Ezra 3
1 Când a venit luna a şaptea, copiii lui Israel erau în cetăţile lor. Atunci poporul s-a strâns ca un singur om la Ierusalim.
2 Iosua, fiul lui Ioţadac, cu fraţii săi preoţii şi Zorobabel, fiul lui Şealtiel, cu fraţii săi, s-au sculat şi au zidit altarul Dumnezeului lui Israel, ca să aducă pe el arderi de tot, după cum este scris în Legea lui Moise, omul lui Dumnezeu.
3 Au aşezat din nou altarul pe temeliile lui, măcar că au avut să se teamă de popoarele ţării, şi au adus arderi de tot Domnului, arderile de tot de dimineaţă şi de seară.
4 Au prăznuit sărbătoarea corturilor, cum este scris, şi au adus zi de zi arderi de tot, după numărul poruncit pentru fiecare zi.
5 După aceea au adus arderea de tot necurmată, arderile de tot pentru fiecare lună nouă şi pentru toate sărbătorile închinate Domnului, afară de cele pe cari le aducea fiecare, ca daruri de bună voie Domnului.
6 Din cea dintâi zi a lunii a şaptea, au început să aducă Domnului arderi de tot. Însă temeliile Templului Domnului nu erau încă puse.
7 Au dat argint cioplitorilor de piatră şi tâmplarilor, şi merinde, băuturi şi untdelemn Sidonienilor şi Tirienilor, ca să aducă pe mare până la Iafo lemne de cedru din Liban, după învoirea dată de Cir, împăratul Perşilor.
8 În al doilea an dela venirea lor la Casa lui Dumnezeu la Ierusalim, în luna a doua, Zorobabel, fiul lui Şealtiel, Iosua, fiul lui Ioţadac, cu ceilalţi fraţi ai lor, preoţi şi Leviţi, şi toţi ceice se întorseseră din robie la Ierusalim, s-au pus pe lucru şi au însărcinat pe Leviţii dela douăzeci de ani în sus să vegheze asupra lucrărilor Casei Domnului.
9 Şi Iosua, cu fiii şi fraţii săi, Cadmiel, cu fiii săi, fiii lui Iuda, fiii lui Henadad, cu fiii şi fraţii lor Leviţii, s-au pregătit toţi, ca un om, să vegheze asupra celor ce lucrau la casa lui Dumnezeu.
10 Când au pus lucrătorii temeliile Templului Domnului, au aşezat pe preoţi în veşminte, cu trâmbiţe, şi pe Leviţi, fiii lui Asaf, cu chimvale, ca să laude pe Domnul, după rânduiala lui David, împăratul lui Israel.
11 Cântau, mărind şi lăudând pe Domnul prin aceste cuvinte: ,,Căci este bun, căci îndurarea Lui pentru Israel ţine în veac!`` Şi tot poporul scotea mari strigăte de bucurie, lăudând pe Domnul, pentrucă puneau temeliile Casei Domnului.
12 Dar mulţi din preoţi şi Leviţi, şi din capii de familii mai în vârstă, cari văzuseră casa dintâi, plângeau tare, când se puneau supt ochii lor temeliile casei acesteia. Mulţi alţii îşi arătau bucuria prin strigăte,
13 aşa încât nu se putea deosebi glasul strigătelor de bucurie de glasul plânsetelor poporului; căci poporul scotea mari strigăte, al căror sunet se auzea de departe.
{"verseMap":{"1":[{"id":2321,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Apocrypha*","title_en":"Apocrypha*","content_ro":"<h3>APOCRYPHA*<\/h3>\n<p>Books excluded from the canon of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Apocryphal Gospels<\/p>\n<p>• Apocryphal Acts<\/p>\n<p>• Apocryphal Epistles<\/p>\n<p>• Apocalyptic Apocrypha<\/p>\n<p>• Specific Titles of Apocryphal Writings<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The writings of the Old and New Testaments tended to attract certain additional compositions in the form of books, parts of books, letters, “gospels,” apocalypses, and so on. Most of the authors wrote anonymously, but some presented their writings to the public under the name of a familiar OT figure or member of the Christian church. Several of these compositions formed a small but important part of the great body of Jewish literature that emerged during the period between the Old and New Testaments. Much of it was the result of religious and political ferment, for the Jews felt their faith and their very existence threatened, first by the pagan influences of Hellenistic Greek culture, then by the oppression of invading Roman forces.<\/p>\n\n<p>Most of the apocryphal books are also pseudepigrapha—that is, they are books ascribed to a pseudonymous author. In other words, the main characteristic of these writings is the fictitious claim that the author of the book was a biblical person (Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Bartholomew, Thomas, etc.) or that the revelation contained in the book was originally given to a biblical character (Adam and Eve, Isaiah). Generally, the pseudepigrapha show a strong interest in the apocalyptic: the creation of the world, the future of Israel and the nations, the glory of God and his angels, the messianic kingdom, and life after death. Many of the pseudepigrapha are Jewish writings that were never accepted by the Jewish or Christian communities. They were written about the time of the Apocrypha (c. 200 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 110), but by the nature of the contents of the pseudepigrapha, they were only recognized by certain groups. Since some of these books approximated counterparts in the canonical Scriptures, there is no doubt that in some circles their authority and inspiration were regarded as similar to that of the scriptural compositions venerated by the Jews and later by Christians.<\/p>\n<p>Other religious writings from that period made no claim to be scriptural. Such compositions preserved the familiar traditions of both Judaism and primitive Christianity, although on occasion they enriched or embellished them by means of legends and unhistorical narratives. Because very few books of any kind were in circulation at that time, the Palestinians tended to read whatever literary material came into their possession. Although the Torah, or law of Moses, had always been recognized as the standard of theological orthodoxy for the Jews, narratives of endurance under persecution or accounts of the way that the enemies of God’s people received their just reward had an obvious attraction for those under the pressures of a pagan society.<\/p>\n<p>In the same way, although the Gospels and Epistles—along with the OT—comprised the basic canon or approved list of Scriptures for Christians, many additional narratives claimed the attention of Christ’s early followers. Those compositions often dealt with the supposed activities of Jesus and his followers, as well as with martyrdoms, revelations, and spiritual teachings. Some works contained material that was not only unhistorical but downright bizarre, but others reflected the spirit of Christ and the apostolic teachings to a certain extent. For the early Christians, as also for the Jews, the establishment of a formal canon of scriptural writings must have been prompted in part by a necessity to separate the record of revealed truth from other written forms of religious tradition as well as from actual heresy.<\/p>\n<p>Writings that failed to gain acceptance into the OT and NT canons were described in the writings of some early Christian scholars by the term “apocrypha.” The Greek word means “hidden things,” and when applied to books it described those works that religious authorities wished to be concealed from the reading public. The reason was that such books were thought to contain mysterious or secret lore, meaningful only to the initiate and therefore unsuitable for the ordinary reader. But the word “apocrypha” was also applied in a less complimentary sense to works that deserved to be concealed. Such works contained harmful doctrines or false teachings calculated to unsettle or pervert rather than edify those who read them. The suppression of undesirable writings was comparatively easy at a time when only a few copies of any book were in circulation at a given time.<\/p>\n<p>By the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, a clear distinction was being made in Jewish circles between writings that were suitable for use by the general public and esoteric works that were to be restricted to the knowledgeable and the initiated. Thus in 2 Esdras 14:1-6, the writer tells how Ezra was supposedly instructed by God to publish openly certain writings (among them the Torah), and keep others secret (that is, apocalyptic traditions dealing with the coming end of the age). In 2 Esdras 14:42-46 reference is made to 70 books, evidently noncanonical material, written after the 24 books of the Hebrew Canon.<\/p>\n<p>Use of the term “apocrypha” to mean “noncanonical” goes back to the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>, when Jerome urged that the books found in the Septuagint and in the Latin Bibles that did not occur in the canon of the Hebrew OT writings should be treated as apocryphal. They were not to be disregarded entirely, since they were part of the great contemporary outpouring of Jewish national literature. At the same time, they should not be used as sources for Christian doctrine but at best for supplementary reading of an uplifting or inspirational nature.<\/p>\n<p>Protestant theologians generally have followed the tradition established by Jerome, regarding the OT apocrypha as the excess of the Septuagint canon over the Hebrew Scriptures. When the Hebrew Bible began to be translated into Greek in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy II (285–246 <span>BC<\/span>), the scholars concerned included a number of books that, while remaining outside the generally accepted list of Hebrew canonical writings, still had a bearing upon Jewish history and society. That procedure reflected contemporary attitudes in Palestine, where many people did not attempt to separate canonical writings from other forms of religious literature. The decision made by Jewish authorities about what to regard as canonical Scripture naturally had a bearing on what would constitute OT apocrypha.<\/p>\n<p>Textual evidence represented by certain manuscripts and fragments from the Dead Sea caves makes it reasonably certain that the last of the canonical Hebrew writings had been completed several decades before the time Alexander the Great (356–323 <span>BC<\/span>) began his conquests in the Near East. The process by which those compositions came to be accepted as canonical was more protracted, however. Only when they had been circulated, read, and assessed favorably by comparison with the spirituality of the Torah were they accorded general canonicity. Hence the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal writings came as much through usage and general consent on the part of orthodox Judaism as through any other manner. Earlier scholars suggested that the so-called Council of Jamnia, held in Palestine about <span>AD<\/span> 100, was responsible for drawing up a list of OT books suitable for use by the faithful. However, subsequent studies have thrown considerable doubt upon the historicity of such a council, at the same time showing that the Jewish authorities of that period considered their noncanonical writings to be more of an obstacle than a help to devotion.<\/p>\n<p>The books the Jews regarded as being specifically outside the Canon, and therefore apocryphal, are as follows: 1 Esdras; 2 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; the additions to Esther; the Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; the Letter of Jeremiah; the additions to the book of Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon); the Prayer of Manasseh; 1 Maccabees; and 2 Maccabees. Several Septuagint manuscripts included some pseudohistorical material under the titles of 3 and 4 Maccabees. Therefore, even the Apocrypha varied somewhat in content, depending upon the manuscript tradition being followed. Among early Christian scholars there was also some difference of opinion about the precise limits of canonical Hebrew Scripture, and hence of apocryphal material. A serious break with Hebrew and rabbinic tradition came with the writings of Augustine, who advanced the view that the books of the Apocrypha were of equal authority with the other writings of the canonical Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. A few dissenting voices were raised in support of Jerome’s position, but the views of Augustine were embraced by the Council of Trent (1546) and became official Roman Catholic teaching.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman Catholic Church includes the following works as part of the Deuterocanonical Scriptures: Tobit; Judith; the additions to Esther; the Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach; Baruch; the additions to the book of Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon); 1 Maccabees; and 2 Maccabees. (Articles on each of these are interspersed throughout this dictionary.)<\/p>\n<p>Christians of the NT period were already familiar with Jewish apocryphal works, including the apocalyptic speculations found in 2 Esdras. Therefore, it was hardly surprising that a similar body of literature should grow up around their own Scriptures when they began to be composed and circulated. NT apocrypha, however, like its OT counterpart, could be considered only in relationship to an established canon of scriptural writings. Since the earliest catalog of NT writings, the Muratorian Canon, was not compiled until about <span>AD<\/span> 200, a considerable period of time elapsed before an official church statement could appear on what was to be considered NT apocrypha. In the meantime, a large assortment of materials of a predominantly religious nature appeared, purporting to be orthodox in nature and dealing with various aspects of historic Christianity. As events turned out, this apocryphal literature defeated the purposes it was intended to serve.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApocryphalGospels\">Apocryphal Gospels<\/p>\n<p>One major class of apocrypha are the apocryphal gospels. These writings preserved stories about Christ and some teachings, but being mostly fanciful in nature they never became canonical. There are three broad classes:<\/p>\n<p>1. A type similar to the synoptic Gospels, represented by the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of the Egyptians, as well as papyrus fragments including Oxyrhynchus 840 and Papyrus Egerton 2. Other papyrus collections of sayings show affinities with the canonical Gospels.<\/p>\n<li>2. Gospels that disseminated Gnosticism, a second-century <span>AD<\/span> heresy stressing philosophical knowledge <em>(<\/em><span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>)<\/em> of the cosmos and man. They are often in the form of dialogues between Jesus and his disciples, such as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the Apocryphon of John, the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, and the Dialogue of the Redeemer. In this category also come those “gospels” attributed to the Twelve as a group, such as the Memoirs of the Apostles.<\/li>\n<li>3. Infancy gospels, purporting to supply otherwise unknown information of a legendary nature about Christ’s earliest years. Passion gospels also come into this category. These narratives were written to satisfy curiosity about Christ’s birth and childhood or to embellish the canonical accounts of his crucifixion and resurrection.<\/li>\n<p>Because of the scarcity of information about such matters as the childhood, adolescence, and early manhood of Jesus, the “infancy” gospels purport to supply the reader with what was meant to pass for historical fact. Much of the material, however, was entirely within the realm of fantasy and could never have been accepted as fact by any intelligent reader. For example, in the Gospel of Thomas the five-year-old Jesus is accused of breaking the Sabbath by making sparrows of clay beside a stream. When his father Joseph investigates the situation, Jesus claps his hands and the clay birds come to life and fly away chirping.<\/p>\n<p>“Passion” gospels were written to embellish the canonical accounts of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. As supplements to Christian teaching, many of the apocryphal writings seemed to be proclaiming ideas that were actually outside the scope of NT doctrine. Attempts to fill in the “hidden years” of Christ’s life had no foundation whatever in the traditions of the Gospels. Works dealing with the last state of unbelievers were embellished in a manner that went far beyond anything stated in the NT. In some notable instances, as in the writings of various Gnostic sects, the authors set out deliberately to propagate heretical teachings they had accepted under the authority of some apostolic figure. The Gospel of Thomas, recovered around 1945 from Nag Hammadi (Chenoboskion) near the Nile River, is an example of an attempt to perpetuate curious sayings and dogmas by attributing them to Jesus, so that they would receive wide currency and acceptance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApocryphalActs\">Apocryphal Acts<\/p>\n<p>There are also some apocryphal acts, which are purported to be accounts of apostolic achievements not recorded in Scripture. Such “acts” are the source of much tradition, such as Peter’s being crucified upside down and Thomas’s mission to India. The reliability of the traditions is questionable because the writings contain clearly unorthodox material. Yet small fragments of accurate information may be embedded in this mass of largely fictitious literature.<\/p>\n<p>Because of their often heretical character, the church consistently reacted against such books, sometimes even demanding that they be burned (for example, at the Nicene Council of 787). The Acts of John pictured Jesus talking to John on the Mt of Olives during the crucifixion, explaining that it was only a spectacle. In the Acts of Thomas, Jesus appeared in the form of Thomas, exhorting a newly married couple to dedicate themselves to virginity. Sexual abstinence was a dominant theme, reflecting Platonic ideas, which disparaged the physical body.<\/p>\n<p>Many scholars date the earliest work, the Acts of John, before <span>AD<\/span> 150. The major Acts (of John, Paul, Peter, Andrew, and Thomas) were probably written during the second and third centuries. These gave rise to other “acts” that were primarily miracle stories, written more to entertain than to teach.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApocryphalEpistles\">Apocryphal Epistles<\/p>\n<p>A host of apocryphal works are classified as epistles. These generally pseudonymous works originated from many widely separated periods of time. Many other apocryphal works are apocalyptic in nature. These works are supplemented by material such as the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons. Added to these are the Gnostic compositions found at Nag Hammadi, which include works purporting to represent the teachings of Christ as well as “secret” instructions compiled by the Gnostic writers and a few apocryphal compositions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApocalypticApocrypha\">Apocalyptic Apocrypha<\/p>\n<p>Another group could be called apocalyptic apocrypha. The term “apocalypse” means “disclosure” or “revelation,” a term that was generally applied to Christian literature that resembled the Revelation of John, which designates itself an apocalypse in Revelation 1:1. The practice of writing under the name of an illustrious figure of the past, or pseudonymity, was a characteristic device used by most unknown authors of Jewish and Christian apocalypses (the Revelation of John is a striking exception). Jewish apocalypses were attributed to such ancient worthies as Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Ezra, and others. Similarly, Christian apocalypses written in the second century <span>AD<\/span> and later were ascribed to such important early Christian figures as Peter, Thomas, James and others.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times there emerged in Judaism certain circles that developed an apocalyptic view of history. They provided such writings as the five parts of 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Esdras, and the Apocalypse of Baruch. These books are of importance to NT study, for they provide a bridge between the OT and the NT concepts of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>The apocalypses were written to answer the problems of theodicy (the justice of God). After the days of Ezra, the law assumed a more important role in the life of the people than before. In prophetic times Israel again and again apostatized from the law and worshiped foreign gods. The primary message of the prophets was to challenge Israel to get right with God and to turn in repentance to keep the law. After Ezra and throughout NT times, Israel was obedient to the law as never before. The Jews abhorred idolatry and faithfully worshiped God. Still the kingdom did not come. Instead came the fearful persecution in the Maccabean times by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the worldly rule of the Hasmoneans, Pompey and Roman hegemony, and in <span>AD<\/span> 66–70, the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Where was God? Why did he not deliver his faithful people? Why did the kingdom not come? The apocalypses were written to answer questions like these.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most important elements in apocalyptic religion is an explicit dualism, expressed as “this age” and “the age to come.” The prophets contrasted the present time with the future when the kingdom of God would be established. The apocalyptists radicalized this contrast. Twice we find fragments of this idiom in 1 Enoch. We meet the fully developed idiom in 2 Esdras and the Apocalypse of Baruch (late first century <span>AD<\/span>). “The Most High has made not one age but two” (2 Esd 7:50); “the day of judgment shall be the end of this age and the beginning of the immortal age that is to come” (2 Esd 7:113); “this age the Most High has made for many but the age to come for few” (2 Esd 8:1; see also Apoc Bar 14:13; 15:7; <em>Pirke Aboth<\/em> 4:1, 21-22; 6:4-7). Furthermore, the transition from this age to the age to come can be accomplished only by a cosmic act of God. In the apocryphal Assumption of Moses there is no messianic personage; it is God alone who comes to redeem Israel. In the Similitudes of Enoch the transition is accomplished with the coming of a heavenly, preexistent Son of Man. In 2 Esdras we find a conflation of the concepts of Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man.<\/p>\n<p>Apocalyptic differs from OT prophetic religion in that it is pessimistic about the present age. It would be wrong to describe the apocalypses as ultimately pessimistic, for their basic message is that in due time God will intervene and save his people. But for the present, as long as this age lasts, he has removed himself from intervening in Israel’s affairs. The present age is under the power of evil angelic and demonic forces and is irretrievably evil. God has abandoned this age to evil; salvation can be expected only in the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The apocalyptists lost completely the tension between history and eschatology. They no longer expected any deliverance in this age. God had, in fact, become the God of the future, not of the present.<\/p>\n<p>In the dream-visions of Enoch (1 Enoch 83–90), God faithfully guided Israel throughout its history. Then God withdrew his personal leadership, forsook the temple, and surrendered his people to be torn and devoured. God “remained unmoved, though he saw it, and rejoiced that they were devoured and swallowed and robbed, and left them to be devoured in the hand of all the beasts” (1 Enoch 89:58). After the Babylonian captivity God was conceived to be inactive in history. History was surrendered to evil. All salvation was thrust into the future.<\/p>\n<p>Comparative studies have shown that the NT apocryphal writings preserve at best a series of debased traditions about the founder and teachings of early Christianity. At worst, the narratives are entirely devoid of historical value and in some respects are totally alien to NT spirituality. Even where they seem to support a tradition current in some part of the early church, the evidence they present is inferior to what can often be had from other sources. Sometimes the compositions are so trivial and inconsequential that it is difficult to account for their survival. Certain apocryphal writings did in fact become lost and are now known only in the form of quotations in larger works.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, the NT apocryphal compositions are important in indicating what was attractive to the ordinary people of the day. For them an element of the romantic seemed necessary to supplement the body of received spiritual truth. Certain of the stories recounted were vivid and imaginative, and others, such as the apocalypses, provided a form of escapism from harsh temporal realities. No matter what their nature, the NT apocryphal writings exerted an influence out of all proportion to their fundamental worth.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SpecificTitlesofApocryphalWritings\">Specific Titles of Apocryphal Writings<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AbdiasApostolicHistoryof\">Abdias, Apostolic History of<\/p>\n<p>Collection of material drawn from canonical and apocryphal writings concerning the lives of the apostles, including Paul. Abdias, an early bishop of Babylon, was supposedly the author of this history that more probably was collated from a variety of sources in the sixth century <span>AD<\/span> in France. This apocryphal “acts,” divided into 10 books, originally circulated in Greek as individual volumes that were collected into one when a Latin version was made. The content is generally regarded as folklore or legend but is of some value where no other source is available.<\/p>\n<p>Abdias, a contemporary of the apostles, may have seen Christ and supposedly traveled extensively with Simon and Jude. There is no historical basis for considering Abdias as the author of the Hebrew text, or for believing that his disciple Eutropius translated it into Greek or that Africanus translated the Greek into Latin—although the preface to the Latin version makes those claims.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AbgarusLettersofChristand\">Abgarus, Letters of Christ and<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal work comprising two short letters, one supposedly written by the Syrian king Abgar (Abgarus), the other supposedly a reply from Jesus. Eusebius claimed to have found the material in the archives of Abgar at Edessa and translated it from Syrian to Greek together with an account of the exploits of the disciple Thaddaeus.<\/p>\n<p>According to the legend, Abgar, suffering from a severe disease, hears of the miracles of Jesus and sends a messenger with a letter asking Jesus to come heal him. At the same time he offers Jesus sanctuary from the dangerous opposition of the Jews in Jerusalem. In a written reply (later altered to an oral one to comply with the tradition that no writings of Jesus existed), Jesus declines the offer of sanctuary but promises that after his ascension he will comply with Abgar’s request for healing by sending a disciple to him. Thaddaeus, one of the Twelve, is dispatched to Edessa, the king is healed, and the community converts to Christianity. In a slightly different version in the Doctrina Addaei (about <span>AD<\/span> 400), an oral reply is given, and the messenger returns with a portrait of Jesus that is displayed prominently in Abgar’s palace.<\/p>\n<p>The legend is essentially similar to that described in the Greek Acts of Thaddaeus (fifth or sixth century <span>AD<\/span>), except that in the latter Ananias returns with a handkerchief on which is a miraculous imprint of the face of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AbrahamApocalypseof\">Abraham, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>Jewish document existing in old Slavonic texts that go back through Greek to a Hebrew or Aramaic original.<\/p>\n<p>The Apocalypse of Abraham begins with Abraham turning from idolatry. Incorporating old rabbinical traditions of Abraham’s youth, it describes his awakening to the call of God and his awareness that God was one and was holy. An angel named Jahoel, whose functions and powers are lifted from rabbinical lore, takes Abraham to the seventh heaven where he is shown things past and things yet to be. He sees the temptation of Adam and Eve through sexual sin, and the murder of Cain. Azazel, an evil being, plays Satan’s role. These details probably reflect a tradition that Abraham was the author of the first documents of the Bible. The revelation then turns to the future and shows the destruction of the temple, plagues upon the heathen, and the coming of the Messiah. It is probable that the composite document took final form in the last generation of the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>True to his character as revealed in Genesis, Abraham raises the question of evil and why God tolerates the rebellious Azazel. He receives the answer that evil has its origin in the free will of man. This apocalypse shows how faithful Jews struggled to understand the problem of evil during a time of great suffering in Judaism. It also illustrates the curious “doctrine of angels” of that period. Both Gnostic and Christian editing of the text has been noted by some scholars.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AbrahamTestamentof\">Abraham, Testament of<\/p>\n<p>Jewish apocryphal writing describing the death of Abraham. In the testament, when the angel Michael comes to take Abraham’s soul, Abraham refuses to die. Reluctant to insist on the old man’s death, Michael accedes to his request to see all creation before he dies. The angel transports Abraham by chariot into the heavens so that he can observe mankind. Abraham is so shocked at the perfidy of humanity that he curses the sinners, who die immediately. He then observes the judgment of a soul, and although angels take part in the trial he notes that the presiding judge is Abel. The merits and demerits of the soul seem equally balanced, but because of the intervention of Abraham, the judgment is favorable. Abraham then realizes the severity of his cursing of sinners, but the angel informs him that the premature death of those whom he had cursed was the means of atonement for their sins.<\/p>\n<p>After his return to earth, Abraham again refuses to die. Death appears in all his horror and kills 7,000 servants of Abraham (who are subsequently raised to life), but the aged saint still will not die. Finally, Death grasps Abraham’s hand and the angels lift his spirit to the heavens.<\/p>\n<p>The account is found in several Greek manuscripts, the oldest perhaps dating from the 13th century <span>AD<\/span>, as well as in Slavonic, Romanian, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Coptic. The original language was probably Hebrew, from the first century <span>AD<\/span>, with the work possibly translated into Greek by a Christian. The testament also exists in a shorter version in which God comes to lift up the soul of Abraham during a dream. There is no attempt in the work to make a theological statement, but the portrayal of the angel Michael and of Death are typical of Jewish thought of the first century.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ActsApocryphal\">Acts, Apocryphal<\/p>\n<p>Writings purported to be accounts of apostolic achievements not recorded in Scripture.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ActsofPilate\">Acts of Pilate<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Pilate, Acts of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AdamApocalypseof\">Adam, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>One of the best examples of Gnostic apocalyptic literature. In 1946, a farm worker discovered a number of ancient texts in a cave about 6 miles (10 kilometers) north of the Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi. The discovery included 13 codexes (predecessors of bound books) of Christian and non-Christian origin. The discovery was not immediately disclosed, so it was not until 1958 that a French scholar, Jean Doresse, revealed the existence of the Apocalypse of Adam to the public. The apocalypse is written in Coptic and stands as the last of five works in Codex V.<\/p>\n<p>Although the author’s true identity is unknown, the subtitle spuriously attributes the book to Adam or Seth: “An Apocalypse that Adam revealed to his son Seth in the seven hundredth year.” Seth was often cast in the role of transmitter of truth by the writers of Gnostic literature (for example, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Paraphrase of Shem).<\/p>\n<p>The earliest existing copy of the Apocalypse of Adam is dated around <span>AD<\/span> 300 to 350, although it may have been written long before. Its frequent Gnostic references, its dependence on Jewish history, and its allusions to baptism have led some scholars to postulate an origin in the Jewish baptist sects of the first and second centuries. Parallels also exist between this work and third-century Manichean (a brand of Gnosticism) literature.<\/p>\n<p>The Apocalypse of Adam is of great importance to students of Christian origins. For many years scholars have debated whether the Gnostic religion was a heretical outgrowth of Christianity or whether it was a movement of independent origins. Some scholars have argued that the Apocalypse of Adam is an example of an early, independent Gnosticism. If this proves to be the case the debate will certainly be simplified.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to its introduction and conclusion, the Apocalypse of Adam may be divided into three parts: Adam’s summary of significant past events, predictions of attempts to eliminate mankind by the evil creator-god, and predictions about the coming of the Enlightener who will show his people the way to the true God.<\/p>\n<p>The apocalypse opens with Adam, supposedly on his deathbed, revealing the future secrets of the Gnostic people to Seth. These have been mystically communicated to him by three angelic beings. Adam bemoans his condition of perpetual slavery to the evil creator-god, brought about by the fall and mankind’s subsequent loss of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span> (knowledge). Typical of Gnostic literature, a sharp distinction is drawn between the evil creator-god who rules the earth and the true God of the universe, knowledge of whom brings authentic life. Adam predicts that the creator-god will jealously attempt to destroy mankind by a flood (the story of Noah) and by fire (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah) and thus keep mankind from knowledge of the true God. These attempts, however, will be foiled by the intervention of angelic beings sent from the God of truth. Finally, the true God will send the Enlightener who will teach <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span> to mankind so that they might know him. The creator-god will try to defeat the Enlightener but will be able to harm only his physical body. With the message of the Enlightener prevailing, mankind will turn from the creator-god and seek the true God through <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gnosticism.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AdamApocryphalBooksof\">Adam, Apocryphal Books of<\/p>\n<p>Account of the life and death of Adam and Eve recorded in Latin, and in a Greek version known as the Apocalypse of Moses. Other minor versions of early Christian origin also exist. Like other apocryphal writings, the work is fanciful and of unknown authorship.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Latin account, after their expulsion from Paradise Adam and Eve are hungry and unable to find food for seven days. In desperation a penitent Eve, assuming responsibility for tasting the forbidden fruit, suggests that Adam kill her. He refuses, and after a search they survive by eating animals’ food. Adam suggests that as a penance they should stand fasting in the river up to their necks for 40 days, he in the Tigris, she in the Jordan. After 18 days Satan comes to Eve in the guise of an angel, tells her that the Lord has accepted her penance, and persuades her to leave the river. Coming to the Tigris where Adam is, Eve realizes that it was Satan who had spoken to her. Satan then explains that the reason for his fall was his refusal to worship man, a lower being.<\/p>\n<p>The archangel Michael is then sent to Adam with seeds so that he can learn to till the land. In a dream Eve sees Cain kill Abel, and in an attempt to prevent the murder by separating the brothers, Cain is made a farmer and Abel a shepherd. Subsequently a third son, Seth, is born. Adam receives a message from God that he is to die because he has obeyed the word of his wife rather than the instructions of God. When Adam is later in pain and close to death, he explains to Seth that Satan had tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and that she in turn had persuaded him to taste it. Seth and Eve journey to the gates of Paradise to plead with God for Adam’s life. On the way Seth is attacked and bitten by a snake. At Paradise, Michael explains to them that Adam must die. Seth observes the burial of Adam and Abel.<\/p>\n<p>Before Eve’s death the following week, she asks Seth to make a record of the lives of his parents on tablets of stone and clay, so that if the Lord shows his anger with the world by water, the clay will be dissolved and the stone remain; if by fire, the stone will be broken up and the clay baked hard. Eve also warns Seth to mourn for six days only and not on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>The text of the Greek version is similar to that of the Latin, except that the Greek version includes a description of Adam’s resurrection (added later to the Latin) and a detailed account by Eve of her temptation and fall. The burial of Adam and the initial refusal of the earth to accept the body of the slain Abel are also elaborately described in the Greek account. Both versions are probably derived from Hebrew originals dating from the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AhikarBookof\">Ahikar, Book of<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern folktale from the sixth or seventh century <span>BC<\/span> showing the reward of ingratitude. According to the story, Ahikar, secretary of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was renowned for his wisdom. Childless even though he had 60 wives, Ahikar adopted his sister’s son, Nadan, and reared him to be his successor in Sennacherib’s court. Ahikar diligently educated his adopted son, who nevertheless turned out to be bad and even forged documents to have his benefactor condemned to death. Ahikar was spared through his friendship with the executioner and was concealed until the wrath of the king cooled. Later, when Sennacherib had occasion to wish for his wisdom, Ahikar was brought on the scene, long-haired, disheveled, and with fingernails like eagles’ claws. Once again in the king’s favor, Ahikar sternly rebuked his unscrupulous nephew. In response to Ahikar’s rebuke, Nadan’s body swelled up and his stomach burst open.<\/p>\n<p>Ahikar’s story has interesting parallels with OT wisdom books and also with some of the parables of Jesus. References to Ahikar occur in the apocryphal book of Tobit, in the Greek philosopher Democritus, in the apocalyptic Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, as well as in the Koran. The story, originally in Aramaic, also survives in Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Greek, though with considerable variations in the versions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AkhmimFragment\">Akhmim Fragment<\/p>\n<p>Document found in a tomb in Akhmim in Egypt and containing the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. <em>See<\/em> Peter, Preaching of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AllogenesSupreme\">Allogenes Supreme<\/p>\n<p>Gnostic work (“The Most High Stranger”), discovered in 1946 in an urn near Nag Hammadi (Egypt). The Neoplatonist historian Porphyry, as well as later Syriac Christian writings against heresy, mentioned the works of Allogenes (whose name means “foreigner” or “stranger”). Allogenes Supreme, a Gnostic “apocalypse” written in Coptic, contains an account of the creation of the higher world, exalting Barbelo, the celestial mother. The existing copy was made during the fourth century, but the original may date back to the second century.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AndrewActsof\">Andrew, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal work describing purported miracles and the martyrdom in Greece of the apostle Andrew, Peter’s brother. Its theme is the virtue of turning away from materialism and the transitory values of the world to an asceticism associated with dedication of life to God. The earliest fragment available is in the Vatican. The original probably dated from the second century <span>AD<\/span> and was probably long, verbose, and tedious. Feeling that it had merit, Gregory of Tours in the sixth century wrote a concise account of the miracles of Andrew from an original, now lost. The account of the martyrdom of Andrew probably circulated separately.<\/p>\n<p>Among the many miracles Gregory recorded was one concerning Exoos, a noble youth from Thessalonica, who, having heard of Andrew’s preaching and miracles, comes to him at Philippi, is converted, and remains with him. Finding bribery useless and refusing to listen to Andrew, the youth’s parents set fire to the house where the Christians are staying. As the flames roar, Exoos prays that the Lord will extinguish the fire and sprinkles it with water. Thereupon the flames die out. The parents and the crowd, claiming that the youth is now a sorcerer, climb ladders to enter the house and kill the inhabitants, but God blinds the intruders. Although it is night, a light shines out from the house, sight is restored to those who have been blinded, and all except the youth’s parents are converted. The parents die soon afterward, and Exoos remains with Andrew, spending his inheritance on the poor. Returning to Thessalonica, Exoos heals a man who has been paralyzed for 23 years, and subsequently Exoos and Andrew perform further miracles and preach to the people.<\/p>\n<p>In Patrae the maidservant of Maximilla, wife of the proconsul Aegeates, comes to Andrew and implores him to heal her mistress, whose fever is so severe that her husband is standing at her bedside threatening to kill himself with a sword the moment she dies. Telling the proconsul to put up his sword, Andrew takes Maximilla’s hand and the fever leaves her. Ordering food for her, Andrew then refuses Aegeates’ offer of 100 pieces of silver. After performing many miracles in the city, Andrew receives a message from Maximilla to come and heal the slave of the proconsul’s brother, Stratocles. The apostle restores the boy to health, and his master believes.<\/p>\n<p>Maximilla, to the fury of her husband, spends considerable time listening to the preaching of Andrew and is also converted. She then refuses to sleep with her husband and one night even substitutes a servant for herself. Details of subsequent events are found in the account of the martyrdom. Aegeates, in anger, holds Andrew responsible for his wife’s alienation and has him arrested. After preaching from prison, Andrew is taken to be crucified by the seashore. When the Christian Stratocles sees Andrew being manhandled by the soldiers, he fights his way through, and he and Andrew walk together to the place of crucifixion. Aegeates, fearing his brother, orders the soldiers not to interfere. At the seashore the soldiers follow the proconsul’s command that Andrew be tied, not nailed, to the cross so that his death will be lingering and he will be eaten by dogs. After two days he is still speaking to people from the cross, and many come to Aegeates demanding Andrew’s release. Arriving at the scene, the proconsul sees that Andrew is indeed alive, and Aegeates approaches the apostle to release him. Andrew demands that he be allowed to die and meet his Lord. As they watch, Andrew dies and the onlookers weep as Maximilla and Stratocles take down his body from the cross. Maximilla remains apart from her husband and continues as a Christian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AndrewStoryof\">Andrew, Story of<\/p>\n<p>Legendary fragment existing only in the Coptic language. In the legend coming from the late second century <span>AD<\/span>, a woman kills her child in the desert and gives the remains to a dog. She flees when the apostle Andrew and Philemon approach, but the dog tells what happened. Andrew prays and the child, being vomited forth, is restored to life and laughs and cries.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AndrewandMatthiasActsof\">Andrew and Matthias, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Lengthy document of highly questionable authenticity, probably dating from the late second century <span>AD<\/span>. This book was one of many apocryphal “acts” intended to supplement the NT book of Acts by providing more information about the apostles. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius described this work and others like it as heretical, absurd, and spurious.<\/p>\n<p>In this story, the apostles cast lots to determine where each should go. Matthias (Matthew in some versions) is sent to the country of the man-eaters, where he soon requires rescue from a cannibal feast. The Lord then sends Andrew to save him. Andrew arrives in time to do so, and Matthias is then carried off by a cloud. Now alone, Andrew is arrested and tortured, being dragged through the city that he nearly destroys by calling forth water from a statue. Eventually, impressed by Andrew’s miracles, the people repent and release him. Andrew next draws a plan for a church, has it built, baptizes the people, and gives them the ordinances of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AndrewandPaulActsof\">Andrew and Paul, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Fragmentary apocryphal story, existing only in Coptic fragments, about the arrival of the apostles Andrew and Paul by sea at a city. In the story, Paul, instructing Andrew to rescue him, visits the underworld. There he meets Judas, who explains that he worshiped Satan after Jesus had pardoned him for the betrayal. Andrew rescues Paul, who returns carrying a piece of wood. Although Andrew is asked to heal a child, some Jews are skeptical and the city gates remain closed to the apostles. Paul strikes the gates with his piece of wood, and the gates are swallowed up into the earth. Astonished at the miracle, 27,000 Jews are converted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ApostlesEpistleofthe\">Apostles, Epistle of the<\/p>\n<p>Letter purporting to come from the 11 apostles to the churches “of the east and the west, of the north and the south, declaring and imparting to you that which concerns our Lord Jesus Christ.” Some believe that the epistle was written in Asia Minor about <span>AD<\/span> 160; others think that it originated in Egypt. It is probably to be dated near the middle of the second century. In existence are a mutilated Coptic manuscript of the fourth or fifth century, a complete version in Ethiopic, and a fragment in Latin. The epistle was unknown until the discovery in 1895 of the Coptic manuscript.<\/p>\n<p>After an introduction there is a declaration that “our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ is God the Son of God who was sent of God the Lord of the whole world.” Then follows a summary of a number of incidents from the Gospels, including a negative statement of the Golden Rule: “Love your enemies, and what you would not that man do to you, that do to no man.” Chapter 24 introduces the subject of the resurrection followed by a series of questions by the disciples with answers by Jesus. A prophecy of the conversion of Paul appears in chapter 31. In chapter 43 the five wise virgins are identified as “Faith and Love and Grace and Peace and Hope”; the names of the foolish are “Knowledge, Understanding (Perception), Obedience, Patience, and Compassion.” The question-and-answer format of a substantial part of the work is reminiscent of the style of some of the texts found in the Gnostic library at Nag Hammadi, especially the Apocryphon of John. However, warnings that Cerinthus and Simon (ch 7) are “enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ” make it clear that this is not a Gnostic document. The epistle contains numerous evidences of orthodox influence, along with clear indications of a departure from apostolic Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ApostlesGospeloftheTwelve\">Apostles, Gospel of the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>One of a large number of heretical “gospels” circulating in the earliest centuries of the Christian church along with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles was first mentioned by name in comments on Luke 1:1 by the Christian theologian Origen (c. <span>AD<\/span> 185–254). Some scholars think it may have been the same as the Gospel of the Ebionites, quoted in a few early Christian writings. Nothing is known directly of the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ArabicGospeloftheInfancy\">Arabic Gospel of the Infancy<\/p>\n<p>One of several “gospels of the infancy” found in the apocryphal NT. This one from about the fifth century contains an account of the birth of Jesus, including the visits of the shepherds and the magi, the flight into Egypt, and miracles performed by Jesus as a boy. Details of the early period of Jesus’ life are given, about which the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) say nothing. An interesting facet of the miracle stories is the role in many of them of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in contrast to the record of the miracles in the canonical Gospels. The Arabic Gospel may have been written in Syriac and translated into Arabic. Some of its stories are also found in the Koran and other Islamic writings. Study of this apocryphal gospel reveals its sharp contrast with the canonical accounts, but it also indicates how much this and similar writings had to do with the growing veneration of the virgin Mary.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ArabicHistoryofJosephtheCarpenter\">Arabic History of Joseph the Carpenter<\/p>\n<p>Fourth-century <span>AD<\/span> account of the life and death of Joseph—with information supposedly supplied by Jesus. According to this account, Joseph the carpenter becomes a widower after fathering four sons and two daughters (ch 2). He is entrusted with the care of Mary in his 90th year (ch 14). Thus, according to this account, the brothers and sisters of Jesus are Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. Joseph is said to have died at the age of 111 years. The document, which exists in both Arabic and Coptic versions, contains the statement that Mary “must look for the same end of life as other mortals” (ch 18). Hence, it has been dated as earlier than the fifth century, when the idea of the “assumption of Mary into heaven” was being promoted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AristeasLetterof\">Aristeas, Letter of<\/p>\n<p>Early account of the relationships between Judaism and Hellenism in Egypt during the period when the Hebrew OT was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). The author, Aristeas, who identifies himself as an Alexandrian court attendant under Ptolemy Philadelphus II (ruled 283–247 <span>BC<\/span>), purports to give information about the translation procedures. The most probable date for the Letter of Aristeas (estimates vary from 200 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 50) is the end of the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>As part of his massive library project, King Ptolemy shows interest in the Jewish law. Aristeas uses the occasion to request the emancipation with remuneration of all Jewish slaves in the kingdom and King Ptolemy accedes to the request. The king asks that the high priest in Jerusalem select translators for the project. There follows a lengthy description of gifts sent to Eleazar, the high priest, with special emphasis upon an exquisite table. And then Aristeas describes the temple, the priests, the vestments of the high priest, and the defense system for the temple, followed by a brief description of Palestine and its environs.<\/p>\n<p>In the next section, the high priest talks with Aristeas and the translators before their departure to Alexandria. A summary of his speech includes a careful defense of the law from a philosophical viewpoint. The king gives a lavish banquet for the 72 translators (6 from each tribe) when they arrive in Alexandria. Each translator gives a brilliant answer to the king’s specific questions at the seven successive nights of celebration. The name of each translator and his question and answer are recorded. Then the work is completed on the island of Pharos in 72 days and is praised by the Alexandrian Jews and the king. The translators are dismissed with lavish gifts.<\/p>\n<p>In the epilogue, the author claims to have been an eyewitness to the events and maintains that his report is accurate. This is not believed by modern scholars. Its embellished and legendary quality was recognized in the fifth century <span>BC<\/span>. Aristeas’s discussion of the translation procedure was obviously a convenient literary frame on which to hang a defense of Judaism to the heathen world. Religious liberalism and loyalty to basic Jewish beliefs were skillfully combined to plead for political toleration for the Jews. Many specifics of the Letter of Aristeas are questionable, but its basic picture of how the Septuagint translation came to be made is credible. <em>See<\/em> the discussion of the Septuagint in Bible, Versions of the (Ancient).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ArmenianGospeloftheInfancy\">Armenian Gospel of the Infancy<\/p>\n<p>Legendary account of the infancy and boyhood of Jesus Christ, one of many apocryphal gospels intended to supplement the four NT Gospels by providing more details about Jesus’ early life. It was probably translated into Armenian from a Syriac original. Nestorian missionaries reportedly brought an “infancy gospel” into Armenia about <span>AD<\/span> 590, but evidently not the Armenian Gospel in its present form.<\/p>\n<p>Sources for the Armenian Gospel included two books containing legendary material about Christ’s infancy, the Protevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Armenian Gospel amplifies the material of these two texts considerably, making many novel additions to the life of Jesus. For example, Joseph searches for a midwife and meets Eve, who has come to witness the fulfillment of the promised Redeemer-seed (Gn 3:15). Later the magi bring the testament Adam gave to Seth. Jesus, accused of causing a child’s death, is cleared when the child is raised from the dead.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AscensionofIsaiah\">Ascension of Isaiah<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Isaiah, Ascension of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AscentsofJames\">Ascents of James<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> James, Ascents of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AsenathPrayerof\">Asenath, Prayer of<\/p>\n<p>Jewish story about the wife of Joseph when he was in Egypt (Gn 41:45) and known by several titles—The Life and Confession of Asenath, The Book of Joseph and Asenath, and variations of the above. It was apparently very popular in the early and medieval Christian church. Latin, Syriac, Slavonic, Rumanian, and Ethiopic versions, in addition to 40 Armenian copies, have been found.<\/p>\n<p>Modern scholars tend to see the source of the novel in the Hellenistic Judaism prevalent in Egypt from 100 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 100. Asenath seems to serve as a model for any proselyte to Judaism. If that understanding is correct, the story gives valuable insight into the less legalistic attitudes of a sector of pre-Christian Judaism. Repentant realization of the hopelessness of one’s sinful condition and casting oneself upon the mercies of God play a large part in the story.<\/p>\n<p>The original was probably written in Greek and is divided into two major parts. Part I deals with Asenath’s pampered life prior to meeting Joseph, his initial rejection of her because of her idolatry, and her consequent repentance in ashes. Asenath calls upon God in prayer, and he sends an angel to her to announce her forgiveness and to say that her name is now written in the Book of Life. Joseph returns and marvels at Asenath’s new beauty, rejoicing at her conversion. With Pharaoh’s blessing they are married the next day.<\/p>\n<p>Part II describes the period when Joseph’s father, Jacob, and his family have come to Egypt. Desiring Asenath, the elder son of Pharaoh tempts Joseph’s brothers Dan and Gad to help him kidnap her. The plan is foiled by Joseph’s other brothers, who then wish to kill Dan and Gad, but Asenath pleads successfully for their lives. Pharaoh leaves the crown to Joseph, who rules 40 years and then returns the reign to Pharaoh’s younger son.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AsherTestamentof\">Asher, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AssumptionofMoses\">Assumption of Moses<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Moses, Assumption of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BarnabasActsof\">Barnabas, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Document of one of several distinct cycles of tradition about Barnabas, the apostle Paul’s companion, this one linking him with Cyprus. This work, whose full title is The Journeyings and Martyrdom of Saint Barnabas the Apostle, was probably composed in Cyprus at the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book purports to be a first-person account written by John Mark. He claims to have left the apostles in Perga (cf. Acts 13:13) so he could sail to the West but was prevented. When he tried to rejoin them in Antioch, Paul prohibited him. Consequently, after some dispute, John Mark and Barnabas sailed for Cyprus. After preaching and healing many people, Barnabas encountered his old adversary, Bar-Jesus, who finally stirred up the Jews to capture him. Leading Barnabas out of the city of Salamis, they circled around him and burned him alive. John Mark and some other believers escaped with his ashes and buried them in a cave along with scriptures Barnabas had received from Matthew. John Mark then left for Alexandria to minister there.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BarnabasEpistleof\">Barnabas, Epistle of<\/p>\n<p>This anonymous letter addresses a question commonly asked throughout the early church: What should Christianity’s relationship be to Judaism? Clement of Alexandria quoted from this document frequently and ascribed it to “Barnabas, who himself also preached with the apostle [Paul].” Jerome believed the same. But the writer does not claim to be Barnabas, and the earliest claims of authorship come only from Alexandrian church leaders. The literary and interpretive style is entirely Alexandrian, so it is assumed that the epistle was written in Alexandria.<\/p>\n<p>The author of this epistle unequivocally denies any connection between Judaism and the gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time, he does not say that the OT opposes the NT; rather, he sees Christianity everywhere in the Law and the Prophets. He holds that all the Judaistic rites and ceremonies are mystical pointers to Christ and that an evil angel has blinded the Jews from understanding this.<\/p>\n<p>The epistle mentions the destruction of Jerusalem, so it was not written before <span>AD<\/span> 70. There was a second devastation of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 132 that ended the revolt of Bar-Kochba. This defeat would have served the author’s purposes so well that he would surely have referred to it if he were writing after the event. Many scholars suggest that the letter was composed around 130, since this was a period of strong Jewish nationalism. This nationalism would have pressured many Jewish Christians to return to Judaism, and so the author of the Epistle of Barnabas wrote to defend Christianity against Judaism.<\/p>\n<p>The Epistle of Barnabas is composed of two parts. The first section (chs 1–17) contains allegorical interpretations of the OT. These highly spiritual and mystical interpretations are intended to oppose Jewish legalism and explain how the OT prophesied of Jesus Christ. The author concedes that righteous people, such as Moses, David, and the prophets, understood the true meaning of Mosaic law, but he contends that the rest of the nation of Israel had misconstrued God’s covenant. Therefore, the Jews lost their claim to the covenant’s blessings, which were transferred to the Christians instead. This allegorical style of interpretation was very popular among Alexandrian church leaders. The NT epistle of Hebrews also makes use of this type of interpretation. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas often quotes from the Septuagint, though the quotes are somewhat loosely recited.<\/p>\n<p>A Latin version of the first section was all that was known of the Epistle of Barnabas until the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859. This codex contained the first known Greek version of the Epistle of Barnabas, which was appended to the books of the NT along with The Shepherd and the Didache. The Greek version contains a second section that begins, “Now let us pass on to quite a different sort of instruction.” This section contains moral precepts that contrast the way of darkness with the way of light, much of which seems to be transcribed from the “Two Ways” of the Didache. It has little connection with the first section. This has led many scholars to conclude that the second section was added by another writer at some later date.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BarnabasGospelof\">Barnabas, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Long Italian work actually written in the fourth century by a proselyte to Islam. He probably sought to capitalize on the mysterious mention of such a gospel in the Gelasian Decree, written not later than the sixth century <span>AD<\/span>. To date, no other evidence of an authentic gospel by Barnabas has been uncovered, a fact that has led many scholars to doubt whether it ever existed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BartholomewActsof\">Bartholomew, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian novel purporting to describe the last days and death of the apostle Bartholomew. The work is also known as The Martyrdom of the Holy and Glorious Apostle Bartholomew. It may date back to the fifth or sixth century <span>AD<\/span> and was evidently well received, for copies exist in Latin, Greek, Armenian, and Ethiopic.<\/p>\n<p>In the Acts, Bartholomew goes to India, takes up residence in a pagan temple, and causes its false oracle to cease. Bartholomew then heals a demoniac, thus drawing the attention of King Polymius. Bartholomew also heals the king’s demon-possessed daughter. Next, he casts the false god out of the temple. After this display of power, many believe the gospel. The king’s brother, however, is enraged and has Bartholomew beaten and beheaded. His rash action is soon punished, for he is strangled to death by a demon. The good King Polymius becomes bishop and serves 20 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BartholomewApocalypseof\">Bartholomew, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>Fragmentary Coptic texts that have some similarities to the apocryphal Gospel of Bartholomew. A few scholars have felt that two works were represented in these fragments, a gospel and also an apocalypse. Though this hypothesis has been generally abandoned, references to the debatable Apocalypse of Bartholomew still appear.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bartholomew, Gospel of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BartholomewBookoftheResurrectionofChristby\">Bartholomew, Book of the Resurrection of Christ by<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal work existing only in Coptic and probably dating from the fifth or sixth century <span>AD<\/span>. Like many similar writings of doubtful authenticity, it claims to supplement the accounts of Jesus found in the biblical Gospels. The book was supposedly addressed by Bartholomew to his son, Thaddaeus, who was warned in it not to let this book “come into the hand of any man who is an unbeliever and a heretic.” The book can hardly be regarded as a narrative; its aim is obviously the glorification of Bartholomew, who sees things that are hidden from others. The text contains many breaks; contradictions abound and a disregard of history is evident. Two different persons bury the body of Jesus: Joseph and Philogenes, father of a boy healed by Jesus. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is confused with Mary Magdalene. In the account of the Last Supper the author goes far beyond biblical statements about the bread and wine: “His Body was on the Table about which they were assembled; and they divided it. They saw the blood of Jesus pouring out as living blood down into the cup.” Imaginative details also embellish the account of the resurrection. Christ, for example, brings Adam back with him from hades. The story of doubting Thomas has been greatly amplified.<\/p>\n<p>The most complete text of the Book of the Resurrection is in the British Museum in London. Several other fragments exist, probably from an earlier version.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BartholomewGospelOf\">Bartholomew, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>One of many apocryphal gospels appearing after the second century under the name of some illustrious figure. The early church was aware not only of the existence of these writings but also of their fictitious character. In the fourth century the church historian Eusebius described them as heretical, spurious, absurd, and impious. Later a Gospel of Bartholomew was mentioned by name, along with several other Gnostic gospels, in the prologue of Jerome’s commentary on Matthew’s Gospel. However, there is no evidence that Jerome had seen such a book or that it actually existed.<\/p>\n<p>A work called Questions of Bartholomew does exist in Greek, Latin, and Slavonic texts—the Greek dating possibly from the fifth or sixth century. Its text has Bartholomew asking Jesus where he went after the Crucifixion and Jesus telling him that he went into hades. Later Bartholomew is pictured as asking Mary to tell how she conceived the incomprehensible or bore him that cannot be carried. Mary warns him that if she began to tell them, fire would come forth from her mouth and consume all the world, but the apostle persists. As she tells the story of the angelic visitation and the Annunciation, fire comes from her mouth. The world is about to come to an end, but Jesus intervenes and places his hand over Mary’s mouth. The apostles also ask to see the bottomless pit and “the things which are in the heavens.” Bartholomew is shown the adversary of men, Beliar, restrained by 660 angels and bound with fiery chains. When Bartholomew treads upon his neck, Beliar explains that he had first been called Satanael and later Satan, describes the creation of the angels, and tells how he fell and how he was able to deceive Eve. Finally, Bartholomew is said to have asked Jesus about the greatest sin. Jesus replies that to say anything evil against a faithful worshiper of God is to sin against the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BaruchApocalypseof\">Baruch, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>Two different pseudepigraphal works.<\/p>\n<p>1. Pseudepigraphal Jewish document of 87 chapters, written in Hebrew and translated into Greek and from Greek into Syriac. Only a few lines of the Hebrew original still exist, quoted in rabbinic writings. The Syriac manuscript dates from the sixth or seventh century AD and is the only complete text. It shows evidence of multiple authorship and dependence on the book of 2 Esdras in the Apocrypha. Similarity of many expressions to those in the NT suggests that the original may have been composed in the last half of the first century or the first half of the second century.<\/p>\n<p>The text is in seven sections of unequal length containing both prose and poetic material. The subjects dealt with are the Messiah and his future kingdom, Israel’s past woes, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Theological questions such as sin and suffering, free will, the number of people to be saved by the Messiah, and the resurrection of the righteous are not always treated consistently within the text. Some passages paint an optimistic picture of Israel’s future; others are deeply pessimistic. In general the world is a scene of corruption for which no remedy exists. A new and spiritual world is at hand: “Whatever is now is nothing, but that which shall be is very great. For everything that is corruptible shall pass away, and everything that dies shall depart and all the present time, which is defiled with evils.” The alternating optimism and pessimism may reflect the changing fortunes of Judaism in the first and second centuries <span>AD<\/span> or simply the outlook of the different authors. The message of hope is directed to those who keep the law of Moses: “For the righteous justly hope for the end, and without fear depart from this habitation, because they have with Thee a store of works preserved in treasuries.”<\/p>\n<p>The final section of the book is identified as “the epistle which Baruch, the son of Neriah, sent to the nine and a half tribes.” It was sent by being “bound to the neck of the eagle,” probably meaning that it was intended for the Jews scattered outside Palestine (the Diaspora).<\/p>\n<p>Baruch was the prophet Jeremiah’s companion and secretary (Jer 36:4-8). His name was attached to a number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings composed long after his death. The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch is also called 2 Baruch to distinguish it clearly from the book of Baruch (1 Baruch) in the Apocrypha.<\/p>\n<li>2. Pseudepigraphal document of 17 chapters, also called the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch or 3 Baruch. It is preserved in Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic manuscripts. It was first published in Venice in 1609 and then in 1868, although its existence was suggested by the early Christian theologian Origen. Like 2 Baruch, this apocalypse seems to be a composite document of the second century <span>AD<\/span> but in contrast is a Christian document intended to warn unconverted Jews and to encourage Christians to be patient in dealing with them.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BasilidesGospelof\">Basilides, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Polemic commentary on the Gospels by a second-century Gnostic. Basilides’s writings remain only as allusions and fragments in later works by several church fathers. Basilides taught in Alexandria during the reign of the Roman emperor Hadrian (<span>AD<\/span> 117–138). His teacher, Glaucias, claimed to be a firsthand interpreter of the apostle Peter. Basilides asserted that his Gnostic scheme emerged from Peter’s views on the relationship between God and Christ. He described God paradoxically as a nonexistent Being who “generated” three Sonships. Through successive ascents and enlightenments, the gospel of the supreme God (the Gospel of Light) eventually descended upon Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Origen stated that “Basilides dared to write a gospel According to Basilides.” Clement of Alexandria and the writer of a fourth-century fragment, Acta Archelai, thought that Origen referred to an apocryphal gospel, the teaching of which was deduced from Irenaeus’s account. Today, more in line with Hippolytus’s understanding of Basilides, this work is regarded as merely a commentary on the Gospels. Basilides was probably not responsible for the magical rites and libertinism of the Basilidians, a Gnostic sect led by his son Isidore and continuing in Egypt to the end of the century.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BenjaminTestamentof\">Benjamin, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BirthofMary\">Birth of Mary<\/p>\n<p>An early Gnostic writing. “The Gnostics have a book which they call the Birth (or Descent) of Mary, in which are horrible and deadly things.” So said the fourth-century bishop Ephiphanius in describing the Birth of Mary, a work that has not survived. The Birth of Mary claimed to reveal what Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, saw in the temple—namely, the Jewish god in the form of an ass. That Jews and Christians worshiped an ass-god was commonly held by their critics in those days. This blasphemous work should not be confused with the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, a fanciful but relatively harmless account of Mary’s birth, early life, and marriage to Joseph.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BirthofMaryGospelofthe\">Birth of Mary, Gospel of the<\/p>\n<p>Collection of legends purporting to tell Mary’s story from birth to King Herod’s slaughter of the children in Bethlehem. The earliest such manuscript is called Book of the Nativity of Mary or Gospel of James because it claimed to be written by James, half brother of Jesus. It was written by <span>AD<\/span> 150, since Justin, an early Christian writer, named it in his <em>Dialogues<\/em> (165). It was rediscovered for the West by Postel, who translated it from Greek into Latin (<em>Protevangelium Jacobi,<\/em> 1552). Before it was lost, two major Latin revisions of it had been produced: Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, compiled around the sixth and ninth centuries respectively. These revisions amplified the Book of the Nativity of Mary with more fanciful legends and were the basis for the Golden Legends of James of Voragine (1230–1298), which in turn became instrumental in fostering veneration of Mary.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Book of the Nativity of Mary, Mary is born to rich, barren parents (Joachim and Anna) through angelic response to their prayers. They dedicate Mary to the Lord. At six months Mary walks seven steps, so Anna makes her bedroom a sanctuary, allowing nothing unclean to enter, and vows that Mary will walk again only in the temple. At age three Mary is placed in the temple and receives food from an angel. On Mary’s twelfth birthday the high priest asks God what to do and is told to marry her to a widower. Elderly Joseph is chosen when a dove springs from his rod. Months later, Mary “gives birth” to Jesus in Bethlehem’s cave, through a light so bright that none can see; the light gradually withdraws and the Child appears at Mary’s breast. The Book of the Nativity of Mary closes with the magi and Herod’s slaughter of infants. Mary saves Jesus by wrapping him in swaddling clothes and laying him in a manger.<\/p>\n<p>Recently another Greek fragment, this one from the Gospel of Mary, was found (see photo). The fragment is too little to tell us much about the content of this gospel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BookoftheCock\">Book of the Cock<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal story preserved by the church of Ethiopia and still read there on the Thursday before Easter. According to the Book of the Cock, on the night of the Last Supper, Akrosina, wife of Simon the Pharisee, presents Jesus with a nicely prepared cock for dinner. After Judas leaves the room, Jesus touches the cock and it comes to life. He instructs it to follow Judas and to report his dealings. The cock returns and tells about the forthcoming betrayal, mentioning Paul of Tarsus as one of those involved. The disciples weep. Jesus sends the cock to the sky for a thousand years.<\/p>\n<p>A similar story exists as a fragment in Sahidic Coptic. In the Coptic version the resurrection of the cock is a symbol of the resurrection of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"CopticLivesoftheVirgin\">Coptic Lives of the Virgin<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal works concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Egyptian language of Coptic. <em>See<\/em> Virgin, Life of the (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"CorinthiansThird\">Corinthians, Third<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal correspondence purporting to be between the apostle Paul and the Corinthian church. Written during the second century and known as 3 Corinthians, the work consists of three parts: an epistle allegedly from Stephanus of Corinth to Paul concerning two false apostles, Simon and Cleobius; a brief narrative telling of its delivery; and Paul’s reply and refutation of the false doctrine. The sequence of letters was originally part of the Acts of Paul, a longer apocryphal document, but circulated on its own as well—it even found its way into the text of the Armenian Bible. It pretends to explain the reference in 2 Corinthians 2:4 to a letter written in great distress.<\/p>\n<p>According to an early church father, Tertullian <em>(On Baptism),<\/em> the author of 3 Corinthians was a presbyter (church leader) of Asia who forged it out of love for Paul shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 160. That presbyter’s removal from office indicates the stern attitude of the early Christians toward the writing of documents falsely claiming apostolic origin.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"DanTestamentof\">Dan, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"DialogueoftheRedeemer\">Dialogue of the Redeemer<\/p>\n<p>Christian Gnostic document, also called the Dialogue of the Savior. The document was found in the ancient Nag Hammadi Library at the modern city of Nag Hammadi (Upper Egypt) in 1946. The Dialogue is a fictitious account of a conversation between Jesus and some of his disciples in which they discuss questions about the universe, humanity, the end times, and salvation. The manuscript is in poor condition. Its authorship and origin are unknown, though it was possibly written in Egypt during the second or third centuries <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"DiscourseofTheodosius\">Discourse of Theodosius<\/p>\n<p>Coptic Boharic version of the Assumption of the Virgin and a main source for the Coptic form of that legend. <em>See<\/em> Virgin, Assumption of the (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"DoctrinaAddaei\">Doctrina Addaei<\/p>\n<p>Expanded Syriac form of the Epistles of Christ and Abgarus, written about <span>AD<\/span> 400. The Doctrina Addaei tells a story about the contacts between Abgar (Abgarus), king of Edessa, and Jesus Christ. King Abgar, suffering from an unspecified ailment, is said to have sent a messenger to Jesus bearing the king’s written request for healing along with an offer of sanctuary for Jesus in his kingdom. Jesus responds orally, promising to send one of his followers to Abgar after his own ascension to heaven. Abgar’s envoy also takes back a self-portrait of Jesus that becomes the pride of Edessa. Later Addai visits the kingdom, heals Abgar, and establishes Christianity there. <em>See<\/em> Abgarus, Letters of Christ and (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EbionitesGospelofthe\">Ebionites, Gospel of the<\/p>\n<p>Gospel quoted by one early Christian writer, Epiphanius (fourth century), in a work against heresies. The Gospel of the Ebionites is possibly the same as the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, although some scholars associate it with the Gospel of the Nazarenes. The Ebionites were vegetarians; Epiphanius’s citations stress the vegetarian diets of John the Baptist and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EgyptiansGospelofthe\">Egyptians, Gospel of the<\/p>\n<p>Two apocryphal works with the same name.<\/p>\n<p>1. Apocryphal second-century <span>AD<\/span> Greek writing, mentioned by the early church writers, Clement and Origen. Used in Egypt, the composition seems to have contained and propagated Gnostic teachings, especially those advocated in Syria by Simon and Menander. According to these Gnostics, marriage, eating meat, and procreation were evil. Clement may have quoted from this writing to refute the beliefs of the Encratites, who broadly agreed with the Syrian Gnostics on those matters. The Gnostics’ depreciation of women was reflected in the quotations Clement used.<\/p>\n<li>2. Composition discovered in 1946 at Chenoboskion (Egypt) in the Nag Hammadi collection of Gnostic writing. The principal title of the work, described in the colophon as “Gospel of the Egyptians” was “Sacred Book of the Great Invisible Spirit.” This work dealt with emanations from “the primal spirit of the cosmos” and perhaps was a product of the Barbelo Gnostic sect.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EldadandMedadBookof\">Eldad and Medad, Book of<\/p>\n<p>Pre-Christian pseudepigraphic composition containing the alleged prophecies of Eldad and Medad, two persons appointed as elders by Moses (Nm 11:26). Since the nature of their prophecy was not specified, it gave rise to a lost work that is quoted in the Shepherd of Hermas as follows: “The Lord is near to them who return to Him, as it is written in Eldad and Medad who prophesied to the people in the wilderness” (Vision II, ch 3). That is the only source of information concerning the lost book.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EugnostosLetterof\">Eugnostos, Letter of<\/p>\n<p>Gnostic work. Found near the modern city of Nag Hammadi, the Letter of Eugnostos was written in Coptic by a teacher to his disciple. Both author and date of composition are unknown. An early example of non-Christian Gnostic writing, it perhaps served as the basis for a Christian Gnostic composition, “The Wisdom of Jesus Christ.”<\/p>\n<p>The Letter of Eugnostos attempts to prove the existence of an invisible spiritual realm. It also stresses God’s remoteness from humanity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EveGospelof\">Eve, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Gnostic and apocalyptic writings, known solely through a citation by Epiphanius, a late fourth-century metropolitan of Cyprus. Epiphanius quoted the Gospel of Eve in a biting refutation of Gnostic and Origenistic teachings. Evidently a cult had formed around Eve as if her name implied revelation because the serpent had spoken to her in the Garden of Eden. Epiphanius’s quotation from the Gospel of Eve roughly translates: “I stood on a high mountain and saw a giant and a feeble man, and I heard a voice like thunder. ‘Come near me and listen,’ and he spoke to me saying, ‘I am you and you are me. Wherever you are, there I am. I am spread through all things, and any place you are able to retire into or take shelter in me; and, taking shelter in me, you take shelter in yourself.’ ”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EzekielApocryphal\">Ezekiel, Apocryphal<\/p>\n<p>Noncanonical book of Ezekiel mentioned by Josephus, first-century Jewish historian. An apocryphal Ezekiel is cited in five early Christian writings and a recent archaeological discovery. Bishop Epiphanius (fourth century) cited an Ezekiel parable, in proof of the resurrection of the interdependent soul and body, about a blind man and a lame man collaborating to rob an orchard. Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthians (AD 90?), and Clement of Alexandria in two of his writings (<span>AD<\/span> 200?) have noncanonical Ezekiel quotations. An Ezekiel apocryphon is mentioned in the pseudo-Athanasian canon (purporting to list canonical books of the Bible) and is named in the stichometry (prose written in rhythmic phrases) of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (<span>AD<\/span> 806–815). In 1940 Campbell Bonner published Greek papyrus fragments that confirm the existence of an apocryphal Ezekiel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EzraFourthBookof\">Ezra, Fourth Book of<\/p>\n<p>Alternate name for the apocryphal book 2 Esdras. <em>See<\/em> Esdras, Second Book of.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"GadTestamentof\">Gad, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"GenesisApocryphon\">Genesis Apocryphon<\/p>\n<p>Name given to one of the seven large Dead Sea Scrolls recovered from the first Qumran cave in 1947. With three others it came into the possession of the Syrian archbishop of Jerusalem but could not be unrolled and photographed because it was badly preserved, having not been kept in an earthen jar like the others. Some small pieces were detached, however, and certain words on them indicated that it might be an apocryphal Aramaic work connected with the patriarch Enoch. Further scraps spoke of Lamech, however, thus the scroll was tentatively named for that ancient person.<\/p>\n<p>Eventually it was unrolled and found to be not only damaged but incomplete; the beginning and the end were missing. The inner portion had been best preserved, but considerable damage had been done to the text by the ink it had been written with. The scroll not only dealt with Enoch and Lamech but with other persons mentioned in the book of Genesis. It proved to be an Aramaic form of parts of Genesis dealing with the patriarchs, but it included legends and other materials presented in memoir style, not found in the Hebrew Bible. That style was popular among pious Jews at the beginning of the Christian era, thus its original has been dated to the first century <span>BC<\/span>. The Qumran copy was probably made between 50 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The literary characteristics of the scroll have presented some classification problems. Free expansion and inclusion of nonbiblical material led certain scholars to call the scroll a “targum” or commentary-expansion of the Genesis text. Others have regarded it as a “midrash” or sermonic account of the Hebrew narrative. The scroll contains both elements and is best regarded as an independent recounting of certain Genesis stories, enriched by the inclusion of imaginative material such as a description of the beauty of the patriarch Abraham’s wife Sarah; dreams; and accounts of plagues and journeys.<\/p>\n<p>The Aramaic Apocryphon somewhat antedates the one used in Palestine in the time of Christ. It contains some Hebraisms but is mostly written in good Aramaic, much of which parallels biblical Aramaic. The language of the scroll, however, is later than the period of old Aramaic (tenth to eighth centuries <span>BC<\/span>) or official Aramaic (Assyrian and Persian periods), as the presence of certain grammatical forms indicate. Most scholars have described the language as middle Aramaic and have placed it between the Aramaic of Daniel and later western Aramaic. Those scholars generally assign a second-century <span>BC<\/span> date to Daniel, but that conclusion needs to be modified because the Qumran material shows that no canonical work was composed later than about 350 <span>BC<\/span>. On any evidence, the Aramaic of Daniel is earlier than that of the Apocryphon and seems to fit properly into the period when official Aramaic was the dominant form of the language. The Genesis Apocryphon presents no valid reasons for dating the Aramaic of Daniel or Ezra later than the sixth to fifth centuries <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"GospelofThomas\">Gospel of Thomas<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Thomas, Gospel of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"IsaiahAscensionof\">Isaiah, Ascension of<\/p>\n<p>Pseudepigraphal apocalyptic work widely known to the early Christians; also known as the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Testament of Hezekiah, and the Vision of Isaiah. It was rediscovered when an Ethiopic version of part of the text was published in 1819. The full Ethiopic version is the only complete version in existence. A partial Latin text published in 1832 had actually been published in Venice over three centuries before. Slavonic and Coptic versions also exist. All may be traced back to two Greek versions of the third, fifth, and sixth centuries.<\/p>\n<p>It is not clear whether the original was a single composition or even whether the authorship was Christian or Jewish with later Christian editing. The final form may date from the latter part of the second century. It was known to Ambrose, Jerome, Origen, Tertullian, and possibly to Justyn Martyr. The contents fall under three heads:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Martyrdom of Isaiah. This material consists of prophetic utterances, including the prophet’s prediction of his own death at the hands of King Manasseh of Judah. The document deals with the dark apostasy of the king, who, indwelt by Satan and following Beliar, leads his people into all manner of sin. Jerusalem, whose fall is prophesied, is called “Sodom” and its princes “Gomorrah.” In the form of a midrash (devotional sermon), this section dwells on Isaiah’s firm rejection of compromise or recantation. Isaiah’s martyrdom by being “sawn in two” is the portion with which the church fathers seem to have been familiar.<\/p>\n<li>2. The Testament of Hezekiah. This section is apocalyptic, a vision Isaiah passes on to his king. It speaks of the descent of “the Beloved,” a title used in this document for the Messiah. The vision covers the Messiah’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, then turns to the early history of the church and the apostasy that precedes the second coming of the Lord. The Antichrist is revealed as Beliar or Satan, who assumes human form and kills his mother (no doubt directed at the Roman emperor Nero, who murdered his mother, Agrippina). The whole section is based on Daniel and the biblical Apocalypse and was also influenced by Gnosticism. The conclusion of the vision (the Beloved’s victory, the two resurrections, and the final judgment) very closely parallels the consummation of all things in the NT book of Revelation.<\/li>\n<li>3. The Vision of Isaiah. This section resembles #2 even linguistically but shows more Gnostic influence: Isaiah is lifted to the dwelling place of the Trinity, the seventh heaven, and shown many mysteries of Christ. Because of this vision Manasseh kills the prophet. Gnostic doctrine, as propagated by Cerinthus at the end of the first century, is evident. Jesus, earthly born, becomes the host of the Christ, who leaves his earthly tenement at the Crucifixion.<\/li>\n<p>Historically, the value of the Ascension of Isaiah is to show the welter of conflicting opinion which, claiming authority and inspiration, besieged the minds of the early Christians.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"IsaiahMartyrdomof\">Isaiah, Martyrdom of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Isaiah, Ascension of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"IssacharTestamentof\">Issachar, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JamesApocalypseof\">James, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>There were two Gnostic apocalypses of James (designated “first” and “second”). The first, covering over 20 pages of text, purports to be a revelation given by the Lord, some of it before the Crucifixion and some after it, to James, his brother, who was also know as James the righteous. The two documents referred to as the Apocalypse of James are in Codex V of the Nag Hammadi literature discovered in 1945 in Egypt just west of the Nile River opposite the city of Chenoboskion and are distinct from the Apocryphon of James, which is included in NT apocryphal writings. The second apocalypse composed of 20 pages of Coptic text is purportedly a speech delivered by James the Just on the fifth step of the temple and contains many references to or echoes of canonical Scriptures. The work ends with the multitude casting James down from the temple and stoning him in a manner reminiscent of the martyrdom of Stephen.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JamesAscentsof\">James, Ascents of<\/p>\n<p>Lost book mentioned only by Epiphanius (bishop of the Greek island of Salamis) in his fourth-century work <em>Refutation of All the Heresies.<\/em> According to Epiphanius, the Ascents of James was used by the Ebionites, a rigidly ascetic sect of Jewish Christians. The book represented James, Jesus’ brother, as having spoken against the temple and sacrifices. It declared the apostle Paul to be a Greek who went to Jerusalem, sought to marry the high priest’s daughter, and to that end became a proselyte and was circumcised. When he did not win the young woman, he inveighed against the Sabbath, the Law, and circumcision.<\/p>\n<p>In a commentary on Galatians (1865), J. B. Lightfoot suggested that the book’s title referred to James’s ascents up the temple steps, from which he addressed the people. Lightfoot also suggested that James’s death was the grand climax of the ascents. According to a quote from the early Christian writer Hegesippus (as recorded in Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em>), James was cast down to his death from the pinnacle of the temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JamesProtevangeliumof\">James, Protevangelium of<\/p>\n<p>This is an apocryphal “gospel” that tells of the token marriage and pregnancy of Mary and of Jesus’ birth, childhood, and adolescent years. This apocryphal writing was discovered in the 16th century by Guillaume Postel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JobTestamentof\">Job, Testament of<\/p>\n<p>Apocalyptic literature bearing resemblance to the biblical book of Job. The book was probably written in Greek in the second century <span>AD<\/span>. Since it is devoid of Christian thought, it was likely written by a Jew.<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 1–45, Job is the speaker. He comes to understand that a nearby temple has been desecrated by there having been offered in it sacrifices to Satan. When Job destroys it, Satan threatens him. Job’s friends come to console him but their speeches are greatly abbreviated. Elihu is represented as Satan’s mouthpiece and earns God’s displeasure. But Job sacrifices for all three friends. He remarries and has seven sons and three daughters, who inherit his wealth. Chapters 46–51, in which Job’s brother is the speaker, conclude the narrative.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JohntheBaptistLifeof\">John the Baptist, Life of<\/p>\n<p>A legendary account supposedly written by Serapion dealing with the early life of John the Baptist and especially with the death of his mother, Elizabeth. While Jesus was living with his parents in Egypt, Elizabeth dies on the same day as Herod the Great dies. John, who is but a small boy, does not know how to bury her. The clouds bring Jesus, Mary, and Salome who wash the body. The grave is dug by Michael and Gabriel, who also bring the souls of Zacharias and Simeon. John is then left to grow up in the desert under the care of the angels, while the clouds lift Jesus and Mary to Nazareth where they live.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JohntheEvangelistBookof\">John the Evangelist, Book of<\/p>\n<p>This writing was used most extensively by the Albigenses and was commonly regarded as stemming from the Bogomiles before them. It was written in the form of questions and answers propounded to have come from the apostle John while he leaned upon the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper. This pattern of questions and answers is found in other early Gnostic writings, especially the Gospel of Bartholomew.<\/p>\n<p>The writing contains Gnostic theology. It portrays a world created by Satan and not by God. Christ was not born of Mary but was an angel sent forth to the earth. He “entered in by the ear and came forth by the ear” of Mary. John the Baptist was sent by Satan, and his disciples (the Roman Catholic Church) are not the disciples of Christ. Baptism and apparently the Lord’s Supper are valueless.<\/p>\n<p>The writing is preserved only in Latin and in its present form is not earlier than the 12th century. A convenient English translation may be found in M. R. James, <em>The Apocryphal NT<\/em> (1924).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JosephPrayerof\">Joseph, Prayer of<\/p>\n<p>Jewish apocalyptic work. The Prayer of Joseph won the commendation of Origen, an early church scholar, as a document “not to be despised.” Origen’s quotations provide almost the only surviving information about the work, so that its total content and significance are unclear. An ancient list of OT apocryphal and canonical writings puts the Prayer of Joseph third and mentions its length as 1,100 verses. Origen’s quotations concern mainly Joseph’s father, Jacob. Jacob exists in the form of an angel, bearing Jacob’s given name Israel. He is the speaker in the quoted fragments and foretells the fate of humankind. He describes how he met Uriel on a journey to Mesopotamia and how Uriel wrestled with him, claiming to be the greatest of the angels. The apocalyptic poet had in mind the story of Jacob’s mysterious wrestling at Jabbok (Gn 32:22-29) and passages such as Daniel 10:13. Because Jacob claims to be “the first born of all living beings” and therefore the chief of all angels, Uriel challenges him.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JosephTestamentof\">Joseph, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JosephtheCarpenterHistoryof\">Joseph the Carpenter, History of<\/p>\n<p>Document glorifying Jesus’ earthly father and promoting a cult of Joseph. Words in chapter 18 of the History of Joseph support a fourth-century date for it. There Jesus tells his mother, “You, too, must look for the same end of life as other mortals.” By the fifth century the doctrine of the “Assumption of the Virgin” was widely held.<\/p>\n<p>The document, derived from the Protevangelium of James, was contaminated by both Gnosticism and other religious beliefs of Egypt, the country in which it was written. It is extant in Coptic and Arabic and also in a fourth-century translation of the Coptic text.<\/p>\n<p>The History of Joseph the Carpenter claims to give an account of Joseph’s life and his model death at the age of 111. The story is allegedly told by Jesus to his disciples on the Mt of Olives. Joseph, a carpenter (Mt 13:55), is a widower well advanced in years when he marries Mary, who is only 12. (He had six children by an earlier marriage.) Joseph is buried according to the rites of the Egyptian Osiris cult after Jesus pronounces a eulogy.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JubileesBookof\">Jubilees, Book of<\/p>\n<p>Jubilees is a pseudepigraphal work from the last half of the second century <span>BC<\/span> during the Maccabean period. It is an invaluable source for understanding the environment in the age prior to the launching of the Christian church. Jubilees stands with the Book of Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as the most important Hebrew or Aramaic literature of the time. Like these it was translated into Greek and used by the church fathers. Most probably, Jubilees was written in Hebrew since it purported a Mosaic authorship and since its nationalistic Maccabean environment would demand it. Fragments of 10 manuscripts in Hebrew found at Qumran support the thesis that it was originally in that language.<\/p>\n<p>The work is referred to by later Greek writers following Hebrew sources as “Jubilees” and “the little (lesser) Genesis.” It is also entitled “The Apocalypse of Moses” and the “Testament of Moses.” In revised forms it has been called “The Book of Adam’s Daughters” and “The Life of Adam.”<\/p>\n<p>Complete, fifty-chapter manuscripts exist in six Ethiopian texts of which the texts of the fifth and sixth centuries are best. The Latin text is valuable but partial and only a few fragments of the Greek version remain. The Hebrew fragments found at Qumran are of special importance since they are from the period of original writing. The Bibliotheque Nationale has “Ethiopien 51” and “Ethiopien 160.” The British Museum has <em>Kufale,<\/em> or <em>Liber Jubilaeorum,<\/em> and <em>Enoch<\/em><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The author of Jubilees claims a direct revelational source for the teaching that he espouses. God had spoken to Moses in the Pentateuch in the “lesser law” in this “little book of Genesis.” At Sinai God communicated to Moses by the “Angel of the Presence” saying to the angel, “Write for Moses from the beginning of creation until my sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity” (1:27). This is supplementary to the “first law” (6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Following a brief introduction Jubilees follows the text of Genesis and Exodus to 14:31. This midrashic treatment of the Pentateuchal material attempts to show that the patriarchy adhered to the law even prior to Moses. The author’s aim is to strengthen classical Judaism in the face of the serious intrusions of Hellenistic culture among Jewish peoples. In doing this the author does not hesitate in adding and subtracting from Pentateuchal history. The patriarchs are adorned in every way. Anything that showed their weaknesses and sins was removed and legendary content inserted to glorify these fathers. The patriarchs are the fountainheads of culture. Enoch invented writing; Noah, medicine; Abraham, plowing.<\/p>\n<p>Appealing to Leviticus 25:8-12, the work emphasizes the importance of the number seven. History from Adam to Moses is arranged according to cycles of seven. This manner of compartmentalizing history into jubilee periods was revealed to Moses at Sinai and so has divine sanction and in fact is mandated. The philosophy of history that springs from this sees God acting sovereignly and uniquely in Israel in distinction to his relationship with the gentile world. The other nations are ruled by angels but not Israel, which is directly in God’s charge (Jubilees 15:31ff.).<\/p>\n<p>The polemic that Jubilees mounts against the lunar calendar (6:36-38) and its acceptance of the solar calendar is but another facet of the drive for a deep reform that will cleanse Israel. Israel is to be separated to God in every way with no intermingling in marriage or sitting at the table with Gentiles. There is a surprising stringency demanded in Sabbath keeping (50:1-13). The penalty of death is levied against those who travel, buy or sell, draw water, bear burdens, snare creatures, or have marital relations on the Sabbath. These go far beyond the biblical requirements and belong to that milieu that produced the Qumran community and the Essenes.<\/p>\n<p>The apocalyptic declaration of the Angel of Presence contains a clear but limited eschatological truth. Jubilees does contain the expectation of an immediate establishment of the messianic age. The entire emphasis, however, is such that ethical and cultural purposes are preeminent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JudahTestamentof\">Judah, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JudasIscariotGospelof\">Judas Iscariot, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Very old Gnostic writing probably produced by the Cainite sect. As it is not preserved for us today, we know it only through quotations in the writings of early Christians, especially Irenaeus. Thus, it must have been written before the middle of the second century <span>AD<\/span>. It probably contained a body of secret doctrine purportedly revealed by Judas Iscariot, summarizing the truth of superior and perfect knowledge supposedly revealed to this sect of the Gnostics. The gospel sets forth the “mystery of the betrayal,” explaining how Judas through his treachery made the salvation of all mankind possible. This was accomplished by his forestalling the destruction of the truth proclaimed by Christ or by his thwarting the designs of the evil powers, the Archons, who wished to prevent the crucifixion of Christ because they knew it would destroy their evil power.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"LentulusEpistleof\">Lentulus, Epistle of<\/p>\n<p>Lentulus, ostensibly a predecessor of Pontius Pilate, is said to have prepared a report to the Roman Senate known as the Letter (or Epistle) of Lentulus. In it he included a detailed description of Jesus: “tall and handsome, his countenance inspiring reverence along with love and fear, his hair dark, shining, curling, parted in the middle, his face with a delicate rudiness. . . .” The authenticity of the letter is extremely doubtful.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"LeviTestamentof\">Levi, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"LivesofAdamandEve\">Lives of Adam and Eve<\/p>\n<p>A general title given to a noncanonical writing extant in Greek and Latin. The book is Jewish in nature, though there is a Christian flavor that causes most scholars to date the original work to the beginning of the Christian era. The content of the book is an expansion on the biblical story of Adam and Eve.<\/p>\n<p>The Greek version begins with the expulsion from Eden. In a dream, Eve sees the murder of Abel. After Adam had fallen ill Seth and Eve went to obtain oil from the tree of life. Michael the archangel met Seth and told him that Adam would die. Upon his death, he was ultimately taken to the third heaven. Seth witnessed how the angels interred his father and received instructions on how to bury his mother, who died a week after Adam.<\/p>\n<p>The Latin version gives additional information. After the expulsion from the Garden, Eve asked Adam to kill her but instead of that he suggested they both do an act of penitence. Adam went to stand in the Jordan for 40 days and Eve went to stand in the water of the Euphrates for 37 days. While there, she was again tempted by Satan, who was disguised as an angel of light but was eventually exposed by Adam. Satan now explained the reason for his hostility toward them: when the angels were commanded to worship the Lord, he refused to do obeisance to God and was consequently cast out of heaven.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"MatthewMartyrdomof\">Matthew, Martyrdom of<\/p>\n<p>Loosely organized tale of Matthew’s martyrdom that borrows heavily from the “Acts of Andrew and Matthias” and assumes that Matthias was in fact Matthew. The document represents the low literary and theological impulse of the later apocryphal texts.<\/p>\n<p>The story begins when Matthew is commissioned by Jesus to plant a staff in Myrna, the city of man-eaters. Matthew does so, after exorcising the demon Asmodeus from the king’s wife and family. The staff becomes a tree overnight, Matthew preaches to the people, and they “become humanized.” But Asmodeus seeks revenge by directing the king to burn Matthew. The fire consumes golden idols and many soldiers, then turns into a dragon and chases the king, who begs Matthew for help. But Matthew dies.<\/p>\n<p>A somewhat repentant but not yet converted king places the body of Matthew in an iron casket and sinks it secretly in the sea. The next day Matthew appears on the sea in the presence of two shining men and a “beautiful” child. The king is finally converted, baptized, and accepted into the church. Matthew appears to confer on the king his own name and to ordain him a priest and his family, deacons and deaconesses. Then Matthew ascends to heaven with two angels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"MedadBookofEldadand\">Medad, Book of Eldad and<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Eldad and Medad, Book of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"MosesAssumptionof\">Moses, Assumption of<\/p>\n<p>A Jewish legend that Moses was taken bodily into heaven without dying. Probably written between <span>AD<\/span> 7 and 30, it may be a combination of two earlier works, and appears to borrow heavily from the book of Deuteronomy. The work was likely produced to provide a miraculous ending to Moses’ outstanding earthly life, attributing to him an experience similar to Elijah’s. But this Jewish legend is contrary to the OT account of Moses’ death (Dt 32:48-50; 34:5-7).<\/p>\n<h6>The Lost Assumption of Moses<\/h6>\n<p>Three facts indicate that there once was an apocryphal book that contained the legend of the assumption of Moses: (1) early lists of apocryphal works mention a work by this title; (2) several church fathers refer to it; and (3) a few fragments in Greek have survived.<\/p>\n<p>The following items appeared in the work. God commissioned the archangel Michael to bury Moses’ body. Satan opposed Moses’ burial because he claimed authority over all matter and because Moses was a murderer. Michael countered Satan’s claims and charged him with tempting Eve in Eden. Joshua and Caleb then watched Moses’ assumption occur in a strange way. As they watched, they saw Moses’ dead body buried in the mountain, but they also saw Moses himself in the company of the angels. In effect Moses’ body died, but Moses himself did not.<\/p>\n<p>Though often stated that Jude (v 9) was quoted from the Assumption of Moses, this is impossible to prove, simply because the relevant portions of that work have not survived. The most one can say is that several church fathers, including Clement of Alexandria (d. <span>AD<\/span> 215) and Origen (c. 185–254), suggested that the Assumption of Moses was the source for the account in Jude 1:9. They had both works. We have only Jude, so we cannot check their conclusions. The matter is further complicated because there is another work (see next section) now called the Assumption of Moses. People often suppose that Jude 1:9 is a citation from that book. It is not.<\/p>\n<h6>The Extant Assumption of Moses<\/h6>\n<p>This work, perhaps written during Jesus’ lifetime, purports to be a description of Moses’ predictions to Joshua of the destiny of the nation of Israel. It is similar to other apocryphal, nonhistorical writings that were written under the names of great Jewish leaders.<\/p>\n<p>It was discovered quite by chance in 1861, in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. The manuscript, dated to the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>, is a very poor copy of a Latin translation, perhaps derived from a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. The beginning and the ending are lost. There are numerous spelling mistakes, and there is no space between words. Not surprisingly, scholars have long disputed the reading, interpretation, and translation even of whole verses.<\/p>\n<p>The opening three lines have not survived, so the original title has been lost. When discovered, the work was assumed to be the long-lost Assumption of Moses, but this identification is now widely doubted. Even though the book is still called by this title, it is far more likely to be either the Testament of Moses (which is also mentioned, along with the Assumption of Moses, in early lists of apocryphal works) or a composite work resulting from the combination of the Testament and the Assumption into one work.<\/p>\n<p>There is only one reference to Moses’ assumption in the book, and it comes in connection with a mention of his death (10:12). Because the ending of the book is also lost, it is impossible to know the contents of the conclusion or to tell whether this one remaining reference to Moses’ assumption is original or whether it has been added by a scribe by mistake or by an editor combining two different works. It is clear, however, that the author of the surviving section believed that Moses expected to die (1:15; 10:12-14) and that Joshua assumed that he would (11:4-8).<\/p>\n<p>The work begins midsentence (three lines are missing) and dates Moses’ following speech to 2,500 years after Creation (1:2-5). Expecting to die, Moses summons Joshua, encourages him, and tells him that God created the world for his people (the Israelites), who will repent before the consummation at the end of the days (1:6-18).<\/p>\n<p>Then Moses foretells Israel’s future. The people will inherit the land (Canaan) and be ruled by local magistrates, chiefs (judges?), and kings (2:1-3). The kingdom will divide, and the people will turn to idolatry (2:4-9). A king from the east (Nebuchadnezzar) will take two tribes into captivity for about 77 years, where they will recall Moses’ warnings (3:1-14; cf. Jer 25:11-12; Dt 28:15-68; 30:15-20). Someone (Daniel) will pray for deliverance (cf. Dn 9:4-19), and God will persuade a king (Cyrus) to send the exiles home (4:1-6; cf. Is 45:1-6; Ezr 1:1-4). Some exiles will return to their appointed place (Jerusalem) and rewall it but be unable to offer [proper] sacrifices (4:7-8; contrast Ezr 3:1-7). Others will remain in exile but will increase in population (4:9). This concludes the OT period and begins the intertestamental period (c. 400 to 1 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The widespread apostasy of the Seleucid period (c. 201–267 <span>BC<\/span>) is described, with special reference to priests and judges (4:1-6). The Maccabees, who gained and maintained political independence from Syria (in 164 <span>BC<\/span>) are not mentioned. Instead, the focus is on the kings (the Hasmoneans) who made themselves high priests (6:1). Next will come an insolent king (Herod the Great, 37–4 <span>BC<\/span>), who will rule ruthlessly (6:2-7). Then a powerful king of the West will conquer the people, take some captive, crucify others, and burn part of the temple (6:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>From this point on, the author, having reached his own period, had to guess at the future, so the predictions that he put in Moses’ mouth are general or obscure and often unfulfilled. The next rulers (Sadducees?) would be impious, treacherous, gluttons, deceitful, and worried about ritual uncleanness while living in luxury at the expense of the poor (7:1-10). An unprecedented time of wrath would follow, when a great king would persecute the Jews, torturing, imprisoning, and even crucifying them for practicing circumcision (8:1-5). During this persecution, one man, Taxo, a Levite with seven sons, would remain faithful to God and die rather than adopt Greek customs (8:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The next section (10:1-10), an apocalyptic poem (ten stanzas, each with three lines), is the only apocalyptic section of the book. The Lord’s kingdom will appear, Satan will be no more, and the chief angel (Michael) will avenge Israel (10:1-2). “The Heavenly One will arise from His royal throne,” and there will be miraculous signs on the earth and in the sky; even the ocean will drain away (10:3-6). The Most High, the Eternal God, will appear and punish the Gentiles, destroying their idols (10:7). But Israel will be happy and exalted, rejoicing at seeing her enemies in Gehenna (hell) and thankfully praising her Creator (10:8-10). With Moses’ mention of his death and some consoling words for Joshua, the composition ends in an incomplete form.<\/p>\n<p>The book must have been written after Herod died and Varus had subdued a rebellion in Judea (4 <span>BC<\/span>) and before the temple was destroyed (<span>AD<\/span> 70). The book predicts that Herod’s sons will not rule as long as Herod himself did (34 years, 37–4 <span>BC<\/span>). This prediction may be based on the fact that one son, Archelaus, was deposed after a 10-year reign (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 6). If so, the book was written after <span>AD<\/span> 6. But two other sons (Philip and Antipas) actually ruled longer than their father. For the author not to know this requires that the book must have been written within 34 years of Herod’s death—in other words, before <span>AD<\/span> 30. Therefore, the book was probably written sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 6 and 30. This also means that the book reflects Jewish thinking during Jesus’ lifetime.<\/p>\n<p>The author was evidently a Palestinian Jew, but it is doubtful whether he was a member of any known major sect of the times. He hates Roman rule (8:1–10:10) without advocating revolt, as the Zealots and their predecessors did. His interest in the temple (2:8-9; 5:3; 6:9; 8:5) is not typical of an Essene. He condemns the Sadducean lifestyle (7:3-10). And his use of apocalyptic writing (10:1-10) is thought to have been unusual for a Pharisee.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"NaphtaliTestamentof\">Naphtali, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"NicodemusGospelof\">Nicodemus, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Alternate title for the apocryphal work Acts of Pilate. <em>See<\/em> Pilate, Acts of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"NoahBookof\">Noah, Book of<\/p>\n<p>Allusion to the writing of Noah is made in the book of Jubilees where it is said “Noah wrote down all things in a book as we instructed him concerning every kind of medicine. Thus the evil spirits were precluded from (hurting) the sons of Noah” (10:13; see also 21:10). The book of Noah borrows heavily from the book of Enoch (see chs 6–11, 54–55, 60, 65–69, 106–110). The other sections relate to the Noachic flood and subjects about which Noah could be presumed to have knowledge. Unfortunately no separate manuscript of the book of Noah is known to be extant.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"OdesofSolomon\">Odes of Solomon<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Solomon, Psalms of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PatriarchsTestamentsoftheTwelve\">Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulActsof\">Paul, Acts of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Paul and Thecla, Acts of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulActsofAndrewand\">Paul, Acts of Andrew and<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Andrew and Paul, Acts of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulandTheclaActsof\">Paul and Thecla, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Paul and Thecla is one section of an apocryphal work known as the Acts of Paul. It was apparently written in the latter half of the second century <span>AD<\/span> by a church elder who lived in Asia. According to Tertullian (<em>On Baptism<\/em> 17.19-21), the motive for the writing was “love of Paul,” but the presbyter was removed from office for producing this document. It is not clear whether the reason for his deposition was that he made a false claim to apostolic authorship, or whether it was that the viewpoints expressed in the document were considered heretical.<\/p>\n<p>The story reads like a folktale. Paul arrives in Iconium after fleeing from Antioch. He is met by Onesiphorus, who welcomes Paul into his home. A group of people gather there to hear Paul’s message. Beside the window of a neighboring house, Thecla is seated. She cannot see Paul, but she listens intently to his message. Her mother, Thecleia, exclaims, “My daughter, like a spider, is bound by his words to the window, seized by a new craving and a terrible passion.” Paul is teaching that in order to “see God,” a person must live a life of abstinence from sexual activity.<\/p>\n<p>Thecla is engaged to be married, but she is so impressed with Paul’s teaching that she determines she will break her engagement to Thamyris. Thamyris, in distress, appeals to the governor of the city, who arrests and imprisons Paul. Thecla bribes the jailer with bracelets and a silver mirror and enters Paul’s cell. Again she is transfixed by his teaching. At the trial, Thecla is adamant in her refusal to marry Thamyris. Paul is banned from the city; Thecla is condemned to be burned to death. Miraculously her life is spared, and she is reunited with Paul and travels with him to Antioch.<\/p>\n<p>In Antioch, Thecla rebuffs the advances of a nobleman, Alexander, and for a second time is condemned to death. But the wild beasts who are to devour her in the public arena instead lick her feet and protect her. When she throws herself into a water cistern to effect her baptism, she is again spared death—a lightning flash kills the fish lurking in the water, and they float lifeless to the surface. Queen Tryphaena, who has befriended Thecla, faints with shock as repeated attempts are made to take Thecla’s life. Seeing this, Alexander finally begs the governor to set Thecla free.<\/p>\n<p>Free once more, Thecla seeks Paul. She disguises herself as a man by putting on male attire. Arriving in Myra, she finds Paul and announces to him that she is returning to Iconium. Paul commands her to “teach the word of God.” After teaching for a while in Iconium, Thecla travels on to Seleucia.<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Thecla’s life is not well documented. Some manuscripts record that Thecla, being afraid of the people of Seleucia, withdrew to a mountain and resided in a cave. There she lived an ascetic life, taught certain women who came to her, and carried out a ministry of healing. Later she departed to Rome, seeking Paul. Paul, however, was already dead. When Thecla herself died, at 90 years of age, she was buried not far from the tomb of her beloved master.