the Apostles won that battle. The Angel of Yahuah released then from prison and all the priests knew about it. After Peter’s shadow started healing people the high priest and his associates arrested him. The Pharisee, Gamaliel, then spoke out in support of the apostles implying that the high priests and the Sanhedrin by fighting the apostles might be fighting God. Although Gamaliel’s influence among the priests was unlikely to be too strong, he was said to be honoured by all the people. It is not surprising then that the priests, having seen their high priests defeated in the Sanhedrin and the prison emptied and people publicly healed, began to realise the message of these followers of the son of David may have some truth to it.

Thirdly, it could be the removal of Joseph Caiaphas from power in the

22

year 36 AD. This being the case, it would be Jonathan or Theophilus who were high priests when the priest began to flock into the Church. Annas did not seem so aggressive against Jesus when he questioned Him in John 18. Perhaps it was really Caiaphas who prophesied Jesus’ death who was holding back the tide.

G John the Priest

In the NT named priests or Levites include Zecharias(Lk. 1:5, 18,21, 40, 59, 67; 3:2), John the Baptist/Ioannes ho baptistes (Matt 3:1;11:12; 14:2,8;16:14;17:13 Mk. 6:14,24,25; 8:28,33;9:19; Lk.7:20;11:1; Jn.1:6,,15,19,26,29, 32, 40; 3:26,27; 5:33,36; 4:1;10:41; Ac. 13:24-25) Caiaphas(Mt. 26:3, 57; Lk. 3:2; Jn. 11:49, 18:13,14, 24,28; Ac.4:6) Annas(Lk.3:2; Jn. 18:13;24; Ac.4:6), Ananias(23:2;24:1) Jonathan(Ac.4:6), Alexander(Act 4:6), Malchus (Jn 18:10), Matthew Levi(Mt.9:9; 10:3, Mk.3:18; Lk.6:15; Ac.1:13) Joses Barnabus(Ac.4:36; 9:27; 11:22, 25, 30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7, 43, 46, 50; 14:12,14,20; 15ff; 1 Cor 9:6; Gal. 2:1, 9, 13; Col 4.10), Zechariah son of Berachiah33 (Mt. 23:35; Lk. 11:51). Most are assigned to the temple in Jerusalem and one to the temple in heaven. The heavenly high priest is Jesus. The Book of Hebrews takes this as its subject. Our focus now is on the high priests who are supposed to have ministered in the earthly temple and so are supposed to be sons of Aaron. During the period when the Church was being formed a and the NT was being written, Josephus mentions the following high priests in Jerusalem. Simon ben Boethus(24-5B.C.), Matthias ben Theophilus(5-4 B.C), Joseph ben Ellem(4B.C.) and Joazar ben Boethus (4B.C.) were appointed by Herod the great. Eleazar ben Boethus (4BC?), Jesus ben See(?), Joazar(-6A.D.) were appointed by Herod Archelaus the Ethnarch. Ananus or Annas ben Sethi(6-15A.D.) was appointed by Publius Sulpius Quirinus the Roman governor of Syria. Ismael ben Phabi(15-16 A.D.) Eleazar ben Annas(16-17A.D.), Simon ben Kamithus (17-18A.D.), and Joseph Caiaphas (18-36A.D.) were appointed by Valerius Gratius(15-26 A.D.) the governor of Judea.. Jonathan ben Ananus (36-37A.D.), Theophilus ben Ananus (37-?)were appointed by Lucius Vitellius (35-39A.D.) a consul appointed legate to Syria in 35A.D.(Vermes 2005). Simon Cantheras ben Boethus, Matthias ben Ananus and Elionaeus ben

33 See Babylonian Talmud San. 96B Gittin 57b Jer. Tal. Taanitgh 69a. Zechariah was said to be a priest and a prophet Allen, W (1912) St. Matthew International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh T & T Clark)

23

Cantheras were appointed by Herod Agrippa I, grandson of Herod the Great by Aristobulus and Bernice the daughter of Herod's sister Salome(Vermes 2005, p.33). Joseph ben Camei, Ananias ben Nedebaeus (47-59 A.D.) were appointed by Herod of Chalcis(44-48 A.D.). Ismael ben Phabi(59-61), Joseph Kabi ben Simon(61-62), Ananus ben Ananus(62), Jesus ben Gamaliel(63-64), Matthias ben Theophilus (65-?) were appointed by Marcus Julius Agrippa (II) (Vermes 2005, p.3-4).