<\/p>\n<p>Although this work is considered apocryphal and is excluded from the NT canon, there are some early writers who held it in high regard. The Acts of Paul, of which this document forms a part, is mentioned by Origen and by Hippolytus with respect. Eusebius was of the opinion that the document was spurious, but he distinguished it from inferior heretical works. There are two instances where details of information have found their way from the Acts of Paul into early manuscripts of canonical books (2 Tm 3:11; 4:19). It is probable that the viewpoints indicated in this document reflected popular religious traditions widely held in the second century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Tertullian, however, argues that the document is quite out of harmony with Paul’s attitudes as expressed in the canonical material. In particular, he objects to the role assumed by a woman in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. Paul, Tertullian says, would never have permitted a woman to teach and to baptize (<em>On Baptism<\/em> 17.21-23). The Acts of Paul and Thecla does differ from the Pauline stance, but not in the way indicated by Tertullian. The document depicts Paul as a proponent of the encratite viewpoint, teaching that celibacy is necessary for salvation. The canonical Paul taught that salvation is attained through faith alone, and that celibacy is a matter of special calling and certainly not the norm for every Christian (1 Cor 7:1-7). The Acts of Paul and Thecla suggests that a woman must assume male attire and must abstain from marriage if she is to exercise a leadership role. The canonical Paul instructed that a woman in a leadership position should dress as a woman (1 Cor 11:4-6), and he affirmed the ministerial function of married women (Rom 16:3). The Acts of Paul and Thecla emulates a woman whose motivating power was personal devotion to the apostle. The canonical writings suggest that Paul strongly discouraged such a show of personal allegiance to himself (1 Cor 1:12-17). Christ alone was to be the motivating influence in Christian service.<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Paul and Thecla provides us with a unique description of the physical appearance of Paul: “a man small of stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness; for now he appeared like a man, and now he had the face of an angel.” This description is probably not reliable in any historical sense; more likely it pictures a typical Jew of the period. But because there is no other description preserved in early documents, this one has formed the basis for the many portraits of Paul that have come down through the centuries.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulApocalypseof\">Paul, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>This document, which originated in the late fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, pretends to be a written account of some of the experiences that the apostle Paul had when he was caught up to the third heaven, or paradise, according to 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. The fact that Paul did not describe what he saw or heard during that revelatory vision excited the imagination of some unknown fourth-century Christian. Since the author describes with relish the tortures in hell experienced by a presbyter, bishop, and deacon (chs 34–36) and elsewhere approves of the devotion and piety of monks and nuns (chs 7–9) and of those who are virgins or chaste (ch 22), it is safe to conclude that he was a monk who disapproved of the insincere and hypocritical religiosity of his contemporaries, both laymen and clergy.<\/p>\n<p>This book, originally written in Greek, survives in relatively complete form in Latin. A partial indication of the great popularity of this piece of religious fiction is the fact that it was translated into Ethiopic, Coptic, and Syriac as well as Latin.<\/p>\n<p>The book is loosely structured in seven sections. The work begins with a short introductory section that attempts to explain why the book was unknown from the first to the fourth century (chs 1–2): during the consulate of (emperor) Theodosius Augustus the Younger and Cynegius (the document can thus be dated to <span>AD<\/span> 388), a respectable but nameless person received a revelation through an angel. The man happened to be living in Tarsus in a house once occupied by St Paul himself. The angel told the man to break up the foundations and publish whatever he found. After being pummeled by the angel for disobedience, he finally broke the foundations only to discover a marble box that he immediately delivered to the emperor. The emperor opened the box and found the original version of the Apocalypse of Paul (which he copies) and a pair of shoes used by Paul on his missionary journeys. The substance of the mysterious document then follows.<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 3–6, Paul is said to have received a message from God announcing how all creation is subject to God with the exception of man himself. Chapters 7–10 relate how the guardian angels of each man and woman report every morning and evening to God concerning the deeds of those in their charge. Some are very good, while others are exceedingly wicked. In chapters 11–18, Paul is taken up in the Holy Spirit to the third heaven and asks to see the souls of the righteous and sinners as they leave the world. The angel accompanying Paul shows him a righteous man leaving the world, an ungodly man, and the soul of one who thought himself righteous but in fact was not.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 19–30 describe Paul being lifted up to the third heaven (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4), where he saw a golden gate flanked by golden pillars upon which were mounted golden tablets containing the names of the righteous. Upon entering paradise he was greeted by Enoch and Elijah and shown things that he could not reveal to others (ch 21; cf. 2 Cor 12:4). From there he was taken to the second heaven and then to the firmament encircled by Ocean (ch 21). There he saw the milk white waters of Lake Acherusia where the city of Christ was located. He was brought to the city in a golden boat while 3,000 angels sang a hymn. At the river of honey he met Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets (ch 25); at the river of milk he saw the infants slain by Herod (ch 26); at the river of wine he met Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, and Job (ch 27); at the river of oil he met those completely dedicated to God (ch 28). At the center of the city, by a great altar, David sang the hallelujah to God.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s tour of hell is described in chapters 31–44; it is a place of sorrow and distress in which flows a river boiling with fire. In the river, some of the damned were immersed to the knees, others to the navel or lips, depending on the severity of their sins (ch 31). Chapters 34–36 describe the tortures of a presbyter, bishop, and deacon. Throughout this section the most ghastly tortures imaginable are described in detail with great relish. Finally, in chapter 44, Christ decrees that for Paul’s sake there will be no torture on Sundays henceforth.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s angelic travel guide then escorts him to paradise (chs 45–51), where the righteous of all ages are anxious to meet him. He meets the Virgin Mary (ch 46), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as well as the 12 sons of Jacob (ch 47), Moses, who weeps for the unconverted Jews (ch 48), Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, each of whom describes his martyrdom, Lot and Job (ch 49), Noah (ch 50), Elijah, Elisha, Zechariah and his son, John the Baptist, and Adam (ch 51). The document either ended here or, in alternate versions, with Paul’s miraculous trip to the Mt of Olives where he and the other disciples received the divine commission.<\/p>\n<p>The document is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies and many of the translated versions do not agree with each other in all details. The chief importance of the document is in terms of its glimpses into the thinking of late fourth-century Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulPassionof\">Paul, Passion of<\/p>\n<p>A revised Latin version of the apocryphal Martyrdom of Paul, which was part of a larger body of texts called the Acts of Paul. The original Martyrdom is the story of Paul’s resuscitation of Patroclus, Nero’s cupbearer, who had fallen from a window and died during one of Paul’s sermons. Patroclus confesses his new loyalty to Christ before the stunned Nero, who moves quickly to round up all such “soldiers of the great king (Christ).” Paul is included in the purge. The Passion elaborates on the story to include a passage about Seneca’s admiration for Paul and his writings, portions of which Seneca allegedly read to Nero. Also, Paul on the way to his death borrows a kerchief from Plautilla, promising to return it. When the returning soldiers mock her, she shows them the bloodied kerchief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulPassionofPeterand\">Paul, Passion of Peter and<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Peter and Paul, Passion of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PearlHymnofthe\">Pearl, Hymn of the<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Thomas, Acts of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PeterandPaulPassionof\">Peter and Paul, Passion of<\/p>\n<p>This writing comes to us in two forms, both of which are considered to have been written by Marcellus and date from the fifth century. The first form is essentially like the Acts of Peter and Paul. It lays emphasis upon Paul’s journey to Rome. The second gives more attention to the men’s residence in Rome with emphasis upon their stay in the home of a relative of Pontius Pilate. Both emphasize the close relationship between Peter and Paul and their continued and successful opposition to Simon Magus, who claims to be the Christ. Their death sentences are included in the writings but with only a brief account of their martyrdoms.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PeterGospelof\">Peter, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Akhmim Fragment (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PeterPreachingof\">Peter, Preaching of<\/p>\n<p>This document, which has survived only in fragments, appears to have been written early in the second century <span>AD<\/span> in Egypt. While the title does not explicitly claim Petrine authorship, it was understood by Clement of Alexandria (late second century <span>AD<\/span>) to have been an authentic composition by the apostle Peter (<em>Stromata<\/em> 2.15.68). The majority of the fragments of the Preaching of Peter are preserved in the form of brief quotations in the writings of Clement of Alexandria.<\/p>\n<p>The fourth-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea observed that the Preaching of Peter had not been accepted by any ancient authorities (<em>Historia Ecclesiastica<\/em> 3.3.1-4), though he was probably not aware of its acceptance by Clement. Even though only fragments of the document have survived, they are important in that they reveal a transitional stage in the history of early Christian literature. During the first century, Christian literature, including all of the NT, was written for the consumption of other Christians. During the second century, Christian writers began to feel the need to defend their faith against the criticisms of their pagan and Jewish opponents. A new kind of Christian literature, the apology (meaning “defense”), began to appear in the early second century with the writings of the earliest Christian apologists Quadratus and Aristides. The Preaching of Peter represents a transition from the kind of apologetic writing found in the Acts of the Apostles, the sermons that that book contains, and the writings of the early apologists.<\/p>\n<p>Since Clement quotes randomly from the Preaching of Peter, it is not possible to determine the order in which any of the quotations appeared in the original composition. Some of the major emphases of the document will appear from the following summaries of the quotations of Clement. Peter, according to Clement, called the Lord both “Law and Word” in the “Preaching” (<em>Stromata<\/em> 1.29.182; 2.15.68). Mankind must recognize that <em>one<\/em> God created the beginning of all things and has the power to bring all things to an end (<em>Stromata<\/em> 6.5.39-41). The pagans, whom the author of the Preaching of Peter opposed, held that the universe was uncreated and eternal. God, the author contends, is invisible, incomprehensible, needs nothing, is inconceivable, everlasting, imperishable, and uncreated. This God must not be worshiped in the manner of the Greeks, for they have foolishly fashioned images of ordinary materials and worship them as gods. Further, they take animals that should be used for food and sacrifice them to these idols. The worship of the Jews should not be emulated either, for they revere angels, archangels, months, and the moon. If any of the nation of Israel should repent, they will find forgiveness (<em>Stromata<\/em> 6.5.43). In one place the Preaching of Peter narrates how the Lord sent disciples to preach the gospel throughout the world after the resurrection (<em>Stromata<\/em> 6.6.48), though the precise connection between this narrative and the preceding apologetic statements is not clear. It may be that the document began with a special version of the great commission. Elsewhere the document states that the OT prophets speak of Christ, sometimes in parables and enigmas, yet at other times very clearly and directly (<em>Stromata<\/em> 6.15.128). In fact, the major events of the life of Christ, his coming, torture, crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven were predicted in detail by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the surviving fragments of the Preaching of Peter lies in the way in which they reveal how early second-century Christianity turned from a defensive to an offensive position in its proclamation of the gospel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PeterSlavonicActsof\">Peter, Slavonic Acts of<\/p>\n<p>An account of the later travels of Peter and his subsequent death in Rome preserved for us only in the Slavonic language. According to this account, a child (Jesus) comes to Peter and bids him to go to Rome. The angel Michael is captain of the ship taking them to Rome. After their arrival in Rome, Peter tells the child to catch some fish, whereupon he catches 12,000 in one hour. Then the child is sold to a Roman noble, Aravistus, for 50 pieces of gold. The child silences his teachers. After a vision of angels, the entire household is baptized. Nero arrests Peter, whereupon the child rebukes him. Many dead are raised, but the child sends them back to their graves to await the resurrection by Michael. Peter is crucified head downward. When the child reveals he is Jesus, the nails fall from Peter’s body, he prays for the forgiveness of his executioners, and then he dies. Such apocryphal versions of the acts of early church leaders are characteristically filled with fanciful acts of the apostles and their contact with the Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PetersLettertoPhilip\">Peter’s Letter to Philip<\/p>\n<p>This letter is part of the Christian Gnostic material discovered in 1947 at Nag Hammadi. It probably dates from the late second or early third century. The letter takes its name from a segment at the beginning of the tractate in which Peter claims to have sent the material to Philip. The letter is written in a dialogue form common in Gnostic literature. The body of the writing consists of a series of questions that are asked by the apostles of the risen Lord and the answers given by him. The questions provide a basis for the exposition of Gnostic philosophy about the structure of the world revealed by the Divine Light. That Light is the Christ, who is the heavenly Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PilateActsof\">Pilate, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>This document is an apocryphal passion gospel that reached its present form by the middle of the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>. The first Christian writer to refer to the Acts of Pilate was Epiphanius, an ecclesiastical heresy hunter, who wrote a lengthy denunciation of various heresies in <span>AD<\/span> 375, in which he definitely mentioned the Acts of Pilate (<em>Heresies<\/em> 50.1). Much earlier, Justin Martyr had referred to Pilate’s report to Tiberius regarding the trial of Jesus (<em>I Apology<\/em> 35; 48), but he does not seem to be referring to the Acts of Pilate. Toward the end of the second century <span>AD<\/span>, a generation after Justin, Tertullian referred to an account sent from Pilate to the emperor Tiberius, yet this cannot be the Acts of Pilate, since Jesus supposedly performed many miracles before the procurator. Although it is not improbable that an earlier version of the Acts of Pilate antedated the fourth century, the present version must be dated to the middle of that century. The original language of the Acts of Pilate was Greek, and translations of it were made into Latin, Coptic, and Armenian. Eusebius, the fourth-century church historian and bishop of Caesarea, condemns what he regarded as a blasphemous account of Pilate, apparently a pagan document calculated to defame Christ (<em>Historia Ecclesiastica,<\/em> 1.9.3; 9.5.1). The Christian Acts of Pilate was probably composed to counter the pagan document.<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Pilate is a composite document consisting of two main parts. The first part (chs 1–16) purports to be a translation from Hebrew to Greek of an account written by Nicodemus about the events surrounding the passion of Jesus. The second part (chs 17–27), also called “Christ’s Descent into Hell,” vividly describes Christ’s descent into hades to liberate the righteous dead (an imaginative expansion of 1 Pt 3:19 which was itself transformed in the Apostles’ Creed into the phrase “he descended into hell”). After the 14th century <span>AD<\/span>, the whole composition was commonly designated as the Gospel of Nicodemus because of the prominent place that character played in the document.<\/p>\n<p>In the prologue to the Acts of Pilate, a Roman soldier named Ananias claims to have found the Acts of Pilate in Hebrew and to have translated it into Greek in the 18th year of the reign of Emperor Flavius Theodosius (<span>AD<\/span> 425). A quotation of the entire document follows: In the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (<span>AD<\/span> 29), Nicodemus wrote an account of the events that surrounded the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish high priests accused Jesus of various religious crimes to Pilate and asked that he be tried. Though unwilling, Pilate sent for Jesus anyway, though in a most gracious manner. When Jesus arrived, the Roman standards bowed to him of their own accords (ch 1). In chapter 2 the Jewish charges against Jesus included: (1) that he was born of fornication, (2) that his birth meant the death of the children of Bethlehem, and (3) that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt because they counted for nothing among the people of Israel. The charge of fornication was immediately refuted by 12 pious Jews who had witnessed the betrothal of Mary and Joseph. An interview between Pilate and Jesus (modeled after Jn 18:33-38) follows in chapter 3. The Jews charge Jesus with blaspheming God, and Pilate reluctantly turns Jesus over to them (ch 4). Nicodemus then stands up in the Jewish council and urges them to let Jesus go, for if he is not of God his movement will fail (cf. Acts 5:38-39), but the Jews oppose him (ch 5). Then three Jews healed by Jesus testify in his behalf (ch 6), followed by Bernice, the woman healed of the issue of blood (ch 7). The crowd proclaims Jesus a prophet (ch 8). When Pilate offers to release a prisoner, the Jews ask for Barabbas, and Pilate then washes his hands of the matter and has Jesus scourged and crucified with the two criminals, Dysmas and Gestas (ch 9). Jesus is mocked by the crowds, while one criminal (Gestas) is rebuked by the other (ch 10). Jesus’ death is accompanied by a darkening of the sun, which the Jews regard as a normal eclipse (ch 11). Joseph of Arimathea is then seized by the Jews and imprisoned; when they come to execute him he has vanished (ch 12). The guards report the appearance of the angel at the tomb, but are bribed by the Jews to keep silence (ch 12). Three Jews then come from Galilee: Phineas, a priest; Adas, a teacher; and Angaeus, a Levite. They report that they have witnessed the great commission and ascension of Jesus on Mt Malich (ch 14). Nicodemus suggests that the surrounding mountains be checked to see if some spirit has not taken Jesus up only to dash him on the rocks; the Jews find nothing except Joseph of Arimathea in his hometown (ch 15). Joseph is summoned to testify before the council and reveals how the risen Jesus had appeared to him when he was imprisoned and set him free (ch 15). The council decides, after hearing other witnesses, that if Jesus is still remembered after 50 years, the stories must be true (ch 16).<\/p>\n<p>The second document begins with an account of Joseph speaking to the council. Two brothers, he claims, had been raised at the same time as Jesus. The council summons them to give their stories (ch 17). While in hades, the brothers claimed, a great light appeared and Abraham and Isaiah became overjoyed (ch 18). Satan thought that Jesus could be restrained in hades (ch 20); but when the King of Glory arrived, the gates were broken down. Satan was handed over to the angels to be bound (ch 22) and was rebuked by hades for causing the ruin of his kingdom (ch 23). The King of Glory (Christ) then led Adam and the rest of the righteous dead out of hades (ch 24) and to paradise (ch 25), where even the repentant criminal was seen (ch 26). The two brothers claim that they have been sent by the angel Michael to preach the resurrection of Jesus to all mankind.<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Pilate is a pastiche (collection) of quotations and allusions from the four canonical Gospels, mingled with imaginative and even fantastic additions. It is basically an apologetic document that attempts to defend the truth of the resurrection of Jesus against the counterclaims of pagan and Jewish adversaries. Unfortunately, it has an anti-Semitic tone that was to characterize Christian dramatizations of the events of Passion Week from the fourth century through the end of the Middle Ages.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PistisSophia\">Pistis Sophia<\/p>\n<p>A fourth-century Coptic manuscript (Codex Askewanus) that represents one of the chief Gnostic works extant today. The work, containing four chapters, derives its name from the heroine, Sophia, though only the first half of the work refers to her. This portion relates how Jesus, during the first 11 years after his resurrection, returned to teach his disciples the highest mystery of all: the Treasury of the Light. Jesus returned to the Mt of Olives where he is caught up through the aeons and on his journey comes to the thirteenth aeon where he finds Sophia. She is in sorrow because she has caught a glimpse of the Treasury of the Light but is deceived by Authades (the self-willed), who flashes a false brightness before her, causing her to fall into the hands of the powers of matter. She maintains her hope and faith, however, and after 12 prayers is delivered from Authades and chaos by Jesus who reinstates her at the lower limit of the thirteenth aeon.<\/p>\n<p>The work is in dialogue form—with Jesus answering questions asked by his disciples. The theme is thoroughly Gnostic in its view of salvation that comes by a hidden doctrine that brings illumination.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ProtevangeliumofJames\">Protevangelium of James<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> James, Protevangelium of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PsalmsofSolomon\">Psalms of Solomon<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Solomon, Psalms of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ResurrectionofChristbyBartholomewBookofthe\">Resurrection of Christ by Bartholomew, Book of the<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bartholomew, Book of the Resurrection of Christ by (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ReubenTestamentof\">Reuben, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SibyllineOracles\">Sibylline Oracles<\/p>\n<p>A pseudepigraphal writing comprising originally 15 books, 12 of which are extant in late Greek manuscripts. The word <em>sibyl<\/em> is of Greek origin. It claimed to be an oracle of the gods and generally contained a message of a coming catastrophic event. Some Jews adopted and used this mode of writing for propagation purposes.<\/p>\n<p>The sibyls came from the beginning of the Maccabean period (165 <span>BC<\/span>) and cover a period up to shortly after the destruction of the second temple (<span>AD<\/span> 76). The authors, presumably writing in Alexandria, Egypt, stressed the unity and sovereignty of God. God controlled all events, whereas pagan deities were useless, unable to do anything. “But God is one, most exalted of all, who has made the heaven, the sun, the stars and the moon. . . . He has constituted man as the Divinely appointed ruler of all. You men . . . be ashamed of making gods” (book 2). God controls the history of the nations. The sibyls outline the history of 10 generations from the Assyrian kingdom to the destruction of the second temple and the great earthquake (book 4.47ff.). The third book also contains a section on the devastation and troubles to be experienced before the great judgment. It includes two messianic passages wherein the Messiah introduces an era of peace and prosperity for the faithful: “He will raise up his kingdom for all ages over men. . . . For nothing but peace shall come upon the land of the good” (lines 767, 780). The eternal state is to be reserved for the faithful who will be raised from the dead in a bodily form: “But all who are godly shall live again on earth, when God gives breath and life and grace to them the godly” (book 4.187-190), whereas the ungodly are to be thrown into hell, “And all who have sinned with deeds of impiety a heap of earth shall cover again, and murky Tartarus and the black recesses of hell” (lines 183-186).<\/p>\n<p>The express purpose of the authors of the sibyls was to demonstrate the reasonableness of the Jewish faith by casting their message in the form of the sibyl, introduced by the Greeks and appreciated by the Romans. In their emphasis on the God of Israel and their opposition to paganism, they nevertheless stand in the stream of the apocalyptic, the unveiling of God’s secrets of past and future. The sibyl as divine oracle was, thus, used as a literary form in order to convey a message to the non-Jewish world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SilvanusTeachingsof\">Silvanus, Teachings of<\/p>\n<p>Literary work of the Gnostics, attributed to Silvanus, the companion of Peter and Paul. It was discovered at Chenoboskion in Upper Egypt in 1946.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SimeonTestamentof\">Simeon, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SlavonicActsofPeter\">Slavonic Acts of Peter<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Peter, Slavonic Acts of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SolomonPsalmsof\">Solomon, Psalms of<\/p>\n<p>The Psalms of Solomon are a collection of 18 songs attributed to Solomon. They are considered pseudepigrapha. The psalms were probably written by one author, who lived during the middle of the first century <span>BC<\/span> and wrote in Hebrew. The theological perspective of the author is Pharisaic in its views of the law, judgment, and the future of Israel. The Psalms of Solomon are derived from the canonical book of Psalms in their form and phraseology. One of the similarities in the form and phraseology is the emphasis on the antithesis between the righteous and the wicked. The wicked are the Gentiles who defile the holy things of the Lord (2:3) and apostate Jews who have fallen into sin (3:11, 13).<\/p>\n<p>The character of the sinner is that of the fool, as opposed to the wise man (cf. Wisdom Literature). The fool has no concern for the Lord (4:1); his speech and deeds betray his unrighteousness (4:2ff.). He is known by his lies, judgment of others, false oaths, his immorality, lawlessness, and selfish ambitions at the cost of others (cf. 12). The righteous are the wise, who fear the Lord (4:26). He is not dismayed by bad dreams or perilous times (6:4-5). He is provoked with zeal for the Lord’s righteousness, as he witnesses the desecration of the temple and the law (8:28). The Lord’s love of him is expressed in discipline, and he responds to the Lord’s rebuke with repentance for his sins. The author compares the righteous to the tree of life in Paradise. They are stable and will not be uprooted (14:2ff.). The wicked, on the other hand, will not be remembered in this life, and God will deal righteously with them by casting them into “Sheol and darkness and destruction” (14:6; 15:10).<\/p>\n<p>The author views God as the King who mightily rules over the nations (2:34ff.) with readiness to judge his enemies and the enemies of the righteous (2:38ff.; 4:9) and to vindicate the righteous (2:39). As the Lord’s care is demonstrated in his sustenance of nature (5:11-12), in his raising up kings, rulers, and nations (5:13), the author assures the reader that his care extends particularly to the poor and those who call upon him (5:2-3, 13). He is the hope of the righteous (8:37).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the foregoing belief in the righteous kingship of God and in his protection of the righteous, the psalms abound in the conviction that evil will be overcome by God’s intervention on behalf of the righteous. The particular context in which these psalms originated was Pompey’s entrance into Jerusalem and his desecration of the temple (63 <span>BC<\/span>), and it was hoped that at the death of Pompey (48 <span>BC<\/span>, cf. 2:30ff.) the messianic era might be introduced. Therefore, the author reminds God of the covenant made with David (17:5) and asks God’s forgiveness for Israel’s sins in the past. Israel has suffered gentile invasions and control as the result of God’s judgment (17:6). Since Pompey had died, the author prayed for the restoration of the theocracy under a Davidic king—“Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David. All the time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant” (17:23). By means of the Davidic Messiah the land will be purged of sinners, godless nations, and the righteous will be sanctified. The messianic rule extends only over the righteous remnant, who when restored to the land, will be divided into the 12 tribes; the Davidic Messiah will rule over the tribes and the other nations “in the wisdom of his righteousness” (17:29-31). The sojourner and the gentile nations will not share in the glory of the kingdom. Rather, their position will be that of servitude.<\/p>\n<p>The hope of the glorious future of Israel is the apocalyptic element in the psalms. They arose in a historical context, but they anticipate a radically new future. The psalmist pronounced a benediction on all those who would witness God’s judgment on the nations, the restoration of Israel, and the introduction of the messianic kingdom: “Blessed be they that shall be in those days, in that they shall see the good fortune of Israel which God shall bring to pass in the gathering together of the tribes. May the Lord hasten His mercy upon Israel! The Lord Himself is our king for ever and ever” (17:50-51).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SolomonTestamentof\">Solomon, Testament of<\/p>\n<p>The Testament of Solomon is a second-century <span>BC<\/span> pseudepigraphal writing. The writing claims that Solomon was the writer of the testament. It is extant in Semitic manuscripts, and in some Greek texts.<\/p>\n<p>The material is basically Christian with emphasis on the cross and the virgin birth but also contains Jewish material as well. The testament recounts how Solomon, by means of a ring given to him by the archangel Michael, is able to subdue and use the skills of demons to build his temple. After completing the temple, however, Solomon is led into idolatry on account of his lust for a Shunammite girl. His fall was taken by the author of the testament as an occasion to warn the readers of the power and shapes of the demons and the angels having power over them. The work is written in the form of a testament in order to let Solomon reflect (on his deathbed) how he succeeded and failed as a legacy to Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"TestamentsoftheTwelvePatriarchs\">Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs<\/p>\n<p>Part of the Jewish pseudepigrapha. This particular composition is called a “testament” because it represents the deathbed speeches of each of the sons of Jacob. The testaments start with Reuben’s speech to his sons and ends with Benjamin’s testament to his heirs. Each patriarch is represented as gathering his sons around him and relating the important events of his life. During the speech the patriarch warns against particular vices and attitudes and recommends certain virtues. The advice and warnings of each patriarch often include insight and predictions concerning sin and salvation for his children. The account of the patriarch’s life serves as a guide for the future of his descendants. At the end of the speech, each patriarch dies and is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<p>It would appear that the concept of “testament” finds its orientation in Joshua 23–24, where Joshua summons the elders, heads, judges, and officers of Israel (Jos 23:2; 24:1) and gives them a charge before his death. First Kings 2:1-12 portrays David giving Solomon deathbed advice to walk in God’s ways. The speeches of the patriarchs find further scriptural reference in Genesis chapter 49, where Jacob calls his sons together to hear about their future. At the end of the speech Jacob dies (Gn 49:33).<\/p>\n<p>The present textual form (Slavonic, Armenian, and Greek versions) probably came about sometime during the second or third century <span>AD<\/span>. However, much of the material would appear to go back to the second or third century <span>BC<\/span>. The general scholarly consensus is that an original text in a Semitic language (either Hebrew or Aramaic) was composed by an author or authors sometime in the third or second century before the common era. At some later period, Christian sections were added to the original text. For examples of the Christian sections see Testament of Simeon 6:7; Testament of Levi 10:2; Testament of Dan 6:9; Testament of Naphtali 4:5; Testament of Asher 7:3-4; Testament of Joseph 19:11; Testament of Benjamin 3:8; 9:2-4. It would appear that the testaments may have been reworked by a Jewish writer(s) and by other Christian writers over the centuries. Thus we have a Jewish document from about the third century before the common era that has undergone both Jewish and Christian redactions over a long period of time. These testaments became quite popular in the tenth century, with special interest being displayed in the prophecies of the patriarchs and their secret knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>The following is a summary of each of the testaments of the patriarchs. The excerpts are based on R. H. Charles’s <em>Pseudepigrapha,<\/em> pp 282-367.<\/p>\n<h6>Reuben<\/h6>\n<p>The testament of Reuben is very much influenced by an overwhelming memory of defiling his father’s bed. This refers to Reuben taking his father’s concubine Bilhah while she was in a drunken stupor. Reuben has very strong opinions regarding what he considers to be negative attributes of women, and he warns his sons to be guarded in their relationship with women. His comments on women probably reflect the ill feelings that existed between himself and Jacob in regard to Bilhah. Reuben predicts that in the future his sons would be jealous of the sons of Levi but they would not be able to overthrow them. He admonishes his descendants to have respect and love for one another and to do truth to their neighbors. Reuben is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Simeon<\/h6>\n<p>The patriarch Simeon is presented as a strong warrior type. Reflecting the biblical account of Joseph being sold into slavery (Gn 37:25-28), Simeon testifies that he wanted to kill Joseph rather than sell him into slavery. As punishment for this attitude, God withered his right hand for seven days. Simeon warns his sons against envy, deceit, and fornication. He predicts that they will attempt to harm the sons of Levi but prophesies that the sons of Levi will remain superior. Simeon looked forward to a blissful era (6:4-7a), when the “Most High” would be blessed. Verse 7b is a Christian interpolation, “Because God has taken a body and eaten with men and saved men.” He admonishes his sons to obey the sons of Levi and Judah, for it would be from them that their salvation would be accomplished. He predicts that a high priest would come from Levi and a king would descend from the lines of Judah. Simeon concludes his testament by predicting that all Gentiles (an interpolation) and Israel would be saved.<\/p>\n<h6>Levi<\/h6>\n<p>Levi’s deathbed testament is in the form of dreams that he relates to his sons. He predicts that from his descendants and those of Judah the Lord would “appear among men” to save every race of men (2:11). The descendants of Levi would be “as the sun to all the seed of Israel” (4:3b) and in one dream it is shown that the blessings of the priesthood would come to his sons (8:2-3). Levi predicts that a king would arise in Judah; this king would establish a new priesthood that ministers to both Jews and Gentiles. The tenth chapter has a Christian interpolation that because of ungodliness and transgression, the sons of Levi would wrong “the Savior of the world, Christ” (10:2) and that for this they would be scattered throughout the world. Chapter 13 has a number of wisdom themes with emphasis on the need to follow and obey the law. Chapter 16 introduces an eschatological prediction that the sons of Levi would go astray for 70 weeks. The following chapter gives a detailed account of the 70 weeks in which there would be a priesthood for each jubilee. The first priesthood would be great, and the priest’s relationship to God would be such that God would be addressed as father. The second priesthood would “be conceived in the sorrow of beloved ones” (17:3), but this priesthood will be glorified by all. The following five priesthoods would be characterized by sorrow, pain, hatred, and darkness. However, a new priesthood would eventually arise and peace will be brought to all the earth (18:4); sin shall come to an end (18:9), for this new priesthood shall have a spirit of understanding and sanctification resting upon him. The testament closes with an admonition to choose either the law of the Lord or the work of Beliar (variant of Belial). The sons pledge themselves to the law, and following Levi’s death they bury him at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Judah<\/h6>\n<p>At the beginning of the testament by Judah he tells his descendants that he had been promised by his father that he would be king. “And it came to pass, when I became a man, that my father blessed me, saying, You shall be a king, prospering in all things” (1:6). Judah reminisces about his early youth and his ability to conquer wild animals. He obeyed the commandments and did not give in to lust. He predicted that his descendants would fall into wickedness because of the love of money and the enticement of beautiful women (ch 17). In chapter 21 Judah predicts that the Lord would give the kingship to his descendants and the priesthood to the sons of Levi. Chapter 24 includes a Christian messianic redaction. It is predicted that from the star of Jacob one will arise that will be without sin and from it a rod of righteousness will grow to the Gentiles (24:6). The testament concludes with eschatological hope for the future when “they who are poor for the Lord’s sake shall be made rich and they who are put to death for the Lord’s sake shall awake to life” (25:4). Judah dies and is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Issachar<\/h6>\n<p>The last words of this patriarch are somewhat unique in that Issachar is depicted as being “upright” and without transgression (unlike many of his brothers). He predicts that the priesthood will come from Levi and the kingship will arise from the lineage of Judah. In chapter 6 Issachar predicts that his children will “cleave” after Beliar. If they recognize the mercy of God and follow Issachar’s exemplary life, “every spirit of Beliar will flee from them.” His final request is that he be buried at Hebron with his fathers.<\/p>\n<h6>Zebulun<\/h6>\n<p>The patriarch Zebulun begins his testament by characterizing himself as a “good gift” to his parents. He, like Issachar, indicates that he is not conscious of sinning “except in thought” (and if he has any iniquity it is only the sin of ignorance). Zebulun claims that he did not support the actions taken against Joseph, and he would have told his father about Joseph’s plight except that the other brothers agreed that if “anyone should declare the secret, he should be slain” (1:6). In 1:7 he declares that if it were not for him the other brothers would have killed Joseph. The brothers were so suspicious of Zebulun that they watched him until Joseph was sold. Verse 5:3 has a familiar theme that is found in the NT and in the rabbis: “Have compassion in your hearts, my children, because even as a man does to his neighbor, even so will the Lord do to him.” Zebulun believes that this lesson is demonstrated in practical terms. The sons of the other brothers were sickened and died on account of the action taken against Joseph (“because they showed no mercy in their hearts,” 5:5). The sons of Zebulun were preserved without sickness. He continues his wisdom teaching (8:3) by declaring that in the degree that a man has compassion upon his neighbor the Lord in the same degree will have mercy on him. Zebulun predicts the division between the northern and southern kingdoms and the eventual conquest of these kingdoms by the Gentiles. However, the people will repent and the Lord will bring them back to “the land” and Jerusalem (9:8). In chapter 10 Zebulun predicts that after his death he will “arise as a ruler in the midst of his sons” (10:2), and he promises reward for those who keep the laws and punishment for the ungodly. Zebulun dies at the end of his testament and is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Dan<\/h6>\n<p>The patriarch Dan laments his jealousy of Joseph and indicates that he was controlled by the spirit of Beliar. He reveals that he wanted to kill Joseph so that he could have the love of his father. Dan warns against the spirits of lying and anger, and he exhorts his descendants to love truth and long-suffering. He admonishes them to keep the commandments and “love the Lord through all your life and one another with a true heart” (5:3). Dan predicts that his sons will “in the last days” depart from the Lord and thus provoke the anger of the sons of Levi. They also will fight against the sons of Judah. His sons will not win against the sons of Levi and Judah because an angel of the Lord will guide them. Dan is represented as having read in the book of Enoch (a favorite reference for the patriarchs) that Satan and all the spirits of wickedness and pride will cause the sons of Levi, Judah, and Dan to sin. They will be taken into captivity where they will receive the plagues of Egypt and all the evils of the Gentiles. However, when they return to the Lord they will receive mercy and be given peace. The prediction is such that there would be one who would arise from the tribe of Judah and Levi who is called “the salvation of the Lord.” It would appear that the “one arising” would make war against Beliar and execute an “everlasting vengeance” against their enemies (5:10). Dan’s final warning is to beware of Satan and his spirits and to draw near to God and the angel “that intercedes for you” (6:2). The last section admonishes Dan’s sons to pass on to their children all that they have heard so that “the savior of the Gentiles may receive” them. There follows a Christian polemic about the savior being true, long-suffering, meek, and lowly (6:9). When Dan dies, he is buried near Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.<\/p>\n<h6>Naphtali<\/h6>\n<p>Naphtali is said to be 130 years old when he gives his last words. He is depicted as being in good health, but the morning after a feast realizes that he is going to die. Thus he gathers his sons about him. Naphtali has a very strong sense of order that contributes to the makeup and actions of man as well as the universe. He views the “Gentile problem” as their forsaking the Lord and changing their order so that they obeyed the “stocks and stones.” The change of order was the problem at Sodom and it also caused the Flood.<\/p>\n<p>Naphtali reads from the book of Enoch that his sons will depart from the Lord and walk “according to all lawlessness of the Gentiles” (4:1). He predicts that his descendants will be taken captive because of their sins and afterward a “few” will return to the Lord and he will bring them back to their land. After their return to the land, Naphtali predicts that his sons will forget the Lord and “become ungodly” with the result that they will be scattered all over the earth. They will remain in this state until the compassion of the Lord comes and a man working righteousness and mercy comes to them. Naphtali recounts two dreams that he had in his 40th year. In the first dream he saw the sun and moon stand still. Isaac told his grandsons to run and take hold of the sun and moon, each according to his strength. Levi took hold of the sun, and Judah seized the moon. Both of them were lifted up with the sun and moon. There appeared a bull in the dream with two great horns and eagle wings. The other sons attempted to seize this bull but could not. However, Joseph came and took hold of the bull and ascended “up with him on high” (5:7).<\/p>\n<p>There follows a prediction that the 12 tribes of Israel would be taken into captivity by the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Chaldeans, and Syrians. The other dream saw a ship sailing on the sea of Jamnia without sailors or pilot. Written on the ship was the inscription “The ship of Jacob” (6:2). Jacob and his sons were on the ship, and when a storm arose Jacob departed from their presence. Eventually the ship breaks up from the pounding of the sea, and while Joseph sails off in a little boat the rest of the brothers are divided among nine planks with Levi and Judah sharing a plank. It would appear that by the prayers of Levi all the brothers eventually land safely on the shore. When Naphtali relates these dreams to his father, Jacob responds that all these things must be fulfilled.<\/p>\n<p>Naphtali admonished his sons to be united to Levi and Judah for through them “shall salvation arise to Israel” (8:2). Also through Levi and Judah the righteous of the Gentiles shall be gathered. Naphtali died and was buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Gad<\/h6>\n<p>The patriarch Gad is represented as hating Joseph because Joseph had told his father that Gad and some of the other brothers were eating from the best of the flocks while tending them. During his testament Gad confesses his sin of hatred to his sons and warns them against harboring hatred because it only brings anguish: “For as love would quicken even the dead and would call back them that are condemned to die, so hatred would slay the living and those that had sinned venially it would not suffer to live” (4:6).<\/p>\n<p>Repentance is understood to give knowledge to the soul and leads the mind to salvation. Gad encourages his sons to honor the lineage of Levi and Judah, for therein is found the salvation of Israel. He predicts that his sons will walk in all wickedness and corruption and ends on a somewhat pessimistic note by asking to be buried near his fathers. Gad is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Asher<\/h6>\n<p>Asher is very conscious of good and evil spirits and the choice that man has to make between these two possibilities. Asher predicts that his descendants will act ungodly and not give heed to the law of God. Thus they will be delivered into the hands of their enemies and they will be scattered. They will exist in such a state until the “Most High” visits the earth “coming Himself [as man with men eating and drinking] . . . he shall save Israel and all the Gentiles” (7:3-4). This Christian interpolation is followed by a declaration that the Lord will gather them because of his mercy and for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When Asher dies, he is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph<\/h6>\n<p>Joseph calls himself the “beloved of Israel,” (1:2) and although he has seen envy and death, he did not go astray. During his testament he tells of his ordeal of being sold into slavery. The verses in chapter one are set in parallelism with the first half of the verse telling the plight of Joseph and the second half exalting the security of the Lord: “I was sold into slavery, and the Lord of all made me free: I was taken into captivity, and his strong hand succoured me. I was beset with hunger and the Lord himself nourished me” (1:5). Joseph details his experiences in Egypt with eight chapters being given to the temptations of the Egyptian woman. However, Joseph resisted her advances and the Lord rewarded him for his convictions. He admonishes his sons to have the fear of the Lord in all their works because whoever does the law of the Lord will be loved by him. This is the key to his success. Joseph encourages his children to do well to anyone who would do evil to them and pray for their enemies. He gives his attitude toward his brothers as an example of such a virtue.<\/p>\n<p>Joseph admonishes his sons to observe the commandments of the Lord and honor Levi and Judah for “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, who saves all the Gentiles and Israel” (19:11) shall arise from them. He predicts the enslavement in Egypt but also the eventual deliverance. He directs his sons to take his bones with them when they leave Egypt, and the testament indicates that Joseph was buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin<\/h6>\n<p>The last patriarch gives his testament when he is 125 years old. He encourages his children to love the Lord and keep his commandments. He urges them to follow the goodness of Joseph, for he did not want his brothers’ actions against him to be counted as sin. Benjamin predicts that in Joseph shall the prophecy be fulfilled “concerning the Lamb of God and Savior of the world, and that a blameless one shall be delivered up for lawless men, and a sinless one shall die for ungodly men in the blood of the covenant, for the salvation of the Gentiles and of Israel and shall destroy Beliar and his servants” (3:8). One can immediately see how the Christian interpolation would find easy access for a polemic in this testament. Joseph is depicted as suffering in innocence and without remorse. Likewise the Christian messiah would suffer and die for ungodly men.<\/p>\n<p>Benjamin believes that there are evildoers among his sons; from his reading of the book of Enoch he predicts that they will commit “fornication with the fornication of Sodom” and only a few will survive (9:1). There would appear to be a remnant from each tribe as the 12 tribes and the Gentiles will gather at the last temple. Their salvation will be a result of the “Most High” sending his only “begotten prophet” (9:2), and he will be lifted up upon a tree and the veil of the temple shall be rent and the Spirit of God shall be passed on to the Gentiles. Benjamin admonishes his sons that if they walk in holiness according to the commandments of the Lord, all of Israel will be gathered to the Lord. When Benjamin dies, he is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<p>From the brief account of each patriarch, it is apparent that the testaments were subject to both Jewish and Christian redaction and go beyond mere interpolation. The text reflects such characteristics as two messiahs, a double love commandment, ethical and theological teachings, as well as universal salvation. However, it is most difficult to place these features within a particular time period or even religion.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ThaddeusActsof\">Thaddeus, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>A sixth-century version and extension of the fifth-century Syriac Doctrina Addaei, or Legend of Abgar. The Legend contains a purported exchange of letters between Abgar, king of Edessa (<span>AD<\/span> 9–46), and Jesus. This exchange results in the sending of Thaddeus, one of Jesus’ apostles, to Edessa. While there, he performs numerous miracles including the healing of Abgar. The Acts has Abgar healed when Ananias, his messenger, returns prior to the arrival of Thaddeus. The Acts focuses on the activity of Thaddeus in establishing the church in Edessa.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"TheclaActsofPauland\">Thecla, Acts of Paul and<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Paul and Thecla, Acts of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ThomasActsof\">Thomas, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Thomas is one of a cluster of acts of the apostles that have three common characteristics. They narrate the propagation of the gospel around the ancient world, promote the deeds and words of one of the apostles, and inevitably chronicle that apostle’s martyrdom. The oldest of these “acts narratives” are those of Paul, John, Andrew, Peter, and Thomas. Acts of Thomas, like the others, is a blend of Christian piety, the popular Hellenistic romances of the day, and Jewish haggadic-type moralistic teachings.<\/p>\n<p>Scholarly study of the Acts of Thomas suggests that it was probably written at the beginning of the third century. It was definitely written in Syriac first and probably by someone with strong tendencies toward the Gnostic heresy. It proved broadly popular among Gnostics, Manichees, and orthodox churches, so much so that it was quickly translated from the original Syriac into Arabic, Armenian, and several Greek translations. From these varied Greek versions, Coptic, Latin, and Ethiopic translations were made. Significant portions of the Coptic version were in turn retranslated back into Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek, thus creating a most confusing textual tradition. Only one full early Syriac text survives, and it is considered less reliable than some of the extant Greek translations.<\/p>\n<p>In the critical English edition of the Acts of Thomas, that of A. F. J. Klijn published in 1962, the narrative is divided into the traditional acts (praxeis). There are 13 of these numbered in 170 sequential chapters that include the concluding martyrdom of the apostle. Various liturgical pieces, sermon fragments, and hymns are inserted, including two particularly famous hymns in the early church—that of the “Song of the Bride” in act 1 and that of the “Song of the Pearl” in act 9. The first six acts are not woven together by any particular theme, and they record that Thomas went on board ship to go to India (act 3), which would imply a south Indian ministry. Yet the text speaks of ministry to the north Indian king, Gundaphoro (act 4). However, acts 7 through 13 and the martyrdom are set in the south Indian kingdom of Mazdai and are obviously written by one hand. It is probable that the first six acts represent earlier materials placed into the whole by the writer of the last seven acts and the martyrdom. This document is the first-known mention of the traditions that Thomas ministered in India, was martyred there, and that his bones were returned to Edessa. Acts of Thomas is written, as are all the apocryphal acts of the apostles, on the assumption that the world was divided among the apostles for evangelization and that India fell to Thomas.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas is called Judas Thomas throughout these acts after the Syrian style of referring to that apostle. Thomas is spoken of as the twin of Jesus (the Didymus of the NT), as recipient of special divine revelations, and as being Jesus incarnate in the flesh again—in chapters 10, 11, 39, 47, and 48 of the Acts. Many historians think these are clear indications of Gnostic thought. Others think such ideas are expressions of Jesus’ adaptation to human perception and identification with his apostles—features often found in early Christian literature. There seems to be no question but that Gnostic or Manichee tendencies were gradually edited out of Greek and Latin texts by orthodox copyists.<\/p>\n<p>One quickly gets the feel for this narrative. The Acts of Thomas opens with Judas Thomas’s refusing to go to India. He is then sold as a slave—in parallel to Christ’s coming as a slave to redeem man. So Thomas reaches India as a carpenter (again the parallel with Jesus) and a builder of homes. He plays groomsman in a wedding at which miracles convince the flute player of Thomas’s role as apostle of God; so the king asks Thomas to pray for his daughter. Great stress is placed on purity in Thomas’s teaching, and this usually involves sexual abstinence as well. Finally, many are converted, including the king, and they form an assembly of believers in Sandaruk.<\/p>\n<p>In the second act the king, Gundophor, gives Thomas a large sum of money to build a palace. After surprising the king by tracing the palace on the ground in winter, Thomas builds him a palace in heaven by giving the money to the poor. The king imprisons and decides to kill Thomas for the supposed deception; but the king’s brother, Gad, dies and goes to heaven where he sees the palace and desires to buy it. Gad is then reunited with his body and tries to buy the palace from Gundophor, whereupon Gundophor learns that he cannot sell it, releases Thomas from prison, and advises Gad to arrange to have his own palace built in heaven. Thomas gives a great doxology (ch 25 of act 2), and the two brothers who have come to believe through all of this want to be baptized.<\/p>\n<p>In these miracle narratives and teachings, all the books of the NT seem to be echoed, though there are relatively few direct quotations. Favorite miracle passages such as Balaam’s talking donkey and Peter’s release from prison are reexperienced in Thomas’s life with vast embellishment. The talking ass enters a home and casts out a demon at Thomas’s command; Thomas causes great consternation by repeatedly passing in and out of the securely closed prison. Such miracles, sufferings, and conversions make up acts 3 through 13 and continue to the climax of Judas Thomas’s ministry. His martyrdom occurs (ch 168) at the hands of four soldiers with spears who have been ordered by the king of Mazdai to execute Thomas. He thereafter appears to his followers who have Thomas’s bones removed to Edessa. Meantime, the son of the king of Mazdai becomes sick unto death. Desperate, the king goes to Thomas’s tomb, thinking to get a relic to heal his son. Finding the body gone, he uses the very dust upon which Judas Thomas’s body rested, and his son is healed. Thereafter the king becomes a believer and joins the community of believers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ThomasGospelof\">Thomas, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>A noncanonical and heretical gospel of Gnostic origin that probably dates from the second or third century <span>AD<\/span>. It is one of a large number of similar writings that flourished among early religious sects such as the Marcosians (a second-century group that built an elaborate sacramental system around numbers) and the Manicheans (a third-century dualistic heresy based on the primeval conflict between light and darkness). In fact, Cyril of Jerusalem, who died in <span>AD<\/span> 386 says the Gospel of Thomas was written by “one of those wicked disciples of Mani” (the founder of Manichaeism). Along with the Protevangelium of James, it is one of the oldest and most widely known of the more than 50 apocryphal gospels that circulated within the churches during the period of their early growth and expansion.<\/p>\n<p>This Gospel of Thomas (sometimes referred to as an “infancy gospel”) should not be confused with the Coptic version that was unearthed in 1945 near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. The latter is a collection of 114 “sayings of Jesus,” which shed a great deal of light on the influence of Gnosticism on Egyptian Christianity. They claim to be the “secret words” of Jesus transmitted by “Didymos Judas Thomas.” The Gospel of Thomas, with which this article deals, is composed of a series of childhood miracles of Jesus and is preserved for us in four versions—two in Greek (one quite a bit longer than the other), one in Latin, and one in Syriac.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Thomas was apparently known as early as Hippolytus (<span>AD<\/span> 155–235), who quotes it as saying, “He who seeks me will find me in children from seven years old; for there will I, who am hidden in the fourteenth aeon, be found.” Hippolytus claimed that it was used by the Naasenes (a Gnostic sect that worshiped the serpent) in support of their doctrine of the nature of the inward man. The quotation above is not found in the extant versions, but this is understandable because there is evidence from the Stichometry of Nicephorus (possibly fourth century) that an earlier version was over twice the length. The Gospel of Thomas was known both to Origen (c. <span>AD<\/span> 185–254) and Eusebius (c. <span>AD<\/span> 260–340). The latter classed it with the heretical writings and said it should be “rejected as altogether absurd and impious” (<em>Historia Ecclesiastica<\/em> 3.25).<\/p>\n<p>The stories that make up the Gospel of Thomas emphasize the miraculous power and supernatural wisdom of the boy Jesus. Some scholars think they were originally fabricated by orthodox Christians in opposition to the Gnostic heresy that the “supernatural Christ” first came upon Jesus at the time of his baptism. It is much more likely, however, that they owe their origin to people’s curiosity about what the boy Jesus must have been like. Some of the tales may have come from pagan sources.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from three or four miracles, which could be classed as beneficial, the supernatural feats said to be performed by the boy Jesus were destructive. For example, when a certain child spoiled some pools made by Jesus, he was cursed by Jesus and totally withered up. Another boy who provoked Jesus by running into him “immediately . . . fell down and died.” A teacher who struck Jesus on the head was straightway cursed and fell to the ground. The French writer Renan referred to the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas as “a vicious little guttersnipe.”<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the gospel Jesus is presented as infinitely wise. He ridicules his teacher Zacchaeus saying, “You hypocrite, first, if you know it, teach the Alpha, and then we will believe you concerning the Beta.” After Zacchaeus berates himself for being so inferior to the one he intended to take as a disciple, Jesus laughs and announces, “I am come from above that I may curse them.” The text continues, “And no man after that dared to provoke him, lest he should curse him, and he should be maimed.”<\/p>\n<p>Other miracles include making 12 live sparrows out of clay, smiting his accusers with blindness, raising a child from the dead, healing a foot cut in two by an ax, carrying water in a cloth garment, reaping an enormous harvest from one kernal of wheat, stretching a piece of wood to its proper length, and healing his brother James who had been bitten by a viper while gathering fagots (sticks to use as firewood). More miracles may be found in the longer Latin version.<\/p>\n<p>It comes as no surprise that the orthodox church has always rejected from its canon of sacred scripture the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. It is, however, quoted in other later gospels of the same sort. For example, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew from chapter 18 on is based upon the Gospel of Thomas. Along with other apocryphal materials, it has exercised a significant influence on Christian art and literature, especially from the tenth century forward. For example, the account of Jesus making the 12 sparrows from clay shows up in the Koran.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"TruthGospelof\">Truth, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Around 1945 a group of Egyptian peasant farmers near modern Nag Hammadi inadvertently dug into a grave of the ancient village known as Shenesit-Chenoboskion and unearthed a jar containing 13 books (9 of which were largely complete) and 15 fragments of works. This find was the library of an ancient Gnostic sect and contained all or parts of 51 different Gnostic writings—all but two of which had never come into modern scholars’ hands before. Now called the Nag Hammadi or Chenoboskion texts, these works were the first modern find of original Gnostic literature. All are Coptic translations of earlier Greek originals.<\/p>\n<p>Codex I (titled the Jung Codex because it now is owned by the Jung Institute in Vienna) is unique among the 13 works because it is in Sub-Achimimic Coptic, while the rest of the works are in the more usual Sahidic Coptic. Codex I contains five works, two of which are the enormously controversial Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Truth has no heading but rather draws its title from the incipit (first line of the text); it has no author; it contains no addressee. In fact, it is not a gospel at all, but rather a treatise expressive of Valentinian Gnosticism at its very earliest stage. Because the Gnosticism expressed in the Gospel of Truth is lacking all later-Valentinian mythological development and because it is stated simply and in almost orthodox Christian thought forms, the majority of modern scholars credit it to Valentinus himself, though no final proof of this has been discovered as yet. If Valentinus himself did not write this document, then it had to be someone in the immediate circle of his initial disciples.<\/p>\n<p>Valentinus was born in Egypt around <span>AD<\/span> 100 to 110. He received a thorough education at Alexandria, became a Christian, and taught first in Egypt before moving to Rome around <span>AD<\/span> 136, where he stayed until 154 or 155. Tertullian, in his work against heresy, seems to imply that Valentinus was twice expelled from the Roman church; he states that Valentinus was a brilliant and eloquent man who had hopes of becoming a bishop in Rome at one time. Valentinus attracted able followers who later expanded his teachings almost beyond recognition. But when he left Rome sometime after 154 or 155, he had made a final break with orthodoxy and was teaching a form of Gnostic heresy the product of which was the Gospel of Truth, written by himself or someone of his immediate circle. There is a surviving statement that Valentinus taught subsequently in Cyprus, and then he vanishes into the mists of history.<\/p>\n<p>Irenaeus said the Gospel of Truth is no gospel, for it is unlike the four Gospels (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 3.2.9). Irenaeus was certainly correct, for the work is not a narrative. Nor does the Gospel of Truth contain any story about Jesus, any place name of any type, any date, or any mention of any person other than Jesus, who is only mentioned five times.<\/p>\n<p>More than 60 times, this brief work uses the notions of knowledge or needing to know. This knowledge is born from within as the soul returns to itself, finding there what Deity deposited in it—or perhaps better, finding there the residue of Deity still entrapped within it. Thus whoever has Gnosis has simply taken what is his and can know where he or she comes from and for where he or she is bound. Christ’s role was to present the “Book of the Living” or the “Living Book.” “Book” is understood, not as the gospel proclamation of the life and teachings of Jesus, but rather as the primordial gospel or truth that existed before creation. It was error and ignorance that rebelled against the Savior and nailed him to the tree. Implied in this, though not explicitly stated, is the Gnostic understanding that it was also divine error and ignorance out of which matter emerged or was created. Salvation for living beings entrapped in this matter comes with return to unalloyed Deity. The path of this return is Gnosis (knowledge). The Pleroma, the fullness of the Deity, went out into the depths of matter in search of the elect among beings by way of Jesus and the cross.<\/p>\n<p>While these traits of Gnosticism are clear, this gospel is much closer to orthodoxy than most Gnostic Chenoboskion writings because it mentions only one Son of God, not several emanations; it does not split Jesus into a physical Jesus and a divine Christ; and most strikingly, Sophia, the usual central character in the Gnostic cosmic drama, does not appear at all. It is for these reasons among others that the Gospel of Truth is placed very close to Valentinus’s break with orthodoxy.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Truth has assumed some degree of importance in NT studies beyond that warranted by its heretical content because it everywhere assumes our full NT canon. By some scholars’ counts, there are no less than 83 places where the Gospel of Truth echoes NT canonical books—in spite of the fact it does not cite a single saying of Jesus directly. Most particularly, it relies heavily on the book of Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"VirginAssumptionofthe\">Virgin, Assumption of the<\/p>\n<p>A widely circulated legend dealing with the death and translation of the Virgin Mary. None of the many versions is earlier than the fourth century. Most go back to Egypt. In the Coptic versions, Jesus himself appears to Mary before the apostles depart on their missionary labors; Jesus announces her coming death and translation. In the other form an angel makes the announcement. Mary requests the presence of all the apostles, who are miraculously brought on the clouds. Mary is transfigured, and many healings result from contact with her dead body. She is transported to heaven by Jesus shortly after her death.<\/p>\n<p>This legend itself took on a new interest and importance when in 1950 “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin” was made a part of official Roman Catholic dogma.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"VirginLifeofthe\">Virgin, Life of the<\/p>\n<p>There are a number of accounts of the early life and existence of the Virgin Mary. Most of them come to us through Coptic texts. They tell of the birth of Mary to Joachim (also called Cleopas) and Anna, who had been taunted by friends for having no children. Mary was born after a vision of a white dove. In some accounts Mary was dedicated to the Lord and then committed to the care of a man, Joseph. While she was in the house weaving on the veil of the temple, angels would come to minister to her. The annunciation by Gabriel is given at great length. The birth of Jesus is described in detail while Joseph is searching for a midwife, Salome. Other accounts go on to describe tender scenes between Mary and the child Jesus. In some of these versions, there is a reckless identification of the Virgin Mary with all of the other Marys of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ZebulunTestamentof\">Zebulun, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (above).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>APOCRYPHA*<\/h3>\n<p>Books excluded from the canon of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Introduction<\/p>\n<p>• Apocryphal Gospels<\/p>\n<p>• Apocryphal Acts<\/p>\n<p>• Apocryphal Epistles<\/p>\n<p>• Apocalyptic Apocrypha<\/p>\n<p>• Specific Titles of Apocryphal Writings<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Introduction\">Introduction<\/p>\n<p>The writings of the Old and New Testaments tended to attract certain additional compositions in the form of books, parts of books, letters, “gospels,” apocalypses, and so on. Most of the authors wrote anonymously, but some presented their writings to the public under the name of a familiar OT figure or member of the Christian church. Several of these compositions formed a small but important part of the great body of Jewish literature that emerged during the period between the Old and New Testaments. Much of it was the result of religious and political ferment, for the Jews felt their faith and their very existence threatened, first by the pagan influences of Hellenistic Greek culture, then by the oppression of invading Roman forces.<\/p>\n\n<p>Most of the apocryphal books are also pseudepigrapha—that is, they are books ascribed to a pseudonymous author. In other words, the main characteristic of these writings is the fictitious claim that the author of the book was a biblical person (Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Solomon, Bartholomew, Thomas, etc.) or that the revelation contained in the book was originally given to a biblical character (Adam and Eve, Isaiah). Generally, the pseudepigrapha show a strong interest in the apocalyptic: the creation of the world, the future of Israel and the nations, the glory of God and his angels, the messianic kingdom, and life after death. Many of the pseudepigrapha are Jewish writings that were never accepted by the Jewish or Christian communities. They were written about the time of the Apocrypha (c. 200 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 110), but by the nature of the contents of the pseudepigrapha, they were only recognized by certain groups. Since some of these books approximated counterparts in the canonical Scriptures, there is no doubt that in some circles their authority and inspiration were regarded as similar to that of the scriptural compositions venerated by the Jews and later by Christians.<\/p>\n<p>Other religious writings from that period made no claim to be scriptural. Such compositions preserved the familiar traditions of both Judaism and primitive Christianity, although on occasion they enriched or embellished them by means of legends and unhistorical narratives. Because very few books of any kind were in circulation at that time, the Palestinians tended to read whatever literary material came into their possession. Although the Torah, or law of Moses, had always been recognized as the standard of theological orthodoxy for the Jews, narratives of endurance under persecution or accounts of the way that the enemies of God’s people received their just reward had an obvious attraction for those under the pressures of a pagan society.<\/p>\n<p>In the same way, although the Gospels and Epistles—along with the OT—comprised the basic canon or approved list of Scriptures for Christians, many additional narratives claimed the attention of Christ’s early followers. Those compositions often dealt with the supposed activities of Jesus and his followers, as well as with martyrdoms, revelations, and spiritual teachings. Some works contained material that was not only unhistorical but downright bizarre, but others reflected the spirit of Christ and the apostolic teachings to a certain extent. For the early Christians, as also for the Jews, the establishment of a formal canon of scriptural writings must have been prompted in part by a necessity to separate the record of revealed truth from other written forms of religious tradition as well as from actual heresy.<\/p>\n<p>Writings that failed to gain acceptance into the OT and NT canons were described in the writings of some early Christian scholars by the term “apocrypha.” The Greek word means “hidden things,” and when applied to books it described those works that religious authorities wished to be concealed from the reading public. The reason was that such books were thought to contain mysterious or secret lore, meaningful only to the initiate and therefore unsuitable for the ordinary reader. But the word “apocrypha” was also applied in a less complimentary sense to works that deserved to be concealed. Such works contained harmful doctrines or false teachings calculated to unsettle or pervert rather than edify those who read them. The suppression of undesirable writings was comparatively easy at a time when only a few copies of any book were in circulation at a given time.<\/p>\n<p>By the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, a clear distinction was being made in Jewish circles between writings that were suitable for use by the general public and esoteric works that were to be restricted to the knowledgeable and the initiated. Thus in 2 Esdras 14:1-6, the writer tells how Ezra was supposedly instructed by God to publish openly certain writings (among them the Torah), and keep others secret (that is, apocalyptic traditions dealing with the coming end of the age). In 2 Esdras 14:42-46 reference is made to 70 books, evidently noncanonical material, written after the 24 books of the Hebrew Canon.<\/p>\n<p>Use of the term “apocrypha” to mean “noncanonical” goes back to the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>, when Jerome urged that the books found in the Septuagint and in the Latin Bibles that did not occur in the canon of the Hebrew OT writings should be treated as apocryphal. They were not to be disregarded entirely, since they were part of the great contemporary outpouring of Jewish national literature. At the same time, they should not be used as sources for Christian doctrine but at best for supplementary reading of an uplifting or inspirational nature.<\/p>\n<p>Protestant theologians generally have followed the tradition established by Jerome, regarding the OT apocrypha as the excess of the Septuagint canon over the Hebrew Scriptures. When the Hebrew Bible began to be translated into Greek in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy II (285–246 <span>BC<\/span>), the scholars concerned included a number of books that, while remaining outside the generally accepted list of Hebrew canonical writings, still had a bearing upon Jewish history and society. That procedure reflected contemporary attitudes in Palestine, where many people did not attempt to separate canonical writings from other forms of religious literature. The decision made by Jewish authorities about what to regard as canonical Scripture naturally had a bearing on what would constitute OT apocrypha.<\/p>\n<p>Textual evidence represented by certain manuscripts and fragments from the Dead Sea caves makes it reasonably certain that the last of the canonical Hebrew writings had been completed several decades before the time Alexander the Great (356–323 <span>BC<\/span>) began his conquests in the Near East. The process by which those compositions came to be accepted as canonical was more protracted, however. Only when they had been circulated, read, and assessed favorably by comparison with the spirituality of the Torah were they accorded general canonicity. Hence the distinction between the canonical and apocryphal writings came as much through usage and general consent on the part of orthodox Judaism as through any other manner. Earlier scholars suggested that the so-called Council of Jamnia, held in Palestine about <span>AD<\/span> 100, was responsible for drawing up a list of OT books suitable for use by the faithful. However, subsequent studies have thrown considerable doubt upon the historicity of such a council, at the same time showing that the Jewish authorities of that period considered their noncanonical writings to be more of an obstacle than a help to devotion.<\/p>\n<p>The books the Jews regarded as being specifically outside the Canon, and therefore apocryphal, are as follows: 1 Esdras; 2 Esdras; Tobit; Judith; the additions to Esther; the Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch; the Letter of Jeremiah; the additions to the book of Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon); the Prayer of Manasseh; 1 Maccabees; and 2 Maccabees. Several Septuagint manuscripts included some pseudohistorical material under the titles of 3 and 4 Maccabees. Therefore, even the Apocrypha varied somewhat in content, depending upon the manuscript tradition being followed. Among early Christian scholars there was also some difference of opinion about the precise limits of canonical Hebrew Scripture, and hence of apocryphal material. A serious break with Hebrew and rabbinic tradition came with the writings of Augustine, who advanced the view that the books of the Apocrypha were of equal authority with the other writings of the canonical Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. A few dissenting voices were raised in support of Jerome’s position, but the views of Augustine were embraced by the Council of Trent (1546) and became official Roman Catholic teaching.<\/p>\n<p>The Roman Catholic Church includes the following works as part of the Deuterocanonical Scriptures: Tobit; Judith; the additions to Esther; the Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach; Baruch; the additions to the book of Daniel (the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon); 1 Maccabees; and 2 Maccabees. (Articles on each of these are interspersed throughout this dictionary.)<\/p>\n<p>Christians of the NT period were already familiar with Jewish apocryphal works, including the apocalyptic speculations found in 2 Esdras. Therefore, it was hardly surprising that a similar body of literature should grow up around their own Scriptures when they began to be composed and circulated. NT apocrypha, however, like its OT counterpart, could be considered only in relationship to an established canon of scriptural writings. Since the earliest catalog of NT writings, the Muratorian Canon, was not compiled until about <span>AD<\/span> 200, a considerable period of time elapsed before an official church statement could appear on what was to be considered NT apocrypha. In the meantime, a large assortment of materials of a predominantly religious nature appeared, purporting to be orthodox in nature and dealing with various aspects of historic Christianity. As events turned out, this apocryphal literature defeated the purposes it was intended to serve.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApocryphalGospels\">Apocryphal Gospels<\/p>\n<p>One major class of apocrypha are the apocryphal gospels. These writings preserved stories about Christ and some teachings, but being mostly fanciful in nature they never became canonical. There are three broad classes:<\/p>\n<p>1. A type similar to the synoptic Gospels, represented by the Gospel of Peter and the Gospel of the Egyptians, as well as papyrus fragments including Oxyrhynchus 840 and Papyrus Egerton 2. Other papyrus collections of sayings show affinities with the canonical Gospels.<\/p>\n<li>2. Gospels that disseminated Gnosticism, a second-century <span>AD<\/span> heresy stressing philosophical knowledge <em>(<\/em><span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>)<\/em> of the cosmos and man. They are often in the form of dialogues between Jesus and his disciples, such as the Coptic Gospel of Thomas, the Apocryphon of John, the Wisdom of Jesus Christ, and the Dialogue of the Redeemer. In this category also come those “gospels” attributed to the Twelve as a group, such as the Memoirs of the Apostles.<\/li>\n<li>3. Infancy gospels, purporting to supply otherwise unknown information of a legendary nature about Christ’s earliest years. Passion gospels also come into this category. These narratives were written to satisfy curiosity about Christ’s birth and childhood or to embellish the canonical accounts of his crucifixion and resurrection.<\/li>\n<p>Because of the scarcity of information about such matters as the childhood, adolescence, and early manhood of Jesus, the “infancy” gospels purport to supply the reader with what was meant to pass for historical fact. Much of the material, however, was entirely within the realm of fantasy and could never have been accepted as fact by any intelligent reader. For example, in the Gospel of Thomas the five-year-old Jesus is accused of breaking the Sabbath by making sparrows of clay beside a stream. When his father Joseph investigates the situation, Jesus claps his hands and the clay birds come to life and fly away chirping.<\/p>\n<p>“Passion” gospels were written to embellish the canonical accounts of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. As supplements to Christian teaching, many of the apocryphal writings seemed to be proclaiming ideas that were actually outside the scope of NT doctrine. Attempts to fill in the “hidden years” of Christ’s life had no foundation whatever in the traditions of the Gospels. Works dealing with the last state of unbelievers were embellished in a manner that went far beyond anything stated in the NT. In some notable instances, as in the writings of various Gnostic sects, the authors set out deliberately to propagate heretical teachings they had accepted under the authority of some apostolic figure. The Gospel of Thomas, recovered around 1945 from Nag Hammadi (Chenoboskion) near the Nile River, is an example of an attempt to perpetuate curious sayings and dogmas by attributing them to Jesus, so that they would receive wide currency and acceptance.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApocryphalActs\">Apocryphal Acts<\/p>\n<p>There are also some apocryphal acts, which are purported to be accounts of apostolic achievements not recorded in Scripture. Such “acts” are the source of much tradition, such as Peter’s being crucified upside down and Thomas’s mission to India. The reliability of the traditions is questionable because the writings contain clearly unorthodox material. Yet small fragments of accurate information may be embedded in this mass of largely fictitious literature.<\/p>\n<p>Because of their often heretical character, the church consistently reacted against such books, sometimes even demanding that they be burned (for example, at the Nicene Council of 787). The Acts of John pictured Jesus talking to John on the Mt of Olives during the crucifixion, explaining that it was only a spectacle. In the Acts of Thomas, Jesus appeared in the form of Thomas, exhorting a newly married couple to dedicate themselves to virginity. Sexual abstinence was a dominant theme, reflecting Platonic ideas, which disparaged the physical body.<\/p>\n<p>Many scholars date the earliest work, the Acts of John, before <span>AD<\/span> 150. The major Acts (of John, Paul, Peter, Andrew, and Thomas) were probably written during the second and third centuries. These gave rise to other “acts” that were primarily miracle stories, written more to entertain than to teach.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApocryphalEpistles\">Apocryphal Epistles<\/p>\n<p>A host of apocryphal works are classified as epistles. These generally pseudonymous works originated from many widely separated periods of time. Many other apocryphal works are apocalyptic in nature. These works are supplemented by material such as the Apostolic Constitutions and Canons. Added to these are the Gnostic compositions found at Nag Hammadi, which include works purporting to represent the teachings of Christ as well as “secret” instructions compiled by the Gnostic writers and a few apocryphal compositions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ApocalypticApocrypha\">Apocalyptic Apocrypha<\/p>\n<p>Another group could be called apocalyptic apocrypha. The term “apocalypse” means “disclosure” or “revelation,” a term that was generally applied to Christian literature that resembled the Revelation of John, which designates itself an apocalypse in Revelation 1:1. The practice of writing under the name of an illustrious figure of the past, or pseudonymity, was a characteristic device used by most unknown authors of Jewish and Christian apocalypses (the Revelation of John is a striking exception). Jewish apocalypses were attributed to such ancient worthies as Adam, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Ezra, and others. Similarly, Christian apocalypses written in the second century <span>AD<\/span> and later were ascribed to such important early Christian figures as Peter, Thomas, James and others.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times there emerged in Judaism certain circles that developed an apocalyptic view of history. They provided such writings as the five parts of 1 Enoch, the Assumption of Moses, 2 Esdras, and the Apocalypse of Baruch. These books are of importance to NT study, for they provide a bridge between the OT and the NT concepts of the kingdom of God.<\/p>\n<p>The apocalypses were written to answer the problems of theodicy (the justice of God). After the days of Ezra, the law assumed a more important role in the life of the people than before. In prophetic times Israel again and again apostatized from the law and worshiped foreign gods. The primary message of the prophets was to challenge Israel to get right with God and to turn in repentance to keep the law. After Ezra and throughout NT times, Israel was obedient to the law as never before. The Jews abhorred idolatry and faithfully worshiped God. Still the kingdom did not come. Instead came the fearful persecution in the Maccabean times by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, the worldly rule of the Hasmoneans, Pompey and Roman hegemony, and in <span>AD<\/span> 66–70, the siege and destruction of Jerusalem. Where was God? Why did he not deliver his faithful people? Why did the kingdom not come? The apocalypses were written to answer questions like these.<\/p>\n<p>One of the most important elements in apocalyptic religion is an explicit dualism, expressed as “this age” and “the age to come.” The prophets contrasted the present time with the future when the kingdom of God would be established. The apocalyptists radicalized this contrast. Twice we find fragments of this idiom in 1 Enoch. We meet the fully developed idiom in 2 Esdras and the Apocalypse of Baruch (late first century <span>AD<\/span>). “The Most High has made not one age but two” (2 Esd 7:50); “the day of judgment shall be the end of this age and the beginning of the immortal age that is to come” (2 Esd 7:113); “this age the Most High has made for many but the age to come for few” (2 Esd 8:1; see also Apoc Bar 14:13; 15:7; <em>Pirke Aboth<\/em> 4:1, 21-22; 6:4-7). Furthermore, the transition from this age to the age to come can be accomplished only by a cosmic act of God. In the apocryphal Assumption of Moses there is no messianic personage; it is God alone who comes to redeem Israel. In the Similitudes of Enoch the transition is accomplished with the coming of a heavenly, preexistent Son of Man. In 2 Esdras we find a conflation of the concepts of Davidic Messiah and the Son of Man.<\/p>\n<p>Apocalyptic differs from OT prophetic religion in that it is pessimistic about the present age. It would be wrong to describe the apocalypses as ultimately pessimistic, for their basic message is that in due time God will intervene and save his people. But for the present, as long as this age lasts, he has removed himself from intervening in Israel’s affairs. The present age is under the power of evil angelic and demonic forces and is irretrievably evil. God has abandoned this age to evil; salvation can be expected only in the age to come.<\/p>\n<p>The apocalyptists lost completely the tension between history and eschatology. They no longer expected any deliverance in this age. God had, in fact, become the God of the future, not of the present.<\/p>\n<p>In the dream-visions of Enoch (1 Enoch 83–90), God faithfully guided Israel throughout its history. Then God withdrew his personal leadership, forsook the temple, and surrendered his people to be torn and devoured. God “remained unmoved, though he saw it, and rejoiced that they were devoured and swallowed and robbed, and left them to be devoured in the hand of all the beasts” (1 Enoch 89:58). After the Babylonian captivity God was conceived to be inactive in history. History was surrendered to evil. All salvation was thrust into the future.<\/p>\n<p>Comparative studies have shown that the NT apocryphal writings preserve at best a series of debased traditions about the founder and teachings of early Christianity. At worst, the narratives are entirely devoid of historical value and in some respects are totally alien to NT spirituality. Even where they seem to support a tradition current in some part of the early church, the evidence they present is inferior to what can often be had from other sources. Sometimes the compositions are so trivial and inconsequential that it is difficult to account for their survival. Certain apocryphal writings did in fact become lost and are now known only in the form of quotations in larger works.<\/p>\n<p>Nevertheless, the NT apocryphal compositions are important in indicating what was attractive to the ordinary people of the day. For them an element of the romantic seemed necessary to supplement the body of received spiritual truth. Certain of the stories recounted were vivid and imaginative, and others, such as the apocalypses, provided a form of escapism from harsh temporal realities. No matter what their nature, the NT apocryphal writings exerted an influence out of all proportion to their fundamental worth.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SpecificTitlesofApocryphalWritings\">Specific Titles of Apocryphal Writings<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AbdiasApostolicHistoryof\">Abdias, Apostolic History of<\/p>\n<p>Collection of material drawn from canonical and apocryphal writings concerning the lives of the apostles, including Paul. Abdias, an early bishop of Babylon, was supposedly the author of this history that more probably was collated from a variety of sources in the sixth century <span>AD<\/span> in France. This apocryphal “acts,” divided into 10 books, originally circulated in Greek as individual volumes that were collected into one when a Latin version was made. The content is generally regarded as folklore or legend but is of some value where no other source is available.<\/p>\n<p>Abdias, a contemporary of the apostles, may have seen Christ and supposedly traveled extensively with Simon and Jude. There is no historical basis for considering Abdias as the author of the Hebrew text, or for believing that his disciple Eutropius translated it into Greek or that Africanus translated the Greek into Latin—although the preface to the Latin version makes those claims.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AbgarusLettersofChristand\">Abgarus, Letters of Christ and<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal work comprising two short letters, one supposedly written by the Syrian king Abgar (Abgarus), the other supposedly a reply from Jesus. Eusebius claimed to have found the material in the archives of Abgar at Edessa and translated it from Syrian to Greek together with an account of the exploits of the disciple Thaddaeus.<\/p>\n<p>According to the legend, Abgar, suffering from a severe disease, hears of the miracles of Jesus and sends a messenger with a letter asking Jesus to come heal him. At the same time he offers Jesus sanctuary from the dangerous opposition of the Jews in Jerusalem. In a written reply (later altered to an oral one to comply with the tradition that no writings of Jesus existed), Jesus declines the offer of sanctuary but promises that after his ascension he will comply with Abgar’s request for healing by sending a disciple to him. Thaddaeus, one of the Twelve, is dispatched to Edessa, the king is healed, and the community converts to Christianity. In a slightly different version in the Doctrina Addaei (about <span>AD<\/span> 400), an oral reply is given, and the messenger returns with a portrait of Jesus that is displayed prominently in Abgar’s palace.<\/p>\n<p>The legend is essentially similar to that described in the Greek Acts of Thaddaeus (fifth or sixth century <span>AD<\/span>), except that in the latter Ananias returns with a handkerchief on which is a miraculous imprint of the face of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AbrahamApocalypseof\">Abraham, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>Jewish document existing in old Slavonic texts that go back through Greek to a Hebrew or Aramaic original.<\/p>\n<p>The Apocalypse of Abraham begins with Abraham turning from idolatry. Incorporating old rabbinical traditions of Abraham’s youth, it describes his awakening to the call of God and his awareness that God was one and was holy. An angel named Jahoel, whose functions and powers are lifted from rabbinical lore, takes Abraham to the seventh heaven where he is shown things past and things yet to be. He sees the temptation of Adam and Eve through sexual sin, and the murder of Cain. Azazel, an evil being, plays Satan’s role. These details probably reflect a tradition that Abraham was the author of the first documents of the Bible. The revelation then turns to the future and shows the destruction of the temple, plagues upon the heathen, and the coming of the Messiah. It is probable that the composite document took final form in the last generation of the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>True to his character as revealed in Genesis, Abraham raises the question of evil and why God tolerates the rebellious Azazel. He receives the answer that evil has its origin in the free will of man. This apocalypse shows how faithful Jews struggled to understand the problem of evil during a time of great suffering in Judaism. It also illustrates the curious “doctrine of angels” of that period. Both Gnostic and Christian editing of the text has been noted by some scholars.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AbrahamTestamentof\">Abraham, Testament of<\/p>\n<p>Jewish apocryphal writing describing the death of Abraham. In the testament, when the angel Michael comes to take Abraham’s soul, Abraham refuses to die. Reluctant to insist on the old man’s death, Michael accedes to his request to see all creation before he dies. The angel transports Abraham by chariot into the heavens so that he can observe mankind. Abraham is so shocked at the perfidy of humanity that he curses the sinners, who die immediately. He then observes the judgment of a soul, and although angels take part in the trial he notes that the presiding judge is Abel. The merits and demerits of the soul seem equally balanced, but because of the intervention of Abraham, the judgment is favorable. Abraham then realizes the severity of his cursing of sinners, but the angel informs him that the premature death of those whom he had cursed was the means of atonement for their sins.<\/p>\n<p>After his return to earth, Abraham again refuses to die. Death appears in all his horror and kills 7,000 servants of Abraham (who are subsequently raised to life), but the aged saint still will not die. Finally, Death grasps Abraham’s hand and the angels lift his spirit to the heavens.<\/p>\n<p>The account is found in several Greek manuscripts, the oldest perhaps dating from the 13th century <span>AD<\/span>, as well as in Slavonic, Romanian, Arabic, Ethiopic, and Coptic. The original language was probably Hebrew, from the first century <span>AD<\/span>, with the work possibly translated into Greek by a Christian. The testament also exists in a shorter version in which God comes to lift up the soul of Abraham during a dream. There is no attempt in the work to make a theological statement, but the portrayal of the angel Michael and of Death are typical of Jewish thought of the first century.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ActsApocryphal\">Acts, Apocryphal<\/p>\n<p>Writings purported to be accounts of apostolic achievements not recorded in Scripture.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ActsofPilate\">Acts of Pilate<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Pilate, Acts of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AdamApocalypseof\">Adam, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>One of the best examples of Gnostic apocalyptic literature. In 1946, a farm worker discovered a number of ancient texts in a cave about 6 miles (10 kilometers) north of the Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi. The discovery included 13 codexes (predecessors of bound books) of Christian and non-Christian origin. The discovery was not immediately disclosed, so it was not until 1958 that a French scholar, Jean Doresse, revealed the existence of the Apocalypse of Adam to the public. The apocalypse is written in Coptic and stands as the last of five works in Codex V.<\/p>\n<p>Although the author’s true identity is unknown, the subtitle spuriously attributes the book to Adam or Seth: “An Apocalypse that Adam revealed to his son Seth in the seven hundredth year.” Seth was often cast in the role of transmitter of truth by the writers of Gnostic literature (for example, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Paraphrase of Shem).<\/p>\n<p>The earliest existing copy of the Apocalypse of Adam is dated around <span>AD<\/span> 300 to 350, although it may have been written long before. Its frequent Gnostic references, its dependence on Jewish history, and its allusions to baptism have led some scholars to postulate an origin in the Jewish baptist sects of the first and second centuries. Parallels also exist between this work and third-century Manichean (a brand of Gnosticism) literature.<\/p>\n<p>The Apocalypse of Adam is of great importance to students of Christian origins. For many years scholars have debated whether the Gnostic religion was a heretical outgrowth of Christianity or whether it was a movement of independent origins. Some scholars have argued that the Apocalypse of Adam is an example of an early, independent Gnosticism. If this proves to be the case the debate will certainly be simplified.<\/p>\n<p>In addition to its introduction and conclusion, the Apocalypse of Adam may be divided into three parts: Adam’s summary of significant past events, predictions of attempts to eliminate mankind by the evil creator-god, and predictions about the coming of the Enlightener who will show his people the way to the true God.<\/p>\n<p>The apocalypse opens with Adam, supposedly on his deathbed, revealing the future secrets of the Gnostic people to Seth. These have been mystically communicated to him by three angelic beings. Adam bemoans his condition of perpetual slavery to the evil creator-god, brought about by the fall and mankind’s subsequent loss of <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span> (knowledge). Typical of Gnostic literature, a sharp distinction is drawn between the evil creator-god who rules the earth and the true God of the universe, knowledge of whom brings authentic life. Adam predicts that the creator-god will jealously attempt to destroy mankind by a flood (the story of Noah) and by fire (the story of Sodom and Gomorrah) and thus keep mankind from knowledge of the true God. These attempts, however, will be foiled by the intervention of angelic beings sent from the God of truth. Finally, the true God will send the Enlightener who will teach <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span> to mankind so that they might know him. The creator-god will try to defeat the Enlightener but will be able to harm only his physical body. With the message of the Enlightener prevailing, mankind will turn from the creator-god and seek the true God through <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">gnosis<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Gnosticism.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AdamApocryphalBooksof\">Adam, Apocryphal Books of<\/p>\n<p>Account of the life and death of Adam and Eve recorded in Latin, and in a Greek version known as the Apocalypse of Moses. Other minor versions of early Christian origin also exist. Like other apocryphal writings, the work is fanciful and of unknown authorship.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Latin account, after their expulsion from Paradise Adam and Eve are hungry and unable to find food for seven days. In desperation a penitent Eve, assuming responsibility for tasting the forbidden fruit, suggests that Adam kill her. He refuses, and after a search they survive by eating animals’ food. Adam suggests that as a penance they should stand fasting in the river up to their necks for 40 days, he in the Tigris, she in the Jordan. After 18 days Satan comes to Eve in the guise of an angel, tells her that the Lord has accepted her penance, and persuades her to leave the river. Coming to the Tigris where Adam is, Eve realizes that it was Satan who had spoken to her. Satan then explains that the reason for his fall was his refusal to worship man, a lower being.<\/p>\n<p>The archangel Michael is then sent to Adam with seeds so that he can learn to till the land. In a dream Eve sees Cain kill Abel, and in an attempt to prevent the murder by separating the brothers, Cain is made a farmer and Abel a shepherd. Subsequently a third son, Seth, is born. Adam receives a message from God that he is to die because he has obeyed the word of his wife rather than the instructions of God. When Adam is later in pain and close to death, he explains to Seth that Satan had tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and that she in turn had persuaded him to taste it. Seth and Eve journey to the gates of Paradise to plead with God for Adam’s life. On the way Seth is attacked and bitten by a snake. At Paradise, Michael explains to them that Adam must die. Seth observes the burial of Adam and Abel.<\/p>\n<p>Before Eve’s death the following week, she asks Seth to make a record of the lives of his parents on tablets of stone and clay, so that if the Lord shows his anger with the world by water, the clay will be dissolved and the stone remain; if by fire, the stone will be broken up and the clay baked hard. Eve also warns Seth to mourn for six days only and not on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<p>The text of the Greek version is similar to that of the Latin, except that the Greek version includes a description of Adam’s resurrection (added later to the Latin) and a detailed account by Eve of her temptation and fall. The burial of Adam and the initial refusal of the earth to accept the body of the slain Abel are also elaborately described in the Greek account. Both versions are probably derived from Hebrew originals dating from the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AhikarBookof\">Ahikar, Book of<\/p>\n<p>Near Eastern folktale from the sixth or seventh century <span>BC<\/span> showing the reward of ingratitude. According to the story, Ahikar, secretary of Sennacherib, king of Assyria, was renowned for his wisdom. Childless even though he had 60 wives, Ahikar adopted his sister’s son, Nadan, and reared him to be his successor in Sennacherib’s court. Ahikar diligently educated his adopted son, who nevertheless turned out to be bad and even forged documents to have his benefactor condemned to death. Ahikar was spared through his friendship with the executioner and was concealed until the wrath of the king cooled. Later, when Sennacherib had occasion to wish for his wisdom, Ahikar was brought on the scene, long-haired, disheveled, and with fingernails like eagles’ claws. Once again in the king’s favor, Ahikar sternly rebuked his unscrupulous nephew. In response to Ahikar’s rebuke, Nadan’s body swelled up and his stomach burst open.<\/p>\n<p>Ahikar’s story has interesting parallels with OT wisdom books and also with some of the parables of Jesus. References to Ahikar occur in the apocryphal book of Tobit, in the Greek philosopher Democritus, in the apocalyptic Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, as well as in the Koran. The story, originally in Aramaic, also survives in Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, and Greek, though with considerable variations in the versions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AkhmimFragment\">Akhmim Fragment<\/p>\n<p>Document found in a tomb in Akhmim in Egypt and containing the apocryphal Gospel of Peter. <em>See<\/em> Peter, Preaching of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AllogenesSupreme\">Allogenes Supreme<\/p>\n<p>Gnostic work (“The Most High Stranger”), discovered in 1946 in an urn near Nag Hammadi (Egypt). The Neoplatonist historian Porphyry, as well as later Syriac Christian writings against heresy, mentioned the works of Allogenes (whose name means “foreigner” or “stranger”). Allogenes Supreme, a Gnostic “apocalypse” written in Coptic, contains an account of the creation of the higher world, exalting Barbelo, the celestial mother. The existing copy was made during the fourth century, but the original may date back to the second century.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AndrewActsof\">Andrew, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal work describing purported miracles and the martyrdom in Greece of the apostle Andrew, Peter’s brother. Its theme is the virtue of turning away from materialism and the transitory values of the world to an asceticism associated with dedication of life to God. The earliest fragment available is in the Vatican. The original probably dated from the second century <span>AD<\/span> and was probably long, verbose, and tedious. Feeling that it had merit, Gregory of Tours in the sixth century wrote a concise account of the miracles of Andrew from an original, now lost. The account of the martyrdom of Andrew probably circulated separately.<\/p>\n<p>Among the many miracles Gregory recorded was one concerning Exoos, a noble youth from Thessalonica, who, having heard of Andrew’s preaching and miracles, comes to him at Philippi, is converted, and remains with him. Finding bribery useless and refusing to listen to Andrew, the youth’s parents set fire to the house where the Christians are staying. As the flames roar, Exoos prays that the Lord will extinguish the fire and sprinkles it with water. Thereupon the flames die out. The parents and the crowd, claiming that the youth is now a sorcerer, climb ladders to enter the house and kill the inhabitants, but God blinds the intruders. Although it is night, a light shines out from the house, sight is restored to those who have been blinded, and all except the youth’s parents are converted. The parents die soon afterward, and Exoos remains with Andrew, spending his inheritance on the poor. Returning to Thessalonica, Exoos heals a man who has been paralyzed for 23 years, and subsequently Exoos and Andrew perform further miracles and preach to the people.<\/p>\n<p>In Patrae the maidservant of Maximilla, wife of the proconsul Aegeates, comes to Andrew and implores him to heal her mistress, whose fever is so severe that her husband is standing at her bedside threatening to kill himself with a sword the moment she dies. Telling the proconsul to put up his sword, Andrew takes Maximilla’s hand and the fever leaves her. Ordering food for her, Andrew then refuses Aegeates’ offer of 100 pieces of silver. After performing many miracles in the city, Andrew receives a message from Maximilla to come and heal the slave of the proconsul’s brother, Stratocles. The apostle restores the boy to health, and his master believes.<\/p>\n<p>Maximilla, to the fury of her husband, spends considerable time listening to the preaching of Andrew and is also converted. She then refuses to sleep with her husband and one night even substitutes a servant for herself. Details of subsequent events are found in the account of the martyrdom. Aegeates, in anger, holds Andrew responsible for his wife’s alienation and has him arrested. After preaching from prison, Andrew is taken to be crucified by the seashore. When the Christian Stratocles sees Andrew being manhandled by the soldiers, he fights his way through, and he and Andrew walk together to the place of crucifixion. Aegeates, fearing his brother, orders the soldiers not to interfere. At the seashore the soldiers follow the proconsul’s command that Andrew be tied, not nailed, to the cross so that his death will be lingering and he will be eaten by dogs. After two days he is still speaking to people from the cross, and many come to Aegeates demanding Andrew’s release. Arriving at the scene, the proconsul sees that Andrew is indeed alive, and Aegeates approaches the apostle to release him. Andrew demands that he be allowed to die and meet his Lord. As they watch, Andrew dies and the onlookers weep as Maximilla and Stratocles take down his body from the cross. Maximilla remains apart from her husband and continues as a Christian.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AndrewStoryof\">Andrew, Story of<\/p>\n<p>Legendary fragment existing only in the Coptic language. In the legend coming from the late second century <span>AD<\/span>, a woman kills her child in the desert and gives the remains to a dog. She flees when the apostle Andrew and Philemon approach, but the dog tells what happened. Andrew prays and the child, being vomited forth, is restored to life and laughs and cries.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AndrewandMatthiasActsof\">Andrew and Matthias, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Lengthy document of highly questionable authenticity, probably dating from the late second century <span>AD<\/span>. This book was one of many apocryphal “acts” intended to supplement the NT book of Acts by providing more information about the apostles. The fourth-century church historian Eusebius described this work and others like it as heretical, absurd, and spurious.<\/p>\n<p>In this story, the apostles cast lots to determine where each should go. Matthias (Matthew in some versions) is sent to the country of the man-eaters, where he soon requires rescue from a cannibal feast. The Lord then sends Andrew to save him. Andrew arrives in time to do so, and Matthias is then carried off by a cloud. Now alone, Andrew is arrested and tortured, being dragged through the city that he nearly destroys by calling forth water from a statue. Eventually, impressed by Andrew’s miracles, the people repent and release him. Andrew next draws a plan for a church, has it built, baptizes the people, and gives them the ordinances of the Lord.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AndrewandPaulActsof\">Andrew and Paul, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Fragmentary apocryphal story, existing only in Coptic fragments, about the arrival of the apostles Andrew and Paul by sea at a city. In the story, Paul, instructing Andrew to rescue him, visits the underworld. There he meets Judas, who explains that he worshiped Satan after Jesus had pardoned him for the betrayal. Andrew rescues Paul, who returns carrying a piece of wood. Although Andrew is asked to heal a child, some Jews are skeptical and the city gates remain closed to the apostles. Paul strikes the gates with his piece of wood, and the gates are swallowed up into the earth. Astonished at the miracle, 27,000 Jews are converted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ApostlesEpistleofthe\">Apostles, Epistle of the<\/p>\n<p>Letter purporting to come from the 11 apostles to the churches “of the east and the west, of the north and the south, declaring and imparting to you that which concerns our Lord Jesus Christ.” Some believe that the epistle was written in Asia Minor about <span>AD<\/span> 160; others think that it originated in Egypt. It is probably to be dated near the middle of the second century. In existence are a mutilated Coptic manuscript of the fourth or fifth century, a complete version in Ethiopic, and a fragment in Latin. The epistle was unknown until the discovery in 1895 of the Coptic manuscript.<\/p>\n<p>After an introduction there is a declaration that “our Lord and Redeemer Jesus Christ is God the Son of God who was sent of God the Lord of the whole world.” Then follows a summary of a number of incidents from the Gospels, including a negative statement of the Golden Rule: “Love your enemies, and what you would not that man do to you, that do to no man.” Chapter 24 introduces the subject of the resurrection followed by a series of questions by the disciples with answers by Jesus. A prophecy of the conversion of Paul appears in chapter 31. In chapter 43 the five wise virgins are identified as “Faith and Love and Grace and Peace and Hope”; the names of the foolish are “Knowledge, Understanding (Perception), Obedience, Patience, and Compassion.” The question-and-answer format of a substantial part of the work is reminiscent of the style of some of the texts found in the Gnostic library at Nag Hammadi, especially the Apocryphon of John. However, warnings that Cerinthus and Simon (ch 7) are “enemies of our Lord Jesus Christ” make it clear that this is not a Gnostic document. The epistle contains numerous evidences of orthodox influence, along with clear indications of a departure from apostolic Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ApostlesGospeloftheTwelve\">Apostles, Gospel of the Twelve<\/p>\n<p>One of a large number of heretical “gospels” circulating in the earliest centuries of the Christian church along with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles was first mentioned by name in comments on Luke 1:1 by the Christian theologian Origen (c. <span>AD<\/span> 185–254). Some scholars think it may have been the same as the Gospel of the Ebionites, quoted in a few early Christian writings. Nothing is known directly of the Gospel of the Twelve Apostles.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ArabicGospeloftheInfancy\">Arabic Gospel of the Infancy<\/p>\n<p>One of several “gospels of the infancy” found in the apocryphal NT. This one from about the fifth century contains an account of the birth of Jesus, including the visits of the shepherds and the magi, the flight into Egypt, and miracles performed by Jesus as a boy. Details of the early period of Jesus’ life are given, about which the canonical Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) say nothing. An interesting facet of the miracle stories is the role in many of them of Mary, the mother of Jesus, in contrast to the record of the miracles in the canonical Gospels. The Arabic Gospel may have been written in Syriac and translated into Arabic. Some of its stories are also found in the Koran and other Islamic writings. Study of this apocryphal gospel reveals its sharp contrast with the canonical accounts, but it also indicates how much this and similar writings had to do with the growing veneration of the virgin Mary.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ArabicHistoryofJosephtheCarpenter\">Arabic History of Joseph the Carpenter<\/p>\n<p>Fourth-century <span>AD<\/span> account of the life and death of Joseph—with information supposedly supplied by Jesus. According to this account, Joseph the carpenter becomes a widower after fathering four sons and two daughters (ch 2). He is entrusted with the care of Mary in his 90th year (ch 14). Thus, according to this account, the brothers and sisters of Jesus are Joseph’s children by a previous marriage. Joseph is said to have died at the age of 111 years. The document, which exists in both Arabic and Coptic versions, contains the statement that Mary “must look for the same end of life as other mortals” (ch 18). Hence, it has been dated as earlier than the fifth century, when the idea of the “assumption of Mary into heaven” was being promoted.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AristeasLetterof\">Aristeas, Letter of<\/p>\n<p>Early account of the relationships between Judaism and Hellenism in Egypt during the period when the Hebrew OT was translated into Greek (the Septuagint). The author, Aristeas, who identifies himself as an Alexandrian court attendant under Ptolemy Philadelphus II (ruled 283–247 <span>BC<\/span>), purports to give information about the translation procedures. The most probable date for the Letter of Aristeas (estimates vary from 200 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 50) is the end of the second century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>As part of his massive library project, King Ptolemy shows interest in the Jewish law. Aristeas uses the occasion to request the emancipation with remuneration of all Jewish slaves in the kingdom and King Ptolemy accedes to the request. The king asks that the high priest in Jerusalem select translators for the project. There follows a lengthy description of gifts sent to Eleazar, the high priest, with special emphasis upon an exquisite table. And then Aristeas describes the temple, the priests, the vestments of the high priest, and the defense system for the temple, followed by a brief description of Palestine and its environs.<\/p>\n<p>In the next section, the high priest talks with Aristeas and the translators before their departure to Alexandria. A summary of his speech includes a careful defense of the law from a philosophical viewpoint. The king gives a lavish banquet for the 72 translators (6 from each tribe) when they arrive in Alexandria. Each translator gives a brilliant answer to the king’s specific questions at the seven successive nights of celebration. The name of each translator and his question and answer are recorded. Then the work is completed on the island of Pharos in 72 days and is praised by the Alexandrian Jews and the king. The translators are dismissed with lavish gifts.<\/p>\n<p>In the epilogue, the author claims to have been an eyewitness to the events and maintains that his report is accurate. This is not believed by modern scholars. Its embellished and legendary quality was recognized in the fifth century <span>BC<\/span>. Aristeas’s discussion of the translation procedure was obviously a convenient literary frame on which to hang a defense of Judaism to the heathen world. Religious liberalism and loyalty to basic Jewish beliefs were skillfully combined to plead for political toleration for the Jews. Many specifics of the Letter of Aristeas are questionable, but its basic picture of how the Septuagint translation came to be made is credible. <em>See<\/em> the discussion of the Septuagint in Bible, Versions of the (Ancient).