According to Eusebius(4th cent.) there were two famous Johns in Ephesus. He cites Papias(3rd cent.) saying:I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other disciple of the Lord, and what Ariston and the presbyter John, disciples of the Lord, were still saying (Williamson, 1965, p. 102).Thus we see John and presbyter/elder John listed separately. The origin of John the Baptist is well known. He is the miracle son of the priest Zechariah.There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth. And they were both righteous before GOD, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of Yahuah blameless (Lk. 1:5)

So the story of John the Baptist begins with a priest from the sons of Aaron who had a right to the high priesthood. According to the Torah (which Jesus said was immutable, it had to be a high priest who lit the incense in the holy place each morning (Ex. 30:1-10; Davies 1944 p.265).The text does not indicate he was a Saducee34. These were ruling class of priests in first century Jerusalem and one of the three main sects along with Pharisees and Essenes, in general they did not believe in angels so it is unlikely he was one of them.(Jos. Wars; Acts 5:17). However he is introduced as having one of the most important roles in the temple(Mal. 1:11). He had been selected that day by the casting of lots(Lk.1:8; M.Tamid 3:1), to burn incense at the time of prayer, “This moment would have been the culmination of Zechariah's priestly life”(Stuhlmueller 1968, p.121) . Zechariah, like many priestly “prophets” before him, such as Jeremiah (Jer 1:1), Ezekiel (Jer 1:2), Zechariah ben Yahuyada (2 Chr. 24:20),had an encounter with an angel of

34 Altough the reaction of Gabriel to his question may suggest some kind of reaction to his wrong attitude to angels.24

Yahuah in that period often described as the word of Yahuah(Fossum 1985). The angel Gabriel indicated Zecharias would have a son who would be great in the sight of Yahuah.The appearance of an angelic being to righteous persons in order to accomplish acts of redemption is a common motif in Israel's history. This goes right back to Abraham and the three men (Gen 18), Moses and the burning bush (Exod 3), and the captain of the hosts to Joshua (Joshua 5:13ff). We can also compare the case of Helodorus in 2 Maccabees 3. It is then John the Levitical priest of the eighth course of Abijah, which precedes the course of Yeshua(1 Chr. 24:10) who then baptises Yeshua the son of David and related to Aaron/John on his mother's side through Mary and Elizabeth(Lk. 1:36; Tabor 2006, p.5635).The marrying of the tribe of Judah and Levi together is not new. Aaron the first high priest married Elizabeth sister of Nahshon, head of the tribe of Judah in the wilderness(Nu.1:7, 2:3, 7:17, Ex. 6:23, Ru. 4:20) and she bore Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar the four sons of Aaron, Eleazar succeeded Aaron as high priest. This meant Zecharias and Ioannes came from Ithamar(1 Chr. 25:6-18) At the same time, Jesus received an anointing of the Holy Spirit(Is. 61:1), which appeared as a dove (yonah36 in Hebrew). This for some Valentinian Christian groups represented receiving the name Yahuah(Fossum 1985, Qusipel). So, in this baptism, some see a transfer of the name Yahuah from Ioannes the priest to Jesus the son of David.We also have the interesting point that the Rabbis make much of those who are masters of the good name or baal shem tov. This means they are able to do miracles using the name. In Toldot Yeshu the Jewish counter gospel, Jesus is said to perform miracles by using the name or its four letters(Schonfield 1937). But Jesus says he casts out demons “by the Spirit of God” (Mt. 12.28), thus paralleling the idea of Name and Spirit. Fossum (1985) refers to the idea of being vested with the name. The intimate connection between the son of David and the son of Aaron reminds us of the ordination of King Solomon when “Zadok the priest then took the horn of oil from the tent and anointed Solomon”(1 Kg. 1) That event also took place at a body of water. But there are perhaps more parallels

35 Tabor,J. (2006) The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity The Jesus Dynasty(New York:Simon and Schuster)

36it was a yonah which pointed Jesus out to John and it was the sign of yonah which Jesus promised that generation. Peter the son of yonah was his chief apostle. Michael Rood has developed something out of these Jonah connections. We are reminded here the the dove flying back to Noah with the olive branch in his mouth after the flood.

25

with the anointing of David which had to be done in private, because Shaul was already king. “And Yahuah said arise, Arise, anoint him; for this is he.” Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of Yahuah came mightily upon David from that day forward” (1 Sam. 16). So again we see that it is the senior Levite judge/prophet at the time who anoints David and immediately the Spirit of Yahuah came upon him. However, unlike this case the baptism of Jesus was not a national event but it is similar in that at the anointing Yahuah spoke confirming the choice and sent the spirit (1 Sam. 16:12ff). John the Baptist baptised Jesus and recognised Him37as the Son of God38. He later testified: “This is He on behalf of whom I said, After me comes a man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me. And I did not recognize Him but in order that He might be manifest to Israel, I came baptizing in water. I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him”. There was also what Rabbis call a bat qol, or heavenly voice speaking in the third person in Matthew whereby John was addressed. In Mark and Luke the voice addresses Jesus directly. Jesus submission to the baptism of John gave him a reference point he could later use in his discussions with the chief priests and elders. He could refer to it and John's priestly prophetic authority clearly carried some weight (Matt. 21:25). This may hint at Zechariah perhaps being held in great respect among the Israelites and John being from a well known family.This is more in line with the thinking of James Protoevangelium, which has a tradition that Zechariah was the high priest..

H The Statement of Polycrates Polycrates (130-196) was the bishop of Ephesus in the late second century. During the Quartodecimian controversy with the Western Church he wrote a synodical letter to Victor the Bishop of Rome defending the pratice of the Asian Church in celebrating Passover/Pascha on the Nisan 14 like the Jews. He argued that they celebrated this date based on the authority of the 37Matt has the bat qol, or heavenly voice speak in the third person so John was addressed. In Mark an d Luke the voice addresses Jesus. Jesus submission to the baptism of John gave him an reference point he could later use in his discussions with the chief priests and elders. He could refer to it and Johns priestly prophetic authority clearly carried some weight (Matt 21:25). This may hint at Zechariah perhaps being held in great respect among the Israelites and John being for a well known family. May Jacob Protoevangelius wasn’t so far off. 38A title of the son of David to come, Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7 and Ps 89 calls him first born.

26

Apostles and goes on to list some of the great saints and apostles who had lived, ministered and were buried in Asia. In his letter he makes a statement which raises a serious historical problem. His statement was as follows:In Asia great luminaries sleep who shall rise again on the last day, the day of the Lords advent, when He is coming in glory from heaven and shall search out all his saints- such as Philip one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Heirapolis with two of his daughters, who remained unmarried to the end of their days, while his other daughter lived in the Holy Spirit and rests in Ephesus. Again there is John, who leant on the Lords breast, and who became a priest wearing the mitre, a martyr and a teacher; he too sleeps in Ephesus (Eusebius 300-40039NPNF2-03. Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings etc.).; .

Eusebius cites this letter in book five of his Church history. He is in the process of relating stories about the Apostles and comes to the death of John and Philip. It is the statement about the beloved disciple we are observing. He asserts possible facts about this person, namely: a John who leant on the Lords breast (Jn 13:23), became a priest, wore the frontlet to petalon/ ha tzitz in Hebrew(Ex 28:4, 37, 39; 29:6, 39:28,31 Le.8:9, 16:4). He was a witness (Acts 1:8, 2:32)a teacher and sleeps or is buried in Ephesus.

We observe Polycrates fails to give John the title of Apostle which he does however give to Philip. He tells us this John “leant on the Lord’s breast” which immediately sends us to the gospel which bears the name John and to the Last supper (John 13:23-26). To the informed reader, most of the statements appear reasonable until we see the claim that John “became” a priest, and wore the petalon. The argument Polycrates appears to be presenting is the greatness of Ephesus in terms of its apostolic heritage(Vos 1977, p.318) and this gives weight to their keeping the ancient Passover date. Great lights were there. This may at first sight appear to predispose Polycrates to exaggerate to prove his point to Victor. However, he only claims the priesthood for John and not for Philip, thus it is clear he is trying to relate what he understood to be the truth and not simply propaganda for Ephesus. It is clear Polycrates is referring to a tomb which at the end of the second century was identified as the tomb of John the beloved disciple, the one who was with Jesus at the last supper. The two propositions then that

39 History of the Church 5:2427

seem to need further clarification are the claim that John became a priest and the claim that he wore the petalon.

. In saying John wore the petalon he does not say this in any way so as to make a theological point. For him, it was simply a matter of fact, in the same way that Philip who he also mentions in this testimony was not a priest. The mitre in the Septuagint is that which is mentioned in Exodus 28:And thou shalt make a plate (petalon) of pure gold, and thou shalt grave on it as the graving of a signet, Holiness to Yahuah (Hebrew: qodesh la Yahuah; Greek: hagiasma kuriou). And thou shalt put it on the spun blue cloth, and it shall be on the mitre: and it shall in the front of the mitre (Heb. Misnepheth Gr petalon). And it shall be on the forehead of Aaron; and Aaron shall bear away the sins of their holy things, all that the sons of Israel shall sanctify every gift of their holy things, and it shall be on the forehead of Aaron continually acceptable for them before Yahuah. The words on this petalon were QADOSH L’YAHUAH40.The Mishna has this to say regarding the garments of a high priest:

The High priest minsters in eight pieces of raiment, and the common priest in four - in tunic, drawers, turban and girdle. To these the High Priest adds the breastplate, the apron, the upper garment, and the frontlet (Yoma 6:5).

As is evident from the text, the frontlet is not worn by the ordinary priest. It is worn by the high priest. The likelihood is that there would not have been many mitres around the temple. It also bore a plate of gold attached by blue lace with qadosh la yahuah engraved on it. That is it had the name Yahuah engraved on it. In some Jewish tradition, the name Yahuah was the special preserve not only of the priesthood but also of the high priest.