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ArmenianGospeloftheInfancy\">Armenian Gospel of the Infancy<\/p>\n<p>Legendary account of the infancy and boyhood of Jesus Christ, one of many apocryphal gospels intended to supplement the four NT Gospels by providing more details about Jesus’ early life. It was probably translated into Armenian from a Syriac original. Nestorian missionaries reportedly brought an “infancy gospel” into Armenia about <span>AD<\/span> 590, but evidently not the Armenian Gospel in its present form.<\/p>\n<p>Sources for the Armenian Gospel included two books containing legendary material about Christ’s infancy, the Protevangelium of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The Armenian Gospel amplifies the material of these two texts considerably, making many novel additions to the life of Jesus. For example, Joseph searches for a midwife and meets Eve, who has come to witness the fulfillment of the promised Redeemer-seed (Gn 3:15). Later the magi bring the testament Adam gave to Seth. Jesus, accused of causing a child’s death, is cleared when the child is raised from the dead.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AscensionofIsaiah\">Ascension of Isaiah<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Isaiah, Ascension of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AscentsofJames\">Ascents of James<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> James, Ascents of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AsenathPrayerof\">Asenath, Prayer of<\/p>\n<p>Jewish story about the wife of Joseph when he was in Egypt (Gn 41:45) and known by several titles—The Life and Confession of Asenath, The Book of Joseph and Asenath, and variations of the above. It was apparently very popular in the early and medieval Christian church. Latin, Syriac, Slavonic, Rumanian, and Ethiopic versions, in addition to 40 Armenian copies, have been found.<\/p>\n<p>Modern scholars tend to see the source of the novel in the Hellenistic Judaism prevalent in Egypt from 100 <span>BC<\/span> to <span>AD<\/span> 100. Asenath seems to serve as a model for any proselyte to Judaism. If that understanding is correct, the story gives valuable insight into the less legalistic attitudes of a sector of pre-Christian Judaism. Repentant realization of the hopelessness of one’s sinful condition and casting oneself upon the mercies of God play a large part in the story.<\/p>\n<p>The original was probably written in Greek and is divided into two major parts. Part I deals with Asenath’s pampered life prior to meeting Joseph, his initial rejection of her because of her idolatry, and her consequent repentance in ashes. Asenath calls upon God in prayer, and he sends an angel to her to announce her forgiveness and to say that her name is now written in the Book of Life. Joseph returns and marvels at Asenath’s new beauty, rejoicing at her conversion. With Pharaoh’s blessing they are married the next day.<\/p>\n<p>Part II describes the period when Joseph’s father, Jacob, and his family have come to Egypt. Desiring Asenath, the elder son of Pharaoh tempts Joseph’s brothers Dan and Gad to help him kidnap her. The plan is foiled by Joseph’s other brothers, who then wish to kill Dan and Gad, but Asenath pleads successfully for their lives. Pharaoh leaves the crown to Joseph, who rules 40 years and then returns the reign to Pharaoh’s younger son.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AsherTestamentof\">Asher, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"AssumptionofMoses\">Assumption of Moses<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Moses, Assumption of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BarnabasActsof\">Barnabas, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Document of one of several distinct cycles of tradition about Barnabas, the apostle Paul’s companion, this one linking him with Cyprus. This work, whose full title is The Journeyings and Martyrdom of Saint Barnabas the Apostle, was probably composed in Cyprus at the end of the fifth or the beginning of the sixth century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The book purports to be a first-person account written by John Mark. He claims to have left the apostles in Perga (cf. Acts 13:13) so he could sail to the West but was prevented. When he tried to rejoin them in Antioch, Paul prohibited him. Consequently, after some dispute, John Mark and Barnabas sailed for Cyprus. After preaching and healing many people, Barnabas encountered his old adversary, Bar-Jesus, who finally stirred up the Jews to capture him. Leading Barnabas out of the city of Salamis, they circled around him and burned him alive. John Mark and some other believers escaped with his ashes and buried them in a cave along with scriptures Barnabas had received from Matthew. John Mark then left for Alexandria to minister there.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BarnabasEpistleof\">Barnabas, Epistle of<\/p>\n<p>This anonymous letter addresses a question commonly asked throughout the early church: What should Christianity’s relationship be to Judaism? Clement of Alexandria quoted from this document frequently and ascribed it to “Barnabas, who himself also preached with the apostle [Paul].” Jerome believed the same. But the writer does not claim to be Barnabas, and the earliest claims of authorship come only from Alexandrian church leaders. The literary and interpretive style is entirely Alexandrian, so it is assumed that the epistle was written in Alexandria.<\/p>\n<p>The author of this epistle unequivocally denies any connection between Judaism and the gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time, he does not say that the OT opposes the NT; rather, he sees Christianity everywhere in the Law and the Prophets. He holds that all the Judaistic rites and ceremonies are mystical pointers to Christ and that an evil angel has blinded the Jews from understanding this.<\/p>\n<p>The epistle mentions the destruction of Jerusalem, so it was not written before <span>AD<\/span> 70. There was a second devastation of Jerusalem in <span>AD<\/span> 132 that ended the revolt of Bar-Kochba. This defeat would have served the author’s purposes so well that he would surely have referred to it if he were writing after the event. Many scholars suggest that the letter was composed around 130, since this was a period of strong Jewish nationalism. This nationalism would have pressured many Jewish Christians to return to Judaism, and so the author of the Epistle of Barnabas wrote to defend Christianity against Judaism.<\/p>\n<p>The Epistle of Barnabas is composed of two parts. The first section (chs 1–17) contains allegorical interpretations of the OT. These highly spiritual and mystical interpretations are intended to oppose Jewish legalism and explain how the OT prophesied of Jesus Christ. The author concedes that righteous people, such as Moses, David, and the prophets, understood the true meaning of Mosaic law, but he contends that the rest of the nation of Israel had misconstrued God’s covenant. Therefore, the Jews lost their claim to the covenant’s blessings, which were transferred to the Christians instead. This allegorical style of interpretation was very popular among Alexandrian church leaders. The NT epistle of Hebrews also makes use of this type of interpretation. The author of the Epistle of Barnabas often quotes from the Septuagint, though the quotes are somewhat loosely recited.<\/p>\n<p>A Latin version of the first section was all that was known of the Epistle of Barnabas until the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in 1859. This codex contained the first known Greek version of the Epistle of Barnabas, which was appended to the books of the NT along with The Shepherd and the Didache. The Greek version contains a second section that begins, “Now let us pass on to quite a different sort of instruction.” This section contains moral precepts that contrast the way of darkness with the way of light, much of which seems to be transcribed from the “Two Ways” of the Didache. It has little connection with the first section. This has led many scholars to conclude that the second section was added by another writer at some later date.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BarnabasGospelof\">Barnabas, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Long Italian work actually written in the fourth century by a proselyte to Islam. He probably sought to capitalize on the mysterious mention of such a gospel in the Gelasian Decree, written not later than the sixth century <span>AD<\/span>. To date, no other evidence of an authentic gospel by Barnabas has been uncovered, a fact that has led many scholars to doubt whether it ever existed.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BartholomewActsof\">Bartholomew, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>Early Christian novel purporting to describe the last days and death of the apostle Bartholomew. The work is also known as The Martyrdom of the Holy and Glorious Apostle Bartholomew. It may date back to the fifth or sixth century <span>AD<\/span> and was evidently well received, for copies exist in Latin, Greek, Armenian, and Ethiopic.<\/p>\n<p>In the Acts, Bartholomew goes to India, takes up residence in a pagan temple, and causes its false oracle to cease. Bartholomew then heals a demoniac, thus drawing the attention of King Polymius. Bartholomew also heals the king’s demon-possessed daughter. Next, he casts the false god out of the temple. After this display of power, many believe the gospel. The king’s brother, however, is enraged and has Bartholomew beaten and beheaded. His rash action is soon punished, for he is strangled to death by a demon. The good King Polymius becomes bishop and serves 20 years.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BartholomewApocalypseof\">Bartholomew, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>Fragmentary Coptic texts that have some similarities to the apocryphal Gospel of Bartholomew. A few scholars have felt that two works were represented in these fragments, a gospel and also an apocalypse. Though this hypothesis has been generally abandoned, references to the debatable Apocalypse of Bartholomew still appear.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Bartholomew, Gospel of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BartholomewBookoftheResurrectionofChristby\">Bartholomew, Book of the Resurrection of Christ by<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal work existing only in Coptic and probably dating from the fifth or sixth century <span>AD<\/span>. Like many similar writings of doubtful authenticity, it claims to supplement the accounts of Jesus found in the biblical Gospels. The book was supposedly addressed by Bartholomew to his son, Thaddaeus, who was warned in it not to let this book “come into the hand of any man who is an unbeliever and a heretic.” The book can hardly be regarded as a narrative; its aim is obviously the glorification of Bartholomew, who sees things that are hidden from others. The text contains many breaks; contradictions abound and a disregard of history is evident. Two different persons bury the body of Jesus: Joseph and Philogenes, father of a boy healed by Jesus. Mary, the mother of Jesus, is confused with Mary Magdalene. In the account of the Last Supper the author goes far beyond biblical statements about the bread and wine: “His Body was on the Table about which they were assembled; and they divided it. They saw the blood of Jesus pouring out as living blood down into the cup.” Imaginative details also embellish the account of the resurrection. Christ, for example, brings Adam back with him from hades. The story of doubting Thomas has been greatly amplified.<\/p>\n<p>The most complete text of the Book of the Resurrection is in the British Museum in London. Several other fragments exist, probably from an earlier version.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BartholomewGospelOf\">Bartholomew, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>One of many apocryphal gospels appearing after the second century under the name of some illustrious figure. The early church was aware not only of the existence of these writings but also of their fictitious character. In the fourth century the church historian Eusebius described them as heretical, spurious, absurd, and impious. Later a Gospel of Bartholomew was mentioned by name, along with several other Gnostic gospels, in the prologue of Jerome’s commentary on Matthew’s Gospel. However, there is no evidence that Jerome had seen such a book or that it actually existed.<\/p>\n<p>A work called Questions of Bartholomew does exist in Greek, Latin, and Slavonic texts—the Greek dating possibly from the fifth or sixth century. Its text has Bartholomew asking Jesus where he went after the Crucifixion and Jesus telling him that he went into hades. Later Bartholomew is pictured as asking Mary to tell how she conceived the incomprehensible or bore him that cannot be carried. Mary warns him that if she began to tell them, fire would come forth from her mouth and consume all the world, but the apostle persists. As she tells the story of the angelic visitation and the Annunciation, fire comes from her mouth. The world is about to come to an end, but Jesus intervenes and places his hand over Mary’s mouth. The apostles also ask to see the bottomless pit and “the things which are in the heavens.” Bartholomew is shown the adversary of men, Beliar, restrained by 660 angels and bound with fiery chains. When Bartholomew treads upon his neck, Beliar explains that he had first been called Satanael and later Satan, describes the creation of the angels, and tells how he fell and how he was able to deceive Eve. Finally, Bartholomew is said to have asked Jesus about the greatest sin. Jesus replies that to say anything evil against a faithful worshiper of God is to sin against the Holy Spirit.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BaruchApocalypseof\">Baruch, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>Two different pseudepigraphal works.<\/p>\n<p>1. Pseudepigraphal Jewish document of 87 chapters, written in Hebrew and translated into Greek and from Greek into Syriac. Only a few lines of the Hebrew original still exist, quoted in rabbinic writings. The Syriac manuscript dates from the sixth or seventh century AD and is the only complete text. It shows evidence of multiple authorship and dependence on the book of 2 Esdras in the Apocrypha. Similarity of many expressions to those in the NT suggests that the original may have been composed in the last half of the first century or the first half of the second century.<\/p>\n<p>The text is in seven sections of unequal length containing both prose and poetic material. The subjects dealt with are the Messiah and his future kingdom, Israel’s past woes, and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. Theological questions such as sin and suffering, free will, the number of people to be saved by the Messiah, and the resurrection of the righteous are not always treated consistently within the text. Some passages paint an optimistic picture of Israel’s future; others are deeply pessimistic. In general the world is a scene of corruption for which no remedy exists. A new and spiritual world is at hand: “Whatever is now is nothing, but that which shall be is very great. For everything that is corruptible shall pass away, and everything that dies shall depart and all the present time, which is defiled with evils.” The alternating optimism and pessimism may reflect the changing fortunes of Judaism in the first and second centuries <span>AD<\/span> or simply the outlook of the different authors. The message of hope is directed to those who keep the law of Moses: “For the righteous justly hope for the end, and without fear depart from this habitation, because they have with Thee a store of works preserved in treasuries.”<\/p>\n<p>The final section of the book is identified as “the epistle which Baruch, the son of Neriah, sent to the nine and a half tribes.” It was sent by being “bound to the neck of the eagle,” probably meaning that it was intended for the Jews scattered outside Palestine (the Diaspora).<\/p>\n<p>Baruch was the prophet Jeremiah’s companion and secretary (Jer 36:4-8). His name was attached to a number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal writings composed long after his death. The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch is also called 2 Baruch to distinguish it clearly from the book of Baruch (1 Baruch) in the Apocrypha.<\/p>\n<li>2. Pseudepigraphal document of 17 chapters, also called the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch or 3 Baruch. It is preserved in Greek, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Slavonic manuscripts. It was first published in Venice in 1609 and then in 1868, although its existence was suggested by the early Christian theologian Origen. Like 2 Baruch, this apocalypse seems to be a composite document of the second century <span>AD<\/span> but in contrast is a Christian document intended to warn unconverted Jews and to encourage Christians to be patient in dealing with them.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BasilidesGospelof\">Basilides, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Polemic commentary on the Gospels by a second-century Gnostic. Basilides’s writings remain only as allusions and fragments in later works by several church fathers. Basilides taught in Alexandria during the reign of the Roman emperor Hadrian (<span>AD<\/span> 117–138). His teacher, Glaucias, claimed to be a firsthand interpreter of the apostle Peter. Basilides asserted that his Gnostic scheme emerged from Peter’s views on the relationship between God and Christ. He described God paradoxically as a nonexistent Being who “generated” three Sonships. Through successive ascents and enlightenments, the gospel of the supreme God (the Gospel of Light) eventually descended upon Jesus.<\/p>\n<p>Origen stated that “Basilides dared to write a gospel According to Basilides.” Clement of Alexandria and the writer of a fourth-century fragment, Acta Archelai, thought that Origen referred to an apocryphal gospel, the teaching of which was deduced from Irenaeus’s account. Today, more in line with Hippolytus’s understanding of Basilides, this work is regarded as merely a commentary on the Gospels. Basilides was probably not responsible for the magical rites and libertinism of the Basilidians, a Gnostic sect led by his son Isidore and continuing in Egypt to the end of the century.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BenjaminTestamentof\">Benjamin, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BirthofMary\">Birth of Mary<\/p>\n<p>An early Gnostic writing. “The Gnostics have a book which they call the Birth (or Descent) of Mary, in which are horrible and deadly things.” So said the fourth-century bishop Ephiphanius in describing the Birth of Mary, a work that has not survived. The Birth of Mary claimed to reveal what Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, saw in the temple—namely, the Jewish god in the form of an ass. That Jews and Christians worshiped an ass-god was commonly held by their critics in those days. This blasphemous work should not be confused with the Gospel of the Birth of Mary, a fanciful but relatively harmless account of Mary’s birth, early life, and marriage to Joseph.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BirthofMaryGospelofthe\">Birth of Mary, Gospel of the<\/p>\n<p>Collection of legends purporting to tell Mary’s story from birth to King Herod’s slaughter of the children in Bethlehem. The earliest such manuscript is called Book of the Nativity of Mary or Gospel of James because it claimed to be written by James, half brother of Jesus. It was written by <span>AD<\/span> 150, since Justin, an early Christian writer, named it in his <em>Dialogues<\/em> (165). It was rediscovered for the West by Postel, who translated it from Greek into Latin (<em>Protevangelium Jacobi,<\/em> 1552). Before it was lost, two major Latin revisions of it had been produced: Pseudo-Matthew and the Gospel of the Nativity of Mary, compiled around the sixth and ninth centuries respectively. These revisions amplified the Book of the Nativity of Mary with more fanciful legends and were the basis for the Golden Legends of James of Voragine (1230–1298), which in turn became instrumental in fostering veneration of Mary.<\/p>\n<p>According to the Book of the Nativity of Mary, Mary is born to rich, barren parents (Joachim and Anna) through angelic response to their prayers. They dedicate Mary to the Lord. At six months Mary walks seven steps, so Anna makes her bedroom a sanctuary, allowing nothing unclean to enter, and vows that Mary will walk again only in the temple. At age three Mary is placed in the temple and receives food from an angel. On Mary’s twelfth birthday the high priest asks God what to do and is told to marry her to a widower. Elderly Joseph is chosen when a dove springs from his rod. Months later, Mary “gives birth” to Jesus in Bethlehem’s cave, through a light so bright that none can see; the light gradually withdraws and the Child appears at Mary’s breast. The Book of the Nativity of Mary closes with the magi and Herod’s slaughter of infants. Mary saves Jesus by wrapping him in swaddling clothes and laying him in a manger.<\/p>\n<p>Recently another Greek fragment, this one from the Gospel of Mary, was found (see photo). The fragment is too little to tell us much about the content of this gospel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"BookoftheCock\">Book of the Cock<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal story preserved by the church of Ethiopia and still read there on the Thursday before Easter. According to the Book of the Cock, on the night of the Last Supper, Akrosina, wife of Simon the Pharisee, presents Jesus with a nicely prepared cock for dinner. After Judas leaves the room, Jesus touches the cock and it comes to life. He instructs it to follow Judas and to report his dealings. The cock returns and tells about the forthcoming betrayal, mentioning Paul of Tarsus as one of those involved. The disciples weep. Jesus sends the cock to the sky for a thousand years.<\/p>\n<p>A similar story exists as a fragment in Sahidic Coptic. In the Coptic version the resurrection of the cock is a symbol of the resurrection of Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"CopticLivesoftheVirgin\">Coptic Lives of the Virgin<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal works concerning Mary, the mother of Jesus, in the Egyptian language of Coptic. <em>See<\/em> Virgin, Life of the (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"CorinthiansThird\">Corinthians, Third<\/p>\n<p>Apocryphal correspondence purporting to be between the apostle Paul and the Corinthian church. Written during the second century and known as 3 Corinthians, the work consists of three parts: an epistle allegedly from Stephanus of Corinth to Paul concerning two false apostles, Simon and Cleobius; a brief narrative telling of its delivery; and Paul’s reply and refutation of the false doctrine. The sequence of letters was originally part of the Acts of Paul, a longer apocryphal document, but circulated on its own as well—it even found its way into the text of the Armenian Bible. It pretends to explain the reference in 2 Corinthians 2:4 to a letter written in great distress.<\/p>\n<p>According to an early church father, Tertullian <em>(On Baptism),<\/em> the author of 3 Corinthians was a presbyter (church leader) of Asia who forged it out of love for Paul shortly after <span>AD<\/span> 160. That presbyter’s removal from office indicates the stern attitude of the early Christians toward the writing of documents falsely claiming apostolic origin.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"DanTestamentof\">Dan, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"DialogueoftheRedeemer\">Dialogue of the Redeemer<\/p>\n<p>Christian Gnostic document, also called the Dialogue of the Savior. The document was found in the ancient Nag Hammadi Library at the modern city of Nag Hammadi (Upper Egypt) in 1946. The Dialogue is a fictitious account of a conversation between Jesus and some of his disciples in which they discuss questions about the universe, humanity, the end times, and salvation. The manuscript is in poor condition. Its authorship and origin are unknown, though it was possibly written in Egypt during the second or third centuries <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"DiscourseofTheodosius\">Discourse of Theodosius<\/p>\n<p>Coptic Boharic version of the Assumption of the Virgin and a main source for the Coptic form of that legend. <em>See<\/em> Virgin, Assumption of the (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"DoctrinaAddaei\">Doctrina Addaei<\/p>\n<p>Expanded Syriac form of the Epistles of Christ and Abgarus, written about <span>AD<\/span> 400. The Doctrina Addaei tells a story about the contacts between Abgar (Abgarus), king of Edessa, and Jesus Christ. King Abgar, suffering from an unspecified ailment, is said to have sent a messenger to Jesus bearing the king’s written request for healing along with an offer of sanctuary for Jesus in his kingdom. Jesus responds orally, promising to send one of his followers to Abgar after his own ascension to heaven. Abgar’s envoy also takes back a self-portrait of Jesus that becomes the pride of Edessa. Later Addai visits the kingdom, heals Abgar, and establishes Christianity there. <em>See<\/em> Abgarus, Letters of Christ and (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EbionitesGospelofthe\">Ebionites, Gospel of the<\/p>\n<p>Gospel quoted by one early Christian writer, Epiphanius (fourth century), in a work against heresies. The Gospel of the Ebionites is possibly the same as the apocryphal Gospel of the Hebrews, although some scholars associate it with the Gospel of the Nazarenes. The Ebionites were vegetarians; Epiphanius’s citations stress the vegetarian diets of John the Baptist and Jesus.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EgyptiansGospelofthe\">Egyptians, Gospel of the<\/p>\n<p>Two apocryphal works with the same name.<\/p>\n<p>1. Apocryphal second-century <span>AD<\/span> Greek writing, mentioned by the early church writers, Clement and Origen. Used in Egypt, the composition seems to have contained and propagated Gnostic teachings, especially those advocated in Syria by Simon and Menander. According to these Gnostics, marriage, eating meat, and procreation were evil. Clement may have quoted from this writing to refute the beliefs of the Encratites, who broadly agreed with the Syrian Gnostics on those matters. The Gnostics’ depreciation of women was reflected in the quotations Clement used.<\/p>\n<li>2. Composition discovered in 1946 at Chenoboskion (Egypt) in the Nag Hammadi collection of Gnostic writing. The principal title of the work, described in the colophon as “Gospel of the Egyptians” was “Sacred Book of the Great Invisible Spirit.” This work dealt with emanations from “the primal spirit of the cosmos” and perhaps was a product of the Barbelo Gnostic sect.<\/li>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EldadandMedadBookof\">Eldad and Medad, Book of<\/p>\n<p>Pre-Christian pseudepigraphic composition containing the alleged prophecies of Eldad and Medad, two persons appointed as elders by Moses (Nm 11:26). Since the nature of their prophecy was not specified, it gave rise to a lost work that is quoted in the Shepherd of Hermas as follows: “The Lord is near to them who return to Him, as it is written in Eldad and Medad who prophesied to the people in the wilderness” (Vision II, ch 3). That is the only source of information concerning the lost book.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EugnostosLetterof\">Eugnostos, Letter of<\/p>\n<p>Gnostic work. Found near the modern city of Nag Hammadi, the Letter of Eugnostos was written in Coptic by a teacher to his disciple. Both author and date of composition are unknown. An early example of non-Christian Gnostic writing, it perhaps served as the basis for a Christian Gnostic composition, “The Wisdom of Jesus Christ.”<\/p>\n<p>The Letter of Eugnostos attempts to prove the existence of an invisible spiritual realm. It also stresses God’s remoteness from humanity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EveGospelof\">Eve, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Gnostic and apocalyptic writings, known solely through a citation by Epiphanius, a late fourth-century metropolitan of Cyprus. Epiphanius quoted the Gospel of Eve in a biting refutation of Gnostic and Origenistic teachings. Evidently a cult had formed around Eve as if her name implied revelation because the serpent had spoken to her in the Garden of Eden. Epiphanius’s quotation from the Gospel of Eve roughly translates: “I stood on a high mountain and saw a giant and a feeble man, and I heard a voice like thunder. ‘Come near me and listen,’ and he spoke to me saying, ‘I am you and you are me. Wherever you are, there I am. I am spread through all things, and any place you are able to retire into or take shelter in me; and, taking shelter in me, you take shelter in yourself.’ ”<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EzekielApocryphal\">Ezekiel, Apocryphal<\/p>\n<p>Noncanonical book of Ezekiel mentioned by Josephus, first-century Jewish historian. An apocryphal Ezekiel is cited in five early Christian writings and a recent archaeological discovery. Bishop Epiphanius (fourth century) cited an Ezekiel parable, in proof of the resurrection of the interdependent soul and body, about a blind man and a lame man collaborating to rob an orchard. Clement of Rome, writing to the Corinthians (AD 90?), and Clement of Alexandria in two of his writings (<span>AD<\/span> 200?) have noncanonical Ezekiel quotations. An Ezekiel apocryphon is mentioned in the pseudo-Athanasian canon (purporting to list canonical books of the Bible) and is named in the stichometry (prose written in rhythmic phrases) of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (<span>AD<\/span> 806–815). In 1940 Campbell Bonner published Greek papyrus fragments that confirm the existence of an apocryphal Ezekiel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"EzraFourthBookof\">Ezra, Fourth Book of<\/p>\n<p>Alternate name for the apocryphal book 2 Esdras. <em>See<\/em> Esdras, Second Book of.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"GadTestamentof\">Gad, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"GenesisApocryphon\">Genesis Apocryphon<\/p>\n<p>Name given to one of the seven large Dead Sea Scrolls recovered from the first Qumran cave in 1947. With three others it came into the possession of the Syrian archbishop of Jerusalem but could not be unrolled and photographed because it was badly preserved, having not been kept in an earthen jar like the others. Some small pieces were detached, however, and certain words on them indicated that it might be an apocryphal Aramaic work connected with the patriarch Enoch. Further scraps spoke of Lamech, however, thus the scroll was tentatively named for that ancient person.<\/p>\n<p>Eventually it was unrolled and found to be not only damaged but incomplete; the beginning and the end were missing. The inner portion had been best preserved, but considerable damage had been done to the text by the ink it had been written with. The scroll not only dealt with Enoch and Lamech but with other persons mentioned in the book of Genesis. It proved to be an Aramaic form of parts of Genesis dealing with the patriarchs, but it included legends and other materials presented in memoir style, not found in the Hebrew Bible. That style was popular among pious Jews at the beginning of the Christian era, thus its original has been dated to the first century <span>BC<\/span>. The Qumran copy was probably made between 50 <span>BC<\/span> and <span>AD<\/span> 70.<\/p>\n<p>The literary characteristics of the scroll have presented some classification problems. Free expansion and inclusion of nonbiblical material led certain scholars to call the scroll a “targum” or commentary-expansion of the Genesis text. Others have regarded it as a “midrash” or sermonic account of the Hebrew narrative. The scroll contains both elements and is best regarded as an independent recounting of certain Genesis stories, enriched by the inclusion of imaginative material such as a description of the beauty of the patriarch Abraham’s wife Sarah; dreams; and accounts of plagues and journeys.<\/p>\n<p>The Aramaic Apocryphon somewhat antedates the one used in Palestine in the time of Christ. It contains some Hebraisms but is mostly written in good Aramaic, much of which parallels biblical Aramaic. The language of the scroll, however, is later than the period of old Aramaic (tenth to eighth centuries <span>BC<\/span>) or official Aramaic (Assyrian and Persian periods), as the presence of certain grammatical forms indicate. Most scholars have described the language as middle Aramaic and have placed it between the Aramaic of Daniel and later western Aramaic. Those scholars generally assign a second-century <span>BC<\/span> date to Daniel, but that conclusion needs to be modified because the Qumran material shows that no canonical work was composed later than about 350 <span>BC<\/span>. On any evidence, the Aramaic of Daniel is earlier than that of the Apocryphon and seems to fit properly into the period when official Aramaic was the dominant form of the language. The Genesis Apocryphon presents no valid reasons for dating the Aramaic of Daniel or Ezra later than the sixth to fifth centuries <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"GospelofThomas\">Gospel of Thomas<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Thomas, Gospel of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"IsaiahAscensionof\">Isaiah, Ascension of<\/p>\n<p>Pseudepigraphal apocalyptic work widely known to the early Christians; also known as the Martyrdom of Isaiah, the Testament of Hezekiah, and the Vision of Isaiah. It was rediscovered when an Ethiopic version of part of the text was published in 1819. The full Ethiopic version is the only complete version in existence. A partial Latin text published in 1832 had actually been published in Venice over three centuries before. Slavonic and Coptic versions also exist. All may be traced back to two Greek versions of the third, fifth, and sixth centuries.<\/p>\n<p>It is not clear whether the original was a single composition or even whether the authorship was Christian or Jewish with later Christian editing. The final form may date from the latter part of the second century. It was known to Ambrose, Jerome, Origen, Tertullian, and possibly to Justyn Martyr. The contents fall under three heads:<\/p>\n<p>1. The Martyrdom of Isaiah. This material consists of prophetic utterances, including the prophet’s prediction of his own death at the hands of King Manasseh of Judah. The document deals with the dark apostasy of the king, who, indwelt by Satan and following Beliar, leads his people into all manner of sin. Jerusalem, whose fall is prophesied, is called “Sodom” and its princes “Gomorrah.” In the form of a midrash (devotional sermon), this section dwells on Isaiah’s firm rejection of compromise or recantation. Isaiah’s martyrdom by being “sawn in two” is the portion with which the church fathers seem to have been familiar.<\/p>\n<li>2. The Testament of Hezekiah. This section is apocalyptic, a vision Isaiah passes on to his king. It speaks of the descent of “the Beloved,” a title used in this document for the Messiah. The vision covers the Messiah’s incarnation, life, death, resurrection, and ascension, then turns to the early history of the church and the apostasy that precedes the second coming of the Lord. The Antichrist is revealed as Beliar or Satan, who assumes human form and kills his mother (no doubt directed at the Roman emperor Nero, who murdered his mother, Agrippina). The whole section is based on Daniel and the biblical Apocalypse and was also influenced by Gnosticism. The conclusion of the vision (the Beloved’s victory, the two resurrections, and the final judgment) very closely parallels the consummation of all things in the NT book of Revelation.<\/li>\n<li>3. The Vision of Isaiah. This section resembles #2 even linguistically but shows more Gnostic influence: Isaiah is lifted to the dwelling place of the Trinity, the seventh heaven, and shown many mysteries of Christ. Because of this vision Manasseh kills the prophet. Gnostic doctrine, as propagated by Cerinthus at the end of the first century, is evident. Jesus, earthly born, becomes the host of the Christ, who leaves his earthly tenement at the Crucifixion.<\/li>\n<p>Historically, the value of the Ascension of Isaiah is to show the welter of conflicting opinion which, claiming authority and inspiration, besieged the minds of the early Christians.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"IsaiahMartyrdomof\">Isaiah, Martyrdom of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Isaiah, Ascension of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"IssacharTestamentof\">Issachar, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JamesApocalypseof\">James, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>There were two Gnostic apocalypses of James (designated “first” and “second”). The first, covering over 20 pages of text, purports to be a revelation given by the Lord, some of it before the Crucifixion and some after it, to James, his brother, who was also know as James the righteous. The two documents referred to as the Apocalypse of James are in Codex V of the Nag Hammadi literature discovered in 1945 in Egypt just west of the Nile River opposite the city of Chenoboskion and are distinct from the Apocryphon of James, which is included in NT apocryphal writings. The second apocalypse composed of 20 pages of Coptic text is purportedly a speech delivered by James the Just on the fifth step of the temple and contains many references to or echoes of canonical Scriptures. The work ends with the multitude casting James down from the temple and stoning him in a manner reminiscent of the martyrdom of Stephen.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JamesAscentsof\">James, Ascents of<\/p>\n<p>Lost book mentioned only by Epiphanius (bishop of the Greek island of Salamis) in his fourth-century work <em>Refutation of All the Heresies.<\/em> According to Epiphanius, the Ascents of James was used by the Ebionites, a rigidly ascetic sect of Jewish Christians. The book represented James, Jesus’ brother, as having spoken against the temple and sacrifices. It declared the apostle Paul to be a Greek who went to Jerusalem, sought to marry the high priest’s daughter, and to that end became a proselyte and was circumcised. When he did not win the young woman, he inveighed against the Sabbath, the Law, and circumcision.<\/p>\n<p>In a commentary on Galatians (1865), J. B. Lightfoot suggested that the book’s title referred to James’s ascents up the temple steps, from which he addressed the people. Lightfoot also suggested that James’s death was the grand climax of the ascents. According to a quote from the early Christian writer Hegesippus (as recorded in Eusebius’s <em>Ecclesiastical History<\/em>), James was cast down to his death from the pinnacle of the temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JamesProtevangeliumof\">James, Protevangelium of<\/p>\n<p>This is an apocryphal “gospel” that tells of the token marriage and pregnancy of Mary and of Jesus’ birth, childhood, and adolescent years. This apocryphal writing was discovered in the 16th century by Guillaume Postel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JobTestamentof\">Job, Testament of<\/p>\n<p>Apocalyptic literature bearing resemblance to the biblical book of Job. The book was probably written in Greek in the second century <span>AD<\/span>. Since it is devoid of Christian thought, it was likely written by a Jew.<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 1–45, Job is the speaker. He comes to understand that a nearby temple has been desecrated by there having been offered in it sacrifices to Satan. When Job destroys it, Satan threatens him. Job’s friends come to console him but their speeches are greatly abbreviated. Elihu is represented as Satan’s mouthpiece and earns God’s displeasure. But Job sacrifices for all three friends. He remarries and has seven sons and three daughters, who inherit his wealth. Chapters 46–51, in which Job’s brother is the speaker, conclude the narrative.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JohntheBaptistLifeof\">John the Baptist, Life of<\/p>\n<p>A legendary account supposedly written by Serapion dealing with the early life of John the Baptist and especially with the death of his mother, Elizabeth. While Jesus was living with his parents in Egypt, Elizabeth dies on the same day as Herod the Great dies. John, who is but a small boy, does not know how to bury her. The clouds bring Jesus, Mary, and Salome who wash the body. The grave is dug by Michael and Gabriel, who also bring the souls of Zacharias and Simeon. John is then left to grow up in the desert under the care of the angels, while the clouds lift Jesus and Mary to Nazareth where they live.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JohntheEvangelistBookof\">John the Evangelist, Book of<\/p>\n<p>This writing was used most extensively by the Albigenses and was commonly regarded as stemming from the Bogomiles before them. It was written in the form of questions and answers propounded to have come from the apostle John while he leaned upon the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper. This pattern of questions and answers is found in other early Gnostic writings, especially the Gospel of Bartholomew.<\/p>\n<p>The writing contains Gnostic theology. It portrays a world created by Satan and not by God. Christ was not born of Mary but was an angel sent forth to the earth. He “entered in by the ear and came forth by the ear” of Mary. John the Baptist was sent by Satan, and his disciples (the Roman Catholic Church) are not the disciples of Christ. Baptism and apparently the Lord’s Supper are valueless.<\/p>\n<p>The writing is preserved only in Latin and in its present form is not earlier than the 12th century. A convenient English translation may be found in M. R. James, <em>The Apocryphal NT<\/em> (1924).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JosephPrayerof\">Joseph, Prayer of<\/p>\n<p>Jewish apocalyptic work. The Prayer of Joseph won the commendation of Origen, an early church scholar, as a document “not to be despised.” Origen’s quotations provide almost the only surviving information about the work, so that its total content and significance are unclear. An ancient list of OT apocryphal and canonical writings puts the Prayer of Joseph third and mentions its length as 1,100 verses. Origen’s quotations concern mainly Joseph’s father, Jacob. Jacob exists in the form of an angel, bearing Jacob’s given name Israel. He is the speaker in the quoted fragments and foretells the fate of humankind. He describes how he met Uriel on a journey to Mesopotamia and how Uriel wrestled with him, claiming to be the greatest of the angels. The apocalyptic poet had in mind the story of Jacob’s mysterious wrestling at Jabbok (Gn 32:22-29) and passages such as Daniel 10:13. Because Jacob claims to be “the first born of all living beings” and therefore the chief of all angels, Uriel challenges him.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JosephTestamentof\">Joseph, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JosephtheCarpenterHistoryof\">Joseph the Carpenter, History of<\/p>\n<p>Document glorifying Jesus’ earthly father and promoting a cult of Joseph. Words in chapter 18 of the History of Joseph support a fourth-century date for it. There Jesus tells his mother, “You, too, must look for the same end of life as other mortals.” By the fifth century the doctrine of the “Assumption of the Virgin” was widely held.<\/p>\n<p>The document, derived from the Protevangelium of James, was contaminated by both Gnosticism and other religious beliefs of Egypt, the country in which it was written. It is extant in Coptic and Arabic and also in a fourth-century translation of the Coptic text.<\/p>\n<p>The History of Joseph the Carpenter claims to give an account of Joseph’s life and his model death at the age of 111. The story is allegedly told by Jesus to his disciples on the Mt of Olives. Joseph, a carpenter (Mt 13:55), is a widower well advanced in years when he marries Mary, who is only 12. (He had six children by an earlier marriage.) Joseph is buried according to the rites of the Egyptian Osiris cult after Jesus pronounces a eulogy.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JubileesBookof\">Jubilees, Book of<\/p>\n<p>Jubilees is a pseudepigraphal work from the last half of the second century <span>BC<\/span> during the Maccabean period. It is an invaluable source for understanding the environment in the age prior to the launching of the Christian church. Jubilees stands with the Book of Enoch and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs as the most important Hebrew or Aramaic literature of the time. Like these it was translated into Greek and used by the church fathers. Most probably, Jubilees was written in Hebrew since it purported a Mosaic authorship and since its nationalistic Maccabean environment would demand it. Fragments of 10 manuscripts in Hebrew found at Qumran support the thesis that it was originally in that language.<\/p>\n<p>The work is referred to by later Greek writers following Hebrew sources as “Jubilees” and “the little (lesser) Genesis.” It is also entitled “The Apocalypse of Moses” and the “Testament of Moses.” In revised forms it has been called “The Book of Adam’s Daughters” and “The Life of Adam.”<\/p>\n<p>Complete, fifty-chapter manuscripts exist in six Ethiopian texts of which the texts of the fifth and sixth centuries are best. The Latin text is valuable but partial and only a few fragments of the Greek version remain. The Hebrew fragments found at Qumran are of special importance since they are from the period of original writing. The Bibliotheque Nationale has “Ethiopien 51” and “Ethiopien 160.” The British Museum has <em>Kufale,<\/em> or <em>Liber Jubilaeorum,<\/em> and <em>Enoch<\/em><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The author of Jubilees claims a direct revelational source for the teaching that he espouses. God had spoken to Moses in the Pentateuch in the “lesser law” in this “little book of Genesis.” At Sinai God communicated to Moses by the “Angel of the Presence” saying to the angel, “Write for Moses from the beginning of creation until my sanctuary has been built among them for all eternity” (1:27). This is supplementary to the “first law” (6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Following a brief introduction Jubilees follows the text of Genesis and Exodus to 14:31. This midrashic treatment of the Pentateuchal material attempts to show that the patriarchy adhered to the law even prior to Moses. The author’s aim is to strengthen classical Judaism in the face of the serious intrusions of Hellenistic culture among Jewish peoples. In doing this the author does not hesitate in adding and subtracting from Pentateuchal history. The patriarchs are adorned in every way. Anything that showed their weaknesses and sins was removed and legendary content inserted to glorify these fathers. The patriarchs are the fountainheads of culture. Enoch invented writing; Noah, medicine; Abraham, plowing.<\/p>\n<p>Appealing to Leviticus 25:8-12, the work emphasizes the importance of the number seven. History from Adam to Moses is arranged according to cycles of seven. This manner of compartmentalizing history into jubilee periods was revealed to Moses at Sinai and so has divine sanction and in fact is mandated. The philosophy of history that springs from this sees God acting sovereignly and uniquely in Israel in distinction to his relationship with the gentile world. The other nations are ruled by angels but not Israel, which is directly in God’s charge (Jubilees 15:31ff.).<\/p>\n<p>The polemic that Jubilees mounts against the lunar calendar (6:36-38) and its acceptance of the solar calendar is but another facet of the drive for a deep reform that will cleanse Israel. Israel is to be separated to God in every way with no intermingling in marriage or sitting at the table with Gentiles. There is a surprising stringency demanded in Sabbath keeping (50:1-13). The penalty of death is levied against those who travel, buy or sell, draw water, bear burdens, snare creatures, or have marital relations on the Sabbath. These go far beyond the biblical requirements and belong to that milieu that produced the Qumran community and the Essenes.<\/p>\n<p>The apocalyptic declaration of the Angel of Presence contains a clear but limited eschatological truth. Jubilees does contain the expectation of an immediate establishment of the messianic age. The entire emphasis, however, is such that ethical and cultural purposes are preeminent.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JudahTestamentof\">Judah, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"JudasIscariotGospelof\">Judas Iscariot, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Very old Gnostic writing probably produced by the Cainite sect. As it is not preserved for us today, we know it only through quotations in the writings of early Christians, especially Irenaeus. Thus, it must have been written before the middle of the second century <span>AD<\/span>. It probably contained a body of secret doctrine purportedly revealed by Judas Iscariot, summarizing the truth of superior and perfect knowledge supposedly revealed to this sect of the Gnostics. The gospel sets forth the “mystery of the betrayal,” explaining how Judas through his treachery made the salvation of all mankind possible. This was accomplished by his forestalling the destruction of the truth proclaimed by Christ or by his thwarting the designs of the evil powers, the Archons, who wished to prevent the crucifixion of Christ because they knew it would destroy their evil power.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"LentulusEpistleof\">Lentulus, Epistle of<\/p>\n<p>Lentulus, ostensibly a predecessor of Pontius Pilate, is said to have prepared a report to the Roman Senate known as the Letter (or Epistle) of Lentulus. In it he included a detailed description of Jesus: “tall and handsome, his countenance inspiring reverence along with love and fear, his hair dark, shining, curling, parted in the middle, his face with a delicate rudiness. . . .” The authenticity of the letter is extremely doubtful.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"LeviTestamentof\">Levi, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"LivesofAdamandEve\">Lives of Adam and Eve<\/p>\n<p>A general title given to a noncanonical writing extant in Greek and Latin. The book is Jewish in nature, though there is a Christian flavor that causes most scholars to date the original work to the beginning of the Christian era. The content of the book is an expansion on the biblical story of Adam and Eve.<\/p>\n<p>The Greek version begins with the expulsion from Eden. In a dream, Eve sees the murder of Abel. After Adam had fallen ill Seth and Eve went to obtain oil from the tree of life. Michael the archangel met Seth and told him that Adam would die. Upon his death, he was ultimately taken to the third heaven. Seth witnessed how the angels interred his father and received instructions on how to bury his mother, who died a week after Adam.<\/p>\n<p>The Latin version gives additional information. After the expulsion from the Garden, Eve asked Adam to kill her but instead of that he suggested they both do an act of penitence. Adam went to stand in the Jordan for 40 days and Eve went to stand in the water of the Euphrates for 37 days. While there, she was again tempted by Satan, who was disguised as an angel of light but was eventually exposed by Adam. Satan now explained the reason for his hostility toward them: when the angels were commanded to worship the Lord, he refused to do obeisance to God and was consequently cast out of heaven.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"MatthewMartyrdomof\">Matthew, Martyrdom of<\/p>\n<p>Loosely organized tale of Matthew’s martyrdom that borrows heavily from the “Acts of Andrew and Matthias” and assumes that Matthias was in fact Matthew. The document represents the low literary and theological impulse of the later apocryphal texts.<\/p>\n<p>The story begins when Matthew is commissioned by Jesus to plant a staff in Myrna, the city of man-eaters. Matthew does so, after exorcising the demon Asmodeus from the king’s wife and family. The staff becomes a tree overnight, Matthew preaches to the people, and they “become humanized.” But Asmodeus seeks revenge by directing the king to burn Matthew. The fire consumes golden idols and many soldiers, then turns into a dragon and chases the king, who begs Matthew for help. But Matthew dies.<\/p>\n<p>A somewhat repentant but not yet converted king places the body of Matthew in an iron casket and sinks it secretly in the sea. The next day Matthew appears on the sea in the presence of two shining men and a “beautiful” child. The king is finally converted, baptized, and accepted into the church. Matthew appears to confer on the king his own name and to ordain him a priest and his family, deacons and deaconesses. Then Matthew ascends to heaven with two angels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"MedadBookofEldadand\">Medad, Book of Eldad and<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Eldad and Medad, Book of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"MosesAssumptionof\">Moses, Assumption of<\/p>\n<p>A Jewish legend that Moses was taken bodily into heaven without dying. Probably written between <span>AD<\/span> 7 and 30, it may be a combination of two earlier works, and appears to borrow heavily from the book of Deuteronomy. The work was likely produced to provide a miraculous ending to Moses’ outstanding earthly life, attributing to him an experience similar to Elijah’s. But this Jewish legend is contrary to the OT account of Moses’ death (Dt 32:48-50; 34:5-7).<\/p>\n<h6>The Lost Assumption of Moses<\/h6>\n<p>Three facts indicate that there once was an apocryphal book that contained the legend of the assumption of Moses: (1) early lists of apocryphal works mention a work by this title; (2) several church fathers refer to it; and (3) a few fragments in Greek have survived.<\/p>\n<p>The following items appeared in the work. God commissioned the archangel Michael to bury Moses’ body. Satan opposed Moses’ burial because he claimed authority over all matter and because Moses was a murderer. Michael countered Satan’s claims and charged him with tempting Eve in Eden. Joshua and Caleb then watched Moses’ assumption occur in a strange way. As they watched, they saw Moses’ dead body buried in the mountain, but they also saw Moses himself in the company of the angels. In effect Moses’ body died, but Moses himself did not.<\/p>\n<p>Though often stated that Jude (v 9) was quoted from the Assumption of Moses, this is impossible to prove, simply because the relevant portions of that work have not survived. The most one can say is that several church fathers, including Clement of Alexandria (d. <span>AD<\/span> 215) and Origen (c. 185–254), suggested that the Assumption of Moses was the source for the account in Jude 1:9. They had both works. We have only Jude, so we cannot check their conclusions. The matter is further complicated because there is another work (see next section) now called the Assumption of Moses. People often suppose that Jude 1:9 is a citation from that book. It is not.<\/p>\n<h6>The Extant Assumption of Moses<\/h6>\n<p>This work, perhaps written during Jesus’ lifetime, purports to be a description of Moses’ predictions to Joshua of the destiny of the nation of Israel. It is similar to other apocryphal, nonhistorical writings that were written under the names of great Jewish leaders.<\/p>\n<p>It was discovered quite by chance in 1861, in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, Italy. The manuscript, dated to the fifth century <span>AD<\/span>, is a very poor copy of a Latin translation, perhaps derived from a Greek translation of a Hebrew original. The beginning and the ending are lost. There are numerous spelling mistakes, and there is no space between words. Not surprisingly, scholars have long disputed the reading, interpretation, and translation even of whole verses.<\/p>\n<p>The opening three lines have not survived, so the original title has been lost. When discovered, the work was assumed to be the long-lost Assumption of Moses, but this identification is now widely doubted. Even though the book is still called by this title, it is far more likely to be either the Testament of Moses (which is also mentioned, along with the Assumption of Moses, in early lists of apocryphal works) or a composite work resulting from the combination of the Testament and the Assumption into one work.<\/p>\n<p>There is only one reference to Moses’ assumption in the book, and it comes in connection with a mention of his death (10:12). Because the ending of the book is also lost, it is impossible to know the contents of the conclusion or to tell whether this one remaining reference to Moses’ assumption is original or whether it has been added by a scribe by mistake or by an editor combining two different works. It is clear, however, that the author of the surviving section believed that Moses expected to die (1:15; 10:12-14) and that Joshua assumed that he would (11:4-8).<\/p>\n<p>The work begins midsentence (three lines are missing) and dates Moses’ following speech to 2,500 years after Creation (1:2-5). Expecting to die, Moses summons Joshua, encourages him, and tells him that God created the world for his people (the Israelites), who will repent before the consummation at the end of the days (1:6-18).<\/p>\n<p>Then Moses foretells Israel’s future. The people will inherit the land (Canaan) and be ruled by local magistrates, chiefs (judges?), and kings (2:1-3). The kingdom will divide, and the people will turn to idolatry (2:4-9). A king from the east (Nebuchadnezzar) will take two tribes into captivity for about 77 years, where they will recall Moses’ warnings (3:1-14; cf. Jer 25:11-12; Dt 28:15-68; 30:15-20). Someone (Daniel) will pray for deliverance (cf. Dn 9:4-19), and God will persuade a king (Cyrus) to send the exiles home (4:1-6; cf. Is 45:1-6; Ezr 1:1-4). Some exiles will return to their appointed place (Jerusalem) and rewall it but be unable to offer [proper] sacrifices (4:7-8; contrast Ezr 3:1-7). Others will remain in exile but will increase in population (4:9). This concludes the OT period and begins the intertestamental period (c. 400 to 1 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>The widespread apostasy of the Seleucid period (c. 201–267 <span>BC<\/span>) is described, with special reference to priests and judges (4:1-6). The Maccabees, who gained and maintained political independence from Syria (in 164 <span>BC<\/span>) are not mentioned. Instead, the focus is on the kings (the Hasmoneans) who made themselves high priests (6:1). Next will come an insolent king (Herod the Great, 37–4 <span>BC<\/span>), who will rule ruthlessly (6:2-7). Then a powerful king of the West will conquer the people, take some captive, crucify others, and burn part of the temple (6:8-9).<\/p>\n<p>From this point on, the author, having reached his own period, had to guess at the future, so the predictions that he put in Moses’ mouth are general or obscure and often unfulfilled. The next rulers (Sadducees?) would be impious, treacherous, gluttons, deceitful, and worried about ritual uncleanness while living in luxury at the expense of the poor (7:1-10). An unprecedented time of wrath would follow, when a great king would persecute the Jews, torturing, imprisoning, and even crucifying them for practicing circumcision (8:1-5). During this persecution, one man, Taxo, a Levite with seven sons, would remain faithful to God and die rather than adopt Greek customs (8:1-7).<\/p>\n<p>The next section (10:1-10), an apocalyptic poem (ten stanzas, each with three lines), is the only apocalyptic section of the book. The Lord’s kingdom will appear, Satan will be no more, and the chief angel (Michael) will avenge Israel (10:1-2). “The Heavenly One will arise from His royal throne,” and there will be miraculous signs on the earth and in the sky; even the ocean will drain away (10:3-6). The Most High, the Eternal God, will appear and punish the Gentiles, destroying their idols (10:7). But Israel will be happy and exalted, rejoicing at seeing her enemies in Gehenna (hell) and thankfully praising her Creator (10:8-10). With Moses’ mention of his death and some consoling words for Joshua, the composition ends in an incomplete form.<\/p>\n<p>The book must have been written after Herod died and Varus had subdued a rebellion in Judea (4 <span>BC<\/span>) and before the temple was destroyed (<span>AD<\/span> 70). The book predicts that Herod’s sons will not rule as long as Herod himself did (34 years, 37–4 <span>BC<\/span>). This prediction may be based on the fact that one son, Archelaus, was deposed after a 10-year reign (4 <span>BC<\/span>–<span>AD<\/span> 6). If so, the book was written after <span>AD<\/span> 6. But two other sons (Philip and Antipas) actually ruled longer than their father. For the author not to know this requires that the book must have been written within 34 years of Herod’s death—in other words, before <span>AD<\/span> 30. Therefore, the book was probably written sometime between <span>AD<\/span> 6 and 30. This also means that the book reflects Jewish thinking during Jesus’ lifetime.<\/p>\n<p>The author was evidently a Palestinian Jew, but it is doubtful whether he was a member of any known major sect of the times. He hates Roman rule (8:1–10:10) without advocating revolt, as the Zealots and their predecessors did. His interest in the temple (2:8-9; 5:3; 6:9; 8:5) is not typical of an Essene. He condemns the Sadducean lifestyle (7:3-10). And his use of apocalyptic writing (10:1-10) is thought to have been unusual for a Pharisee.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"NaphtaliTestamentof\">Naphtali, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"NicodemusGospelof\">Nicodemus, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Alternate title for the apocryphal work Acts of Pilate. <em>See<\/em> Pilate, Acts of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"NoahBookof\">Noah, Book of<\/p>\n<p>Allusion to the writing of Noah is made in the book of Jubilees where it is said “Noah wrote down all things in a book as we instructed him concerning every kind of medicine. Thus the evil spirits were precluded from (hurting) the sons of Noah” (10:13; see also 21:10). The book of Noah borrows heavily from the book of Enoch (see chs 6–11, 54–55, 60, 65–69, 106–110). The other sections relate to the Noachic flood and subjects about which Noah could be presumed to have knowledge. Unfortunately no separate manuscript of the book of Noah is known to be extant.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"OdesofSolomon\">Odes of Solomon<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Solomon, Psalms of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PatriarchsTestamentsoftheTwelve\">Patriarchs, Testaments of the Twelve<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulActsof\">Paul, Acts of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Paul and Thecla, Acts of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulActsofAndrewand\">Paul, Acts of Andrew and<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Andrew and Paul, Acts of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulandTheclaActsof\">Paul and Thecla, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Paul and Thecla is one section of an apocryphal work known as the Acts of Paul. It was apparently written in the latter half of the second century <span>AD<\/span> by a church elder who lived in Asia. According to Tertullian (<em>On Baptism<\/em> 17.19-21), the motive for the writing was “love of Paul,” but the presbyter was removed from office for producing this document. It is not clear whether the reason for his deposition was that he made a false claim to apostolic authorship, or whether it was that the viewpoints expressed in the document were considered heretical.<\/p>\n<p>The story reads like a folktale. Paul arrives in Iconium after fleeing from Antioch. He is met by Onesiphorus, who welcomes Paul into his home. A group of people gather there to hear Paul’s message. Beside the window of a neighboring house, Thecla is seated. She cannot see Paul, but she listens intently to his message. Her mother, Thecleia, exclaims, “My daughter, like a spider, is bound by his words to the window, seized by a new craving and a terrible passion.” Paul is teaching that in order to “see God,” a person must live a life of abstinence from sexual activity.<\/p>\n<p>Thecla is engaged to be married, but she is so impressed with Paul’s teaching that she determines she will break her engagement to Thamyris. Thamyris, in distress, appeals to the governor of the city, who arrests and imprisons Paul. Thecla bribes the jailer with bracelets and a silver mirror and enters Paul’s cell. Again she is transfixed by his teaching. At the trial, Thecla is adamant in her refusal to marry Thamyris. Paul is banned from the city; Thecla is condemned to be burned to death. Miraculously her life is spared, and she is reunited with Paul and travels with him to Antioch.<\/p>\n<p>In Antioch, Thecla rebuffs the advances of a nobleman, Alexander, and for a second time is condemned to death. But the wild beasts who are to devour her in the public arena instead lick her feet and protect her. When she throws herself into a water cistern to effect her baptism, she is again spared death—a lightning flash kills the fish lurking in the water, and they float lifeless to the surface. Queen Tryphaena, who has befriended Thecla, faints with shock as repeated attempts are made to take Thecla’s life. Seeing this, Alexander finally begs the governor to set Thecla free.<\/p>\n<p>Free once more, Thecla seeks Paul. She disguises herself as a man by putting on male attire. Arriving in Myra, she finds Paul and announces to him that she is returning to Iconium. Paul commands her to “teach the word of God.” After teaching for a while in Iconium, Thecla travels on to Seleucia.<\/p>\n<p>The remainder of Thecla’s life is not well documented. Some manuscripts record that Thecla, being afraid of the people of Seleucia, withdrew to a mountain and resided in a cave. There she lived an ascetic life, taught certain women who came to her, and carried out a ministry of healing. Later she departed to Rome, seeking Paul. Paul, however, was already dead. When Thecla herself died, at 90 years of age, she was buried not far from the tomb of her beloved master.<\/p>\n<p>Although this work is considered apocryphal and is excluded from the NT canon, there are some early writers who held it in high regard. The Acts of Paul, of which this document forms a part, is mentioned by Origen and by Hippolytus with respect. Eusebius was of the opinion that the document was spurious, but he distinguished it from inferior heretical works. There are two instances where details of information have found their way from the Acts of Paul into early manuscripts of canonical books (2 Tm 3:11; 4:19). It is probable that the viewpoints indicated in this document reflected popular religious traditions widely held in the second century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Tertullian, however, argues that the document is quite out of harmony with Paul’s attitudes as expressed in the canonical material. In particular, he objects to the role assumed by a woman in the Acts of Paul and Thecla. Paul, Tertullian says, would never have permitted a woman to teach and to baptize (<em>On Baptism<\/em> 17.21-23). The Acts of Paul and Thecla does differ from the Pauline stance, but not in the way indicated by Tertullian. The document depicts Paul as a proponent of the encratite viewpoint, teaching that celibacy is necessary for salvation. The canonical Paul taught that salvation is attained through faith alone, and that celibacy is a matter of special calling and certainly not the norm for every Christian (1 Cor 7:1-7). The Acts of Paul and Thecla suggests that a woman must assume male attire and must abstain from marriage if she is to exercise a leadership role. The canonical Paul instructed that a woman in a leadership position should dress as a woman (1 Cor 11:4-6), and he affirmed the ministerial function of married women (Rom 16:3). The Acts of Paul and Thecla emulates a woman whose motivating power was personal devotion to the apostle. The canonical writings suggest that Paul strongly discouraged such a show of personal allegiance to himself (1 Cor 1:12-17). Christ alone was to be the motivating influence in Christian service.<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Paul and Thecla provides us with a unique description of the physical appearance of Paul: “a man small of stature, with a bald head and crooked legs, in good state of body, with eyebrows meeting and nose somewhat hooked, full of friendliness; for now he appeared like a man, and now he had the face of an angel.” This description is probably not reliable in any historical sense; more likely it pictures a typical Jew of the period. But because there is no other description preserved in early documents, this one has formed the basis for the many portraits of Paul that have come down through the centuries.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulApocalypseof\">Paul, Apocalypse of<\/p>\n<p>This document, which originated in the late fourth century <span>AD<\/span>, pretends to be a written account of some of the experiences that the apostle Paul had when he was caught up to the third heaven, or paradise, according to 2 Corinthians 12:2-4. The fact that Paul did not describe what he saw or heard during that revelatory vision excited the imagination of some unknown fourth-century Christian. Since the author describes with relish the tortures in hell experienced by a presbyter, bishop, and deacon (chs 34–36) and elsewhere approves of the devotion and piety of monks and nuns (chs 7–9) and of those who are virgins or chaste (ch 22), it is safe to conclude that he was a monk who disapproved of the insincere and hypocritical religiosity of his contemporaries, both laymen and clergy.<\/p>\n<p>This book, originally written in Greek, survives in relatively complete form in Latin. A partial indication of the great popularity of this piece of religious fiction is the fact that it was translated into Ethiopic, Coptic, and Syriac as well as Latin.<\/p>\n<p>The book is loosely structured in seven sections. The work begins with a short introductory section that attempts to explain why the book was unknown from the first to the fourth century (chs 1–2): during the consulate of (emperor) Theodosius Augustus the Younger and Cynegius (the document can thus be dated to <span>AD<\/span> 388), a respectable but nameless person received a revelation through an angel. The man happened to be living in Tarsus in a house once occupied by St Paul himself. The angel told the man to break up the foundations and publish whatever he found. After being pummeled by the angel for disobedience, he finally broke the foundations only to discover a marble box that he immediately delivered to the emperor. The emperor opened the box and found the original version of the Apocalypse of Paul (which he copies) and a pair of shoes used by Paul on his missionary journeys. The substance of the mysterious document then follows.<\/p>\n<p>In chapters 3–6, Paul is said to have received a message from God announcing how all creation is subject to God with the exception of man himself. Chapters 7–10 relate how the guardian angels of each man and woman report every morning and evening to God concerning the deeds of those in their charge. Some are very good, while others are exceedingly wicked. In chapters 11–18, Paul is taken up in the Holy Spirit to the third heaven and asks to see the souls of the righteous and sinners as they leave the world. The angel accompanying Paul shows him a righteous man leaving the world, an ungodly man, and the soul of one who thought himself righteous but in fact was not.<\/p>\n<p>Chapters 19–30 describe Paul being lifted up to the third heaven (cf. 2 Cor 12:2-4), where he saw a golden gate flanked by golden pillars upon which were mounted golden tablets containing the names of the righteous. Upon entering paradise he was greeted by Enoch and Elijah and shown things that he could not reveal to others (ch 21; cf. 2 Cor 12:4). From there he was taken to the second heaven and then to the firmament encircled by Ocean (ch 21). There he saw the milk white waters of Lake Acherusia where the city of Christ was located. He was brought to the city in a golden boat while 3,000 angels sang a hymn. At the river of honey he met Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and other prophets (ch 25); at the river of milk he saw the infants slain by Herod (ch 26); at the river of wine he met Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Lot, and Job (ch 27); at the river of oil he met those completely dedicated to God (ch 28). At the center of the city, by a great altar, David sang the hallelujah to God.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s tour of hell is described in chapters 31–44; it is a place of sorrow and distress in which flows a river boiling with fire. In the river, some of the damned were immersed to the knees, others to the navel or lips, depending on the severity of their sins (ch 31). Chapters 34–36 describe the tortures of a presbyter, bishop, and deacon. Throughout this section the most ghastly tortures imaginable are described in detail with great relish. Finally, in chapter 44, Christ decrees that for Paul’s sake there will be no torture on Sundays henceforth.<\/p>\n<p>Paul’s angelic travel guide then escorts him to paradise (chs 45–51), where the righteous of all ages are anxious to meet him. He meets the Virgin Mary (ch 46), Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as well as the 12 sons of Jacob (ch 47), Moses, who weeps for the unconverted Jews (ch 48), Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, each of whom describes his martyrdom, Lot and Job (ch 49), Noah (ch 50), Elijah, Elisha, Zechariah and his son, John the Baptist, and Adam (ch 51). The document either ended here or, in alternate versions, with Paul’s miraculous trip to the Mt of Olives where he and the other disciples received the divine commission.<\/p>\n<p>The document is filled with contradictions and inconsistencies and many of the translated versions do not agree with each other in all details. The chief importance of the document is in terms of its glimpses into the thinking of late fourth-century Christianity.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulPassionof\">Paul, Passion of<\/p>\n<p>A revised Latin version of the apocryphal Martyrdom of Paul, which was part of a larger body of texts called the Acts of Paul. The original Martyrdom is the story of Paul’s resuscitation of Patroclus, Nero’s cupbearer, who had fallen from a window and died during one of Paul’s sermons. Patroclus confesses his new loyalty to Christ before the stunned Nero, who moves quickly to round up all such “soldiers of the great king (Christ).” Paul is included in the purge. The Passion elaborates on the story to include a passage about Seneca’s admiration for Paul and his writings, portions of which Seneca allegedly read to Nero. Also, Paul on the way to his death borrows a kerchief from Plautilla, promising to return it. When the returning soldiers mock her, she shows them the bloodied kerchief.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PaulPassionofPeterand\">Paul, Passion of Peter and<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Peter and Paul, Passion of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PearlHymnofthe\">Pearl, Hymn of the<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Thomas, Acts of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PeterandPaulPassionof\">Peter and Paul, Passion of<\/p>\n<p>This writing comes to us in two forms, both of which are considered to have been written by Marcellus and date from the fifth century. The first form is essentially like the Acts of Peter and Paul. It lays emphasis upon Paul’s journey to Rome. The second gives more attention to the men’s residence in Rome with emphasis upon their stay in the home of a relative of Pontius Pilate. Both emphasize the close relationship between Peter and Paul and their continued and successful opposition to Simon Magus, who claims to be the Christ. Their death sentences are included in the writings but with only a brief account of their martyrdoms.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PeterGospelof\">Peter, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Akhmim Fragment (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PeterPreachingof\">Peter, Preaching of<\/p>\n<p>This document, which has survived only in fragments, appears to have been written early in the second century <span>AD<\/span> in Egypt. While the title does not explicitly claim Petrine authorship, it was understood by Clement of Alexandria (late second century <span>AD<\/span>) to have been an authentic composition by the apostle Peter (<em>Stromata<\/em> 2.15.68). The majority of the fragments of the Preaching of Peter are preserved in the form of brief quotations in the writings of Clement of Alexandria.<\/p>\n<p>The fourth-century church historian Eusebius of Caesarea observed that the Preaching of Peter had not been accepted by any ancient authorities (<em>Historia Ecclesiastica<\/em> 3.3.1-4), though he was probably not aware of its acceptance by Clement. Even though only fragments of the document have survived, they are important in that they reveal a transitional stage in the history of early Christian literature. During the first century, Christian literature, including all of the NT, was written for the consumption of other Christians. During the second century, Christian writers began to feel the need to defend their faith against the criticisms of their pagan and Jewish opponents. A new kind of Christian literature, the apology (meaning “defense”), began to appear in the early second century with the writings of the earliest Christian apologists Quadratus and Aristides. The Preaching of Peter represents a transition from the kind of apologetic writing found in the Acts of the Apostles, the sermons that that book contains, and the writings of the early apologists.<\/p>\n<p>Since Clement quotes randomly from the Preaching of Peter, it is not possible to determine the order in which any of the quotations appeared in the original composition. Some of the major emphases of the document will appear from the following summaries of the quotations of Clement. Peter, according to Clement, called the Lord both “Law and Word” in the “Preaching” (<em>Stromata<\/em> 1.29.182; 2.15.68). Mankind must recognize that <em>one<\/em> God created the beginning of all things and has the power to bring all things to an end (<em>Stromata<\/em> 6.5.39-41). The pagans, whom the author of the Preaching of Peter opposed, held that the universe was uncreated and eternal. God, the author contends, is invisible, incomprehensible, needs nothing, is inconceivable, everlasting, imperishable, and uncreated. This God must not be worshiped in the manner of the Greeks, for they have foolishly fashioned images of ordinary materials and worship them as gods. Further, they take animals that should be used for food and sacrifice them to these idols. The worship of the Jews should not be emulated either, for they revere angels, archangels, months, and the moon. If any of the nation of Israel should repent, they will find forgiveness (<em>Stromata<\/em> 6.5.43). In one place the Preaching of Peter narrates how the Lord sent disciples to preach the gospel throughout the world after the resurrection (<em>Stromata<\/em> 6.6.48), though the precise connection between this narrative and the preceding apologetic statements is not clear. It may be that the document began with a special version of the great commission. Elsewhere the document states that the OT prophets speak of Christ, sometimes in parables and enigmas, yet at other times very clearly and directly (<em>Stromata<\/em> 6.15.128). In fact, the major events of the life of Christ, his coming, torture, crucifixion, death, resurrection, and ascension into heaven were predicted in detail by the prophets.<\/p>\n<p>The importance of the surviving fragments of the Preaching of Peter lies in the way in which they reveal how early second-century Christianity turned from a defensive to an offensive position in its proclamation of the gospel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PeterSlavonicActsof\">Peter, Slavonic Acts of<\/p>\n<p>An account of the later travels of Peter and his subsequent death in Rome preserved for us only in the Slavonic language. According to this account, a child (Jesus) comes to Peter and bids him to go to Rome. The angel Michael is captain of the ship taking them to Rome. After their arrival in Rome, Peter tells the child to catch some fish, whereupon he catches 12,000 in one hour. Then the child is sold to a Roman noble, Aravistus, for 50 pieces of gold. The child silences his teachers. After a vision of angels, the entire household is baptized. Nero arrests Peter, whereupon the child rebukes him. Many dead are raised, but the child sends them back to their graves to await the resurrection by Michael. Peter is crucified head downward. When the child reveals he is Jesus, the nails fall from Peter’s body, he prays for the forgiveness of his executioners, and then he dies. Such apocryphal versions of the acts of early church leaders are characteristically filled with fanciful acts of the apostles and their contact with the Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PetersLettertoPhilip\">Peter’s Letter to Philip<\/p>\n<p>This letter is part of the Christian Gnostic material discovered in 1947 at Nag Hammadi. It probably dates from the late second or early third century. The letter takes its name from a segment at the beginning of the tractate in which Peter claims to have sent the material to Philip. The letter is written in a dialogue form common in Gnostic literature. The body of the writing consists of a series of questions that are asked by the apostles of the risen Lord and the answers given by him. The questions provide a basis for the exposition of Gnostic philosophy about the structure of the world revealed by the Divine Light. That Light is the Christ, who is the heavenly Redeemer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PilateActsof\">Pilate, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>This document is an apocryphal passion gospel that reached its present form by the middle of the fourth century <span>AD<\/span>. The first Christian writer to refer to the Acts of Pilate was Epiphanius, an ecclesiastical heresy hunter, who wrote a lengthy denunciation of various heresies in <span>AD<\/span> 375, in which he definitely mentioned the Acts of Pilate (<em>Heresies<\/em> 50.1). Much earlier, Justin Martyr had referred to Pilate’s report to Tiberius regarding the trial of Jesus (<em>I Apology<\/em> 35; 48), but he does not seem to be referring to the Acts of Pilate. Toward the end of the second century <span>AD<\/span>, a generation after Justin, Tertullian referred to an account sent from Pilate to the emperor Tiberius, yet this cannot be the Acts of Pilate, since Jesus supposedly performed many miracles before the procurator. Although it is not improbable that an earlier version of the Acts of Pilate antedated the fourth century, the present version must be dated to the middle of that century. The original language of the Acts of Pilate was Greek, and translations of it were made into Latin, Coptic, and Armenian. Eusebius, the fourth-century church historian and bishop of Caesarea, condemns what he regarded as a blasphemous account of Pilate, apparently a pagan document calculated to defame Christ (<em>Historia Ecclesiastica,<\/em> 1.9.3; 9.5.1). The Christian Acts of Pilate was probably composed to counter the pagan document.<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Pilate is a composite document consisting of two main parts. The first part (chs 1–16) purports to be a translation from Hebrew to Greek of an account written by Nicodemus about the events surrounding the passion of Jesus. The second part (chs 17–27), also called “Christ’s Descent into Hell,” vividly describes Christ’s descent into hades to liberate the righteous dead (an imaginative expansion of 1 Pt 3:19 which was itself transformed in the Apostles’ Creed into the phrase “he descended into hell”). After the 14th century <span>AD<\/span>, the whole composition was commonly designated as the Gospel of Nicodemus because of the prominent place that character played in the document.<\/p>\n<p>In the prologue to the Acts of Pilate, a Roman soldier named Ananias claims to have found the Acts of Pilate in Hebrew and to have translated it into Greek in the 18th year of the reign of Emperor Flavius Theodosius (<span>AD<\/span> 425). A quotation of the entire document follows: In the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (<span>AD<\/span> 29), Nicodemus wrote an account of the events that surrounded the passion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. The Jewish high priests accused Jesus of various religious crimes to Pilate and asked that he be tried. Though unwilling, Pilate sent for Jesus anyway, though in a most gracious manner. When Jesus arrived, the Roman standards bowed to him of their own accords (ch 1). In chapter 2 the Jewish charges against Jesus included: (1) that he was born of fornication, (2) that his birth meant the death of the children of Bethlehem, and (3) that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt because they counted for nothing among the people of Israel. The charge of fornication was immediately refuted by 12 pious Jews who had witnessed the betrothal of Mary and Joseph. An interview between Pilate and Jesus (modeled after Jn 18:33-38) follows in chapter 3. The Jews charge Jesus with blaspheming God, and Pilate reluctantly turns Jesus over to them (ch 4). Nicodemus then stands up in the Jewish council and urges them to let Jesus go, for if he is not of God his movement will fail (cf. Acts 5:38-39), but the Jews oppose him (ch 5). Then three Jews healed by Jesus testify in his behalf (ch 6), followed by Bernice, the woman healed of the issue of blood (ch 7). The crowd proclaims Jesus a prophet (ch 8). When Pilate offers to release a prisoner, the Jews ask for Barabbas, and Pilate then washes his hands of the matter and has Jesus scourged and crucified with the two criminals, Dysmas and Gestas (ch 9). Jesus is mocked by the crowds, while one criminal (Gestas) is rebuked by the other (ch 10). Jesus’ death is accompanied by a darkening of the sun, which the Jews regard as a normal eclipse (ch 11). Joseph of Arimathea is then seized by the Jews and imprisoned; when they come to execute him he has vanished (ch 12). The guards report the appearance of the angel at the tomb, but are bribed by the Jews to keep silence (ch 12). Three Jews then come from Galilee: Phineas, a priest; Adas, a teacher; and Angaeus, a Levite. They report that they have witnessed the great commission and ascension of Jesus on Mt Malich (ch 14). Nicodemus suggests that the surrounding mountains be checked to see if some spirit has not taken Jesus up only to dash him on the rocks; the Jews find nothing except Joseph of Arimathea in his hometown (ch 15). Joseph is summoned to testify before the council and reveals how the risen Jesus had appeared to him when he was imprisoned and set him free (ch 15). The council decides, after hearing other witnesses, that if Jesus is still remembered after 50 years, the stories must be true (ch 16).<\/p>\n<p>The second document begins with an account of Joseph speaking to the council. Two brothers, he claims, had been raised at the same time as Jesus. The council summons them to give their stories (ch 17). While in hades, the brothers claimed, a great light appeared and Abraham and Isaiah became overjoyed (ch 18). Satan thought that Jesus could be restrained in hades (ch 20); but when the King of Glory arrived, the gates were broken down. Satan was handed over to the angels to be bound (ch 22) and was rebuked by hades for causing the ruin of his kingdom (ch 23). The King of Glory (Christ) then led Adam and the rest of the righteous dead out of hades (ch 24) and to paradise (ch 25), where even the repentant criminal was seen (ch 26). The two brothers claim that they have been sent by the angel Michael to preach the resurrection of Jesus to all mankind.<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Pilate is a pastiche (collection) of quotations and allusions from the four canonical Gospels, mingled with imaginative and even fantastic additions. It is basically an apologetic document that attempts to defend the truth of the resurrection of Jesus against the counterclaims of pagan and Jewish adversaries. Unfortunately, it has an anti-Semitic tone that was to characterize Christian dramatizations of the events of Passion Week from the fourth century through the end of the Middle Ages.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PistisSophia\">Pistis Sophia<\/p>\n<p>A fourth-century Coptic manuscript (Codex Askewanus) that represents one of the chief Gnostic works extant today. The work, containing four chapters, derives its name from the heroine, Sophia, though only the first half of the work refers to her. This portion relates how Jesus, during the first 11 years after his resurrection, returned to teach his disciples the highest mystery of all: the Treasury of the Light. Jesus returned to the Mt of Olives where he is caught up through the aeons and on his journey comes to the thirteenth aeon where he finds Sophia. She is in sorrow because she has caught a glimpse of the Treasury of the Light but is deceived by Authades (the self-willed), who flashes a false brightness before her, causing her to fall into the hands of the powers of matter. She maintains her hope and faith, however, and after 12 prayers is delivered from Authades and chaos by Jesus who reinstates her at the lower limit of the thirteenth aeon.<\/p>\n<p>The work is in dialogue form—with Jesus answering questions asked by his disciples. The theme is thoroughly Gnostic in its view of salvation that comes by a hidden doctrine that brings illumination.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ProtevangeliumofJames\">Protevangelium of James<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> James, Protevangelium of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"PsalmsofSolomon\">Psalms of Solomon<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Solomon, Psalms of (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ResurrectionofChristbyBartholomewBookofthe\">Resurrection of Christ by Bartholomew, Book of the<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Bartholomew, Book of the Resurrection of Christ by (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ReubenTestamentof\">Reuben, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SibyllineOracles\">Sibylline Oracles<\/p>\n<p>A pseudepigraphal writing comprising originally 15 books, 12 of which are extant in late Greek manuscripts. The word <em>sibyl<\/em> is of Greek origin. It claimed to be an oracle of the gods and generally contained a message of a coming catastrophic event. Some Jews adopted and used this mode of writing for propagation purposes.<\/p>\n<p>The sibyls came from the beginning of the Maccabean period (165 <span>BC<\/span>) and cover a period up to shortly after the destruction of the second temple (<span>AD<\/span> 76). The authors, presumably writing in Alexandria, Egypt, stressed the unity and sovereignty of God. God controlled all events, whereas pagan deities were useless, unable to do anything. “But God is one, most exalted of all, who has made the heaven, the sun, the stars and the moon. . . . He has constituted man as the Divinely appointed ruler of all. You men . . . be ashamed of making gods” (book 2). God controls the history of the nations. The sibyls outline the history of 10 generations from the Assyrian kingdom to the destruction of the second temple and the great earthquake (book 4.47ff.). The third book also contains a section on the devastation and troubles to be experienced before the great judgment. It includes two messianic passages wherein the Messiah introduces an era of peace and prosperity for the faithful: “He will raise up his kingdom for all ages over men. . . . For nothing but peace shall come upon the land of the good” (lines 767, 780). The eternal state is to be reserved for the faithful who will be raised from the dead in a bodily form: “But all who are godly shall live again on earth, when God gives breath and life and grace to them the godly” (book 4.187-190), whereas the ungodly are to be thrown into hell, “And all who have sinned with deeds of impiety a heap of earth shall cover again, and murky Tartarus and the black recesses of hell” (lines 183-186).<\/p>\n<p>The express purpose of the authors of the sibyls was to demonstrate the reasonableness of the Jewish faith by casting their message in the form of the sibyl, introduced by the Greeks and appreciated by the Romans. In their emphasis on the God of Israel and their opposition to paganism, they nevertheless stand in the stream of the apocalyptic, the unveiling of God’s secrets of past and future. The sibyl as divine oracle was, thus, used as a literary form in order to convey a message to the non-Jewish world.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SilvanusTeachingsof\">Silvanus, Teachings of<\/p>\n<p>Literary work of the Gnostics, attributed to Silvanus, the companion of Peter and Paul. It was discovered at Chenoboskion in Upper Egypt in 1946.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SimeonTestamentof\">Simeon, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (below).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SlavonicActsofPeter\">Slavonic Acts of Peter<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Peter, Slavonic Acts of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SolomonPsalmsof\">Solomon, Psalms of<\/p>\n<p>The Psalms of Solomon are a collection of 18 songs attributed to Solomon. They are considered pseudepigrapha. The psalms were probably written by one author, who lived during the middle of the first century <span>BC<\/span> and wrote in Hebrew. The theological perspective of the author is Pharisaic in its views of the law, judgment, and the future of Israel. The Psalms of Solomon are derived from the canonical book of Psalms in their form and phraseology. One of the similarities in the form and phraseology is the emphasis on the antithesis between the righteous and the wicked. The wicked are the Gentiles who defile the holy things of the Lord (2:3) and apostate Jews who have fallen into sin (3:11, 13).<\/p>\n<p>The character of the sinner is that of the fool, as opposed to the wise man (cf. Wisdom Literature). The fool has no concern for the Lord (4:1); his speech and deeds betray his unrighteousness (4:2ff.). He is known by his lies, judgment of others, false oaths, his immorality, lawlessness, and selfish ambitions at the cost of others (cf. 12). The righteous are the wise, who fear the Lord (4:26). He is not dismayed by bad dreams or perilous times (6:4-5). He is provoked with zeal for the Lord’s righteousness, as he witnesses the desecration of the temple and the law (8:28). The Lord’s love of him is expressed in discipline, and he responds to the Lord’s rebuke with repentance for his sins. The author compares the righteous to the tree of life in Paradise. They are stable and will not be uprooted (14:2ff.). The wicked, on the other hand, will not be remembered in this life, and God will deal righteously with them by casting them into “Sheol and darkness and destruction” (14:6; 15:10).<\/p>\n<p>The author views God as the King who mightily rules over the nations (2:34ff.) with readiness to judge his enemies and the enemies of the righteous (2:38ff.; 4:9) and to vindicate the righteous (2:39). As the Lord’s care is demonstrated in his sustenance of nature (5:11-12), in his raising up kings, rulers, and nations (5:13), the author assures the reader that his care extends particularly to the poor and those who call upon him (5:2-3, 13). He is the hope of the righteous (8:37).<\/p>\n<p>In view of the foregoing belief in the righteous kingship of God and in his protection of the righteous, the psalms abound in the conviction that evil will be overcome by God’s intervention on behalf of the righteous. The particular context in which these psalms originated was Pompey’s entrance into Jerusalem and his desecration of the temple (63 <span>BC<\/span>), and it was hoped that at the death of Pompey (48 <span>BC<\/span>, cf. 2:30ff.) the messianic era might be introduced. Therefore, the author reminds God of the covenant made with David (17:5) and asks God’s forgiveness for Israel’s sins in the past. Israel has suffered gentile invasions and control as the result of God’s judgment (17:6). Since Pompey had died, the author prayed for the restoration of the theocracy under a Davidic king—“Behold, O Lord, and raise up unto them their king, the son of David. All the time in the which Thou seest, O God, that he may reign over Israel Thy servant” (17:23). By means of the Davidic Messiah the land will be purged of sinners, godless nations, and the righteous will be sanctified. The messianic rule extends only over the righteous remnant, who when restored to the land, will be divided into the 12 tribes; the Davidic Messiah will rule over the tribes and the other nations “in the wisdom of his righteousness” (17:29-31). The sojourner and the gentile nations will not share in the glory of the kingdom. Rather, their position will be that of servitude.<\/p>\n<p>The hope of the glorious future of Israel is the apocalyptic element in the psalms. They arose in a historical context, but they anticipate a radically new future. The psalmist pronounced a benediction on all those who would witness God’s judgment on the nations, the restoration of Israel, and the introduction of the messianic kingdom: “Blessed be they that shall be in those days, in that they shall see the good fortune of Israel which God shall bring to pass in the gathering together of the tribes. May the Lord hasten His mercy upon Israel! The Lord Himself is our king for ever and ever” (17:50-51).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"SolomonTestamentof\">Solomon, Testament of<\/p>\n<p>The Testament of Solomon is a second-century <span>BC<\/span> pseudepigraphal writing. The writing claims that Solomon was the writer of the testament. It is extant in Semitic manuscripts, and in some Greek texts.<\/p>\n<p>The material is basically Christian with emphasis on the cross and the virgin birth but also contains Jewish material as well. The testament recounts how Solomon, by means of a ring given to him by the archangel Michael, is able to subdue and use the skills of demons to build his temple. After completing the temple, however, Solomon is led into idolatry on account of his lust for a Shunammite girl. His fall was taken by the author of the testament as an occasion to warn the readers of the power and shapes of the demons and the angels having power over them. The work is written in the form of a testament in order to let Solomon reflect (on his deathbed) how he succeeded and failed as a legacy to Israel.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"TestamentsoftheTwelvePatriarchs\">Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs<\/p>\n<p>Part of the Jewish pseudepigrapha. This particular composition is called a “testament” because it represents the deathbed speeches of each of the sons of Jacob. The testaments start with Reuben’s speech to his sons and ends with Benjamin’s testament to his heirs. Each patriarch is represented as gathering his sons around him and relating the important events of his life. During the speech the patriarch warns against particular vices and attitudes and recommends certain virtues. The advice and warnings of each patriarch often include insight and predictions concerning sin and salvation for his children. The account of the patriarch’s life serves as a guide for the future of his descendants. At the end of the speech, each patriarch dies and is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<p>It would appear that the concept of “testament” finds its orientation in Joshua 23–24, where Joshua summons the elders, heads, judges, and officers of Israel (Jos 23:2; 24:1) and gives them a charge before his death. First Kings 2:1-12 portrays David giving Solomon deathbed advice to walk in God’s ways. The speeches of the patriarchs find further scriptural reference in Genesis chapter 49, where Jacob calls his sons together to hear about their future. At the end of the speech Jacob dies (Gn 49:33).<\/p>\n<p>The present textual form (Slavonic, Armenian, and Greek versions) probably came about sometime during the second or third century <span>AD<\/span>. However, much of the material would appear to go back to the second or third century <span>BC<\/span>. The general scholarly consensus is that an original text in a Semitic language (either Hebrew or Aramaic) was composed by an author or authors sometime in the third or second century before the common era. At some later period, Christian sections were added to the original text. For examples of the Christian sections see Testament of Simeon 6:7; Testament of Levi 10:2; Testament of Dan 6:9; Testament of Naphtali 4:5; Testament of Asher 7:3-4; Testament of Joseph 19:11; Testament of Benjamin 3:8; 9:2-4. It would appear that the testaments may have been reworked by a Jewish writer(s) and by other Christian writers over the centuries. Thus we have a Jewish document from about the third century before the common era that has undergone both Jewish and Christian redactions over a long period of time. These testaments became quite popular in the tenth century, with special interest being displayed in the prophecies of the patriarchs and their secret knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>The following is a summary of each of the testaments of the patriarchs. The excerpts are based on R. H. Charles’s <em>Pseudepigrapha,<\/em> pp 282-367.<\/p>\n<h6>Reuben<\/h6>\n<p>The testament of Reuben is very much influenced by an overwhelming memory of defiling his father’s bed. This refers to Reuben taking his father’s concubine Bilhah while she was in a drunken stupor. Reuben has very strong opinions regarding what he considers to be negative attributes of women, and he warns his sons to be guarded in their relationship with women. His comments on women probably reflect the ill feelings that existed between himself and Jacob in regard to Bilhah. Reuben predicts that in the future his sons would be jealous of the sons of Levi but they would not be able to overthrow them. He admonishes his descendants to have respect and love for one another and to do truth to their neighbors. Reuben is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Simeon<\/h6>\n<p>The patriarch Simeon is presented as a strong warrior type. Reflecting the biblical account of Joseph being sold into slavery (Gn 37:25-28), Simeon testifies that he wanted to kill Joseph rather than sell him into slavery. As punishment for this attitude, God withered his right hand for seven days. Simeon warns his sons against envy, deceit, and fornication. He predicts that they will attempt to harm the sons of Levi but prophesies that the sons of Levi will remain superior. Simeon looked forward to a blissful era (6:4-7a), when the “Most High” would be blessed. Verse 7b is a Christian interpolation, “Because God has taken a body and eaten with men and saved men.” He admonishes his sons to obey the sons of Levi and Judah, for it would be from them that their salvation would be accomplished. He predicts that a high priest would come from Levi and a king would descend from the lines of Judah. Simeon concludes his testament by predicting that all Gentiles (an interpolation) and Israel would be saved.<\/p>\n<h6>Levi<\/h6>\n<p>Levi’s deathbed testament is in the form of dreams that he relates to his sons. He predicts that from his descendants and those of Judah the Lord would “appear among men” to save every race of men (2:11). The descendants of Levi would be “as the sun to all the seed of Israel” (4:3b) and in one dream it is shown that the blessings of the priesthood would come to his sons (8:2-3). Levi predicts that a king would arise in Judah; this king would establish a new priesthood that ministers to both Jews and Gentiles. The tenth chapter has a Christian interpolation that because of ungodliness and transgression, the sons of Levi would wrong “the Savior of the world, Christ” (10:2) and that for this they would be scattered throughout the world. Chapter 13 has a number of wisdom themes with emphasis on the need to follow and obey the law. Chapter 16 introduces an eschatological prediction that the sons of Levi would go astray for 70 weeks. The following chapter gives a detailed account of the 70 weeks in which there would be a priesthood for each jubilee. The first priesthood would be great, and the priest’s relationship to God would be such that God would be addressed as father. The second priesthood would “be conceived in the sorrow of beloved ones” (17:3), but this priesthood will be glorified by all. The following five priesthoods would be characterized by sorrow, pain, hatred, and darkness. However, a new priesthood would eventually arise and peace will be brought to all the earth (18:4); sin shall come to an end (18:9), for this new priesthood shall have a spirit of understanding and sanctification resting upon him. The testament closes with an admonition to choose either the law of the Lord or the work of Beliar (variant of Belial). The sons pledge themselves to the law, and following Levi’s death they bury him at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Judah<\/h6>\n<p>At the beginning of the testament by Judah he tells his descendants that he had been promised by his father that he would be king. “And it came to pass, when I became a man, that my father blessed me, saying, You shall be a king, prospering in all things” (1:6). Judah reminisces about his early youth and his ability to conquer wild animals. He obeyed the commandments and did not give in to lust. He predicted that his descendants would fall into wickedness because of the love of money and the enticement of beautiful women (ch 17). In chapter 21 Judah predicts that the Lord would give the kingship to his descendants and the priesthood to the sons of Levi. Chapter 24 includes a Christian messianic redaction. It is predicted that from the star of Jacob one will arise that will be without sin and from it a rod of righteousness will grow to the Gentiles (24:6). The testament concludes with eschatological hope for the future when “they who are poor for the Lord’s sake shall be made rich and they who are put to death for the Lord’s sake shall awake to life” (25:4). Judah dies and is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Issachar<\/h6>\n<p>The last words of this patriarch are somewhat unique in that Issachar is depicted as being “upright” and without transgression (unlike many of his brothers). He predicts that the priesthood will come from Levi and the kingship will arise from the lineage of Judah. In chapter 6 Issachar predicts that his children will “cleave” after Beliar. If they recognize the mercy of God and follow Issachar’s exemplary life, “every spirit of Beliar will flee from them.” His final request is that he be buried at Hebron with his fathers.<\/p>\n<h6>Zebulun<\/h6>\n<p>The patriarch Zebulun begins his testament by characterizing himself as a “good gift” to his parents. He, like Issachar, indicates that he is not conscious of sinning “except in thought” (and if he has any iniquity it is only the sin of ignorance). Zebulun claims that he did not support the actions taken against Joseph, and he would have told his father about Joseph’s plight except that the other brothers agreed that if “anyone should declare the secret, he should be slain” (1:6). In 1:7 he declares that if it were not for him the other brothers would have killed Joseph. The brothers were so suspicious of Zebulun that they watched him until Joseph was sold. Verse 5:3 has a familiar theme that is found in the NT and in the rabbis: “Have compassion in your hearts, my children, because even as a man does to his neighbor, even so will the Lord do to him.” Zebulun believes that this lesson is demonstrated in practical terms. The sons of the other brothers were sickened and died on account of the action taken against Joseph (“because they showed no mercy in their hearts,” 5:5). The sons of Zebulun were preserved without sickness. He continues his wisdom teaching (8:3) by declaring that in the degree that a man has compassion upon his neighbor the Lord in the same degree will have mercy on him. Zebulun predicts the division between the northern and southern kingdoms and the eventual conquest of these kingdoms by the Gentiles. However, the people will repent and the Lord will bring them back to “the land” and Jerusalem (9:8). In chapter 10 Zebulun predicts that after his death he will “arise as a ruler in the midst of his sons” (10:2), and he promises reward for those who keep the laws and punishment for the ungodly. Zebulun dies at the end of his testament and is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Dan<\/h6>\n<p>The patriarch Dan laments his jealousy of Joseph and indicates that he was controlled by the spirit of Beliar. He reveals that he wanted to kill Joseph so that he could have the love of his father. Dan warns against the spirits of lying and anger, and he exhorts his descendants to love truth and long-suffering. He admonishes them to keep the commandments and “love the Lord through all your life and one another with a true heart” (5:3). Dan predicts that his sons will “in the last days” depart from the Lord and thus provoke the anger of the sons of Levi. They also will fight against the sons of Judah. His sons will not win against the sons of Levi and Judah because an angel of the Lord will guide them. Dan is represented as having read in the book of Enoch (a favorite reference for the patriarchs) that Satan and all the spirits of wickedness and pride will cause the sons of Levi, Judah, and Dan to sin. They will be taken into captivity where they will receive the plagues of Egypt and all the evils of the Gentiles. However, when they return to the Lord they will receive mercy and be given peace. The prediction is such that there would be one who would arise from the tribe of Judah and Levi who is called “the salvation of the Lord.” It would appear that the “one arising” would make war against Beliar and execute an “everlasting vengeance” against their enemies (5:10). Dan’s final warning is to beware of Satan and his spirits and to draw near to God and the angel “that intercedes for you” (6:2). The last section admonishes Dan’s sons to pass on to their children all that they have heard so that “the savior of the Gentiles may receive” them. There follows a Christian polemic about the savior being true, long-suffering, meek, and lowly (6:9). When Dan dies, he is buried near Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.<\/p>\n<h6>Naphtali<\/h6>\n<p>Naphtali is said to be 130 years old when he gives his last words. He is depicted as being in good health, but the morning after a feast realizes that he is going to die. Thus he gathers his sons about him. Naphtali has a very strong sense of order that contributes to the makeup and actions of man as well as the universe. He views the “Gentile problem” as their forsaking the Lord and changing their order so that they obeyed the “stocks and stones.” The change of order was the problem at Sodom and it also caused the Flood.<\/p>\n<p>Naphtali reads from the book of Enoch that his sons will depart from the Lord and walk “according to all lawlessness of the Gentiles” (4:1). He predicts that his descendants will be taken captive because of their sins and afterward a “few” will return to the Lord and he will bring them back to their land. After their return to the land, Naphtali predicts that his sons will forget the Lord and “become ungodly” with the result that they will be scattered all over the earth. They will remain in this state until the compassion of the Lord comes and a man working righteousness and mercy comes to them. Naphtali recounts two dreams that he had in his 40th year. In the first dream he saw the sun and moon stand still. Isaac told his grandsons to run and take hold of the sun and moon, each according to his strength. Levi took hold of the sun, and Judah seized the moon. Both of them were lifted up with the sun and moon. There appeared a bull in the dream with two great horns and eagle wings. The other sons attempted to seize this bull but could not. However, Joseph came and took hold of the bull and ascended “up with him on high” (5:7).<\/p>\n<p>There follows a prediction that the 12 tribes of Israel would be taken into captivity by the Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Chaldeans, and Syrians. The other dream saw a ship sailing on the sea of Jamnia without sailors or pilot. Written on the ship was the inscription “The ship of Jacob” (6:2). Jacob and his sons were on the ship, and when a storm arose Jacob departed from their presence. Eventually the ship breaks up from the pounding of the sea, and while Joseph sails off in a little boat the rest of the brothers are divided among nine planks with Levi and Judah sharing a plank. It would appear that by the prayers of Levi all the brothers eventually land safely on the shore. When Naphtali relates these dreams to his father, Jacob responds that all these things must be fulfilled.<\/p>\n<p>Naphtali admonished his sons to be united to Levi and Judah for through them “shall salvation arise to Israel” (8:2). Also through Levi and Judah the righteous of the Gentiles shall be gathered. Naphtali died and was buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Gad<\/h6>\n<p>The patriarch Gad is represented as hating Joseph because Joseph had told his father that Gad and some of the other brothers were eating from the best of the flocks while tending them. During his testament Gad confesses his sin of hatred to his sons and warns them against harboring hatred because it only brings anguish: “For as love would quicken even the dead and would call back them that are condemned to die, so hatred would slay the living and those that had sinned venially it would not suffer to live” (4:6).<\/p>\n<p>Repentance is understood to give knowledge to the soul and leads the mind to salvation. Gad encourages his sons to honor the lineage of Levi and Judah, for therein is found the salvation of Israel. He predicts that his sons will walk in all wickedness and corruption and ends on a somewhat pessimistic note by asking to be buried near his fathers. Gad is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Asher<\/h6>\n<p>Asher is very conscious of good and evil spirits and the choice that man has to make between these two possibilities. Asher predicts that his descendants will act ungodly and not give heed to the law of God. Thus they will be delivered into the hands of their enemies and they will be scattered. They will exist in such a state until the “Most High” visits the earth “coming Himself [as man with men eating and drinking] . . . he shall save Israel and all the Gentiles” (7:3-4). This Christian interpolation is followed by a declaration that the Lord will gather them because of his mercy and for the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. When Asher dies, he is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Joseph<\/h6>\n<p>Joseph calls himself the “beloved of Israel,” (1:2) and although he has seen envy and death, he did not go astray. During his testament he tells of his ordeal of being sold into slavery. The verses in chapter one are set in parallelism with the first half of the verse telling the plight of Joseph and the second half exalting the security of the Lord: “I was sold into slavery, and the Lord of all made me free: I was taken into captivity, and his strong hand succoured me. I was beset with hunger and the Lord himself nourished me” (1:5). Joseph details his experiences in Egypt with eight chapters being given to the temptations of the Egyptian woman. However, Joseph resisted her advances and the Lord rewarded him for his convictions. He admonishes his sons to have the fear of the Lord in all their works because whoever does the law of the Lord will be loved by him. This is the key to his success. Joseph encourages his children to do well to anyone who would do evil to them and pray for their enemies. He gives his attitude toward his brothers as an example of such a virtue.<\/p>\n<p>Joseph admonishes his sons to observe the commandments of the Lord and honor Levi and Judah for “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, who saves all the Gentiles and Israel” (19:11) shall arise from them. He predicts the enslavement in Egypt but also the eventual deliverance. He directs his sons to take his bones with them when they leave Egypt, and the testament indicates that Joseph was buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<h6>Benjamin<\/h6>\n<p>The last patriarch gives his testament when he is 125 years old. He encourages his children to love the Lord and keep his commandments. He urges them to follow the goodness of Joseph, for he did not want his brothers’ actions against him to be counted as sin. Benjamin predicts that in Joseph shall the prophecy be fulfilled “concerning the Lamb of God and Savior of the world, and that a blameless one shall be delivered up for lawless men, and a sinless one shall die for ungodly men in the blood of the covenant, for the salvation of the Gentiles and of Israel and shall destroy Beliar and his servants” (3:8). One can immediately see how the Christian interpolation would find easy access for a polemic in this testament. Joseph is depicted as suffering in innocence and without remorse. Likewise the Christian messiah would suffer and die for ungodly men.<\/p>\n<p>Benjamin believes that there are evildoers among his sons; from his reading of the book of Enoch he predicts that they will commit “fornication with the fornication of Sodom” and only a few will survive (9:1). There would appear to be a remnant from each tribe as the 12 tribes and the Gentiles will gather at the last temple. Their salvation will be a result of the “Most High” sending his only “begotten prophet” (9:2), and he will be lifted up upon a tree and the veil of the temple shall be rent and the Spirit of God shall be passed on to the Gentiles. Benjamin admonishes his sons that if they walk in holiness according to the commandments of the Lord, all of Israel will be gathered to the Lord. When Benjamin dies, he is buried at Hebron.<\/p>\n<p>From the brief account of each patriarch, it is apparent that the testaments were subject to both Jewish and Christian redaction and go beyond mere interpolation. The text reflects such characteristics as two messiahs, a double love commandment, ethical and theological teachings, as well as universal salvation. However, it is most difficult to place these features within a particular time period or even religion.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ThaddeusActsof\">Thaddeus, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>A sixth-century version and extension of the fifth-century Syriac Doctrina Addaei, or Legend of Abgar. The Legend contains a purported exchange of letters between Abgar, king of Edessa (<span>AD<\/span> 9–46), and Jesus. This exchange results in the sending of Thaddeus, one of Jesus’ apostles, to Edessa. While there, he performs numerous miracles including the healing of Abgar. The Acts has Abgar healed when Ananias, his messenger, returns prior to the arrival of Thaddeus. The Acts focuses on the activity of Thaddeus in establishing the church in Edessa.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"TheclaActsofPauland\">Thecla, Acts of Paul and<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Paul and Thecla, Acts of (above).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ThomasActsof\">Thomas, Acts of<\/p>\n<p>The Acts of Thomas is one of a cluster of acts of the apostles that have three common characteristics. They narrate the propagation of the gospel around the ancient world, promote the deeds and words of one of the apostles, and inevitably chronicle that apostle’s martyrdom. The oldest of these “acts narratives” are those of Paul, John, Andrew, Peter, and Thomas. Acts of Thomas, like the others, is a blend of Christian piety, the popular Hellenistic romances of the day, and Jewish haggadic-type moralistic teachings.