For example, Philo of Alexandria seems to want to make this point crystal clear for his readers:And a a golden leaf was wrought like a crown, having four names engraved on it which may only be mentioned or heard by holy men having their ears and thier tongues by wisdom, and by no one else at all in any place whatsoever.41 40. It was written in paleo hebrew and may be the source of some of the pale hebrew usages of the name in various dead sea scrolls documents41 See Philo On the Life of Moses Bk III

28

Although there is much evidence to the contrary42, some still believe that the high priest only said the name Yahuah once a year on the holiest day of the year, Yom kippur as above. This was in the holiest place on earth, the qodesh qodeshim. And of all Israel it was only the high priest who was allowed to utter that name. One thing is certain; according to Exodus it was Aaron alone in Israel who wore the mitre. If then the mitre was used by the various high priests down to the destruction of the temple, the final one to use it would be probably Matthias son of Theophilus who was appointed by Agrippa II. Phanias the last high priest was appointed by the Zealots and was not from the line of Aaron. As for Matthias “We do not know what finally happened to Yehohanah’s uncle, the high priest Matthias”43.

The question then would be where did the mitre go? Where is the petalon which bore the name Yahuah? Is it possible that John received it and brought it into the Church? Well, if he is the father of Joanna, then he is the brother of Matthias. He would then probably be the next legitimate heir of the petalon. Matthias, realising the danger involved in the war against Rome, may have disappeared because of that danger44. He at some point handed the Petalon to John who took it to Ephesus where Polycrates either saw it or heard about it. We must bear in mind that the testimony of Polycrates regarding the Petalon connects John with Matthias and the high priestly family45.

Polycrates is clear that John wore the petalon. Putting the idea of this ‘being a legend’ aside for a moment, we can consider the possibilities. If John is the priest we mentioned above, this would mean two things. He did not wear the petalon as high priest in Jerusalem while the temple was standing. The only John recorded as high priest is John son of Annas, who was high priest from

42 It was probably written in paleo hebrew being from some hundreds of years before the first century and may be the source of some of the paleo hebrew usages of the name in various dead sea scrolls documents43 See Barag and Flusser 1986, 4444 I do not want to suggest what is going through my mind. That Joanna and John convince Matthias of the truth of the gospel and he disappears with the Nazarenes to Pella, having listened to the prophets in the Church and when he dies he passes the petalon on to John45 On a side not another obscure person in the Annas/Hanan/Hanin/Hananiah family is Eleazar or Lazarus. He appears in the gospel of John and the Gospel of Luke. He is the person Jesus raises from the dead in John. It is a priestly name and so it would be worth investigating his connection to the family of Annas. At one point they chief priest plant to kill him also. He of course would be John’s uncle, if he ended up as part of the priestly family that would bring Mary and Martha in.

29

about January to March in the year 3746. Now, whereas it is not completely impossible for him to be the John, Polycrates in speaking of this seems to have ruled out on a number of grounds the two main ones being he was too well known to be John the Apostle and he was killed by the Sicarii at the instigation of Felix before 60AD47.

Four Evidences from Uses of the Memorial

A Baptism and the Memorial Yahuah/IaoFossum (1985) notes in his The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord that Moses is imaged as one vested with God's name. In being vested with the divine name he is regaining the glory which had lost in the garden. Moses is vested with God's name on his ascension to Mount Sinai. This was seen as a heavenly enthronement and a restoration of divine glory. The idea is compared with an idea of Jesus receiving the divine name as described in the Gospel of Philip.One single name is not uttered in the world, the name which the father gave to the son; it is the name above all things: the name of the father. For the son would not become father unless he wore the name of the father. Those who have this name know it, but they do not speak it. But those who do not have it do not know it48.

Here, the Father gave the Son His name which is exalted above all. Fossum (1985) asserts "The secret name which is given to Jesus is identical with the Name of the Father obviously is the proper name of God. Jesus is then believed to have been vested with the name of God”49 Thus we see that the name according to the Gospel of Philip is worn and not spoken. And it is possessed by more than one person not only Jesus. For Fossum, the name is YAHUAH. One issue is less certain the time of being clothed with the name.

B John the Baptist's Baptism John the Baptist came preparing the way for YAHUAH and therefore if he 46 I base this on the fact that it said he reigned three month and Thephilus took over in April. See Barag and Flusser, 1986, or Vermes 2004, .47 Vermes 2004, 88,153 Josephus Wars 2:240-43, Ant 18:95, 123 19:313; 20:16348 See Gospel of Philip II 54, in the Nag Hammadi Library Robinson, 1990, 14249 However in view of Gnostic theology the name would be as probably Christ as it would be YAHUAH. However both have a place as we shall see.

30

baptised in any name it had to be that of YAHUAH. Do we have evidence of others in the period baptising in the name of YAHUAH? The answer is again in the affirmative although belated. There is a toseftah which relates a dispute between Pharisees and a Day baptisers or hemerobaptists. In this dispute there is a disagreement as to when the name YAHUAH should be spoken50 during the baptism process; whether before the person entered the water or afterwards. The Article in Jewish Encyclopaedia on the Hemerobaptists relates that they were aDivision of Essenes who bathed every morning before the hour of prayer in order to pronounce the name of God with a clean body (Tosef., Yad., end; the correct version being given by R. Simson of Sens: "The morning bathers said to the Pharisees: 'We charge you with doing wrong in pronouncing the Name in the morning without having taken the ritual bath'; whereupon the Pharisees said: 'We charge you with wrong-doing in pronouncing the Name with a body impure within'"). In the time of Joshua b. Levi (3d cent.) a remnant still existed, but had no clear reason for their practise (Ber. 22a)51.

Thus we see that according to this evidence both the Pharisees and the Hemerobaptists, contemporaries of Jesus Christ and the early Church, used to speak the name Yahuah, regularly and repeatedly. They did not only speak it; they spoke it every day. The Pharisees do not appear to have any ritual behind the uttering of the name, whereas the Hemerobaptists believed one should be immersed or baptised before using it. The Clementina of the second and third century place John the Baptist among the hemerobaptists (Eisenman, 2006). Although this can not be taken as conclusive, it does support the possibility of the belief among the Valentinians that Jesus received the name of God at baptism. For John here is said to be in a group of those who specifically

50 No question of if, simply when.51 The Clementina speak of John the Baptist as a Hemerobaptist, and the disciples of John are accordingly called "Hemerobaptists" ("Homilies," ii. 23; comp. "Recognitions," i. 54); similarly, Banus, the teacher of Josephus ("Vita," § 2), was a Hemerobaptist. Hegesippus (see Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl." iv. 22) mentions the Hemerobaptists as one of the seven Jewish sects or divisions opposed to the Christians. Justin ("Dial. cum Tryph." § 80) calls them simply "Baptists."

According to the Christian editor of the "Didascalia" ("Apostolic Constitutions," vi. 6), the Hemero-baptists "do not eat until they have bathed, and do not make any use of their beds and tables and dishes until they have cleansed them." This obviously rests upon a misunderstanding of their true character. Epiphanius ("Panarion," i., heresy xvii.) goes still further, and says that the Hemerobaptists deny future salvation to him who does not undergo baptism daily.

31

immersed themselves so that they could utter the name Yahuah. As we have already noted, John the Baptist was considered a prophet and just a glance through the masoretic text indicates that throughout the Law and the Prophets all prophets came in the name Yahuah. The mantle of the name Yahuah is then seen as descending on Jesus at the baptism. There is other evidence in the New Testament to support this position52.

Firstly, we know that Jesus himself claimed to come in the name of His Father. He, like John, was called a prophet by His contemporaries. They even compared him with Jeremiah and Elijah or one of the prophets53. This being the case, what we find conspicuous about all those with whom Jesus was compared is that they came in the name Yahuah. Jesus pictured John the Baptist as Elijah. Elijah was expected to return because of the prophecy of Malachi as mentioned earlier. An earlier prophecy of Malachi is applied to John by the Gospel of Mark: we see in the case of Elijah and his successor, Elisha, that the succession took place at the river Jordan. Jesus’ initiation under the ministry of the Levitical priest John the Baptist is also recorded as taking place at the river Jordan. When Elijah left, Elisha ripped up his mantle; picked up Elijah’s mantle and struck the water and says “Where is YAHUAH the God of Elijah?” When the waters opened, the prophets said “The Spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha” (2 Kings 2). In one sense they recognised the anointing of Elisha with the Spirit of Yahuah even as John the Baptist recognises the ministry of Jesus when the heavens opened up. John bore witness saying:I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it aboard upon Him. And I knew Him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.(Jn 1:33)

If John were practising hemerobaptist baptism as indicated by the Clementines, then the name YAHUAH could be uttered after the immersion at the same time that Jesus saw the vision and heard the voice. The parallels show that the gospel writers were possibly modelling the succession in the two cases and in both cases a succession ministry was begun and the old

52 Against see the testimony of Philo in Life of Moses Bk III and the judgement of Rabbi Abbahu msanhedrin 10:153 The comparison with Jeremiah may have arisen from his propehcies aginst the temple.

32

ministry was drawing to a close. YAHUAH is conspicuously present in the case of Eliyahu and Elisha and Jesus who compared John with Elijah (Matt. 17:12) and His own connection with Eliyahu and Elisha (Luke 4:25, 26).