<\/p>\n<p>Scholarly study of the Acts of Thomas suggests that it was probably written at the beginning of the third century. It was definitely written in Syriac first and probably by someone with strong tendencies toward the Gnostic heresy. It proved broadly popular among Gnostics, Manichees, and orthodox churches, so much so that it was quickly translated from the original Syriac into Arabic, Armenian, and several Greek translations. From these varied Greek versions, Coptic, Latin, and Ethiopic translations were made. Significant portions of the Coptic version were in turn retranslated back into Arabic, Ethiopic, and Greek, thus creating a most confusing textual tradition. Only one full early Syriac text survives, and it is considered less reliable than some of the extant Greek translations.<\/p>\n<p>In the critical English edition of the Acts of Thomas, that of A. F. J. Klijn published in 1962, the narrative is divided into the traditional acts (praxeis). There are 13 of these numbered in 170 sequential chapters that include the concluding martyrdom of the apostle. Various liturgical pieces, sermon fragments, and hymns are inserted, including two particularly famous hymns in the early church—that of the “Song of the Bride” in act 1 and that of the “Song of the Pearl” in act 9. The first six acts are not woven together by any particular theme, and they record that Thomas went on board ship to go to India (act 3), which would imply a south Indian ministry. Yet the text speaks of ministry to the north Indian king, Gundaphoro (act 4). However, acts 7 through 13 and the martyrdom are set in the south Indian kingdom of Mazdai and are obviously written by one hand. It is probable that the first six acts represent earlier materials placed into the whole by the writer of the last seven acts and the martyrdom. This document is the first-known mention of the traditions that Thomas ministered in India, was martyred there, and that his bones were returned to Edessa. Acts of Thomas is written, as are all the apocryphal acts of the apostles, on the assumption that the world was divided among the apostles for evangelization and that India fell to Thomas.<\/p>\n<p>Thomas is called Judas Thomas throughout these acts after the Syrian style of referring to that apostle. Thomas is spoken of as the twin of Jesus (the Didymus of the NT), as recipient of special divine revelations, and as being Jesus incarnate in the flesh again—in chapters 10, 11, 39, 47, and 48 of the Acts. Many historians think these are clear indications of Gnostic thought. Others think such ideas are expressions of Jesus’ adaptation to human perception and identification with his apostles—features often found in early Christian literature. There seems to be no question but that Gnostic or Manichee tendencies were gradually edited out of Greek and Latin texts by orthodox copyists.<\/p>\n<p>One quickly gets the feel for this narrative. The Acts of Thomas opens with Judas Thomas’s refusing to go to India. He is then sold as a slave—in parallel to Christ’s coming as a slave to redeem man. So Thomas reaches India as a carpenter (again the parallel with Jesus) and a builder of homes. He plays groomsman in a wedding at which miracles convince the flute player of Thomas’s role as apostle of God; so the king asks Thomas to pray for his daughter. Great stress is placed on purity in Thomas’s teaching, and this usually involves sexual abstinence as well. Finally, many are converted, including the king, and they form an assembly of believers in Sandaruk.<\/p>\n<p>In the second act the king, Gundophor, gives Thomas a large sum of money to build a palace. After surprising the king by tracing the palace on the ground in winter, Thomas builds him a palace in heaven by giving the money to the poor. The king imprisons and decides to kill Thomas for the supposed deception; but the king’s brother, Gad, dies and goes to heaven where he sees the palace and desires to buy it. Gad is then reunited with his body and tries to buy the palace from Gundophor, whereupon Gundophor learns that he cannot sell it, releases Thomas from prison, and advises Gad to arrange to have his own palace built in heaven. Thomas gives a great doxology (ch 25 of act 2), and the two brothers who have come to believe through all of this want to be baptized.<\/p>\n<p>In these miracle narratives and teachings, all the books of the NT seem to be echoed, though there are relatively few direct quotations. Favorite miracle passages such as Balaam’s talking donkey and Peter’s release from prison are reexperienced in Thomas’s life with vast embellishment. The talking ass enters a home and casts out a demon at Thomas’s command; Thomas causes great consternation by repeatedly passing in and out of the securely closed prison. Such miracles, sufferings, and conversions make up acts 3 through 13 and continue to the climax of Judas Thomas’s ministry. His martyrdom occurs (ch 168) at the hands of four soldiers with spears who have been ordered by the king of Mazdai to execute Thomas. He thereafter appears to his followers who have Thomas’s bones removed to Edessa. Meantime, the son of the king of Mazdai becomes sick unto death. Desperate, the king goes to Thomas’s tomb, thinking to get a relic to heal his son. Finding the body gone, he uses the very dust upon which Judas Thomas’s body rested, and his son is healed. Thereafter the king becomes a believer and joins the community of believers.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ThomasGospelof\">Thomas, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>A noncanonical and heretical gospel of Gnostic origin that probably dates from the second or third century <span>AD<\/span>. It is one of a large number of similar writings that flourished among early religious sects such as the Marcosians (a second-century group that built an elaborate sacramental system around numbers) and the Manicheans (a third-century dualistic heresy based on the primeval conflict between light and darkness). In fact, Cyril of Jerusalem, who died in <span>AD<\/span> 386 says the Gospel of Thomas was written by “one of those wicked disciples of Mani” (the founder of Manichaeism). Along with the Protevangelium of James, it is one of the oldest and most widely known of the more than 50 apocryphal gospels that circulated within the churches during the period of their early growth and expansion.<\/p>\n<p>This Gospel of Thomas (sometimes referred to as an “infancy gospel”) should not be confused with the Coptic version that was unearthed in 1945 near Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt. The latter is a collection of 114 “sayings of Jesus,” which shed a great deal of light on the influence of Gnosticism on Egyptian Christianity. They claim to be the “secret words” of Jesus transmitted by “Didymos Judas Thomas.” The Gospel of Thomas, with which this article deals, is composed of a series of childhood miracles of Jesus and is preserved for us in four versions—two in Greek (one quite a bit longer than the other), one in Latin, and one in Syriac.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Thomas was apparently known as early as Hippolytus (<span>AD<\/span> 155–235), who quotes it as saying, “He who seeks me will find me in children from seven years old; for there will I, who am hidden in the fourteenth aeon, be found.” Hippolytus claimed that it was used by the Naasenes (a Gnostic sect that worshiped the serpent) in support of their doctrine of the nature of the inward man. The quotation above is not found in the extant versions, but this is understandable because there is evidence from the Stichometry of Nicephorus (possibly fourth century) that an earlier version was over twice the length. The Gospel of Thomas was known both to Origen (c. <span>AD<\/span> 185–254) and Eusebius (c. <span>AD<\/span> 260–340). The latter classed it with the heretical writings and said it should be “rejected as altogether absurd and impious” (<em>Historia Ecclesiastica<\/em> 3.25).<\/p>\n<p>The stories that make up the Gospel of Thomas emphasize the miraculous power and supernatural wisdom of the boy Jesus. Some scholars think they were originally fabricated by orthodox Christians in opposition to the Gnostic heresy that the “supernatural Christ” first came upon Jesus at the time of his baptism. It is much more likely, however, that they owe their origin to people’s curiosity about what the boy Jesus must have been like. Some of the tales may have come from pagan sources.<\/p>\n<p>Apart from three or four miracles, which could be classed as beneficial, the supernatural feats said to be performed by the boy Jesus were destructive. For example, when a certain child spoiled some pools made by Jesus, he was cursed by Jesus and totally withered up. Another boy who provoked Jesus by running into him “immediately . . . fell down and died.” A teacher who struck Jesus on the head was straightway cursed and fell to the ground. The French writer Renan referred to the Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas as “a vicious little guttersnipe.”<\/p>\n<p>Throughout the gospel Jesus is presented as infinitely wise. He ridicules his teacher Zacchaeus saying, “You hypocrite, first, if you know it, teach the Alpha, and then we will believe you concerning the Beta.” After Zacchaeus berates himself for being so inferior to the one he intended to take as a disciple, Jesus laughs and announces, “I am come from above that I may curse them.” The text continues, “And no man after that dared to provoke him, lest he should curse him, and he should be maimed.”<\/p>\n<p>Other miracles include making 12 live sparrows out of clay, smiting his accusers with blindness, raising a child from the dead, healing a foot cut in two by an ax, carrying water in a cloth garment, reaping an enormous harvest from one kernal of wheat, stretching a piece of wood to its proper length, and healing his brother James who had been bitten by a viper while gathering fagots (sticks to use as firewood). More miracles may be found in the longer Latin version.<\/p>\n<p>It comes as no surprise that the orthodox church has always rejected from its canon of sacred scripture the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas. It is, however, quoted in other later gospels of the same sort. For example, the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew from chapter 18 on is based upon the Gospel of Thomas. Along with other apocryphal materials, it has exercised a significant influence on Christian art and literature, especially from the tenth century forward. For example, the account of Jesus making the 12 sparrows from clay shows up in the Koran.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"TruthGospelof\">Truth, Gospel of<\/p>\n<p>Around 1945 a group of Egyptian peasant farmers near modern Nag Hammadi inadvertently dug into a grave of the ancient village known as Shenesit-Chenoboskion and unearthed a jar containing 13 books (9 of which were largely complete) and 15 fragments of works. This find was the library of an ancient Gnostic sect and contained all or parts of 51 different Gnostic writings—all but two of which had never come into modern scholars’ hands before. Now called the Nag Hammadi or Chenoboskion texts, these works were the first modern find of original Gnostic literature. All are Coptic translations of earlier Greek originals.<\/p>\n<p>Codex I (titled the Jung Codex because it now is owned by the Jung Institute in Vienna) is unique among the 13 works because it is in Sub-Achimimic Coptic, while the rest of the works are in the more usual Sahidic Coptic. Codex I contains five works, two of which are the enormously controversial Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Truth has no heading but rather draws its title from the incipit (first line of the text); it has no author; it contains no addressee. In fact, it is not a gospel at all, but rather a treatise expressive of Valentinian Gnosticism at its very earliest stage. Because the Gnosticism expressed in the Gospel of Truth is lacking all later-Valentinian mythological development and because it is stated simply and in almost orthodox Christian thought forms, the majority of modern scholars credit it to Valentinus himself, though no final proof of this has been discovered as yet. If Valentinus himself did not write this document, then it had to be someone in the immediate circle of his initial disciples.<\/p>\n<p>Valentinus was born in Egypt around <span>AD<\/span> 100 to 110. He received a thorough education at Alexandria, became a Christian, and taught first in Egypt before moving to Rome around <span>AD<\/span> 136, where he stayed until 154 or 155. Tertullian, in his work against heresy, seems to imply that Valentinus was twice expelled from the Roman church; he states that Valentinus was a brilliant and eloquent man who had hopes of becoming a bishop in Rome at one time. Valentinus attracted able followers who later expanded his teachings almost beyond recognition. But when he left Rome sometime after 154 or 155, he had made a final break with orthodoxy and was teaching a form of Gnostic heresy the product of which was the Gospel of Truth, written by himself or someone of his immediate circle. There is a surviving statement that Valentinus taught subsequently in Cyprus, and then he vanishes into the mists of history.<\/p>\n<p>Irenaeus said the Gospel of Truth is no gospel, for it is unlike the four Gospels (<em>Against Heresies<\/em> 3.2.9). Irenaeus was certainly correct, for the work is not a narrative. Nor does the Gospel of Truth contain any story about Jesus, any place name of any type, any date, or any mention of any person other than Jesus, who is only mentioned five times.<\/p>\n<p>More than 60 times, this brief work uses the notions of knowledge or needing to know. This knowledge is born from within as the soul returns to itself, finding there what Deity deposited in it—or perhaps better, finding there the residue of Deity still entrapped within it. Thus whoever has Gnosis has simply taken what is his and can know where he or she comes from and for where he or she is bound. Christ’s role was to present the “Book of the Living” or the “Living Book.” “Book” is understood, not as the gospel proclamation of the life and teachings of Jesus, but rather as the primordial gospel or truth that existed before creation. It was error and ignorance that rebelled against the Savior and nailed him to the tree. Implied in this, though not explicitly stated, is the Gnostic understanding that it was also divine error and ignorance out of which matter emerged or was created. Salvation for living beings entrapped in this matter comes with return to unalloyed Deity. The path of this return is Gnosis (knowledge). The Pleroma, the fullness of the Deity, went out into the depths of matter in search of the elect among beings by way of Jesus and the cross.<\/p>\n<p>While these traits of Gnosticism are clear, this gospel is much closer to orthodoxy than most Gnostic Chenoboskion writings because it mentions only one Son of God, not several emanations; it does not split Jesus into a physical Jesus and a divine Christ; and most strikingly, Sophia, the usual central character in the Gnostic cosmic drama, does not appear at all. It is for these reasons among others that the Gospel of Truth is placed very close to Valentinus’s break with orthodoxy.<\/p>\n<p>The Gospel of Truth has assumed some degree of importance in NT studies beyond that warranted by its heretical content because it everywhere assumes our full NT canon. By some scholars’ counts, there are no less than 83 places where the Gospel of Truth echoes NT canonical books—in spite of the fact it does not cite a single saying of Jesus directly. Most particularly, it relies heavily on the book of Revelation and the Epistle to the Hebrews.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"VirginAssumptionofthe\">Virgin, Assumption of the<\/p>\n<p>A widely circulated legend dealing with the death and translation of the Virgin Mary. None of the many versions is earlier than the fourth century. Most go back to Egypt. In the Coptic versions, Jesus himself appears to Mary before the apostles depart on their missionary labors; Jesus announces her coming death and translation. In the other form an angel makes the announcement. Mary requests the presence of all the apostles, who are miraculously brought on the clouds. Mary is transfigured, and many healings result from contact with her dead body. She is transported to heaven by Jesus shortly after her death.<\/p>\n<p>This legend itself took on a new interest and importance when in 1950 “The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin” was made a part of official Roman Catholic dogma.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"VirginLifeofthe\">Virgin, Life of the<\/p>\n<p>There are a number of accounts of the early life and existence of the Virgin Mary. Most of them come to us through Coptic texts. They tell of the birth of Mary to Joachim (also called Cleopas) and Anna, who had been taunted by friends for having no children. Mary was born after a vision of a white dove. In some accounts Mary was dedicated to the Lord and then committed to the care of a man, Joseph. While she was in the house weaving on the veil of the temple, angels would come to minister to her. The annunciation by Gabriel is given at great length. The birth of Jesus is described in detail while Joseph is searching for a midwife, Salome. Other accounts go on to describe tender scenes between Mary and the child Jesus. In some of these versions, there is a reckless identification of the Virgin Mary with all of the other Marys of the Gospels.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h3\" id=\"ZebulunTestamentof\">Zebulun, Testament of<\/p>\n<p><em>See<\/em> Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (above).<\/p>","summary_ro":"APOCRYPHA* Books excluded from the canon of Scripture. Preview • Introduction • Apocryphal Gospels • Apocryphal Acts • Apocryphal Epistles • Apocalyptic Apocrypha • Specific Titles of Apocryphal Writings Introduction The writings of the Old and New Testaments tended to attract certain additional compositions in the form of books, parts of books, letters, “gospels,” apocalypses, and so on. Most of the authors wrote anonymously, but some presented their writings to the public under the name of ...","summary_en":"APOCRYPHA* Books excluded from the canon of Scripture. Preview • Introduction • Apocryphal Gospels • Apocryphal Acts • Apocryphal Epistles • Apocalyptic Apocrypha • Specific Titles of Apocryphal Writings Introduction The writings of the Old and New Testaments tended to attract certain additional compositions in the form of books, parts of books, letters, “gospels,” apocalypses, and so on. Most of the authors wrote anonymously, but some presented their writings to the public under the name of ...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30917,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Period*, Postexilic","title_en":"Period*, Postexilic","content_ro":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblicalPerspective\">The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCollapseoftheBabylonianEmpire\">The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>This occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 <span>BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePolicyofPersia\">The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>This is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\n<p>The new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnfromExile\">The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>The continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Work on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 <span>BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnofEzra\">The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>The traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 <span>BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 <span>BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 <span>BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 <span>BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 <span>BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 <span>BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\n<p>Ezra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NehemiahsReturnandMinistry\">Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Hanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRemainderofthePersianPeriod\">The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>Persian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 <span>BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 <span>BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReligiousFeaturesofthePostexilicPeriod\">Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>There were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n<p>1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\n<p>Some type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblicalPerspective\">The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCollapseoftheBabylonianEmpire\">The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>This occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 <span>BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePolicyofPersia\">The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>This is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\n<p>The new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnfromExile\">The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>The continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Work on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 <span>BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnofEzra\">The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>The traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 <span>BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 <span>BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 <span>BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 <span>BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 <span>BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 <span>BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\n<p>Ezra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NehemiahsReturnandMinistry\">Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Hanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRemainderofthePersianPeriod\">The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>Persian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 <span>BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 <span>BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReligiousFeaturesofthePostexilicPeriod\">Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>There were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n<p>1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\n<p>Some type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","summary_en":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37021,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48004,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1–4:5<\/strong> After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1–4:5<\/strong> After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1–4:5 After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).","summary_en":"3:1–4:5 After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48005,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> Festivals <em>in early autumn<\/em> (literally <em>in the seventh month<\/em>) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> Festivals <em>in early autumn<\/em> (literally <em>in the seventh month<\/em>) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 Festivals in early autumn (literally in the seventh month) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).","summary_en":"3:1 Festivals in early autumn (literally in the seventh month) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75630,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1–4:5<\/strong> After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1–4:5<\/strong> After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1–4:5 After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).","summary_en":"3:1–4:5 After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75631,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> Festivals <em>in early autumn<\/em> (literally <em>in the seventh month<\/em>) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> Festivals <em>in early autumn<\/em> (literally <em>in the seventh month<\/em>) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 Festivals in early autumn (literally in the seventh month) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).","summary_en":"3:1 Festivals in early autumn (literally in the seventh month) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103256,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1–4:5<\/strong> After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1–4:5<\/strong> After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1–4:5 After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).","summary_en":"3:1–4:5 After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103257,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> Festivals <em>in early autumn<\/em> (literally <em>in the seventh month<\/em>) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> Festivals <em>in early autumn<\/em> (literally <em>in the seventh month<\/em>) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 Festivals in early autumn (literally in the seventh month) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).","summary_en":"3:1 Festivals in early autumn (literally in the seventh month) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130882,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1–4:5<\/strong> After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1–4:5<\/strong> After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1–4:5 After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).","summary_en":"3:1–4:5 After resettling in various towns in Judah, the community turned to restoring the worship of God at Jerusalem. They quickly rebuilt the altar and began regular sacrifices in time to celebrate the Jewish festivals (3:4), and then they began the more difficult task of rebuilding the Temple itself (3:8). Soon they faced opposition from local foreigners (4:1-5).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130883,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:1","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:1","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> Festivals <em>in early autumn<\/em> (literally <em>in the seventh month<\/em>) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:1<\/strong> Festivals <em>in early autumn<\/em> (literally <em>in the seventh month<\/em>) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:1 Festivals in early autumn (literally in the seventh month) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).","summary_en":"3:1 Festivals in early autumn (literally in the seventh month) included the Festival of Trumpets (see Lev 23:23-25), the Day of Atonement (see Lev 16), and the Festival of Shelters (see Lev 23:34-36).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"2":[{"id":1169,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Altar","title_en":"Altar","content_ro":"<h3>ALTAR<\/h3>\n<p>The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Israel’s immediate neighbors, the Canaanites, had their own altars and rituals. The altar was always a raised-up place.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible refers to several altars built by the patriarchs. Noah offered burnt offerings (Gn 8:20). Abraham built an altar at Shechem (Gn 12:7), another at Bethel (Gn 12:8), and one on Mt Moriah (Gn 22:9). Isaac built an altar at Beersheba (Gn 26:25), and Jacob at Shechem (Gn 33:20) and Bethel (Gn 35:7). Moses built one at Rephidim (Ex 17:15) and another at Horeb (Ex 24:4). In each case the altar was erected to commemorate an event in which God had helped the offerer.<\/p>\n<p>Two altars were used in the tabernacle. One, measuring 5 by 5 by 3 cubits (7.5 by 7.5 by 4.5 feet; 2.3 by 2.3 by 1.4 meters), was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze and used for burnt offerings (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7). The other, smaller one, the golden altar, was about 18 inches (45 centimeters) square and 3 feet (90 centimeters) high, and was used to burn incense before the veil (Ex 30:1-10; 40:5).<\/p>\n<p>In Exodus 20:24-26, instructions were given to Israel to make an altar of earth or of unhewn stones, upon which burnt offerings and peace offerings were to be made in every place where God caused his name to dwell. This very general prescription seems to have allowed various individuals to erect an altar from time to time. Joshua built an altar on Mt Ebal (Jos 8:30-31); the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh built one in Transjordan (Jos 22:10-16); Gideon built one in Ophrah (Jgs 6:24); the family of David in Bethlehem (1 Sm 20:6, 29); David at the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Sm 24:25); and Elijah on Mt Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30). Apart from Elijah’s altar these all predated Solomon’s temple.<\/p>\n<p>There were two altars in Solomon’s temple. One was 20 cubits square (about 25 feet; 7.6 meters) and 10 cubits high (about 12.5 feet; 3.8 meters). It was made of bronze and used for burnt offerings. It remained the center of temple worship until the temple was destroyed, although in the days of King Ahaz it was removed from its place to the northern side of the temple at the command of the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:14). It was later restored to its proper place by Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:18). The second, the incense altar, stood in front of the veil. It was made of cedar and overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:20-22).<\/p>\n<p>During the exile, when the temple lay in ruins, Ezekiel had a vision of the restored temple in Jerusalem. There was an elaborate altar of burnt offering, rising in three terraces to a height of 10 cubits (17.5 feet; 5.3 meters) and resting on a base about 20 cubits (35 feet; 10.6 meters) square. Although the altar was visionary, it emphasized the need for atonement in Israel (Ez 43:13-17). No reference is made to an incense altar.<\/p>\n<p>Zerubbabel built an altar of burnt offerings (Ezr 3:2) that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated with a “desolating sacrilege,” probably an image of Zeus (1 Macc 1:54). There was also an altar of incense. Antiochus Epiphanes carried off the golden altar (1 Macc 1:21) in 169 <span>BC<\/span>. Both were later restored by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:44-49).<\/p>\n\n<p>In Christian worship no altar was required, since in the death of Jesus Christ the final sacrifice for sin had been made. There are numerous references to both the altar of burnt offering in the temple (Mt 5:23-24; 23:18-20, 35; Lk 11:51; 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18; Heb 7:13; Rv 11:1) and the altar of incense, both in the earthly temple (Lk 1:11) and in the heavenly temple (Rv 6:9; 8:5; 9:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ALTAR<\/h3>\n<p>The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Israel’s immediate neighbors, the Canaanites, had their own altars and rituals. The altar was always a raised-up place.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible refers to several altars built by the patriarchs. Noah offered burnt offerings (Gn 8:20). Abraham built an altar at Shechem (Gn 12:7), another at Bethel (Gn 12:8), and one on Mt Moriah (Gn 22:9). Isaac built an altar at Beersheba (Gn 26:25), and Jacob at Shechem (Gn 33:20) and Bethel (Gn 35:7). Moses built one at Rephidim (Ex 17:15) and another at Horeb (Ex 24:4). In each case the altar was erected to commemorate an event in which God had helped the offerer.<\/p>\n<p>Two altars were used in the tabernacle. One, measuring 5 by 5 by 3 cubits (7.5 by 7.5 by 4.5 feet; 2.3 by 2.3 by 1.4 meters), was made of acacia wood overlaid with bronze and used for burnt offerings (Ex 27:1-8; 38:1-7). The other, smaller one, the golden altar, was about 18 inches (45 centimeters) square and 3 feet (90 centimeters) high, and was used to burn incense before the veil (Ex 30:1-10; 40:5).<\/p>\n<p>In Exodus 20:24-26, instructions were given to Israel to make an altar of earth or of unhewn stones, upon which burnt offerings and peace offerings were to be made in every place where God caused his name to dwell. This very general prescription seems to have allowed various individuals to erect an altar from time to time. Joshua built an altar on Mt Ebal (Jos 8:30-31); the Reubenites, Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh built one in Transjordan (Jos 22:10-16); Gideon built one in Ophrah (Jgs 6:24); the family of David in Bethlehem (1 Sm 20:6, 29); David at the threshing floor of Araunah (2 Sm 24:25); and Elijah on Mt Carmel (1 Kgs 18:30). Apart from Elijah’s altar these all predated Solomon’s temple.<\/p>\n<p>There were two altars in Solomon’s temple. One was 20 cubits square (about 25 feet; 7.6 meters) and 10 cubits high (about 12.5 feet; 3.8 meters). It was made of bronze and used for burnt offerings. It remained the center of temple worship until the temple was destroyed, although in the days of King Ahaz it was removed from its place to the northern side of the temple at the command of the Assyrian ruler Tiglath-pileser (2 Kgs 16:14). It was later restored to its proper place by Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:18). The second, the incense altar, stood in front of the veil. It was made of cedar and overlaid with gold (1 Kgs 6:20-22).<\/p>\n<p>During the exile, when the temple lay in ruins, Ezekiel had a vision of the restored temple in Jerusalem. There was an elaborate altar of burnt offering, rising in three terraces to a height of 10 cubits (17.5 feet; 5.3 meters) and resting on a base about 20 cubits (35 feet; 10.6 meters) square. Although the altar was visionary, it emphasized the need for atonement in Israel (Ez 43:13-17). No reference is made to an incense altar.<\/p>\n<p>Zerubbabel built an altar of burnt offerings (Ezr 3:2) that Antiochus Epiphanes desecrated with a “desolating sacrilege,” probably an image of Zeus (1 Macc 1:54). There was also an altar of incense. Antiochus Epiphanes carried off the golden altar (1 Macc 1:21) in 169 <span>BC<\/span>. Both were later restored by Judas Maccabeus (1 Macc 4:44-49).<\/p>\n\n<p>In Christian worship no altar was required, since in the death of Jesus Christ the final sacrifice for sin had been made. There are numerous references to both the altar of burnt offering in the temple (Mt 5:23-24; 23:18-20, 35; Lk 11:51; 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18; Heb 7:13; Rv 11:1) and the altar of incense, both in the earthly temple (Lk 1:11) and in the heavenly temple (Rv 6:9; 8:5; 9:13).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ALTAR The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Isra...","summary_en":"ALTAR The platform upon which offerings are made to the deity. This may include a ritual sacrifice of animals or a burning of incense before God (Ex 30:1-10). The Hebrew word for altar and the verb “to slaughter” both derive from the same root word; they are terms used in connection with the ritual of sacrificing animals to God as a covering for sin. The Greek terms also point to sacrificing animals. The practice was not peculiar to Israel but was widely known in the ancient Middle East. Isra...","source":"Articles\/A.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19338,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jeshua (Person)","title_en":"Jeshua (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JESHUA (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Jozadak was deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (1 Chr 6:14-15). Jeshua, Jozadak’s successor as high priest, returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1). Upon arrival, he led his fellow priests in making the altar of God (Ezr 3:2; 5:2) and eventually headed up a construction program to rebuild the temple (3:8). Confirmed as God’s leader by Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2, 4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11), Jeshua (alternately “Joshua” in these passages) resolutely resisted attempts by adversaries to infiltrate his people and hinder the work on the temple (Ezr 4:3). Joiakim was Jeshua’s son and successor as high priest, serving in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh 12:12, 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. Descendant of Pahath-moab and the forefather of a family of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the Babylonian captivity (Ezr 2:6; Neh 7:11).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of a family of Levites who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). He and his sons were responsible for overseeing the workmen building the temple (Ezr 3:9; this Jeshua may be identical with #3 above).<\/li>\n<li>6. Levite and Jozabad’s father. Jozabad assisted Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah with taking inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>7. Ezer’s father. Ezer was ruler of Mizpah, who repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:19).<\/li>\n<li>8. Azaniah’s son and a leader of the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jeshua assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law (Neh 8:7) and later set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (10:9).<\/li>\n<li>9. Alternate spelling of Joshua, the son of Nun, in Nehemiah 8:17. <em>See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JESHUA (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Jozadak was deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (1 Chr 6:14-15). Jeshua, Jozadak’s successor as high priest, returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1). Upon arrival, he led his fellow priests in making the altar of God (Ezr 3:2; 5:2) and eventually headed up a construction program to rebuild the temple (3:8). Confirmed as God’s leader by Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2, 4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11), Jeshua (alternately “Joshua” in these passages) resolutely resisted attempts by adversaries to infiltrate his people and hinder the work on the temple (Ezr 4:3). Joiakim was Jeshua’s son and successor as high priest, serving in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh 12:12, 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. Descendant of Pahath-moab and the forefather of a family of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the Babylonian captivity (Ezr 2:6; Neh 7:11).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of a family of Levites who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). He and his sons were responsible for overseeing the workmen building the temple (Ezr 3:9; this Jeshua may be identical with #3 above).<\/li>\n<li>6. Levite and Jozabad’s father. Jozabad assisted Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah with taking inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>7. Ezer’s father. Ezer was ruler of Mizpah, who repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:19).<\/li>\n<li>8. Azaniah’s son and a leader of the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jeshua assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law (Neh 8:7) and later set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (10:9).<\/li>\n<li>9. Alternate spelling of Joshua, the son of Nun, in Nehemiah 8:17. <em>See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JESHUA (Person) 1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). 2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15). 3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Joz...","summary_en":"JESHUA (Person) 1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). 2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15). 3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Joz...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20954,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jozadak*","title_en":"Jozadak*","content_ro":"<h3>JOZADAK*<\/h3>\n<p>Seraiah’s son and one of the exiles transported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia (1 Chr 6:14-15). He was the father of Jeshua (also called Joshua), the high priest in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 6:11). Jozadak is alternately called Jehozadak.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOZADAK*<\/h3>\n<p>Seraiah’s son and one of the exiles transported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia (1 Chr 6:14-15). He was the father of Jeshua (also called Joshua), the high priest in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 6:11). Jozadak is alternately called Jehozadak.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOZADAK* Seraiah’s son and one of the exiles transported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia (1 Chr 6:14-15). He was the father of Jeshua (also called Joshua), the high priest in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 6:11). Jozadak is alternately called Jehozadak.","summary_en":"JOZADAK* Seraiah’s son and one of the exiles transported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylonia (1 Chr 6:14-15). He was the father of Jeshua (also called Joshua), the high priest in postexilic Jerusalem during the days of Zerubbabel (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; 10:18; Neh 12:26; Hg 1:1-14; 2:2-4; Zec 6:11). Jozadak is alternately called Jehozadak.","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30916,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Period*, Postexilic","title_en":"Period*, Postexilic","content_ro":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblicalPerspective\">The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCollapseoftheBabylonianEmpire\">The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>This occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 <span>BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePolicyofPersia\">The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>This is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\n<p>The new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnfromExile\">The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>The continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Work on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 <span>BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnofEzra\">The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>The traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 <span>BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 <span>BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 <span>BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 <span>BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 <span>BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 <span>BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\n<p>Ezra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NehemiahsReturnandMinistry\">Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Hanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRemainderofthePersianPeriod\">The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>Persian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 <span>BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 <span>BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReligiousFeaturesofthePostexilicPeriod\">Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>There were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n<p>1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\n<p>Some type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblicalPerspective\">The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCollapseoftheBabylonianEmpire\">The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>This occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 <span>BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePolicyofPersia\">The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>This is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\n<p>The new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnfromExile\">The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>The continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Work on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 <span>BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnofEzra\">The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>The traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 <span>BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 <span>BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 <span>BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 <span>BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 <span>BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 <span>BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\n<p>Ezra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NehemiahsReturnandMinistry\">Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Hanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRemainderofthePersianPeriod\">The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>Persian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 <span>BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 <span>BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReligiousFeaturesofthePostexilicPeriod\">Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>There were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n<p>1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\n<p>Some type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","summary_en":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":34697,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Shealtiel","title_en":"Shealtiel","content_ro":"<h3>SHEALTIEL<\/h3>\n<p>Son of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 <span>BC<\/span>) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable solution is that Shealtiel was the son of Neri and the heir apparent to the throne of Jeconiah and that, at Shealtiel’s death, Zerubbabel was next in succession.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHEALTIEL<\/h3>\n<p>Son of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 <span>BC<\/span>) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable solution is that Shealtiel was the son of Neri and the heir apparent to the throne of Jeconiah and that, at Shealtiel’s death, Zerubbabel was next in succession.<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHEALTIEL Son of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable so...","summary_en":"SHEALTIEL Son of King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) of Judah (598–597 BC) and the father of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel led the Jews back to Palestine and there ruled as governor of Judah during the postexilic period (Ezr 3:2; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14). In the genealogies of Jesus Christ, Shealtiel is variously mentioned as the son of Jeconiah (Mt 1:12) and as the son of Neri (Lk 3:27). In 1 Chronicles 3:17-19, Shealtiel appears to be the grandfather or perhaps the uncle of Zerubbabel. One probable so...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37019,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":39269,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Zerubbabel","title_en":"Zerubbabel","content_ro":"<h3>ZERUBBABEL<\/h3>\n<p>Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 <span>BC<\/span> to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. However, 1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, as Zerubbabel’s father.<\/p>\n<p>Two solutions have been proposed. Many scholars have assumed that Shealtiel died before fathering an heir. His brother, Pedaiah, would then have fathered Zerubbabel by Shealtiel’s widow. Hence, Zerubbabel would have retained the name of Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). This solution is weakened by its lack of textual support; similarly, the Chronicler would hardly have failed to state such an important piece of information if he had been desirous of “correcting” an error pertaining to Zerubbabel’s parentage.<\/p>\n<p>A simpler solution is obtained by reading the Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 3:19, which lists Salathiel (Shealtiel) as the father of Zerubbabel. In this way, the single reference to 1 Chronicles may be harmonized with the other verses cited above.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, whether Shealtiel or Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s biological father, it is clear that Zerubbabel was of Davidic lineage and was viewed by members of the Israelite community as a viable candidate for leading them back to a position of power.<\/p>\n<p>Following the edict of Cyrus in 538 <span>BC<\/span>, Jews were permitted to return to Palestine and reclaim their former homeland. Zerubbabel was appointed governor, and probably by the decade of 529–520 had started work on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. However, because of several discouraging events, little was accomplished until the year 520 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Haggai and Zechariah reveal much information about Zerubbabel’s standing in the community. These two prophets evidently viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel as the two men chosen by God for the task. Accordingly, in many of their oracles, support for one or both men is openly stated (e.g., Hg 2:21-23; Zec 3:8; 4:6-7; 6:12). The prophets viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel’s work as being messianic. This is most clearly seen in the vision of Zechariah (Zec 4:11-14). In the vision, two olive branches, one on either side of the lampstand, are identified as “the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” As the context clearly shows, none other than Jeshua (or Joshua; named in 3:1-9) and Zerubbabel (named in 4:6-10) are meant. Because of his association with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel had been accorded a place of great honor in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Some hold that Zerubbabel was known to the Persians as Sheshbazzar. <em>See<\/em> Sheshbazzar.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>ZERUBBABEL<\/h3>\n<p>Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 <span>BC<\/span> to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon.<\/p>\n<p>The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. However, 1 Chronicles 3:19 identifies Pedaiah, the brother of Shealtiel, as Zerubbabel’s father.<\/p>\n<p>Two solutions have been proposed. Many scholars have assumed that Shealtiel died before fathering an heir. His brother, Pedaiah, would then have fathered Zerubbabel by Shealtiel’s widow. Hence, Zerubbabel would have retained the name of Shealtiel rather than Pedaiah in accordance with the law of levirate marriage (Dt 25:5-10). This solution is weakened by its lack of textual support; similarly, the Chronicler would hardly have failed to state such an important piece of information if he had been desirous of “correcting” an error pertaining to Zerubbabel’s parentage.<\/p>\n<p>A simpler solution is obtained by reading the Septuagint text of 1 Chronicles 3:19, which lists Salathiel (Shealtiel) as the father of Zerubbabel. In this way, the single reference to 1 Chronicles may be harmonized with the other verses cited above.<\/p>\n<p>In either case, whether Shealtiel or Pedaiah was Zerubbabel’s biological father, it is clear that Zerubbabel was of Davidic lineage and was viewed by members of the Israelite community as a viable candidate for leading them back to a position of power.<\/p>\n<p>Following the edict of Cyrus in 538 <span>BC<\/span>, Jews were permitted to return to Palestine and reclaim their former homeland. Zerubbabel was appointed governor, and probably by the decade of 529–520 had started work on the reconstruction of the Jerusalem temple. However, because of several discouraging events, little was accomplished until the year 520 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The writings of Haggai and Zechariah reveal much information about Zerubbabel’s standing in the community. These two prophets evidently viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel as the two men chosen by God for the task. Accordingly, in many of their oracles, support for one or both men is openly stated (e.g., Hg 2:21-23; Zec 3:8; 4:6-7; 6:12). The prophets viewed Jeshua and Zerubbabel’s work as being messianic. This is most clearly seen in the vision of Zechariah (Zec 4:11-14). In the vision, two olive branches, one on either side of the lampstand, are identified as “the two anointed who stand by the Lord of the whole earth.” As the context clearly shows, none other than Jeshua (or Joshua; named in 3:1-9) and Zerubbabel (named in 4:6-10) are meant. Because of his association with the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem, Zerubbabel had been accorded a place of great honor in Jewish tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Some hold that Zerubbabel was known to the Persians as Sheshbazzar. <em>See<\/em> Sheshbazzar.<\/p>","summary_ro":"ZERUBBABEL Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon. The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. H...","summary_en":"ZERUBBABEL Babylonian-born Jew who returned to Palestine in 538 BC to serve as governor of Jerusalem under Persian rule. The name presumably means “seed [offspring] of Babylon,” referring to someone born in Babylon. The exact identity of Zerubbabel’s biological father is uncertain. All biblical references except one mention Shealtiel as his father (Ezr 3:2, 8; 5:2; Neh 12:1; Hg 1:1, 12-14; 2:2, 23; Mt 1:12-13; Lk 3:27). This would make Zerubbabel the grandson of the Davidic king Jehoiachin. H...","source":"Articles\/Z.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48006,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:2<\/strong> <em>Jeshua<\/em> (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • <em>Zerubbabel<\/em> served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:2<\/strong> <em>Jeshua<\/em> (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • <em>Zerubbabel<\/em> served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:2 Jeshua (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • Zerubbabel served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).","summary_en":"3:2 Jeshua (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • Zerubbabel served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75632,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:2<\/strong> <em>Jeshua<\/em> (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • <em>Zerubbabel<\/em> served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:2<\/strong> <em>Jeshua<\/em> (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • <em>Zerubbabel<\/em> served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:2 Jeshua (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • Zerubbabel served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).","summary_en":"3:2 Jeshua (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • Zerubbabel served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103258,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:2<\/strong> <em>Jeshua<\/em> (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • <em>Zerubbabel<\/em> served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:2<\/strong> <em>Jeshua<\/em> (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • <em>Zerubbabel<\/em> served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:2 Jeshua (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • Zerubbabel served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).","summary_en":"3:2 Jeshua (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • Zerubbabel served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130884,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:2","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:2","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:2<\/strong> <em>Jeshua<\/em> (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • <em>Zerubbabel<\/em> served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:2<\/strong> <em>Jeshua<\/em> (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • <em>Zerubbabel<\/em> served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:2 Jeshua (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • Zerubbabel served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).","summary_en":"3:2 Jeshua (Hag 1:1; Zech 3:1) was the high priest (Neh 12:1). However, Ezra never used this title (Ezra 2:2; 3:2; 4:3; 5:2), which suggests that the title was given after the Temple was completed (6:15). • Zerubbabel served as the Persian-appointed governor of Judah (Hag 1:1), most likely after the death of Sheshbazzar (see study note on Ezra 1:8). He was the grandson of King Jehoiachin of Judah (1 Chr 3:17).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62097,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89723,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117349,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144975,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"3":[{"id":48007,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:3<\/strong> The <em>local residents<\/em> were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 <span>BC<\/span>) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • <em>at its old site<\/em> (Literally <em>on its foundations<\/em>): It was important to place the altar at the exact sacred spot where Solomon’s altar had been to connect with the authentic worship carried on before the Exile. • Daily <em>morning and evening<\/em> sacrifices (see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) dedicated the day to God.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:3<\/strong> The <em>local residents<\/em> were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 <span>BC<\/span>) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • <em>at its old site<\/em> (Literally <em>on its foundations<\/em>): It was important to place the altar at the exact sacred spot where Solomon’s altar had been to connect with the authentic worship carried on before the Exile. • Daily <em>morning and evening<\/em> sacrifices (see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) dedicated the day to God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3 The local residents were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • at its old site (Literally on its foundations): It was important to place the altar...","summary_en":"3:3 The local residents were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • at its old site (Literally on its foundations): It was important to place the altar...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75633,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:3<\/strong> The <em>local residents<\/em> were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 <span>BC<\/span>) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • <em>at its old site<\/em> (Literally <em>on its foundations<\/em>): It was important to place the altar at the exact sacred spot where Solomon’s altar had been to connect with the authentic worship carried on before the Exile. • Daily <em>morning and evening<\/em> sacrifices (see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) dedicated the day to God.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:3<\/strong> The <em>local residents<\/em> were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 <span>BC<\/span>) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • <em>at its old site<\/em> (Literally <em>on its foundations<\/em>): It was important to place the altar at the exact sacred spot where Solomon’s altar had been to connect with the authentic worship carried on before the Exile. • Daily <em>morning and evening<\/em> sacrifices (see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) dedicated the day to God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3 The local residents were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • at its old site (Literally on its foundations): It was important to place the altar...","summary_en":"3:3 The local residents were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • at its old site (Literally on its foundations): It was important to place the altar...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103259,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:3<\/strong> The <em>local residents<\/em> were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 <span>BC<\/span>) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • <em>at its old site<\/em> (Literally <em>on its foundations<\/em>): It was important to place the altar at the exact sacred spot where Solomon’s altar had been to connect with the authentic worship carried on before the Exile. • Daily <em>morning and evening<\/em> sacrifices (see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) dedicated the day to God.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:3<\/strong> The <em>local residents<\/em> were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 <span>BC<\/span>) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • <em>at its old site<\/em> (Literally <em>on its foundations<\/em>): It was important to place the altar at the exact sacred spot where Solomon’s altar had been to connect with the authentic worship carried on before the Exile. • Daily <em>morning and evening<\/em> sacrifices (see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) dedicated the day to God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3 The local residents were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • at its old site (Literally on its foundations): It was important to place the altar...","summary_en":"3:3 The local residents were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • at its old site (Literally on its foundations): It was important to place the altar...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130885,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:3","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:3","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:3<\/strong> The <em>local residents<\/em> were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 <span>BC<\/span>) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • <em>at its old site<\/em> (Literally <em>on its foundations<\/em>): It was important to place the altar at the exact sacred spot where Solomon’s altar had been to connect with the authentic worship carried on before the Exile. • Daily <em>morning and evening<\/em> sacrifices (see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) dedicated the day to God.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:3<\/strong> The <em>local residents<\/em> were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 <span>BC<\/span>) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • <em>at its old site<\/em> (Literally <em>on its foundations<\/em>): It was important to place the altar at the exact sacred spot where Solomon’s altar had been to connect with the authentic worship carried on before the Exile. • Daily <em>morning and evening<\/em> sacrifices (see Exod 29:38-42; Num 28:3-8) dedicated the day to God.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:3 The local residents were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • at its old site (Literally on its foundations): It was important to place the altar...","summary_en":"3:3 The local residents were foreigners resettled from abroad by the Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–669 BC) after the people of the northern kingdom of Israel were exiled in 722 BC (2 Kgs 17:24-40). Some had moved into the Jerusalem area during Judah’s seventy-year exile. A pagan altar might have been erected on the site, and it needed to be torn down before the new one, dedicated to the Lord, could be built. • at its old site (Literally on its foundations): It was important to place the altar...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"4":[{"id":48008,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> The seven-day <em>Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law<\/em> (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> The seven-day <em>Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law<\/em> (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4 The seven-day Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.","summary_en":"3:4 The seven-day Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75634,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> The seven-day <em>Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law<\/em> (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> The seven-day <em>Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law<\/em> (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4 The seven-day Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.","summary_en":"3:4 The seven-day Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103260,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> The seven-day <em>Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law<\/em> (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> The seven-day <em>Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law<\/em> (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4 The seven-day Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.","summary_en":"3:4 The seven-day Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130886,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:4","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:4","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> The seven-day <em>Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law<\/em> (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:4<\/strong> The seven-day <em>Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law<\/em> (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:4 The seven-day Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.","summary_en":"3:4 The seven-day Festival of Shelters . . . prescribed in the Law (Lev 23:33-36; Num 29:12-38; Deut 16:13-16) reminded the people of God’s guidance and care during the forty years the nation spent in tents during the wilderness journey from Egypt to the Promised Land. This festival was especially significant to those who had just experienced a similar journey from a foreign land, living in tents as they walked to the Promised Land.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"5":[{"id":28328,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Offerings and Sacrifices","title_en":"Offerings and Sacrifices","content_ro":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES<\/h3>\n<p>Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PerformanceandOrderofSacrifices\">Performance and Order of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial ritual is the opening section of Leviticus (Lv 1–7). It consists of two separate parts. The first (1:1–6:7) is didactic, dealing with two categories of sacrifice: those of a “pleasing odor,” namely, the burnt (1:1-17), the grain (2:1-16), and the peace offerings (3:1-17); and the expiatory sacrifices, namely, the sin (4:1–5:13) and the guilt or trespass offerings (5:14–6:7). Attention is paid to the minute details of each ritual, and they are grouped according to their logical or conceptual associations.<\/p>\n<p>The grain (or cereal) offering follows the burnt offering because it always accompanied it in actual practice (Nm 15:1-21; chs 28–29); it also went with the peace offering (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:3-4). Special emphasis is placed on burning the inward parts of a sacrifice on the altar to make a “pleasing odor to the Lord” (Lv 1:9, 17; 2:2, 9, 12; 3:5, 11, 16). When the Lord smelled the pleasing odor (Gn 8:21), it was a sign of divine favor; refusal indicated God’s displeasure (Lv 26:31). The officiating priest evidently knew how to read the signs and would tell the offerer whether his sacrifice had been accepted (1 Sm 26:19; cf. Am 5:21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The sin and guilt offerings were expiatory (Lv 4:1–6:7, 20). The situations requiring such offerings are listed, and special emphasis is laid on the handling of the blood in the ritual.<\/p>\n<p>The second major section in this passage (Lv 6:8–7:38) stresses the administrative details for the various offerings. This section consists of a series of “instructions” for each type of offering pertaining to the distribution of the sacrificial materials. Some went to the priest(s), some went to the offerer, and others were burned on the altar or disposed of outside the camp. Those sacrifices designated as “most holy” were to be eaten only by qualified members of the priesthood (Lv 2:3, 10; 10:12-17; 14:13; Nm 18:9).<\/p>\n<p>The burnt offering is discussed first because it was entirely consumed on the altar (and thus not eaten by anyone). After it, there follow the sacrifices distributed to the officiants (Lv 6:17, 26, 29; 7:1, 6), and at the end come the peace offerings, a significant portion of which was returned to the offender.<\/p>\n<p>The order in which the sacrifices are treated in this passage also corresponds to their relative frequency in the rituals of the sacred calendar (Nm 28:19; 2 Chr 31:3; Ez 45:17). This would be particularly important for the priests and Levites on duty at the temple because they were responsible for the logistics of the daily sacrificial ritual, especially on the high holidays; management of the temple storehouse was a formidable task (1 Chr 23:28-32; 26:15, 20-22; 2 Chr 13:10-11; 30:3-19; 34:9-11).<\/p>\n<p>Each section concerning a particular offering concludes with the logistic or administrative details peculiar to it. There then follows a summary of the matters treated thus far (Lv 7:7-10), and the section concludes with a treatment of the peace offerings (vv 11-36). The latter did not play a role in the sacred calendar except during the Feast of Weeks (23:19-20); on all other occasions, with the two exceptions of the Nazirite vow and the installation of the priesthood, peace offerings were purely voluntary sacrifices and thus not subject to any fixed bookkeeping.<\/p>\n<p>In other biblical contexts, the sacrifices are listed according to the same “bookkeeping” or “administrative” order: burnt, grain, and drink; sin (or guilt); and sometimes peace offerings. An example is the roster of donations made by the tribal leaders for dedication of the altar (Nm 7). The information is organized like an everyday ledger from the temple storehouse; the summary classifies the animals as burnt, grain, sin, and peace offerings (vv 87-88) in accordance with the respective entries from each donor (vv 15-17). The Levitical scribe had two purposes for such a record: to credit the offerers and to record the treasures and food supplies coming in. Much of the foodstuffs being given as offerings was actually apportioned to the officiating priests (Nm 18:8-11; 2 Chr 31:4-19).<\/p>\n<p>When prescriptions were made as to the type and number of offerings to be brought (e.g., Nm 15:24), the “bookkeeping” order is generally followed. This was true of the calendarial sacrifices; burnt and grain offerings and libations were listed, followed by a sin offering for each of the following: New Moon (Nm 28:11-15), each day of Passover (vv 19-22), the Festival of Weeks (Lv 23:18-19; Nm 28:27-30), Trumpets (29:2-5), Day of Atonement (vv 8-11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 12-16).<\/p>\n<p>For sacrifices required in specific cases, the instructions as to what offerings to bring follow this sequence (e.g., the purification of a woman after giving birth, Lv 12:6-8). Note also the offerings given at the successful termination of a Nazirite vow; the Nazirite brought burnt, sin, and peace offerings (with some special grain offerings, Nm 6:14-15). However, the priest conducted the actual ritual according to a different order; the sin offering was made first, followed by the burnt offering and finally the peace offering (vv 16-17). In the case of an incomplete vow, the first step was to offer a sin offering and then a burnt offering to renew the vow (v 11). The reconsecration of the Nazirite required a separate guilt offering—a distinct ritual act (v 12).<\/p>\n<p>The description of the offerings made by the prince of Israel in the latter days presents the same contrast between the two orders of sacrifices. On festival holidays the prince brought burnt, grain, and drink offerings, but he offered them as sin, grain, burnt, and peace offerings (Ez 45:17). This second order of sacrifices in which the sin offering precedes the burnt offering was also followed in the rededication of the altar (43:18-27).<\/p>\n<p>The same “procedural” sequence of sacrifices appears in other instances: the purification of the leper—guilt and sin offerings (Lv 14:19), followed by a burnt offering (vv 12-20); the man with a discharge—sin and burnt offerings (15:15); likewise the woman with a discharge (v 30). The same order is followed for the sacrifices on the Day of Atonement (16:3-6, 11, 15, 24).<\/p>\n<p>The book of Leviticus furnishes two examples of the proper order in which sacrifices were offered. One is the ordination of Aaron and his sons. The sin offering came first and then the burnt offering (Ex 29:10-18; Lv 8:14-21). The focal point in this ritual was the sacrifice of ordination, or literally “installation,” a special form of peace offering (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-29). The second passage is the formal inauguration of the sacrificial system at the tabernacle (Lv 9). The sacrifices for Aaron were sin and burnt offerings, followed by those for the people: sin, burnt, grain, and peace offerings (9:7-22).<\/p>\n<p>The same sequence is followed at the cleansing and restoration of the temple in Jerusalem conducted by King Hezekiah (2 Chr 29:20-36). A great sin offering was first, followed by the burnt offerings accompanied by music and song. Then the king proclaimed that the people had committed themselves to the Lord; in this new state of purity they could now share in the sacrifices of devotion (burnt offerings) and thanksgiving (peace offerings).<\/p>\n<p>The procedural order of the sacrifices embodies the OT ideology of how God may be approached. First, atonement for sin had to be made and then total consecration of self; these are symbolized by the sin and\/or guilt offerings and the burnt and grain offerings, respectively. When these conditions were met, the offerer could express his continued devotion by more burnt offerings and also take part in the fellowship sacrifices (peace offerings) in which he himself got a large portion of the slaughtered animal (to share with his friends and the poor in his community; Dt 12:17-19).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"DescriptionofSacrifices\">Description of Sacrifices<\/p>\n<p>The ensuing description of the different types of sacrifice will treat them in accordance with the “procedural” order, that is, as symbolic stages in one’s approach to God.<\/p>\n<h5>Expiation<\/h5>\n<p>These two offerings were required for making atonement for sins and trespasses:<\/p>\n<p>1. Sin offering (Lv 4:1–5:13; 6:24-30). Different animals were specified in accordance with the rank of the offerer. A high priest had to bring a young bull (4:3), as did the congregation as a whole (v 14), except when the matter was a ritual infraction (Nm 15:24). A ruler would bring a male goat (Lv 4:23), but a commoner could provide a female goat (v 28; Nm 15:27) or a lamb (Lv 4:32). If he was indigent, he could offer two turtledoves or two young pigeons (one of which would be a burnt offering; 5:7), or if he was extremely poor, he might even substitute a tenth of an ephah of fine flour (Lv 5:11-13; cf. Heb 9:22).<\/p>\n\n<p>The offerer brought the animal to the entrance of the temple court and laid his hand on it (Lv 4:4). He did not confess his sin in this act because the animal was not being sent away (cf. the goat for Azazel, 16:21); rather, he was identifying himself with the sacrifice. The offerer had to kill the animal on the north side of the altar (4:24, 29). The animals were never slaughtered on the altar proper. The officiating priest collected the blood; when it was a bull for himself or for the congregation, he sprinkled some of the blood before the veil inside the tent of meeting and put some on the horns of the incense altar (vv 5-7, 16-18). On the Day of Atonement he brought the sacrificial blood for himself and for the people into the Holy of Holies (16:14-15). From all other animals, the blood was applied to the horns of the altar of burnt offering (4:25, 30, 34); the blood of fowl was sprinkled on the side of the altar (5:9). Finally, the remaining blood from any offering was poured or drained out at the base of the altar (4:7).<\/p>\n<p>The choicest of the internal organs, namely, the fatty tissue over and on the entrails, the two kidneys and their fat, and the appendage to the liver, were all offered to the Lord on the altar (Lv 4:8-10). The carcass and the other entrails were burned outside the camp when it was a bull for the priest or for the people. This was also true of the bull for the ordination of the priests (Ex 29:10-14; Lv 8:14-17). Otherwise, the priest who conducted the rites received the edible flesh as his portion. He had to eat it within the temple area, and its preparation was governed by strict rules of ritual purity (Lv 6:25-30; cf. 10:16-20). A sin offering of one male goat was presented at each of the sacred holidays: the New Moon (Nm 28:15), each day of Passover (vv 22-24), the Festival of Weeks (v 30), the Festival of Trumpets (29:5), the Day of Atonement (v 11), and each day of the Feast of Tabernacles (vv 16, 19). The high priest also offered a bull for himself and then sacrificed one of the two goats on the Day of Atonement. Certain purification rites required lesser sin offerings, namely, lambs or birds: childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), cleansing from leprosy (14:12-14, 19-22), and abscesses and hemorrhages (15:14-15, 29-30) or after defilement while under a vow (Nm 6:10-11).<\/p>\n<li>2. Guilt offering (Lv 5:14–6:7; 7:1-7). The guilt or trespass offering was a special kind of sin offering (cf. 5:7) required whenever someone had been denied his rightful due. Reparation of the valued amount that had been defrauded had to be made, plus a fine of one-fifth (5:16; 6:5). The animal was usually a ram (5:15, 18; 6:6). The cleansed leper and the defiled Nazirite had to bring a male lamb (Lv 14:12, 21; Nm 6:12). The offerer apparently handled the sacrifice as he would a sin offering, but the priest had to sprinkle the blood around the altar (Lv 7:2). Viscera were burned on the altar as usual (vv 3-5). Some of the blood was then applied to the tip of the cleansed leper’s right ear and to his right thumb and big toe (14:14). Again the priest received most of the animal’s flesh for food (7:6-7; 14:13). A guilt offering was required whenever another party had suffered some loss. Ritual infractions, such as eating the “holy things” without proper authorization (5:14-19; 22:14), called for payment of the sum that should have gone to the Lord plus the fine of one-fifth that went to the priest (Lv 5:16; 2 Kgs 12:16). The leper belongs in this category, since during the time of his infection he was unable to render service to God (Lv 14:12-18). The same applies to the Nazirite who had suffered defilement while he was set apart to God by the vow; thus a guilt offering was required (Nm 6:12). Violation of another person’s property rights could be expiated only by the guilt offering and its additional one-fifth. Such matters included cheating on deposits or security, robbery or oppression, failing to report the find of some lost property, or false swearing or failing to testify (Lv 6:1-5). Intercourse with a betrothed slave girl was also a violation of property rights (19:20-22). If the offended party was no longer living and had no surviving kinsmen, the payment went to the priest (Nm 5:5-10).<\/li>\n<h5>Consecration Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These rituals usually come to mind when one hears the word “offering.” They represent acts of personal commitment that must accompany the repentance expressed in the sin and guilt offerings. They were also a prerequisite for the fellowship or communal sacrifices that might follow.<\/p>\n<p>1. Burnt offering (Lv 1:3-17; 6:8-13). The burnt offering could be a bull, a sheep, or a bird. The offerer presented the animal, laid his hand on it, and killed it on the north side of the altar. The bird was simply given to the priest. The latter collected the blood, presented it before God, and then sprinkled it around the altar. When the offering was a bird, he wrung off its head and drained the blood at the side of the altar. Though the slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood relates the burnt offering to the expiatory sacrifices of the previous section, the main emphasis here is on killing the animal, washing its unclean parts, and then carefully arranging all of the pieces on the altar. All of this was then consumed on the altar as a pleasing odor to the Lord. Since burnt offerings were offered morning and evening, a good supply of wood by the altar was necessary. The officiating priest, dressed in proper garments, had to keep the fire burning continuously (6:8-13).<\/p>\n<p>Burnt offerings played a prominent role in the sacrifices of the ritual calendar. The continual burnt offering was made twice a day, a male lamb morning and evening (Ex 29:38-42; Nm 28:1-8). Two additional lambs were sacrificed each Sabbath (Nm 28:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>Except for these daily offerings, a sin offering of one goat was usually made along with the burnt offerings on the following holidays: For the New Moon at the beginning of each month, two young bulls, one ram, and seven male lambs were offered (Nm 28:11-14). The same were required for each day of the Passover festival (vv 19-24) and again on the Feast of Weeks (vv 6-29). On the Festival of Trumpets and the Day of Atonement, the requirement was one bull, one ram, and seven lambs (29:2-4).<\/p>\n<p>The great Feast of Tabernacles was characterized by a series of elaborate burnt offerings, plus one goat per day as a sin offering. On the first day, 13 young bulls, 2 rams, and 14 male lambs were offered (Nm 29:12-16). Each successive day, the number of bulls was decreased by one until on the seventh day there were only seven (the rams and lambs remained the same; 29:17-25). On the eighth day the animals required for Trumpets and Atonement were offered, namely, one bull, one ram, and seven lambs.<\/p>\n<p>Certain rituals of purification also required burnt offerings in addition to sin offerings: after childbirth (Lv 12:6-8), abscesses (15:14-15), and discharges (vv 29-30); or after defilement while under a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:10-11). Though it is not stated that grain offerings were required in these cases, they certainly were for the cleansing from leprosy (Lv 14:10, 19-22, 31) and the completion of the Nazirite vow (Nm 6:14-16).<\/p>\n<li>2. Grain (Cereal) offering (Lv 2; 6:14-23). The Hebrew term referring to this particular offering means “gift,” or “offering,” including animals (Gn 4:3-5; Jgs 6:18; 1 Sm 2:17). But in the specific sacrificial context it signifies a combination of fine flour, olive oil, and frankincense that could be made up in the form of baked loaves, wafers, or morsels. The offering of firstfruits was to be crushed heads of new grain (Lv 2:14). No leaven or honey was permitted on the cakes, although those same commodities could be accepted as a firstfruit offering. They would not go to the altar but were given to the priest. The offerer had to bring the prepared loaves or wafers to the temple. The priest would burn one handful on the altar as its “memorial portion” (v 2), keeping the remainder for his own food (6:16; 7:9). But when the priest was making a grain offering on his own behalf, he burnt it all on the altar (6:22-23).<\/li>\n<p>A grain offering was usually given with every burnt offering, especially those pertaining to the sacred calendar (Nm 28–29). The amounts of flour and oil were set according to the animal being sacrificed: three-tenths of an ephah of flour and one-half a hin of oil for a bull, two-tenths ephah and one-third hin for a ram, and one-tenth ephah plus one-fourth hin for a lamb (15:2-10). Other happy occasions for a grain offering included the cleansing of a leper (Lv 14:10, 20-21, 31; unspecified quantity of grain with a bird) and the successful consummation of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:13-15).<\/p>\n<p>Peace offerings were invariably followed by grain offerings (Lv 7:12-14; Nm 15:4). The priest received one of each pair of cakes or wafers. The remainder was returned to the offerer to be eaten with the flesh of the sacrificial animal at a place of his choice.<\/p>\n<p>A special case where such offering was used was the one-tenth of an ephah of barley meal required in the jealousy ritual. It was to have no oil or frankincense (Nm 5:15, 18, 25-26). A very poor individual was permitted to bring one-tenth of an ephah of fine flour without oil or frankincense as a sin offering (Lv 5:11-13).<\/p>\n<li>3. Drink offering (Nm 15:1-10). The standard libation was one-fourth of a hin of wine for a lamb, one-third for a ram, and one-half for a bull. The wine (Ex 29:40), also called “strong drink” (Nm 28:7), is probably an intentional substitute for the blood used by other nations (Ps 16:4). The libation was classed as a “pleasing odor” offering (Nm 15:7). As with the burnt offering, the entire drink offering was expended; nothing was given to the priest (28:7).<\/li>\n<p>Drink offerings accompanied the daily offering (Ex 29:40-41; Nm 28:7) and the Sabbath offering (Nm 28:9), as well as the New Moon festival. Reference is also made to them in connection with the second and following days of the Feast of Tabernacles (29:18, 21); for the first day their absence is probably unintentional. The same might hold true for the Passover, Firstfruits, and Feast of Trumpets (Nm 28:16–29:11; cf. Ez 45:11). A libation was required for the rites concluding a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17) but not for cleansing a leper (Lv 14:10-20).<\/p>\n<h5>Fellowship Offerings<\/h5>\n<p>These sacrifices were voluntary on the part of the offerer and generally not imposed by regulations except for the Nazirite (Nm 6:17) and the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20). An offerer who had already fulfilled the ritual requirements for atonement and personal consecration was permitted to make a fellowship offering. Burnt offerings often accompanied the fellowship sacrifices as a further expression of devotion.<\/p>\n<p>1. Peace offering (Lv 3; 7:11-36; Am 5:22). This is the basic class of all fellowship or communal offerings; the others are simply subclasses of the peace offering. In terms of holiness, or restrictedness, they were not so rigidly confined as the other offerings. Animals from the herd or flock, male or female (Lv 3:1, 6, 12), were permitted. The usual stipulation of freedom from blemish was in force, except in the case of the freewill offering, in which the animal could have one limb longer than the other (22:23). Unleavened cakes were also required, at least for the thank (7:12-13) and Nazirite (Nm 6:15-19) offerings. Each of these three types of peace offerings will be discussed below, with their special features.<\/p>\n<p>The first parts of the ritual—the presentation and laying on of the hand—were identical to those of the other sacrifices. However, the animal was slaughtered at the door of the sanctuary courtyard and not on the north side of the altar (Lv 3:1-2, 7-8, 12-13; 7:29-30). The priest collected the blood and tossed it against the altar as he did with the burnt offering (3:2, 8, 13). The choice viscera were offered up as a “pleasing odor” (3:3-5, 6-11, 14-16).<\/p>\n<p>The priest also received a certain portion of the offering. He was allowed to eat it in any ritually clean place and to share it with his family (Lv 7:14, 30-36; Nm 6:20), in contrast to his portion of other sacrifices, which he had to eat somewhere in the temple compound (Nm 18:10-11). He received one of the cakes and the breast as a wave offering and the right thigh as a contribution for the offerer. This latter is the so-called “heave offering”; the technical term developed from a root signifying “to be high” and meaning “that which is lifted up.” The heave offering did not really represent a special kind of ritual ceremony.<\/p>\n<p>The ritual act of the peace offering culminated with a fellowship meal. Except for those parts on the altar or given to the priest, the body of the animal was returned to the man who offered it. He had to prepare it as a communal meal for himself, for his family, and for the Levite in his community (Dt 12:12, 18-19). This would have to be at the official sanctuary (Dt 12:6-7, 11-12, 15-19; cf. 1 Sm 1:3-4) and the participants had to observe strict rules of purity (Lv 7:19-21; 19:5-8). It may be contrasted with the ritual slaughtering of animals for a banquet that was permitted at any local altar (Dt 12:16, 20-22). The flesh of the thank offering had to be eaten on the same day of the sacrifice (Lv 7:15), while that of the votive or freewill offerings could be finished off on the following day (vv 16-18). Whatever remained then had to be burned before the time limit expired.<\/p>\n<p>Only three times is there a specific demand for a peace offering: in the Feast of Weeks (Lv 23:19-20), upon completion of a Nazirite vow (Nm 6:17-20), and at the installation of the priesthood (Ex 29:19-22, 28). Other public ritual occasions included the inauguration of the temple (1 Kgs 8:63; 2 Chr 7:5). Events on a national level that evoked the peace offering were the successful conclusion of a military campaign (1 Sm 11:15), the end of a famine or pestilence (2 Sm 24:25), confirmation of a candidate to the throne (1 Kgs 1:9, 19), or a time of religious revival (2 Chr 29:31-36). On the local level, they were offered at the annual family reunion (1 Sm 20:6) or other festive occasions, such as the harvest of the firstfruits (Ex 22:29-31; 1 Sm 9:11-14, 22-24; 16:4-5).<\/p>\n<li>2. Wave offering. The first portion of the peace offering was “waved” before the Lord to signify that the priest was eating it as a representative of God (the actual motion evidently resembled the wielding of a saw or a staff, Is 10:15). The same technical term, “wave offering,” was also used for other kinds of offering: precious metals donated for making the cultic artifacts (Ex 35:22; 38:29) and the guilt offering of the cleansed leper (Lv 14:12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Freewill offering. These gifts, brought to the holy convocations that took place three times per year (Ex 23:16; 34:20; Dt 16:10, 16-17; 2 Chr 35:8; Ezr 3:5), were voluntary (Lv 7:16; 22:18, 21-23; 23:28; Nm 15:3; 29:39; Dt 12:6, 17). Like the voluntary offering, the freewill offering could be a burnt rather than a peace offering (Lv 22:17-24; Ez 46:12). If it was the latter, the flesh could be eaten on the second day but must be burned before the third (Lv 7:16-17). Unlike some other peace offerings, the animal being sacrificed could have one limb longer than the other (22:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Installation offering. This Hebrew term refers to the settings of precious stones (Ex 25:7; 35:9, 27; 1 Chr 29:2), so “installation” seems an appropriate translation. It had to do with “filling the hand,” a ritual act that consecrated someone to divine service (Ex 28:41; cf. 32:29) and required ritual purity and spiritual devotion (2 Chr 29:31). The details of the original ceremony at the installation of the first priest is described in two passages (Ex 29:19-34; Lv 8:22-32).<\/li>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Atonement; Cleanness and Uncleanness, Regulations Concerning; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; Tabernacle; Temple.<\/p>","summary_ro":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","summary_en":"OFFERINGS AND SACRIFICES Major ritual expressions of religious life with accompanying rites, such as libations, effusions, and sacred meals. The ideology expressed in Israel’s ritual complex made its religion unique in the ancient Near East. The concepts of OT ritual also underlie NT theology with regard to sin and reconciliation to God through the atoning death of Jesus Christ. Performance and Order of Sacrifices The main source for a description of the correct performance of sacrificial rit...","source":"Articles\/O.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48009,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The <em>new moon celebrations<\/em> took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • <em>Voluntary offerings<\/em> were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Exod 35:29; 36:3). The Hebrew term can also refer to peace offerings of meat or bread that were eaten to celebrate fellowship with God (Lev 7:11-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The <em>new moon celebrations<\/em> took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • <em>Voluntary offerings<\/em> were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Exod 35:29; 36:3). The Hebrew term can also refer to peace offerings of meat or bread that were eaten to celebrate fellowship with God (Lev 7:11-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5-6 The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The new moon celebrations took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • Voluntary offerings were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Ex...","summary_en":"3:5-6 The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The new moon celebrations took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • Voluntary offerings were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Ex...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75635,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The <em>new moon celebrations<\/em> took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • <em>Voluntary offerings<\/em> were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Exod 35:29; 36:3). The Hebrew term can also refer to peace offerings of meat or bread that were eaten to celebrate fellowship with God (Lev 7:11-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The <em>new moon celebrations<\/em> took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • <em>Voluntary offerings<\/em> were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Exod 35:29; 36:3). The Hebrew term can also refer to peace offerings of meat or bread that were eaten to celebrate fellowship with God (Lev 7:11-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5-6 The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The new moon celebrations took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • Voluntary offerings were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Ex...","summary_en":"3:5-6 The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The new moon celebrations took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • Voluntary offerings were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Ex...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103261,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The <em>new moon celebrations<\/em> took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • <em>Voluntary offerings<\/em> were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Exod 35:29; 36:3). The Hebrew term can also refer to peace offerings of meat or bread that were eaten to celebrate fellowship with God (Lev 7:11-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The <em>new moon celebrations<\/em> took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • <em>Voluntary offerings<\/em> were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Exod 35:29; 36:3). The Hebrew term can also refer to peace offerings of meat or bread that were eaten to celebrate fellowship with God (Lev 7:11-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5-6 The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The new moon celebrations took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • Voluntary offerings were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Ex...","summary_en":"3:5-6 The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The new moon celebrations took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • Voluntary offerings were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Ex...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130887,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:5","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:5","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The <em>new moon celebrations<\/em> took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • <em>Voluntary offerings<\/em> were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Exod 35:29; 36:3). The Hebrew term can also refer to peace offerings of meat or bread that were eaten to celebrate fellowship with God (Lev 7:11-21).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:5-6<\/strong> The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The <em>new moon celebrations<\/em> took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • <em>Voluntary offerings<\/em> were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Exod 35:29; 36:3). The Hebrew term can also refer to peace offerings of meat or bread that were eaten to celebrate fellowship with God (Lev 7:11-21).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:5-6 The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The new moon celebrations took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • Voluntary offerings were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Ex...","summary_en":"3:5-6 The catalog of sacrifices, offered even before the Temple’s foundation was laid, showed the people’s enthusiasm for faithfully worshiping God at every opportunity. They did everything exactly as they were instructed in the law. • The new moon celebrations took place on the first day of every Hebrew month; the sacrifices and blowing of trumpets reminded the people of God’s covenant with them (Num 10:10; 28:11-15). • Voluntary offerings were such gifts as money for building the Temple (Ex...","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"6":[{"id":6462,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Bible* (Old Testament), Chronology","title_en":"of the Bible* (Old Testament), Chronology","content_ro":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament)<\/h3>\n<p>Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper historical background of the biblical texts. In general, the chronology of the OT is understood well enough to vindicate the basic accuracy and sequential order of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Both biblical and nonbiblical materials are utilized by students of OT chronology. Biblical data include (1) genealogies showing personal and tribal affiliations among various peoples; (2) specific numbers given by biblical authors to indicate a person’s longevity, a king’s reign, or the duration of a specific event; (3) synchronizing statements that date an event in a specific year of a king’s reign or relate it to a natural phenomenon assumed to be common knowledge at the time of writing (e.g., Am 1:1; Zec 14:5).<\/p>\n<p>From the abundance of such chronological passages in the OT, one might conclude that establishment of OT dates and sequences would be a simple procedure. Each of the three kinds of biblical materials, however, exhibits special problems that must be solved first.<\/p>\n<p>Nonbiblical materials that shed light on OT chronology are quite numerous, and more are discovered year by year. They include (1) official records of important affairs such as military campaigns from countries like Egypt or Babylonia; (2) official inscriptions that are dedicatory or commemorate a great victory; (3) annals listing major accomplishments of a ruler year by year; (4) ostraca (inscribed pieces of pottery) containing letters, tax transactions and economic records, military dispatches between field leaders and command headquarters, or other information. Ostraca may be dated archaeologically and are often used to supplement the biblical record.<\/p>\n<p>The chronologist tries to examine the pertinent biblical and nonbiblical information, notes areas of correlation among all the data, and finally establishes a working system into which the most facts can be fitted. New evidence uncovered at any time may necessitate shifts in the present working system. Although the basic structure of biblical chronology seems reasonably firm, many details will no doubt be subject to change as new evidence is discovered.<\/p>\n<p>As a general rule, the earlier the period, the less certain one can be of one’s dating. In the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, for example, many dates can be assigned within a range of about 100 years. By the time of David and Solomon (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>), the margin of error over which scholars debate is a decade or less. The range narrows as one comes toward the present, so that, with the exception of one or two problem eras, dates accurate to within one or two years are possible by roughly the middle of the ninth century <span>BC<\/span>. Such limitations must be kept in mind in any examination of the major periods of OT history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<p>• From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n<p>• The Monarchy<\/p>\n<p>• Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n<p>• Beyond 587 <span>BC<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PrepatriarchalPeriod\">Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<h5>Biblical Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>In the first 11 chapters of Genesis are found accounts of the Creation (chs 1–2), the fall (ch 3), Cain and Abel (ch 4), the Flood (chs 6–9), and the Tower of Babel (ch 11). Those events are set within a certain chronological framework.<\/p>\n<p>According to Genesis 5, a period of 10 generations elapsed between the Creation and the Flood. Although the individuals listed enjoyed a total life span of a hefty 847 years plus, the total time elapsing between Adam and the Flood was only 1,656 years.<\/p>\n<p>According to Genesis 11, another 10 generations elapsed from the time of the Flood until the time of Abraham (at least in the Septuagint, the third-century <span>BC<\/span> Greek translation of the OT; the Hebrew Masoretic text has 9). In that period the average age attained by individuals in the list is 346 years (using a figure of 460 for Arphaxad’s son Cainan, who is included in v 13 of the LXX; cf. Lk 3:36); the total elapsed time from the Flood to Abraham is only 520 years. Taken literally, that would mean that all of Abraham’s ancestors as far back as Noah’s son Shem were still alive at Abraham’s birth, and that a total of only 2,176 years elapsed from the time of Creation to Abraham.<\/p>\n<h5>Interpretation of the Biblical Data<\/h5>\n<p>A literalistic or slavishly mathematical interpretation of the figures, as has appeared in the margin of many <span>kjv<\/span> Bibles, requires a number of assumptions: that no names are omitted from the genealogies, that all the numbers given are consecutive, and especially that numbers used in an ancient biblical source carry the same meaning as that associated with them in the modern Western mind. Each assumption needs serious examination in the light of other established facts.<\/p>\n<p>A cursory reading of other biblical genealogies, for example, reveals that not all the names of a given family were always included. Even Matthew recorded a total of 28 generations (two sets of 14 each) between David and Jesus, and comparison with OT genealogies reveals that Matthew omitted several names. Luke listed a total of 42 generations for the same interval. Omissions are also obvious when one compares the genealogical lists given in 1 Chronicles 1–8 with those recorded earlier in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings.<\/p>\n<p>Further, ancient peoples thought of numbers in a schematic or stylized way. Use of numbers among the ancient Near Eastern nations differed sharply from current Western practice. Examples of that practice are known from both biblical and nonbiblical sources. For example, a list of eight Sumerian kings who ruled in the city of Shurruppak before the “great flood” of the Jemdet Nar era (c. 3000 <span>BC<\/span>) assigns each man an average reign of more than 30,000 years. Berossus, a Babylonian priest of Marduk living in the third century <span>BC<\/span>, added two names to the eight found in that earlier list of kings and assigned an average of 43,200 years to each king. Such extraordinarily high numbers provide a perspective for considering the numbers of Genesis.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, although one can assume that the numbers assigned to the ages of the patriarchs preceding Abraham in Genesis had real meaning for those responsible for their preservation, they should not be employed in a purely literal sense to compute the length of the various generations mentioned in the text. Further, the numbers given in the Septuagint and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, another early version of the Pentateuch, diverge in many details from those of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That means, among other things, that the Genesis numbers caused problems for even the earliest scholars of Scripture.<\/p>\n<h5>Nonbiblical Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>Archaeology provides no evidence that may be used to date either the Creation or any other account preserved in Genesis 1–11. The Flood is an example that illustrates some of the difficulties. Many claims have been made by persons from a wide variety of backgrounds (scientists, explorers, theologians, and others) to the effect that archaeology has proven the Genesis Flood narrative to be true. Yet no city so far excavated in Palestine and Syria (including some of the oldest towns in the world) shows archaeological evidence of the Flood.<\/p>\n<p>Although several cities in Mesopotamia do exhibit evidence of a flood, three factors make it difficult to link that evidence with Genesis 6–9. Each of the flood levels so far discovered dates from a different period. Further, since nearby sites show no evidence of flooding, all of the Mesopotamian flood evidence points to relatively small local floods. Finally, the evidence indicates no great cultural discontinuities of the sort that would result from destruction of an entire population. Thus, it seems that the ancient Mesopotamian floods discovered through archaeological research are of the same kind as the floods that still occur in the Euphrates River valley.<\/p>\n<p>Clearly, certain questions one might ask of the Genesis narratives simply cannot be answered. Many who regard the Bible as the Word of God have concluded that the dating of events found in Genesis 1–11 must be less important than the theological truths of salvation, faith, and obedience that these accounts present.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FromAbrahamtoMoses\">From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchal Age<\/h5>\n<p>The date of Abraham is still a lively topic among biblical scholars who agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed historical persons. Opinions range from an early-date view that estimates that the patriarchal age extended from 2086 to 1871 <span>BC<\/span>, to a late-date view placing Abraham at around 1400 <span>BC<\/span>. Since each position claims to fit the biblical data, a closer look at the two points of view is in order.<\/p>\n<p>Many OT passages seem to support the view that puts Abraham at a comparatively early date. First Kings 6:1 computes 480 years back from the founding of the temple in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (961 <span>BC<\/span>, according to the early-date view) to the exodus from Egypt, which would then be dated 1441 <span>BC<\/span>. Counting 430 years as the period of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt (see Gn 15:13; Ex 12:40) takes the date back to 1871 <span>BC<\/span>. To that date are added the 215 years demanded by the total of (1) Abraham’s age upon entering Canaan (75 years according to Gn 12:4); (2) 25 additional years before the birth of Isaac (Gn 21:5); (3) 60 more years to the birth of Jacob (Gn 25:26); and (4) the appearance of Jacob before the pharaoh at age 130 (Gn 47:9). Those 215 years added to the previous total give a date of 2086 <span>BC<\/span> for the entrance of Abraham into Canaan and a date of 2161 <span>BC<\/span> for his birth.<\/p>\n<p>Such a calculation does not use all of the chronological evidence presented in the OT; consequently, the date for Abraham is open to challenge. For example, the 480 years between the exodus and Solomon’s fourth regnal year represent a period of time into which the wilderness wanderings, the career of Joshua and his immediate successors, the period of the judges, Samuel, Saul, and David must all be placed. Although the OT does not specifically say how long were the careers of Joshua, Samuel, or Saul, even a modest reckoning pushes the total years required by all the biblical data together to approximately 600.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the length of time to be assigned to the Egyptian sojourn is problematic. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both view the number 430 (in Ex 12:40) as applicable not only to the years in Egypt but to the years of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Canaan as well. Evidently Paul followed the Septuagint tradition when he dated the giving of the law 430 years later than the time of God’s promise to Abraham (see Gal 3:15-18). That means the Septuagint figure cannot be dismissed lightly.<\/p>\n<p>The late dating of Abraham (c. 1400 <span>BC<\/span>) is based on two propositions: (1) The picture of patriarchal society portrayed in Genesis most closely parallels that reflected in the cuneiform tablets recovered from Nuzi, a town in northeastern Mesopotamia about 175 miles (282 kilometers) north of Baghdad. (2) Because those tablets must be dated in the 15th and 14th centuries <span>BC<\/span>, the parallel patriarchal age must have fallen within the same general time period.<\/p>\n<p>Those who hold the late-date view are aware that their date for Abraham cannot be equated with the set of numbers on which the early-date view depends. They point to other data, also from the OT. Joseph, who was already a highly placed Egyptian official when Jacob moved to Egypt, lived to be 110 years old (Gn 50:26). Moses was a great-grandson of Levi, Joseph’s older brother. Since Joseph lived to see his own greatgrandchildren born (who would probably be younger than Moses since their great-grandfather was younger than his), the late-date view concludes that Joseph could have been alive when Moses was born. The four-generation genealogy of Moses (Levi-Kohath-Amram-Moses, in Ex 6:16-20; Nm 3:17-19; 26:58-59; 1 Chr 6:1-3) was evidently thought to be complete according to Genesis 15:16, which predicted that Abraham’s descendants would be freed from Egyptian bondage “in the fourth generation.”<\/p>\n<p>However, a date of around 1400 <span>BC<\/span> for Abraham cannot be aligned with certain other biblical data, including the long Egyptian sojourn demanded by Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40 and a 40-year (or “one-generation”) wilderness existence. Some normally moderate scholars are forced to reduce the wilderness time to two years in order to maintain their late date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<p>In short, the late-date theory is consistent with part of the biblical evidence (the genealogies of Moses), but the early-date theory conforms to another part (the actual year figures listed in scattered verses from Genesis and Exodus). The late-date theory holds that the genealogies represent more reliable information in Semitic societies generally, whereas the early-date theory computes years given in the biblical account literally throughout its scheme.<\/p>\n<p>Because of problems attached to both positions, a large group of scholars take a middle ground in dating the patriarchal age. Archaeologically, they say, Abraham and his life and times fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period. By placing Abraham roughly between 1800 and 1600 <span>BC<\/span>, they provide enough latitude for a merging of all the available evidence, biblical and nonbiblical, into a workable chronological scheme. Archaeology provides four major bits of evidence for an early second-millennium patriarchal era.<\/p>\n<p>1. Though the Nuzi tablets furnish a clear parallel to patriarchal social life, other tablets from other towns and an earlier era reflect many of the same customs common to Nuzi and Genesis. Since the Nuzians were Hurrians who came to northeastern Mesopotamia from elsewhere (perhaps Armenia), their social customs originated no doubt much earlier than the time of their tablets now in our possession. Accordingly, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> date of the Nuzi tablets does not preclude an earlier date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<li>2. The names of several of Abraham’s ancestors listed in Genesis 11 can now be identified with towns in the northern area of Mesopotamia around Haran, the city from which Abraham migrated to Canaan (Gn 11:31–12:3). Significantly, Haran flourished in the 19th and 18th centuries <span>BC<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>3. Shortly after 2000 <span>BC<\/span> Semitic nomads from the desert invaded the civilized communities of the Fertile Crescent. Those invaders, called Amorites in the OT, established themselves in several cities in northern Syria and Mesopotamia. One of the Amorite cities was Babylon, ruled by Hammurabi sometime around the beginning of the 18th century <span>BC<\/span>. Although the King Amraphel of Genesis 14:1 is not linguistically identifiable with the Babylonian king Hammurabi, as earlier scholars believed, the picture of the times following the Amorite invasion still accords well with the Genesis narratives generally.<\/li>\n<li>4. Mari, another Amorite town, is now well known because of more than 20,000 tablets recovered from its royal palace and archives. Geographically, Mari is located in the general area of Haran. Chronologically, the tablets recovered come from the 18th century <span>BC<\/span>. One 18th-century king of Mari, Zimri Lim, carried on extensive correspondence with Hammurabi of Babylon. The tablets from Mari also furnish valuable information about tribal and ethnic groups and their movements in the general region. Of basic importance for dating the Genesis materials are certain documents from Mari that include personal names very similar to Abraham (Abi-ram), Jacob, Laban, and several other West Semitic names.<\/li>\n<p>Archaeological evidence neither proves nor disproves the actual existence of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. That is admitted on all sides. What archaeology has done is to provide a framework of probabilities within which the biblical patriarchal narratives appear more and more to be at home.<\/p>\n<h5>Date of the Exodus<\/h5>\n<p>The problem of dating the patriarchal age is closely related to the problem of assigning a date to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Since the evidence does not permit a precise date for Abraham, a precise date for the entry of Joseph or Jacob into Egypt is likewise unobtainable. Further, the biblical evidence does not yield an exact figure for the length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>For many years biblical scholars viewed 1 Kings 6:1 as a foundation upon which to build an unshakable date for the exodus. Because Solomon’s fourth year could be unquestionably fixed to within at least a 10-year span (967–958 <span>BC<\/span>), the exodus too could be dated with the same precision simply by adding 480 years. But other biblical data raise serious questions about that simple procedure. When the Bible deals with all the events between the time of the exodus and the founding of Solomon’s temple, that is, from Numbers to 1 Kings 5:18, the precise numbers given total not 480 but closer to 600 years.<\/p>\n<p>Because the evidence is insufficient to allow a precise date for the exodus, scholarly opinion remains divided between two possibilities. A 15th-century exodus is supported by several pieces of evidence. The chronology in 1 Kings 6:1 appears to be independently corroborated by a passage in Judges 11:26. It claims that Israel had occupied the area around Heshbon for 300 years preceding Jephthah’s own day. If Jephthah is dated at roughly 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, one is obviously led back to an exodus in the middle of the 15th century. Also, three successive generations of pharaohs who ruled in the 16th and 15th centuries produced no male offspring, making it more likely that Moses would have become the foster son of a royal princess during that time; all of the 19th-dynasty kings (1306–1200 <span>BC<\/span>) had legitimate male heirs.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, a 15th-century date makes possible a connection between the Habiru invasion of Canaan (1400–1350 <span>BC<\/span>)—described in the Amarna letters found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt—and the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews described in the OT book of Joshua. Related to that is a reference to “Israel” in the Merneptah Stele, a stone pillar inscribed with the deeds of the Egyptian king, Merneptah, of about 1220 <span>BC<\/span>. It implies that the people referred to, met by Merneptah in the course of a Canaanite military campaign, had been in existence for some time. Finally, an excavator of Jericho, John Garstang, placed the destruction of that city at around 1400 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Other evidence, however, strongly implies not a 15th- but a 13th-century date for the exodus. Many scholars assign a date between 1290 and 1275 <span>BC<\/span> on the basis of that evidence. First, the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 discussed above may be interpreted as schematically representing 12 generations, as indicated by 1 Chronicles 6:3-8. Thus if 12 generations averaged 25 years instead of 40 years, the reduction of 480 schematized years to 300 actual years would point to an exodus date of around 1266 <span>BC<\/span>. Second, archaeological evidence exists that dates destruction at the assumed sites of several cities conquered by Joshua (Lachish, Debir, Bethel, and Hazor) to the late 13th century. Third, there is no biblical mention of Egyptian military campaigns (such as Merneptah’s 1220 <span>BC<\/span> incursion); Israelites living in Canaan before the time of the militarily active pharaohs Seti I (1319–1301 <span>BC<\/span>) and Ramses II (1301–1234 <span>BC<\/span>) would certainly have been affected by such activity. Fourth, Exodus 1:11 mentions the city of Rameses, the capital built by Ramses II, according to his own inscriptions. A fifth line of argument comes from archaeological conclusions that Transjordan and the Negev Desert were not occupied by sedentary people between 1900 and 1300 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas the Bible states clearly that the Israelites encountered stiff opposition from groups in that same region. Thus, it is argued, the Israelites must have entered that region after 1300 <span>BC<\/span>. Sixth, connecting the Habiru with the Israelites of the Conquest lacks weight because many texts besides the Amarna tablets attest to the existence of Habiru groups virtually all over the ancient Near East. “Habiru” seems to be a much broader term, possibly meaning “trespasser,” and is probably unrelated etymologically or semantically to “Hebrew.” Seventh, and finally, Garstang’s work at Jericho has now been revised by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who showed that the fallen walls that Garstang had dated about 1400 <span>BC<\/span> in reality were destroyed in 1800 <span>BC<\/span> or earlier.<\/p>\n<p>So far, it has been impossible to decide with precision between the two centuries proposed for the exodus. The majority opinion among OT scholars generally, including a growing number of moderate or conservative scholars, is in favor of the 13th-century option. On the other hand, many other conservative scholars continue to favor the 15th-century date. Dogmatism is unwarranted since problems remain unresolved with either option.<\/p>\n<p>In accordance with the majority opinion, however, a date of about 1290 <span>BC<\/span> for the exodus will be used in dealing with subsequent problems.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ConquestandConsolidation\">Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n<p>The chronological task for the period of conquest and consolidation is to fit all the events narrated by the OT, chiefly in Joshua and Judges, between the exodus (c. 1290 <span>BC<\/span>) and the times of David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) and Solomon (d. 930 <span>BC<\/span>). In other words, one must fit roughly 550 years of biblical events between Moses and David into a 290-year span.