If indeed the name YAHUAH was used at the baptism of Jesus as seems very likely, we would expect a memory of the idea in the collective memory of the early Church. For Jesus is the one whom the Church follows. Has the Church then any recollection of the connection between baptism and the name YAHUAH?

C Receiving the NameWhen did this investiture take place? Quispel (as cited in Hyatt, 1965) believes the crowning took place at baptism (p. 266). This is based on his understanding that the "Valentinians thought that at that moment the Name of God descended upon Jesus ... (ibid., p. 52). This is interesting because in the period names and baptisms were definitely connected. For example, the disciples were baptising people in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:2) and Paul took precautions so that no one would think they were baptised in his name. For Paul says to the Corinthian Church, “Were you baptised in the name of Paul. I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name." (1 Cor.). Menander the disciple of Simon Magus who is supposed to be the disciple of John the Baptist baptised people in his own name (Grant, 1946).

The baptism of Jesus however was performed by John the Baptist. The pertinent question is: in which name did John baptise? We need only look at his credentials to see. He came to prepare the way of YAHUAH (Mark, 1; Isa. 40). He came as a prophet. According to the Mosaic Law, if John was a true prophet, and few seem to have doubted that at the time, he could only have come in one name YAHUAH54. Throughout the Scriptures, prophets were tested by the criteria set out in the Law of Moses. And the Torah stated very clearly that a prophet had to speak in the name of YAHUAH, and if he came in the name of another god he would die (Deut. 18). Pfann’s (1999)

54 Indeed in light of our discussion on Malachi to glorify the name YAHUAH would have been central to the purpose of his ministry as well as to turn many people from their sins to the name YAHUAH. (Deu 13:1, Due 18)

33

words can be applied here “It would be untenable to think that John would abrogate the requirements of the Mosaic Law for his followers” (p. 346). Elijah had the prophets of Baal executed as a group and John was seen as coming in His Spirit and power of Elijah although of course he denied identification directly with Elijah.

D Priests and Baptism?

In his Baptismal Praxis in the Book of Revelation, Gieschen (YEAR??) asserts that This paper will demonstrate that Revelation evinces early Christian baptismal praxis wherein the initiate received a mark that was the bestowal of the Divine Name as a seal. Furthermore, it will be argued from the text of Revelation that this reception of the Divine Name, washing, and clothing in white was understood to be the foundational priestly preparation for the early Christian mystical experience of the presence of God, especially in the Eucharist55.

Firstly we note that it is John the Baptist, a priest of the sons of Aaron, who was baptising in the Jordan River. This could be described as a Levitical or priestly act as it had its origin in Leviticus: “Ritual immersion in water from a living water source - established as a practice in the book of Leviticus - was understood to render the Jews ritually clean, enabling him or her to enter certain pure or sacred areas (such as the Temple precinct) and to participate in specific religious events and in Jewish society as a whole” (Pfann, 1999, p. 337). His purposes in baptising were manifold. According to the Gospel of John, the Baptist was witnessing to the true light (John 1:6). But who was this true light? This true light was the Word of God.

According to Gieschen (ibid.), “It is not surprising that Israelites and Jews, long before and during the first century CE, referred to this angel [the angel of Yahuah who had the Name Yahuah in him] as “the Word of YHWH”, “the Word of God”, or simply “the Word””. For Gieschen, “Since this “angel” has the name YHWH in him, he is not from among the myriads of created angels; he is YHWH in a visible form”. Thus John was bearing witness to the Word who would have YAHUAH’s name in him. He bore witness in a priestly way

55 www.andreiorlov.com34

by washing people in the waters of baptism. They came and were immersed, confessing their sins. In other words, through their confession and baptism their sins were washed away.

However, in the Temple based society, people received forgiveness of sins in a number of ways. Firstly they had the sacrifices, the sins offerings and the trespass offerings. These were designed to prepare for the forgiveness of their sins. The same with the Day of Atonement where the high priest would intercede for the whole nation and obtain the forgiveness of his sins, his family’s sins and Israel sins. But John, a priest, came offering the forgiveness of sins on another level, and John’s activity only prepared people for the one who was coming in the name YAHUAH. Although it is likely that at the baptism the people were returning to YAHUAH and so at some point, either before or after they were immersed, they would call on the name YAHUAH, this prepared them for when they would be immersed not in water but in the Holy Spirit. It is clear that Holy Spirit is understood by John to be a far more powerful work of God than his baptism in water. The Holy Spirit to John represented the presence of YAHUAH Himself. For he claimed to be fulfilling Isaiah 40: “A voice of one calling in the wilderness prepare the way of YAHUAH; make straight a highway for our God...And the glory of YAHUAH will be revealed and all mankind will see it together.” In setting himself in this context, John understands the Holy Spirit baptism; the revelation of the glory of YAHUAH.