<\/p>\n<p>Although assigning an early date for the exodus (c. 1447 <span>BC<\/span>) would make the task somewhat easier, the mere addition of about 157 years does not by itself solve all the problems. Neither date allows enough time for all the OT events from Joshua to David to take place singly and consecutively. Accordingly, advocates of both dates assume that some of the judges ruled simultaneously rather than consecutively. The difference is one of degree only.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua furnishes most of the OT evidence regarding the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Unfortunately, the book of Joshua has no chronological notes that specify the amount of time elapsing during Joshua’s career. Further, there are no biblical references to major contemporary events in other parts of the ancient world, the dates of which could be used to fix the chronology. Rather, in what is obviously a telescoped account, the book of Joshua records the fall of Jericho and Ai, followed closely by a southern and then a northern campaign. After those victories, covering much of the total territory of Canaan, various parcels of land were distributed to the tribal groups of Israel; the tribes were expected to complete the task of destroying whatever Canaanite inhabitants remained in their particular region. One seeks in vain, however, for any statements indicating how long those events took.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Judges a slightly different circumstance prevails. There the OT furnishes a rather complete list of figures to indicate the duration of periods of foreign oppression, judgeships, and ensuing peace. The total number of years described for that period is 410, but that total does not include any time for the many “minor” judges. It seems obvious, therefore, that most if not all of the judges were simply local chieftains whose activity was simultaneous with that of other judges, at least for part of their reign. Unfortunately, the book of Judges provides no cross-reference system to indicate which judges were contemporaries of which others. Perhaps the best one can do is to assume general guidelines for the chronology of that period between Moses and David.<\/p>\n<p>Two significant facts should be kept in mind. First, archaeological information seems to demand a Conquest date beginning about 1250 <span>BC<\/span> rather than 200 years earlier. Assuming concurrent careers for the judges allows one to compress the literal OT figures into the general scheme demanded by other evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the ancient scribes evidently related the chronology of the period to a 40-year or generation-based schema, a practice that lasted until the time of the divided kingdom, when a regular dynastic chronology was introduced. In the face of so many careers being assigned exactly 40 years, the fact remains that the literal totals of such numbers cannot be harmonized with either the biblical or the archaeological evidence for the period. Accordingly, most scholars doubt that the number 40 was ever intended to be an exact mathematical calculation. That view permits enough leeway for cautious fitting of biblical and other evidence into a general timetable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMonarchy\">The Monarchy<\/p>\n<h5>Types of Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>For the period of the Israelite monarchy, chronological evidence is abundant.<\/p>\n<p>The OT itself strives to provide all the information necessary for the chronology of the period, including (1) a complete list of all the kings in Israel and in Judah both before and after the division of the kingdom; (2) the age of each king (except Saul) at his accession; (3) synchronisms of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah showing in what year of his contemporary in the other kingdom each king came to the throne; and (4) precise calculations of the length of each king’s reign. In addition some important events are dated by reference to another event; others are coordinated with concurrent events in secular history.<\/p>\n<p>Outside the OT an abundance of material provides evidence for a chronology of the period. By far the most important single source is a collection of Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists. In Assyria a record of each king’s reign was kept on a particular kind of annal. Each year of reign was named after an individual of high rank in the court; the first year was named after the king himself, the second after the next highest-ranking official (though that name appears to have been selected by lot originally), and so on, down until the death of the king. The word <em>limmu<\/em> was used to introduce the name of the official after whom the current year was to be named, hence the designation <em>“limmu<\/em> lists.”<\/p>\n<p>Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists are tied precisely to the solar year, making the documents highly reliable. Further, in addition to many events in Assyrian history, notable natural phenomena were dated on the basis of the <em>limmu<\/em> in which they occurred. For example, a solar eclipse dated by the Assyrian scribes in the <em>limmu<\/em> year of Bur-Sagale has been computed astronomically as June 15, 763 <span>BC<\/span>. Beginning with the year 763, then, and working both backward and forward, a complete list of Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> officials has been obtained for the period between 891 and 648 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>With the accuracy of the Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists corroborated by a number of sources, they can be used with confidence in reconstructing the chronology of the corresponding period of biblical history. That is especially true where a biblical writer related an Israelite or a Judahite event to a particular year in the reign of an Assyrian king whose <em>limmu<\/em> list indicates the precise years of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>There are also records from Chaldean (Babylonian) king lists and from later Greek historians. Ptolemy, in the second century <span>AD<\/span>, for example, gave dates for Babylonian kings from 747 <span>BC<\/span> and continued with dates for Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers down to <span>AD<\/span> 161. Finally, useful information is found in inscriptions from monuments, stelae, and other artifacts from Assyria and elsewhere.<\/p>\n<h5>Monarchical Chronology<\/h5>\n<p>The <em>limmu<\/em> list of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III provides a basis for the first comparison of dates among Assyria, Israel, and Judah. In the <em>limmu<\/em> of Daian-Assur, Shalmaneser’s sixth year on the throne, Ahab of Israel was listed as one of the kings who fought against the Assyrians in the battle of Qarqar. Thus the date for that battle may be placed confidently in 853 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Assyrian records also indicate that Shalmaneser III came into contact with an Israelite king 12 years later, in 841 <span>BC<\/span>. That king was Jehu. Thus two fixed points are available for correlating the biblical information. Following the death of Ahab, which is not dated exactly by reference to the Assyrian records, two of his sons came to power. The first, Ahaziah, reigned two years (1 Kgs 22:51); the second, Joram (also called Jehoram), reigned a total of 12 years (2 Kgs 3:1). Recognizing a nonaccession-year reckoning by the Israelites in that era, the apparent total of 14 years may be reduced to an actual total of 12. Thus it seems evident that Ahab not only fought Shalmaneser III in 853 <span>BC<\/span> but also died in that year. Ahab was then followed by his two sons for a total of 12 years before the accession of Jehu in time to account for his contact with Shalmaneser II in 841 <span>BC<\/span>. Further, because Jehu murdered both the king of Israel (Jehoram) and the king of Judah (Ahaziah) at the same time (2 Kgs 9:24-27), a fixed synchronism is provided between the two kingdoms for the year 841 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The first nine kings of Israel ruled an apparent total of 98 years or an actual total (taking into account Israel’s nonaccession-year policy) of 90 years. Zimri, who ruled only seven days (1 Kgs 16:15-18), counts as one of the nine but does not insert an extra year in either the actual or apparent totals. The accession of Jeroboam I thus occurred in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (adding 90 years to 841 <span>BC<\/span>), and Rehoboam of Judah began to rule in that same year as well. Allowing Solomon the 40-year reign indicated in 1 Kings 11:42 points to the year 970 <span>BC<\/span> for his accession. The death of David would also be pinpointed in that period, although allowance must be made for the possibility of a short co-regency of David and Solomon before David’s death. The reign of Saul then falls approximately in the late 11th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In Judah the period between the death of Solomon in 930 <span>BC<\/span> and the murder of Ahaziah by Jehu in 841 <span>BC<\/span> was occupied by the kingships of six men whose time on the throne totals 95 biblical years. Computation of that era in Judah is not as simple as for the Israelite kings for several reasons. Problems include a change from accession- to nonaccession-year reckoning sometime around 850 <span>BC<\/span>, at least two co-regencies (Jehoshaphat with Asa and then Jehoram with Jehoshaphat), and the calendar differences between the two kingdoms. It is clear that the 95 apparent years must be reduced, on the basis of the differences in computation and calendar, to 90 actual years in order to bring the Judahite figures into line with the established Assyrian and Israelite synchronisms.<\/p>\n<p>After the year 841, the next biblical event to be certified by nonbiblical materials is the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>. That date is furnished by the annals of Sargon II of Assyria (722–705 <span>BC<\/span>), successor to Shalmaneser V (727–722 <span>BC<\/span>). Although that date comes just 120 years after the fixed point of 841 <span>BC<\/span> in Israelite history, the chronological materials for that period are quite difficult to interpret accurately. In the past, scholars resorted to assumptions of extensive co-regencies, to presumed confusion on the part of certain scribes over methods to be followed in computations, or to other theories in attempting to understand the period. In spite of the many difficulties, however, all the biblical and Assyrian dates for the period of the divided monarchy have been harmonized—with the exception of four figures related to the closing years of the Israelite kingdom, all connected in some way with the problematic reign of Hoshea.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JudahaftertheFallofIsrael\">Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n<p>Following the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, OT chronology is concerned only with the southern kingdom of Judah until its destruction some 135 years later. Two events in the biblical record important for establishing a chronology for that period are the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib of Assyria in the late eighth century and the eventual fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the early sixth century.<\/p>\n<h5>Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>The Assyrian invasion (704–681 <span>BC<\/span>) is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13-16, where verse 13 dates the event to the 14th year of King Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s own inscriptions include a lengthier version of the affair. From them the date of 701 <span>BC<\/span> is established, placing the accession of Hezekiah in 715 <span>BC<\/span>. That much is simple, but problems still arise. For example, 2 Kings 19:9 reports that Sennacherib was in contact with an Ethiopian king, Tirhakah (c. 690–664 <span>BC<\/span>), during the course of his campaign, which included a siege of Jerusalem. Obviously, contact with a ruler who came to power in 690 <span>BC<\/span> at the earliest could not refer to events in 701 <span>BC<\/span>. It is possible, however, that Sennacherib actually made two invasions of Judah, the first in 701 and the second sometime later. The date of that supposed second invasion is not assured, although 2 Kings 19:35-37 may imply that Sennacherib was murdered only shortly after his withdrawal from Jerusalem. Since Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon in the year 681, the presumed second invasion of Judah would have occurred somewhere in the last half of the same decade.<\/p>\n<p>A number of scholars oppose the assumption of a second invasion of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. They suggest the possibility that Tirhakah, though king only from 690 <span>BC<\/span>, may have led troops against Sennacherib as early as 701, before acceding to the throne. The reference to King Tirhakah in 2 Kings 19:9 would then be understood as use of his eventual title in an effort to identify him to a later generation of readers.<\/p>\n<p>However the question of the number of invasions is decided, it is certain that Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the 14th regnal year of Hezekiah. Such a synchronism establishes Hezekiah’s accession year as 715 <span>BC<\/span>, but that date raises another problem. The fall of Samaria, now established at 722, is dated by 2 Kings 18:10 in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign. The most likely solution is that Hezekiah began a co-regency with his father, Ahaz, six years before Samaria fell. The possibility for confusion arises from the fact that one verse (2 Kgs 18:13; repeated in Is 36:1) synchronizes Sennacherib’s 701 <span>BC<\/span> invasion with the 14th year of Hezekiah’s independent reign; another verse (2 Kgs 18:10) correlates the fall of Samaria with the beginning of Hezekiah’s co-regency. Thus from about 728 to 715 <span>BC<\/span> Hezekiah was co-regent with Ahaz. From 715 to 697 he reigned alone. From 696 to 686 his son Manasseh was co-ruler with him.<\/p>\n<p>According to the chronological information given by a number of verses in 2 Kings, a total of 128 years and six months elapsed between the time of Hezekiah’s accession in 715 and the capture of King Jehoiachin in 597, a date to be discussed below. Thus another problem is to explain the more than 10-year excess apparently demanded by the biblical totals. The best solution appears to lie in the assumption that Manasseh first came to power in 697 as co-regent with his father, Hezekiah. Manasseh died in 642, following what 2 Kings 21:1 states was a 55-year reign. Hezekiah, who came to the throne in 715, is said to have reigned 29 years (2 Kgs 18:2), which would mean that he was king until 686, roughly 11 years after the time when Manasseh must have come to the throne in order to have completed a 55-year reign by 642.<\/p>\n<h5>Fall of Jerusalem<\/h5>\n<p>Contemporary Babylonian records are available to shed valuable light on the last few years of Judah’s existence. For the years 626–623, 618–595, and 556 <span>BC<\/span> the Babylonian Chronicle, a formal record of Babylonian affairs of state, has been recovered. From information contained in that chronicle and other cuneiform documents of the period, three dates in Judah’s history may be fixed firmly. The first is the death of Josiah in 609; the second is the battle of Carchemish in 605; the third is the end of the reign of Jehoiachin, which is dated by the Babylonian Chronicle to the second month of Adar in the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar, or March 16, 597.<\/p>\n<p>After Jehoiachin’s capture, Zedekiah became puppet king of Judah for 11 years (2 Kgs 24:18). On the tenth day of the tenth month during Zedekiah’s ninth regnal year (2 Kgs 25:1), the final siege of Jerusalem was begun by the Babylonian army. That day was January 15, 588. On the ninth day of the fourth month during the 11th regnal year of Zedekiah, after a siege of almost 18 months, the wall of Jerusalem was broken through (2 Kgs 25:3-4). The temple was burned on day seven of the following (fifth) month.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Beyond587bc\">Beyond 586 <span>BC<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Following the tragedy of 586 <span>BC<\/span>, several further developments are given chronological notice in the OT. Jeremiah 52:30 records a third deportation of Jews to Babylonia in the 23d year of King Nebuchadnezzar (582 or 581 <span>BC<\/span>). Both 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 give evidence of the release of King Jehoiachin from prison; the Babylonian Chronicle dates that event at 27 Adar, or March 21, 561 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In 539 <span>BC<\/span> the Babylonians themselves were destined to learn the meaning of defeat. In that year a Persian ruler, Cyrus the Great, launched a successful campaign against Babylon and its king, Nabonidus. Inheriting control over the exiled Jews and many other groups of people conquered earlier by Babylonia, Cyrus moved quickly to initiate a policy of tolerance toward his new subjects. In the first year of his rule Cyrus issued an edict making it possible for Jews to return to their former land (Ezr 1:1). On the first day of the following year, 1 Tishri (Ezr 3:6), an altar was set up in Jerusalem. In Iyyar of the following year (April\/May 536) work was begun on the temple itself (Ezr 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>After a period of frustrating work stoppages of varying lengths, the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah spurred on the Jews to complete the temple. Work resumed in 520 (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1, 15) and was finally completed on 3 Adar, or March 12, 515 (Ezr 6:15). The final stages of OT chronology pertain to the careers of Ezra and Nehemiah. The traditional view of their era places Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 <span>BC<\/span>) and Nehemiah in the 20th (445 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> “Date” under each OT book; Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Diaspora of the Jews; Exodus, The; Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the; Postexilic Period; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament)<\/h3>\n<p>Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper historical background of the biblical texts. In general, the chronology of the OT is understood well enough to vindicate the basic accuracy and sequential order of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Both biblical and nonbiblical materials are utilized by students of OT chronology. Biblical data include (1) genealogies showing personal and tribal affiliations among various peoples; (2) specific numbers given by biblical authors to indicate a person’s longevity, a king’s reign, or the duration of a specific event; (3) synchronizing statements that date an event in a specific year of a king’s reign or relate it to a natural phenomenon assumed to be common knowledge at the time of writing (e.g., Am 1:1; Zec 14:5).<\/p>\n<p>From the abundance of such chronological passages in the OT, one might conclude that establishment of OT dates and sequences would be a simple procedure. Each of the three kinds of biblical materials, however, exhibits special problems that must be solved first.<\/p>\n<p>Nonbiblical materials that shed light on OT chronology are quite numerous, and more are discovered year by year. They include (1) official records of important affairs such as military campaigns from countries like Egypt or Babylonia; (2) official inscriptions that are dedicatory or commemorate a great victory; (3) annals listing major accomplishments of a ruler year by year; (4) ostraca (inscribed pieces of pottery) containing letters, tax transactions and economic records, military dispatches between field leaders and command headquarters, or other information. Ostraca may be dated archaeologically and are often used to supplement the biblical record.<\/p>\n<p>The chronologist tries to examine the pertinent biblical and nonbiblical information, notes areas of correlation among all the data, and finally establishes a working system into which the most facts can be fitted. New evidence uncovered at any time may necessitate shifts in the present working system. Although the basic structure of biblical chronology seems reasonably firm, many details will no doubt be subject to change as new evidence is discovered.<\/p>\n<p>As a general rule, the earlier the period, the less certain one can be of one’s dating. In the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, for example, many dates can be assigned within a range of about 100 years. By the time of David and Solomon (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>), the margin of error over which scholars debate is a decade or less. The range narrows as one comes toward the present, so that, with the exception of one or two problem eras, dates accurate to within one or two years are possible by roughly the middle of the ninth century <span>BC<\/span>. Such limitations must be kept in mind in any examination of the major periods of OT history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<p>• From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n<p>• The Monarchy<\/p>\n<p>• Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n<p>• Beyond 587 <span>BC<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PrepatriarchalPeriod\">Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<h5>Biblical Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>In the first 11 chapters of Genesis are found accounts of the Creation (chs 1–2), the fall (ch 3), Cain and Abel (ch 4), the Flood (chs 6–9), and the Tower of Babel (ch 11). Those events are set within a certain chronological framework.<\/p>\n<p>According to Genesis 5, a period of 10 generations elapsed between the Creation and the Flood. Although the individuals listed enjoyed a total life span of a hefty 847 years plus, the total time elapsing between Adam and the Flood was only 1,656 years.<\/p>\n<p>According to Genesis 11, another 10 generations elapsed from the time of the Flood until the time of Abraham (at least in the Septuagint, the third-century <span>BC<\/span> Greek translation of the OT; the Hebrew Masoretic text has 9). In that period the average age attained by individuals in the list is 346 years (using a figure of 460 for Arphaxad’s son Cainan, who is included in v 13 of the LXX; cf. Lk 3:36); the total elapsed time from the Flood to Abraham is only 520 years. Taken literally, that would mean that all of Abraham’s ancestors as far back as Noah’s son Shem were still alive at Abraham’s birth, and that a total of only 2,176 years elapsed from the time of Creation to Abraham.<\/p>\n<h5>Interpretation of the Biblical Data<\/h5>\n<p>A literalistic or slavishly mathematical interpretation of the figures, as has appeared in the margin of many <span>kjv<\/span> Bibles, requires a number of assumptions: that no names are omitted from the genealogies, that all the numbers given are consecutive, and especially that numbers used in an ancient biblical source carry the same meaning as that associated with them in the modern Western mind. Each assumption needs serious examination in the light of other established facts.<\/p>\n<p>A cursory reading of other biblical genealogies, for example, reveals that not all the names of a given family were always included. Even Matthew recorded a total of 28 generations (two sets of 14 each) between David and Jesus, and comparison with OT genealogies reveals that Matthew omitted several names. Luke listed a total of 42 generations for the same interval. Omissions are also obvious when one compares the genealogical lists given in 1 Chronicles 1–8 with those recorded earlier in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings.<\/p>\n<p>Further, ancient peoples thought of numbers in a schematic or stylized way. Use of numbers among the ancient Near Eastern nations differed sharply from current Western practice. Examples of that practice are known from both biblical and nonbiblical sources. For example, a list of eight Sumerian kings who ruled in the city of Shurruppak before the “great flood” of the Jemdet Nar era (c. 3000 <span>BC<\/span>) assigns each man an average reign of more than 30,000 years. Berossus, a Babylonian priest of Marduk living in the third century <span>BC<\/span>, added two names to the eight found in that earlier list of kings and assigned an average of 43,200 years to each king. Such extraordinarily high numbers provide a perspective for considering the numbers of Genesis.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, although one can assume that the numbers assigned to the ages of the patriarchs preceding Abraham in Genesis had real meaning for those responsible for their preservation, they should not be employed in a purely literal sense to compute the length of the various generations mentioned in the text. Further, the numbers given in the Septuagint and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, another early version of the Pentateuch, diverge in many details from those of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That means, among other things, that the Genesis numbers caused problems for even the earliest scholars of Scripture.<\/p>\n<h5>Nonbiblical Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>Archaeology provides no evidence that may be used to date either the Creation or any other account preserved in Genesis 1–11. The Flood is an example that illustrates some of the difficulties. Many claims have been made by persons from a wide variety of backgrounds (scientists, explorers, theologians, and others) to the effect that archaeology has proven the Genesis Flood narrative to be true. Yet no city so far excavated in Palestine and Syria (including some of the oldest towns in the world) shows archaeological evidence of the Flood.<\/p>\n<p>Although several cities in Mesopotamia do exhibit evidence of a flood, three factors make it difficult to link that evidence with Genesis 6–9. Each of the flood levels so far discovered dates from a different period. Further, since nearby sites show no evidence of flooding, all of the Mesopotamian flood evidence points to relatively small local floods. Finally, the evidence indicates no great cultural discontinuities of the sort that would result from destruction of an entire population. Thus, it seems that the ancient Mesopotamian floods discovered through archaeological research are of the same kind as the floods that still occur in the Euphrates River valley.<\/p>\n<p>Clearly, certain questions one might ask of the Genesis narratives simply cannot be answered. Many who regard the Bible as the Word of God have concluded that the dating of events found in Genesis 1–11 must be less important than the theological truths of salvation, faith, and obedience that these accounts present.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FromAbrahamtoMoses\">From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchal Age<\/h5>\n<p>The date of Abraham is still a lively topic among biblical scholars who agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed historical persons. Opinions range from an early-date view that estimates that the patriarchal age extended from 2086 to 1871 <span>BC<\/span>, to a late-date view placing Abraham at around 1400 <span>BC<\/span>. Since each position claims to fit the biblical data, a closer look at the two points of view is in order.<\/p>\n<p>Many OT passages seem to support the view that puts Abraham at a comparatively early date. First Kings 6:1 computes 480 years back from the founding of the temple in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (961 <span>BC<\/span>, according to the early-date view) to the exodus from Egypt, which would then be dated 1441 <span>BC<\/span>. Counting 430 years as the period of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt (see Gn 15:13; Ex 12:40) takes the date back to 1871 <span>BC<\/span>. To that date are added the 215 years demanded by the total of (1) Abraham’s age upon entering Canaan (75 years according to Gn 12:4); (2) 25 additional years before the birth of Isaac (Gn 21:5); (3) 60 more years to the birth of Jacob (Gn 25:26); and (4) the appearance of Jacob before the pharaoh at age 130 (Gn 47:9). Those 215 years added to the previous total give a date of 2086 <span>BC<\/span> for the entrance of Abraham into Canaan and a date of 2161 <span>BC<\/span> for his birth.<\/p>\n<p>Such a calculation does not use all of the chronological evidence presented in the OT; consequently, the date for Abraham is open to challenge. For example, the 480 years between the exodus and Solomon’s fourth regnal year represent a period of time into which the wilderness wanderings, the career of Joshua and his immediate successors, the period of the judges, Samuel, Saul, and David must all be placed. Although the OT does not specifically say how long were the careers of Joshua, Samuel, or Saul, even a modest reckoning pushes the total years required by all the biblical data together to approximately 600.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the length of time to be assigned to the Egyptian sojourn is problematic. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both view the number 430 (in Ex 12:40) as applicable not only to the years in Egypt but to the years of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Canaan as well. Evidently Paul followed the Septuagint tradition when he dated the giving of the law 430 years later than the time of God’s promise to Abraham (see Gal 3:15-18). That means the Septuagint figure cannot be dismissed lightly.<\/p>\n<p>The late dating of Abraham (c. 1400 <span>BC<\/span>) is based on two propositions: (1) The picture of patriarchal society portrayed in Genesis most closely parallels that reflected in the cuneiform tablets recovered from Nuzi, a town in northeastern Mesopotamia about 175 miles (282 kilometers) north of Baghdad. (2) Because those tablets must be dated in the 15th and 14th centuries <span>BC<\/span>, the parallel patriarchal age must have fallen within the same general time period.<\/p>\n<p>Those who hold the late-date view are aware that their date for Abraham cannot be equated with the set of numbers on which the early-date view depends. They point to other data, also from the OT. Joseph, who was already a highly placed Egyptian official when Jacob moved to Egypt, lived to be 110 years old (Gn 50:26). Moses was a great-grandson of Levi, Joseph’s older brother. Since Joseph lived to see his own greatgrandchildren born (who would probably be younger than Moses since their great-grandfather was younger than his), the late-date view concludes that Joseph could have been alive when Moses was born. The four-generation genealogy of Moses (Levi-Kohath-Amram-Moses, in Ex 6:16-20; Nm 3:17-19; 26:58-59; 1 Chr 6:1-3) was evidently thought to be complete according to Genesis 15:16, which predicted that Abraham’s descendants would be freed from Egyptian bondage “in the fourth generation.”<\/p>\n<p>However, a date of around 1400 <span>BC<\/span> for Abraham cannot be aligned with certain other biblical data, including the long Egyptian sojourn demanded by Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40 and a 40-year (or “one-generation”) wilderness existence. Some normally moderate scholars are forced to reduce the wilderness time to two years in order to maintain their late date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<p>In short, the late-date theory is consistent with part of the biblical evidence (the genealogies of Moses), but the early-date theory conforms to another part (the actual year figures listed in scattered verses from Genesis and Exodus). The late-date theory holds that the genealogies represent more reliable information in Semitic societies generally, whereas the early-date theory computes years given in the biblical account literally throughout its scheme.<\/p>\n<p>Because of problems attached to both positions, a large group of scholars take a middle ground in dating the patriarchal age. Archaeologically, they say, Abraham and his life and times fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period. By placing Abraham roughly between 1800 and 1600 <span>BC<\/span>, they provide enough latitude for a merging of all the available evidence, biblical and nonbiblical, into a workable chronological scheme. Archaeology provides four major bits of evidence for an early second-millennium patriarchal era.<\/p>\n<p>1. Though the Nuzi tablets furnish a clear parallel to patriarchal social life, other tablets from other towns and an earlier era reflect many of the same customs common to Nuzi and Genesis. Since the Nuzians were Hurrians who came to northeastern Mesopotamia from elsewhere (perhaps Armenia), their social customs originated no doubt much earlier than the time of their tablets now in our possession. Accordingly, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> date of the Nuzi tablets does not preclude an earlier date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<li>2. The names of several of Abraham’s ancestors listed in Genesis 11 can now be identified with towns in the northern area of Mesopotamia around Haran, the city from which Abraham migrated to Canaan (Gn 11:31–12:3). Significantly, Haran flourished in the 19th and 18th centuries <span>BC<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>3. Shortly after 2000 <span>BC<\/span> Semitic nomads from the desert invaded the civilized communities of the Fertile Crescent. Those invaders, called Amorites in the OT, established themselves in several cities in northern Syria and Mesopotamia. One of the Amorite cities was Babylon, ruled by Hammurabi sometime around the beginning of the 18th century <span>BC<\/span>. Although the King Amraphel of Genesis 14:1 is not linguistically identifiable with the Babylonian king Hammurabi, as earlier scholars believed, the picture of the times following the Amorite invasion still accords well with the Genesis narratives generally.<\/li>\n<li>4. Mari, another Amorite town, is now well known because of more than 20,000 tablets recovered from its royal palace and archives. Geographically, Mari is located in the general area of Haran. Chronologically, the tablets recovered come from the 18th century <span>BC<\/span>. One 18th-century king of Mari, Zimri Lim, carried on extensive correspondence with Hammurabi of Babylon. The tablets from Mari also furnish valuable information about tribal and ethnic groups and their movements in the general region. Of basic importance for dating the Genesis materials are certain documents from Mari that include personal names very similar to Abraham (Abi-ram), Jacob, Laban, and several other West Semitic names.<\/li>\n<p>Archaeological evidence neither proves nor disproves the actual existence of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. That is admitted on all sides. What archaeology has done is to provide a framework of probabilities within which the biblical patriarchal narratives appear more and more to be at home.<\/p>\n<h5>Date of the Exodus<\/h5>\n<p>The problem of dating the patriarchal age is closely related to the problem of assigning a date to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Since the evidence does not permit a precise date for Abraham, a precise date for the entry of Joseph or Jacob into Egypt is likewise unobtainable. Further, the biblical evidence does not yield an exact figure for the length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>For many years biblical scholars viewed 1 Kings 6:1 as a foundation upon which to build an unshakable date for the exodus. Because Solomon’s fourth year could be unquestionably fixed to within at least a 10-year span (967–958 <span>BC<\/span>), the exodus too could be dated with the same precision simply by adding 480 years. But other biblical data raise serious questions about that simple procedure. When the Bible deals with all the events between the time of the exodus and the founding of Solomon’s temple, that is, from Numbers to 1 Kings 5:18, the precise numbers given total not 480 but closer to 600 years.<\/p>\n<p>Because the evidence is insufficient to allow a precise date for the exodus, scholarly opinion remains divided between two possibilities. A 15th-century exodus is supported by several pieces of evidence. The chronology in 1 Kings 6:1 appears to be independently corroborated by a passage in Judges 11:26. It claims that Israel had occupied the area around Heshbon for 300 years preceding Jephthah’s own day. If Jephthah is dated at roughly 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, one is obviously led back to an exodus in the middle of the 15th century. Also, three successive generations of pharaohs who ruled in the 16th and 15th centuries produced no male offspring, making it more likely that Moses would have become the foster son of a royal princess during that time; all of the 19th-dynasty kings (1306–1200 <span>BC<\/span>) had legitimate male heirs.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, a 15th-century date makes possible a connection between the Habiru invasion of Canaan (1400–1350 <span>BC<\/span>)—described in the Amarna letters found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt—and the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews described in the OT book of Joshua. Related to that is a reference to “Israel” in the Merneptah Stele, a stone pillar inscribed with the deeds of the Egyptian king, Merneptah, of about 1220 <span>BC<\/span>. It implies that the people referred to, met by Merneptah in the course of a Canaanite military campaign, had been in existence for some time. Finally, an excavator of Jericho, John Garstang, placed the destruction of that city at around 1400 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Other evidence, however, strongly implies not a 15th- but a 13th-century date for the exodus. Many scholars assign a date between 1290 and 1275 <span>BC<\/span> on the basis of that evidence. First, the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 discussed above may be interpreted as schematically representing 12 generations, as indicated by 1 Chronicles 6:3-8. Thus if 12 generations averaged 25 years instead of 40 years, the reduction of 480 schematized years to 300 actual years would point to an exodus date of around 1266 <span>BC<\/span>. Second, archaeological evidence exists that dates destruction at the assumed sites of several cities conquered by Joshua (Lachish, Debir, Bethel, and Hazor) to the late 13th century. Third, there is no biblical mention of Egyptian military campaigns (such as Merneptah’s 1220 <span>BC<\/span> incursion); Israelites living in Canaan before the time of the militarily active pharaohs Seti I (1319–1301 <span>BC<\/span>) and Ramses II (1301–1234 <span>BC<\/span>) would certainly have been affected by such activity. Fourth, Exodus 1:11 mentions the city of Rameses, the capital built by Ramses II, according to his own inscriptions. A fifth line of argument comes from archaeological conclusions that Transjordan and the Negev Desert were not occupied by sedentary people between 1900 and 1300 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas the Bible states clearly that the Israelites encountered stiff opposition from groups in that same region. Thus, it is argued, the Israelites must have entered that region after 1300 <span>BC<\/span>. Sixth, connecting the Habiru with the Israelites of the Conquest lacks weight because many texts besides the Amarna tablets attest to the existence of Habiru groups virtually all over the ancient Near East. “Habiru” seems to be a much broader term, possibly meaning “trespasser,” and is probably unrelated etymologically or semantically to “Hebrew.” Seventh, and finally, Garstang’s work at Jericho has now been revised by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who showed that the fallen walls that Garstang had dated about 1400 <span>BC<\/span> in reality were destroyed in 1800 <span>BC<\/span> or earlier.<\/p>\n<p>So far, it has been impossible to decide with precision between the two centuries proposed for the exodus. The majority opinion among OT scholars generally, including a growing number of moderate or conservative scholars, is in favor of the 13th-century option. On the other hand, many other conservative scholars continue to favor the 15th-century date. Dogmatism is unwarranted since problems remain unresolved with either option.<\/p>\n<p>In accordance with the majority opinion, however, a date of about 1290 <span>BC<\/span> for the exodus will be used in dealing with subsequent problems.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ConquestandConsolidation\">Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n<p>The chronological task for the period of conquest and consolidation is to fit all the events narrated by the OT, chiefly in Joshua and Judges, between the exodus (c. 1290 <span>BC<\/span>) and the times of David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) and Solomon (d. 930 <span>BC<\/span>). In other words, one must fit roughly 550 years of biblical events between Moses and David into a 290-year span.<\/p>\n<p>Although assigning an early date for the exodus (c. 1447 <span>BC<\/span>) would make the task somewhat easier, the mere addition of about 157 years does not by itself solve all the problems. Neither date allows enough time for all the OT events from Joshua to David to take place singly and consecutively. Accordingly, advocates of both dates assume that some of the judges ruled simultaneously rather than consecutively. The difference is one of degree only.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua furnishes most of the OT evidence regarding the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Unfortunately, the book of Joshua has no chronological notes that specify the amount of time elapsing during Joshua’s career. Further, there are no biblical references to major contemporary events in other parts of the ancient world, the dates of which could be used to fix the chronology. Rather, in what is obviously a telescoped account, the book of Joshua records the fall of Jericho and Ai, followed closely by a southern and then a northern campaign. After those victories, covering much of the total territory of Canaan, various parcels of land were distributed to the tribal groups of Israel; the tribes were expected to complete the task of destroying whatever Canaanite inhabitants remained in their particular region. One seeks in vain, however, for any statements indicating how long those events took.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Judges a slightly different circumstance prevails. There the OT furnishes a rather complete list of figures to indicate the duration of periods of foreign oppression, judgeships, and ensuing peace. The total number of years described for that period is 410, but that total does not include any time for the many “minor” judges. It seems obvious, therefore, that most if not all of the judges were simply local chieftains whose activity was simultaneous with that of other judges, at least for part of their reign. Unfortunately, the book of Judges provides no cross-reference system to indicate which judges were contemporaries of which others. Perhaps the best one can do is to assume general guidelines for the chronology of that period between Moses and David.<\/p>\n<p>Two significant facts should be kept in mind. First, archaeological information seems to demand a Conquest date beginning about 1250 <span>BC<\/span> rather than 200 years earlier. Assuming concurrent careers for the judges allows one to compress the literal OT figures into the general scheme demanded by other evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the ancient scribes evidently related the chronology of the period to a 40-year or generation-based schema, a practice that lasted until the time of the divided kingdom, when a regular dynastic chronology was introduced. In the face of so many careers being assigned exactly 40 years, the fact remains that the literal totals of such numbers cannot be harmonized with either the biblical or the archaeological evidence for the period. Accordingly, most scholars doubt that the number 40 was ever intended to be an exact mathematical calculation. That view permits enough leeway for cautious fitting of biblical and other evidence into a general timetable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMonarchy\">The Monarchy<\/p>\n<h5>Types of Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>For the period of the Israelite monarchy, chronological evidence is abundant.<\/p>\n<p>The OT itself strives to provide all the information necessary for the chronology of the period, including (1) a complete list of all the kings in Israel and in Judah both before and after the division of the kingdom; (2) the age of each king (except Saul) at his accession; (3) synchronisms of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah showing in what year of his contemporary in the other kingdom each king came to the throne; and (4) precise calculations of the length of each king’s reign. In addition some important events are dated by reference to another event; others are coordinated with concurrent events in secular history.<\/p>\n<p>Outside the OT an abundance of material provides evidence for a chronology of the period. By far the most important single source is a collection of Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists. In Assyria a record of each king’s reign was kept on a particular kind of annal. Each year of reign was named after an individual of high rank in the court; the first year was named after the king himself, the second after the next highest-ranking official (though that name appears to have been selected by lot originally), and so on, down until the death of the king. The word <em>limmu<\/em> was used to introduce the name of the official after whom the current year was to be named, hence the designation <em>“limmu<\/em> lists.”<\/p>\n<p>Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists are tied precisely to the solar year, making the documents highly reliable. Further, in addition to many events in Assyrian history, notable natural phenomena were dated on the basis of the <em>limmu<\/em> in which they occurred. For example, a solar eclipse dated by the Assyrian scribes in the <em>limmu<\/em> year of Bur-Sagale has been computed astronomically as June 15, 763 <span>BC<\/span>. Beginning with the year 763, then, and working both backward and forward, a complete list of Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> officials has been obtained for the period between 891 and 648 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>With the accuracy of the Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists corroborated by a number of sources, they can be used with confidence in reconstructing the chronology of the corresponding period of biblical history. That is especially true where a biblical writer related an Israelite or a Judahite event to a particular year in the reign of an Assyrian king whose <em>limmu<\/em> list indicates the precise years of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>There are also records from Chaldean (Babylonian) king lists and from later Greek historians. Ptolemy, in the second century <span>AD<\/span>, for example, gave dates for Babylonian kings from 747 <span>BC<\/span> and continued with dates for Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers down to <span>AD<\/span> 161. Finally, useful information is found in inscriptions from monuments, stelae, and other artifacts from Assyria and elsewhere.<\/p>\n<h5>Monarchical Chronology<\/h5>\n<p>The <em>limmu<\/em> list of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III provides a basis for the first comparison of dates among Assyria, Israel, and Judah. In the <em>limmu<\/em> of Daian-Assur, Shalmaneser’s sixth year on the throne, Ahab of Israel was listed as one of the kings who fought against the Assyrians in the battle of Qarqar. Thus the date for that battle may be placed confidently in 853 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Assyrian records also indicate that Shalmaneser III came into contact with an Israelite king 12 years later, in 841 <span>BC<\/span>. That king was Jehu. Thus two fixed points are available for correlating the biblical information. Following the death of Ahab, which is not dated exactly by reference to the Assyrian records, two of his sons came to power. The first, Ahaziah, reigned two years (1 Kgs 22:51); the second, Joram (also called Jehoram), reigned a total of 12 years (2 Kgs 3:1). Recognizing a nonaccession-year reckoning by the Israelites in that era, the apparent total of 14 years may be reduced to an actual total of 12. Thus it seems evident that Ahab not only fought Shalmaneser III in 853 <span>BC<\/span> but also died in that year. Ahab was then followed by his two sons for a total of 12 years before the accession of Jehu in time to account for his contact with Shalmaneser II in 841 <span>BC<\/span>. Further, because Jehu murdered both the king of Israel (Jehoram) and the king of Judah (Ahaziah) at the same time (2 Kgs 9:24-27), a fixed synchronism is provided between the two kingdoms for the year 841 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The first nine kings of Israel ruled an apparent total of 98 years or an actual total (taking into account Israel’s nonaccession-year policy) of 90 years. Zimri, who ruled only seven days (1 Kgs 16:15-18), counts as one of the nine but does not insert an extra year in either the actual or apparent totals. The accession of Jeroboam I thus occurred in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (adding 90 years to 841 <span>BC<\/span>), and Rehoboam of Judah began to rule in that same year as well. Allowing Solomon the 40-year reign indicated in 1 Kings 11:42 points to the year 970 <span>BC<\/span> for his accession. The death of David would also be pinpointed in that period, although allowance must be made for the possibility of a short co-regency of David and Solomon before David’s death. The reign of Saul then falls approximately in the late 11th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In Judah the period between the death of Solomon in 930 <span>BC<\/span> and the murder of Ahaziah by Jehu in 841 <span>BC<\/span> was occupied by the kingships of six men whose time on the throne totals 95 biblical years. Computation of that era in Judah is not as simple as for the Israelite kings for several reasons. Problems include a change from accession- to nonaccession-year reckoning sometime around 850 <span>BC<\/span>, at least two co-regencies (Jehoshaphat with Asa and then Jehoram with Jehoshaphat), and the calendar differences between the two kingdoms. It is clear that the 95 apparent years must be reduced, on the basis of the differences in computation and calendar, to 90 actual years in order to bring the Judahite figures into line with the established Assyrian and Israelite synchronisms.<\/p>\n<p>After the year 841, the next biblical event to be certified by nonbiblical materials is the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>. That date is furnished by the annals of Sargon II of Assyria (722–705 <span>BC<\/span>), successor to Shalmaneser V (727–722 <span>BC<\/span>). Although that date comes just 120 years after the fixed point of 841 <span>BC<\/span> in Israelite history, the chronological materials for that period are quite difficult to interpret accurately. In the past, scholars resorted to assumptions of extensive co-regencies, to presumed confusion on the part of certain scribes over methods to be followed in computations, or to other theories in attempting to understand the period. In spite of the many difficulties, however, all the biblical and Assyrian dates for the period of the divided monarchy have been harmonized—with the exception of four figures related to the closing years of the Israelite kingdom, all connected in some way with the problematic reign of Hoshea.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JudahaftertheFallofIsrael\">Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n<p>Following the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, OT chronology is concerned only with the southern kingdom of Judah until its destruction some 135 years later. Two events in the biblical record important for establishing a chronology for that period are the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib of Assyria in the late eighth century and the eventual fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the early sixth century.<\/p>\n<h5>Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>The Assyrian invasion (704–681 <span>BC<\/span>) is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13-16, where verse 13 dates the event to the 14th year of King Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s own inscriptions include a lengthier version of the affair. From them the date of 701 <span>BC<\/span> is established, placing the accession of Hezekiah in 715 <span>BC<\/span>. That much is simple, but problems still arise. For example, 2 Kings 19:9 reports that Sennacherib was in contact with an Ethiopian king, Tirhakah (c. 690–664 <span>BC<\/span>), during the course of his campaign, which included a siege of Jerusalem. Obviously, contact with a ruler who came to power in 690 <span>BC<\/span> at the earliest could not refer to events in 701 <span>BC<\/span>. It is possible, however, that Sennacherib actually made two invasions of Judah, the first in 701 and the second sometime later. The date of that supposed second invasion is not assured, although 2 Kings 19:35-37 may imply that Sennacherib was murdered only shortly after his withdrawal from Jerusalem. Since Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon in the year 681, the presumed second invasion of Judah would have occurred somewhere in the last half of the same decade.<\/p>\n<p>A number of scholars oppose the assumption of a second invasion of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. They suggest the possibility that Tirhakah, though king only from 690 <span>BC<\/span>, may have led troops against Sennacherib as early as 701, before acceding to the throne. The reference to King Tirhakah in 2 Kings 19:9 would then be understood as use of his eventual title in an effort to identify him to a later generation of readers.<\/p>\n<p>However the question of the number of invasions is decided, it is certain that Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the 14th regnal year of Hezekiah. Such a synchronism establishes Hezekiah’s accession year as 715 <span>BC<\/span>, but that date raises another problem. The fall of Samaria, now established at 722, is dated by 2 Kings 18:10 in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign. The most likely solution is that Hezekiah began a co-regency with his father, Ahaz, six years before Samaria fell. The possibility for confusion arises from the fact that one verse (2 Kgs 18:13; repeated in Is 36:1) synchronizes Sennacherib’s 701 <span>BC<\/span> invasion with the 14th year of Hezekiah’s independent reign; another verse (2 Kgs 18:10) correlates the fall of Samaria with the beginning of Hezekiah’s co-regency. Thus from about 728 to 715 <span>BC<\/span> Hezekiah was co-regent with Ahaz. From 715 to 697 he reigned alone. From 696 to 686 his son Manasseh was co-ruler with him.<\/p>\n<p>According to the chronological information given by a number of verses in 2 Kings, a total of 128 years and six months elapsed between the time of Hezekiah’s accession in 715 and the capture of King Jehoiachin in 597, a date to be discussed below. Thus another problem is to explain the more than 10-year excess apparently demanded by the biblical totals. The best solution appears to lie in the assumption that Manasseh first came to power in 697 as co-regent with his father, Hezekiah. Manasseh died in 642, following what 2 Kings 21:1 states was a 55-year reign. Hezekiah, who came to the throne in 715, is said to have reigned 29 years (2 Kgs 18:2), which would mean that he was king until 686, roughly 11 years after the time when Manasseh must have come to the throne in order to have completed a 55-year reign by 642.<\/p>\n<h5>Fall of Jerusalem<\/h5>\n<p>Contemporary Babylonian records are available to shed valuable light on the last few years of Judah’s existence. For the years 626–623, 618–595, and 556 <span>BC<\/span> the Babylonian Chronicle, a formal record of Babylonian affairs of state, has been recovered. From information contained in that chronicle and other cuneiform documents of the period, three dates in Judah’s history may be fixed firmly. The first is the death of Josiah in 609; the second is the battle of Carchemish in 605; the third is the end of the reign of Jehoiachin, which is dated by the Babylonian Chronicle to the second month of Adar in the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar, or March 16, 597.<\/p>\n<p>After Jehoiachin’s capture, Zedekiah became puppet king of Judah for 11 years (2 Kgs 24:18). On the tenth day of the tenth month during Zedekiah’s ninth regnal year (2 Kgs 25:1), the final siege of Jerusalem was begun by the Babylonian army. That day was January 15, 588. On the ninth day of the fourth month during the 11th regnal year of Zedekiah, after a siege of almost 18 months, the wall of Jerusalem was broken through (2 Kgs 25:3-4). The temple was burned on day seven of the following (fifth) month.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Beyond587bc\">Beyond 586 <span>BC<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Following the tragedy of 586 <span>BC<\/span>, several further developments are given chronological notice in the OT. Jeremiah 52:30 records a third deportation of Jews to Babylonia in the 23d year of King Nebuchadnezzar (582 or 581 <span>BC<\/span>). Both 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 give evidence of the release of King Jehoiachin from prison; the Babylonian Chronicle dates that event at 27 Adar, or March 21, 561 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In 539 <span>BC<\/span> the Babylonians themselves were destined to learn the meaning of defeat. In that year a Persian ruler, Cyrus the Great, launched a successful campaign against Babylon and its king, Nabonidus. Inheriting control over the exiled Jews and many other groups of people conquered earlier by Babylonia, Cyrus moved quickly to initiate a policy of tolerance toward his new subjects. In the first year of his rule Cyrus issued an edict making it possible for Jews to return to their former land (Ezr 1:1). On the first day of the following year, 1 Tishri (Ezr 3:6), an altar was set up in Jerusalem. In Iyyar of the following year (April\/May 536) work was begun on the temple itself (Ezr 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>After a period of frustrating work stoppages of varying lengths, the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah spurred on the Jews to complete the temple. Work resumed in 520 (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1, 15) and was finally completed on 3 Adar, or March 12, 515 (Ezr 6:15). The final stages of OT chronology pertain to the careers of Ezra and Nehemiah. The traditional view of their era places Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 <span>BC<\/span>) and Nehemiah in the 20th (445 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> “Date” under each OT book; Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Diaspora of the Jews; Exodus, The; Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the; Postexilic Period; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper his...","summary_en":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper his...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"7":[{"id":41762,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Cyrus II","title_en":"Cyrus II","content_ro":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\n<p>Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 <span>BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 <span>BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 <span>BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\n<p>After conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not <em>the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\n<p>Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 <span>BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 <span>BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 <span>BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\n<p>After conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not <em>the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","summary_en":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":69388,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Cyrus II","title_en":"Cyrus II","content_ro":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\n<p>Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 <span>BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 <span>BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 <span>BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\n<p>After conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not <em>the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\n<p>Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 <span>BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 <span>BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 <span>BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\n<p>After conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not <em>the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","summary_en":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":97014,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Cyrus II","title_en":"Cyrus II","content_ro":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\n<p>Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 <span>BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 <span>BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 <span>BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\n<p>After conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not <em>the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\n<p>Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 <span>BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 <span>BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 <span>BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\n<p>After conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not <em>the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","summary_en":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":124640,"type":"profile","type_label":"Profil","type_icon":"👤","type_color":"#f59e0b","title_ro":"Cyrus II","title_en":"Cyrus II","content_ro":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\n<p>Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 <span>BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 <span>BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 <span>BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\n<p>After conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not <em>the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Cyrus II<\/h3>\n<p>Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 <span>BC<\/span> and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 <span>BC<\/span>, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 <span>BC<\/span>, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brought Babylonia into his empire (see Dan 5:30-31).<\/p>\n<p>After conquering Babylon, Cyrus issued a decree that allowed the Jewish people to return home and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. The part of this decree dealing with the Jews has been recorded in 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4. This practice is confirmed by the Cyrus Cylinder, a barrel that was discovered at Babylon in 1879–82, which describes Cyrus’s policy regarding conquered peoples.<\/p>\n<p>Isaiah named Cyrus as Judah’s future deliverer (Isa 44:28–45:13) and even called him the Lord’s anointed (Isa 45:1, Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mashiakh,<\/span> “messiah”). Israel regarded Cyrus as called and empowered by God to free them. Cyrus was not <em>the<\/em> Messiah, but what he did served as an example of what the Messiah, Jesus Christ, would later do in setting God’s people free from servitude.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>2 Chr 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-11; 3:7; 4:1-5; 5:6-17; 6:14-15; Isa 44:28–45:13; 48:14-16; Dan 6:28; 10:1<\/p>","summary_ro":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","summary_en":"Cyrus II Cyrus II, king of Persia (559–530 BC), founded the great Persian Empire. His father was king of Persia, a small nation that was subject to Media, and his mother was the daughter of the king of the Medes. Cyrus conquered the Medes in 549 BC and combined the two nations into one. He conquered Lydia in Asia Minor in 547 BC, then turned to the east and brought Parthia and part of India into the Persian Empire. Finally, on October 29, 539 BC, Cyrus conquered the city of Babylon and brough...","source":"Profiles.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":6114,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Carpenter","title_en":"Carpenter","content_ro":"<h3>CARPENTER<\/h3>\n<p>One who worked with timber, setting up the framework of houses, the roofing, windows, and doors. Often small structures were erected by the householder, but temples and palaces required specialized artisans where carpenters worked alongside stonemasons (2 Kgs 12:11; 22:6; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 2 Chr 24:12; 34:11; Ezr 3:7). Carpentry is seldom referred to in the NT, though it was the profession of Jesus and his father Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CARPENTER<\/h3>\n<p>One who worked with timber, setting up the framework of houses, the roofing, windows, and doors. Often small structures were erected by the householder, but temples and palaces required specialized artisans where carpenters worked alongside stonemasons (2 Kgs 12:11; 22:6; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 2 Chr 24:12; 34:11; Ezr 3:7). Carpentry is seldom referred to in the NT, though it was the profession of Jesus and his father Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"CARPENTER One who worked with timber, setting up the framework of houses, the roofing, windows, and doors. Often small structures were erected by the householder, but temples and palaces required specialized artisans where carpenters worked alongside stonemasons (2 Kgs 12:11; 22:6; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 2 Chr 24:12; 34:11; Ezr 3:7). Carpentry is seldom referred to in the NT, though it was the profession of Jesus and his father Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).","summary_en":"CARPENTER One who worked with timber, setting up the framework of houses, the roofing, windows, and doors. Often small structures were erected by the householder, but temples and palaces required specialized artisans where carpenters worked alongside stonemasons (2 Kgs 12:11; 22:6; 1 Chr 14:1; 22:15; 2 Chr 24:12; 34:11; Ezr 3:7). Carpentry is seldom referred to in the NT, though it was the profession of Jesus and his father Joseph (Mt 13:55; Mk 6:3).","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":20500,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Joppa","title_en":"Joppa","content_ro":"<h3>JOPPA<\/h3>\n<p>City about 35 miles (56.3 kilometers) northwest of Jerusalem that served as Jerusalem’s seaport. Joppa was built on a rocky hill about 116 feet (35.4 meters) high, with a cape projecting beyond the coastline into the sea, and was the only natural harbor on the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and the OT town of Acco. Some 300 to 400 feet (91.4 to 121.9 meters) offshore a series of reefs formed a breakwater so that entrance into the harbor was gained from the north. It is possible that the harbor was larger and better protected in biblical times than it is today. The biblical city was well supplied with water, and the land surrounding it was quite fertile.<\/p>\n\n<p>Joppa first appears in ancient records in the Egyptian list of Palestinian cities captured by Thutmose III (1490–1432 <span>BC<\/span>). During the Amarna period, it was ruled by a local prince in alliance with Jerusalem. One source from this period describes its beautiful gardens and the craftsmanship of its workers in metal, leather, and wood. When Palestine was divided among the 12 tribes, Joppa was assigned to Dan (Jos 19:46; <span>kjv<\/span> “Japho”). It was soon taken by the Philistines, who made it one of their seaports. David’s conquest of the Philistines restored Joppa to Israel, and during Solomon’s reign, it became a major port serving Jerusalem. Cedar logs were floated from Lebanon to Joppa and then transported to Jerusalem for use in building the temple (2 Chr 2:16).<\/p>\n<p>Joppa was the seaport to which Jonah fled in an attempt to avoid preaching to Nineveh (Jon 1:3); there, hoping to escape his responsibility, he boarded a ship bound for Tarshish. When Tiglath-pileser III invaded Philistia in 743 <span>BC<\/span>, Joppa probably was one of the Philistine cities that fell to him. Sennacherib, in his campaign of 701 <span>BC<\/span>, lists Joppa as one of the cities he occupied. Subsequent to that, little is known of it until the time of Ezra, when once again cedar logs from Lebanon were floated to Joppa and taken to Jerusalem for the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 3:7). During the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>, Eshmunazar of Sidon controlled the city. When Sidon revolted against Persia and was destroyed by Artaxerxes III, Joppa apparently became a free city. Alexander the Great changed its name from Japho (its OT name) to Joppa and established a mint there, making it a city of some importance in the Greek Empire. Following Alexander’s death, his successors fought over the city several times. It was ruled by Egypt from 301 <span>BC<\/span> until 197 <span>BC<\/span>, when Antiochus III made it a part of the Seleucid kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>During the Maccabean period, Joppa had varied experiences. When Antiochus IV Epiphanes moved toward Jerusalem in 168 <span>BC<\/span> to enforce his program of Hellenization, he landed his troops at Joppa. In 164 <span>BC<\/span>, because of the success of Judas Maccabeus against the Seleucids, non-Jewish citizens drowned about 200 Jews. Judas retaliated by burning the harbor installations and the boats anchored there but was unable to conquer the city itself (2 Macc 12:3-9). In 147 <span>BC<\/span> Jonathan and Simon defeated Appollonius Taos, the Syrian general, and occupied Joppa for Alexander I Epiphanes, a contender for the Syrian throne (1 Macc 10:74-86). Through a series of political moves in the next few years Simon was able to fortify the city, expel the Greek inhabitants, and firmly establish Joppa as a Jewish city. During Pompey’s Roman occupation, Joppa was declared a free city; it was returned to the Jews by Julius Caesar (47 <span>BC<\/span>); and it was captured by Herod the Great in 37 <span>BC<\/span>. Hated by the residents of Joppa, Herod built a new port at Caesarea, about 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Joppa. By the time of Jesus’ birth, Joppa was under the rule of Caesarea in the province of Syria (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 17.13.2-4).<\/p>\n<p>A Christian congregation appeared quite early in Joppa. Among the disciples living there were Dorcas, whom Peter raised from death (Acts 9:36-41), and Simon the tanner (v 43). From Joppa, Peter was called to Caesarea to present the gospel to the Roman centurion Cornelius (10:1-48).<\/p>\n<p>Joppa was a primary center of revolt against the Romans. It was destroyed by Vespasian in <span>AD<\/span> 68 and replaced with a Roman army camp. It was later rebuilt, and is known today as Jaffa, a suburb of Tel Aviv.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>JOPPA<\/h3>\n<p>City about 35 miles (56.3 kilometers) northwest of Jerusalem that served as Jerusalem’s seaport. Joppa was built on a rocky hill about 116 feet (35.4 meters) high, with a cape projecting beyond the coastline into the sea, and was the only natural harbor on the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and the OT town of Acco. Some 300 to 400 feet (91.4 to 121.9 meters) offshore a series of reefs formed a breakwater so that entrance into the harbor was gained from the north. It is possible that the harbor was larger and better protected in biblical times than it is today. The biblical city was well supplied with water, and the land surrounding it was quite fertile.<\/p>\n\n<p>Joppa first appears in ancient records in the Egyptian list of Palestinian cities captured by Thutmose III (1490–1432 <span>BC<\/span>). During the Amarna period, it was ruled by a local prince in alliance with Jerusalem. One source from this period describes its beautiful gardens and the craftsmanship of its workers in metal, leather, and wood. When Palestine was divided among the 12 tribes, Joppa was assigned to Dan (Jos 19:46; <span>kjv<\/span> “Japho”). It was soon taken by the Philistines, who made it one of their seaports. David’s conquest of the Philistines restored Joppa to Israel, and during Solomon’s reign, it became a major port serving Jerusalem. Cedar logs were floated from Lebanon to Joppa and then transported to Jerusalem for use in building the temple (2 Chr 2:16).<\/p>\n<p>Joppa was the seaport to which Jonah fled in an attempt to avoid preaching to Nineveh (Jon 1:3); there, hoping to escape his responsibility, he boarded a ship bound for Tarshish. When Tiglath-pileser III invaded Philistia in 743 <span>BC<\/span>, Joppa probably was one of the Philistine cities that fell to him. Sennacherib, in his campaign of 701 <span>BC<\/span>, lists Joppa as one of the cities he occupied. Subsequent to that, little is known of it until the time of Ezra, when once again cedar logs from Lebanon were floated to Joppa and taken to Jerusalem for the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 3:7). During the fourth century <span>BC<\/span>, Eshmunazar of Sidon controlled the city. When Sidon revolted against Persia and was destroyed by Artaxerxes III, Joppa apparently became a free city. Alexander the Great changed its name from Japho (its OT name) to Joppa and established a mint there, making it a city of some importance in the Greek Empire. Following Alexander’s death, his successors fought over the city several times. It was ruled by Egypt from 301 <span>BC<\/span> until 197 <span>BC<\/span>, when Antiochus III made it a part of the Seleucid kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>During the Maccabean period, Joppa had varied experiences. When Antiochus IV Epiphanes moved toward Jerusalem in 168 <span>BC<\/span> to enforce his program of Hellenization, he landed his troops at Joppa. In 164 <span>BC<\/span>, because of the success of Judas Maccabeus against the Seleucids, non-Jewish citizens drowned about 200 Jews. Judas retaliated by burning the harbor installations and the boats anchored there but was unable to conquer the city itself (2 Macc 12:3-9). In 147 <span>BC<\/span> Jonathan and Simon defeated Appollonius Taos, the Syrian general, and occupied Joppa for Alexander I Epiphanes, a contender for the Syrian throne (1 Macc 10:74-86). Through a series of political moves in the next few years Simon was able to fortify the city, expel the Greek inhabitants, and firmly establish Joppa as a Jewish city. During Pompey’s Roman occupation, Joppa was declared a free city; it was returned to the Jews by Julius Caesar (47 <span>BC<\/span>); and it was captured by Herod the Great in 37 <span>BC<\/span>. Hated by the residents of Joppa, Herod built a new port at Caesarea, about 40 miles (64.4 kilometers) north of Joppa. By the time of Jesus’ birth, Joppa was under the rule of Caesarea in the province of Syria (Josephus’s <em>Antiquities<\/em> 17.13.2-4).<\/p>\n<p>A Christian congregation appeared quite early in Joppa. Among the disciples living there were Dorcas, whom Peter raised from death (Acts 9:36-41), and Simon the tanner (v 43). From Joppa, Peter was called to Caesarea to present the gospel to the Roman centurion Cornelius (10:1-48).<\/p>\n<p>Joppa was a primary center of revolt against the Romans. It was destroyed by Vespasian in <span>AD<\/span> 68 and replaced with a Roman army camp. It was later rebuilt, and is known today as Jaffa, a suburb of Tel Aviv.<\/p>","summary_ro":"JOPPA City about 35 miles (56.3 kilometers) northwest of Jerusalem that served as Jerusalem’s seaport. Joppa was built on a rocky hill about 116 feet (35.4 meters) high, with a cape projecting beyond the coastline into the sea, and was the only natural harbor on the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and the OT town of Acco. Some 300 to 400 feet (91.4 to 121.9 meters) offshore a series of reefs formed a breakwater so that entrance into the harbor was gained from the north. It is possible that ...","summary_en":"JOPPA City about 35 miles (56.3 kilometers) northwest of Jerusalem that served as Jerusalem’s seaport. Joppa was built on a rocky hill about 116 feet (35.4 meters) high, with a cape projecting beyond the coastline into the sea, and was the only natural harbor on the Mediterranean coast between Egypt and the OT town of Acco. Some 300 to 400 feet (91.4 to 121.9 meters) offshore a series of reefs formed a breakwater so that entrance into the harbor was gained from the north. It is possible that ...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":22910,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Lebanon","title_en":"Lebanon","content_ro":"<h3>LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">l-b-n<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the snow that lay on the mountains for six months of the year (Jer 18:14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>At the southern end the Lebanon ranges are a direct continuation of the hills of northern Galilee, with Mt Hermon (Sirion, Senir) very prominent in the Anti-Lebanon range, rising to 9,230 feet (2,813.3 meters). The two ranges are divided by a broad valley, the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11:17) or “the entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:8), the modern Beqa’a.<\/p>\n<p>In the south the Lebanon range is separated from the Galilee hills by a deep east-west gorge through which the Litani River flows, entering the Mediterranean just north of Tyre. In its upper courses it follows the Beqa’a Valley in a northeasterly direction almost to Baalbek. The Lebanon ridge, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) long, stretches north to the east-west valley of the Nahr el-Kebir and is marked by a series of peaks. In the south are Gebel Rihan, Tomat, and Gebel Niha (ranging from 5,350 feet to nearly 6,230 feet, or 1,636.7 to 1,898.9 meters, high) east of Sidon. In the center lie Gebel Baruk, Gebel Kuneiyiseh, and Gebel Sunnin (7,220 feet, 6,890 feet, and 8,530 feet high, or 2,200.7 meters, 2,100.1 meters, and 2,599.9 meters high, respectively) east of Beirut. Further north, to the east of Tripoli, lies Qurnet es-Sauda, which reaches 9,840 feet (2,999.2 meters), and Qurnet Aruba, about 7,320 feet (2,231.1 meters) high.<\/p>\n<p>These high mountains trap the rain coming from the Mediterranean, providing both the mountain areas and the coastal strip below with good rainfall; beyond the mountains, the rainfall drops. It is along the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea that the Phoenicians flourished and towns like Tyre, Zarephath, Sidon, Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Gebal), and Tripoli were established. The coastal area has a number of headlands that are extensions of the mountain range. The coastal road had to be cut around or through these spurs. A good example is the headland of Nahr el-Kelb, a little to the north of Beirut.<\/p>\n<p>On the east side of the Lebanon range is the Beqa’a Valley. The Orontes River rises in the north of this valley and flows north to enter the Mediterranean north of ancient Ugarit. This whole valley region was known in classical literature as Coele-syria (Hollow Syria). It was the “breadbasket” of the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>To the east of the Beqa’a Valley is the Anti-Lebanon range, in which the Barada River rises and flows east toward the fertile oasis of Damascus. Mt Hermon, in the southern part of the range, was known as Sirion by the Phoenicians and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Resources\">Resources<\/p>\n<p>Lebanon was famous in antiquity for its rich forests of fir and cedar. The coastal areas, the Beqa’a Valley, and the lower slopes of the mountains were suitable for olive trees, fruit trees, and vineyards, as well as some grain crops. One important product came from the sea: a mollusk of the gastropoda class from which a red or purple dye was obtained. The name “Phoenician” derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">phoinos<\/span><em>,<\/em> red-purple. Wool dyed purple was available in Ugarit about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Phoenicians had a monopoly on this industry for centuries. The people of Israel, who used a great deal of purple dye in their tabernacle furnishings (Ex 26) and the garments of their priests (Ex 28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29), probably obtained the dye from the Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p>King Solomon had significant trading relations with Phoenicia. To build the temple in Jerusalem, cedar and fir were obtained from Hiram I of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:6, 9, 14; 7:2; 10:17, 21; 2 Chr 2:8, 16). Solomon paid for this timber in wheat and olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). The trees were floated down by sea to a point in Solomon’s domain and transported from there to Jerusalem. Cedar and fir trees from Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon provided ships for Tyre (Ez 27:5), sacred barges and furniture for Egypt, and timber for building the second temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>From the ports of Lebanon, the Phoenicians traded with many lands. They mastered the art of shipbuilding, and their ships were used in peace and in war. A vivid picture of the trading activities of traders from Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad is given in Ezekiel 27, where the extent and nature of their trade is given in considerable detail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The area became of interest to the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty (c. 2600 <span>BC<\/span>) when Pharaoh Snofru acquired 40 shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Byblos fell under Egyptian influence during the 12th dynasty (c. 1980–1800 <span>BC<\/span>) and Egyptians gave golden ornaments in exchange for cedar. During the 18th dynasty (c. 1552–1306 <span>BC<\/span>), Egypt conquered Syria, and the records speak regularly of cedar being taken as tribute. Later an envoy of Ramses XI named Wenamon paid dearly for the cedar (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When Egyptian power waned, the Assyrians controlled the area and took vast quantities of cedar as tribute from the days of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>) onward. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nation likewise controlled Lebanon and took away large quantities of cedar to build temples and palaces. The spoiling of Lebanon’s forests was spoken of by Isaiah (Is 14:8) and Habakkuk (Hb 2:17). In later centuries Lebanon passed successively under the domination of Persians, Greeks, and Romans.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the towns of Tyre and Sidon are generally coupled together (Mt 15:21; Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14; Acts 12:20), though sometimes they are referred to alone (Acts 21:3, 7). A Greek woman who was a Syro-Phoenician is referred to in Mark 7:26. Jesus preached in these areas during his ministry. In biblical poetry the tall cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of majesty and strength (Jgs 9:15; 2 Kgs 14:9; Pss 92:12; 104:16; Is 35:2; 60:13). They were also a symbol of earthly pride that would be broken before the wrath of God one day (Ps 29:5; Is 2:13; 10:34; Jer 22:6; Ez 31:3).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>LEBANON<\/h3>\n<p>Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">l-b-n<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the snow that lay on the mountains for six months of the year (Jer 18:14).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Geography\">Geography<\/p>\n<p>At the southern end the Lebanon ranges are a direct continuation of the hills of northern Galilee, with Mt Hermon (Sirion, Senir) very prominent in the Anti-Lebanon range, rising to 9,230 feet (2,813.3 meters). The two ranges are divided by a broad valley, the valley of Lebanon (Jos 11:17) or “the entrance of Hamath” (Nm 34:8), the modern Beqa’a.<\/p>\n<p>In the south the Lebanon range is separated from the Galilee hills by a deep east-west gorge through which the Litani River flows, entering the Mediterranean just north of Tyre. In its upper courses it follows the Beqa’a Valley in a northeasterly direction almost to Baalbek. The Lebanon ridge, about 100 miles (160.9 kilometers) long, stretches north to the east-west valley of the Nahr el-Kebir and is marked by a series of peaks. In the south are Gebel Rihan, Tomat, and Gebel Niha (ranging from 5,350 feet to nearly 6,230 feet, or 1,636.7 to 1,898.9 meters, high) east of Sidon. In the center lie Gebel Baruk, Gebel Kuneiyiseh, and Gebel Sunnin (7,220 feet, 6,890 feet, and 8,530 feet high, or 2,200.7 meters, 2,100.1 meters, and 2,599.9 meters high, respectively) east of Beirut. Further north, to the east of Tripoli, lies Qurnet es-Sauda, which reaches 9,840 feet (2,999.2 meters), and Qurnet Aruba, about 7,320 feet (2,231.1 meters) high.<\/p>\n<p>These high mountains trap the rain coming from the Mediterranean, providing both the mountain areas and the coastal strip below with good rainfall; beyond the mountains, the rainfall drops. It is along the coastal strip between the mountains and the sea that the Phoenicians flourished and towns like Tyre, Zarephath, Sidon, Berytus (Beirut), Byblos (Gebal), and Tripoli were established. The coastal area has a number of headlands that are extensions of the mountain range. The coastal road had to be cut around or through these spurs. A good example is the headland of Nahr el-Kelb, a little to the north of Beirut.<\/p>\n<p>On the east side of the Lebanon range is the Beqa’a Valley. The Orontes River rises in the north of this valley and flows north to enter the Mediterranean north of ancient Ugarit. This whole valley region was known in classical literature as Coele-syria (Hollow Syria). It was the “breadbasket” of the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>To the east of the Beqa’a Valley is the Anti-Lebanon range, in which the Barada River rises and flows east toward the fertile oasis of Damascus. Mt Hermon, in the southern part of the range, was known as Sirion by the Phoenicians and Senir by the Amorites (Dt 3:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Resources\">Resources<\/p>\n<p>Lebanon was famous in antiquity for its rich forests of fir and cedar. The coastal areas, the Beqa’a Valley, and the lower slopes of the mountains were suitable for olive trees, fruit trees, and vineyards, as well as some grain crops. One important product came from the sea: a mollusk of the gastropoda class from which a red or purple dye was obtained. The name “Phoenician” derived from the Greek <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">phoinos<\/span><em>,<\/em> red-purple. Wool dyed purple was available in Ugarit about 1500 <span>BC<\/span>. The Phoenicians had a monopoly on this industry for centuries. The people of Israel, who used a great deal of purple dye in their tabernacle furnishings (Ex 26) and the garments of their priests (Ex 28:4-6; 39:1, 28-29), probably obtained the dye from the Phoenicians.<\/p>\n<p>King Solomon had significant trading relations with Phoenicia. To build the temple in Jerusalem, cedar and fir were obtained from Hiram I of Tyre (1 Kgs 5:6, 9, 14; 7:2; 10:17, 21; 2 Chr 2:8, 16). Solomon paid for this timber in wheat and olive oil (1 Kgs 5:11). The trees were floated down by sea to a point in Solomon’s domain and transported from there to Jerusalem. Cedar and fir trees from Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon provided ships for Tyre (Ez 27:5), sacred barges and furniture for Egypt, and timber for building the second temple in Jerusalem (Ezr 3:7).<\/p>\n<p>From the ports of Lebanon, the Phoenicians traded with many lands. They mastered the art of shipbuilding, and their ships were used in peace and in war. A vivid picture of the trading activities of traders from Tyre, Sidon, Gebal, and Arvad is given in Ezekiel 27, where the extent and nature of their trade is given in considerable detail.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"History\">History<\/p>\n<p>The area became of interest to the Egyptians during the fourth dynasty (c. 2600 <span>BC<\/span>) when Pharaoh Snofru acquired 40 shiploads of cedar from Lebanon. Byblos fell under Egyptian influence during the 12th dynasty (c. 1980–1800 <span>BC<\/span>) and Egyptians gave golden ornaments in exchange for cedar. During the 18th dynasty (c. 1552–1306 <span>BC<\/span>), Egypt conquered Syria, and the records speak regularly of cedar being taken as tribute. Later an envoy of Ramses XI named Wenamon paid dearly for the cedar (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>When Egyptian power waned, the Assyrians controlled the area and took vast quantities of cedar as tribute from the days of Tiglath-pileser I (c. 1100 <span>BC<\/span>) onward. Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonian nation likewise controlled Lebanon and took away large quantities of cedar to build temples and palaces. The spoiling of Lebanon’s forests was spoken of by Isaiah (Is 14:8) and Habakkuk (Hb 2:17). In later centuries Lebanon passed successively under the domination of Persians, Greeks, and Romans.<\/p>\n<p>In NT times the towns of Tyre and Sidon are generally coupled together (Mt 15:21; Mk 3:8; 7:24, 31; Lk 6:17; 10:13-14; Acts 12:20), though sometimes they are referred to alone (Acts 21:3, 7). A Greek woman who was a Syro-Phoenician is referred to in Mark 7:26. Jesus preached in these areas during his ministry. In biblical poetry the tall cedars of Lebanon were a symbol of majesty and strength (Jgs 9:15; 2 Kgs 14:9; Pss 92:12; 104:16; Is 35:2; 60:13). They were also a symbol of earthly pride that would be broken before the wrath of God one day (Ps 29:5; Is 2:13; 10:34; Jer 22:6; Ez 31:3).<\/p>","summary_ro":"LEBANON Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root l-b-n, meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the...","summary_en":"LEBANON Region mentioned only in the OT, although its towns, including Tyre and Sidon, are named in the NT. The name Lebanon generally refers to the double range of mountains that commences near Tyre and runs northeast following the Mediterranean coast. The two Lebanon ranges are parallel to one another, Lebanon to the west and Anti-Lebanon to the east. The name Lebanon is derived from the Hebrew root l-b-n, meaning “white,” which may reflect either the white limestone of the mountains or the...","source":"Articles\/L.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":24601,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Masonry Mason","title_en":"Masonry Mason","content_ro":"<h3>MASON, MASONRY<\/h3>\n<p>Worker in and craft of brick and stonework. The mason prepared stone from the quarry for use in building. In Israel’s early days masons were brought from Phoenicia (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:17-18; 1 Chr 14:1), but later Israelite masons did their own work (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 24:12; Ezr 3:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MASON, MASONRY<\/h3>\n<p>Worker in and craft of brick and stonework. The mason prepared stone from the quarry for use in building. In Israel’s early days masons were brought from Phoenicia (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:17-18; 1 Chr 14:1), but later Israelite masons did their own work (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 24:12; Ezr 3:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"MASON, MASONRY Worker in and craft of brick and stonework. The mason prepared stone from the quarry for use in building. In Israel’s early days masons were brought from Phoenicia (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:17-18; 1 Chr 14:1), but later Israelite masons did their own work (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 24:12; Ezr 3:7).","summary_en":"MASON, MASONRY Worker in and craft of brick and stonework. The mason prepared stone from the quarry for use in building. In Israel’s early days masons were brought from Phoenicia (2 Sm 5:11; 1 Kgs 5:17-18; 1 Chr 14:1), but later Israelite masons did their own work (2 Kgs 12:12; 22:6; 2 Chr 24:12; Ezr 3:7).","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30919,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Period*, Postexilic","title_en":"Period*, Postexilic","content_ro":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblicalPerspective\">The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCollapseoftheBabylonianEmpire\">The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>This occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 <span>BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePolicyofPersia\">The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>This is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\n<p>The new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnfromExile\">The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>The continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Work on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 <span>BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnofEzra\">The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>The traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 <span>BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 <span>BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 <span>BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 <span>BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 <span>BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 <span>BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\n<p>Ezra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NehemiahsReturnandMinistry\">Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Hanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRemainderofthePersianPeriod\">The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>Persian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 <span>BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 <span>BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReligiousFeaturesofthePostexilicPeriod\">Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>There were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n<p>1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\n<p>Some type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblicalPerspective\">The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCollapseoftheBabylonianEmpire\">The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>This occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 <span>BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePolicyofPersia\">The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>This is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\n<p>The new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnfromExile\">The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>The continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Work on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 <span>BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnofEzra\">The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>The traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 <span>BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 <span>BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 <span>BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 <span>BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 <span>BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 <span>BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\n<p>Ezra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NehemiahsReturnandMinistry\">Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Hanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRemainderofthePersianPeriod\">The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>Persian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 <span>BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 <span>BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReligiousFeaturesofthePostexilicPeriod\">Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>There were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n<p>1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\n<p>Some type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","summary_en":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":37023,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Temple","title_en":"Temple","content_ro":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>TEMPLE<\/h3>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptable to both. Jerusalem was then established as the national religious center by the return of the ark, which had been largely neglected since its capture by the Philistines (2 Sm 6:1-17). Henceforth, God’s choices of both David and Jerusalem (“Mount Zion”) were indissolubly linked (Ps 78:67-72).<\/p>\n<p>David’s great impulse was to build an adequate dwelling place for Israel’s God. The idea was initially approved by Nathan the prophet (2 Sm 7:1-3), but God revealed otherwise to him, and he conveyed the divine purpose to David (vv 4-17). In a significant wordplay, David was informed that, while he was not to build a house (temple) for God, God would build a house (dynasty) for him. David was not the one to build a temple because of the numerous wars during his reign; the temple would instead be built by his son (1 Kgs 5:3; 1 Chr 22:7-8; 28:3). Nevertheless, David enthusiastically amassed most of the necessary finances and materials and drew up the blueprints for the temple (1 Chr 22:3-5, 14; 28:2, 11-19). He also purchased the temple site (21:25).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SolomonsTemple\">Solomon’s Temple<\/p>\n\n<h5>Date<\/h5>\n<p>Construction commenced in Solomon’s fourth year, about 966 <span>BC<\/span>, and took seven years to complete (1 Kgs 6:1, 38). Everything necessary for the temple, including the workers, had been prepared by David (1 Chr 28:21). The temple evidently had first priority among Solomon’s building schemes, as he built his own palace later (1 Kgs 7:1).<\/p>\n<h5>Superintendents and Workforce<\/h5>\n<p>The principal architect for the bronze furnishings was Huram (Hebrew “Hiram”), whose father was a metal craftsman from Tyre and whose mother was an Israelite (1 Kgs 7:13-14). Cedar for the temple came from Lebanon and was felled and transported by the skilled woodsmen of another Hiram—the king of Tyre, Solomon’s ally (5:5-9). Thirty thousand Israelites, divided into three groups, were drafted to assist at Lebanon. Each group was on duty for one month in three. For the stonework, Solomon conscripted 153,600 foreigners resident in Israel to provide a self-contained group of carriers, stone cutters, and supervisors (vv 15-17; 2 Chr 2:17-18). Possibly the “men of Gebal,” with their specialized skills, formed yet another group (1 Kgs 5:18). Building the temple was obviously a national project of immense size and effort. In order to preserve the sanctity of the site and to eliminate noise, the masonry and carpentry were not done at the temple site (6:7).<\/p>\n<h5>Description<\/h5>\n<p>The details given in the Bible are sufficiently clear for us to make a reasonably accurate description of the temple. The accounts in Kings and Chronicles are supplemented by Ezekiel’s depiction of the temple (see below), which was broadly based on his knowledge of the Jerusalem temple (Ez 40–48).<\/p>\n<p>The side rooms probably rested on a foundation or platform that was separate from the temple itself (1 Kgs 6:5, 10; cf. Ez 41:8-9) and were arranged in three stories, each seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high, extending around the whole building except for the porch side. Each successive story was one and a half feet (.5 meter) wider than the one below, these dimensions coinciding with the thickness of the side wall of the Holy Place. The ground floor rooms were seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) wide; the first story was nine feet (2.7 meters), and the second was ten and a half feet (3.2 meters). Access to the upper stories was possibly by winding staircases (1 Kgs 6:8). There is some uncertainty concerning the location of the entrances; there may have been one on either side, but only one is mentioned (v 8). As in Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 40:17, 28), there were two adjacent courts, an inner and an outer (1 Kgs 6:36; 7:12), but no dimensions are given for these. The inner court, or “court of the priests,” being next to the temple itself, was also called “the upper court” (2 Chr 4:9; Jer 36:10). The wall of the inner court was made of three layers of hewn stone held together by a layer of cedar beams (1 Kgs 6:36), and the doors of both courts were sheathed in bronze (2 Chr 4:9). The palace buildings were within the outer court area, probably with a private passageway between the palace and the temple that was later closed during the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr 4:9, 12; 2 Kgs 16:18).<\/p>\n<p>The temple itself was 90 feet (27.4 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 45 feet (13.7 meters) high (1 Kgs 6:2), with a porch or vestibule 15 feet (4.6 meters) deep stretching across the width. Probably the vestibule was on the east end of the temple, thus corresponding with the orientation of Ezekiel’s temple (Ez 43:1; 44:1). The larger part of the main sanctuary, next to the porch, formed the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long (1 Kgs 6:17). Beyond this was the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies (or the “Most Holy Place“), which was a perfect cube of 30 feet (9.1 meters). All the interior walls were paneled with cedar decorated with flower patterns, cherubim, and palm trees, so that no masonry was visible. The walls of both inner and outer sanctuaries were “overlaid” (v 22) with pure gold. Actually the gold decoration may have been inlaid, on the basis that a solid sheath of gold would spoil the natural beauty of the wood carving. The floor was made of cypress planks (v 15). Narrow windows set high in the walls above the level of the three-storied outer chambers provided light in the Holy Place (v 4). The ceiling was paneled with beams and planks of cedar. No detail is given about the exterior roofing, but probably the contemporary technique was employed, using a wooden, latticelike framework into which a waterproof, limestone plaster was packed and rolled.<\/p>\n<p>The outer porch was apparently an open space, since no doors are mentioned. Access into the Holy Place was by double doors, both hinged to fold back on themselves, made of cypress and decorated in exactly the same way as the interior walls (vv 34-35). The doorposts were made of olive wood. Within the Holy Place was the altar of incense made of cedar overlaid with gold; it was placed centrally before the Holy of Holies. Also in the Holy Place were a table for the bread of the Presence of God, ten lampstands arranged in two groups of five on either side, and various utensils required for maintaining the priestly duties (1 Kgs 7:48-50). All these were made or overlaid with gold. The ten tables, arranged five on each side, were presumably for the utensils and accessories (2 Chr 4:8).<\/p>\n<p>Between the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies was a double door made of olive wood, carved with cherubim, palm trees, and flower patterns and overlaid with gold. Inside these doors, veiling still further the Holy of Holies, was a blue, purple, and crimson curtain, made of the finest fabrics and ornamented with cherubim (2 Chr 3:14).<\/p>\n<p>In the Holy of Holies were two cherubim, each 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and made of olive wood covered with gold (1 Kgs 6:23-28). Each wing measured seven and a half feet (2.3 meters). A wing of each touched the side walls; the other wings met at the center of the room. The divine throne had been considerably less impressive in the tabernacle, where a wing of each cherubim fused into the mercy seat above the ark (Ex 25:17-22). In Solomon’s temple, the ark of the covenant was placed below the forward-facing cherubim, the symbolic protectors. The ark, the only major item surviving from the Mosaic tabernacle, still contained the tablets of the law, but the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were missing (1 Kgs 8:9).<\/p>\n<p>Immediately outside the temple and on either side of the vestibule were two hollow bronze pillars (1 Kgs 7:15-20; 2 Chr 3:15-17). According to the book of Kings, these pillars were 27 feet (8.2 meters) high, with a circumference of 18 feet (5.5 meters). The metal itself was about four inches (10.2 centimeters) thick. The pillars were surmounted by bronze, lily-shaped capitals seven and a half feet (2.3 meters) high and six feet (1.8 meters) wide, intricately adorned with a chain latticework that supported two rows of pomegranates. The total weight must have been enormous, and their size is attested to by Jeremiah, who notes that the Babylonians had to break them in pieces before transporting them to Babylon (Jer 52:17, 21-23).<\/p>\n<p>The bronze altar of sacrifice in front of the vestibule is not listed in the specifications of 1 Kings 7. However, it is mentioned in the temple dedication and subsequently (1 Kgs 8:22, 54, 64; 9:25) and clearly stood in the inner court. Its dimensions were 30 feet (9.1 meters) square and 15 feet (4.6 meters) high (2 Chr 4:1). In view of its weight, it was probably cast in sections at Solomon’s foundry in the Jordan Rift valley (vv 17-18) and then transported to the temple site for assembly.<\/p>\n<p>Probably the most striking article in the inner court was the “molten (bronze) sea,” a huge, round tank made of bronze 3 inches (8 centimeters) thick, 7½ feet (2.3 meters) high, and 15 feet (4.6 meters) in diameter (1 Kgs 7:23-26). Its rim flared out like a lily (2 Chr 4:2-5). The tank was supported on 12 bronze oxen, four on each side, and had two rows of decoration, possibly gourds or pomegranates, under the brim. Its capacity was between 10,000 and 12,000 gallons (37,850–45,420 liters). The bronze sea was used for priestly ablutions (v 6). Presumably this involved a platform of sorts, for the brim of this vast basin would have been about 15 feet (4.6 meters) above ground level.<\/p>\n<p>Hiram also constructed ten large lavers, mounted on moveable stands and placed in two groups of five, on the north and south sides of the inner court (1 Kgs 7:27-39). Basically the stands were bronze boxes, six feet (1.8 meters) square and four and a half feet (1.4 meters) high with a nine-inch (22.9-centimeter) rim around the top edge. Each corner was attached to braced posts to which the axles were fixed. The four-spoked wheels were 27 inches (68.6 centimeters) high. Into each stand there fitted a laver containing approximately 220 gallons (832.7 liters) of water, used for washing sacrificial animals (2 Chr 4:6). Probably each was adjacent to one of the ten tables that would be used to flay and otherwise prepare the sacrifices (v 8). Supplementary items, such as pots, shovels, and basins, all made of bronze, were also manufactured (1 Kgs 7:40, 45).<\/p>\n<h5>The Dedication<\/h5>\n<p>Eleven months elapsed between the completion of the temple and its dedication (1 Kgs 6:38; 8:2), during which time the major items of furniture were set in place. The dedication itself took place in the seventh month, presumably in connection with the Feast of Tabernacles and the Day of Atonement (Lv 23:23-36). The ark of the covenant was brought into its final resting place (1 Kgs 8:3-4), but the inner court proved inadequate for the vast numbers of beasts sacrificed (1 Kgs 8:62-64; 2 Chr 7:7).<\/p>\n<p>The temple employed the most sophisticated building techniques of the age, and no expense had been spared in construction, ornamentation, or equipment. Yet Solomon readily confessed its utter inadequacy to house the eternal God (1 Kgs 8:27). His prayer also underlined Israel’s propensity to forsake the Lord, contrasting the nation with God, who, though a just judge, was also merciful and faithful. The climax of the proceedings came when fire from heaven consumed the sacrifices and the shekinah glory filled the temple (2 Chr 7:1-3).<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Like most ancient shrines, the temple became a treasury for national wealth and as such was often the target for attack. Shishak of Egypt plundered it within five years of Solomon’s death (1 Kgs 14:25-38). Shortly afterward, King Asa (910–869 <span>BC<\/span>) depleted its gold and silver treasures to buy Syrian help against his oppressor, Baasha (908–886 <span>BC<\/span>), king of Israel (15:16-19). Joash, the king of Judah (835–796 <span>BC<\/span>) who was concealed in the temple from the vicious Athaliah during his youth (2 Kgs 11), made provision for its repair after protesting the priests’ embezzlement of gifts (12:4-16). But after the death of Jehoiada, the high priest, Joash himself was adversely influenced by his nobles (2 Chr 24:15-19). As punishment for his apostasy, the Lord allowed the Syrians to attack, and Joash used the temple treasures to buy them off (2 Kgs 12:17-18). Hardly had provision for replacements been made, when Jehoash of Israel (798–782 <span>BC<\/span>), having shattered the arrogant pride of Amaziah of Judah (796–767 <span>BC<\/span>), again stripped the temple (14:8-14). Later, King Ahaz (735-715 <span>BC<\/span>) used the remaining resources of the temple to enlist support from the Assyrians (16:7-9), though he eventually became completely subservient to them.<\/p>\n<p> Then Hezekiah (715–686 <span>BC<\/span>), one of the great reforming kings, thoroughly renovated the temple and restored worship after it had fallen into disuse during theclosing years of Ahaz (2 Chr 29:1-19; 31:9-21). Manasseh (696–642 <span>BC<\/span>), however, completely reversed his father’s policy, bringing the practices of Canaanite and Mesopotamian worship into the temple (2 Kgs 21:3-7). His conversion experience, which probably occurred late in his reign and resulted in certain reform measures in the temple (2 Chr 33:12-19), was not far-reaching enough to escape the final judgment that his reign was the dark spot of Judah’s history (2 Kgs 21:10-16).<\/p>\n<p>Manasseh’s grandson Josiah (640–609 <span>BC<\/span>), was the second great reforming king. He organized the repair of the temple in 622 <span>BC<\/span>, during which the lost Book of the Law (almost certainly the book of Deuteronomy) was discovered (2 Kgs 22:3-13). As a result, Josiah’s reformation gained a new dimension and sense of urgency (22:14–23:3). The reformation included a thorough purge of all idolatrous elements from the temple (23:4-12) and the restoration of the traditional festivals. Sadly, however, Josiah’s reformation died with him, and Judah’s downward slide continued under the apostate Jehoiakim (609–598 <span>BC<\/span>). It was probably during this time that Jeremiah preached his famous temple sermon foretelling its destruction (Jer 7:1–8:3; 26:1-19), which alienated him from the religious leaders. In Nebuchadnezzar’s reprisal raid following Jehoiakim’s rebellion in 601 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 24:1-4), Jerusalem was captured (596 <span>BC<\/span>) and many of the temple treasures were transported to Babylon (2 Chr 36:7). The temple itself appears to have escaped damage, but when Judah again rebelled under Zedekiah (597–586 <span>BC<\/span>), the temple was demolished (2 Kgs 25:8-10). The remaining temple treasures were taken away.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ZerubbabelsTemple\">Zerubbabel’s Temple<\/p>\n<h5>Construction<\/h5>\n<p>Although the temple was devastated, the site still remained as a place of pilgrimage during the exile (Jer 41:4-5). In 538 <span>BC<\/span> the Persian king, Cyrus, in pursuance of a liberal policy diametrically opposed to that of the earlier empires, permitted the Jews to return from exile. And he authorized the rebuilding of the temple, financing it from the Persian treasury.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Ezra, the decree of authorization has been preserved in two forms: the general proclamation (Ezr 1:2-4) and a more prosaic memorandum in the national archives indicating the main temple specifications and the amount of promised Persian help (6:1-5). Probably only a minority of the Jews opted to leave the relative comforts of Mesopotamia for the dangers of a long journey to their desolated homeland. According to the book of Ezra, 42,360 dedicated individuals and their servants (2:64-65) responded under the leadership of Sheshbazzar (1:8-11; 5:14-16) and Zerubbabel (2:2; 3:2, 8; 4:2). With great enthusiasm, the altar was rebuilt on the temple site and the traditional pattern of worship reestablished (3:1-6). Utilizing the grant from Persia as well as their own freewill gifts (2:68-69; 3:7), the Jews began to plan the second temple and lay its foundations (3:7-13). The initial impetus quickly died as a result of local opposition (4:1-4, 24), selfish preoccupation, and crop failures (Hg 1:2-11). In 520 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1; Zec 1:1), inspired by the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, the Jews under Zerubbabel and Joshua the high priest commenced rebuilding. Work continued in spite of official suspicion, if not direct opposition, and the temple was completed and dedicated in 515 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 5:1–6:22).<\/p>\n<p>Little is known of the physical features of Zerubbabel’s temple. The inference that it was vastly inferior to Solomon’s temple (Hg 2:3) probably relates to an early stage in the building operation. In fact, the second temple stood for over 500 years. The dimensions noted in Ezra 6:3 are incomplete; the new temple was no doubt about the same size as its predecessor and was probably built on the same foundation. The construction technique appears to have followed the method of the original, with layers of timber providing a framework for sections of masonry (v 4). Clearly, there was auxiliary accommodation, probably like the side rooms of Solomon’s temple (Ezr 8:29; Neh 12:44; 13:4-5). If Persian aid was forthcoming as promised (Ezr 6:8-12), the second temple was a more splendid, substantial structure than is generally supposed.<\/p>\n<h5>Later History<\/h5>\n<p>Several references in the Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, rabbinic writings, and the historian Josephus help to illumine the history of the temple and give more detail on its structure and furnishings. Josephus, quoting from Hecateus of Abdera (fourth century <span>BC<\/span>), states that the temple was a large building in an enclosure about 500 feet by 150 feet (152.4 meters by 45.7 meters), surrounded by a stone wall, with an altar of unhewn stones the same size as Solomon’s bronze altar (cf. 2 Chr 4:1). Within the sanctuary was a golden altar of incense and a lampstand, the flame of which burned continually. Josephus also notes that Antiochus III (223–187 <span>BC<\/span>) financially supported the temple when the Seleucids displaced the Ptolemies as masters of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p>Ben Sirach, early in the second century <span>BC<\/span>, commended Simon, the son of Onias the high priest, for his work in fortifying and repairing the temple area. First Maccabees provides valuable evidence of the fate of the temple during the oppression under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 <span>BC<\/span>). The books of the Maccabees recount the defilement of the altar of burnt offering (1 Macc 1:54) and the plundering of the golden lampstand, altar of incense, table of offering, veil, and other treasures (2 Macc 5:15-16; 6:2-4). When the temple was recaptured and restored, the victorious Maccabees replaced the items taken by the Seleucids, except for the altar of sacrifice, which was considered so polluted that it was dismantled and replaced by a new one constructed of unhewn stone (1 Macc 4:36-61; 2 Macc 10:1-9). Clearly the temple area was used as a fortress, both in opposition to the Seleucid garrison that was maintained in Jerusalem in the Maccabean period and in the conflicts of the later Hasmonean period. When Pompey captured Jerusalem about 63 <span>BC<\/span>, he entered the temple to assert his authority but took no plunder, thus showing respect for it.<\/p>\n<p>The history of Zerubbabel’s temple closed when Herod, having carefully preserved it from any major damage when he gained control of Jerusalem with Roman aid in 37 <span>BC<\/span>, began to dismantle it about 21 <span>BC<\/span> in preparation for the construction of his own grand temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"HerodsTemple\">Herod’s Temple<\/p>\n<p>Apart from over 100 references in the NT, our main sources of information about Herod’s temple come from the Jewish historian Josephus and from the Middoth (a section of the Jewish rabbinic writings). There are considerable differences in detail between the two, which rules out any dogmatic interpretation in attempted reconstructions. Since Josephus was contemporary with the temple (he was born about <span>AD<\/span> 37 and died early in the second century), he is probably more reliable than the Middoth, which, dating from about <span>AD<\/span> 150, appears to exaggerate occasionally. Archaeological research has been helpful in determining the positions of the outer walls and gates.<\/p>\n<p>Herod’s motive in building his temple was political rather than religious. As an Idumean, he wished to placate his Jewish subjects by constructing a sanctuary as magnificent as Solomon’s. Possible fears that the site might be profaned, or that the existing temple might be demolished and never rebuilt, were allayed by the training of 1,000 priests as masons and the amassing of materials before the work commenced. Herod’s temple followed the tripartite plan of its predecessors, although its porch was much larger. It was built in the contemporary Greco-Roman architectural style and must therefore be regarded as distinct from Zerubbabel’s temple. Work began in 20 <span>BC<\/span>, and while the main sanctuary was quickly erected (it was in full operation within ten years), the total project was not completed until <span>AD<\/span> 64, only six years before it was destroyed by the Romans.<\/p>\n<p>Herod first prepared the site by clearing and leveling an area approximately 500 yards (457.2 meters) from north to south and about 325 yards (297.2 meters) from east to west. This involved cutting away sections of rock in some areas and building up with rubble in others. Considerable sections of the enclosing wall, constructed on stone blocks averaging about 15 feet (4.6 meters) long by 4 feet (1.2 meters) high, still survive. Some of the stones in the corners of the south wall weigh up to 70 tons (63.5 metric tons).<\/p>\n<p>The sanctuary itself seems to have been based on the same dimensions as Solomon’s temple. It was divided into the Holy Place, which was 60 feet (18.3 meters) long, 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide, and 60 feet high, and the Holy of Holies, which was 30 feet square. There was no furniture within the Holy of Holies, which was separated by a veil from the Holy Place. The Holy Place contained the seven-branch lampstand, the table for the bread of the Presence, and the incense altar. The main divergence from Solomon’s temple was the imposing porch, 150 feet (45.7 meters) in width and height. Outside was a doorway approximately 30 feet (9.1 meters) wide by 40 feet (12.2 meters) high, with an inner doorway about half that size leading into the sanctuary. By allowing empty rooms over the Holy of Holies and the Holy Place, there was a uniform roof height of 150 feet (45.7 meters). Golden spikes on the roof discouraged birds from alighting and defiling the structure. Like its predecessors, the temple was oriented toward the east and was surrounded on the other sides by three stories of rooms rising to a height of 60 feet (18.3 meters). The stone used was the local white stone, cut in huge blocks and highly polished.<\/p>\n<p>Access to the porch was by a flight of 12 steps from the Court of the Priests. Centrally placed before the porch and 33 feet (10.1 meters) away was the altar of sacrifice. Made of unhewn stone, it was a multilevel construction 15 feet (4.6 meters) high and about 48 feet (14.6 meters) square at its base. Male Israelites were allowed into this area once a year, during the Feast of the Tabernacles, to walk around the altar of sacrifice. Otherwise, they were restricted to the Court of Israel. To the east of the Court of Israel, and separated from it by a flight of 15 steps and by the ornate Great Gate, made of Corinthian bronze, was the Court of the Women. Here the offertory chests for temple expenses were located (Mk 12:41-44). The next court was the large, lower, outer Court of the Gentiles, which surrounded the inner courts and was separated from them by a balustrade and a series of warning notices. Two of these have been excavated, written in Latin and Greek and forbidding trespass by Gentiles into the inner areas, on pain of death. This outer court was widely used. Immediately inside its walls was a portico, supported by four rows of columns almost 40 feet (12.2 meters) high on the south side (the Royal Porch), and two rows on the other sides, the eastern portico known as “Solomon’s Porch” or “Solomon’s Colonnade.” Here is the area where the stalls of the money changers and merchants were set up, where the Sanhedrin met, and where Christ and the scribes taught and debated (Mk 11:27; Lk 2:46; 19:47; Jn 10:23). Here, too, the infant church met before it was rejected by a hostile Judaism (Acts 3:11; 5:12). Just to the northwest of the temple enclosure was the Fortress of Antonia, where the Roman governor resided while in Jerusalem, and where a Roman garrison was on hand to deal with disturbances (Acts 21:31-40). Overlooking the temple area, it was separated from it by a wide moat. The high priest’s vestments were stored in the fortress as a symbol of Roman authority. Access to the Court of the Gentiles was by four gates in the west wall; two in the south wall, where the ground fell away steeply into the valley, a site often identified as the pinnacle of the temple (Mt 4:5; Lk 4:9); and one gate in each of the east and north walls.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheOldTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The temple in Jerusalem functioned as the focal point of the tribal confederation. In spite of the attempt of Jeroboam I, the first king of the northern kingdom, to divert attention from Jerusalem by establishing shrines at Bethel and Dan (1 Kgs 12:26-30), Jerusalem never lost its preeminence. Naturally, both Hezekiah and Josiah sought to extend their reformation into the area of the northern tribes (2 Chr 30:1-12; 34:6-7), and Jerusalem was a pilgrimage center for those areas even after its destruction (Jer 41:5). The prophets foretold its destiny as the focal point of universal worship (Is 2:1-4).<\/p>\n<p>The temple was God’s dwelling place among his people. God’s presence, symbolized in the shekinah glory and the pillar of cloud, was associated with the tent of meeting (Ex 33:9-11), with the tabernacle (40:34-38), and finally with the temple (1 Kgs 8:10-11). The paradox is that while God is completely unrestricted, the temple was considered a place for God to live forever (vv 13, 27). God had chosen Zion, as he had chosen David (Pss 68:15-18; 76:2; 78:67-72), so the temple was regarded as God’s house (27:4; 42:4; 84:1-4).<\/p>\n<h5>Ezekiel’s Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Ezekiel’s detailed description of the ideal temple (Ez 40–48) was not used as the blueprint for Zerubbabel’s temple. In fact, since Ezekiel must have been familiar with Solomon’s temple before his deportation in 597 <span>BC<\/span>, his description is of greater help in determining uncertain details of the first temple. Ezekiel’s concern was to show the nature of pure worship, safeguarded from all contamination. This worship would allow the glory of God, which had departed from corrupted Solomon’s temple (9:3; 10:4, 18-19: 11:22-23), to return so that Jerusalem could again be named “the Lord is there” (43:1-5; 48:35). This thought, linked with Ezekiel’s vital concept of God’s Spirit indwelling his faithful worshipers (36:24-28), anticipated the NT teaching of the believers becoming God’s temple.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"SignificanceoftheTempleintheNewTestament\">Significance of the Temple in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>Christ and the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>Christ showed considerable respect for the temple. When he was 12 years old, he entered into the rabbinic discussions in its porticoes and described it as his Father’s house (Lk 2:41-50). To him “the house of God” was indwelt by God (Mt 12:4; 23:21). Although he twice cleansed it in righteous anger (Mt 21:12-13; Jn 2:13-16), he wept over the impending destruction of the city and temple (Lk 19:41-44). He often taught there, but he was “greater than the temple” (Mt 12:6). When his presentation to Jerusalem as the predicted Messiah was rejected, in spite of attendant miracles, he foretold its inevitable destruction (Mt 21:9-15; 24:1-2). For a brief period after Pentecost, the early church used the temple as its meeting place, until mounting opposition drove believers from Jerusalem (Acts 5:12, 21, 42; 8:1).<\/p>\n<h5>The Church as the Temple<\/h5>\n<p>The NT writers used two different Greek words to describe the temple: <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span><em>.<\/em> <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Naos<\/span> refers to the actual sanctuary of the temple, the place of God’s dwelling. <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">Hieron<\/span> refers to the temple precincts as well as to the sanctuary. Generally speaking, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> was used to designate the inner section of the temple known as the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, whereas <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> included the outer court and the temple proper.<\/p>\n<p>In Paul’s epistles the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> appears six times (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21; 2 Thes 2:4) and <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> once (1 Cor 9:13). In these verses Paul maintains the distinction of definition noted above. When speaking of the actual physical temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">hieron<\/span> to indicate the place where the priests offered up animal sacrifices on the altar (1 Cor 9:13), which was situated in the outer court (see Ex 27–29, 40). And when Paul referred to the abominable act of the lawless one in usurping God’s place in the temple, he used the word <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span>—the word that designates the place of deity’s presence (2 Thes 2:4).<\/p>\n<p>In all the other Pauline passages, <span class=\"greek\" lang=\"el\">naos<\/span> is used metaphorically—to depict a human habitation for the divine Spirit. In one instance the sanctuary image is used to describe the individual believer’s body (1 Cor 6:19); in every other instance the sanctuary depicts Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 3:16-17; 2 Cor 6:16; Eph 2:21). Mistakenly, many readers think 1 Corinthians 3:16-17 speaks of the individual, but according to the Greek text, it is unquestionably clear that Paul was speaking about the collective church (specifically, the church in Corinth).<\/p>\n<p>When Paul told the church in Corinth that it was God’s sanctuary, they would have understood the image from their knowledge of pagan temples. But Paul probably had in mind the one temple in Jerusalem. The Gentiles had many gods with many temples in one city; the Jews had one God with only one temple in all of Israel. This helped to preserve unity among the Israelites. The Corinthians needed spiritual unity; they were fragmented due to their individual preferences (see 1 Cor 1:10-13).<\/p>\n<p>In Ephesians, Paul’s masterpiece on the church, he speaks of the local churches as living, organic entities that are all (compositely speaking) growing into a holy sanctuary in the Lord (Eph 2:21). Paul pictured each local church as providing God with a spiritual habitation in that locality (v 22) and as growing together with all the other churches into one holy, universal sanctuary for the Lord’s indwelling.<\/p>\n<h5>The Temple in John’s Revelation<\/h5>\n<p>In John’s revelation there is no material temple, even though he continues to use the imagery of Jerusalem and Mt Zion (Rv 3:12; 14:1; 21:2, 10, 22). Three interrelated ideas dominate. First is the concept of the church made up of martyrs, whose faithful members are God’s temple (3:12; 14:1). This temple grows gradually as the number of martyrs increases (6:11). Another aspect is the temple as the place of judgment (11:19; 14:15; 15:5–16:1). Finally, any temple in the new age is unnecessary, “for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb” (21:22). The ultimate state will be God’s dwelling with his people—the eternal, spritual temple.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Altar; Ark of the Covenant; Bread of the Presence; David; Feasts and Festivals of Israel; First Jewish Revolt; Judaism; Mercy Seat; Offerings and Sacrifices; Priests and Levites; Sanctuary; Singers in the Temple; Solomon (Person).<\/p>","summary_ro":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","summary_en":"TEMPLE Preview • Background • Solomon’s Temple • Zerubbabel’s Temple • Herod’s Temple • Significance of the Temple in the Old Testament • Significance of the Temple in the New Testament Background David’s capture of Jerusalem (2 Sm 5:6-9) and his designation of it as the nation’s capital is one of the great masterstrokes of history. Occupied by the Jebusites, it was a pocket of neutral territory between the northern and southern sections of David’s united kingdom and was politically acceptabl...","source":"Articles\/T.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48010,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:7<\/strong> <em>Tyre and Sidon:<\/em> Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:7<\/strong> <em>Tyre and Sidon:<\/em> Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7 Tyre and Sidon: Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).","summary_en":"3:7 Tyre and Sidon: Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75636,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:7<\/strong> <em>Tyre and Sidon:<\/em> Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:7<\/strong> <em>Tyre and Sidon:<\/em> Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7 Tyre and Sidon: Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).","summary_en":"3:7 Tyre and Sidon: Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103262,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:7<\/strong> <em>Tyre and Sidon:<\/em> Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:7<\/strong> <em>Tyre and Sidon:<\/em> Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7 Tyre and Sidon: Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).","summary_en":"3:7 Tyre and Sidon: Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130888,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:7","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:7","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:7<\/strong> <em>Tyre and Sidon:<\/em> Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:7<\/strong> <em>Tyre and Sidon:<\/em> Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:7 Tyre and Sidon: Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).","summary_en":"3:7 Tyre and Sidon: Few tall and straight trees grew in the dry climate of Judah, and those that had grown in Israel had already been cut down. Therefore, skilled laborers were hired in countries that had tall trees (see also 1 Chr 22:1-5; 2 Chr 2:7-16).","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"8":[{"id":6463,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"of the Bible* (Old Testament), Chronology","title_en":"of the Bible* (Old Testament), Chronology","content_ro":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament)<\/h3>\n<p>Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper historical background of the biblical texts. In general, the chronology of the OT is understood well enough to vindicate the basic accuracy and sequential order of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Both biblical and nonbiblical materials are utilized by students of OT chronology. Biblical data include (1) genealogies showing personal and tribal affiliations among various peoples; (2) specific numbers given by biblical authors to indicate a person’s longevity, a king’s reign, or the duration of a specific event; (3) synchronizing statements that date an event in a specific year of a king’s reign or relate it to a natural phenomenon assumed to be common knowledge at the time of writing (e.g., Am 1:1; Zec 14:5).<\/p>\n<p>From the abundance of such chronological passages in the OT, one might conclude that establishment of OT dates and sequences would be a simple procedure. Each of the three kinds of biblical materials, however, exhibits special problems that must be solved first.<\/p>\n<p>Nonbiblical materials that shed light on OT chronology are quite numerous, and more are discovered year by year. They include (1) official records of important affairs such as military campaigns from countries like Egypt or Babylonia; (2) official inscriptions that are dedicatory or commemorate a great victory; (3) annals listing major accomplishments of a ruler year by year; (4) ostraca (inscribed pieces of pottery) containing letters, tax transactions and economic records, military dispatches between field leaders and command headquarters, or other information. Ostraca may be dated archaeologically and are often used to supplement the biblical record.<\/p>\n<p>The chronologist tries to examine the pertinent biblical and nonbiblical information, notes areas of correlation among all the data, and finally establishes a working system into which the most facts can be fitted. New evidence uncovered at any time may necessitate shifts in the present working system. Although the basic structure of biblical chronology seems reasonably firm, many details will no doubt be subject to change as new evidence is discovered.<\/p>\n<p>As a general rule, the earlier the period, the less certain one can be of one’s dating. In the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, for example, many dates can be assigned within a range of about 100 years. By the time of David and Solomon (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>), the margin of error over which scholars debate is a decade or less. The range narrows as one comes toward the present, so that, with the exception of one or two problem eras, dates accurate to within one or two years are possible by roughly the middle of the ninth century <span>BC<\/span>. Such limitations must be kept in mind in any examination of the major periods of OT history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<p>• From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n<p>• The Monarchy<\/p>\n<p>• Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n<p>• Beyond 587 <span>BC<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PrepatriarchalPeriod\">Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<h5>Biblical Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>In the first 11 chapters of Genesis are found accounts of the Creation (chs 1–2), the fall (ch 3), Cain and Abel (ch 4), the Flood (chs 6–9), and the Tower of Babel (ch 11). Those events are set within a certain chronological framework.<\/p>\n<p>According to Genesis 5, a period of 10 generations elapsed between the Creation and the Flood. Although the individuals listed enjoyed a total life span of a hefty 847 years plus, the total time elapsing between Adam and the Flood was only 1,656 years.<\/p>\n<p>According to Genesis 11, another 10 generations elapsed from the time of the Flood until the time of Abraham (at least in the Septuagint, the third-century <span>BC<\/span> Greek translation of the OT; the Hebrew Masoretic text has 9). In that period the average age attained by individuals in the list is 346 years (using a figure of 460 for Arphaxad’s son Cainan, who is included in v 13 of the LXX; cf. Lk 3:36); the total elapsed time from the Flood to Abraham is only 520 years. Taken literally, that would mean that all of Abraham’s ancestors as far back as Noah’s son Shem were still alive at Abraham’s birth, and that a total of only 2,176 years elapsed from the time of Creation to Abraham.<\/p>\n<h5>Interpretation of the Biblical Data<\/h5>\n<p>A literalistic or slavishly mathematical interpretation of the figures, as has appeared in the margin of many <span>kjv<\/span> Bibles, requires a number of assumptions: that no names are omitted from the genealogies, that all the numbers given are consecutive, and especially that numbers used in an ancient biblical source carry the same meaning as that associated with them in the modern Western mind. Each assumption needs serious examination in the light of other established facts.<\/p>\n<p>A cursory reading of other biblical genealogies, for example, reveals that not all the names of a given family were always included. Even Matthew recorded a total of 28 generations (two sets of 14 each) between David and Jesus, and comparison with OT genealogies reveals that Matthew omitted several names. Luke listed a total of 42 generations for the same interval. Omissions are also obvious when one compares the genealogical lists given in 1 Chronicles 1–8 with those recorded earlier in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings.<\/p>\n<p>Further, ancient peoples thought of numbers in a schematic or stylized way. Use of numbers among the ancient Near Eastern nations differed sharply from current Western practice. Examples of that practice are known from both biblical and nonbiblical sources. For example, a list of eight Sumerian kings who ruled in the city of Shurruppak before the “great flood” of the Jemdet Nar era (c. 3000 <span>BC<\/span>) assigns each man an average reign of more than 30,000 years. Berossus, a Babylonian priest of Marduk living in the third century <span>BC<\/span>, added two names to the eight found in that earlier list of kings and assigned an average of 43,200 years to each king. Such extraordinarily high numbers provide a perspective for considering the numbers of Genesis.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, although one can assume that the numbers assigned to the ages of the patriarchs preceding Abraham in Genesis had real meaning for those responsible for their preservation, they should not be employed in a purely literal sense to compute the length of the various generations mentioned in the text. Further, the numbers given in the Septuagint and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, another early version of the Pentateuch, diverge in many details from those of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That means, among other things, that the Genesis numbers caused problems for even the earliest scholars of Scripture.<\/p>\n<h5>Nonbiblical Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>Archaeology provides no evidence that may be used to date either the Creation or any other account preserved in Genesis 1–11. The Flood is an example that illustrates some of the difficulties. Many claims have been made by persons from a wide variety of backgrounds (scientists, explorers, theologians, and others) to the effect that archaeology has proven the Genesis Flood narrative to be true. Yet no city so far excavated in Palestine and Syria (including some of the oldest towns in the world) shows archaeological evidence of the Flood.<\/p>\n<p>Although several cities in Mesopotamia do exhibit evidence of a flood, three factors make it difficult to link that evidence with Genesis 6–9. Each of the flood levels so far discovered dates from a different period. Further, since nearby sites show no evidence of flooding, all of the Mesopotamian flood evidence points to relatively small local floods. Finally, the evidence indicates no great cultural discontinuities of the sort that would result from destruction of an entire population. Thus, it seems that the ancient Mesopotamian floods discovered through archaeological research are of the same kind as the floods that still occur in the Euphrates River valley.<\/p>\n<p>Clearly, certain questions one might ask of the Genesis narratives simply cannot be answered. Many who regard the Bible as the Word of God have concluded that the dating of events found in Genesis 1–11 must be less important than the theological truths of salvation, faith, and obedience that these accounts present.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FromAbrahamtoMoses\">From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchal Age<\/h5>\n<p>The date of Abraham is still a lively topic among biblical scholars who agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed historical persons. Opinions range from an early-date view that estimates that the patriarchal age extended from 2086 to 1871 <span>BC<\/span>, to a late-date view placing Abraham at around 1400 <span>BC<\/span>. Since each position claims to fit the biblical data, a closer look at the two points of view is in order.<\/p>\n<p>Many OT passages seem to support the view that puts Abraham at a comparatively early date. First Kings 6:1 computes 480 years back from the founding of the temple in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (961 <span>BC<\/span>, according to the early-date view) to the exodus from Egypt, which would then be dated 1441 <span>BC<\/span>. Counting 430 years as the period of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt (see Gn 15:13; Ex 12:40) takes the date back to 1871 <span>BC<\/span>. To that date are added the 215 years demanded by the total of (1) Abraham’s age upon entering Canaan (75 years according to Gn 12:4); (2) 25 additional years before the birth of Isaac (Gn 21:5); (3) 60 more years to the birth of Jacob (Gn 25:26); and (4) the appearance of Jacob before the pharaoh at age 130 (Gn 47:9). Those 215 years added to the previous total give a date of 2086 <span>BC<\/span> for the entrance of Abraham into Canaan and a date of 2161 <span>BC<\/span> for his birth.<\/p>\n<p>Such a calculation does not use all of the chronological evidence presented in the OT; consequently, the date for Abraham is open to challenge. For example, the 480 years between the exodus and Solomon’s fourth regnal year represent a period of time into which the wilderness wanderings, the career of Joshua and his immediate successors, the period of the judges, Samuel, Saul, and David must all be placed. Although the OT does not specifically say how long were the careers of Joshua, Samuel, or Saul, even a modest reckoning pushes the total years required by all the biblical data together to approximately 600.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the length of time to be assigned to the Egyptian sojourn is problematic. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both view the number 430 (in Ex 12:40) as applicable not only to the years in Egypt but to the years of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Canaan as well. Evidently Paul followed the Septuagint tradition when he dated the giving of the law 430 years later than the time of God’s promise to Abraham (see Gal 3:15-18). That means the Septuagint figure cannot be dismissed lightly.<\/p>\n<p>The late dating of Abraham (c. 1400 <span>BC<\/span>) is based on two propositions: (1) The picture of patriarchal society portrayed in Genesis most closely parallels that reflected in the cuneiform tablets recovered from Nuzi, a town in northeastern Mesopotamia about 175 miles (282 kilometers) north of Baghdad. (2) Because those tablets must be dated in the 15th and 14th centuries <span>BC<\/span>, the parallel patriarchal age must have fallen within the same general time period.<\/p>\n<p>Those who hold the late-date view are aware that their date for Abraham cannot be equated with the set of numbers on which the early-date view depends. They point to other data, also from the OT. Joseph, who was already a highly placed Egyptian official when Jacob moved to Egypt, lived to be 110 years old (Gn 50:26). Moses was a great-grandson of Levi, Joseph’s older brother. Since Joseph lived to see his own greatgrandchildren born (who would probably be younger than Moses since their great-grandfather was younger than his), the late-date view concludes that Joseph could have been alive when Moses was born. The four-generation genealogy of Moses (Levi-Kohath-Amram-Moses, in Ex 6:16-20; Nm 3:17-19; 26:58-59; 1 Chr 6:1-3) was evidently thought to be complete according to Genesis 15:16, which predicted that Abraham’s descendants would be freed from Egyptian bondage “in the fourth generation.”<\/p>\n<p>However, a date of around 1400 <span>BC<\/span> for Abraham cannot be aligned with certain other biblical data, including the long Egyptian sojourn demanded by Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40 and a 40-year (or “one-generation”) wilderness existence. Some normally moderate scholars are forced to reduce the wilderness time to two years in order to maintain their late date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<p>In short, the late-date theory is consistent with part of the biblical evidence (the genealogies of Moses), but the early-date theory conforms to another part (the actual year figures listed in scattered verses from Genesis and Exodus). The late-date theory holds that the genealogies represent more reliable information in Semitic societies generally, whereas the early-date theory computes years given in the biblical account literally throughout its scheme.<\/p>\n<p>Because of problems attached to both positions, a large group of scholars take a middle ground in dating the patriarchal age. Archaeologically, they say, Abraham and his life and times fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period. By placing Abraham roughly between 1800 and 1600 <span>BC<\/span>, they provide enough latitude for a merging of all the available evidence, biblical and nonbiblical, into a workable chronological scheme. Archaeology provides four major bits of evidence for an early second-millennium patriarchal era.<\/p>\n<p>1. Though the Nuzi tablets furnish a clear parallel to patriarchal social life, other tablets from other towns and an earlier era reflect many of the same customs common to Nuzi and Genesis. Since the Nuzians were Hurrians who came to northeastern Mesopotamia from elsewhere (perhaps Armenia), their social customs originated no doubt much earlier than the time of their tablets now in our possession. Accordingly, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> date of the Nuzi tablets does not preclude an earlier date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<li>2. The names of several of Abraham’s ancestors listed in Genesis 11 can now be identified with towns in the northern area of Mesopotamia around Haran, the city from which Abraham migrated to Canaan (Gn 11:31–12:3). Significantly, Haran flourished in the 19th and 18th centuries <span>BC<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>3. Shortly after 2000 <span>BC<\/span> Semitic nomads from the desert invaded the civilized communities of the Fertile Crescent. Those invaders, called Amorites in the OT, established themselves in several cities in northern Syria and Mesopotamia. One of the Amorite cities was Babylon, ruled by Hammurabi sometime around the beginning of the 18th century <span>BC<\/span>. Although the King Amraphel of Genesis 14:1 is not linguistically identifiable with the Babylonian king Hammurabi, as earlier scholars believed, the picture of the times following the Amorite invasion still accords well with the Genesis narratives generally.<\/li>\n<li>4. Mari, another Amorite town, is now well known because of more than 20,000 tablets recovered from its royal palace and archives. Geographically, Mari is located in the general area of Haran. Chronologically, the tablets recovered come from the 18th century <span>BC<\/span>. One 18th-century king of Mari, Zimri Lim, carried on extensive correspondence with Hammurabi of Babylon. The tablets from Mari also furnish valuable information about tribal and ethnic groups and their movements in the general region. Of basic importance for dating the Genesis materials are certain documents from Mari that include personal names very similar to Abraham (Abi-ram), Jacob, Laban, and several other West Semitic names.<\/li>\n<p>Archaeological evidence neither proves nor disproves the actual existence of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. That is admitted on all sides. What archaeology has done is to provide a framework of probabilities within which the biblical patriarchal narratives appear more and more to be at home.<\/p>\n<h5>Date of the Exodus<\/h5>\n<p>The problem of dating the patriarchal age is closely related to the problem of assigning a date to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Since the evidence does not permit a precise date for Abraham, a precise date for the entry of Joseph or Jacob into Egypt is likewise unobtainable. Further, the biblical evidence does not yield an exact figure for the length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>For many years biblical scholars viewed 1 Kings 6:1 as a foundation upon which to build an unshakable date for the exodus. Because Solomon’s fourth year could be unquestionably fixed to within at least a 10-year span (967–958 <span>BC<\/span>), the exodus too could be dated with the same precision simply by adding 480 years. But other biblical data raise serious questions about that simple procedure. When the Bible deals with all the events between the time of the exodus and the founding of Solomon’s temple, that is, from Numbers to 1 Kings 5:18, the precise numbers given total not 480 but closer to 600 years.<\/p>\n<p>Because the evidence is insufficient to allow a precise date for the exodus, scholarly opinion remains divided between two possibilities. A 15th-century exodus is supported by several pieces of evidence. The chronology in 1 Kings 6:1 appears to be independently corroborated by a passage in Judges 11:26. It claims that Israel had occupied the area around Heshbon for 300 years preceding Jephthah’s own day. If Jephthah is dated at roughly 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, one is obviously led back to an exodus in the middle of the 15th century. Also, three successive generations of pharaohs who ruled in the 16th and 15th centuries produced no male offspring, making it more likely that Moses would have become the foster son of a royal princess during that time; all of the 19th-dynasty kings (1306–1200 <span>BC<\/span>) had legitimate male heirs.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, a 15th-century date makes possible a connection between the Habiru invasion of Canaan (1400–1350 <span>BC<\/span>)—described in the Amarna letters found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt—and the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews described in the OT book of Joshua. Related to that is a reference to “Israel” in the Merneptah Stele, a stone pillar inscribed with the deeds of the Egyptian king, Merneptah, of about 1220 <span>BC<\/span>. It implies that the people referred to, met by Merneptah in the course of a Canaanite military campaign, had been in existence for some time. Finally, an excavator of Jericho, John Garstang, placed the destruction of that city at around 1400 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Other evidence, however, strongly implies not a 15th- but a 13th-century date for the exodus. Many scholars assign a date between 1290 and 1275 <span>BC<\/span> on the basis of that evidence. First, the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 discussed above may be interpreted as schematically representing 12 generations, as indicated by 1 Chronicles 6:3-8. Thus if 12 generations averaged 25 years instead of 40 years, the reduction of 480 schematized years to 300 actual years would point to an exodus date of around 1266 <span>BC<\/span>. Second, archaeological evidence exists that dates destruction at the assumed sites of several cities conquered by Joshua (Lachish, Debir, Bethel, and Hazor) to the late 13th century. Third, there is no biblical mention of Egyptian military campaigns (such as Merneptah’s 1220 <span>BC<\/span> incursion); Israelites living in Canaan before the time of the militarily active pharaohs Seti I (1319–1301 <span>BC<\/span>) and Ramses II (1301–1234 <span>BC<\/span>) would certainly have been affected by such activity. Fourth, Exodus 1:11 mentions the city of Rameses, the capital built by Ramses II, according to his own inscriptions. A fifth line of argument comes from archaeological conclusions that Transjordan and the Negev Desert were not occupied by sedentary people between 1900 and 1300 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas the Bible states clearly that the Israelites encountered stiff opposition from groups in that same region. Thus, it is argued, the Israelites must have entered that region after 1300 <span>BC<\/span>. Sixth, connecting the Habiru with the Israelites of the Conquest lacks weight because many texts besides the Amarna tablets attest to the existence of Habiru groups virtually all over the ancient Near East. “Habiru” seems to be a much broader term, possibly meaning “trespasser,” and is probably unrelated etymologically or semantically to “Hebrew.” Seventh, and finally, Garstang’s work at Jericho has now been revised by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who showed that the fallen walls that Garstang had dated about 1400 <span>BC<\/span> in reality were destroyed in 1800 <span>BC<\/span> or earlier.<\/p>\n<p>So far, it has been impossible to decide with precision between the two centuries proposed for the exodus. The majority opinion among OT scholars generally, including a growing number of moderate or conservative scholars, is in favor of the 13th-century option. On the other hand, many other conservative scholars continue to favor the 15th-century date. Dogmatism is unwarranted since problems remain unresolved with either option.<\/p>\n<p>In accordance with the majority opinion, however, a date of about 1290 <span>BC<\/span> for the exodus will be used in dealing with subsequent problems.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ConquestandConsolidation\">Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n<p>The chronological task for the period of conquest and consolidation is to fit all the events narrated by the OT, chiefly in Joshua and Judges, between the exodus (c. 1290 <span>BC<\/span>) and the times of David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) and Solomon (d. 930 <span>BC<\/span>). In other words, one must fit roughly 550 years of biblical events between Moses and David into a 290-year span.<\/p>\n<p>Although assigning an early date for the exodus (c. 1447 <span>BC<\/span>) would make the task somewhat easier, the mere addition of about 157 years does not by itself solve all the problems. Neither date allows enough time for all the OT events from Joshua to David to take place singly and consecutively. Accordingly, advocates of both dates assume that some of the judges ruled simultaneously rather than consecutively. The difference is one of degree only.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua furnishes most of the OT evidence regarding the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Unfortunately, the book of Joshua has no chronological notes that specify the amount of time elapsing during Joshua’s career. Further, there are no biblical references to major contemporary events in other parts of the ancient world, the dates of which could be used to fix the chronology. Rather, in what is obviously a telescoped account, the book of Joshua records the fall of Jericho and Ai, followed closely by a southern and then a northern campaign. After those victories, covering much of the total territory of Canaan, various parcels of land were distributed to the tribal groups of Israel; the tribes were expected to complete the task of destroying whatever Canaanite inhabitants remained in their particular region. One seeks in vain, however, for any statements indicating how long those events took.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Judges a slightly different circumstance prevails. There the OT furnishes a rather complete list of figures to indicate the duration of periods of foreign oppression, judgeships, and ensuing peace. The total number of years described for that period is 410, but that total does not include any time for the many “minor” judges. It seems obvious, therefore, that most if not all of the judges were simply local chieftains whose activity was simultaneous with that of other judges, at least for part of their reign. Unfortunately, the book of Judges provides no cross-reference system to indicate which judges were contemporaries of which others. Perhaps the best one can do is to assume general guidelines for the chronology of that period between Moses and David.<\/p>\n<p>Two significant facts should be kept in mind. First, archaeological information seems to demand a Conquest date beginning about 1250 <span>BC<\/span> rather than 200 years earlier. Assuming concurrent careers for the judges allows one to compress the literal OT figures into the general scheme demanded by other evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the ancient scribes evidently related the chronology of the period to a 40-year or generation-based schema, a practice that lasted until the time of the divided kingdom, when a regular dynastic chronology was introduced. In the face of so many careers being assigned exactly 40 years, the fact remains that the literal totals of such numbers cannot be harmonized with either the biblical or the archaeological evidence for the period. Accordingly, most scholars doubt that the number 40 was ever intended to be an exact mathematical calculation. That view permits enough leeway for cautious fitting of biblical and other evidence into a general timetable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMonarchy\">The Monarchy<\/p>\n<h5>Types of Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>For the period of the Israelite monarchy, chronological evidence is abundant.<\/p>\n<p>The OT itself strives to provide all the information necessary for the chronology of the period, including (1) a complete list of all the kings in Israel and in Judah both before and after the division of the kingdom; (2) the age of each king (except Saul) at his accession; (3) synchronisms of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah showing in what year of his contemporary in the other kingdom each king came to the throne; and (4) precise calculations of the length of each king’s reign. In addition some important events are dated by reference to another event; others are coordinated with concurrent events in secular history.<\/p>\n<p>Outside the OT an abundance of material provides evidence for a chronology of the period. By far the most important single source is a collection of Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists. In Assyria a record of each king’s reign was kept on a particular kind of annal. Each year of reign was named after an individual of high rank in the court; the first year was named after the king himself, the second after the next highest-ranking official (though that name appears to have been selected by lot originally), and so on, down until the death of the king. The word <em>limmu<\/em> was used to introduce the name of the official after whom the current year was to be named, hence the designation <em>“limmu<\/em> lists.”<\/p>\n<p>Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists are tied precisely to the solar year, making the documents highly reliable. Further, in addition to many events in Assyrian history, notable natural phenomena were dated on the basis of the <em>limmu<\/em> in which they occurred. For example, a solar eclipse dated by the Assyrian scribes in the <em>limmu<\/em> year of Bur-Sagale has been computed astronomically as June 15, 763 <span>BC<\/span>. Beginning with the year 763, then, and working both backward and forward, a complete list of Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> officials has been obtained for the period between 891 and 648 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>With the accuracy of the Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists corroborated by a number of sources, they can be used with confidence in reconstructing the chronology of the corresponding period of biblical history. That is especially true where a biblical writer related an Israelite or a Judahite event to a particular year in the reign of an Assyrian king whose <em>limmu<\/em> list indicates the precise years of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>There are also records from Chaldean (Babylonian) king lists and from later Greek historians. Ptolemy, in the second century <span>AD<\/span>, for example, gave dates for Babylonian kings from 747 <span>BC<\/span> and continued with dates for Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers down to <span>AD<\/span> 161. Finally, useful information is found in inscriptions from monuments, stelae, and other artifacts from Assyria and elsewhere.<\/p>\n<h5>Monarchical Chronology<\/h5>\n<p>The <em>limmu<\/em> list of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III provides a basis for the first comparison of dates among Assyria, Israel, and Judah. In the <em>limmu<\/em> of Daian-Assur, Shalmaneser’s sixth year on the throne, Ahab of Israel was listed as one of the kings who fought against the Assyrians in the battle of Qarqar. Thus the date for that battle may be placed confidently in 853 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Assyrian records also indicate that Shalmaneser III came into contact with an Israelite king 12 years later, in 841 <span>BC<\/span>. That king was Jehu. Thus two fixed points are available for correlating the biblical information. Following the death of Ahab, which is not dated exactly by reference to the Assyrian records, two of his sons came to power. The first, Ahaziah, reigned two years (1 Kgs 22:51); the second, Joram (also called Jehoram), reigned a total of 12 years (2 Kgs 3:1). Recognizing a nonaccession-year reckoning by the Israelites in that era, the apparent total of 14 years may be reduced to an actual total of 12. Thus it seems evident that Ahab not only fought Shalmaneser III in 853 <span>BC<\/span> but also died in that year. Ahab was then followed by his two sons for a total of 12 years before the accession of Jehu in time to account for his contact with Shalmaneser II in 841 <span>BC<\/span>. Further, because Jehu murdered both the king of Israel (Jehoram) and the king of Judah (Ahaziah) at the same time (2 Kgs 9:24-27), a fixed synchronism is provided between the two kingdoms for the year 841 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The first nine kings of Israel ruled an apparent total of 98 years or an actual total (taking into account Israel’s nonaccession-year policy) of 90 years. Zimri, who ruled only seven days (1 Kgs 16:15-18), counts as one of the nine but does not insert an extra year in either the actual or apparent totals. The accession of Jeroboam I thus occurred in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (adding 90 years to 841 <span>BC<\/span>), and Rehoboam of Judah began to rule in that same year as well. Allowing Solomon the 40-year reign indicated in 1 Kings 11:42 points to the year 970 <span>BC<\/span> for his accession. The death of David would also be pinpointed in that period, although allowance must be made for the possibility of a short co-regency of David and Solomon before David’s death. The reign of Saul then falls approximately in the late 11th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In Judah the period between the death of Solomon in 930 <span>BC<\/span> and the murder of Ahaziah by Jehu in 841 <span>BC<\/span> was occupied by the kingships of six men whose time on the throne totals 95 biblical years. Computation of that era in Judah is not as simple as for the Israelite kings for several reasons. Problems include a change from accession- to nonaccession-year reckoning sometime around 850 <span>BC<\/span>, at least two co-regencies (Jehoshaphat with Asa and then Jehoram with Jehoshaphat), and the calendar differences between the two kingdoms. It is clear that the 95 apparent years must be reduced, on the basis of the differences in computation and calendar, to 90 actual years in order to bring the Judahite figures into line with the established Assyrian and Israelite synchronisms.<\/p>\n<p>After the year 841, the next biblical event to be certified by nonbiblical materials is the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>. That date is furnished by the annals of Sargon II of Assyria (722–705 <span>BC<\/span>), successor to Shalmaneser V (727–722 <span>BC<\/span>). Although that date comes just 120 years after the fixed point of 841 <span>BC<\/span> in Israelite history, the chronological materials for that period are quite difficult to interpret accurately. In the past, scholars resorted to assumptions of extensive co-regencies, to presumed confusion on the part of certain scribes over methods to be followed in computations, or to other theories in attempting to understand the period. In spite of the many difficulties, however, all the biblical and Assyrian dates for the period of the divided monarchy have been harmonized—with the exception of four figures related to the closing years of the Israelite kingdom, all connected in some way with the problematic reign of Hoshea.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JudahaftertheFallofIsrael\">Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n<p>Following the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, OT chronology is concerned only with the southern kingdom of Judah until its destruction some 135 years later. Two events in the biblical record important for establishing a chronology for that period are the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib of Assyria in the late eighth century and the eventual fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the early sixth century.<\/p>\n<h5>Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>The Assyrian invasion (704–681 <span>BC<\/span>) is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13-16, where verse 13 dates the event to the 14th year of King Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s own inscriptions include a lengthier version of the affair. From them the date of 701 <span>BC<\/span> is established, placing the accession of Hezekiah in 715 <span>BC<\/span>. That much is simple, but problems still arise. For example, 2 Kings 19:9 reports that Sennacherib was in contact with an Ethiopian king, Tirhakah (c. 690–664 <span>BC<\/span>), during the course of his campaign, which included a siege of Jerusalem. Obviously, contact with a ruler who came to power in 690 <span>BC<\/span> at the earliest could not refer to events in 701 <span>BC<\/span>. It is possible, however, that Sennacherib actually made two invasions of Judah, the first in 701 and the second sometime later. The date of that supposed second invasion is not assured, although 2 Kings 19:35-37 may imply that Sennacherib was murdered only shortly after his withdrawal from Jerusalem. Since Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon in the year 681, the presumed second invasion of Judah would have occurred somewhere in the last half of the same decade.<\/p>\n<p>A number of scholars oppose the assumption of a second invasion of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. They suggest the possibility that Tirhakah, though king only from 690 <span>BC<\/span>, may have led troops against Sennacherib as early as 701, before acceding to the throne. The reference to King Tirhakah in 2 Kings 19:9 would then be understood as use of his eventual title in an effort to identify him to a later generation of readers.<\/p>\n<p>However the question of the number of invasions is decided, it is certain that Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the 14th regnal year of Hezekiah. Such a synchronism establishes Hezekiah’s accession year as 715 <span>BC<\/span>, but that date raises another problem. The fall of Samaria, now established at 722, is dated by 2 Kings 18:10 in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign. The most likely solution is that Hezekiah began a co-regency with his father, Ahaz, six years before Samaria fell. The possibility for confusion arises from the fact that one verse (2 Kgs 18:13; repeated in Is 36:1) synchronizes Sennacherib’s 701 <span>BC<\/span> invasion with the 14th year of Hezekiah’s independent reign; another verse (2 Kgs 18:10) correlates the fall of Samaria with the beginning of Hezekiah’s co-regency. Thus from about 728 to 715 <span>BC<\/span> Hezekiah was co-regent with Ahaz. From 715 to 697 he reigned alone. From 696 to 686 his son Manasseh was co-ruler with him.<\/p>\n<p>According to the chronological information given by a number of verses in 2 Kings, a total of 128 years and six months elapsed between the time of Hezekiah’s accession in 715 and the capture of King Jehoiachin in 597, a date to be discussed below. Thus another problem is to explain the more than 10-year excess apparently demanded by the biblical totals. The best solution appears to lie in the assumption that Manasseh first came to power in 697 as co-regent with his father, Hezekiah. Manasseh died in 642, following what 2 Kings 21:1 states was a 55-year reign. Hezekiah, who came to the throne in 715, is said to have reigned 29 years (2 Kgs 18:2), which would mean that he was king until 686, roughly 11 years after the time when Manasseh must have come to the throne in order to have completed a 55-year reign by 642.<\/p>\n<h5>Fall of Jerusalem<\/h5>\n<p>Contemporary Babylonian records are available to shed valuable light on the last few years of Judah’s existence. For the years 626–623, 618–595, and 556 <span>BC<\/span> the Babylonian Chronicle, a formal record of Babylonian affairs of state, has been recovered. From information contained in that chronicle and other cuneiform documents of the period, three dates in Judah’s history may be fixed firmly. The first is the death of Josiah in 609; the second is the battle of Carchemish in 605; the third is the end of the reign of Jehoiachin, which is dated by the Babylonian Chronicle to the second month of Adar in the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar, or March 16, 597.<\/p>\n<p>After Jehoiachin’s capture, Zedekiah became puppet king of Judah for 11 years (2 Kgs 24:18). On the tenth day of the tenth month during Zedekiah’s ninth regnal year (2 Kgs 25:1), the final siege of Jerusalem was begun by the Babylonian army. That day was January 15, 588. On the ninth day of the fourth month during the 11th regnal year of Zedekiah, after a siege of almost 18 months, the wall of Jerusalem was broken through (2 Kgs 25:3-4). The temple was burned on day seven of the following (fifth) month.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Beyond587bc\">Beyond 586 <span>BC<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Following the tragedy of 586 <span>BC<\/span>, several further developments are given chronological notice in the OT. Jeremiah 52:30 records a third deportation of Jews to Babylonia in the 23d year of King Nebuchadnezzar (582 or 581 <span>BC<\/span>). Both 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 give evidence of the release of King Jehoiachin from prison; the Babylonian Chronicle dates that event at 27 Adar, or March 21, 561 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In 539 <span>BC<\/span> the Babylonians themselves were destined to learn the meaning of defeat. In that year a Persian ruler, Cyrus the Great, launched a successful campaign against Babylon and its king, Nabonidus. Inheriting control over the exiled Jews and many other groups of people conquered earlier by Babylonia, Cyrus moved quickly to initiate a policy of tolerance toward his new subjects. In the first year of his rule Cyrus issued an edict making it possible for Jews to return to their former land (Ezr 1:1). On the first day of the following year, 1 Tishri (Ezr 3:6), an altar was set up in Jerusalem. In Iyyar of the following year (April\/May 536) work was begun on the temple itself (Ezr 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>After a period of frustrating work stoppages of varying lengths, the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah spurred on the Jews to complete the temple. Work resumed in 520 (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1, 15) and was finally completed on 3 Adar, or March 12, 515 (Ezr 6:15). The final stages of OT chronology pertain to the careers of Ezra and Nehemiah. The traditional view of their era places Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 <span>BC<\/span>) and Nehemiah in the 20th (445 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> “Date” under each OT book; Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Diaspora of the Jews; Exodus, The; Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the; Postexilic Period; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament)<\/h3>\n<p>Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper historical background of the biblical texts. In general, the chronology of the OT is understood well enough to vindicate the basic accuracy and sequential order of Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Both biblical and nonbiblical materials are utilized by students of OT chronology. Biblical data include (1) genealogies showing personal and tribal affiliations among various peoples; (2) specific numbers given by biblical authors to indicate a person’s longevity, a king’s reign, or the duration of a specific event; (3) synchronizing statements that date an event in a specific year of a king’s reign or relate it to a natural phenomenon assumed to be common knowledge at the time of writing (e.g., Am 1:1; Zec 14:5).<\/p>\n<p>From the abundance of such chronological passages in the OT, one might conclude that establishment of OT dates and sequences would be a simple procedure. Each of the three kinds of biblical materials, however, exhibits special problems that must be solved first.<\/p>\n<p>Nonbiblical materials that shed light on OT chronology are quite numerous, and more are discovered year by year. They include (1) official records of important affairs such as military campaigns from countries like Egypt or Babylonia; (2) official inscriptions that are dedicatory or commemorate a great victory; (3) annals listing major accomplishments of a ruler year by year; (4) ostraca (inscribed pieces of pottery) containing letters, tax transactions and economic records, military dispatches between field leaders and command headquarters, or other information. Ostraca may be dated archaeologically and are often used to supplement the biblical record.<\/p>\n<p>The chronologist tries to examine the pertinent biblical and nonbiblical information, notes areas of correlation among all the data, and finally establishes a working system into which the most facts can be fitted. New evidence uncovered at any time may necessitate shifts in the present working system. Although the basic structure of biblical chronology seems reasonably firm, many details will no doubt be subject to change as new evidence is discovered.<\/p>\n<p>As a general rule, the earlier the period, the less certain one can be of one’s dating. In the second millennium <span>BC<\/span>, for example, many dates can be assigned within a range of about 100 years. By the time of David and Solomon (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>), the margin of error over which scholars debate is a decade or less. The range narrows as one comes toward the present, so that, with the exception of one or two problem eras, dates accurate to within one or two years are possible by roughly the middle of the ninth century <span>BC<\/span>. Such limitations must be kept in mind in any examination of the major periods of OT history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<p>• From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<p>• Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n<p>• The Monarchy<\/p>\n<p>• Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n<p>• Beyond 587 <span>BC<\/span><\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PrepatriarchalPeriod\">Prepatriarchal Period<\/p>\n<h5>Biblical Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>In the first 11 chapters of Genesis are found accounts of the Creation (chs 1–2), the fall (ch 3), Cain and Abel (ch 4), the Flood (chs 6–9), and the Tower of Babel (ch 11). Those events are set within a certain chronological framework.<\/p>\n<p>According to Genesis 5, a period of 10 generations elapsed between the Creation and the Flood. Although the individuals listed enjoyed a total life span of a hefty 847 years plus, the total time elapsing between Adam and the Flood was only 1,656 years.<\/p>\n<p>According to Genesis 11, another 10 generations elapsed from the time of the Flood until the time of Abraham (at least in the Septuagint, the third-century <span>BC<\/span> Greek translation of the OT; the Hebrew Masoretic text has 9). In that period the average age attained by individuals in the list is 346 years (using a figure of 460 for Arphaxad’s son Cainan, who is included in v 13 of the LXX; cf. Lk 3:36); the total elapsed time from the Flood to Abraham is only 520 years. Taken literally, that would mean that all of Abraham’s ancestors as far back as Noah’s son Shem were still alive at Abraham’s birth, and that a total of only 2,176 years elapsed from the time of Creation to Abraham.<\/p>\n<h5>Interpretation of the Biblical Data<\/h5>\n<p>A literalistic or slavishly mathematical interpretation of the figures, as has appeared in the margin of many <span>kjv<\/span> Bibles, requires a number of assumptions: that no names are omitted from the genealogies, that all the numbers given are consecutive, and especially that numbers used in an ancient biblical source carry the same meaning as that associated with them in the modern Western mind. Each assumption needs serious examination in the light of other established facts.<\/p>\n<p>A cursory reading of other biblical genealogies, for example, reveals that not all the names of a given family were always included. Even Matthew recorded a total of 28 generations (two sets of 14 each) between David and Jesus, and comparison with OT genealogies reveals that Matthew omitted several names. Luke listed a total of 42 generations for the same interval. Omissions are also obvious when one compares the genealogical lists given in 1 Chronicles 1–8 with those recorded earlier in Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings.<\/p>\n<p>Further, ancient peoples thought of numbers in a schematic or stylized way. Use of numbers among the ancient Near Eastern nations differed sharply from current Western practice. Examples of that practice are known from both biblical and nonbiblical sources. For example, a list of eight Sumerian kings who ruled in the city of Shurruppak before the “great flood” of the Jemdet Nar era (c. 3000 <span>BC<\/span>) assigns each man an average reign of more than 30,000 years. Berossus, a Babylonian priest of Marduk living in the third century <span>BC<\/span>, added two names to the eight found in that earlier list of kings and assigned an average of 43,200 years to each king. Such extraordinarily high numbers provide a perspective for considering the numbers of Genesis.<\/p>\n<p>Therefore, although one can assume that the numbers assigned to the ages of the patriarchs preceding Abraham in Genesis had real meaning for those responsible for their preservation, they should not be employed in a purely literal sense to compute the length of the various generations mentioned in the text. Further, the numbers given in the Septuagint and in the Samaritan Pentateuch, another early version of the Pentateuch, diverge in many details from those of the Hebrew Masoretic Text. That means, among other things, that the Genesis numbers caused problems for even the earliest scholars of Scripture.<\/p>\n<h5>Nonbiblical Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>Archaeology provides no evidence that may be used to date either the Creation or any other account preserved in Genesis 1–11. The Flood is an example that illustrates some of the difficulties. Many claims have been made by persons from a wide variety of backgrounds (scientists, explorers, theologians, and others) to the effect that archaeology has proven the Genesis Flood narrative to be true. Yet no city so far excavated in Palestine and Syria (including some of the oldest towns in the world) shows archaeological evidence of the Flood.<\/p>\n<p>Although several cities in Mesopotamia do exhibit evidence of a flood, three factors make it difficult to link that evidence with Genesis 6–9. Each of the flood levels so far discovered dates from a different period. Further, since nearby sites show no evidence of flooding, all of the Mesopotamian flood evidence points to relatively small local floods. Finally, the evidence indicates no great cultural discontinuities of the sort that would result from destruction of an entire population. Thus, it seems that the ancient Mesopotamian floods discovered through archaeological research are of the same kind as the floods that still occur in the Euphrates River valley.<\/p>\n<p>Clearly, certain questions one might ask of the Genesis narratives simply cannot be answered. Many who regard the Bible as the Word of God have concluded that the dating of events found in Genesis 1–11 must be less important than the theological truths of salvation, faith, and obedience that these accounts present.<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"FromAbrahamtoMoses\">From Abraham to Moses<\/p>\n<h5>The Patriarchal Age<\/h5>\n<p>The date of Abraham is still a lively topic among biblical scholars who agree that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were indeed historical persons. Opinions range from an early-date view that estimates that the patriarchal age extended from 2086 to 1871 <span>BC<\/span>, to a late-date view placing Abraham at around 1400 <span>BC<\/span>. Since each position claims to fit the biblical data, a closer look at the two points of view is in order.<\/p>\n<p>Many OT passages seem to support the view that puts Abraham at a comparatively early date. First Kings 6:1 computes 480 years back from the founding of the temple in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (961 <span>BC<\/span>, according to the early-date view) to the exodus from Egypt, which would then be dated 1441 <span>BC<\/span>. Counting 430 years as the period of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt (see Gn 15:13; Ex 12:40) takes the date back to 1871 <span>BC<\/span>. To that date are added the 215 years demanded by the total of (1) Abraham’s age upon entering Canaan (75 years according to Gn 12:4); (2) 25 additional years before the birth of Isaac (Gn 21:5); (3) 60 more years to the birth of Jacob (Gn 25:26); and (4) the appearance of Jacob before the pharaoh at age 130 (Gn 47:9). Those 215 years added to the previous total give a date of 2086 <span>BC<\/span> for the entrance of Abraham into Canaan and a date of 2161 <span>BC<\/span> for his birth.<\/p>\n<p>Such a calculation does not use all of the chronological evidence presented in the OT; consequently, the date for Abraham is open to challenge. For example, the 480 years between the exodus and Solomon’s fourth regnal year represent a period of time into which the wilderness wanderings, the career of Joshua and his immediate successors, the period of the judges, Samuel, Saul, and David must all be placed. Although the OT does not specifically say how long were the careers of Joshua, Samuel, or Saul, even a modest reckoning pushes the total years required by all the biblical data together to approximately 600.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the length of time to be assigned to the Egyptian sojourn is problematic. The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Septuagint both view the number 430 (in Ex 12:40) as applicable not only to the years in Egypt but to the years of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in Canaan as well. Evidently Paul followed the Septuagint tradition when he dated the giving of the law 430 years later than the time of God’s promise to Abraham (see Gal 3:15-18). That means the Septuagint figure cannot be dismissed lightly.<\/p>\n<p>The late dating of Abraham (c. 1400 <span>BC<\/span>) is based on two propositions: (1) The picture of patriarchal society portrayed in Genesis most closely parallels that reflected in the cuneiform tablets recovered from Nuzi, a town in northeastern Mesopotamia about 175 miles (282 kilometers) north of Baghdad. (2) Because those tablets must be dated in the 15th and 14th centuries <span>BC<\/span>, the parallel patriarchal age must have fallen within the same general time period.<\/p>\n<p>Those who hold the late-date view are aware that their date for Abraham cannot be equated with the set of numbers on which the early-date view depends. They point to other data, also from the OT. Joseph, who was already a highly placed Egyptian official when Jacob moved to Egypt, lived to be 110 years old (Gn 50:26). Moses was a great-grandson of Levi, Joseph’s older brother. Since Joseph lived to see his own greatgrandchildren born (who would probably be younger than Moses since their great-grandfather was younger than his), the late-date view concludes that Joseph could have been alive when Moses was born. The four-generation genealogy of Moses (Levi-Kohath-Amram-Moses, in Ex 6:16-20; Nm 3:17-19; 26:58-59; 1 Chr 6:1-3) was evidently thought to be complete according to Genesis 15:16, which predicted that Abraham’s descendants would be freed from Egyptian bondage “in the fourth generation.”<\/p>\n<p>However, a date of around 1400 <span>BC<\/span> for Abraham cannot be aligned with certain other biblical data, including the long Egyptian sojourn demanded by Genesis 15:13 and Exodus 12:40 and a 40-year (or “one-generation”) wilderness existence. Some normally moderate scholars are forced to reduce the wilderness time to two years in order to maintain their late date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<p>In short, the late-date theory is consistent with part of the biblical evidence (the genealogies of Moses), but the early-date theory conforms to another part (the actual year figures listed in scattered verses from Genesis and Exodus). The late-date theory holds that the genealogies represent more reliable information in Semitic societies generally, whereas the early-date theory computes years given in the biblical account literally throughout its scheme.<\/p>\n<p>Because of problems attached to both positions, a large group of scholars take a middle ground in dating the patriarchal age. Archaeologically, they say, Abraham and his life and times fit perfectly within the early second millennium, but imperfectly within any later period. By placing Abraham roughly between 1800 and 1600 <span>BC<\/span>, they provide enough latitude for a merging of all the available evidence, biblical and nonbiblical, into a workable chronological scheme. Archaeology provides four major bits of evidence for an early second-millennium patriarchal era.<\/p>\n<p>1. Though the Nuzi tablets furnish a clear parallel to patriarchal social life, other tablets from other towns and an earlier era reflect many of the same customs common to Nuzi and Genesis. Since the Nuzians were Hurrians who came to northeastern Mesopotamia from elsewhere (perhaps Armenia), their social customs originated no doubt much earlier than the time of their tablets now in our possession. Accordingly, the 15th-century <span>BC<\/span> date of the Nuzi tablets does not preclude an earlier date for Abraham.<\/p>\n<li>2. The names of several of Abraham’s ancestors listed in Genesis 11 can now be identified with towns in the northern area of Mesopotamia around Haran, the city from which Abraham migrated to Canaan (Gn 11:31–12:3). Significantly, Haran flourished in the 19th and 18th centuries <span>BC<\/span>.<\/li>\n<li>3. Shortly after 2000 <span>BC<\/span> Semitic nomads from the desert invaded the civilized communities of the Fertile Crescent. Those invaders, called Amorites in the OT, established themselves in several cities in northern Syria and Mesopotamia. One of the Amorite cities was Babylon, ruled by Hammurabi sometime around the beginning of the 18th century <span>BC<\/span>. Although the King Amraphel of Genesis 14:1 is not linguistically identifiable with the Babylonian king Hammurabi, as earlier scholars believed, the picture of the times following the Amorite invasion still accords well with the Genesis narratives generally.<\/li>\n<li>4. Mari, another Amorite town, is now well known because of more than 20,000 tablets recovered from its royal palace and archives. Geographically, Mari is located in the general area of Haran. Chronologically, the tablets recovered come from the 18th century <span>BC<\/span>. One 18th-century king of Mari, Zimri Lim, carried on extensive correspondence with Hammurabi of Babylon. The tablets from Mari also furnish valuable information about tribal and ethnic groups and their movements in the general region. Of basic importance for dating the Genesis materials are certain documents from Mari that include personal names very similar to Abraham (Abi-ram), Jacob, Laban, and several other West Semitic names.<\/li>\n<p>Archaeological evidence neither proves nor disproves the actual existence of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob. That is admitted on all sides. What archaeology has done is to provide a framework of probabilities within which the biblical patriarchal narratives appear more and more to be at home.<\/p>\n<h5>Date of the Exodus<\/h5>\n<p>The problem of dating the patriarchal age is closely related to the problem of assigning a date to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. Since the evidence does not permit a precise date for Abraham, a precise date for the entry of Joseph or Jacob into Egypt is likewise unobtainable. Further, the biblical evidence does not yield an exact figure for the length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt.<\/p>\n<p>For many years biblical scholars viewed 1 Kings 6:1 as a foundation upon which to build an unshakable date for the exodus. Because Solomon’s fourth year could be unquestionably fixed to within at least a 10-year span (967–958 <span>BC<\/span>), the exodus too could be dated with the same precision simply by adding 480 years. But other biblical data raise serious questions about that simple procedure. When the Bible deals with all the events between the time of the exodus and the founding of Solomon’s temple, that is, from Numbers to 1 Kings 5:18, the precise numbers given total not 480 but closer to 600 years.<\/p>\n<p>Because the evidence is insufficient to allow a precise date for the exodus, scholarly opinion remains divided between two possibilities. A 15th-century exodus is supported by several pieces of evidence. The chronology in 1 Kings 6:1 appears to be independently corroborated by a passage in Judges 11:26. It claims that Israel had occupied the area around Heshbon for 300 years preceding Jephthah’s own day. If Jephthah is dated at roughly 1100 <span>BC<\/span>, one is obviously led back to an exodus in the middle of the 15th century. Also, three successive generations of pharaohs who ruled in the 16th and 15th centuries produced no male offspring, making it more likely that Moses would have become the foster son of a royal princess during that time; all of the 19th-dynasty kings (1306–1200 <span>BC<\/span>) had legitimate male heirs.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, a 15th-century date makes possible a connection between the Habiru invasion of Canaan (1400–1350 <span>BC<\/span>)—described in the Amarna letters found at Tell el-Amarna, Egypt—and the invasion of Canaan by the Hebrews described in the OT book of Joshua. Related to that is a reference to “Israel” in the Merneptah Stele, a stone pillar inscribed with the deeds of the Egyptian king, Merneptah, of about 1220 <span>BC<\/span>. It implies that the people referred to, met by Merneptah in the course of a Canaanite military campaign, had been in existence for some time. Finally, an excavator of Jericho, John Garstang, placed the destruction of that city at around 1400 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Other evidence, however, strongly implies not a 15th- but a 13th-century date for the exodus. Many scholars assign a date between 1290 and 1275 <span>BC<\/span> on the basis of that evidence. First, the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 discussed above may be interpreted as schematically representing 12 generations, as indicated by 1 Chronicles 6:3-8. Thus if 12 generations averaged 25 years instead of 40 years, the reduction of 480 schematized years to 300 actual years would point to an exodus date of around 1266 <span>BC<\/span>. Second, archaeological evidence exists that dates destruction at the assumed sites of several cities conquered by Joshua (Lachish, Debir, Bethel, and Hazor) to the late 13th century. Third, there is no biblical mention of Egyptian military campaigns (such as Merneptah’s 1220 <span>BC<\/span> incursion); Israelites living in Canaan before the time of the militarily active pharaohs Seti I (1319–1301 <span>BC<\/span>) and Ramses II (1301–1234 <span>BC<\/span>) would certainly have been affected by such activity. Fourth, Exodus 1:11 mentions the city of Rameses, the capital built by Ramses II, according to his own inscriptions. A fifth line of argument comes from archaeological conclusions that Transjordan and the Negev Desert were not occupied by sedentary people between 1900 and 1300 <span>BC<\/span>, whereas the Bible states clearly that the Israelites encountered stiff opposition from groups in that same region. Thus, it is argued, the Israelites must have entered that region after 1300 <span>BC<\/span>. Sixth, connecting the Habiru with the Israelites of the Conquest lacks weight because many texts besides the Amarna tablets attest to the existence of Habiru groups virtually all over the ancient Near East. “Habiru” seems to be a much broader term, possibly meaning “trespasser,” and is probably unrelated etymologically or semantically to “Hebrew.” Seventh, and finally, Garstang’s work at Jericho has now been revised by archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who showed that the fallen walls that Garstang had dated about 1400 <span>BC<\/span> in reality were destroyed in 1800 <span>BC<\/span> or earlier.<\/p>\n<p>So far, it has been impossible to decide with precision between the two centuries proposed for the exodus. The majority opinion among OT scholars generally, including a growing number of moderate or conservative scholars, is in favor of the 13th-century option. On the other hand, many other conservative scholars continue to favor the 15th-century date. Dogmatism is unwarranted since problems remain unresolved with either option.<\/p>\n<p>In accordance with the majority opinion, however, a date of about 1290 <span>BC<\/span> for the exodus will be used in dealing with subsequent problems.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ConquestandConsolidation\">Conquest and Consolidation<\/p>\n<p>The chronological task for the period of conquest and consolidation is to fit all the events narrated by the OT, chiefly in Joshua and Judges, between the exodus (c. 1290 <span>BC<\/span>) and the times of David (c. 1000 <span>BC<\/span>) and Solomon (d. 930 <span>BC<\/span>). In other words, one must fit roughly 550 years of biblical events between Moses and David into a 290-year span.<\/p>\n<p>Although assigning an early date for the exodus (c. 1447 <span>BC<\/span>) would make the task somewhat easier, the mere addition of about 157 years does not by itself solve all the problems. Neither date allows enough time for all the OT events from Joshua to David to take place singly and consecutively. Accordingly, advocates of both dates assume that some of the judges ruled simultaneously rather than consecutively. The difference is one of degree only.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Joshua furnishes most of the OT evidence regarding the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. Unfortunately, the book of Joshua has no chronological notes that specify the amount of time elapsing during Joshua’s career. Further, there are no biblical references to major contemporary events in other parts of the ancient world, the dates of which could be used to fix the chronology. Rather, in what is obviously a telescoped account, the book of Joshua records the fall of Jericho and Ai, followed closely by a southern and then a northern campaign. After those victories, covering much of the total territory of Canaan, various parcels of land were distributed to the tribal groups of Israel; the tribes were expected to complete the task of destroying whatever Canaanite inhabitants remained in their particular region. One seeks in vain, however, for any statements indicating how long those events took.<\/p>\n<p>In the book of Judges a slightly different circumstance prevails. There the OT furnishes a rather complete list of figures to indicate the duration of periods of foreign oppression, judgeships, and ensuing peace. The total number of years described for that period is 410, but that total does not include any time for the many “minor” judges. It seems obvious, therefore, that most if not all of the judges were simply local chieftains whose activity was simultaneous with that of other judges, at least for part of their reign. Unfortunately, the book of Judges provides no cross-reference system to indicate which judges were contemporaries of which others. Perhaps the best one can do is to assume general guidelines for the chronology of that period between Moses and David.<\/p>\n<p>Two significant facts should be kept in mind. First, archaeological information seems to demand a Conquest date beginning about 1250 <span>BC<\/span> rather than 200 years earlier. Assuming concurrent careers for the judges allows one to compress the literal OT figures into the general scheme demanded by other evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Second, the ancient scribes evidently related the chronology of the period to a 40-year or generation-based schema, a practice that lasted until the time of the divided kingdom, when a regular dynastic chronology was introduced. In the face of so many careers being assigned exactly 40 years, the fact remains that the literal totals of such numbers cannot be harmonized with either the biblical or the archaeological evidence for the period. Accordingly, most scholars doubt that the number 40 was ever intended to be an exact mathematical calculation. That view permits enough leeway for cautious fitting of biblical and other evidence into a general timetable.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheMonarchy\">The Monarchy<\/p>\n<h5>Types of Evidence<\/h5>\n<p>For the period of the Israelite monarchy, chronological evidence is abundant.<\/p>\n<p>The OT itself strives to provide all the information necessary for the chronology of the period, including (1) a complete list of all the kings in Israel and in Judah both before and after the division of the kingdom; (2) the age of each king (except Saul) at his accession; (3) synchronisms of the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah showing in what year of his contemporary in the other kingdom each king came to the throne; and (4) precise calculations of the length of each king’s reign. In addition some important events are dated by reference to another event; others are coordinated with concurrent events in secular history.<\/p>\n<p>Outside the OT an abundance of material provides evidence for a chronology of the period. By far the most important single source is a collection of Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists. In Assyria a record of each king’s reign was kept on a particular kind of annal. Each year of reign was named after an individual of high rank in the court; the first year was named after the king himself, the second after the next highest-ranking official (though that name appears to have been selected by lot originally), and so on, down until the death of the king. The word <em>limmu<\/em> was used to introduce the name of the official after whom the current year was to be named, hence the designation <em>“limmu<\/em> lists.”<\/p>\n<p>Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists are tied precisely to the solar year, making the documents highly reliable. Further, in addition to many events in Assyrian history, notable natural phenomena were dated on the basis of the <em>limmu<\/em> in which they occurred. For example, a solar eclipse dated by the Assyrian scribes in the <em>limmu<\/em> year of Bur-Sagale has been computed astronomically as June 15, 763 <span>BC<\/span>. Beginning with the year 763, then, and working both backward and forward, a complete list of Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> officials has been obtained for the period between 891 and 648 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>With the accuracy of the Assyrian <em>limmu<\/em> lists corroborated by a number of sources, they can be used with confidence in reconstructing the chronology of the corresponding period of biblical history. That is especially true where a biblical writer related an Israelite or a Judahite event to a particular year in the reign of an Assyrian king whose <em>limmu<\/em> list indicates the precise years of his reign.<\/p>\n<p>There are also records from Chaldean (Babylonian) king lists and from later Greek historians. Ptolemy, in the second century <span>AD<\/span>, for example, gave dates for Babylonian kings from 747 <span>BC<\/span> and continued with dates for Persian, Greek, and Roman rulers down to <span>AD<\/span> 161. Finally, useful information is found in inscriptions from monuments, stelae, and other artifacts from Assyria and elsewhere.<\/p>\n<h5>Monarchical Chronology<\/h5>\n<p>The <em>limmu<\/em> list of the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III provides a basis for the first comparison of dates among Assyria, Israel, and Judah. In the <em>limmu<\/em> of Daian-Assur, Shalmaneser’s sixth year on the throne, Ahab of Israel was listed as one of the kings who fought against the Assyrians in the battle of Qarqar. Thus the date for that battle may be placed confidently in 853 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Assyrian records also indicate that Shalmaneser III came into contact with an Israelite king 12 years later, in 841 <span>BC<\/span>. That king was Jehu. Thus two fixed points are available for correlating the biblical information. Following the death of Ahab, which is not dated exactly by reference to the Assyrian records, two of his sons came to power. The first, Ahaziah, reigned two years (1 Kgs 22:51); the second, Joram (also called Jehoram), reigned a total of 12 years (2 Kgs 3:1). Recognizing a nonaccession-year reckoning by the Israelites in that era, the apparent total of 14 years may be reduced to an actual total of 12. Thus it seems evident that Ahab not only fought Shalmaneser III in 853 <span>BC<\/span> but also died in that year. Ahab was then followed by his two sons for a total of 12 years before the accession of Jehu in time to account for his contact with Shalmaneser II in 841 <span>BC<\/span>. Further, because Jehu murdered both the king of Israel (Jehoram) and the king of Judah (Ahaziah) at the same time (2 Kgs 9:24-27), a fixed synchronism is provided between the two kingdoms for the year 841 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>The first nine kings of Israel ruled an apparent total of 98 years or an actual total (taking into account Israel’s nonaccession-year policy) of 90 years. Zimri, who ruled only seven days (1 Kgs 16:15-18), counts as one of the nine but does not insert an extra year in either the actual or apparent totals. The accession of Jeroboam I thus occurred in 930 <span>BC<\/span> (adding 90 years to 841 <span>BC<\/span>), and Rehoboam of Judah began to rule in that same year as well. Allowing Solomon the 40-year reign indicated in 1 Kings 11:42 points to the year 970 <span>BC<\/span> for his accession. The death of David would also be pinpointed in that period, although allowance must be made for the possibility of a short co-regency of David and Solomon before David’s death. The reign of Saul then falls approximately in the late 11th century <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In Judah the period between the death of Solomon in 930 <span>BC<\/span> and the murder of Ahaziah by Jehu in 841 <span>BC<\/span> was occupied by the kingships of six men whose time on the throne totals 95 biblical years. Computation of that era in Judah is not as simple as for the Israelite kings for several reasons. Problems include a change from accession- to nonaccession-year reckoning sometime around 850 <span>BC<\/span>, at least two co-regencies (Jehoshaphat with Asa and then Jehoram with Jehoshaphat), and the calendar differences between the two kingdoms. It is clear that the 95 apparent years must be reduced, on the basis of the differences in computation and calendar, to 90 actual years in order to bring the Judahite figures into line with the established Assyrian and Israelite synchronisms.<\/p>\n<p>After the year 841, the next biblical event to be certified by nonbiblical materials is the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>. That date is furnished by the annals of Sargon II of Assyria (722–705 <span>BC<\/span>), successor to Shalmaneser V (727–722 <span>BC<\/span>). Although that date comes just 120 years after the fixed point of 841 <span>BC<\/span> in Israelite history, the chronological materials for that period are quite difficult to interpret accurately. In the past, scholars resorted to assumptions of extensive co-regencies, to presumed confusion on the part of certain scribes over methods to be followed in computations, or to other theories in attempting to understand the period. In spite of the many difficulties, however, all the biblical and Assyrian dates for the period of the divided monarchy have been harmonized—with the exception of four figures related to the closing years of the Israelite kingdom, all connected in some way with the problematic reign of Hoshea.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"JudahaftertheFallofIsrael\">Judah after the Fall of Israel<\/p>\n<p>Following the fall of Samaria in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, OT chronology is concerned only with the southern kingdom of Judah until its destruction some 135 years later. Two events in the biblical record important for establishing a chronology for that period are the siege of Jerusalem by Sennacherib of Assyria in the late eighth century and the eventual fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in the early sixth century.<\/p>\n<h5>Sennacherib’s Invasion of Judah<\/h5>\n<p>The Assyrian invasion (704–681 <span>BC<\/span>) is recorded in 2 Kings 18:13-16, where verse 13 dates the event to the 14th year of King Hezekiah. Sennacherib’s own inscriptions include a lengthier version of the affair. From them the date of 701 <span>BC<\/span> is established, placing the accession of Hezekiah in 715 <span>BC<\/span>. That much is simple, but problems still arise. For example, 2 Kings 19:9 reports that Sennacherib was in contact with an Ethiopian king, Tirhakah (c. 690–664 <span>BC<\/span>), during the course of his campaign, which included a siege of Jerusalem. Obviously, contact with a ruler who came to power in 690 <span>BC<\/span> at the earliest could not refer to events in 701 <span>BC<\/span>. It is possible, however, that Sennacherib actually made two invasions of Judah, the first in 701 and the second sometime later. The date of that supposed second invasion is not assured, although 2 Kings 19:35-37 may imply that Sennacherib was murdered only shortly after his withdrawal from Jerusalem. Since Sennacherib was succeeded by his son Esarhaddon in the year 681, the presumed second invasion of Judah would have occurred somewhere in the last half of the same decade.<\/p>\n<p>A number of scholars oppose the assumption of a second invasion of Jerusalem by Sennacherib. They suggest the possibility that Tirhakah, though king only from 690 <span>BC<\/span>, may have led troops against Sennacherib as early as 701, before acceding to the throne. The reference to King Tirhakah in 2 Kings 19:9 would then be understood as use of his eventual title in an effort to identify him to a later generation of readers.<\/p>\n<p>However the question of the number of invasions is decided, it is certain that Sennacherib invaded Judah in 701 <span>BC<\/span>, the 14th regnal year of Hezekiah. Such a synchronism establishes Hezekiah’s accession year as 715 <span>BC<\/span>, but that date raises another problem. The fall of Samaria, now established at 722, is dated by 2 Kings 18:10 in the sixth year of Hezekiah’s reign. The most likely solution is that Hezekiah began a co-regency with his father, Ahaz, six years before Samaria fell. The possibility for confusion arises from the fact that one verse (2 Kgs 18:13; repeated in Is 36:1) synchronizes Sennacherib’s 701 <span>BC<\/span> invasion with the 14th year of Hezekiah’s independent reign; another verse (2 Kgs 18:10) correlates the fall of Samaria with the beginning of Hezekiah’s co-regency. Thus from about 728 to 715 <span>BC<\/span> Hezekiah was co-regent with Ahaz. From 715 to 697 he reigned alone. From 696 to 686 his son Manasseh was co-ruler with him.<\/p>\n<p>According to the chronological information given by a number of verses in 2 Kings, a total of 128 years and six months elapsed between the time of Hezekiah’s accession in 715 and the capture of King Jehoiachin in 597, a date to be discussed below. Thus another problem is to explain the more than 10-year excess apparently demanded by the biblical totals. The best solution appears to lie in the assumption that Manasseh first came to power in 697 as co-regent with his father, Hezekiah. Manasseh died in 642, following what 2 Kings 21:1 states was a 55-year reign. Hezekiah, who came to the throne in 715, is said to have reigned 29 years (2 Kgs 18:2), which would mean that he was king until 686, roughly 11 years after the time when Manasseh must have come to the throne in order to have completed a 55-year reign by 642.<\/p>\n<h5>Fall of Jerusalem<\/h5>\n<p>Contemporary Babylonian records are available to shed valuable light on the last few years of Judah’s existence. For the years 626–623, 618–595, and 556 <span>BC<\/span> the Babylonian Chronicle, a formal record of Babylonian affairs of state, has been recovered. From information contained in that chronicle and other cuneiform documents of the period, three dates in Judah’s history may be fixed firmly. The first is the death of Josiah in 609; the second is the battle of Carchemish in 605; the third is the end of the reign of Jehoiachin, which is dated by the Babylonian Chronicle to the second month of Adar in the ninth year of Nebuchadnezzar, or March 16, 597.<\/p>\n<p>After Jehoiachin’s capture, Zedekiah became puppet king of Judah for 11 years (2 Kgs 24:18). On the tenth day of the tenth month during Zedekiah’s ninth regnal year (2 Kgs 25:1), the final siege of Jerusalem was begun by the Babylonian army. That day was January 15, 588. On the ninth day of the fourth month during the 11th regnal year of Zedekiah, after a siege of almost 18 months, the wall of Jerusalem was broken through (2 Kgs 25:3-4). The temple was burned on day seven of the following (fifth) month.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Beyond587bc\">Beyond 586 <span>BC<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Following the tragedy of 586 <span>BC<\/span>, several further developments are given chronological notice in the OT. Jeremiah 52:30 records a third deportation of Jews to Babylonia in the 23d year of King Nebuchadnezzar (582 or 581 <span>BC<\/span>). Both 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31 give evidence of the release of King Jehoiachin from prison; the Babylonian Chronicle dates that event at 27 Adar, or March 21, 561 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In 539 <span>BC<\/span> the Babylonians themselves were destined to learn the meaning of defeat. In that year a Persian ruler, Cyrus the Great, launched a successful campaign against Babylon and its king, Nabonidus. Inheriting control over the exiled Jews and many other groups of people conquered earlier by Babylonia, Cyrus moved quickly to initiate a policy of tolerance toward his new subjects. In the first year of his rule Cyrus issued an edict making it possible for Jews to return to their former land (Ezr 1:1). On the first day of the following year, 1 Tishri (Ezr 3:6), an altar was set up in Jerusalem. In Iyyar of the following year (April\/May 536) work was begun on the temple itself (Ezr 3:8).<\/p>\n<p>After a period of frustrating work stoppages of varying lengths, the preaching of Haggai and Zechariah spurred on the Jews to complete the temple. Work resumed in 520 (Ezr 4:24; Hg 1:1, 15) and was finally completed on 3 Adar, or March 12, 515 (Ezr 6:15). The final stages of OT chronology pertain to the careers of Ezra and Nehemiah. The traditional view of their era places Ezra in the seventh year of Artaxerxes I (458 <span>BC<\/span>) and Nehemiah in the 20th (445 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> “Date” under each OT book; Conquest and Allotment of the Land; Diaspora of the Jews; Exodus, The; Israel, History of; Patriarchs, Period of the; Postexilic Period; Wilderness Wanderings.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper his...","summary_en":"CHRONOLOGY OF THE BIBLE* (Old Testament) Branch of biblical studies that attempts to assign dates and sequences to OT events. Chronology is a science. It deals with evidence, theories, assumptions, and the balance of probabilities. Often it boils down to a matter of choosing among theories that are equally unable to solve all the problems raised by other points of view. OT chronology is an accredited branch of biblical studies primarily because it is essential for understanding the proper his...","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19340,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jeshua (Person)","title_en":"Jeshua (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JESHUA (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Jozadak was deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (1 Chr 6:14-15). Jeshua, Jozadak’s successor as high priest, returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1). Upon arrival, he led his fellow priests in making the altar of God (Ezr 3:2; 5:2) and eventually headed up a construction program to rebuild the temple (3:8). Confirmed as God’s leader by Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2, 4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11), Jeshua (alternately “Joshua” in these passages) resolutely resisted attempts by adversaries to infiltrate his people and hinder the work on the temple (Ezr 4:3). Joiakim was Jeshua’s son and successor as high priest, serving in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh 12:12, 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. Descendant of Pahath-moab and the forefather of a family of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the Babylonian captivity (Ezr 2:6; Neh 7:11).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of a family of Levites who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). He and his sons were responsible for overseeing the workmen building the temple (Ezr 3:9; this Jeshua may be identical with #3 above).<\/li>\n<li>6. Levite and Jozabad’s father. Jozabad assisted Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah with taking inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>7. Ezer’s father. Ezer was ruler of Mizpah, who repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:19).<\/li>\n<li>8. Azaniah’s son and a leader of the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jeshua assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law (Neh 8:7) and later set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (10:9).<\/li>\n<li>9. Alternate spelling of Joshua, the son of Nun, in Nehemiah 8:17. <em>See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JESHUA (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Jozadak was deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (1 Chr 6:14-15). Jeshua, Jozadak’s successor as high priest, returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1). Upon arrival, he led his fellow priests in making the altar of God (Ezr 3:2; 5:2) and eventually headed up a construction program to rebuild the temple (3:8). Confirmed as God’s leader by Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2, 4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11), Jeshua (alternately “Joshua” in these passages) resolutely resisted attempts by adversaries to infiltrate his people and hinder the work on the temple (Ezr 4:3). Joiakim was Jeshua’s son and successor as high priest, serving in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh 12:12, 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. Descendant of Pahath-moab and the forefather of a family of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the Babylonian captivity (Ezr 2:6; Neh 7:11).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of a family of Levites who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). He and his sons were responsible for overseeing the workmen building the temple (Ezr 3:9; this Jeshua may be identical with #3 above).<\/li>\n<li>6. Levite and Jozabad’s father. Jozabad assisted Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah with taking inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>7. Ezer’s father. Ezer was ruler of Mizpah, who repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:19).<\/li>\n<li>8. Azaniah’s son and a leader of the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jeshua assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law (Neh 8:7) and later set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (10:9).<\/li>\n<li>9. Alternate spelling of Joshua, the son of Nun, in Nehemiah 8:17. <em>See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JESHUA (Person) 1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). 2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15). 3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Joz...","summary_en":"JESHUA (Person) 1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). 2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15). 3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Joz...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":26597,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Music","title_en":"Music","content_ro":"<h3>MUSIC<\/h3>\n<p>A natural human expression that probably began with speech-singing and developed into songs, which were then accompanied by instruments. Music as we know it has become quite complex, a luxury and entertainment; music in antiquity, however, was a functional expression of daily life, work, and worship.<\/p>\n<p>The phrase “sing to the Lord,” common to the OT (Ex 15:21; 1 Chr 16:9; Pss 68:32; 96:1-2; Is 42:10; Jer 20:13), was not unique to the Jewish nation. All religions draw on the natural human impulse to sing. The injunction “sing to the Lord” was a signal for the people to pour out their praise in song.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible, however, is limited in its treatment of music in ancient Israel. Since there was no written musical notation, the primary record of songs sung by the Hebrews is the collection of texts, particularly the psalms, and a few enigmatic musical instructions. The biblical writers were writing a history not of their culture but of their relationship with God; hence, their comments about music are not critical. Also, the biblical documents cover a long span of history and are grouped according to category rather than in chronological order, thus making it difficult to order the development of musical style with precision. Finally, there is the problem of understanding the biblical descriptions of music and its performance. Only in this century have scholars been able to interpret the information provided in the Bible in terms of Eastern music systems.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Music in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Music in the Psalms<\/p>\n<p>• Music in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MusicintheOldTestament\">Music in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The first musician mentioned in the Bible is “Jubal, the first musician—the inventor of the harp and flute” (Gn 4:21, <span>nlt<\/span>). The importance of this description of a musician so early in history lies in the equality Jubal is given with his brothers Jabal, the herdsman, and Tubal-cain, the smith. Music making is recognized among the earliest professions of nomadic peoples. The name Jubal is believed to be a derivative from the Hebrew word for “ram.” The ram’s horn <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shophar<\/span><em>)<\/em> was an early instrument of the Jewish people and was significant in signaling important events.<\/p>\n<p>For the most part, the music described in early biblical history was of a functional nature. Music gained special significance as it became an important part of temple worship. Many of the descriptions of music making in ancient Israel, before David’s time, are quite utilitarian. There are accounts of music at times of farewell (Gn 31:27), at times of rejoicing and feasting (Ex 32:17-18; Is 5:12; 24:8-9), at military victories (2 Chr 20:27-28), and for work (Nm 21:17, the song of the well diggers; Is 16:10; Jer 48:33). Most of this music was probably rather crude and primitive in nature, especially the music associated with military advances, which was meant to terrify the enemy (Jgs 7:17-20). The music and dancing that greeted Moses as he descended from the mountain was described as if it sounded like “war in the camp” (Ex 32:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>In the early history of the Jewish people, women played an important part in the performance of music. The image of women dancing and singing for joy accompanied by percussion instruments is repeated several times: Miriam led the women in a hymn of thanksgiving after the deliverance from the Red Sea (Ex 15); Jephthah’s daughter welcomed her father in his victory (Jgs 11:34); Deborah joined with Barak in singing a song of victory (Jgs 5); and women hailed David after his defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 18:6-7). There is little mention of women as musicians following the establishment of the temple in Jerusalem, but there are a few allusions to the fact that women did participate in singing and dancing. The account of the return from exile in Babylon includes both male and female singers (Neh 7:67), confirming that women still took part in musical performance.<\/p>\n<p>As Jerusalem became the religious center of the Hebrew people (950–850 <span>BC<\/span>), the role of the professional musician became more important. The women’s songs became insignificant compared to the pomp and ceremony associated with the temple and the royal court. While the Levitical singers took most of the musical responsibility at the temple, the development of antiphonal singing allowed the people to join in on responses in the singing of psalms.<\/p>\n<h5>Musical Style and Use<\/h5>\n<p>The Jewish people seem to have been especially musical. Of course, they were influenced by other ancient cultures, but there is evidence that they were in demand as musicians by other peoples. According to an Assyrian document, King Hezekiah gave as tribute to King Sennacherib many male and female Jewish musicians. The Babylonians demanded that the captive Jews sing to them and entertain them (cf. Ps 137:3).<\/p>\n<p>Since the OT’s purpose was to narrate the relationship between the Jewish nation and God, most of the references to music deal with its function in worship. However, evidence reveals that there was also a large body of secular musical literature. There may have been guilds of poets and singers early in Jewish history. The kinds of songs recorded in the early part of the OT represent a folklike poetry. The song of thanksgiving to the Lord by Moses and the people of Israel after their escape at the Red Sea is a stirring national song. Many descriptions of the biblical writers reflect the spirit of bardic song. This would be logical, as these stories were meant to be passed on. Marching songs (2 Chr 20:27-28), and songs of triumph (Jgs 5) also indicate a secular body of music.<\/p>\n<h5>Music in Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The singers and musicians for the temple worship were chosen from the tribe of Levi. King David assembled the Levites for a census, and out of the total of 38,000 men over the age of 30, 4,000 were chosen as musicians. These 4,000 were subsequently given specific jobs. “David and the chiefs of the service also set apart for the service certain of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with lyres, with harps, and with cymbals. . . . The number of them along with their brethren, who were trained in singing to the <span>Lord<\/span>, all who were skilful, was two hundred and eighty-eight” (1 Chr 25:1, 7, <span>rsv<\/span>). The singers were further divided into 24 groups of 12 singers, who rotated in participating in the weekday, Sabbath, and high holy day services.<\/p>\n<p>According to a later source, there were minimum and maximum numbers of singers and instrumentalists required at each service. The minimum number of singers was twelve, the maximum was unlimited. There had to be in attendance at least two harps but no more than six, at least two flutes but no more than twelve, a minimum of two trumpets with no maximum, and a minimum of nine lyres with no maximum. There was only one player with a pair of cymbals.<\/p>\n<p>A singer was admitted to the Levitical choir at the age of thirty following a five-year apprenticeship (1 Chr 23:3). Five years is a relatively short time considering the amount of material these singers had to memorize (for there was no notation) and the liturgical ritual they had to master; it is speculated that they actually were in training from childhood. The Levites lived in villages outside the city wall and may have been actively involved in the musical education of their children (Neh 12:29). The Levites performed other duties connected with the sacred service, but the singers were excused from all other duties because they were on duty day and night (1 Chr 9:33). Their skills were an important part of the temple worship, and they were able to devote their entire life to the development of their musical ability. A singer served in the choir for 20 years, from age 30 to 50, and the music was of a high quality due to strict discipline and continuous practice and performance.<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning of Jewish formal worship connected with the tabernacle, music and sound was important. In Exodus 28:34-35 the descriptions of Aaron’s robe include bells attached to the lower hem that sounded as he entered the Holy Place. The first liturgical music mentioned in the OT is found in 2 Samuel 6 in the descriptions of the transfer of the ark: David and the Israelites sang, played instruments, and danced to the glory of the Lord. This music bore little resemblance to the stately ceremony described later in Solomon’s temple. In 2 Chronicles 7:6, David is given recognition for inventing the musical instruments used in the temple. In the postexilic era Levitical singers are mentioned as the descendants of Asaph, the “singing master” appointed by David (Ezr 2:41; Neh 7:44; 11:22-23). From passages such as these, we have a definite indication that liturgical music and organization stemmed from David’s time.<\/p>\n<p>The ceremonies in the Jewish temple were organized around the sacrifice. Singing formed an integral part of the sacrificial service and was necessary to validate the sacrificial action. There were special musical settings for each sacrifice; thus the daily burnt, expiatory, and laudatory offerings and libations had individual liturgies. Particular psalms became associated with certain sacrifices as well as with certain days of the week. The psalm of the day was intoned as the high priest started to pour out the drink offering. The psalm was divided into three sections, each signaled by the blowing of the trumpets, on which signal the people would prostrate themselves. This is the only time the trumpets were used together with the other instruments in orchestral fashion on solemn occasions (2 Chr 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MusicinthePsalms\">Music in the Psalms<\/p>\n<h5>Musical Psalm Titles<\/h5>\n<p>The collection of 150 lyric poems known as the book of Psalms contains the most information on music making in ancient Israel. The Psalter contains not only religious songs but also songs that have their roots in secular or popular songs, such as work songs, love songs, and wedding songs. The majority are songs of praise, thanksgiving, prayer, and repentance. There are also historic odes that relate great national events—for example, Psalm 30, “a song at the dedication of the temple,” and Psalm 137, which portrays the sufferings of the Jews in captivity.<\/p>\n<p>The psalms were an important part of all the services of the temple; the Psalter became the liturgical hymnal of the Israelites. Worship included an appointed psalm for each day of the week. On the first day of the week, Psalm 24 was sung in remembrance of the first day of creation, Psalm 48 was sung on the second day, Psalm 82 on the third, Psalm 94 on the fourth, Psalm 81 on the fifth, Psalm 93 on the sixth, and Psalm 92 on the Sabbath. After the sacrificial offerings, Psalm 105:1-5 was sung at the morning service and Psalm 96 at the evening service. The Hallel psalms (Pss 113–118, 120–136, 146–148) were sung during the offering of the paschal lamb at the Passover feast.<\/p>\n<p>While most of the liturgical music was performed by Levites, texts of the psalms suggest that there was also congregational participation. The forms of music found both in synagogal and ecclesiastical chant had their source in the forms of the poetic text of the psalms. The simplest is the plain psalmody sung by one person (e.g., Pss 3–5, 46). In responsorial psalmody the soloist is answered by the choir (e.g., Ps 67:1-2; the soloist sang verse 1 and the choir answered with verse 2). Antiphonal psalmody involves two groups singing alternately (e.g., Ps 103:20-22). The congregation would chant a refrain such as appears in Psalm 80: “Restore us, O God; let thy face shine, that we may be saved!” recurs throughout the psalm (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Even though the synagogue had no altar for sacrifice, psalm singing retained an important place. After the Romans destroyed the temple, the worship heritage of the Jews could have been lost if the customs, including musical customs, had not become an integral part of synagogue worship.<\/p>\n<p>The most enigmatic part of the psalms is the headings that are not part of the poetic text. The first question is whether these should even be considered as superscripts. Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and other ancient languages were written in such a way that the text ran together without any break between chapters or paragraphs. This means that the verses, and even the division of the psalms themselves, were partially determined by copyists, chiefly the Masoretes. There is some question as to which psalms the extrapoetic texts actually belong with; they may actually be subscripts instead of superscripts. Sumerian and Babylonian poetry had information such as the name of the author, the musical instrument used for accompaniment, the tune, the purpose, and such listed at the end of the poem. Hence, some of the headings may actually be endings.<\/p>\n<p>The indications at the beginning of a psalm fall into three categories. They are either musical terms giving direction for the actual performance, musical cues designating the tune to which the psalm would be sung, or comments indicating the function of the psalm. These terms have been interpreted in various ways.<\/p>\n<p>Originally, these headings may have been marginal notes for the choir leaders. Realizing that these terms were not related to the psalm text proper, early biblical scribes may not have been overly careful with their placement in the text, which may explain some of the discrepancies among the early manuscripts—why certain words are left out in some and why terms assigned to only a few psalms may originally have been indicated on more of them.<\/p>\n<p>All but 50 of the psalms contain a proper name in the heading. These names possibly indicate the author; other commentators, interpreting the preposition appearing before the names to mean “for,” think the names are a dedication. Thus the title would be “A Psalm for David,” not “A Psalm of David.” This may be the case with the names of Asaph, Heman, Ethan, and especially the sons of Korah, where it would make better sense for the psalm to be written for rather than by the family. Seventy-three psalms have David’s name in the heading, hence the common reference to the Psalter as the Psalms of David. Twelve include the name of Asaph, eleven the children of Korah, two Solomon, and one each contains Moses, Heman, and Ethan.<\/p>\n<h5>Musical Terms in the Psalm Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Numerous musical terms are included in the superscriptions to cue the kind of instrumental accompaniment, mood, and style of performance for the psalm.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Alamoth<\/span> is one of the most controversial terms found in the psalm headings. It appears at the beginning of Psalm 46 and also in 1 Chronicles 15:20. One meaning for the Hebrew word is “maiden,” and musicologists interpret this as an instruction that the psalm should be sung in the range of the female singing voice. The reference in Chronicles is to harps in the range of women’s voices. This interpretation does not seem to fit Psalm 46, but if we look at the preceding psalm and read the term as a subscript, it becomes logical. Psalm 45 is a song of love, actually a nuptial ode; it would be natural for women to sing the second half (vv 10-17). While there is little mention of women singing in the temple, there is speculation that young boys in training may have sung along with the Levitical singers. Also this may be a case where the term appears only once in the modern text but may have been used more often in the original. Another possible meaning for <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Alamoth<\/span> is “flutes,” perhaps describing the kind of musical accompaniment for the performance of the psalm.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Gittith<\/span> is a term found in the superscriptions of Psalms 8, 81, and 84. It may be a musical cue, indicating a mood for the performance of these psalms, but a more common explanation is that it is a collective term for the stringed instruments that would have accompanied them.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Mahalath<\/span> has been left in its original Hebrew form by early translators and is found in the headings of Psalms 53 and 88. It may have roots in the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mahaleh<\/span> “sickness” or <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mahot<\/span> “dance,” though neither of these words can be related to the psalm texts. Another explanation is a musical one. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Mahalath<\/span> may come from the word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">halal<\/span> meaning “to pierce,” implying that the psalm was to be accompanied with pipes.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Maskil<\/span> (<span>kjv<\/span> “Maschil”) appears in the headings of 13 psalms (Pss 32, 42, 44–45, 52–55, 74, 78, 88–89, 142). The term is probably derived from the verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sakal<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to have insight or comprehension,” but there is no agreement among commentators. By looking at the psalms themselves, their didactic nature and the structure of stanzas and refrains, musicologists conclude the term represents a song of praise, possibly sung by a soloist with participation by the choir.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Menazzeah<\/span> appears in the heading of 55 psalms. It appears 52 times in the first three books of Psalms (Pss 1–89), not at all in book four (Pss 90–106), and 3 times in book five (Pss 107–150). The most common modern translations are “to the Choirmaster” (<span>rsv<\/span>), “to the choir director” (<span>nasb<\/span>, <span>nlt<\/span>), “to the director of music” (<span>niv<\/span>), “to the chief Musician” (<span>kjv<\/span>, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The word is derived from the Hebrew verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nazzah<\/span><em>,<\/em> appearing in 1 Chronicles 23:4 and Ezra 3:8-9 in the sense of “administering.” In 1 Chronicles 15:21 the word is found in relation to leading or directing song in the temple. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Menazzeah<\/span> relates to the choirmaster and represents the singer chosen to lead the music who probably was involved in rehearsing and instructing. It is now assumed that <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">menazzeah<\/span> indicates the psalm was to be sung partially or entirely by a soloist. This is evidenced by the change in some texts from “I” where the soloist sang, to “we” where the choir or congregation sang. Psalm 5 is an example of a text divided for solo and choral singing: verses 1-3 solo; verses 4-6 choral; verses 7-8 solo; verses 9-10 choral; and verses 11-12 end the psalm with the combined soloist and choir.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Miktam<\/span> (<span>kjv<\/span> “Michtam”) is another term that has no clear musical meaning, due mainly to the fact that its etymology is unknown. It occurs in Psalms 16 and 56–60, all of which have a character of lamentation or supplication. In a musical sense, it probably meant that a certain well-known tune was to be selected as the melody of the psalm.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Mizmor<\/span> (Hebrew, meaning a song sung to instrumental accompaniment) is found nowhere else in the Bible; it is included in the superscriptions of 57 psalms. It probably indicated a song accompanied by melodic instruments as opposed to a dance song accompanied by rhythmic instruments.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Neginah<\/span> appears in the superscriptions of Psalms 4, 6, 54–55, 61, 67, and 76. The term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">neginah<\/span> and its plural <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">neginoth<\/span> are found in Psalm 77:7, Lamentations 5:14, Isaiah 38:20, and Habakkuk 3:19. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Neginah<\/span><em>,<\/em> from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">naggen<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to touch the strings,” instructs that stringed instruments accompany the singing.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Nehiloth<\/span> is found only in the introduction to Psalm 5 (<span>kjv<\/span>). The origin of the word is problematic. It could come from the verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nahal<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to possess or inherit,” or more feasibly from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">halal<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “to pierce.” The latter implies the idea of a pierced instrument (the flute or pipe) to be used for accompaniment.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Sheminith<\/span> appears in Psalms 6 and 12 and also in 1 Chronicles 15:21. The Hebrew word means literally “over the eighth.” Some scholars feel it had something to do with an octave, but the Hebrew musical language probably did not include a musical unit divided into eight parts. Other scholars interpret <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sheminith<\/span> as meaning an eight-stringed instrument. A more logical interpretation comes from examining its use in 1 Chronicles. In 15:20 the instructions are for musicians to play the harps according to <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">alamoth<\/span> and in verse 21 to play the lyres according to <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sheminith<\/span><em>.<\/em> Here the terms <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">alamoth<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sheminith<\/span> seem to be used in opposition. If <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">alamoth<\/span> implies a register of the female voice, then <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sheminith<\/span> would imply a lower register. Thus, it may have been an instruction to use a lower pitched instrument for accompaniment.