E Calling on the name of Yahuah

Our first evidence that the early Hebrew Nazarenes saw a connection between the name YAHUAH and baptism comes from the scriptures the early Church refer to in preaching the gospel and baptising Jews and later Gentiles. In Acts 2:21, Peter says, regarding the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the attendant effects, that this was a fulfilment of Joel 2. He notes “And it shall be that everyone who calls on the name of YAHUAH shall be saved”. Here, he cites a passage which contains the name YAHUAH. Later on when the people ask what they need to do, Peter tells them:Repent and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the

35

forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”56. Be saved from this perverse generation...And the Lord was adding to their day by day those who were being saved

Thus we have the prophecy; YAHUAH shall save those who will call on his name. They are baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, in order to be saved. Thus to call on the name YAHUAH is to repent and be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ. It is practically certain that Peter was not speaking Greek and that when he cited scripture he cited them in Hebrew. Thus there is no escaping that he was referring to the name YAHUAH. Even the term Lord here seems almost certainly to refer to YAHUAH; for Peter notes the promise is to all those whom “the Lord our God” shall call. This phrase is almost definitely referring to YAHUAH ELOHEINU. Of approximately 98 occurrences of this phrase in Masoretic Text, 96 refer directly to YAHUAH eloheinu and 2 in Daniel to Adonai Eloheinu, but Daniel also uses YAHUAH Eloheinu. This was not a synagogue; so, there is no need to assume that he was using adonai in this context. On the other hand, we are not certain if he was speaking Aramaic or Hebrew and we do not know with certainty which word he used when he referred to YAHUAH but we know YAHUAH was intended. The only alternatives are Adonai and Marya and there is no strong evidence to suggest that he had any reason to change the name of YAHUAH to another name.

Paul makes the same connection in Romans, although he does not refer directly to baptism. He asserts that “If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved...for whoever calls on the name of YAHUAH shall be saved”57.

F The Cross and the Memorial

It is in the literature of the Aramaic speaking Church and the Gnostics where the connection between the name YAHUAH and baptism has been retained most clearly.58A most telling connection is found between the sign of the

56(Acts 2:38)57 Roman (10:9, 13). Paul also shows in Philippian 2:6-11 that at the name of Jesus (genitive) Every knee would bow. What then is the name of Jesus the person? It is kurios or in a hebrew context the name above every name, Yahuah. see also Psalm 96. 58 Excerpta ex Theodoto xxii.5

36

cross as a seal of the believer being baptised and the name YAHUAH, the tetragrammaton. In the Western Tradition, the repentant was first baptised and then given the sign of the cross as a seal of the unction following. Fossum (1985) describes it as a “post baptismal signatio crucis of the forehead associated with unction and performed with or without oil” (p. 101). However, in the Syriac speaking Church, the tradition was different and they connect the seal of the sign of the cross with the name YAHUAH. According to Fossum (ibid.), in Syriac Christianity the sealing of the unction came before the actual baptism. And whereas in the Western Tradition the sign of the cross was a symbol of the name Yahuah or the cross upon which he died, in the Syriac speaking Church this was not the case. “It had retained its significance as an emblem of the Divine Name” (ibid., p.101).

Narsai, a fifth century Nestorian Church Father who lived in Edessa, illustrates this in his Liturgical Homilies. When the priest anoints the candidate, he “signs the flock with the sign of the Lord, and seals upon it His Hidden Name by the outward look” Connolly, 1909). Narsai (ibid.) also writes that “the Name of the Divinity looks out from the sign on the forehead” (ibid., p.45). The sign is the cross and here the divine name is said to look out from the cross. Fossum’s (1985) argument is that although Narsai is quite late, he reflects an earlier tradition. This tradition is reflected in the Syriac Odes of Solomon and the Acts of Thomas. Here the unction is called a “sealing” and the seal is the Name. Firstly, in the Acts of Thomas we see that as Thomas begins the rite he calls on the Name. He says:...Jesus, let [your] victorious Power come, and let it settle in this oil [...] and let it dwell in this oil, over which we name your holy Name!

Fossum (1985) makes the observation that the Power is “identical with the Name”. In chapter 27 and 132 the Divine Name is called the “Power of the Most High” and the Power established in Christ. It is very important for us to give attention to the words used by Thomas in the rite. Such words of ritual are for the most part missing from the New Testament but will help us understand what people actually said and when the name may have been used and how. We note that Thomas claims to mention Jesus’ name over the oil. Narsai gives some insight as to how the Name and its Power enters the catechumen:The “Secret Power” which is contained in the oil is the Hidden Name: “The

37

name of the Divinity he mixes in his hands with the oil[...]...Through the anointing the believer receives the Name: “With the Name hidden in it [i.e. the oil] he signs the visible body, and the sharp power of the Name enters even into the soul”.