<\/p>\n<h5>Psalm Varieties in the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Some of the notes in the psalm headings are indications of the type or variety of psalm.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Hazkir<\/span> is found in the headings of Psalms 38 and 70. According to the Targum, this is an indication that the psalm was sung at the sacrificial rite called <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">askara<\/span> and is translated “for a memorial offering.”<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Lammed<\/span> appears in the superscription of Psalm 60 in the phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">le-lammed<\/span><em>,<\/em> translated “to teach.” According to tradition, this was a psalm, though undoubtedly not the only one, taught to young people as part of their education. This is another example of a term that may have been omitted from other psalms in later versions of the Psalter.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shiggaion<\/span> is in the heading of Psalm 7 and also in Habakkuk 3:1. The word probably comes from the Hebrew verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shagah<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to wander,” but may also be connected with the Assyrian liturgical term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shigu<\/span><em>,<\/em> which represented a plaintive song in several stanzas. Biblical scholars have assumed <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shiggaion<\/span><em>,<\/em> plural <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shigionoth<\/span><em>,<\/em> was a lament or penitential song.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir<\/span> is the simplest word for “song” and was probably used in the headings at an early stage of the Psalter; it is usually found with <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mizmor<\/span> (13 times). Fifteen psalms have this heading. It was probably the term for a specific type of praise song, usually performed by the choir.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir Hamaalot<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir Lamaalot<\/span> occur in the headings of Psalms 120–134, which are often referred to as the Psalms of Ascent (<span>kjv<\/span> “Psalms of Degrees”). Most explanations offered relate to the fact that the temple was situated on high ground. Often these 15 psalms are associated with the 15 steps leading from the Court of the Women to the Court of the Israelites. But most contemporary scholars believe the idea of “going up” referred to the pilgrims’ journey to Jerusalem to worship at the temple. These psalms are short, with popular appeal, making them appropriate for singing during the journey.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir Hanukkat Habayit<\/span> is found only in the heading of Psalm 30. This phrase tells that the psalm was to be used for the dedication or rededication of the house of God.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir-yedidot<\/span> appears only in Psalm 45. It refers to a love song that was probably sung at wedding ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Tefillah<\/span> is a common term for “prayer” and appears in the headings of Psalms 17, 86, 90, 102, and 142, and also in Habakkuk 3:1. The word probably refers to a specific form of poetic prayer.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Selah<\/span> is one of the most frequently used, but most enigmatic, terms found in the book of Psalms. It occurs in 39 psalms, appearing a total of 71 times in the Psalter—67 times within the text and 4 times at the end of a psalm. It is most frequent in the first three books. In the first book <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span> appears in 9 psalms; in the second book, 17 psalms; in the third book, 11 psalms. In the fourth book it is not found at all and in the fifth book in only two psalms. Thirty-one of these psalms also include the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">menazzeah<\/span> in their superscriptions, which implies that they were sung by a soloist and choir. Most commonly, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span> is interpreted as a signal for a break in the singing and possibly for an instrumental interlude. It never appears at the beginning of a psalm but only in the middle of the text or at the end. The regularity of its appearance within a psalm is not consistent, and in only a few instances do these divisions break the psalm into equal sections. Because of the random placement of the term, some scholars believe that, like the headings, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span> was not always carefully copied into the text. It may have been a note appearing only in the texts of the musicians, which would explain this inconsistency. An explanation of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span> is found in the Talmudic tradition: “Ben Azra clashed the cymbal and the Levites broke forth into singing. When they reached a break in the singing they blew upon the trumpets and the people prostrated themselves; at every break there was a blowing of the trumpet and at every blowing of the trumpet a prostration. This was the rite of the daily whole offering in the service of the House of our God.” <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Selah<\/span><em>,<\/em> then, would be an instruction for the musicians that the singing was to cease and the instrumentalists were to play.<\/p>\n<p>The term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">higgaion selah<\/span> appears once, in Psalm 9:16. The word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">higgaiaon<\/span> comes from the root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hagah<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to murmur, to growl, to produce a low sound.” This may have been an instruction for the interlude to be more subdued than a normal <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>Ancient Melodies in the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Many psalms contain headings that are not direct musical references but are cue words to suggest well-known tunes. They probably refer either to names or the first words of popular secular songs <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">makams<\/span><em>)<\/em> whose melodic patterns were used in singing the psalm. Many biblical scholars have tried to find hidden meaning in these headings, but most musicologists believe these are simply references or introductions to melodies.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Aijeleth Shahar<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 22 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “according to The Hind of the Dawn” (<span>rsv<\/span>), and “To the tune of ‘The Doe of the Morning’ ” (<span>niv<\/span>), “To the tune ‘Doe of the Dawn’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Al-taschith<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalms 57–59 and 75 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “To the tune ‘Do Not Destroy!’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Jonath-elem-rechokim<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 56 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “according to The Dove on Far-off Terebinths” (<span>rsv<\/span>), and “To the tune ‘Dove on Distant Oaks’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Mahalath Leannoth<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 88, is translated “To the tune ‘The Suffering of Affliction’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Muthlabben<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 9, is translated “To the tune ‘Death of the Son’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shoshannim<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalms 45 and 69 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “To the tune ‘Lilies’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shoshannim-Eduth<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 80 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “To the tune ‘Lilies of the Covenant’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shushan-eduth<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 60, is translated “To the tune ‘Lily of the Testimony’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>These melody types appear only in the first three books of the Psalter, and this may imply that these popular <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">makams<\/span> had fallen into disuse by the time the final books of the Psalter were written. Other <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">makam<\/span>-types had probably become popular, and the authors, realizing the relatively short life of a popular tune, did not include them in the headings of the Psalms but left the choice up to the performer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MusicintheNewTestament\">Music in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>First-Century Influences<\/h5>\n<h6>The Synagogue<\/h6>\n<p>By the time of Christ, the synagogue had become the chief place of worship for the Jewish people. It began as a place for study of the law but gradually became the center of worship for Jews unable to attend the temple. The liturgical service of the temple could not be duplicated in the synagogue as there was no sacrificial rite, and the music could not be exactly reproduced as there were no trained Levitical singers. Scholars do not agree about the amount of continuity between the music of the temple and the music of the synagogue, but there is evidence that certain musical practices did remain constant between the two places of worship.<\/p>\n<p>Information on the customs and rituals of the synagogue come from Talmudic writings. The musical elements of worship in the synagogue were the chanting of Scripture, psalmody, and spiritual songs. The choral singing of the temple was replaced by a single cantor. The cantor was a layman who, according to tradition, had to have the following qualifications: “He had to be well educated, gifted with a sweet voice, of humble personality, recognized by the community, conversant with Scripture and all the prayers; he must not be a rich man, for his prayers should come from his heart.” His most important job was the cantillation of the Law and the Prophets. A series of accents and punctuations, forerunners of actual musical notation, were indications for the cantor in the musical interpretation of the Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Psalm singing was gradually transplanted from the temple to the synagogue, which in turn influenced the early Christian church. Gregorian psalm tones have their roots in Hebrew psalmody.<\/p>\n<h6>Greek and Roman Cultures<\/h6>\n<p>While both the temple and the synagogue were familiar to the early Christians (Acts 2:46-47; 3:1; 5:42; 9:20; 18:4; etc.), the Greek and Roman cultures also played a major part in shaping the young church. Hellenistic influences by the time of Christ had long been felt in the Middle East, and while it was strongly opposed by some Jewish leaders, the Greek arts had permeated Jewish culture. Greek philosophers considered music a cathartic force that could lead humans into metaphysical knowledge. This understanding led to the belief that music had a moral substance that could influence people to either good or evil. If this philosophy had totally encompassed Judeo-Christian thought, certainly Paul would have encouraged the use of music in the spread of the gospel. However, Paul’s omission of this theory implies that the Judeo-Christian world at that time had rejected the Greek ideal, at least in part.<\/p>\n<p>While the Jewish rabbis considered music an art form for the praise of God, and while the Greek philosophers thought of it as a powerful moral force in creation, the Romans considered music mainly as entertainment. The music of the Roman games was neither religious nor philosophic and, from the accounts of witnesses, it was not technically exceptional. In the Roman Empire musicians were given a lower status and looked on as mere entertainers. One reason the early church did not include instrumental music in their worship was in reaction to the debased secular use of instruments by the Romans.<\/p>\n<h5>In the New Testament Writings<\/h5>\n<p>One of the few mentions of instruments in the NT is the use of flutes at a wake (Mt 9:23). As in the OT, music is associated with feasting and merrymaking (e.g., the return of the prodigal son, Lk 15:25). Five passages mention music metaphorically (Mt 6:2; 11:17; Lk 7:32; 1 Cor 13:1; 14:7-8). The most well known of these is Paul’s celebration of love in 1 Corinthians 13. The denunciation of the gong and cymbals must be understood in light of the attitude of the early Christians toward the music of the Pharisees. Here the signal instruments of the temple were used to represent pompous display of religious pietism.<\/p>\n\n<p>Most references to music are found in the eschatological visions and prophetic passages scattered throughout the NT—most frequently in the book of Revelation (also Mt 24:31; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thes 4:16; Heb 12:19). Many of these descriptions have a direct association with musical references in the OT (e.g., the use of harps and trumpets and the singing of the Hallelujah). But the value of many of the passages in Revelation comes from their literary style. These doxological and psalmlike passages were probably spontaneous “spiritual songs” composed by the young church (e.g., Rv 5:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that mention religious or liturgical music are often more conceptual than literal. Two parallel passages describing the Last Supper (Mt 26:30; Mk 14:26) mention that Christ and his disciples sang a hymn. This is the only direct account of Jesus singing, but it is probable that when he read in the synagogue he did so in the accepted vocal style (Lk 4:16-20). There is much controversy surrounding the actual events at the Last Supper, but we can assume that the hymn sung was a traditional Jewish hymn, probably associated with the Passover.<\/p>\n<p>From the account in Acts 16:25 we know that Paul and Silas sang hymns while in jail. Paul gives instruction for music making in 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26 in terms of a balance between rationalism and emotion. And, as with all the gifts of the Spirit, Paul asks that singing be done for edification.<\/p>\n<p>In two similar passages (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) Paul groups together three musical terms—psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. The singing of psalms was an obvious carryover from the synagogue, and we can assume that the early Christian psalm singing followed the Jewish style. The term for “hymns” probably refers to poetic texts, possibly modeled after the psalms, but in praise of Christ. “Spiritual songs” may refer to a spontaneous, ecstatic form of musical prayer, possibly wordless (perhaps related to glossolalia), in a style that was popular in mystical Judaism. These outbursts of song were probably melismatic (sung on one tone) and are perhaps the forerunners of the later Alleluia chant.<\/p>\n<h5>Hymnody in the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>It can be assumed that the early Christians composed hymns in praise of Christ. Logically, most of the hymns found in the NT are based on Hebrew poetic psalm forms, but there is Greek and Latin influence also. The hymns from the Gospel of Luke have become well-known canticles adopted by the church: the Magnificat (Lk 1:46-55), the Benedictus (1:68-79), the Gloria (2:14) and the Nunc Dimittis (2:29-32). While patterned after the psalms of the OT, these hymns are full of confidence in the salvation of Christ and in his imminent return. Other Christological hymns found in the NT include the prologue to the Gospel of John, Ephesians 2:14-16, Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 1:3, and 1 Peter 3:18-22.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>MUSIC<\/h3>\n<p>A natural human expression that probably began with speech-singing and developed into songs, which were then accompanied by instruments. Music as we know it has become quite complex, a luxury and entertainment; music in antiquity, however, was a functional expression of daily life, work, and worship.<\/p>\n<p>The phrase “sing to the Lord,” common to the OT (Ex 15:21; 1 Chr 16:9; Pss 68:32; 96:1-2; Is 42:10; Jer 20:13), was not unique to the Jewish nation. All religions draw on the natural human impulse to sing. The injunction “sing to the Lord” was a signal for the people to pour out their praise in song.<\/p>\n<p>The Bible, however, is limited in its treatment of music in ancient Israel. Since there was no written musical notation, the primary record of songs sung by the Hebrews is the collection of texts, particularly the psalms, and a few enigmatic musical instructions. The biblical writers were writing a history not of their culture but of their relationship with God; hence, their comments about music are not critical. Also, the biblical documents cover a long span of history and are grouped according to category rather than in chronological order, thus making it difficult to order the development of musical style with precision. Finally, there is the problem of understanding the biblical descriptions of music and its performance. Only in this century have scholars been able to interpret the information provided in the Bible in terms of Eastern music systems.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Music in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>• Music in the Psalms<\/p>\n<p>• Music in the New Testament<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MusicintheOldTestament\">Music in the Old Testament<\/p>\n<p>The first musician mentioned in the Bible is “Jubal, the first musician—the inventor of the harp and flute” (Gn 4:21, <span>nlt<\/span>). The importance of this description of a musician so early in history lies in the equality Jubal is given with his brothers Jabal, the herdsman, and Tubal-cain, the smith. Music making is recognized among the earliest professions of nomadic peoples. The name Jubal is believed to be a derivative from the Hebrew word for “ram.” The ram’s horn <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shophar<\/span><em>)<\/em> was an early instrument of the Jewish people and was significant in signaling important events.<\/p>\n<p>For the most part, the music described in early biblical history was of a functional nature. Music gained special significance as it became an important part of temple worship. Many of the descriptions of music making in ancient Israel, before David’s time, are quite utilitarian. There are accounts of music at times of farewell (Gn 31:27), at times of rejoicing and feasting (Ex 32:17-18; Is 5:12; 24:8-9), at military victories (2 Chr 20:27-28), and for work (Nm 21:17, the song of the well diggers; Is 16:10; Jer 48:33). Most of this music was probably rather crude and primitive in nature, especially the music associated with military advances, which was meant to terrify the enemy (Jgs 7:17-20). The music and dancing that greeted Moses as he descended from the mountain was described as if it sounded like “war in the camp” (Ex 32:17-18).<\/p>\n<p>In the early history of the Jewish people, women played an important part in the performance of music. The image of women dancing and singing for joy accompanied by percussion instruments is repeated several times: Miriam led the women in a hymn of thanksgiving after the deliverance from the Red Sea (Ex 15); Jephthah’s daughter welcomed her father in his victory (Jgs 11:34); Deborah joined with Barak in singing a song of victory (Jgs 5); and women hailed David after his defeat of the Philistines (1 Sm 18:6-7). There is little mention of women as musicians following the establishment of the temple in Jerusalem, but there are a few allusions to the fact that women did participate in singing and dancing. The account of the return from exile in Babylon includes both male and female singers (Neh 7:67), confirming that women still took part in musical performance.<\/p>\n<p>As Jerusalem became the religious center of the Hebrew people (950–850 <span>BC<\/span>), the role of the professional musician became more important. The women’s songs became insignificant compared to the pomp and ceremony associated with the temple and the royal court. While the Levitical singers took most of the musical responsibility at the temple, the development of antiphonal singing allowed the people to join in on responses in the singing of psalms.<\/p>\n<h5>Musical Style and Use<\/h5>\n<p>The Jewish people seem to have been especially musical. Of course, they were influenced by other ancient cultures, but there is evidence that they were in demand as musicians by other peoples. According to an Assyrian document, King Hezekiah gave as tribute to King Sennacherib many male and female Jewish musicians. The Babylonians demanded that the captive Jews sing to them and entertain them (cf. Ps 137:3).<\/p>\n<p>Since the OT’s purpose was to narrate the relationship between the Jewish nation and God, most of the references to music deal with its function in worship. However, evidence reveals that there was also a large body of secular musical literature. There may have been guilds of poets and singers early in Jewish history. The kinds of songs recorded in the early part of the OT represent a folklike poetry. The song of thanksgiving to the Lord by Moses and the people of Israel after their escape at the Red Sea is a stirring national song. Many descriptions of the biblical writers reflect the spirit of bardic song. This would be logical, as these stories were meant to be passed on. Marching songs (2 Chr 20:27-28), and songs of triumph (Jgs 5) also indicate a secular body of music.<\/p>\n<h5>Music in Worship<\/h5>\n<p>The singers and musicians for the temple worship were chosen from the tribe of Levi. King David assembled the Levites for a census, and out of the total of 38,000 men over the age of 30, 4,000 were chosen as musicians. These 4,000 were subsequently given specific jobs. “David and the chiefs of the service also set apart for the service certain of the sons of Asaph, and of Heman, and of Jeduthun, who should prophesy with lyres, with harps, and with cymbals. . . . The number of them along with their brethren, who were trained in singing to the <span>Lord<\/span>, all who were skilful, was two hundred and eighty-eight” (1 Chr 25:1, 7, <span>rsv<\/span>). The singers were further divided into 24 groups of 12 singers, who rotated in participating in the weekday, Sabbath, and high holy day services.<\/p>\n<p>According to a later source, there were minimum and maximum numbers of singers and instrumentalists required at each service. The minimum number of singers was twelve, the maximum was unlimited. There had to be in attendance at least two harps but no more than six, at least two flutes but no more than twelve, a minimum of two trumpets with no maximum, and a minimum of nine lyres with no maximum. There was only one player with a pair of cymbals.<\/p>\n<p>A singer was admitted to the Levitical choir at the age of thirty following a five-year apprenticeship (1 Chr 23:3). Five years is a relatively short time considering the amount of material these singers had to memorize (for there was no notation) and the liturgical ritual they had to master; it is speculated that they actually were in training from childhood. The Levites lived in villages outside the city wall and may have been actively involved in the musical education of their children (Neh 12:29). The Levites performed other duties connected with the sacred service, but the singers were excused from all other duties because they were on duty day and night (1 Chr 9:33). Their skills were an important part of the temple worship, and they were able to devote their entire life to the development of their musical ability. A singer served in the choir for 20 years, from age 30 to 50, and the music was of a high quality due to strict discipline and continuous practice and performance.<\/p>\n<p>From the beginning of Jewish formal worship connected with the tabernacle, music and sound was important. In Exodus 28:34-35 the descriptions of Aaron’s robe include bells attached to the lower hem that sounded as he entered the Holy Place. The first liturgical music mentioned in the OT is found in 2 Samuel 6 in the descriptions of the transfer of the ark: David and the Israelites sang, played instruments, and danced to the glory of the Lord. This music bore little resemblance to the stately ceremony described later in Solomon’s temple. In 2 Chronicles 7:6, David is given recognition for inventing the musical instruments used in the temple. In the postexilic era Levitical singers are mentioned as the descendants of Asaph, the “singing master” appointed by David (Ezr 2:41; Neh 7:44; 11:22-23). From passages such as these, we have a definite indication that liturgical music and organization stemmed from David’s time.<\/p>\n<p>The ceremonies in the Jewish temple were organized around the sacrifice. Singing formed an integral part of the sacrificial service and was necessary to validate the sacrificial action. There were special musical settings for each sacrifice; thus the daily burnt, expiatory, and laudatory offerings and libations had individual liturgies. Particular psalms became associated with certain sacrifices as well as with certain days of the week. The psalm of the day was intoned as the high priest started to pour out the drink offering. The psalm was divided into three sections, each signaled by the blowing of the trumpets, on which signal the people would prostrate themselves. This is the only time the trumpets were used together with the other instruments in orchestral fashion on solemn occasions (2 Chr 5:12-13).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MusicinthePsalms\">Music in the Psalms<\/p>\n<h5>Musical Psalm Titles<\/h5>\n<p>The collection of 150 lyric poems known as the book of Psalms contains the most information on music making in ancient Israel. The Psalter contains not only religious songs but also songs that have their roots in secular or popular songs, such as work songs, love songs, and wedding songs. The majority are songs of praise, thanksgiving, prayer, and repentance. There are also historic odes that relate great national events—for example, Psalm 30, “a song at the dedication of the temple,” and Psalm 137, which portrays the sufferings of the Jews in captivity.<\/p>\n<p>The psalms were an important part of all the services of the temple; the Psalter became the liturgical hymnal of the Israelites. Worship included an appointed psalm for each day of the week. On the first day of the week, Psalm 24 was sung in remembrance of the first day of creation, Psalm 48 was sung on the second day, Psalm 82 on the third, Psalm 94 on the fourth, Psalm 81 on the fifth, Psalm 93 on the sixth, and Psalm 92 on the Sabbath. After the sacrificial offerings, Psalm 105:1-5 was sung at the morning service and Psalm 96 at the evening service. The Hallel psalms (Pss 113–118, 120–136, 146–148) were sung during the offering of the paschal lamb at the Passover feast.<\/p>\n<p>While most of the liturgical music was performed by Levites, texts of the psalms suggest that there was also congregational participation. The forms of music found both in synagogal and ecclesiastical chant had their source in the forms of the poetic text of the psalms. The simplest is the plain psalmody sung by one person (e.g., Pss 3–5, 46). In responsorial psalmody the soloist is answered by the choir (e.g., Ps 67:1-2; the soloist sang verse 1 and the choir answered with verse 2). Antiphonal psalmody involves two groups singing alternately (e.g., Ps 103:20-22). The congregation would chant a refrain such as appears in Psalm 80: “Restore us, O God; let thy face shine, that we may be saved!” recurs throughout the psalm (<span>rsv<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>Even though the synagogue had no altar for sacrifice, psalm singing retained an important place. After the Romans destroyed the temple, the worship heritage of the Jews could have been lost if the customs, including musical customs, had not become an integral part of synagogue worship.<\/p>\n<p>The most enigmatic part of the psalms is the headings that are not part of the poetic text. The first question is whether these should even be considered as superscripts. Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and other ancient languages were written in such a way that the text ran together without any break between chapters or paragraphs. This means that the verses, and even the division of the psalms themselves, were partially determined by copyists, chiefly the Masoretes. There is some question as to which psalms the extrapoetic texts actually belong with; they may actually be subscripts instead of superscripts. Sumerian and Babylonian poetry had information such as the name of the author, the musical instrument used for accompaniment, the tune, the purpose, and such listed at the end of the poem. Hence, some of the headings may actually be endings.<\/p>\n<p>The indications at the beginning of a psalm fall into three categories. They are either musical terms giving direction for the actual performance, musical cues designating the tune to which the psalm would be sung, or comments indicating the function of the psalm. These terms have been interpreted in various ways.<\/p>\n<p>Originally, these headings may have been marginal notes for the choir leaders. Realizing that these terms were not related to the psalm text proper, early biblical scribes may not have been overly careful with their placement in the text, which may explain some of the discrepancies among the early manuscripts—why certain words are left out in some and why terms assigned to only a few psalms may originally have been indicated on more of them.<\/p>\n<p>All but 50 of the psalms contain a proper name in the heading. These names possibly indicate the author; other commentators, interpreting the preposition appearing before the names to mean “for,” think the names are a dedication. Thus the title would be “A Psalm for David,” not “A Psalm of David.” This may be the case with the names of Asaph, Heman, Ethan, and especially the sons of Korah, where it would make better sense for the psalm to be written for rather than by the family. Seventy-three psalms have David’s name in the heading, hence the common reference to the Psalter as the Psalms of David. Twelve include the name of Asaph, eleven the children of Korah, two Solomon, and one each contains Moses, Heman, and Ethan.<\/p>\n<h5>Musical Terms in the Psalm Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Numerous musical terms are included in the superscriptions to cue the kind of instrumental accompaniment, mood, and style of performance for the psalm.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Alamoth<\/span> is one of the most controversial terms found in the psalm headings. It appears at the beginning of Psalm 46 and also in 1 Chronicles 15:20. One meaning for the Hebrew word is “maiden,” and musicologists interpret this as an instruction that the psalm should be sung in the range of the female singing voice. The reference in Chronicles is to harps in the range of women’s voices. This interpretation does not seem to fit Psalm 46, but if we look at the preceding psalm and read the term as a subscript, it becomes logical. Psalm 45 is a song of love, actually a nuptial ode; it would be natural for women to sing the second half (vv 10-17). While there is little mention of women singing in the temple, there is speculation that young boys in training may have sung along with the Levitical singers. Also this may be a case where the term appears only once in the modern text but may have been used more often in the original. Another possible meaning for <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Alamoth<\/span> is “flutes,” perhaps describing the kind of musical accompaniment for the performance of the psalm.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Gittith<\/span> is a term found in the superscriptions of Psalms 8, 81, and 84. It may be a musical cue, indicating a mood for the performance of these psalms, but a more common explanation is that it is a collective term for the stringed instruments that would have accompanied them.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Mahalath<\/span> has been left in its original Hebrew form by early translators and is found in the headings of Psalms 53 and 88. It may have roots in the Hebrew <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mahaleh<\/span> “sickness” or <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mahot<\/span> “dance,” though neither of these words can be related to the psalm texts. Another explanation is a musical one. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Mahalath<\/span> may come from the word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">halal<\/span> meaning “to pierce,” implying that the psalm was to be accompanied with pipes.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Maskil<\/span> (<span>kjv<\/span> “Maschil”) appears in the headings of 13 psalms (Pss 32, 42, 44–45, 52–55, 74, 78, 88–89, 142). The term is probably derived from the verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sakal<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to have insight or comprehension,” but there is no agreement among commentators. By looking at the psalms themselves, their didactic nature and the structure of stanzas and refrains, musicologists conclude the term represents a song of praise, possibly sung by a soloist with participation by the choir.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Menazzeah<\/span> appears in the heading of 55 psalms. It appears 52 times in the first three books of Psalms (Pss 1–89), not at all in book four (Pss 90–106), and 3 times in book five (Pss 107–150). The most common modern translations are “to the Choirmaster” (<span>rsv<\/span>), “to the choir director” (<span>nasb<\/span>, <span>nlt<\/span>), “to the director of music” (<span>niv<\/span>), “to the chief Musician” (<span>kjv<\/span>, <span>nkjv<\/span>). The word is derived from the Hebrew verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nazzah<\/span><em>,<\/em> appearing in 1 Chronicles 23:4 and Ezra 3:8-9 in the sense of “administering.” In 1 Chronicles 15:21 the word is found in relation to leading or directing song in the temple. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Menazzeah<\/span> relates to the choirmaster and represents the singer chosen to lead the music who probably was involved in rehearsing and instructing. It is now assumed that <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">menazzeah<\/span> indicates the psalm was to be sung partially or entirely by a soloist. This is evidenced by the change in some texts from “I” where the soloist sang, to “we” where the choir or congregation sang. Psalm 5 is an example of a text divided for solo and choral singing: verses 1-3 solo; verses 4-6 choral; verses 7-8 solo; verses 9-10 choral; and verses 11-12 end the psalm with the combined soloist and choir.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Miktam<\/span> (<span>kjv<\/span> “Michtam”) is another term that has no clear musical meaning, due mainly to the fact that its etymology is unknown. It occurs in Psalms 16 and 56–60, all of which have a character of lamentation or supplication. In a musical sense, it probably meant that a certain well-known tune was to be selected as the melody of the psalm.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Mizmor<\/span> (Hebrew, meaning a song sung to instrumental accompaniment) is found nowhere else in the Bible; it is included in the superscriptions of 57 psalms. It probably indicated a song accompanied by melodic instruments as opposed to a dance song accompanied by rhythmic instruments.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Neginah<\/span> appears in the superscriptions of Psalms 4, 6, 54–55, 61, 67, and 76. The term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">neginah<\/span> and its plural <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">neginoth<\/span> are found in Psalm 77:7, Lamentations 5:14, Isaiah 38:20, and Habakkuk 3:19. <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Neginah<\/span><em>,<\/em> from the Hebrew root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">naggen<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to touch the strings,” instructs that stringed instruments accompany the singing.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Nehiloth<\/span> is found only in the introduction to Psalm 5 (<span>kjv<\/span>). The origin of the word is problematic. It could come from the verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">nahal<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to possess or inherit,” or more feasibly from <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">halal<\/span><em>,<\/em> meaning “to pierce.” The latter implies the idea of a pierced instrument (the flute or pipe) to be used for accompaniment.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Sheminith<\/span> appears in Psalms 6 and 12 and also in 1 Chronicles 15:21. The Hebrew word means literally “over the eighth.” Some scholars feel it had something to do with an octave, but the Hebrew musical language probably did not include a musical unit divided into eight parts. Other scholars interpret <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sheminith<\/span> as meaning an eight-stringed instrument. A more logical interpretation comes from examining its use in 1 Chronicles. In 15:20 the instructions are for musicians to play the harps according to <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">alamoth<\/span> and in verse 21 to play the lyres according to <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sheminith<\/span><em>.<\/em> Here the terms <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">alamoth<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sheminith<\/span> seem to be used in opposition. If <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">alamoth<\/span> implies a register of the female voice, then <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">sheminith<\/span> would imply a lower register. Thus, it may have been an instruction to use a lower pitched instrument for accompaniment.<\/p>\n<h5>Psalm Varieties in the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Some of the notes in the psalm headings are indications of the type or variety of psalm.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Hazkir<\/span> is found in the headings of Psalms 38 and 70. According to the Targum, this is an indication that the psalm was sung at the sacrificial rite called <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">askara<\/span> and is translated “for a memorial offering.”<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Lammed<\/span> appears in the superscription of Psalm 60 in the phrase <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">le-lammed<\/span><em>,<\/em> translated “to teach.” According to tradition, this was a psalm, though undoubtedly not the only one, taught to young people as part of their education. This is another example of a term that may have been omitted from other psalms in later versions of the Psalter.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shiggaion<\/span> is in the heading of Psalm 7 and also in Habakkuk 3:1. The word probably comes from the Hebrew verb <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shagah<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to wander,” but may also be connected with the Assyrian liturgical term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shigu<\/span><em>,<\/em> which represented a plaintive song in several stanzas. Biblical scholars have assumed <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shiggaion<\/span><em>,<\/em> plural <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">shigionoth<\/span><em>,<\/em> was a lament or penitential song.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir<\/span> is the simplest word for “song” and was probably used in the headings at an early stage of the Psalter; it is usually found with <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">mizmor<\/span> (13 times). Fifteen psalms have this heading. It was probably the term for a specific type of praise song, usually performed by the choir.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir Hamaalot<\/span> and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir Lamaalot<\/span> occur in the headings of Psalms 120–134, which are often referred to as the Psalms of Ascent (<span>kjv<\/span> “Psalms of Degrees”). Most explanations offered relate to the fact that the temple was situated on high ground. Often these 15 psalms are associated with the 15 steps leading from the Court of the Women to the Court of the Israelites. But most contemporary scholars believe the idea of “going up” referred to the pilgrims’ journey to Jerusalem to worship at the temple. These psalms are short, with popular appeal, making them appropriate for singing during the journey.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir Hanukkat Habayit<\/span> is found only in the heading of Psalm 30. This phrase tells that the psalm was to be used for the dedication or rededication of the house of God.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shir-yedidot<\/span> appears only in Psalm 45. It refers to a love song that was probably sung at wedding ceremonies.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Tefillah<\/span> is a common term for “prayer” and appears in the headings of Psalms 17, 86, 90, 102, and 142, and also in Habakkuk 3:1. The word probably refers to a specific form of poetic prayer.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Selah<\/span> is one of the most frequently used, but most enigmatic, terms found in the book of Psalms. It occurs in 39 psalms, appearing a total of 71 times in the Psalter—67 times within the text and 4 times at the end of a psalm. It is most frequent in the first three books. In the first book <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span> appears in 9 psalms; in the second book, 17 psalms; in the third book, 11 psalms. In the fourth book it is not found at all and in the fifth book in only two psalms. Thirty-one of these psalms also include the term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">menazzeah<\/span> in their superscriptions, which implies that they were sung by a soloist and choir. Most commonly, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span> is interpreted as a signal for a break in the singing and possibly for an instrumental interlude. It never appears at the beginning of a psalm but only in the middle of the text or at the end. The regularity of its appearance within a psalm is not consistent, and in only a few instances do these divisions break the psalm into equal sections. Because of the random placement of the term, some scholars believe that, like the headings, <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span> was not always carefully copied into the text. It may have been a note appearing only in the texts of the musicians, which would explain this inconsistency. An explanation of <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span> is found in the Talmudic tradition: “Ben Azra clashed the cymbal and the Levites broke forth into singing. When they reached a break in the singing they blew upon the trumpets and the people prostrated themselves; at every break there was a blowing of the trumpet and at every blowing of the trumpet a prostration. This was the rite of the daily whole offering in the service of the House of our God.” <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Selah<\/span><em>,<\/em> then, would be an instruction for the musicians that the singing was to cease and the instrumentalists were to play.<\/p>\n<p>The term <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">higgaion selah<\/span> appears once, in Psalm 9:16. The word <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">higgaiaon<\/span> comes from the root <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">hagah<\/span><em>,<\/em> “to murmur, to growl, to produce a low sound.” This may have been an instruction for the interlude to be more subdued than a normal <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">selah<\/span><em>.<\/em><\/p>\n<h5>Ancient Melodies in the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Many psalms contain headings that are not direct musical references but are cue words to suggest well-known tunes. They probably refer either to names or the first words of popular secular songs <em>(<\/em><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">makams<\/span><em>)<\/em> whose melodic patterns were used in singing the psalm. Many biblical scholars have tried to find hidden meaning in these headings, but most musicologists believe these are simply references or introductions to melodies.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Aijeleth Shahar<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 22 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “according to The Hind of the Dawn” (<span>rsv<\/span>), and “To the tune of ‘The Doe of the Morning’ ” (<span>niv<\/span>), “To the tune ‘Doe of the Dawn’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Al-taschith<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalms 57–59 and 75 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “To the tune ‘Do Not Destroy!’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Jonath-elem-rechokim<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 56 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “according to The Dove on Far-off Terebinths” (<span>rsv<\/span>), and “To the tune ‘Dove on Distant Oaks’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Mahalath Leannoth<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 88, is translated “To the tune ‘The Suffering of Affliction’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Muthlabben<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 9, is translated “To the tune ‘Death of the Son’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shoshannim<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalms 45 and 69 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “To the tune ‘Lilies’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shoshannim-Eduth<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 80 (<span>kjv<\/span>), is translated “To the tune ‘Lilies of the Covenant’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shushan-eduth<\/span><em>,<\/em> in Psalm 60, is translated “To the tune ‘Lily of the Testimony’ ” (<span>nlt<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>These melody types appear only in the first three books of the Psalter, and this may imply that these popular <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">makams<\/span> had fallen into disuse by the time the final books of the Psalter were written. Other <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">makam<\/span>-types had probably become popular, and the authors, realizing the relatively short life of a popular tune, did not include them in the headings of the Psalms but left the choice up to the performer.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"MusicintheNewTestament\">Music in the New Testament<\/p>\n<h5>First-Century Influences<\/h5>\n<h6>The Synagogue<\/h6>\n<p>By the time of Christ, the synagogue had become the chief place of worship for the Jewish people. It began as a place for study of the law but gradually became the center of worship for Jews unable to attend the temple. The liturgical service of the temple could not be duplicated in the synagogue as there was no sacrificial rite, and the music could not be exactly reproduced as there were no trained Levitical singers. Scholars do not agree about the amount of continuity between the music of the temple and the music of the synagogue, but there is evidence that certain musical practices did remain constant between the two places of worship.<\/p>\n<p>Information on the customs and rituals of the synagogue come from Talmudic writings. The musical elements of worship in the synagogue were the chanting of Scripture, psalmody, and spiritual songs. The choral singing of the temple was replaced by a single cantor. The cantor was a layman who, according to tradition, had to have the following qualifications: “He had to be well educated, gifted with a sweet voice, of humble personality, recognized by the community, conversant with Scripture and all the prayers; he must not be a rich man, for his prayers should come from his heart.” His most important job was the cantillation of the Law and the Prophets. A series of accents and punctuations, forerunners of actual musical notation, were indications for the cantor in the musical interpretation of the Scripture.<\/p>\n<p>Psalm singing was gradually transplanted from the temple to the synagogue, which in turn influenced the early Christian church. Gregorian psalm tones have their roots in Hebrew psalmody.<\/p>\n<h6>Greek and Roman Cultures<\/h6>\n<p>While both the temple and the synagogue were familiar to the early Christians (Acts 2:46-47; 3:1; 5:42; 9:20; 18:4; etc.), the Greek and Roman cultures also played a major part in shaping the young church. Hellenistic influences by the time of Christ had long been felt in the Middle East, and while it was strongly opposed by some Jewish leaders, the Greek arts had permeated Jewish culture. Greek philosophers considered music a cathartic force that could lead humans into metaphysical knowledge. This understanding led to the belief that music had a moral substance that could influence people to either good or evil. If this philosophy had totally encompassed Judeo-Christian thought, certainly Paul would have encouraged the use of music in the spread of the gospel. However, Paul’s omission of this theory implies that the Judeo-Christian world at that time had rejected the Greek ideal, at least in part.<\/p>\n<p>While the Jewish rabbis considered music an art form for the praise of God, and while the Greek philosophers thought of it as a powerful moral force in creation, the Romans considered music mainly as entertainment. The music of the Roman games was neither religious nor philosophic and, from the accounts of witnesses, it was not technically exceptional. In the Roman Empire musicians were given a lower status and looked on as mere entertainers. One reason the early church did not include instrumental music in their worship was in reaction to the debased secular use of instruments by the Romans.<\/p>\n<h5>In the New Testament Writings<\/h5>\n<p>One of the few mentions of instruments in the NT is the use of flutes at a wake (Mt 9:23). As in the OT, music is associated with feasting and merrymaking (e.g., the return of the prodigal son, Lk 15:25). Five passages mention music metaphorically (Mt 6:2; 11:17; Lk 7:32; 1 Cor 13:1; 14:7-8). The most well known of these is Paul’s celebration of love in 1 Corinthians 13. The denunciation of the gong and cymbals must be understood in light of the attitude of the early Christians toward the music of the Pharisees. Here the signal instruments of the temple were used to represent pompous display of religious pietism.<\/p>\n\n<p>Most references to music are found in the eschatological visions and prophetic passages scattered throughout the NT—most frequently in the book of Revelation (also Mt 24:31; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thes 4:16; Heb 12:19). Many of these descriptions have a direct association with musical references in the OT (e.g., the use of harps and trumpets and the singing of the Hallelujah). But the value of many of the passages in Revelation comes from their literary style. These doxological and psalmlike passages were probably spontaneous “spiritual songs” composed by the young church (e.g., Rv 5:9-10).<\/p>\n<p>The passages that mention religious or liturgical music are often more conceptual than literal. Two parallel passages describing the Last Supper (Mt 26:30; Mk 14:26) mention that Christ and his disciples sang a hymn. This is the only direct account of Jesus singing, but it is probable that when he read in the synagogue he did so in the accepted vocal style (Lk 4:16-20). There is much controversy surrounding the actual events at the Last Supper, but we can assume that the hymn sung was a traditional Jewish hymn, probably associated with the Passover.<\/p>\n<p>From the account in Acts 16:25 we know that Paul and Silas sang hymns while in jail. Paul gives instruction for music making in 1 Corinthians 14:15, 26 in terms of a balance between rationalism and emotion. And, as with all the gifts of the Spirit, Paul asks that singing be done for edification.<\/p>\n<p>In two similar passages (Eph 5:19; Col 3:16) Paul groups together three musical terms—psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs. The singing of psalms was an obvious carryover from the synagogue, and we can assume that the early Christian psalm singing followed the Jewish style. The term for “hymns” probably refers to poetic texts, possibly modeled after the psalms, but in praise of Christ. “Spiritual songs” may refer to a spontaneous, ecstatic form of musical prayer, possibly wordless (perhaps related to glossolalia), in a style that was popular in mystical Judaism. These outbursts of song were probably melismatic (sung on one tone) and are perhaps the forerunners of the later Alleluia chant.<\/p>\n<h5>Hymnody in the New Testament<\/h5>\n<p>It can be assumed that the early Christians composed hymns in praise of Christ. Logically, most of the hymns found in the NT are based on Hebrew poetic psalm forms, but there is Greek and Latin influence also. The hymns from the Gospel of Luke have become well-known canticles adopted by the church: the Magnificat (Lk 1:46-55), the Benedictus (1:68-79), the Gloria (2:14) and the Nunc Dimittis (2:29-32). While patterned after the psalms of the OT, these hymns are full of confidence in the salvation of Christ and in his imminent return. Other Christological hymns found in the NT include the prologue to the Gospel of John, Ephesians 2:14-16, Philippians 2:6-11, Colossians 1:15-20, 1 Timothy 3:16, Hebrews 1:3, and 1 Peter 3:18-22.<\/p>","summary_ro":"MUSIC A natural human expression that probably began with speech-singing and developed into songs, which were then accompanied by instruments. Music as we know it has become quite complex, a luxury and entertainment; music in antiquity, however, was a functional expression of daily life, work, and worship. The phrase “sing to the Lord,” common to the OT (Ex 15:21; 1 Chr 16:9; Pss 68:32; 96:1-2; Is 42:10; Jer 20:13), was not unique to the Jewish nation. All religions draw on the natural human ...","summary_en":"MUSIC A natural human expression that probably began with speech-singing and developed into songs, which were then accompanied by instruments. Music as we know it has become quite complex, a luxury and entertainment; music in antiquity, however, was a functional expression of daily life, work, and worship. The phrase “sing to the Lord,” common to the OT (Ex 15:21; 1 Chr 16:9; Pss 68:32; 96:1-2; Is 42:10; Jer 20:13), was not unique to the Jewish nation. All religions draw on the natural human ...","source":"Articles\/M.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31360,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Priests and Levites","title_en":"Priests and Levites","content_ro":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PRIESTS AND LEVITES<\/h3>\n<p>Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levites fulfilled a variety of essentially religious duties and were equivalent approximately to the clergy in modern times. They were professional men and were supported for their full-time religious work.<\/p>\n<p>The role of the priesthood may be seen most clearly in the context of Israelite religion as a whole. At the heart of religion was a relationship with God; to be an Israelite or a Jew was to know and maintain a continuous relationship with the living God. This relationship found its outward expression in a variety of contexts: the covenant, the temple, worship, and every facet of daily life. Thus religion, understood as a relationship, had two perspectives: the relationship with God and that with fellow human beings. It had both a personal and a communal dimension to it. The priests were the guardians and servants of this life of relationship, which was at the heart of OT religion; all their functions can best be understood within the context of a relationship between God and Israel. The prophets, too, were servants of the covenant relationship. While the priests functioned as the normal servants of religion, the prophets’ role was more that of calling a delinquent people back to the relationship with God in times of crisis.<\/p>\n<p>In the OT, there are frequent references to both priests and Levites; in a number of biblical texts, however, the distinction is not clear (see, e.g., Dt 18:1-8). From the scholarly point of view, the precise relationship between priests and Levites is a continuing problem that has not yet been fully resolved. In general terms, only the sons of Aaron were to assume the role of priests; all other Levites would have religious functions, though technically they would not be priests. While this distinction is clear in most biblical texts, in others there is lack of certainty and clarity. It is clear, however, that <em>priests<\/em> (Levites descended from Aaron) and <em>Levites<\/em> (other than the descendants of Aaron) all had professional religious duties to perform. The precise nature of those duties varied from time to time in the course of Israel’s history.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>• The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>• The Priests<\/p>\n<p>• The Levites<\/p>\n<p>• The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>• The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheOriginsofthePriesthood\">The Origins of the Priesthood<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood in Israel began during the time of Moses and Aaron. The exodus from Egypt was not only the liberation of a group of Hebrew slaves but also the birth of the nation of Israel. The nation that was born in the exodus was given its constitution in the covenant of Sinai. The law of this covenant established the foundations and origins of Israelite priesthood. It provides insight into the three basic categories to be considered: the high priest, the priests, and the Levites.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHighPriest\">The High Priest<\/p>\n<p>Any large and complex organization requires a head or leader, and this was true also of the Hebrew priesthood (though in its early days it was a small organization). The covenant was established through Moses, the prophet, through whom God gave the offer and substance of the covenant relationship; religious life within the covenant was to be the primary responsibility of Aaron, who was the first and chief priest.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of Israel’s priesthood, it is probable that the high priest’s office was relatively informal; he was chief or leader among his fellow priests. The office was significant, nevertheless, and involved a special ritual of investiture, special clothing, and certain special responsibilities. While the high priest’s duties were similar in principle to those of other priests, he had certain exclusive responsibilities. To some extent, his duties were administrative, pertaining to all the priests of whom he had charge. But his position was more weighty than that of an administrator; just as all priests were the servants and guardians of the covenant relationship, so the high priest was chief servant and chief guardian. In his hands rested spiritual responsibility for the entire people of God, and therein lay the true honor and gravity of his position.<\/p>\n\n<p>This spiritual seniority of the high priest is seen most clearly in certain tasks he undertook within Israel’s life of worship. The clearest example may be seen in the annual observation of the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). On that day alone, the high priest entered the Holy of Holies and, standing before the “mercy seat,” he sought God’s forgiveness and mercy for the whole nation of Israel (Lv 16:1-19). It is in that ceremony that Israel’s covenant faith is seen most clearly. Israel’s religion was one of relationship with a holy God, and human evil disrupted that relationship. While all worship and sacrifices throughout the year were concerned with the continuation of the relationship, the Day of Atonement was the most solemn day of the year, in which the attention of all the people focused upon the meaning of their existence. Life held meaning only if the relationship with God could be maintained; the high priest had the great honor and heavy burden of seeking God’s mercy for all Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The special clothing worn by the high priest was symbolic of the nature and importance of his office; although all the symbolism cannot be determined, some of it is made clear in the biblical text. There are three particular themes in the symbolism. The first is beauty. The sense of beauty emerges from the quality and design of all the items of clothing, together with the use of color and precious stones. But beauty is dominant in the breastplate; the Hebrew word translated approximately as “breastplate” has as its basic sense “beauty” or “excellence.” The clothing symbolizes beauty, while beauty describes the office; the two other themes associated with the symbolism bring out the excellence of the office.<\/p>\n<p>The second theme is the role of the priest as representative of Israel before God. This essential dimension of the office of the high priest is explicitly identified in the names of the tribes of Israel in the two onyx stones in the ephod, and in the 12 precious stones attached to the breastplate. The high priest entered God’s presence to seek deliverance from God’s judgment (the breastplate is identified with judgment; Ex 28:15) for his people and in order to keep the people constantly in God’s remembrance (v 12), as symbolized by the two onyx stones. The third theme is the role of high priest as the representative of God to Israel. This dimension of the office is seen in the Urim and Thummim, kept in the breastpiece, by means of which God made known his will to Israel. The high priest, Aaron, fully robed, was a splendid figure, and the splendor of his garments indicated the magnificence of the office with which he had been entrusted.<\/p>\n<p>The high priesthood was to be passed on within the family (for the high priest was expected to be a married man), although in later history the practice was not always adhered to. On Aaron’s death, the office passed to Eleazar, one of his four sons.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriests\">The Priests<\/p>\n<p>Priests took office not as the result of a particular vocation but by virtue of priestly descent. Thus the first priests were the four sons of Aaron: Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These four were ordained at the same time that Aaron was ordained high priest (Ex 28:1). Like him, they had special clothing, which was basically similar, though it lacked the distinctive garments of the high priest (the special ephod, the breastpiece, and the crown). The priesthood would be passed down through their sons.<\/p>\n<p>The sanctity of the priestly office was such that it was preserved from degeneration through specific laws. A man must be a descendant of Aaron to be a priest, but he was also required to meet a variety of other qualifications. He would not marry a divorcée or a former prostitute (Lv 21:7). If he was afflicted by certain kinds of disease or congenital defects, he was barred from priestly office (e.g., blindness, lameness, mutilation, being a hunchback or dwarf; vv 16-23). The principle involved was similar to that applying to animals used in sacrifice—only those free from defect or blemish were suitable for divine service.<\/p>\n<p>In the earliest days of the priesthood there is some information provided in the biblical text concerning the specific duties of the priests. Eleazar had overall responsibility for the tabernacle and its offerings (Nm 4:16); assisted Moses in a number of duties, such as numbering the people and dividing the land (26:1-2; 32:2); and later served as an adviser to Joshua. Ithamar was responsible for the construction of the tabernacle (Ex 38:21) and supervised the families of the Gershonites and Merarites (Nm 4:28-33). Nadab and Abihu, however, died soon after their ordination as a result of a sinful act in their priestly duties (Lv 10:1-7), which may have been related in part to drunkenness (vv 8-9).<\/p>\n<p>Priestly duties, in general, fell into three areas (Dt 33:8-10). First, priests were responsible, in conjunction with the high priest, for declaring God’s will to the people. Second, they had responsibilities in religious education; they were to teach to Israel God’s ordinances and law (v 10). Third, they were to be the servants of the tabernacle, participating in Israel’s sacrifices and worship. There were a number of other duties that may have fallen to them, which they would have shared with the Levites in general.<\/p>\n<p>The priests, along with all other Levites, did not own any land, as did the other Israelite tribes. Their task was to be entirely in the direct service to God. The absence of land, however, meant that they could not support and feed themselves as could other men and women. Consequently, the law specified that they could be supported for their services by the people as a whole. They were to receive, from worshipers, portions of animals that were brought to the tabernacle, as well as corn, wine, oil, and wool.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheLevites\">The Levites<\/p>\n<p>This term includes the priests, in a broad sense, for the sons of Aaron belonged to the tribe of Levi. For practical purposes, however, the Levites were those of the tribe other than the priests. The Levites also functioned in the service of the tabernacle, though they had a subordinate position. They, too, were professional men and were paid in money and in kind for their services. Though they did not inherit tribal territory of their own, there were a number of cities set aside for their use (Nm 35:1-8), and pasturelands were designated outside those cities for their livestock.<\/p>\n<p>The Levites were divided into three principal families, the descendants of Kohath, Gershon, and Merari (Nm 4). Each of these families had particular responsibilities with respect to the care and transport of the tabernacle. The sons of Kohath carried the tabernacle furniture (after it had been covered by the priests), the sons of Gershon cared for the coverings and screens, and the sons of Merari carried and erected the tabernacle’s frame. The priests, by contrast, were responsible for the transportation of the ark of the covenant. The role of each Levite, as servant of the tabernacle, was restricted; he undertook his professional duties between the ages of 25 and 50 (8:24-26).<\/p>\n<p>Although many of the duties of the Levites were of a mundane nature, they also had a very significant religious role. The law required that all the firstborn, including firstborn sons, be given to God, recalling the slaying of the firstborn at the exodus from Egypt. The Levites’ role in religion was that of being accepted by God in the place of the firstborn sons of Israel (Nm 3:11-13); their cattle, too, were accepted in place of the Israelites’ firstborn cattle. In the census taken in the time of Moses, the firstborn Israelites exceeded the number of the Levites, and a five-shekel redemption fee had to be paid into the priestly coffers for each person in excess (vv 40-51). The representative and substitutionary nature of the Levites can be seen in Israelite religion. Like the priests, they played a part in the larger activity of mediation between God and Israel.<\/p>\n<p>The law of Deuteronomy specifies a number of duties that may have fallen upon both priests and Levites (though the texts are ambiguous). These duties included participation in the activity of the law courts as judges, perhaps with special reference to religious crimes (Dt 17:8-9), taking care of the Book of the Law (v 18), controlling the lives and health of lepers (24:8), and participating directly in the conduct of covenant renewal ceremonies (27:9).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheHistoryoftheInstitution\">The History of the Institution<\/p>\n<p>In theory, the covenant law of Moses determined the nature and course of the offices of priests and Levites for the future history of Israel. In practice, however, changing historical circumstances and changes in the shape of Israel’s religion and culture altered the shape of the priesthood and the role of the Levites from time to time. And even more significantly, the persons who held the offices shaped them and their effectiveness through their faithfulness or unfaithfulness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood before the Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>In the time of Joshua, the priests continued to undertake their important task of carrying the ark of the covenant. The Levites assisted in the division and allocation of the newly acquired land among the Israelite tribes. In Joshua 21, there is a detailed list of the allocation of cities to both priests and Levites, in fulfillment of the earlier legislation. In the days of the settlement, beyond the Conquest, there is some evidence that the Levites took over the priestly duty of transporting the ark (1 Sm 6:15; 2 Sm 15:24).<\/p>\n<p>The writer of the book of Judges has recorded two stories that illuminate the lives of particular Levites. The first, the story of Micah (Jgs 17–18), describes the establishment of a local shrine in which Micah’s son was appointed as a priest (though he was not of Levite or Aaronic descent). Later, Micah hired an itinerant Levite to function as a priest in his shrine, though subsequently that Levite was persuaded to serve the tribe of Dan as a priest. It is difficult to fit the details of this story into the theoretical model of priests and Levites, though the story may illustrate the confused state of Israel’s religion at the time. What is particularly significant is that the role of the Levite-priest was primarily oracular (18:5-6). The second story in Judges is the rather horrifying account of a Levite and his concubine (ch 19). The story illustrates the moral decline and lack of law and order in Israel at the time, but it sheds little light on the role of the Levites.<\/p>\n<p>More information is provided about the priesthood during the 11th century <span>BC<\/span>, immediately before the establishment of the monarchy. The tabernacle (by now probably a semipermanent structure) and the ark of the covenant were located in Shiloh. The priest in charge of the sanctuary in Shiloh was Eli, who may have been a descendant of Aaron’s son Ithamar. His two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, also served as priests, indicating that the principle of family descent was still operative with respect to the priesthood. But although Eli was a faithful priest, his two sons abused the office.<\/p>\n<p>The precise role of Samuel in this period is unclear. He was primarily a judge and a prophet, but it is difficult to determine whether he was also a priest. In the historical narrative, he is not called a priest, though Psalm 99:6 might be interpreted to indicate his priestly office. There are a number of passages, however, that indicate he acted like a priest. For example, he offered sacrifices (1 Sm 7:9-10); as a young man he served in the sanctuary of Shiloh and wore an ephod (ch 2). Furthermore, one of the biblical genealogies implies priestly descent (1 Chr 6:23-30). Nevertheless, he is not normally identified as a priest and the introduction to his story refers to him as an Ephraimite, by descent from his father (1 Sm 1:1), not a Levite. If the priest is perceived as a permanent servant of the sanctuary, as was Eli, then it is clear that Samuel was not a priest. But the priestly role of Samuel may perhaps be related to the fact that his mother “lent” him to God (v 28) while he was still a boy.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Time of David and Solomon<\/h5>\n<p>Several radical changes took place during the reign of David and Solomon. These were a result, primarily, of the establishment of a permanent temple in Jerusalem and the installation of the ark of the covenant there. During the time of Saul, the first king of Israel, the social structure was essentially the same as it had been in the time of the judges. Saul, as king, was a military leader, but his relationship to religion and the priesthood was not clearly determined.<\/p>\n<p>David changed the situation in many important respects. After his capture of the city of Jerusalem, he made that place the political and religious capital of his nation. The religious centrality of Jerusalem was assured by moving the ark of the covenant there, together with the tabernacle. Jerusalem now became the permanent location of the ark, and therefore the permanent center of religion; at the same time, the various regional shrines, which had developed in the premonarchical period, were gradually eliminated.<\/p>\n<p>These changes had numerous implications for the priesthood and the Levites. During David’s reign, there were two principal priests, Abiathar and Zadok. Abiathar, a former priest of Nob, had joined David before his rise to power; he appears to have been a descendant of Eli, and through him of Ithamar, one of Aaron’s sons. Zadok’s background is less clear, though his lineage appears to go back to Aaron’s other son, Eleazar. These two priests are always named together in the texts describing David’s reign, and Zadok is always mentioned before Abiathar. Although neither is explicitly identified as high priest in the ancient texts, there is some evidence to suggest that Abiathar functioned as high priest (1 Kgs 2:35); in NT times, he is identified as such (Mk 2:26). Zadok, during David’s reign, may have been particularly responsible for the care of the ark of the covenant (2 Sm 15:24-25). These two priests had a significant position in David’s royal establishment; they may also have shared overall responsibility for the priests, whose lives were now centered on the Jerusalem temple.<\/p>\n<p>Much of David’s time was focused upon the preparations for building a permanent temple for God. In the preparation for the temple, and in its completion during the reign of King Solomon, the new activities of the Levites may be seen. (The construction of a permanent temple automatically removed their former responsibilities related to the care and transportation of the tabernacle.) Large numbers of Levites were employed as laborers in the actual building of the temple. Others found new tasks in the worship of God in the tabernacle during David’s reign and in the temple upon its completion. To the Levites, and especially to Heman, Asaph, and Ethan, was given primary responsibility for the music of worship; this involved not only singing but also the playing of a variety of instruments in the temple’s orchestra or band. The Levites had also a variety of other tasks; they worked as gatekeepers at the sanctuary, assisted the priests in the preparation of sacrifices, kept the sanctuary clean, and functioned as general administrative and legal officers (1 Chr 23:1-32). Other Levites functioned as bankers, with primary responsibility for the temple treasuries (26:20-28).<\/p>\n<p>Following David’s death, there was a dispute over the royal succession, from which Solomon emerged as the new king. During his reign, the temple was brought to its completion and the regular worship of the nation was conducted there. In the matter of succession, however, Abiathar had supported a losing candidate, and when Solomon was made king, he lost his important office in the royal court. During Solomon’s reign, the control of the priesthood passed into the hands of Zadok.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood during the Divided Monarchy<\/h5>\n<p>The great empire, which had been built by David and maintained by Solomon, collapsed after Solomon’s death. From the ruins, two new and relatively insignificant states emerged. The southern kingdom, Judah, retained Jerusalem as its capital and the temple as its center of worship. The northern kingdom, Israel, located its first capital at Shechem, from where it was later moved to Tirzah.<\/p>\n<p>In the southern state of Judah, the priests and Levites continued to function normally within the Jerusalem temple. The office of high priest continued to be passed on by descent within the family of Zadok, who had held office in Solomon’s reign. The continuity of office in this family was to be retained down into the time of the second temple, when the Zadokite succession was interrupted about 171 <span>BC<\/span>. Nevertheless, for all the continuity of religion in Jerusalem, all was not well with religion in Judah, neither during the reign of its first king, Rehoboam, nor during the reigns of his successors. During Rehoboam’s reign, there was a decline in religion and also in the priesthood, when popular forms of religion were introduced as a result of foreign influence (1 Kgs 14:22-24). The history of the southern kingdom was marked by periods of religious decline followed by reform, often as a result of the activities of the prophets. The role of the priesthood was all too rarely one of spiritual leadership, and the priests themselves were often the subject of criticism by the prophets (e.g., Jer 2:8, 26).<\/p>\n<p>The northern kingdom, whose first king was Jeroboam I, inevitably had to introduce some radical changes in religion. Jeroboam could not recognize the temple of Jerusalem, partly because it lay outside his state and partly because it was intimately associated with the royal line of David. Jeroboam established two principal shrines in his kingdom, both of which were to retain importance during the relatively short life of the northern kingdom (200 years). The first was at Bethel, in the southern part of his kingdom near the border of Judah (it was only about 12 miles, or 19.3 kilometers, north of Jerusalem). The second shrine, or sanctuary, was at Dan, in the far northern part of his kingdom.<\/p>\n<p>Both these sanctuaries had ancient associations with the Hebrew traditions. Bethel is referred to as early as the time of Abram (Gn 12:8), and the sanctuary at Dan is known from the history of the judges (Jgs 18). There may indeed have been priests and Levites still residing in these two places, descendants of the former servants of the sanctuaries. But Jeroboam established a non-Levitical priesthood to serve in these sanctuaries and in various smaller shrines or “high places,” thereby cutting off the religious tradition of the northern state even more radically from that of Judah. The royal sanctuary at Bethel, so close to the Jerusalem temple, may have been set up in deliberate competition with the Judean sanctuary.<\/p>\n<p>The history of the priesthood in the northern kingdom is no more impressive than that of Judah. Many of the prophets, including Amos, Hosea, and Jeremiah, condemned the northern sanctuaries and their priests. Hosea was forceful in his condemnation: “As marauders lie in ambush for a man, so do bands of priests; they murder on the road to Shechem, committing shameful crimes” (Hos 6:9, <span>niv<\/span>). Those to whom the spiritual lives of the chosen people had been entrusted only rarely lived up to their responsibilities.<\/p>\n<h5>Priests and Levites during and after the Exile<\/h5>\n<p>The northern kingdom came to its end in 722 <span>BC<\/span>, defeated by the armies of Assyria, but religious life continued in Judah for a while longer. Eventually, the end of the southern state came about 586 <span>BC<\/span>; the defeat of the state by the Babylonians was accompanied by the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (Lam 2:20). The Babylonian commander took Seraiah, the high priest, and Zephaniah, his assistant, to Riblah, where, along with other officials, they were executed (2 Kgs 25:18-21). Then a policy of exile was established by the Babylonians; the most important and influential people of Judah were deported to Babylon, while the less significant were allowed to remain, for they were unlikely to cause trouble. Of those exiled from Judah, many may have been priests (Jer 29:1), for they were men of influence. By way of contrast, it seems likely that a much smaller number of Levites was exiled, reflecting perhaps their inferior social position.<\/p>\n<p>In the city of Jerusalem there was little normal religious life during the years of the exile; the altar had been destroyed and was not restored until after the exile. No doubt some kind of activity continued, but it was an impoverished form of religion. Most of the priests were in exile in Babylon, but they could not function, for there was no temple or sanctuary. Ezekiel implies that God himself was the only “sanctuary” for the exiles (Ez 11:16). Not until the return from exile and the restoration of Jerusalem and its temple could the normal functions of priests and Levites resume.<\/p>\n<p>When the Babylonian Empire was defeated, the new Persian conquerors instituted a policy whereby the Hebrew exiles could return to their homeland. Of those returning, 4,289 are designated as priests and members of priestly families, while only 341 were Levites (Ezr 2:36-42); the imbalance probably reflects the imbalance in the number of those exiled initially. Under Joshua (Jeshua), the priest, and Zerubbabel, work began on the restoration. The priests played a significant role in the first year of the return, in the restoration of the altar in Jerusalem, so that sacrifice and worship to God could resume. Once the altar had been restored, the work began on the temple itself in the second year of the return. In this work, both the priests and the Levites were involved, and the laying of new foundations for the temple began. When the foundation had been laid, both priests, in their vestments, and Levites, in their role as singers and musicians, participated in the ceremony of dedication (3:8-13). Again, when the temple had been rebuilt, both priests and Levites participated in the ceremony of dedication (6:16-18). The restoration, however, was concerned with more than buildings; it also involved a moral and religious component. Though priests and Levites helped in this task, they were also affected by it. Many, for example, had married foreign wives (9:1), and thus had to conform to Ezra’s reform laws.<\/p>\n<p>To some extent, the priests and Levites resumed their normal duties in the worship of the postexilic period. The priests were engaged in the conduct of the temple worship. The Levites assisted, as temple servants (Neh 11:3), as treasurers and collectors of tithes (10:37-39), and as instructors or teachers of the law of God (8:7-9). Nevertheless, the history of the priesthood after the exile is not free of blemish. Condemnation of the abuses of the priestly office was delivered by the prophet Malachi (Mal 1:6–2:9). Malachi catalogues a list of priestly evils reminiscent of the evil priests who lived during the time of the monarchy.<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest continued after the exile among the descendants of Zadok, being held first by Joshua (Hg 1:1). The different political circumstances, however, changed the nature of the high priestly office. Whereas in the days of the monarchy the high priest was subservient to the king, there was no king, in the proper sense, after the exile. From a political perspective, the Jews were members of a province or colony; for practical purposes, they were a community based upon a common religion. The high priest was no longer subject to the secular authority of a Jewish king, but his religious authority was considerable, and in some ways his functions were similar to those of a king in preexilic times.<\/p>\n<h5>The Priesthood in the Maccabean Period<\/h5>\n<p>During the second century <span>BC<\/span>, some changes took place in the priesthood, particularly with respect to the office of high priest, which marked the end of the OT era and set the background for the NT period. Judea, in the second century, was ruled by the Seleucid kings, who had inherited a portion of the massive Greek Empire established by Alexander the Great. The Judean province was controlled internally under the high priesthood, whose authority was received from the Seleucid kings.<\/p>\n<p>For the first three decades of the second century <span>BC<\/span>, the high priesthood remained with the Zadokite line of descent. The high priests were members of the (Zadokite) Oniad family: first, Onias III (198–174 <span>BC<\/span>); then Jason, brother of Onias III (174–171 <span>BC<\/span>). It was in the period of Jason that there began a series of events that would terminate the Zadokite tradition.<\/p>\n<p>Onias III had opposed the Hellenization policy of Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), which threatened to undermine the Jewish faith. Antiochus replaced Onias by Jason, who in effect purchased the high priesthood from the Seleucid king. In purchasing the priestly office, Jason had set a dangerous precedent; although he was of Zadokite descent, his act implied that the office could be bought and that descent was not vital. The opponents of Jason, the Tobiads, were able to remove him from office and have their own candidate, Menelaus (who was not a Zadokite), appointed in his place. This act resulted in a civil war between those supporting Jason and those supporting Menelaus, and the war in turn culminated in ruthless repressive measures by Antiochus Epiphanes; there were massacres in Jerusalem, and the temple was desecrated (167 <span>BC<\/span>). The desecration of the temple led to the Maccabean revolt, as a result of which the Jews regained their independence for a short time. Menelaus retained the office of high priest until 161 <span>BC<\/span> and was succeeded by Alcimus (161–159 <span>BC<\/span>).<\/p>\n<p>There then followed a period during which there was no high priest for seven years. The political climate, however, was such that it became unlikely that the Zadokite line would ever regain the high priesthood, which had been established in the time of King Solomon. The Maccabean Jonathan gained control of Jerusalem, and in 152 <span>BC<\/span>, with the approval of the Seleucid king, he was formally invested with the high priest’s robes of office. He was succeeded as high priest and ruler by his brother Simon in 143 <span>BC<\/span>, who also held the office with the approval of the Seleucids (Demetrius II). But in the third year of his reign (140 <span>BC<\/span>), the high priesthood of Simon received public approval in a great religious assembly, and the family of Simon became “high priest forever” (1 Macc 14:41-47). That event marked the real termination of the Zadokite tradition and the foundation of the Hasmonean line.<\/p>\n<p>The establishment of the high priestly office outside the Zadokite line did not go without challenge. It is probable that a sect within Judaism, now known as the Essenes, was born in reaction to the high priesthood of Simon. The Essenes (better known for the Dead Sea Scrolls) appear to have been founded by a Zadokite priest who rejected the authenticity and authority of Simon. Thus, in a limited sense, the Zadokite priests continued to survive.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePriesthoodinNewTestamentTimes\">The Priesthood in New Testament Times<\/p>\n<p>In the early NT period, both priests and Levites continued to function within the Jewish religion. Zechariah, father of John the Baptist, was a priest belonging to the division of Abijah (Lk 1:5), and his wife was also of priestly descent. When Zechariah was visited by an angel, he was engaged at the time in priestly duties in the Jerusalem temple—various divisions of priests took responsibility for the temple services for a period of time and then returned to their homes (v 23), as another division took over. The distinction between priests and Levites is also maintained in the NT (Jn 1:19) and appears in Jesus’ parable concerning the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:31-32). Both priests and Levites were among the earliest converts to Christianity; Barnabas was a Levite from Cyprus (Acts 4:36), and several priests responded to the proclamation of the gospel (6:7).<\/p>\n<p>The office of high priest is frequently referred to in the NT. Several high priests are named, the plurality of current and former holders of the office reflecting the nature of the position as an essentially political appointment (as distinct from its oldest definition, that of an office passing from father to son on the death of the father). The two most significant high priests in the NT are those who held office during the lifetime of Jesus. Annas was high priest about <span>AD<\/span> 6 to 15, but even after he ceased to hold the office formally, he continued to exert considerable influence through his son-in-law, the high priest Caiaphas (c. <span>AD<\/span> 18–36). Both were significant figures in the trial of Jesus. At a later date, Ananias, son of Nedebaeus, was high priest (c. <span>AD<\/span> 47–58) and president of the Sanhedrin during the time in which Paul was brought to trial.<\/p>\n<p>The priesthood held considerable authority in NT times. Most internal and religious matters in the Roman province of Judea were within the authority of the Sanhedrin, which functioned as a kind of provincial government, though its powers were limited in certain matters by Rome. Its membership included the ruling and former high priests and a large number of Sadducees, many of whom belonged to influential priestly families. This priestly influence in the Sanhedrin was indicative of the important role of the temple in Jewish life during the first century <span>AD<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>In <span>AD<\/span> 70, following the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, a radical change came about in the significance of the priesthood in Judaism. The end of the temple removed in effect the purpose for the existence of the priesthood. Although the priesthood continued after a fashion until the Bar-Kochba rebellion in <span>AD<\/span> 135, its days were numbered after <span>AD<\/span> 70. Since the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, Judaism has developed without priests, and its course down to the present century has been charted by the rabbis, the spiritual descendants of the Pharisees.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Priesthood.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","summary_en":"PRIESTS AND LEVITES Servants of God in the OT. There were three basic classes of religious personnel in ancient Israel: prophets, wise men, and priests and Levites. The classical prophets fulfilled a vocation but were not professionals; they were not paid for their task and functioned only in response to the particular call of God. The wise men were involved in government and education; some of their duties were secular, though they were also involved in moral education. The priests and Levit...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":35034,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Sheshbazzar","title_en":"Sheshbazzar","content_ro":"<h3>SHESHBAZZAR<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning the restoration of the temple (5:16).<\/p>\n<p>Sheshbazzar is mentioned in the Bible only four times, all in the book of Ezra (1:8-9; 5:14-16). For many years it was commonly held that Sheshbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. Both were of the royal line; Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” which may mean that he was heir apparent to the throne. Since his genealogy is not given, he may be represented in that listing by some other name, either Zerubbabel or Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18-19). In the record of people who returned to Jerusalem, Sheshbazzar’s name does not appear. The name of Zerubbabel is at the head of this list, where one would expect Sheshbazzar’s to be; both were governors of the province of Judah. Zerubbabel is associated with the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 3:8-11), but that work is attributed to Sheshbazzar in 5:16, in accordance with chapter 1. It is evident that the name Sheshbazzar is found only in connection with the Persians, for chapter 1 relates his dealings with Cyrus, and in chapter 5 the two occurrences of his name are in a letter written by the Persian official, Tattenai. One may conclude that the Persians knew him as Sheshbazzar, but the Jews called him Zerubbabel. Both names are Akkadian, so there is no parallel here to the renaming of Jewish captives in Babylon (Dn 1:7).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>SHESHBAZZAR<\/h3>\n<p>Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning the restoration of the temple (5:16).<\/p>\n<p>Sheshbazzar is mentioned in the Bible only four times, all in the book of Ezra (1:8-9; 5:14-16). For many years it was commonly held that Sheshbazzar was another name for Zerubbabel. Both were of the royal line; Sheshbazzar is called “the prince of Judah,” which may mean that he was heir apparent to the throne. Since his genealogy is not given, he may be represented in that listing by some other name, either Zerubbabel or Shenazzar (1 Chr 3:18-19). In the record of people who returned to Jerusalem, Sheshbazzar’s name does not appear. The name of Zerubbabel is at the head of this list, where one would expect Sheshbazzar’s to be; both were governors of the province of Judah. Zerubbabel is associated with the laying of the foundation of the temple (Ezr 3:8-11), but that work is attributed to Sheshbazzar in 5:16, in accordance with chapter 1. It is evident that the name Sheshbazzar is found only in connection with the Persians, for chapter 1 relates his dealings with Cyrus, and in chapter 5 the two occurrences of his name are in a letter written by the Persian official, Tattenai. One may conclude that the Persians knew him as Sheshbazzar, but the Jews called him Zerubbabel. Both names are Akkadian, so there is no parallel here to the renaming of Jewish captives in Babylon (Dn 1:7).<\/p>","summary_ro":"SHESHBAZZAR Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning ...","summary_en":"SHESHBAZZAR Jewish leader who found favor with Cyrus the Great, king of Persia. In the first year of his reign, Cyrus issued a decree that the temple in Jerusalem should be rebuilt (Ezr 1:1-4; cf. 6:1-5). He appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judah (Ezr 5:14) and handed over to him the gold and silver vessels that Nebuchadnezzar had carried off when he took Jerusalem (1:7-9). Sheshbazzar fulfilled this commission by taking the vessels to Jerusalem with the returning exiles (v 9) and beginning ...","source":"Articles\/S.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48011,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:8<\/strong> In <em>midspring,<\/em> the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The <em>second year after they arrived<\/em> was probably 536 <span>BC<\/span>. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • <em>The work force was made up of everyone:<\/em> This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting <em>the Levites . . . in charge<\/em> ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:8<\/strong> In <em>midspring,<\/em> the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The <em>second year after they arrived<\/em> was probably 536 <span>BC<\/span>. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • <em>The work force was made up of everyone:<\/em> This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting <em>the Levites . . . in charge<\/em> ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:8 In midspring, the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The second year after they arrived was probably 536 BC. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • The work force was made up of everyone: This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting the Levites . . . in charge ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.","summary_en":"3:8 In midspring, the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The second year after they arrived was probably 536 BC. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • The work force was made up of everyone: This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting the Levites . . . in charge ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75637,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:8<\/strong> In <em>midspring,<\/em> the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The <em>second year after they arrived<\/em> was probably 536 <span>BC<\/span>. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • <em>The work force was made up of everyone:<\/em> This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting <em>the Levites . . . in charge<\/em> ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:8<\/strong> In <em>midspring,<\/em> the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The <em>second year after they arrived<\/em> was probably 536 <span>BC<\/span>. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • <em>The work force was made up of everyone:<\/em> This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting <em>the Levites . . . in charge<\/em> ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:8 In midspring, the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The second year after they arrived was probably 536 BC. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • The work force was made up of everyone: This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting the Levites . . . in charge ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.","summary_en":"3:8 In midspring, the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The second year after they arrived was probably 536 BC. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • The work force was made up of everyone: This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting the Levites . . . in charge ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103263,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:8<\/strong> In <em>midspring,<\/em> the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The <em>second year after they arrived<\/em> was probably 536 <span>BC<\/span>. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • <em>The work force was made up of everyone:<\/em> This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting <em>the Levites . . . in charge<\/em> ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:8<\/strong> In <em>midspring,<\/em> the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The <em>second year after they arrived<\/em> was probably 536 <span>BC<\/span>. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • <em>The work force was made up of everyone:<\/em> This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting <em>the Levites . . . in charge<\/em> ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:8 In midspring, the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The second year after they arrived was probably 536 BC. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • The work force was made up of everyone: This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting the Levites . . . in charge ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.","summary_en":"3:8 In midspring, the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The second year after they arrived was probably 536 BC. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • The work force was made up of everyone: This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting the Levites . . . in charge ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130889,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:8","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:8","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:8<\/strong> In <em>midspring,<\/em> the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The <em>second year after they arrived<\/em> was probably 536 <span>BC<\/span>. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • <em>The work force was made up of everyone:<\/em> This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting <em>the Levites . . . in charge<\/em> ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:8<\/strong> In <em>midspring,<\/em> the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The <em>second year after they arrived<\/em> was probably 536 <span>BC<\/span>. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • <em>The work force was made up of everyone:<\/em> This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting <em>the Levites . . . in charge<\/em> ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:8 In midspring, the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The second year after they arrived was probably 536 BC. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • The work force was made up of everyone: This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting the Levites . . . in charge ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.","summary_en":"3:8 In midspring, the dry season was beginning and workers would not have to contend with mud. • The second year after they arrived was probably 536 BC. The delay in rebuilding reflects the time it took to get wood from Lebanon to Jerusalem. • The work force was made up of everyone: This showed the spirit of unity among the returned exiles. Putting the Levites . . . in charge ensured that the work was done according to God’s specifications.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"9":[{"id":3987,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Bavvai*","title_en":"Bavvai*","content_ro":"<h3>BAVVAI*<\/h3>\n<p>Individual who directed the repair of a section of the Jerusalem wall under Nehemiah’s supervision (Neh 3:18). Bavvai was Henadad’s son and the official of half the district of Keilah, a town 17 miles (27.4 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem. Binnui (Neh 3:24), also mentioned as Henadad’s son (cf. Ezr 3:9), may be a corrupted spelling of Bavvai, or the two may have been brothers. <em>See<\/em> Binnui #4.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>BAVVAI*<\/h3>\n<p>Individual who directed the repair of a section of the Jerusalem wall under Nehemiah’s supervision (Neh 3:18). Bavvai was Henadad’s son and the official of half the district of Keilah, a town 17 miles (27.4 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem. Binnui (Neh 3:24), also mentioned as Henadad’s son (cf. Ezr 3:9), may be a corrupted spelling of Bavvai, or the two may have been brothers. <em>See<\/em> Binnui #4.<\/p>","summary_ro":"BAVVAI* Individual who directed the repair of a section of the Jerusalem wall under Nehemiah’s supervision (Neh 3:18). Bavvai was Henadad’s son and the official of half the district of Keilah, a town 17 miles (27.4 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem. Binnui (Neh 3:24), also mentioned as Henadad’s son (cf. Ezr 3:9), may be a corrupted spelling of Bavvai, or the two may have been brothers. See Binnui #4.","summary_en":"BAVVAI* Individual who directed the repair of a section of the Jerusalem wall under Nehemiah’s supervision (Neh 3:18). Bavvai was Henadad’s son and the official of half the district of Keilah, a town 17 miles (27.4 kilometers) southwest of Jerusalem. Binnui (Neh 3:24), also mentioned as Henadad’s son (cf. Ezr 3:9), may be a corrupted spelling of Bavvai, or the two may have been brothers. See Binnui #4.","source":"Articles\/B.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16215,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Henadad","title_en":"Henadad","content_ro":"<h3>HENADAD<\/h3>\n<p>Head of a Levite family that participated in the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 3:9). Members of this family also helped to build the Jerusalem wall (Neh 3:18, 24), and signed Ezra’s covenant of faithfulness to God together with Nehemiah (10:9).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>HENADAD<\/h3>\n<p>Head of a Levite family that participated in the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 3:9). Members of this family also helped to build the Jerusalem wall (Neh 3:18, 24), and signed Ezra’s covenant of faithfulness to God together with Nehemiah (10:9).<\/p>","summary_ro":"HENADAD Head of a Levite family that participated in the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 3:9). Members of this family also helped to build the Jerusalem wall (Neh 3:18, 24), and signed Ezra’s covenant of faithfulness to God together with Nehemiah (10:9).","summary_en":"HENADAD Head of a Levite family that participated in the rebuilding of the temple (Ezr 3:9). Members of this family also helped to build the Jerusalem wall (Neh 3:18, 24), and signed Ezra’s covenant of faithfulness to God together with Nehemiah (10:9).","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":16502,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Hodaviah","title_en":"Hodaviah","content_ro":"<h3>HODAVIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Postexilic descendant of David (1 Chr 3:24).<\/li>\n<li>2. Chieftain of Manasseh’s half-tribe east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:24).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hassenuah’s son and the father of Meshullam from Benjamin’s tribe (1 Chr 9:7).<\/li>\n<li>4. Progenitor of a family of Levites who returned with the exiles from Babylon (Ezr 2:40); alternately called Judah in Ezra 3:9 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>HODAVIAH<\/h3>\n<li>1. Postexilic descendant of David (1 Chr 3:24).<\/li>\n<li>2. Chieftain of Manasseh’s half-tribe east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:24).<\/li>\n<li>3. Hassenuah’s son and the father of Meshullam from Benjamin’s tribe (1 Chr 9:7).<\/li>\n<li>4. Progenitor of a family of Levites who returned with the exiles from Babylon (Ezr 2:40); alternately called Judah in Ezra 3:9 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43.<\/li>","summary_ro":"HODAVIAH 1. Postexilic descendant of David (1 Chr 3:24). 2. Chieftain of Manasseh’s half-tribe east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:24). 3. Hassenuah’s son and the father of Meshullam from Benjamin’s tribe (1 Chr 9:7). 4. Progenitor of a family of Levites who returned with the exiles from Babylon (Ezr 2:40); alternately called Judah in Ezra 3:9 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43.","summary_en":"HODAVIAH 1. Postexilic descendant of David (1 Chr 3:24). 2. Chieftain of Manasseh’s half-tribe east of the Jordan (1 Chr 5:24). 3. Hassenuah’s son and the father of Meshullam from Benjamin’s tribe (1 Chr 9:7). 4. Progenitor of a family of Levites who returned with the exiles from Babylon (Ezr 2:40); alternately called Judah in Ezra 3:9 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43.","source":"Articles\/H.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":19350,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Jeshua (Person)","title_en":"Jeshua (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JESHUA (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Jozadak was deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (1 Chr 6:14-15). Jeshua, Jozadak’s successor as high priest, returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1). Upon arrival, he led his fellow priests in making the altar of God (Ezr 3:2; 5:2) and eventually headed up a construction program to rebuild the temple (3:8). Confirmed as God’s leader by Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2, 4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11), Jeshua (alternately “Joshua” in these passages) resolutely resisted attempts by adversaries to infiltrate his people and hinder the work on the temple (Ezr 4:3). Joiakim was Jeshua’s son and successor as high priest, serving in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh 12:12, 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. Descendant of Pahath-moab and the forefather of a family of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the Babylonian captivity (Ezr 2:6; Neh 7:11).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of a family of Levites who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). He and his sons were responsible for overseeing the workmen building the temple (Ezr 3:9; this Jeshua may be identical with #3 above).<\/li>\n<li>6. Levite and Jozabad’s father. Jozabad assisted Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah with taking inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>7. Ezer’s father. Ezer was ruler of Mizpah, who repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:19).<\/li>\n<li>8. Azaniah’s son and a leader of the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jeshua assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law (Neh 8:7) and later set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (10:9).<\/li>\n<li>9. Alternate spelling of Joshua, the son of Nun, in Nehemiah 8:17. <em>See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JESHUA (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39).<\/li>\n<li>2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15).<\/li>\n<li>3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Jozadak was deported by Nebuchadnezzar to Babylon (1 Chr 6:14-15). Jeshua, Jozadak’s successor as high priest, returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem after the exile (Ezr 2:2; Neh 7:7; 12:1). Upon arrival, he led his fellow priests in making the altar of God (Ezr 3:2; 5:2) and eventually headed up a construction program to rebuild the temple (3:8). Confirmed as God’s leader by Haggai and Zechariah (Hg 1:1-14; 2:2, 4; Zec 3:1-9; 6:11), Jeshua (alternately “Joshua” in these passages) resolutely resisted attempts by adversaries to infiltrate his people and hinder the work on the temple (Ezr 4:3). Joiakim was Jeshua’s son and successor as high priest, serving in the days of Nehemiah and Ezra (Neh 12:12, 26).<\/li>\n<li>4. Descendant of Pahath-moab and the forefather of a family of Jews who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the Babylonian captivity (Ezr 2:6; Neh 7:11).<\/li>\n<li>5. Father of a family of Levites who returned to Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). He and his sons were responsible for overseeing the workmen building the temple (Ezr 3:9; this Jeshua may be identical with #3 above).<\/li>\n<li>6. Levite and Jozabad’s father. Jozabad assisted Meremoth, Eleazar, and Noadiah with taking inventory of the temple’s precious metals and vessels during the days of Ezra (Ezr 8:33).<\/li>\n<li>7. Ezer’s father. Ezer was ruler of Mizpah, who repaired a section of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 3:19).<\/li>\n<li>8. Azaniah’s son and a leader of the Levites in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Jeshua assisted Ezra with teaching the people the law (Neh 8:7) and later set his seal on Ezra’s covenant (10:9).<\/li>\n<li>9. Alternate spelling of Joshua, the son of Nun, in Nehemiah 8:17. <em>See<\/em> Joshua (Person) #1.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JESHUA (Person) 1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). 2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15). 3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Joz...","summary_en":"JESHUA (Person) 1. Levite and head of the ninth of 24 divisions of priests formed during David’s reign (1 Chr 24:11). He was perhaps the forefather of 973 descendants who returned with Zerubbabel to Judah following the exile (Ezr 2:36; Neh 7:39). 2. One of the Levites assisting Kore in the distribution of the offerings among his fellow priests living in the priestly cities of Judah during the days of King Hezekiah (2 Chr 31:15). 3. Son of Jozadak (alternately “Jehozadak”) the high priest. Joz...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21008,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Judah (Person)","title_en":"Judah (Person)","content_ro":"<h3>JUDAH (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his first two sons, Er and Onan, were divinely killed in Canaan for their disobedience (Gn 46:12). Judah became the founder of one of Israel’s 12 tribes (Nm 1:26-27).<\/li>\n<p>Though reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gn 38:6-30), Judah showed firm resolve in taking personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and acting as intercessor for his brothers before Joseph (44:14-18). At the time of Jacob’s blessing, Judah was granted the birthright privileges of the firstborn; the leadership of Jacob’s family would come through Judah’s seed, as would the promised Messiah of Abraham’s covenant (49:8-12). Later, Judah’s family was praised at the time of Ruth’s engagement to Boaz (Ru 4:12), and both the Davidic lines of kings (1 Chr 2:1-15; 3:1-24) and Jesus Christ’s ancestors traced their descent from Judah (Mt 1:2-3; Lk 3:33).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Judah, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Forefather of a family of Levites who assisted Jeshua, the high priest, with rebuilding the temple during the postexilic era (Ezr 3:9, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). He is alternately called Hodaviah in Ezra 2:40 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43. <em>See<\/em> Hodaviah #4.<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the Levites who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife (Ezr 10:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Benjamite, son of Hassenuah, who was second in command over the city of Jerusalem during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:9).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the leaders of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua to Judah after the exile (Neh 12:8).<\/li>\n<li>6. One of the princes of Judah who participated in the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the postexilic period (Neh 12:34).<\/li>\n<li>7. One of the priests who played a musical instrument at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12:36). He is perhaps identical with #5 above.<\/li>\n<li>8. Joseph’s son, father of Simeon and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:30). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","content_en":"<h3>JUDAH (P<span>erson<\/span>)<\/h3>\n<li>1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his first two sons, Er and Onan, were divinely killed in Canaan for their disobedience (Gn 46:12). Judah became the founder of one of Israel’s 12 tribes (Nm 1:26-27).<\/li>\n<p>Though reckless in his behavior with Tamar (Gn 38:6-30), Judah showed firm resolve in taking personal responsibility for Benjamin’s safety in Egypt and acting as intercessor for his brothers before Joseph (44:14-18). At the time of Jacob’s blessing, Judah was granted the birthright privileges of the firstborn; the leadership of Jacob’s family would come through Judah’s seed, as would the promised Messiah of Abraham’s covenant (49:8-12). Later, Judah’s family was praised at the time of Ruth’s engagement to Boaz (Ru 4:12), and both the Davidic lines of kings (1 Chr 2:1-15; 3:1-24) and Jesus Christ’s ancestors traced their descent from Judah (Mt 1:2-3; Lk 3:33).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ; Judah, Tribe of.<\/p>\n<li>2. Forefather of a family of Levites who assisted Jeshua, the high priest, with rebuilding the temple during the postexilic era (Ezr 3:9, <span>nlt<\/span> mg). He is alternately called Hodaviah in Ezra 2:40 and Hodevah in Nehemiah 7:43. <em>See<\/em> Hodaviah #4.<\/li>\n<li>3. One of the Levites who was encouraged by Ezra to divorce his foreign wife (Ezr 10:23).<\/li>\n<li>4. Benjamite, son of Hassenuah, who was second in command over the city of Jerusalem during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 11:9).<\/li>\n<li>5. One of the leaders of the Levites who returned with Zerubbabel and Jeshua to Judah after the exile (Neh 12:8).<\/li>\n<li>6. One of the princes of Judah who participated in the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the postexilic period (Neh 12:34).<\/li>\n<li>7. One of the priests who played a musical instrument at the dedication of the Jerusalem wall during the days of Nehemiah (Neh 12:36). He is perhaps identical with #5 above.<\/li>\n<li>8. Joseph’s son, father of Simeon and an ancestor of Jesus Christ (Lk 3:30). <em>See<\/em> Genealogy of Jesus Christ.<\/li>","summary_ro":"JUDAH (Person) 1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his fi...","summary_en":"JUDAH (Person) 1. Fourth of Jacob’s 12 sons (Gn 35:23; 1 Chr 2:1) and the fourth son born to Jacob by Leah, who, overjoyed with the thought of bearing Jacob another son, named him Judah, meaning “praise” (Gn 29:35). Judah fathered five sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah by Bathshua the Canaanitess (Gn 38:3-5; 1 Chr 2:3); and the twins Perez and Zerah by Tamar, his daughter-in-law (Gn 38:29-30; 1 Chr 2:4). He eventually settled his family in Egypt with his father and brothers (Ex 1:2), although his fi...","source":"Articles\/J.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":21492,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Kadmiel","title_en":"Kadmiel","content_ro":"<h3>KADMIEL<\/h3>\n<p>Head of a Levite family who returned from the exile with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). His name appears in the list of those who supervised the temple rebuilding project (Ezr 3:9), participated in sealing the covenant (Neh 10:9), and were prominent in the praise service (9:4-5; 12:24).<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>KADMIEL<\/h3>\n<p>Head of a Levite family who returned from the exile with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). His name appears in the list of those who supervised the temple rebuilding project (Ezr 3:9), participated in sealing the covenant (Neh 10:9), and were prominent in the praise service (9:4-5; 12:24).<\/p>","summary_ro":"KADMIEL Head of a Levite family who returned from the exile with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). His name appears in the list of those who supervised the temple rebuilding project (Ezr 3:9), participated in sealing the covenant (Neh 10:9), and were prominent in the praise service (9:4-5; 12:24).","summary_en":"KADMIEL Head of a Levite family who returned from the exile with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2:40; Neh 7:43; 12:8). His name appears in the list of those who supervised the temple rebuilding project (Ezr 3:9), participated in sealing the covenant (Neh 10:9), and were prominent in the praise service (9:4-5; 12:24).","source":"Articles\/K.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":62098,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":89724,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":117350,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144976,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Purity and Identity","title_en":"Purity and Identity","content_ro":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Purity and Identity<\/h3>\n<p>God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23).<\/p>\n<p>When Ezra wrote to the Jews who had returned to Jerusalem, one of his main purposes was to remind them of their need to remain pure in their beliefs and commitments. After arriving in Jerusalem, Ezra found that the people had intermarried with pagan foreigners, even though doing so was not permitted in God’s law (see Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13). As a result, their identity as God’s holy nation was in danger of disintegrating once again (Ezra 9:1-2).<\/p>\n<p>To impress on his readers the need for separation from these foreigners, Ezra recounts how those who first returned to Jerusalem refused to cooperate with the pagan people living around them (4:1-5). These people claimed to worship the same God, but they actually worshiped several gods in addition to Israel’s God. If the Jews had joined with these people, they soon would have compromised their beliefs and become ungodly, just as Israel had done before the Exile (see Exod 34:15-16; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; 2 Kgs 16:3). Those early leaders of the Jews in Judea understood the danger of accommodating these foreigners. They learned from their ancestors’ experience and refused to compromise the purity of their faith for the sake of peace. They carefully followed God’s instructions in everything they did (Ezra 3:2, 9; 6:18). If they were going to identify themselves as “the servants of the God of heaven and earth” (5:11), they would need to please and serve him and no other gods.