This connection between the three synonyms Name, Power and Spirit can give great insight into the understanding of the New Testament and the place of the name in it.

Five CONCLUSIONWe have seen then that the Church did make in-roads into the priest hierarchy in Jerusalem and perhaps around the nation and in the Diaspora. We have the strange testimony of John the Apostle wearing the petalon of the Jerusalem high priest. It is true that the petalon must have gone somewhere when the temple was destroyed; it seems quite reasonable that, if John was indeed closely connected to the Annas, dynasty and survived his brother Matthias, he might have ended up with the Petalon as Polycates maintains. We have also seen the clear connection between the name Yahuah and the baptism of Jesus and John and as if to confirm all we have seen an example of an early baptismal confession where the name Iao was used. It is indeed clear that the Church’s priests, the sons of Aaron who entered the Church, brought with them that seal of the divine name Yahuah. There is clearly more work to be done. There is, therefore, need for a more detailed analysis of texts and a more comprehensive studies.

References Anderson, R. H. (1996). Evangelical Quarterly, 69: 3, Howard Marshall, (Ed.). Baird W. (1971) “The Acts of the Apostles” in The Interpreters One Volume Bible Commentary (Nashville: Abingdon Press) Barag, D., & Flusser, D. (1986). The Ossuary of Yehohanah Grandaughter of the High Priest Theophilus. Israeli Exploration Journal, 36: 36-44.Bruce F.F. (1970) “The Acts of the Apostles”in The New Bible Commentary Revised: Donald Guthrie(ed.), J. Alec Motyer(ed) et.al, (IVP)

38

Bruce, F.F. (1990) The Acts of the Apostles. (Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans).

Bettenson, H. (1970). The Later Christian Fathers. Oxford: OUP.Connolly, R. H. (Trans). (1909). The Lirturgical Homolies of Narsai. Cambridge, (TS, VIII/1).Edersheim, A. (1904). The Temple Its Ministry and Services. London: Hodder and Stoughton.Eisenman, U. K. (2006). New Testament Code. (London: Watkins)Elliot, C. J. (1971). Elliot’s Bible Commentary. In One Volume. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing.Fossum, J. (1985). The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. (ubingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck) Tubingen.Gasque, W.W. (1975) A History of the Criticism of Acts (Grand Rapids Michigan: Eerdmans) Gieschen, G. A. (2006). Baptismal Praxis in the Book of Revelation. Retrieved from http://www.andreiorlov.com Concordia Theological Seminary Fort Wayne, IN.Grant, R. (1946). Second Century Christianity.

Hemer, Colin.(1989) The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic Historiography.( Tubingen: Mohr) .

Hyatt, J. P. (Ed.). (1965). The Bible in modern scholarship. Nashville & New York, p. 266.Marshall, I. H., (1980) Tyndale New Testament: Acts (Leicester: IVP))Pfann, S. J. (1999). The Essene Yearly Renewal ceremony and the baptism of John. The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea scrolls, Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues. Parry and Ulrich (Eds.), Leiden: Brill.Reisel, M. (1981). The Mysterious Name of Y.H.W.H. New York: Union of American and Hebrew Congregations, Vermes, G. (2005). Who’s Who in the Age of Jesus. London: Penguin Book. Wescott, B. F. (1973). The Gospel according to St. John. In William B. Eerdmans, The Gospel According to St. John (Rev. ed.). Grand Rapids.Williamson, G., (1965) Eusebius, The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine (Penguin)

39

Appendix 1

In Jesus the Levite the author seeks to demonstrate that Jesus was percieved as a son of Levi in some early Christian circles. If this were the case we would see this reflected in traditons the teaching, practice and personalities of the early Church. The people of the early Church tradition would include many priests and levites and even prophets among his disciples. The teaching would include many cultic and liturgical concepts. The practices would include many cultic and liturgical rites or practices, whether percieved as liturgical or magical. The results of the research show that the house of Jesus (beit Yeshua) does indeed show much evidence in people, teaching and practice of the Levitical nature of Jesus ministry. He had many disciples and relatives which in the tradition are from the tribe of Levi including his mother, her blood relatives, Zechariah, Elizabeth and John the Baptist; his early disciples came from the discples of the Levite John the Baptist. His and the early Church's ministry was a teaching, preaching and healing ministry all connected with ministry of Levi, the Church's practices were liturgical in every way. This means the New Testament, the persons mentioned and the history of the early Church can be seen from a new levitical perspective. Many dilemmas regarding the identity of the Son of Man are removed. Much data in the Dead sea scrolls and the Testament of the Twelve Patriarch's is given a clear place in relation to the New Testament..

40