<\/p>\n<p>Believers today are identified as God’s holy people (1 Pet 2:9), a title that speaks of purity. Paul admonished the Corinthians to refrain from marrying unbelievers—for Christ and Satan have no fellowship (2 Cor 6:14-15). Righteousness and unrighteousness do not mix. The people of God must dissociate themselves from all behavior that defiles, instead clothing themselves with attitudes and actions that befit their holy status (Col 3:5-15).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Gen 27:46–28:5; Exod 19:4-6; 34:15-16; Lev 19:2; Deut 7:3-4; Josh 23:12-13; 1 Kgs 11:1-5; Ezra 4:1-5; 5:11; 9:1–10:11; Mal 2:15; 1 Cor 6:15-20; 2 Cor 6:14-18; 2 Tim 2:21-22; 1 Pet 2:9-10<\/p>","summary_ro":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","summary_en":"Purity and Identity God is holy, and he made a covenant with Israel to establish a holy nation (Exod 19:4-6; Lev 19:2). Israel’s identity as God’s people required purity in worship and in social relationships. God knew that if his people mingled with their pagan neighbors, they would be drawn into their detestable worship practices (see Num 25:1-9). Their failure to maintain purity and their assimilation to the surrounding cultures ultimately led to their destruction and exile (2 Kgs 17:5-23)...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"10":[{"id":8415,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Cymbal","title_en":"Cymbal","content_ro":"<h3>CYMBAL<\/h3>\n<p>Percussion instrument consisting of two round, thin, slightly concave, metal plates that are struck together. Cymbals were used in the worship of God (2 Sm 6:5; Ezr 3:10; Ps 150:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Musical Instruments (Zelzelim); Music.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>CYMBAL<\/h3>\n<p>Percussion instrument consisting of two round, thin, slightly concave, metal plates that are struck together. Cymbals were used in the worship of God (2 Sm 6:5; Ezr 3:10; Ps 150:5).<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Musical Instruments (Zelzelim); Music.<\/p>","summary_ro":"CYMBAL Percussion instrument consisting of two round, thin, slightly concave, metal plates that are struck together. Cymbals were used in the worship of God (2 Sm 6:5; Ezr 3:10; Ps 150:5). See also Musical Instruments (Zelzelim); Music.","summary_en":"CYMBAL Percussion instrument consisting of two round, thin, slightly concave, metal plates that are struck together. Cymbals were used in the worship of God (2 Sm 6:5; Ezr 3:10; Ps 150:5). See also Musical Instruments (Zelzelim); Music.","source":"Articles\/C.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":13696,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Gershonites Gershon","title_en":"Gershonites Gershon","content_ro":"<h3>GERSHON, GERSHONITES<\/h3>\n<p>Levi’s oldest son (also spelled Gershom) who went into Egypt with Israel (Gn 46:11; Nm 3:17; 1 Chr 6:1) and was ancestor of a division of Levites (Gershonites) who came out of Egypt with Moses (Ex 6:16-17; Nm 3:18, 21).<\/p>\n<p>In the list of the allotment of Levitical cities, the Gershonites were listed as one of the largest Levitical groups in Israel (Jos 21:1-7). Some passages indicate that they were at times dominant among the functioning Levitical groups (Gn 46:11; Ex 6:16; Nm 3:17; 26:57; 1 Chr 6:1, 16; 23:6).<\/p>\n<p>According to the book of Numbers, the Gershonites were encamped behind the tabernacle to the west during the wilderness wanderings (Nm 3:23). Early in the second year after the exodus from Egypt, the Gershonite males numbered about 7,500 (v 22). Only those between the ages of 30 and 50 could serve in the tabernacle, which at the time of that early census totaled 2,630 men (4:39-40). They were responsible for the care and transportation of the external furnishings of the tabernacle (3:25-26; 4:24, 27-28) and were given two wagons and four oxen for the purpose, being supervised by Aaron and his sons (4:27).<\/p>\n<p>After the initial settlement of Canaan, the Gershonites were allotted 13 cities among the tribes of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Manasseh in the northern part of Palestine (Jos 21:6).<\/p>\n<p>During the time of King David, they were listed among the Levites appointed to service in the temple (1 Chr 23:6-11). The Gershonite families of Ladan and Jehieli were in charge of the treasury of the house of God (26:20-22). At David’s request, music in the temple was directed in part by Asaph and his family, who were Gershonites (25:1-2). In the reign of King Hezekiah the Gershonites are mentioned among the Levites who cleansed the temple (2 Chr 29:1-6, 12). In the postexilic period the descendants of Asaph celebrated the laying of the temple foundation (Ezr 3:10) and the dedication of the city walls (Neh 12:31-36) with music.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Levi, Tribe of; Priests and Levites.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>GERSHON, GERSHONITES<\/h3>\n<p>Levi’s oldest son (also spelled Gershom) who went into Egypt with Israel (Gn 46:11; Nm 3:17; 1 Chr 6:1) and was ancestor of a division of Levites (Gershonites) who came out of Egypt with Moses (Ex 6:16-17; Nm 3:18, 21).<\/p>\n<p>In the list of the allotment of Levitical cities, the Gershonites were listed as one of the largest Levitical groups in Israel (Jos 21:1-7). Some passages indicate that they were at times dominant among the functioning Levitical groups (Gn 46:11; Ex 6:16; Nm 3:17; 26:57; 1 Chr 6:1, 16; 23:6).<\/p>\n<p>According to the book of Numbers, the Gershonites were encamped behind the tabernacle to the west during the wilderness wanderings (Nm 3:23). Early in the second year after the exodus from Egypt, the Gershonite males numbered about 7,500 (v 22). Only those between the ages of 30 and 50 could serve in the tabernacle, which at the time of that early census totaled 2,630 men (4:39-40). They were responsible for the care and transportation of the external furnishings of the tabernacle (3:25-26; 4:24, 27-28) and were given two wagons and four oxen for the purpose, being supervised by Aaron and his sons (4:27).<\/p>\n<p>After the initial settlement of Canaan, the Gershonites were allotted 13 cities among the tribes of Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Manasseh in the northern part of Palestine (Jos 21:6).<\/p>\n<p>During the time of King David, they were listed among the Levites appointed to service in the temple (1 Chr 23:6-11). The Gershonite families of Ladan and Jehieli were in charge of the treasury of the house of God (26:20-22). At David’s request, music in the temple was directed in part by Asaph and his family, who were Gershonites (25:1-2). In the reign of King Hezekiah the Gershonites are mentioned among the Levites who cleansed the temple (2 Chr 29:1-6, 12). In the postexilic period the descendants of Asaph celebrated the laying of the temple foundation (Ezr 3:10) and the dedication of the city walls (Neh 12:31-36) with music.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Levi, Tribe of; Priests and Levites.<\/p>","summary_ro":"GERSHON, GERSHONITES Levi’s oldest son (also spelled Gershom) who went into Egypt with Israel (Gn 46:11; Nm 3:17; 1 Chr 6:1) and was ancestor of a division of Levites (Gershonites) who came out of Egypt with Moses (Ex 6:16-17; Nm 3:18, 21). In the list of the allotment of Levitical cities, the Gershonites were listed as one of the largest Levitical groups in Israel (Jos 21:1-7). Some passages indicate that they were at times dominant among the functioning Levitical groups (Gn 46:11; Ex 6:16; ...","summary_en":"GERSHON, GERSHONITES Levi’s oldest son (also spelled Gershom) who went into Egypt with Israel (Gn 46:11; Nm 3:17; 1 Chr 6:1) and was ancestor of a division of Levites (Gershonites) who came out of Egypt with Moses (Ex 6:16-17; Nm 3:18, 21). In the list of the allotment of Levitical cities, the Gershonites were listed as one of the largest Levitical groups in Israel (Jos 21:1-7). Some passages indicate that they were at times dominant among the functioning Levitical groups (Gn 46:11; Ex 6:16; ...","source":"Articles\/G.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":30921,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Period*, Postexilic","title_en":"Period*, Postexilic","content_ro":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblicalPerspective\">The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCollapseoftheBabylonianEmpire\">The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>This occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 <span>BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePolicyofPersia\">The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>This is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\n<p>The new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnfromExile\">The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>The continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Work on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 <span>BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnofEzra\">The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>The traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 <span>BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 <span>BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 <span>BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 <span>BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 <span>BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 <span>BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\n<p>Ezra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NehemiahsReturnandMinistry\">Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Hanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRemainderofthePersianPeriod\">The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>Persian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 <span>BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 <span>BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReligiousFeaturesofthePostexilicPeriod\">Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>There were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n<p>1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\n<p>Some type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>POSTEXILIC PERIOD*<\/h3>\n<p>A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>• The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>• The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>• The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>• The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>• Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>• The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>• Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheBiblicalPerspective\">The Biblical Perspective<\/p>\n<p>The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, and Zechariah. These cover a period of over a century, only a portion of which is dealt with in detail, as the following table shows:<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheCollapseoftheBabylonianEmpire\">The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire<\/p>\n<p>This occurred with dramatic suddenness, largely because of internal resistance to the policies of the last Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 <span>BC<\/span>). His neglect of the traditional Babylonian deity, Marduk, in favor of the moon god, Sin, was particularly resented. Nabonidus lived in Taima during the last decade of his reign, refusing to enter Babylon, where his son Belshazzar ruled as virtual king, as noted in Daniel 5. Babylon fell to the Persians in October 538 <span>BC<\/span> and the entire empire passed into their control.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ThePolicyofPersia\">The Policy of Persia<\/p>\n<p>This is well documented through contemporary inscriptions, notably the record of Cyrus, the first king of the Persian Empire (559–530 <span>BC<\/span>), in the “Cyrus Cylinder.” A new phase in the relationship of conqueror to conquered peoples opened up, which contrasted with the policy of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires of crushing any opposition by massive force. Cyrus and his successors followed a conciliatory line, allowing exiled groups to return home, encouraging local faiths, posing as the champions of the territorial deities, and allowing local autonomy except where Persian interests were affected adversely. The cost of this operation, although considerable, must have been infinitesimal compared with that of keeping rebellious subjects under constant subjection.<\/p>\n<p>The new enlightened policy is reflected in the decree of Cyrus, dated 538 <span>BC<\/span> (Ezr 1:1) and preserved in two versions. The first (vv 1-4) is clearly the official proclamation, while the second (6:3-5) is a more prosaic memorandum dealing with building specifications, a record of Cyrus’s commitment stored in the official archives (vv 1-2). The critical tendency to question the narrative in Ezra 1, especially on the score of the favorable references to the God of Israel and the vast financial support promised, has been nullified by the archaeological evidence, which shows an identical policy elsewhere. The Cyrus Cylinder, for example, notes, “The gods who live within them [i.e., the cities] I returned to their places. . . . All of their inhabitants I collected and restored to their dwelling places.”<\/p>\n<p>In Judah itself there is no evidence for any warfare in this period, which suggests that the Persian takeover of the area was nonviolent. Judah was incorporated into the fifth Persian province, which included the entire area west of the Euphrates River (Ezr 7:21). It was no more than a minor subdistrict, governed through Samaria.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnfromExile\">The Return from Exile<\/p>\n<p>The continuance of a large Jewish community in Babylonia shows that not all the Jews responded to the invitation to return to their homeland, probably because of the prosperity acquired in exile. But 42,360 dedicated Jews (Ezr 2:64) braved the challenge of a four-month 900-mile (1,448-kilometer) journey under Sheshbazzar (1:8), the officially appointed leader, and Zerubbabel his nephew (3:2), who was probably the one to whom the Jews looked as leader. With great enthusiasm the Jews rebuilt the altar of sacrifice and resumed the observance of the traditional feasts (vv 1-6), revealing both a sense of stewardship (2:68-69) and careful attention to the requirements of the Law (3:2-4). Soon after, work on the second temple commenced—the materials and master craftsmen being imported from Tyre and Sidon (Ezr 3:7-9; cf. 1 Kgs 5). When the foundations were laid, the worshipers were doubtless aware that they were fulfilling God’s promise through Jeremiah (Ezr 3:10-11; cf. Jer 33:10-11). But their high hopes were thwarted when there was opposition from neighboring areas (Ezr 4:4-5), selfishness in giving their own accommodations a higher priority than the Lord’s house (Hg 1:2-4, 9), and a series of crop failures that further reduced morale (1:6, 10-11; 2:17).<\/p>\n<p>Work on the temple was not resumed until Haggai and Zechariah appeared in 520 <span>BC<\/span>. They encouraged Zerubbabel and Joshua (Jeshua) the high priest, rebuked the people for their apathy and selfishness, and promised God’s presence and blessing upon the temple project (Hg 1:12–2:9). Zechariah’s preaching went beyond the building of the temple, including the rebuilding of Jerusalem itself (Zec 2:1-5) and its world reputation (2:1-5, 11-12; 8:22). The two leaders were addressed in ways that anticipated the Messiah (Hg 2:21-23; Zec 6:10-14). But the Persian king Darius (521–486 <span>BC<\/span>) was not alarmed when the rebuilding operation was reported to him (Ezr 5:1–6:13) and allowed the work to continue. In February 515 <span>BC<\/span> it was dedicated (6:14-16). The Jewish community again had a focal point for its religion, but the political situation remained difficult, with no real security in a still-shattered city.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheReturnofEzra\">The Return of Ezra<\/p>\n<p>The traditional date of Ezra’s return is 458 <span>BC<\/span> (preceding that of Nehemiah in 445 <span>BC<\/span>). This is based on the premise that the King Artaxerxes noted in Ezra 7:7 was Artaxerxes I Longimanus (464–424 <span>BC<\/span>) and not Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359 <span>BC<\/span>). However, some scholars, allowing that the king was Artaxerxes I, but believing that Nehemiah preceded Ezra, suggest that a tens unit has dropped out of “seventh” in Ezra 7:7, and that the date of Ezra’s return should be the 27th (438 <span>BC<\/span>) or 37th year (428 <span>BC<\/span>) of Artaxerxes I, making Ezra’s return a few years after Nehemiah’s. While this is plausible, there remains strong support for the traditional view. It accords with the order of the two books in the OT and requires no textual emendation. It also accounts for the section in Ezra 4:7-23, where, in the reign of Artaxerxes, an abortive effort was made by a recently returned group to rebuild the wall of Jerusalem. Nehemiah 1:1-4 suggests that this was regarded as important and its abrupt termination, by a decree of the king, caused Nehemiah great distress. The probability is that Ezra, recently returned, realized that little could be done in the way of major religious reformation until Jerusalem was secure, but in attempting to rebuild the wall he exceeded his mandate and was not able to function adequately until Nehemiah arrived, when the new security of Jerusalem allowed the great Law-reading ceremony of Nehemiah 8:1-12 to take place.<\/p>\n<p>Ezra’s ministry concerned the teaching of the Law of Moses, the Pentateuch, which had long been extant in its final form by this time. Ezra 7 shows that Artaxerxes was following the traditional Persian policy of encouraging good relationships with his subject peoples. Ezra’s appointment (Ezr 7:12) was to a state office; it has frequently been paraphrased as “Secretary of State for Jewish Religious Affairs.”<\/p>\n\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"NehemiahsReturnandMinistry\">Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry<\/p>\n<p>Hanani and others (Neh 1:1-3) informed Nehemiah of the complete failure of a recent attempt to rebuild the wall, probably that recorded in Ezra 4:7-23, and sought his mediation before the very king who had authorized the decree that compelled work on the wall to cease. A friend in high places was vital, and Nehemiah, a trusted and influential member of the court (Neh 1:11), was approached for this delicate and dangerous task. Nehemiah 1:4–2:8 shows how well he prepared for and seized his opportunity. His appointment as the governor of Judah (5:14) involved the removal of this area from the control of the governor of Samaria, which accounts for the unrelenting hostility of Sanballat (2:19; 4:1). The evidence of Nehemiah 3 suggests that the extent of Judah at this time was limited, probably not reaching as far north as Bethel or as far south as Hebron. Nehemiah was faced with opposition that included ridicule (2:19; 4:1-3), armed force (4:8, 11), discouragement (v 10), internal economic problems (5:1-18), intrigue (6:1-2), intimidation, and blackmail (vv 5-14). In spite of these obstacles, the wall was completed in the incredibly brief period of 52 days (v 15).<\/p>\n<p>In addition to this monumental achievement, Nehemiah completely reorganized the social and economic life of Jerusalem, dealing with alienated mortgages, excessive interest rates (Neh 5:1-13), mixed marriages (10:30; 13:23-30), Sabbath observance (10:31; 13:15-21), and temple supplies (10:32-40; 13:10-13). Almost certainly, it was this political and economic security that allowed Ezra, who probably arrived 13 years earlier, to proceed with his great religious reformation based on the Law. Nehemiah’s book, usually called the “Nehemiah Memoirs,” was probably presented by him in the temple as a “votive offering” (as indicated by the form of 5:19; 13:14, 22, 31).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"TheRemainderofthePersianPeriod\">The Remainder of the Persian Period<\/p>\n<p>Persian control, which probably centered on Lachish, was traditionally mild, except where her interests were directly threatened. There is no evidence of any major discontent in Judah, which enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. The Phoenician revolt of 351 <span>BC<\/span>, which took Artaxerxes III (359–338 <span>BC<\/span>) three years to subdue, was the only serious disturbance in the area. While Artaxerxes deported some Jews to Hyrcania, southeast of the Caspian Sea, that was probably a precautionary measure, and Judah does not appear to have been greatly involved in the revolt. The Jerusalem priests were allowed to mint their own coinage and levy a temple tax. Under the wider influence of the Persian Empire, Hebrew gradually fell out of popular usage as a spoken language, being replaced by Aramaic. As the international stature of Greece increased, so the influence of Hellenism began to be felt, even in Judah.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"ReligiousFeaturesofthePostexilicPeriod\">Religious Features of the Postexilic Period<\/p>\n<h5>The Decline of Prophecy<\/h5>\n<p>There were three main reasons for this:<\/p>\n<p>1. The prophetic movement as a whole became discredited after Jerusalem fell in 586 <span>BC<\/span>. The large number of popular cult prophets who had foretold a sudden end to the Babylonian oppression (e.g., Jer 28:1-4) were proved decisively wrong. The suspicion that henceforth became attached to prophecy was increased further in the Persian period, when large numbers of itinerant “prophets” of various religions traveled widely. Zechariah 13:2-6 shows the stern measures advocated against such false prophets and fortune-tellers.<\/p>\n<li>2. There was a markedly different historical situation. The chastened remnant that survived had turned away from the blatant apostasy that characterized the preexilic period, so that the prophetic condemnation was not required with the same urgency. The temple and the Law had acquired a new prominence, and postexilic prophecy generally was concerned either with the rebuilding of the temple (e.g., Haggai and Zechariah) or the purification of its cult (e.g., Malachi). Once this goal had been realized, the role of the prophet was diminished. Another historical factor was the relatively large number of priests who returned from captivity, doubtless encouraged by the prospect of serving in the rebuilt temple. The main need at this time was for the priest, who revealed God’s will on the basis of the Law.<\/li>\n<li>3. There was an increasing stress on the transcendence of God, caused partly by an emphasis upon priestly mediation and partly by a fear of God that resulted from the recent judgment. The apocalyptic movement, with its emphasis on angelic intermediaries between humans and a transcendent God, encouraged this tendency. Correspondingly, the prophetic appeal for a personal, moral walk with God weakened.<\/li>\n<h5>The Rise of the Synagogue<\/h5>\n<p>Some type of local worship, independent of the temple and its sacrifices, must have developed in the Captivity, with the Law increasingly occupying a dominant position. Later on, the prophetic books were read and expounded, but the primary stress was always on the Law. This mode of worship later took root in the homeland, and the synagogue gradually developed into the focal point of the community for social relationships, education, and worship. It facilitated the worldwide continuance and expansion of the Jewish faith, independent of Jerusalem.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> Chronology of the Bible (Old Testament); Diaspora of the Jews; Ezra, Book of; Haggai, Book of; Israel, History of; Nehemiah, Book of; Zechariah, Book of.<\/p>","summary_ro":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","summary_en":"POSTEXILIC PERIOD* A period in the Jews’ history after their exile to Babylon. This period extends from 539–c. 331 BC. Preview • The Biblical Perspective • The Collapse of the Babylonian Empire • The Policy of Persia • The Return from Exile • The Return of Ezra • Nehemiah’s Return and Ministry • The Remainder of the Persian Period • Religious Features of the Postexilic Period The Biblical Perspective The books that specifically cover the history of the postexilic or Persian period are Ezra, N...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":31958,"type":"article","type_label":"Articol","type_icon":"📖","type_color":"#d4af37","title_ro":"Book of Psalms","title_en":"Book of Psalms","content_ro":"<h3>PSALMS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Poems sung to musical accompaniment, originally the harp. The alternative title, the Psalter, refers to a collection of songs sung to harp accompaniment. The English title, therefore, broadly defines the form employed, whereas the Hebrew title of the book, “Praises,” or “Book of Praises,” suggests the content.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authors<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Canonicity<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authors\">Authors<\/p>\n<h5>The Evidence of the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew Bible credits David with 73 psalms, compared with 84 in the Septuagint and 85 in the Latin Vulgate. Korah and Asaph, the leaders of the Levitical singing groups, are connected with 11 and 12 psalms, respectively (although Ps 43 is almost certainly to be attributed to Korah also). Two psalms are ascribed to Solomon (Pss 72; 127), one to Moses (Ps 90), and one to Ethan (Ps 89), while Heman shares the credit for one psalm with the sons of Korah (Ps 88). The remainder are sometimes called “orphan psalms” because of their anonymity.<\/p>\n<p>The preposition “of” found in the titles (for example, “A Psalm of David”) usually indicates authorship. But in the case of groups, such as the sons of Asaph or Korah, it may simply indicate that the psalms were included in their repertoire. Less plausible is the idea that it may also be rendered “for the use of.” For example, some of the “Psalms of David” might be “for the use of” the Davidic king on some occasion.<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Allusions in the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Many of the titles refer to specific events in the life of David (e.g., Pss 3; 7; 18; 30; 34; 51). There is evidence that the titles were added at an early date. When the psalms were translated into Greek, there appears to have been some difficulty in translating the titles, possibly because of their antiquity. If the historical references were added at a late date, there is no reason why plausible backgrounds could not have been supplied for all the Davidic psalms, instead of only a few. Moreover, the apparent disparity between the title and the actual content of some psalms (e.g., Ps 30) indicates that the titles were supplied by those who knew about a connection unknown to a later editor. Admittedly, there are minor discrepancies between the titles and the references in the historical books. For example, in Psalm 34 David acts the madman before Abimelech, whereas in 1 Samuel it is before Achish. But probably Abimelech was the general name (like Pharaoh for the kings of Egypt) for all the Philistine kings (e.g., Gn 21:32; 26:26).<\/p>\n<p>Evidence of authorship and historical background in the titles, therefore, may be taken as a reasonably reliable guide. But the internal difficulties, together with the freedom exercised by successive translators into Greek, Syriac, and Latin, indicates that they were not regarded as inspired.<\/p>\n<h5>The Case for Davidic Authorship<\/h5>\n<p>Five points can be offered to support David’s authorship of several psalms:<\/p>\n<p>1. The authenticity of David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sm 1:19-27) is generally accepted. This indicates a deeply poetic spirit and a generous temperament that prepares us to accept those psalms ascribed to David that evidence similar characteristics. “The last words of David” is another Davidic poem in the historical books (2 Sm 23:1-7).<\/p>\n<li>2. David had a reputation as a skillful musician at Saul’s court (1 Sm 16:16-18). Amos comments on his inventiveness as a musician (Am 6:5), while the Chronicler repeatedly stresses his contribution to the musical aspect of temple worship (e.g., 1 Chr 6:31; 16:7; Ezr 3:10). The Jewish historian Josephus said that David composed songs and hymns to God in varied meters. The probability is that David, as well as amassing materials and preparing the plans for Solomon’s temple, also gave attention to the temple worship. This is his place in Jewish tradition.<\/li>\n<li>3. The early monarchy, with a freshly secured independence, national prestige, and a new prosperity, would most likely be a time of artistic creativity. David was at the heart of this movement.<\/li>\n<li>4. There is a close correspondence between David’s life as described in the historical books and certain psalms, for example, his sin concerning Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sm 11:2–12:25) and Psalm 51, as witnessed in the title. David’s lapses and genuine repentance, as well as the varied aspects of his career—shepherd, fugitive, warrior, and so on—find expression in many of the psalms attributed to him. The correspondence between the David of the psalms and the David of the historical books is close, especially in the display of strong faith in God.<\/li>\n<li>5. Although some scholars believe that when “David” is mentioned in the NT, it is simply a reference to the book of Psalms and not an ascription of authorship, a straightforward interpretation of the NT text strengthens the case for Davidic authorship. David is specifically named as the author of various psalms in Matthew 22:41-45; Acts 1:16; 2:25, 34; Romans 4:6; 11:9.<\/li>\n<p>In conclusion, there is strong support for the view that the substantial nucleus of the Psalter is Davidic. Moreover, it is probable that some of the anonymous psalms were the work of the “sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sm 23:1). Hebrews 4:7 refers one of these, Psalm 95, to David (see also Acts 4:25 and Ps 2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Once David’s authorship of several psalms is established, then it must follow that these psalms are dated during David’s life. Thus, most of the psalms formed the hymnbook of Israel in the period of the monarchy. Other psalms were written later. For example, Psalm 137 is clearly exilic, and Psalms 107:2-3 and 126:1 allude to the return from captivity. Psalms 44 and 79 are probably, but not conclusively, postexilic.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Psalms was probably the product of a considerable period of growth. The incidence of Davidic psalms in the first section indicates that it was completed early, possibly toward the end of David’s reign. The remainder of the process of compilation is difficult to reconstruct, but the fact that the titles, with their allusions to authors, events, and musical directions, become less frequent in the two final collections (Pss 90–150) lends support to the probability that the collections were combined chronologically in the sequence in which they are found today. Ezra is traditionally credited with the final grouping and editing of the psalms, a hypothesis that appears reasonable in light of his vital contribution to the systematic reshaping of the national religious life. In any case, the process was completed before the translation of the Psalter into Greek (the Septuagint) at the end of the third century <span>BC<\/span>, since the traditional order is found there. General, but not complete, support comes also from the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. At some point minor dislocations occurred. Psalms 9 and 10 may have originally formed one psalm (as in the Septuagint), and there is a strong case for combining Psalms 42 and 43.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>As the book of Psalms lies before us, its connection with temple worship is apparent. Fifty-five psalms are addressed to the choirmaster, and as we have noted, 23 or 24 are linked with the two main guilds of Levitical singers, Asaph and Korah. The musical instruments, such as stringed instruments (Ps 55 title) and flutes (Ps 5 title) are noted. Probably other terms concern musical directions: <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Selah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which occurs 71 times, may indicate a pause or crescendo; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Higgaion<\/span> (Ps 9:16) may recommend a meditative attitude. Seemingly obscure references like “The Hind of the Dawn” (Ps 22 title), “Lilies” (Pss 45 title; 80 title) and “The Dove on Far-off Terebinths” (Ps 56 title) may indicate the tunes to which the psalms were to be sung. The precise meaning of other terms, such as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shiggaion<\/span> (Ps 7 title) or <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Alamoth<\/span> (conjecturally a choir of ladies, Ps 46 title), may also be in the realm of musical directions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The Psalter, possibly in conscious imitation of the five books of Moses in the Law, is divided into five sections (Pss 1–41; 42–72; 73–89; 90–106; 107–150), separated by four doxologies (41:13; 72:18-19; 89:52; 106:48). While the editorial comment in Psalm 72:20 notes that the psalms of David were ended, Davidic psalms are found later in the book (Pss 86; 101; 103), suggesting that at least some of these sections circulated independently until their inclusion in the final collection. Such independence is further indicated by the duplications in the various sections (e.g., Pss 14 and 53; 40:13-17 and 70) and by the use of different names for God, who is usually referred to as “Lord” in the first collection and as “God” in the second.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Canonicity\">Canonicity<\/p>\n<p>In the various recensions of the third section of the Hebrew canon, the Writings or Holy Books, the book of Psalms is almost invariably placed first. It was clearly regarded as the most important book in this section, and in Luke 24:44, “Psalms” is synonymous with “Writings” as its title. While the canonicity of all the contents of the Writings was not finalized until the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, it is likely that the book of Psalms was accepted as inspired long before this, probably by 300 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>It must not be inferred that all the psalms had their origin in the cultic life of the community, but the sanctuary was the focal point of Israel’s worship for the greater part of the OT period. Prayer was possible elsewhere, but whenever practicable, it was customary for the worshiper to present his petitions at the main sanctuary. And thanksgiving in ancient Israel was almost invariably connected with a thank offering, vow offering, or freewill offering. The psalms could have been composed by individuals, like David, who had the requisite technical ability. And it must be appreciated that poetry, an unfamiliar medium to most Western civilizations, was the natural way for the ancient Easterner to express his emotions. Or the individual could have engaged a member of the Levitical guilds of musicians to frame either his supplication or his thanksgiving. Gradually, a comprehensive collection of psalms would be available for the use of individuals, the congregation, and even the entire nation in any conceivable situation. Once finalized, this collection served not only the subsequent needs of Israel but the devotional requirements of successive generations of Christians as well. Whatever the origin of an individual psalm, each has finally been incorporated in a cultic setting, and it may be assumed that the best of Israel’s psalmody has thus been preserved.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheology\">Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<h5>The Doctrine of God<\/h5>\n<p>In both adversity and prosperity, the psalmists indicate a strong faith in God and a clear conception of his attributes. Understandably, anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things) abound, with references to God’s voice, words, ears, eyes, face, or hands and fingers. No exception needs to be taken to this. Anthropomorphisms of this kind are, in fact, widely used by present-day Christians. Their great value is that they make God real to the worshiper. How else could humans describe God, except in terms of their own understanding?<\/p>\n<p>The monotheism of the psalms emerges clearly in Psalms 115:3-8; 135:15-18; 139. God is viewed as the Creator (Pss 8:3; 89:11; 95:3-5), with references to the creation mythology of surrounding nations (e.g., Ps 89:10) serving merely as illustrations of his almighty creative power. He is proclaimed as the Lord of history (Pss 44, 78, 80, 81, 105, 106) and as the sovereign controller of nature (Pss 18:7; 19:1-6; 65:8-13; 105:26-42; 135:5-7). The psalmists never tired of celebrating God’s absolute greatness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Human Perspective<\/h5>\n<p>The Psalter is a God-centered book, but humanity has a worthy place, in spite of the vast gulf between them and their Creator (Pss 8:3-4; 145:3-4) and the limitations of their earthly life (Ps 90:9-10). By the will of God, humans occupy a responsible, mediating position between God and all other created beings (Ps 8:5-8). The relationship with a righteous God is endangered by sin (Ps 106), but God is gracious and long-suffering (Ps 103), faithful and forgiving (Ps 130). While references to the sacrificial system are not lacking (Pss 20:3; 50:8-9), the emphasis is upon a personal piety that demands obedience and a surrendered heart (Ps 40:6-8). Psalm 51 indicates a depth of sin with which the sacrificial system was totally inadequate to cope; the psalmist could only cast himself, in total penitence, upon God’s mercy. Man’s moral obligations (Pss 15; 24:3-5) and loyalty to the law (Pss 19:7-11; 119) are fully accepted. Throughout, there is the revelation of a strong personal relationship that encourages prayer and praise and invites trust.<\/p>\n<h5>The Afterlife<\/h5>\n<p>The Psalms maintain the traditional Hebrew view of Sheol as the abode of the departed, without distinction between the good and evil, where all but mere existence has perished. The chief complaint of the devout man was that, in Sheol, all meaningful relationship with God ceased (Pss 6:5; 88:10-12). However, it was recognized that, since God was almighty, even Sheol was not exempt from his reach (Ps 139:8). Added to this was the preciousness and strength of fellowship with God, which could not be terminated even by death. Psalms 16:9-11, 49:15, and 73:23-26 well illustrate this insight. The Psalter, therefore, witnesses to an important transitional phase in Israel’s belief.<\/p>\n<h5>Universal Recognition of God<\/h5>\n<p>Passages like Psalms 9:11; 47:1-2, 7-9; 66:8; 67; and 117:1 call upon all nations to acknowledge and praise God and show an awareness of his sovereignty over all nations. But this universalism does not appear to involve any desire to convert the heathen nations and, indeed, it is balanced by strong particularistic elements. God’s covenant relationship with his people and his mighty deeds on their behalf are the chief items for which the praise of all nations is summoned (Pss 47:3-4; 66:8-9; 126:2). As elsewhere in the OT, the role of Israel is passive; her continued existence witnesses to God’s faithfulness and brings glory to him.<\/p>\n<h5>Lasting Value<\/h5>\n<p>Whatever the emotion of the psalmists, be it bitter complaint, anguished lament, or joyous exultation, all the psalms reflect one or other of the many aspects of communion with God. The reader may look “into the heart of all the saints” (so said Luther) as they faced life’s experiences in the awareness of a God who was all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. The strength of that personal relationship with God that typified OT worship at its best is exemplified here, and the many echoes of the psalms elsewhere in Israel’s literature show the powerful influence of these testimonies on the faithful. The fact that, almost invariably, little specific detail is given of the psalmists’ actual conditions has made it easier for the Psalter to become the universal hymnbook and devotional treasury of God’s people, in both public and private worship, until and including the present day. Modern life, materially, is vastly different from that of ancient Israel, but God remains unchanged and so do the basic needs of the human heart. The Holy Spirit, therefore, can still use this spiritual treasury as a means of revelation and communication between God and man. Few books in the Bible have exercised so profound an influence or been so widely used.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction<\/h5>\n<p>It is more helpful to describe the psalms in categories than to explain them one by one in canonical order. The psalms can be categorized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>Psalms of praise<\/p>\n<p>Royal, messianic psalms<\/p>\n<p>Passion psalms<\/p>\n<p>Psalms about Zion<\/p>\n<p>Laments<\/p>\n<p>Imprecatory psalms<\/p>\n<p>Penitential psalms<\/p>\n<p>Wisdom psalms and historical psalms<\/p>\n<p>Psalms of trust<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms of Praise<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew title, “Praises,” defines accurately a large part of the contents of the book. Each of the first four sections concludes with a doxology, while the fifth section concludes with five psalms, each of which begins and ends with one or two “Hallelujahs.” The last of these, Psalm 150, sounds the call to total praise. God is to be praised for his being, for his great acts in creation, nature, and history on both the individual and the communal level.<\/p>\n<p>1. Individual praise. In comparison with the number of individual laments, there are relatively few psalms in this category. Those normally included are Psalms 9, 18, 32, 34, 116, and 138. This may, in part, be due to the universal tendency to complain rather than to express thanks. But a number of the laments do, in fact, include the note of thanksgiving for the anticipated deliverance, and the normal round of congregational thanksgiving would allow the individual to express his personal praise. However, it was customary in temple worship to give a verbal act of thanksgiving before the whole assembly whenever a vow offering or a thank offering was made. Such public testimony, and the communal meal associated with this type of sacrifice, is indicated in Psalms 22:22-26; 66:13-20; 116:17-19. The inclusion of such opportunities for personal praise and testimony must have added warmth and significance to worship. Each act of deliverance and every experience of God’s mercy became part of salvation history, which was a cumulative, ongoing concept, not simply a recital of God’s deeds in earlier centuries.<\/p>\n<li>2. General communal praise. This is sometimes entitled “hymns” or “descriptive praise,” its main feature being linked to a particular act of deliverance. God is usually referred to in the third person, not directly. Psalm 103 may be taken as representative of this group. It begins and ends with individual references (vv 1-5, 22b), but the central section (esp. vv 6-14) shows that the psalmist was part of a worshiping community. There is first of all the imperative call to praise God for the full range of his mercy to each individual, including physical and spiritual deliverance and his sustaining and satisfying grace. Then the focus changes to his great works in history (vv 6-7). This forms a natural basis for the recital of those gracious qualities revealed so consistently during the course of the national history, especially his tender, fatherly care (vv 8-14). The frailty of humanity contrasts with God’s constancy (vv 15-18), and his rule, being universal and absolute (v 19), merits the praise of all things, living and inanimate, in heaven and on earth (vv 19-22). There is, however, a great number of possible variations in the way in which God is celebrated, as Psalms 113 and 136, which come within this class, illustrate.<\/li>\n<li>3. Specific communal praise. Occasionally termed “declarative praise,” this type of psalm connects with a particular outstanding evidence of God’s mercy and would most naturally follow soon after the event itself. Deliverance from an enemy provides the occasion for most of the psalms in this category (e.g., Pss 124, 129). Psalm 66:8-12, now the nucleus of an expanded recital of God’s goodness, was possibly once complete in itself. Psalms 46–48 may form a trilogy connected with the remarkable deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib’s Assyrians in 701 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37). Psalm 67 was probably composed in gratitude for a particular harvest. It is easy to see how psalms of this type could, in the process of time, acquire a more general usage.<\/li>\n<li>4. Praise for the God of nature. The first part of Psalm 19 pictures the praise of God sounding from the heavens; Psalm 29 celebrates him as the God of the thunderstorm, which, sweeping in from the Mediterranean near Lebanon, pursues its awe-inspiring path southward into the wilderness of Kadesh, with the result that “in his temple” (the created world?) all are praising, “Glory, glory to the <span>Lord<\/span>” (v 9). His sovereignty and self-sufficiency in this world are celebrated in Psalm 50:10-12; he is the God of growth and harvest (Ps 65:9-13); in Psalm 104, often called the “Hymn of Creation,” he sustains and supplies everything on the earth and in the seas and is the absolute Lord of all life (vv 29-30). There is no confusion between God and his creation; even the seemingly permanent heaven and earth will perish, but “you go on forever” (Ps 102:25-27). Nature’s role is to proclaim the glory of God (Ps 19:1) and to praise him (Ps 148). People see themselves as insignificant when set against those forces of nature, which are themselves dwarfed by God—hence, the awareness of the immeasurable gulf between God and people that God has bridged by his grace (Ps 8).<\/li>\n<li>5. Praise for God’s kingship. A relatively small group of psalms (Pss 47, 93, 96–99) celebrate the kingship of God in a way that goes beyond the ascription of praise noted in the foregoing groups. They are marked by acclamation, by both shouting and clapping when God “ascends.” Presumably, the reference is to his throne (Ps 47:1-5; cf. 99:1-2). “The <span>Lord<\/span> reigns” (Pss 93:1; 97:1; 99:1) is the frequent cry, and the nature of his reign is extolled (Ps 99:4-5).<\/li>\n<h5>Royal, Messianic Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 61, 72, 89, 101, 110, 132, and 144 are usually included as the royal psalms. They do not form a literary category, since psalms of various types are included, but they all have some reference to the king, the nature of his rule, and his relationship to God. Since the Davidic monarchy was terminated in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, these psalms, almost certainly, were composed before that date. The language in these psalms often shows the king as being God’s vice-regent. For example, Psalm 45, a royal marriage psalm, contains the assertion “Your throne, O God, endures for ever and ever” (45:6). But this is best understood in terms of the throne being regarded as the Lord’s, occupied by the king as his representative. Similarly, the wording in Psalm 110:1, “Sit at my right hand,” indicates the privileges and prerogatives that the king enjoys as God’s vice-regent. The balance of the OT evidence concerning the king shows that the monarchy in Israel was qualified by the nature of God’s covenantal relationship with his people; the king did not enjoy the absolutism claimed by most of the rulers of surrounding kingdoms.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the royal psalms can also be called messianic psalms. They were interpreted as such in the early Christian church, as witnessed in Jesus Christ’s general statement that the psalmists wrote of him (Lk 24:44) and by particular NT quotations. The main psalms concerned, and the NT references, are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Psalm 2 (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5), while linked with the Davidic king, nevertheless speaks of a universal vindication and rule, which far transcended even David’s rule. Further, the picture of the Davidic king, anointed to rule on the earth as the representative of God, who is enthroned in heaven, strongly suggests Christ’s mediating, incarnate ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Psalm 45 (Heb 1:8-9), a marriage psalm for one of the Davidic kings, possibly Solomon, speaks not only of love and marriage but also a permanence and quality of rule. In the most obvious translation of verse 6, the writer addresses God, “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.” The writer to the Hebrews clearly accepted this interpretation (Heb 1:8-9) and used it in contrast to the exalted status of even the angels, reinforcing it with two other quotations from the psalms that originally applied to God (Ps 97:7; 102:25-27; cf. Heb 1:6, 10-12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Psalm 110 is the most frequently quoted messianic psalm (Mt 22:43-45; Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:13; 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:21). The language, speaking of the privileges, universal victory and continuing priesthood of David and his successors, would be considered hyperbolic and possibly misleading except for its fulfillment in “great David’s greater Son.” In contrast to the angels, who are privileged to stand in God’s presence (Lk 1:19), Christ the Son sits in the place of power and authority (Heb 1:13).<\/li>\n<p>Other psalms that could also be designated messianic but are not specifically included among the royal psalms are Psalm 8 (1 Cor 15:27); Psalm 40 (Heb 10:5-10); Psalm 72, with its idealized picture of the nature, consequences, and extent of the rule of God’s representative; Psalm 118:22-23; and Psalm 132 (Acts 2:30).<\/p>\n\n<h5>Passion Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>The four psalms in this group (Pss 16; 22; 40; 69; some scholars would also include Pss 102; 109) may also be regarded as messianic. They connect with that line of OT prophecy that interprets the Messiah’s ministry in terms of the Suffering Servant who features prominently in Isaiah (e.g., Is 42:1-9; 52:13–53:12). Of these four, Psalm 22 is the most remarkable. Jesus recited part of it when he was on the cross (Ps 22:1; cf. Mt 27:46), and other connections with the crucifixion scene are noteworthy (e.g., Ps 22:6-8, 14-18). Some further considerations are even more significant: there is no suggestion of any awareness of sin; the suffering of the psalmist appears completely unjustified; there is no imprecatory element, even in the face of bitter persecution. This connects with the sinless Christ (2 Cor 5:21), who could even pray for his executioners (Lk 23:34). Psalm 16:10 anticipates the triumph of the incorruptible Christ over the grave (cf. Acts 2:24-31). Psalm 40:6-8 foreshadows the Incarnation and self-giving redemptive work of Christ (Heb 10:5-10). Psalm 69 refers to the isolation resulting from a commitment to God’s cause (Ps 69:8-9) and anticipates the part played by Judas in what was fundamentally God’s work in Christ (Ps 69:25-26; cf. Ps 109:8; Is 53:10; Acts 1:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms about Zion<\/h5>\n<p>This group could have been classified as a subsection of communal praise, but due to the close historical connection between God’s choice of the house of David and Jerusalem (Pss 78:68-72; 132:11-13), and their subsequent interrelated fortunes, we consider them at this point. There was a biting satire in the request of the Babylonians to the refugees of a shattered city to “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” (Ps 137:3, <span>niv<\/span>), but it witnesses to the existence of such a collection. Praise of Zion was, in fact, almost synonymous with the praise of the Lord who dwelt there. Jerusalem’s continued survival, in spite of its difficulties, was ample demonstration of God’s enduring greatness (Ps 48:11-14) and peculiar affection for the city that housed his temple (Ps 87:1-3). Psalms 48, 76, 84, 87 and 122 are the main psalms in this category, but the theme itself appears widely throughout the psalms (e.g., 102:16; 125:1; 126:1-3; 133:3; 147:2). The basis of the NT concept of a heavenly Jerusalem, the spiritual home of the regenerate of all nations, finds its origin in this concept, especially in Psalm 87.<\/p>\n<h5>Laments<\/h5>\n<p>These are associated with specific occasions of distress and are of two types:<\/p>\n<p>1. National. The prophetic and historical books give several examples of the kind of occasion, such as drought, locust infestation, or enemy attack, that could prompt national laments, and also the inward and outward attitudes that accompanied them (e.g., Jgs 20:23, 26; Jer 14:1-12; 36:9; Jl 1:13-14; 2:12-17; Jon 3:5). There is a regular structure in the psalms of this class: the distressing situation is first described; God is petitioned to come to the aid of his people, often with the reminder of his past mercies for Israel; finally, there is often an expression of confidence that God would heed their cry. Israel’s adversaries are clearly in mind in Psalms 14, 44, 60, 74, 80, and 83, while Psalms 58, 106, and 125 reflect situations less critical.<\/p>\n<li>2. Individual. There are so many of this type (approximately 50) that it is frequently described as the backbone of the Psalter. Their most obvious features are the sharpness of complaint and the bitterness of attack upon those responsible. As in the national laments, there is often complaint against God, especially for his lack of attention or his tardiness in intervening. The basic components of this type are almost identical to the national laments, except that they often conclude with the avowal to praise God in anticipation of deliverance (e.g., Ps 13:5-6). Frequently, the lament is accompanied by thanksgiving for the deliverance sought and experienced, as illustrated in the two sections of Psalms 22:1-21 and 28:1-9.<\/li>\n<h5>Imprecatory Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Approximately 20 psalms contain passionate pleas for the overthrow of the wicked, in language that is often shocking. Any instant condemnation of this attitude must, however, be tempered by certain relevant considerations:<\/p>\n<p>The cry for vengeance was not purely personal; it was firmly believed that God’s honor was at stake (e.g., Ps 109:21). In an age where there was a less developed view of an afterlife, it was axiomatic that rewards and punishments resulting from obedience or disobedience to God, must be observable within this lifetime. Whenever this was not apparent, it would seem that no righteous God existed, and the name of God was dishonored (e.g., Ps 74:10). This burning desire for the eradication of evil and evil men sprang from a consciousness of a moral God and virtually demanded the triumph of truth.<\/p>\n<p>The poetic language is also prone to hyperbole—a feature not confined to the psalms (e.g., Neh 4:4-5; Jer 20:14-18; Am 7:17). Such language is startling; indeed, part of its function was probably to startle—to express and promote a sense of outrage.<\/p>\n<p>In the pre-Christian period, therefore, such outbursts were not completely unjustifiable. But in the light of the fuller revelation in the NT, such an attitude cannot be condoned. The Christian is to love as Christ loved (Jn 13:34), to pray for his enemies and to forgive them (Mt 5:38-48; Col 3:13). The theme of judgment continues into the NT and is indeed heightened there, since Christ’s coming has left people without excuse to live in sin (Jn 16:8-11), but there can be no place for purely private vengeance.<\/p>\n<h5>Penitential Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Psalms 32, 38, 51, and 130 are the clearest examples of penitential psalms, although traditionally the church has also included Psalms 6, 102, 143, where there is no explicit confession of sin. In an age when adversity in its various forms was seen as God’s judgment for wrongdoing, the admission of distress was tantamount to a confession of guilt. In the four main examples there is an intensity of feeling and a deep sense of the enormity of sin in God’s sight, although, as elsewhere, there is no indication of specific sin, even in Psalm 51, which is surely to be connected with David’s sin against Bathsheba (2 Sm 11–12). Significantly, David bypasses the sacrificial system, which was totally inefficacious in his case, casting himself entirely on the mercy of God (Ps 51:1, 16). The burden of unconfessed sin is clearly revealed in Psalm 32, and sin’s searing and corrupting effect in Psalm 38.<\/p>\n<h5>Wisdom Psalms and Historical Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>While it is accepted that prophets, priests, and wise men all functioned at the major sanctuaries, some overlap in their modes of expression is to be expected. Proverbial forms are not infrequently found in the psalms (Pss 37:5, 8, 16, 21-22; 111:10; 127:1-5). Psalm 1, probably an introduction to the whole Psalter, contrasts the diverging paths of the righteous and ungodly (cf. Ps 112), while Psalms 127 and 128 concentrate on the blessings given to the godly. Psalm 133 is written in praise of unity. The problem of explaining the sufferings of a righteous person and the apparent prosperity of evil people, dealt with in the Wisdom Literature in the book of Job and in the prophets also (e.g., Jer 12:1-4), is taken up in Psalms 37, 49, and 73.<\/p>\n<p>The historical psalms should be included in this category, since they underscore the lessons arising from the favored nation’s often bitter experience. It is apparent that Israel delighted in the recital of salvation history. The main psalms, and the periods covered are Psalm 78, from the exodus to the establishment of the Davidic monarchy (note the declared intention to teach in vv 1-4); Psalm 105, from Abraham to the conquest of Canaan; Psalm 106, from Egypt to the judges; and Psalm 136, from the Creation to the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms of Trust<\/h5>\n<p>While some of these may also be classified as laments, the dominant feature of this group is the serene trust in God revealed, which makes them particularly suitable for devotional use. Many of these psalms begin with an affirmation of gratitude to and affection for God. Psalms 23 and 27 are the outstanding examples of this type, which could also include Psalms 11, 16, 62, 116, 131, and 138.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The difficulties in any precise categorization of psalms are obvious; many do not neatly fall into one group—hence, the occasional overlap. What is clearly evident is a pulsating, vital devotional life that has found its clearest expression in the book of Psalms. To say that it expresses the worship and devotion of the ordinary person is a simplification; kings and priests, wise men and prophets all contributed to this remarkable collection. Yet there remains the truth that, in God’s sight, all people, regardless of human achievement or privilege, are “ordinary,” for all are sinners in need of God’s grace and goodness. So the worshiping community of ancient Israel, and the saints of every succeeding generation, in the vastness of their diversity, have found the expression of their own hearts’ condition, desires, and devotion in this unique treasury—the Psalms.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Messiah; Music; Poetry, Biblical; Singers in the Temple; Tabernacle; Temple; Wisdom; Wisdom Literature.<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>PSALMS, Book of<\/h3>\n<p>Poems sung to musical accompaniment, originally the harp. The alternative title, the Psalter, refers to a collection of songs sung to harp accompaniment. The English title, therefore, broadly defines the form employed, whereas the Hebrew title of the book, “Praises,” or “Book of Praises,” suggests the content.<\/p>\n<p>Preview<\/p>\n<p>• Authors<\/p>\n<p>• Date<\/p>\n<p>• Background<\/p>\n<p>• Structure<\/p>\n<p>• Canonicity<\/p>\n<p>• Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<p>• Content<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Authors\">Authors<\/p>\n<h5>The Evidence of the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew Bible credits David with 73 psalms, compared with 84 in the Septuagint and 85 in the Latin Vulgate. Korah and Asaph, the leaders of the Levitical singing groups, are connected with 11 and 12 psalms, respectively (although Ps 43 is almost certainly to be attributed to Korah also). Two psalms are ascribed to Solomon (Pss 72; 127), one to Moses (Ps 90), and one to Ethan (Ps 89), while Heman shares the credit for one psalm with the sons of Korah (Ps 88). The remainder are sometimes called “orphan psalms” because of their anonymity.<\/p>\n<p>The preposition “of” found in the titles (for example, “A Psalm of David”) usually indicates authorship. But in the case of groups, such as the sons of Asaph or Korah, it may simply indicate that the psalms were included in their repertoire. Less plausible is the idea that it may also be rendered “for the use of.” For example, some of the “Psalms of David” might be “for the use of” the Davidic king on some occasion.<\/p>\n<h5>Historical Allusions in the Titles<\/h5>\n<p>Many of the titles refer to specific events in the life of David (e.g., Pss 3; 7; 18; 30; 34; 51). There is evidence that the titles were added at an early date. When the psalms were translated into Greek, there appears to have been some difficulty in translating the titles, possibly because of their antiquity. If the historical references were added at a late date, there is no reason why plausible backgrounds could not have been supplied for all the Davidic psalms, instead of only a few. Moreover, the apparent disparity between the title and the actual content of some psalms (e.g., Ps 30) indicates that the titles were supplied by those who knew about a connection unknown to a later editor. Admittedly, there are minor discrepancies between the titles and the references in the historical books. For example, in Psalm 34 David acts the madman before Abimelech, whereas in 1 Samuel it is before Achish. But probably Abimelech was the general name (like Pharaoh for the kings of Egypt) for all the Philistine kings (e.g., Gn 21:32; 26:26).<\/p>\n<p>Evidence of authorship and historical background in the titles, therefore, may be taken as a reasonably reliable guide. But the internal difficulties, together with the freedom exercised by successive translators into Greek, Syriac, and Latin, indicates that they were not regarded as inspired.<\/p>\n<h5>The Case for Davidic Authorship<\/h5>\n<p>Five points can be offered to support David’s authorship of several psalms:<\/p>\n<p>1. The authenticity of David’s lament over Saul and Jonathan (2 Sm 1:19-27) is generally accepted. This indicates a deeply poetic spirit and a generous temperament that prepares us to accept those psalms ascribed to David that evidence similar characteristics. “The last words of David” is another Davidic poem in the historical books (2 Sm 23:1-7).<\/p>\n<li>2. David had a reputation as a skillful musician at Saul’s court (1 Sm 16:16-18). Amos comments on his inventiveness as a musician (Am 6:5), while the Chronicler repeatedly stresses his contribution to the musical aspect of temple worship (e.g., 1 Chr 6:31; 16:7; Ezr 3:10). The Jewish historian Josephus said that David composed songs and hymns to God in varied meters. The probability is that David, as well as amassing materials and preparing the plans for Solomon’s temple, also gave attention to the temple worship. This is his place in Jewish tradition.<\/li>\n<li>3. The early monarchy, with a freshly secured independence, national prestige, and a new prosperity, would most likely be a time of artistic creativity. David was at the heart of this movement.<\/li>\n<li>4. There is a close correspondence between David’s life as described in the historical books and certain psalms, for example, his sin concerning Bathsheba and Uriah (2 Sm 11:2–12:25) and Psalm 51, as witnessed in the title. David’s lapses and genuine repentance, as well as the varied aspects of his career—shepherd, fugitive, warrior, and so on—find expression in many of the psalms attributed to him. The correspondence between the David of the psalms and the David of the historical books is close, especially in the display of strong faith in God.<\/li>\n<li>5. Although some scholars believe that when “David” is mentioned in the NT, it is simply a reference to the book of Psalms and not an ascription of authorship, a straightforward interpretation of the NT text strengthens the case for Davidic authorship. David is specifically named as the author of various psalms in Matthew 22:41-45; Acts 1:16; 2:25, 34; Romans 4:6; 11:9.<\/li>\n<p>In conclusion, there is strong support for the view that the substantial nucleus of the Psalter is Davidic. Moreover, it is probable that some of the anonymous psalms were the work of the “sweet psalmist of Israel” (2 Sm 23:1). Hebrews 4:7 refers one of these, Psalm 95, to David (see also Acts 4:25 and Ps 2).<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Date\">Date<\/p>\n<p>Once David’s authorship of several psalms is established, then it must follow that these psalms are dated during David’s life. Thus, most of the psalms formed the hymnbook of Israel in the period of the monarchy. Other psalms were written later. For example, Psalm 137 is clearly exilic, and Psalms 107:2-3 and 126:1 allude to the return from captivity. Psalms 44 and 79 are probably, but not conclusively, postexilic.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Psalms was probably the product of a considerable period of growth. The incidence of Davidic psalms in the first section indicates that it was completed early, possibly toward the end of David’s reign. The remainder of the process of compilation is difficult to reconstruct, but the fact that the titles, with their allusions to authors, events, and musical directions, become less frequent in the two final collections (Pss 90–150) lends support to the probability that the collections were combined chronologically in the sequence in which they are found today. Ezra is traditionally credited with the final grouping and editing of the psalms, a hypothesis that appears reasonable in light of his vital contribution to the systematic reshaping of the national religious life. In any case, the process was completed before the translation of the Psalter into Greek (the Septuagint) at the end of the third century <span>BC<\/span>, since the traditional order is found there. General, but not complete, support comes also from the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls. At some point minor dislocations occurred. Psalms 9 and 10 may have originally formed one psalm (as in the Septuagint), and there is a strong case for combining Psalms 42 and 43.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Background\">Background<\/p>\n<p>As the book of Psalms lies before us, its connection with temple worship is apparent. Fifty-five psalms are addressed to the choirmaster, and as we have noted, 23 or 24 are linked with the two main guilds of Levitical singers, Asaph and Korah. The musical instruments, such as stringed instruments (Ps 55 title) and flutes (Ps 5 title) are noted. Probably other terms concern musical directions: <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Selah<\/span><em>,<\/em> which occurs 71 times, may indicate a pause or crescendo; <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Higgaion<\/span> (Ps 9:16) may recommend a meditative attitude. Seemingly obscure references like “The Hind of the Dawn” (Ps 22 title), “Lilies” (Pss 45 title; 80 title) and “The Dove on Far-off Terebinths” (Ps 56 title) may indicate the tunes to which the psalms were to be sung. The precise meaning of other terms, such as <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Shiggaion<\/span> (Ps 7 title) or <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">Alamoth<\/span> (conjecturally a choir of ladies, Ps 46 title), may also be in the realm of musical directions.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Structure\">Structure<\/p>\n<p>The Psalter, possibly in conscious imitation of the five books of Moses in the Law, is divided into five sections (Pss 1–41; 42–72; 73–89; 90–106; 107–150), separated by four doxologies (41:13; 72:18-19; 89:52; 106:48). While the editorial comment in Psalm 72:20 notes that the psalms of David were ended, Davidic psalms are found later in the book (Pss 86; 101; 103), suggesting that at least some of these sections circulated independently until their inclusion in the final collection. Such independence is further indicated by the duplications in the various sections (e.g., Pss 14 and 53; 40:13-17 and 70) and by the use of different names for God, who is usually referred to as “Lord” in the first collection and as “God” in the second.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Canonicity\">Canonicity<\/p>\n<p>In the various recensions of the third section of the Hebrew canon, the Writings or Holy Books, the book of Psalms is almost invariably placed first. It was clearly regarded as the most important book in this section, and in Luke 24:44, “Psalms” is synonymous with “Writings” as its title. While the canonicity of all the contents of the Writings was not finalized until the end of the first century <span>AD<\/span>, it is likely that the book of Psalms was accepted as inspired long before this, probably by 300 <span>BC<\/span>.<\/p>\n<p>It must not be inferred that all the psalms had their origin in the cultic life of the community, but the sanctuary was the focal point of Israel’s worship for the greater part of the OT period. Prayer was possible elsewhere, but whenever practicable, it was customary for the worshiper to present his petitions at the main sanctuary. And thanksgiving in ancient Israel was almost invariably connected with a thank offering, vow offering, or freewill offering. The psalms could have been composed by individuals, like David, who had the requisite technical ability. And it must be appreciated that poetry, an unfamiliar medium to most Western civilizations, was the natural way for the ancient Easterner to express his emotions. Or the individual could have engaged a member of the Levitical guilds of musicians to frame either his supplication or his thanksgiving. Gradually, a comprehensive collection of psalms would be available for the use of individuals, the congregation, and even the entire nation in any conceivable situation. Once finalized, this collection served not only the subsequent needs of Israel but the devotional requirements of successive generations of Christians as well. Whatever the origin of an individual psalm, each has finally been incorporated in a cultic setting, and it may be assumed that the best of Israel’s psalmody has thus been preserved.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"PurposeandTheology\">Purpose and Theology<\/p>\n<h5>The Doctrine of God<\/h5>\n<p>In both adversity and prosperity, the psalmists indicate a strong faith in God and a clear conception of his attributes. Understandably, anthropomorphisms (ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things) abound, with references to God’s voice, words, ears, eyes, face, or hands and fingers. No exception needs to be taken to this. Anthropomorphisms of this kind are, in fact, widely used by present-day Christians. Their great value is that they make God real to the worshiper. How else could humans describe God, except in terms of their own understanding?<\/p>\n<p>The monotheism of the psalms emerges clearly in Psalms 115:3-8; 135:15-18; 139. God is viewed as the Creator (Pss 8:3; 89:11; 95:3-5), with references to the creation mythology of surrounding nations (e.g., Ps 89:10) serving merely as illustrations of his almighty creative power. He is proclaimed as the Lord of history (Pss 44, 78, 80, 81, 105, 106) and as the sovereign controller of nature (Pss 18:7; 19:1-6; 65:8-13; 105:26-42; 135:5-7). The psalmists never tired of celebrating God’s absolute greatness.<\/p>\n<h5>The Human Perspective<\/h5>\n<p>The Psalter is a God-centered book, but humanity has a worthy place, in spite of the vast gulf between them and their Creator (Pss 8:3-4; 145:3-4) and the limitations of their earthly life (Ps 90:9-10). By the will of God, humans occupy a responsible, mediating position between God and all other created beings (Ps 8:5-8). The relationship with a righteous God is endangered by sin (Ps 106), but God is gracious and long-suffering (Ps 103), faithful and forgiving (Ps 130). While references to the sacrificial system are not lacking (Pss 20:3; 50:8-9), the emphasis is upon a personal piety that demands obedience and a surrendered heart (Ps 40:6-8). Psalm 51 indicates a depth of sin with which the sacrificial system was totally inadequate to cope; the psalmist could only cast himself, in total penitence, upon God’s mercy. Man’s moral obligations (Pss 15; 24:3-5) and loyalty to the law (Pss 19:7-11; 119) are fully accepted. Throughout, there is the revelation of a strong personal relationship that encourages prayer and praise and invites trust.<\/p>\n<h5>The Afterlife<\/h5>\n<p>The Psalms maintain the traditional Hebrew view of Sheol as the abode of the departed, without distinction between the good and evil, where all but mere existence has perished. The chief complaint of the devout man was that, in Sheol, all meaningful relationship with God ceased (Pss 6:5; 88:10-12). However, it was recognized that, since God was almighty, even Sheol was not exempt from his reach (Ps 139:8). Added to this was the preciousness and strength of fellowship with God, which could not be terminated even by death. Psalms 16:9-11, 49:15, and 73:23-26 well illustrate this insight. The Psalter, therefore, witnesses to an important transitional phase in Israel’s belief.<\/p>\n<h5>Universal Recognition of God<\/h5>\n<p>Passages like Psalms 9:11; 47:1-2, 7-9; 66:8; 67; and 117:1 call upon all nations to acknowledge and praise God and show an awareness of his sovereignty over all nations. But this universalism does not appear to involve any desire to convert the heathen nations and, indeed, it is balanced by strong particularistic elements. God’s covenant relationship with his people and his mighty deeds on their behalf are the chief items for which the praise of all nations is summoned (Pss 47:3-4; 66:8-9; 126:2). As elsewhere in the OT, the role of Israel is passive; her continued existence witnesses to God’s faithfulness and brings glory to him.<\/p>\n<h5>Lasting Value<\/h5>\n<p>Whatever the emotion of the psalmists, be it bitter complaint, anguished lament, or joyous exultation, all the psalms reflect one or other of the many aspects of communion with God. The reader may look “into the heart of all the saints” (so said Luther) as they faced life’s experiences in the awareness of a God who was all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful. The strength of that personal relationship with God that typified OT worship at its best is exemplified here, and the many echoes of the psalms elsewhere in Israel’s literature show the powerful influence of these testimonies on the faithful. The fact that, almost invariably, little specific detail is given of the psalmists’ actual conditions has made it easier for the Psalter to become the universal hymnbook and devotional treasury of God’s people, in both public and private worship, until and including the present day. Modern life, materially, is vastly different from that of ancient Israel, but God remains unchanged and so do the basic needs of the human heart. The Holy Spirit, therefore, can still use this spiritual treasury as a means of revelation and communication between God and man. Few books in the Bible have exercised so profound an influence or been so widely used.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Content\">Content<\/p>\n<h5>Introduction<\/h5>\n<p>It is more helpful to describe the psalms in categories than to explain them one by one in canonical order. The psalms can be categorized as follows:<\/p>\n<p>Psalms of praise<\/p>\n<p>Royal, messianic psalms<\/p>\n<p>Passion psalms<\/p>\n<p>Psalms about Zion<\/p>\n<p>Laments<\/p>\n<p>Imprecatory psalms<\/p>\n<p>Penitential psalms<\/p>\n<p>Wisdom psalms and historical psalms<\/p>\n<p>Psalms of trust<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms of Praise<\/h5>\n<p>The Hebrew title, “Praises,” defines accurately a large part of the contents of the book. Each of the first four sections concludes with a doxology, while the fifth section concludes with five psalms, each of which begins and ends with one or two “Hallelujahs.” The last of these, Psalm 150, sounds the call to total praise. God is to be praised for his being, for his great acts in creation, nature, and history on both the individual and the communal level.<\/p>\n<p>1. Individual praise. In comparison with the number of individual laments, there are relatively few psalms in this category. Those normally included are Psalms 9, 18, 32, 34, 116, and 138. This may, in part, be due to the universal tendency to complain rather than to express thanks. But a number of the laments do, in fact, include the note of thanksgiving for the anticipated deliverance, and the normal round of congregational thanksgiving would allow the individual to express his personal praise. However, it was customary in temple worship to give a verbal act of thanksgiving before the whole assembly whenever a vow offering or a thank offering was made. Such public testimony, and the communal meal associated with this type of sacrifice, is indicated in Psalms 22:22-26; 66:13-20; 116:17-19. The inclusion of such opportunities for personal praise and testimony must have added warmth and significance to worship. Each act of deliverance and every experience of God’s mercy became part of salvation history, which was a cumulative, ongoing concept, not simply a recital of God’s deeds in earlier centuries.<\/p>\n<li>2. General communal praise. This is sometimes entitled “hymns” or “descriptive praise,” its main feature being linked to a particular act of deliverance. God is usually referred to in the third person, not directly. Psalm 103 may be taken as representative of this group. It begins and ends with individual references (vv 1-5, 22b), but the central section (esp. vv 6-14) shows that the psalmist was part of a worshiping community. There is first of all the imperative call to praise God for the full range of his mercy to each individual, including physical and spiritual deliverance and his sustaining and satisfying grace. Then the focus changes to his great works in history (vv 6-7). This forms a natural basis for the recital of those gracious qualities revealed so consistently during the course of the national history, especially his tender, fatherly care (vv 8-14). The frailty of humanity contrasts with God’s constancy (vv 15-18), and his rule, being universal and absolute (v 19), merits the praise of all things, living and inanimate, in heaven and on earth (vv 19-22). There is, however, a great number of possible variations in the way in which God is celebrated, as Psalms 113 and 136, which come within this class, illustrate.<\/li>\n<li>3. Specific communal praise. Occasionally termed “declarative praise,” this type of psalm connects with a particular outstanding evidence of God’s mercy and would most naturally follow soon after the event itself. Deliverance from an enemy provides the occasion for most of the psalms in this category (e.g., Pss 124, 129). Psalm 66:8-12, now the nucleus of an expanded recital of God’s goodness, was possibly once complete in itself. Psalms 46–48 may form a trilogy connected with the remarkable deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib’s Assyrians in 701 <span>BC<\/span> (2 Kgs 18:17–19:37). Psalm 67 was probably composed in gratitude for a particular harvest. It is easy to see how psalms of this type could, in the process of time, acquire a more general usage.<\/li>\n<li>4. Praise for the God of nature. The first part of Psalm 19 pictures the praise of God sounding from the heavens; Psalm 29 celebrates him as the God of the thunderstorm, which, sweeping in from the Mediterranean near Lebanon, pursues its awe-inspiring path southward into the wilderness of Kadesh, with the result that “in his temple” (the created world?) all are praising, “Glory, glory to the <span>Lord<\/span>” (v 9). His sovereignty and self-sufficiency in this world are celebrated in Psalm 50:10-12; he is the God of growth and harvest (Ps 65:9-13); in Psalm 104, often called the “Hymn of Creation,” he sustains and supplies everything on the earth and in the seas and is the absolute Lord of all life (vv 29-30). There is no confusion between God and his creation; even the seemingly permanent heaven and earth will perish, but “you go on forever” (Ps 102:25-27). Nature’s role is to proclaim the glory of God (Ps 19:1) and to praise him (Ps 148). People see themselves as insignificant when set against those forces of nature, which are themselves dwarfed by God—hence, the awareness of the immeasurable gulf between God and people that God has bridged by his grace (Ps 8).<\/li>\n<li>5. Praise for God’s kingship. A relatively small group of psalms (Pss 47, 93, 96–99) celebrate the kingship of God in a way that goes beyond the ascription of praise noted in the foregoing groups. They are marked by acclamation, by both shouting and clapping when God “ascends.” Presumably, the reference is to his throne (Ps 47:1-5; cf. 99:1-2). “The <span>Lord<\/span> reigns” (Pss 93:1; 97:1; 99:1) is the frequent cry, and the nature of his reign is extolled (Ps 99:4-5).<\/li>\n<h5>Royal, Messianic Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 61, 72, 89, 101, 110, 132, and 144 are usually included as the royal psalms. They do not form a literary category, since psalms of various types are included, but they all have some reference to the king, the nature of his rule, and his relationship to God. Since the Davidic monarchy was terminated in 586 <span>BC<\/span>, these psalms, almost certainly, were composed before that date. The language in these psalms often shows the king as being God’s vice-regent. For example, Psalm 45, a royal marriage psalm, contains the assertion “Your throne, O God, endures for ever and ever” (45:6). But this is best understood in terms of the throne being regarded as the Lord’s, occupied by the king as his representative. Similarly, the wording in Psalm 110:1, “Sit at my right hand,” indicates the privileges and prerogatives that the king enjoys as God’s vice-regent. The balance of the OT evidence concerning the king shows that the monarchy in Israel was qualified by the nature of God’s covenantal relationship with his people; the king did not enjoy the absolutism claimed by most of the rulers of surrounding kingdoms.<\/p>\n<p>Most of the royal psalms can also be called messianic psalms. They were interpreted as such in the early Christian church, as witnessed in Jesus Christ’s general statement that the psalmists wrote of him (Lk 24:44) and by particular NT quotations. The main psalms concerned, and the NT references, are the following:<\/p>\n<p>1. Psalm 2 (Acts 13:33; Heb 1:5; 5:5), while linked with the Davidic king, nevertheless speaks of a universal vindication and rule, which far transcended even David’s rule. Further, the picture of the Davidic king, anointed to rule on the earth as the representative of God, who is enthroned in heaven, strongly suggests Christ’s mediating, incarnate ministry.<\/p>\n<li>2. Psalm 45 (Heb 1:8-9), a marriage psalm for one of the Davidic kings, possibly Solomon, speaks not only of love and marriage but also a permanence and quality of rule. In the most obvious translation of verse 6, the writer addresses God, “Your divine throne endures for ever and ever.” The writer to the Hebrews clearly accepted this interpretation (Heb 1:8-9) and used it in contrast to the exalted status of even the angels, reinforcing it with two other quotations from the psalms that originally applied to God (Ps 97:7; 102:25-27; cf. Heb 1:6, 10-12).<\/li>\n<li>3. Psalm 110 is the most frequently quoted messianic psalm (Mt 22:43-45; Acts 2:34-35; Heb 1:13; 5:5-10; 6:20; 7:21). The language, speaking of the privileges, universal victory and continuing priesthood of David and his successors, would be considered hyperbolic and possibly misleading except for its fulfillment in “great David’s greater Son.” In contrast to the angels, who are privileged to stand in God’s presence (Lk 1:19), Christ the Son sits in the place of power and authority (Heb 1:13).<\/li>\n<p>Other psalms that could also be designated messianic but are not specifically included among the royal psalms are Psalm 8 (1 Cor 15:27); Psalm 40 (Heb 10:5-10); Psalm 72, with its idealized picture of the nature, consequences, and extent of the rule of God’s representative; Psalm 118:22-23; and Psalm 132 (Acts 2:30).<\/p>\n\n<h5>Passion Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>The four psalms in this group (Pss 16; 22; 40; 69; some scholars would also include Pss 102; 109) may also be regarded as messianic. They connect with that line of OT prophecy that interprets the Messiah’s ministry in terms of the Suffering Servant who features prominently in Isaiah (e.g., Is 42:1-9; 52:13–53:12). Of these four, Psalm 22 is the most remarkable. Jesus recited part of it when he was on the cross (Ps 22:1; cf. Mt 27:46), and other connections with the crucifixion scene are noteworthy (e.g., Ps 22:6-8, 14-18). Some further considerations are even more significant: there is no suggestion of any awareness of sin; the suffering of the psalmist appears completely unjustified; there is no imprecatory element, even in the face of bitter persecution. This connects with the sinless Christ (2 Cor 5:21), who could even pray for his executioners (Lk 23:34). Psalm 16:10 anticipates the triumph of the incorruptible Christ over the grave (cf. Acts 2:24-31). Psalm 40:6-8 foreshadows the Incarnation and self-giving redemptive work of Christ (Heb 10:5-10). Psalm 69 refers to the isolation resulting from a commitment to God’s cause (Ps 69:8-9) and anticipates the part played by Judas in what was fundamentally God’s work in Christ (Ps 69:25-26; cf. Ps 109:8; Is 53:10; Acts 1:20).<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms about Zion<\/h5>\n<p>This group could have been classified as a subsection of communal praise, but due to the close historical connection between God’s choice of the house of David and Jerusalem (Pss 78:68-72; 132:11-13), and their subsequent interrelated fortunes, we consider them at this point. There was a biting satire in the request of the Babylonians to the refugees of a shattered city to “Sing us one of the songs of Zion!” (Ps 137:3, <span>niv<\/span>), but it witnesses to the existence of such a collection. Praise of Zion was, in fact, almost synonymous with the praise of the Lord who dwelt there. Jerusalem’s continued survival, in spite of its difficulties, was ample demonstration of God’s enduring greatness (Ps 48:11-14) and peculiar affection for the city that housed his temple (Ps 87:1-3). Psalms 48, 76, 84, 87 and 122 are the main psalms in this category, but the theme itself appears widely throughout the psalms (e.g., 102:16; 125:1; 126:1-3; 133:3; 147:2). The basis of the NT concept of a heavenly Jerusalem, the spiritual home of the regenerate of all nations, finds its origin in this concept, especially in Psalm 87.<\/p>\n<h5>Laments<\/h5>\n<p>These are associated with specific occasions of distress and are of two types:<\/p>\n<p>1. National. The prophetic and historical books give several examples of the kind of occasion, such as drought, locust infestation, or enemy attack, that could prompt national laments, and also the inward and outward attitudes that accompanied them (e.g., Jgs 20:23, 26; Jer 14:1-12; 36:9; Jl 1:13-14; 2:12-17; Jon 3:5). There is a regular structure in the psalms of this class: the distressing situation is first described; God is petitioned to come to the aid of his people, often with the reminder of his past mercies for Israel; finally, there is often an expression of confidence that God would heed their cry. Israel’s adversaries are clearly in mind in Psalms 14, 44, 60, 74, 80, and 83, while Psalms 58, 106, and 125 reflect situations less critical.<\/p>\n<li>2. Individual. There are so many of this type (approximately 50) that it is frequently described as the backbone of the Psalter. Their most obvious features are the sharpness of complaint and the bitterness of attack upon those responsible. As in the national laments, there is often complaint against God, especially for his lack of attention or his tardiness in intervening. The basic components of this type are almost identical to the national laments, except that they often conclude with the avowal to praise God in anticipation of deliverance (e.g., Ps 13:5-6). Frequently, the lament is accompanied by thanksgiving for the deliverance sought and experienced, as illustrated in the two sections of Psalms 22:1-21 and 28:1-9.<\/li>\n<h5>Imprecatory Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Approximately 20 psalms contain passionate pleas for the overthrow of the wicked, in language that is often shocking. Any instant condemnation of this attitude must, however, be tempered by certain relevant considerations:<\/p>\n<p>The cry for vengeance was not purely personal; it was firmly believed that God’s honor was at stake (e.g., Ps 109:21). In an age where there was a less developed view of an afterlife, it was axiomatic that rewards and punishments resulting from obedience or disobedience to God, must be observable within this lifetime. Whenever this was not apparent, it would seem that no righteous God existed, and the name of God was dishonored (e.g., Ps 74:10). This burning desire for the eradication of evil and evil men sprang from a consciousness of a moral God and virtually demanded the triumph of truth.<\/p>\n<p>The poetic language is also prone to hyperbole—a feature not confined to the psalms (e.g., Neh 4:4-5; Jer 20:14-18; Am 7:17). Such language is startling; indeed, part of its function was probably to startle—to express and promote a sense of outrage.<\/p>\n<p>In the pre-Christian period, therefore, such outbursts were not completely unjustifiable. But in the light of the fuller revelation in the NT, such an attitude cannot be condoned. The Christian is to love as Christ loved (Jn 13:34), to pray for his enemies and to forgive them (Mt 5:38-48; Col 3:13). The theme of judgment continues into the NT and is indeed heightened there, since Christ’s coming has left people without excuse to live in sin (Jn 16:8-11), but there can be no place for purely private vengeance.<\/p>\n<h5>Penitential Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>Psalms 32, 38, 51, and 130 are the clearest examples of penitential psalms, although traditionally the church has also included Psalms 6, 102, 143, where there is no explicit confession of sin. In an age when adversity in its various forms was seen as God’s judgment for wrongdoing, the admission of distress was tantamount to a confession of guilt. In the four main examples there is an intensity of feeling and a deep sense of the enormity of sin in God’s sight, although, as elsewhere, there is no indication of specific sin, even in Psalm 51, which is surely to be connected with David’s sin against Bathsheba (2 Sm 11–12). Significantly, David bypasses the sacrificial system, which was totally inefficacious in his case, casting himself entirely on the mercy of God (Ps 51:1, 16). The burden of unconfessed sin is clearly revealed in Psalm 32, and sin’s searing and corrupting effect in Psalm 38.<\/p>\n<h5>Wisdom Psalms and Historical Psalms<\/h5>\n<p>While it is accepted that prophets, priests, and wise men all functioned at the major sanctuaries, some overlap in their modes of expression is to be expected. Proverbial forms are not infrequently found in the psalms (Pss 37:5, 8, 16, 21-22; 111:10; 127:1-5). Psalm 1, probably an introduction to the whole Psalter, contrasts the diverging paths of the righteous and ungodly (cf. Ps 112), while Psalms 127 and 128 concentrate on the blessings given to the godly. Psalm 133 is written in praise of unity. The problem of explaining the sufferings of a righteous person and the apparent prosperity of evil people, dealt with in the Wisdom Literature in the book of Job and in the prophets also (e.g., Jer 12:1-4), is taken up in Psalms 37, 49, and 73.<\/p>\n<p>The historical psalms should be included in this category, since they underscore the lessons arising from the favored nation’s often bitter experience. It is apparent that Israel delighted in the recital of salvation history. The main psalms, and the periods covered are Psalm 78, from the exodus to the establishment of the Davidic monarchy (note the declared intention to teach in vv 1-4); Psalm 105, from Abraham to the conquest of Canaan; Psalm 106, from Egypt to the judges; and Psalm 136, from the Creation to the Promised Land.<\/p>\n<h5>Psalms of Trust<\/h5>\n<p>While some of these may also be classified as laments, the dominant feature of this group is the serene trust in God revealed, which makes them particularly suitable for devotional use. Many of these psalms begin with an affirmation of gratitude to and affection for God. Psalms 23 and 27 are the outstanding examples of this type, which could also include Psalms 11, 16, 62, 116, 131, and 138.<\/p>\n<p class=\"h2\" id=\"Conclusion\">Conclusion<\/p>\n<p>The difficulties in any precise categorization of psalms are obvious; many do not neatly fall into one group—hence, the occasional overlap. What is clearly evident is a pulsating, vital devotional life that has found its clearest expression in the book of Psalms. To say that it expresses the worship and devotion of the ordinary person is a simplification; kings and priests, wise men and prophets all contributed to this remarkable collection. Yet there remains the truth that, in God’s sight, all people, regardless of human achievement or privilege, are “ordinary,” for all are sinners in need of God’s grace and goodness. So the worshiping community of ancient Israel, and the saints of every succeeding generation, in the vastness of their diversity, have found the expression of their own hearts’ condition, desires, and devotion in this unique treasury—the Psalms.<\/p>\n<p><em>See also<\/em> David; Messiah; Music; Poetry, Biblical; Singers in the Temple; Tabernacle; Temple; Wisdom; Wisdom Literature.<\/p>","summary_ro":"PSALMS, Book of Poems sung to musical accompaniment, originally the harp. The alternative title, the Psalter, refers to a collection of songs sung to harp accompaniment. The English title, therefore, broadly defines the form employed, whereas the Hebrew title of the book, “Praises,” or “Book of Praises,” suggests the content. Preview • Authors • Date • Background • Structure • Canonicity • Purpose and Theology • Content Authors The Evidence of the Titles The Hebrew Bible credits David with 73...","summary_en":"PSALMS, Book of Poems sung to musical accompaniment, originally the harp. The alternative title, the Psalter, refers to a collection of songs sung to harp accompaniment. The English title, therefore, broadly defines the form employed, whereas the Hebrew title of the book, “Praises,” or “Book of Praises,” suggests the content. Preview • Authors • Date • Background • Structure • Canonicity • Purpose and Theology • Content Authors The Evidence of the Titles The Hebrew Bible credits David with 73...","source":"Articles\/P.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":48012,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:10-11<\/strong> The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to give<em>sing<\/em> <em>praise and thanks . . . to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • <em>as King David had prescribed:<\/em> See 1 Chr 25:1-7.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:10-11<\/strong> The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to give<em>sing<\/em> <em>praise and thanks . . . to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • <em>as King David had prescribed:<\/em> See 1 Chr 25:1-7.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:10-11 The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to givesing praise and thanks . . . to the Lord for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • as King David had prescribed: See 1 Chr 25:1-7.","summary_en":"3:10-11 The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to givesing praise and thanks . . . to the Lord for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • as King David had prescribed: See 1 Chr 25:1-7.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75638,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:10-11<\/strong> The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to give<em>sing<\/em> <em>praise and thanks . . . to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • <em>as King David had prescribed:<\/em> See 1 Chr 25:1-7.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:10-11<\/strong> The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to give<em>sing<\/em> <em>praise and thanks . . . to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • <em>as King David had prescribed:<\/em> See 1 Chr 25:1-7.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:10-11 The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to givesing praise and thanks . . . to the Lord for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • as King David had prescribed: See 1 Chr 25:1-7.","summary_en":"3:10-11 The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to givesing praise and thanks . . . to the Lord for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • as King David had prescribed: See 1 Chr 25:1-7.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103264,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:10-11<\/strong> The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to give<em>sing<\/em> <em>praise and thanks . . . to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • <em>as King David had prescribed:<\/em> See 1 Chr 25:1-7.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:10-11<\/strong> The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to give<em>sing<\/em> <em>praise and thanks . . . to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • <em>as King David had prescribed:<\/em> See 1 Chr 25:1-7.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:10-11 The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to givesing praise and thanks . . . to the Lord for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • as King David had prescribed: See 1 Chr 25:1-7.","summary_en":"3:10-11 The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to givesing praise and thanks . . . to the Lord for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • as King David had prescribed: See 1 Chr 25:1-7.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130890,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:10","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:10","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:10-11<\/strong> The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to give<em>sing<\/em> <em>praise and thanks . . . to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • <em>as King David had prescribed:<\/em> See 1 Chr 25:1-7.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:10-11<\/strong> The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to give<em>sing<\/em> <em>praise and thanks . . . to the<\/em> <span>Lord<\/span> for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • <em>as King David had prescribed:<\/em> See 1 Chr 25:1-7.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:10-11 The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to givesing praise and thanks . . . to the Lord for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • as King David had prescribed: See 1 Chr 25:1-7.","summary_en":"3:10-11 The music at this dedication ceremony sounded similar to the singing when Solomon first brought the Ark into the Temple (2 Chr 5:12-13). Both events caused the worshipers to givesing praise and thanks . . . to the Lord for his faithful covenant love and goodness. • as King David had prescribed: See 1 Chr 25:1-7.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":61323,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Celebration","title_en":"Celebration","content_ro":"<h3>Celebration<\/h3>\n<p>God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">karar<\/span> (2 Sam 6:14, 16), <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pazaz<\/span> (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">raqad<\/span> (1 Chr 15:29, “skipping about”). All three words refer to vigorous physical expression beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term for “celebrate” used in David’s first attempt (2 Sam 6:5). Thus, in the first procession, David celebrated; in the second procession he engaged in exultant dancing and extravagant merrymaking with intensified musical expression through the addition of shouting and trumpets.<\/p>\n<p>Musical instruments played a significant role in Temple worship. In 1 Chronicles 25:1-31, David assigned various groups to the ministry of music. Many psalms refer to playing musical instruments in praise and worship of God (see Pss 33:2-3; 57:8; 81:2; 92:1-3; 98:4-6). In Pss 149 and 150, dance and music are combined as a praise offering. Similarly, music and dancing were heard in the father’s house in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:25), as the son’s return was truly a joyful occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation gives a picture of the eternal celebration that awaits the faithful—a celebration characterized by worship in the presence of God (Rev 4:1-11; 5:8-14; 15:1-4). This celebration is described as a wedding feast, in which the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (his church) are joined together forever (Rev 19:9; see also Matt 22:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 5:1; 12:17; 15:20-21; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:1-15; 2 Chr 7:6-10; Ezra 3:10-11; Pss 30:11; 69:30; 98:4-6; 107:32; 149:1-9; 150:1-6; Isa 30:29; 54:1; Jer 30:18-19; 31:4, 13; Lam 5:14-15; Zeph 3:17; Luke 15:22-25; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Rev 18:20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Celebration<\/h3>\n<p>God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">karar<\/span> (2 Sam 6:14, 16), <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pazaz<\/span> (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">raqad<\/span> (1 Chr 15:29, “skipping about”). All three words refer to vigorous physical expression beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term for “celebrate” used in David’s first attempt (2 Sam 6:5). Thus, in the first procession, David celebrated; in the second procession he engaged in exultant dancing and extravagant merrymaking with intensified musical expression through the addition of shouting and trumpets.<\/p>\n<p>Musical instruments played a significant role in Temple worship. In 1 Chronicles 25:1-31, David assigned various groups to the ministry of music. Many psalms refer to playing musical instruments in praise and worship of God (see Pss 33:2-3; 57:8; 81:2; 92:1-3; 98:4-6). In Pss 149 and 150, dance and music are combined as a praise offering. Similarly, music and dancing were heard in the father’s house in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:25), as the son’s return was truly a joyful occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation gives a picture of the eternal celebration that awaits the faithful—a celebration characterized by worship in the presence of God (Rev 4:1-11; 5:8-14; 15:1-4). This celebration is described as a wedding feast, in which the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (his church) are joined together forever (Rev 19:9; see also Matt 22:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 5:1; 12:17; 15:20-21; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:1-15; 2 Chr 7:6-10; Ezra 3:10-11; Pss 30:11; 69:30; 98:4-6; 107:32; 149:1-9; 150:1-6; Isa 30:29; 54:1; Jer 30:18-19; 31:4, 13; Lam 5:14-15; Zeph 3:17; Luke 15:22-25; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Rev 18:20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Celebration God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): karar (2 Sam 6:14, 16), pazaz (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and raqad (1 Chr 15:29, “skippin...","summary_en":"Celebration God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): karar (2 Sam 6:14, 16), pazaz (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and raqad (1 Chr 15:29, “skippin...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":88949,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Celebration","title_en":"Celebration","content_ro":"<h3>Celebration<\/h3>\n<p>God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">karar<\/span> (2 Sam 6:14, 16), <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pazaz<\/span> (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">raqad<\/span> (1 Chr 15:29, “skipping about”). All three words refer to vigorous physical expression beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term for “celebrate” used in David’s first attempt (2 Sam 6:5). Thus, in the first procession, David celebrated; in the second procession he engaged in exultant dancing and extravagant merrymaking with intensified musical expression through the addition of shouting and trumpets.<\/p>\n<p>Musical instruments played a significant role in Temple worship. In 1 Chronicles 25:1-31, David assigned various groups to the ministry of music. Many psalms refer to playing musical instruments in praise and worship of God (see Pss 33:2-3; 57:8; 81:2; 92:1-3; 98:4-6). In Pss 149 and 150, dance and music are combined as a praise offering. Similarly, music and dancing were heard in the father’s house in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:25), as the son’s return was truly a joyful occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation gives a picture of the eternal celebration that awaits the faithful—a celebration characterized by worship in the presence of God (Rev 4:1-11; 5:8-14; 15:1-4). This celebration is described as a wedding feast, in which the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (his church) are joined together forever (Rev 19:9; see also Matt 22:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 5:1; 12:17; 15:20-21; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:1-15; 2 Chr 7:6-10; Ezra 3:10-11; Pss 30:11; 69:30; 98:4-6; 107:32; 149:1-9; 150:1-6; Isa 30:29; 54:1; Jer 30:18-19; 31:4, 13; Lam 5:14-15; Zeph 3:17; Luke 15:22-25; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Rev 18:20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Celebration<\/h3>\n<p>God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">karar<\/span> (2 Sam 6:14, 16), <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pazaz<\/span> (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">raqad<\/span> (1 Chr 15:29, “skipping about”). All three words refer to vigorous physical expression beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term for “celebrate” used in David’s first attempt (2 Sam 6:5). Thus, in the first procession, David celebrated; in the second procession he engaged in exultant dancing and extravagant merrymaking with intensified musical expression through the addition of shouting and trumpets.<\/p>\n<p>Musical instruments played a significant role in Temple worship. In 1 Chronicles 25:1-31, David assigned various groups to the ministry of music. Many psalms refer to playing musical instruments in praise and worship of God (see Pss 33:2-3; 57:8; 81:2; 92:1-3; 98:4-6). In Pss 149 and 150, dance and music are combined as a praise offering. Similarly, music and dancing were heard in the father’s house in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:25), as the son’s return was truly a joyful occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation gives a picture of the eternal celebration that awaits the faithful—a celebration characterized by worship in the presence of God (Rev 4:1-11; 5:8-14; 15:1-4). This celebration is described as a wedding feast, in which the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (his church) are joined together forever (Rev 19:9; see also Matt 22:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 5:1; 12:17; 15:20-21; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:1-15; 2 Chr 7:6-10; Ezra 3:10-11; Pss 30:11; 69:30; 98:4-6; 107:32; 149:1-9; 150:1-6; Isa 30:29; 54:1; Jer 30:18-19; 31:4, 13; Lam 5:14-15; Zeph 3:17; Luke 15:22-25; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Rev 18:20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Celebration God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): karar (2 Sam 6:14, 16), pazaz (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and raqad (1 Chr 15:29, “skippin...","summary_en":"Celebration God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): karar (2 Sam 6:14, 16), pazaz (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and raqad (1 Chr 15:29, “skippin...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":116575,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Celebration","title_en":"Celebration","content_ro":"<h3>Celebration<\/h3>\n<p>God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">karar<\/span> (2 Sam 6:14, 16), <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pazaz<\/span> (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">raqad<\/span> (1 Chr 15:29, “skipping about”). All three words refer to vigorous physical expression beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term for “celebrate” used in David’s first attempt (2 Sam 6:5). Thus, in the first procession, David celebrated; in the second procession he engaged in exultant dancing and extravagant merrymaking with intensified musical expression through the addition of shouting and trumpets.<\/p>\n<p>Musical instruments played a significant role in Temple worship. In 1 Chronicles 25:1-31, David assigned various groups to the ministry of music. Many psalms refer to playing musical instruments in praise and worship of God (see Pss 33:2-3; 57:8; 81:2; 92:1-3; 98:4-6). In Pss 149 and 150, dance and music are combined as a praise offering. Similarly, music and dancing were heard in the father’s house in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:25), as the son’s return was truly a joyful occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation gives a picture of the eternal celebration that awaits the faithful—a celebration characterized by worship in the presence of God (Rev 4:1-11; 5:8-14; 15:1-4). This celebration is described as a wedding feast, in which the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (his church) are joined together forever (Rev 19:9; see also Matt 22:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 5:1; 12:17; 15:20-21; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:1-15; 2 Chr 7:6-10; Ezra 3:10-11; Pss 30:11; 69:30; 98:4-6; 107:32; 149:1-9; 150:1-6; Isa 30:29; 54:1; Jer 30:18-19; 31:4, 13; Lam 5:14-15; Zeph 3:17; Luke 15:22-25; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Rev 18:20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Celebration<\/h3>\n<p>God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">karar<\/span> (2 Sam 6:14, 16), <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pazaz<\/span> (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">raqad<\/span> (1 Chr 15:29, “skipping about”). All three words refer to vigorous physical expression beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term for “celebrate” used in David’s first attempt (2 Sam 6:5). Thus, in the first procession, David celebrated; in the second procession he engaged in exultant dancing and extravagant merrymaking with intensified musical expression through the addition of shouting and trumpets.<\/p>\n<p>Musical instruments played a significant role in Temple worship. In 1 Chronicles 25:1-31, David assigned various groups to the ministry of music. Many psalms refer to playing musical instruments in praise and worship of God (see Pss 33:2-3; 57:8; 81:2; 92:1-3; 98:4-6). In Pss 149 and 150, dance and music are combined as a praise offering. Similarly, music and dancing were heard in the father’s house in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:25), as the son’s return was truly a joyful occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation gives a picture of the eternal celebration that awaits the faithful—a celebration characterized by worship in the presence of God (Rev 4:1-11; 5:8-14; 15:1-4). This celebration is described as a wedding feast, in which the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (his church) are joined together forever (Rev 19:9; see also Matt 22:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 5:1; 12:17; 15:20-21; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:1-15; 2 Chr 7:6-10; Ezra 3:10-11; Pss 30:11; 69:30; 98:4-6; 107:32; 149:1-9; 150:1-6; Isa 30:29; 54:1; Jer 30:18-19; 31:4, 13; Lam 5:14-15; Zeph 3:17; Luke 15:22-25; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Rev 18:20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Celebration God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): karar (2 Sam 6:14, 16), pazaz (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and raqad (1 Chr 15:29, “skippin...","summary_en":"Celebration God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): karar (2 Sam 6:14, 16), pazaz (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and raqad (1 Chr 15:29, “skippin...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":144201,"type":"theme_note","type_label":"Temă biblică","type_icon":"🎯","type_color":"#ef4444","title_ro":"Celebration","title_en":"Celebration","content_ro":"<h3>Celebration<\/h3>\n<p>God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">karar<\/span> (2 Sam 6:14, 16), <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pazaz<\/span> (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">raqad<\/span> (1 Chr 15:29, “skipping about”). All three words refer to vigorous physical expression beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term for “celebrate” used in David’s first attempt (2 Sam 6:5). Thus, in the first procession, David celebrated; in the second procession he engaged in exultant dancing and extravagant merrymaking with intensified musical expression through the addition of shouting and trumpets.<\/p>\n<p>Musical instruments played a significant role in Temple worship. In 1 Chronicles 25:1-31, David assigned various groups to the ministry of music. Many psalms refer to playing musical instruments in praise and worship of God (see Pss 33:2-3; 57:8; 81:2; 92:1-3; 98:4-6). In Pss 149 and 150, dance and music are combined as a praise offering. Similarly, music and dancing were heard in the father’s house in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:25), as the son’s return was truly a joyful occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation gives a picture of the eternal celebration that awaits the faithful—a celebration characterized by worship in the presence of God (Rev 4:1-11; 5:8-14; 15:1-4). This celebration is described as a wedding feast, in which the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (his church) are joined together forever (Rev 19:9; see also Matt 22:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 5:1; 12:17; 15:20-21; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:1-15; 2 Chr 7:6-10; Ezra 3:10-11; Pss 30:11; 69:30; 98:4-6; 107:32; 149:1-9; 150:1-6; Isa 30:29; 54:1; Jer 30:18-19; 31:4, 13; Lam 5:14-15; Zeph 3:17; Luke 15:22-25; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Rev 18:20<\/p>","content_en":"<h3>Celebration<\/h3>\n<p>God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16).<\/p>\n<p>David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">karar<\/span> (2 Sam 6:14, 16), <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">pazaz<\/span> (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and <span class=\"hebrew\" lang=\"he\">raqad<\/span> (1 Chr 15:29, “skipping about”). All three words refer to vigorous physical expression beyond the meaning of the Hebrew term for “celebrate” used in David’s first attempt (2 Sam 6:5). Thus, in the first procession, David celebrated; in the second procession he engaged in exultant dancing and extravagant merrymaking with intensified musical expression through the addition of shouting and trumpets.<\/p>\n<p>Musical instruments played a significant role in Temple worship. In 1 Chronicles 25:1-31, David assigned various groups to the ministry of music. Many psalms refer to playing musical instruments in praise and worship of God (see Pss 33:2-3; 57:8; 81:2; 92:1-3; 98:4-6). In Pss 149 and 150, dance and music are combined as a praise offering. Similarly, music and dancing were heard in the father’s house in the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:25), as the son’s return was truly a joyful occasion.<\/p>\n<p>The book of Revelation gives a picture of the eternal celebration that awaits the faithful—a celebration characterized by worship in the presence of God (Rev 4:1-11; 5:8-14; 15:1-4). This celebration is described as a wedding feast, in which the bridegroom (Christ) and the bride (his church) are joined together forever (Rev 19:9; see also Matt 22:1-14).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Passages for Further Study<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Exod 5:1; 12:17; 15:20-21; 1 Sam 18:6; 2 Sam 6:1-15; 2 Chr 7:6-10; Ezra 3:10-11; Pss 30:11; 69:30; 98:4-6; 107:32; 149:1-9; 150:1-6; Isa 30:29; 54:1; Jer 30:18-19; 31:4, 13; Lam 5:14-15; Zeph 3:17; Luke 15:22-25; 1 Cor 5:8; Eph 5:18-20; Col 3:16; Rev 18:20<\/p>","summary_ro":"Celebration God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): karar (2 Sam 6:14, 16), pazaz (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and raqad (1 Chr 15:29, “skippin...","summary_en":"Celebration God welcomes exuberant expressions of joy and delight from those who worship and praise him (Isa 30:29; Jer 30:19; 31:13; Zeph 3:17; Eph 5:19; Col 3:16). David’s two attempts to bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6:1-11, 12-23) were marked by celebration. Three Hebrew terms for “danced\/dancing” are found in the account of the second procession of the Ark (see also 1 Chr 15:25-29): karar (2 Sam 6:14, 16), pazaz (NLT, “leaping,” 6:16), and raqad (1 Chr 15:29, “skippin...","source":"ThemeNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}],"12":[{"id":48013,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:12<\/strong> Those who <em>wept aloud<\/em> either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:12<\/strong> Those who <em>wept aloud<\/em> either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12 Those who wept aloud either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.","summary_en":"3:12 Those who wept aloud either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":75639,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:12<\/strong> Those who <em>wept aloud<\/em> either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:12<\/strong> Those who <em>wept aloud<\/em> either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12 Those who wept aloud either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.","summary_en":"3:12 Those who wept aloud either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":103265,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:12<\/strong> Those who <em>wept aloud<\/em> either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:12<\/strong> Those who <em>wept aloud<\/em> either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12 Those who wept aloud either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.","summary_en":"3:12 Those who wept aloud either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false},{"id":130891,"type":"study_note","type_label":"Notă de studiu","type_icon":"📝","type_color":"#06b6d4","title_ro":"Notă de studiu: Ezra 3:12","title_en":"Study Note: Ezra 3:12","content_ro":"<p><strong>3:12<\/strong> Those who <em>wept aloud<\/em> either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.<\/p>","content_en":"<p><strong>3:12<\/strong> Those who <em>wept aloud<\/em> either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.<\/p>","summary_ro":"3:12 Those who wept aloud either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.","summary_en":"3:12 Those who wept aloud either were disappointed that the foundation of the Temple wasn’t as wonderful as the old one had been (cp. Hag 2:3) or were deeply moved with joy at seeing the Temple of the Lord restored.","source":"StudyNotes.xml","external_url":null,"has_map":false,"has_picture":false}]},"labels":{"article":"Articol","map":"Hartă","chart":"Diagramă","textbox":"Notă explicativă","picture":"Imagine","profile":"Profil","study_note":"Notă de studiu","theme_note":"Temă biblică"},"icons":{"article":"📖","map":"🗺️","chart":"📊","textbox":"💡","picture":"🖼️","profile":"👤","study_note":"📝","theme_note":"🎯"},"typeColors":{"article":"#d4af37","map":"#2d7d46","chart":"#3b82f6","textbox":"#8b5cf6","picture":"#ec4899","profile":"#f59e0b","study_note":"#06b6d4","theme_note":"#ef4444"}}
🔍
Niciun rezultat
Nu am găsit versete care să conțină textul căutat.
Ezra 3
— 13 versete
Ezra 3
📘 Info carte
Se încarcă...
📖 Resurse