Talk:List of high priests of Israel

Priests are kings?

It seems that occasionally the High Priest was also the King or Judge. For example, Jehoshaphat the HP is contemporary with Jehoshaphat the King of Judah. And Azariah II the High Priest is contemporary with Azariah (Uzziah) the King of Judah. Indeed, Azariah the HP's father is Ahimaaz, while Azariah the King's father is Amaziah -- the names are cognate. And both have sons by the name of Jotham! There are examples in the Northern Kingdom of Israel, too. The Prophets Zechariah and Hosea are contemporaries of the Northern Kings Zechariah and Hosea. Like Deborah in Judges, who is both Priestess and Queen, it seems that the role of Priest-King was sometimes combined, as under the Maccabees. Perhaps this was edited out after the Babylonian Exile so that the Priesthood would not appear a threat to their overlord Kings of Persia and Greece.

This is at best original research. However, your quickly made equation that Jehoshaphat the high priest was also king is impossible. High priests, as are all priests, are descendents of Aaron of the tribe of Levi while kings of Judah were descendents of David, tribe of Judah. Also, contrary to your claims, the prophet Zechariah was not the contemporary of any king, northern or otherwise, but lived after the exile. Deborah, of course, was neither queen nor priestess (something that didn't exist). That you speculate about editing after the exile brings your posting full circle. It is all made up by you. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Random Question

Is the Boethus link (Joshua ben Gamaliel 63-64-) pointing to the right entry? I'm not saying it's wrong, but it seems unusual for a Jewish High Priest to be related (albeit by marriage) to a Greek sculptor. Gifford (talk) 12:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, seems to be wrong. Fixed it, hopefully. john k (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Is this a "Christian" list?

The latter part of this list merely seems like a stalking horse for a New Testament view of the priests. Are there any good sources, outside of Christianity, for such a list? IZAK 11:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, none of the people on the list after John Hyrcanus II are reliably attestable...by which I mean, not only is their existence as Kohen Gadol questionable, but so also is their mere existence... Tomer^TALK 11:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It is unsourced. JFW | T@lk 11:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I only came through and fixed links and so have no background on this specific topic. However, if there is a canonical list of High Priests from Jewish history, we should follow those. At a minimum, if the data after a certain point is subject to a Christian bias, we should mark that on the list. I've left a message on the page creator's Talk page asking if he still has a reference. JRP 14:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Just a note, IZAK mentions on another page that Theophilus is not a Jewish name and therefore also indicative that this is a Christian-viewpoint list. I can't speak to that, but a quick check of the Online Jewish Encyclopedia seems to indicate at least that the existence of latter members of the list are accepted. (Of course, that too may be tainted, but I hope not.) I spot checked a few others, but sadly I can't find a *list* anywhere and I don't have the patience to crawl through JewishEncyclopedia.com to reconstruct one. JRP 14:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

If the historicity of the individual members and their order of succession can be externally confirmed then this is not original research. The Jewish Encyclopedia indeed does not have the final word - it is 100 years old and hence lacks modern scholarship, and favours some interpretations not accepted by many Jews today. JFW | T@lk 16:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The information seems to come from Josephus, who was not a Christian. Given that Josephus is almost certainly our best ancient source for this period, I don't see what the problem is. One would assume that Josephus, basically a contemporary with the last high priests, is a more reliable source than, I dunno, the Book of Chronicles... john k 06:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I've thrown in your source (from my Talk page) in the References section. I hope that helps JFK's original research question. Obviously, the list may still be flawed. The Regnal Chronologies site lists an extensive bibliography (both online and in print) but does not state specifically which books are used for that specific list. What kind of disclaimer or heading text could we add to resolve the NPOV issue? JRP 13:29, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The list could use more sourcing, and IMHO the link to Jonathan should be disambigged so it doesn't point to the wrong guy like it does now. As for improving the disclaimer/heading text, I think it's pretty good now, and that the NPOV tag can be removed. Since IZAK is the one who put it there tho, I guess we should wait to hear from him before taking it off... Tomer^TALK 20:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• Ok. Note to john k: Firstly, where in Josephus can this list of names be found? Secondly, can we be sure that a so-called quote by Josephus that touches on both Jewish history as well as the New Testament era, has not in fact been dishonestly edited by Christian writers who lived after the death of Josephus, and inserted their Vs into Josephus' works (something which has been known to happen -- for example Josephus' controversial supposed references to "Jesus" which some have claimed was not written by Josephus at all but put in by later people wanting to "prove" the historicity of Christianity's founder from the "mouth" of a Jewish historian like Josephus.) Thirdly, the Book of Chronicles, and indeed the entire Tanakh ends with the destruction of the First Temple (aka Solomon's Temple), the 70 year Babylonian captivity, and the circumstances surrounding the early founding of the Second Temple, but nothing beyond the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, so why are you knocking the "Chronicles" of those times (by the way, where is the place that the Tanakh lists all the high priests?), why is Josephus a "more reliable source" than the Tanakh? Thirdly, the question still remains, even if you can cite anything from Josephus, are there no other records from those times? Like from the Jewish sages during the era of the Mishnah who lived at the same time as Josephus or even from later Geonim and Rishonim who may have looked into this topic and written stuff that could shed light on a subject that they took very seriously. IZAK 05:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd assume one cannot find the list directly in Josephus, although I'm not sure. Many of the names, and their order, though, can certainly be found in Antiquities of the Jews. I can think of no reason why a list of names of high priests would be considered possibly subject to revision by Christian writers. I suppose they might have inserted the name Caiaphas, but that would be the only plausible addition. In terms of Tanakh lists of high priests, I would assume that Chronicles, in providing the Levite genealogy, provides much of the earlier part of the list. And I wasn't knocking Chronicles' accuracy in referring to the late first temple period (which is questionable - I think many historians think there is little of value in Chronicles besides what is derived from the Deuteronomistic History of Samuel and Kings), but to its accuracy for its early genealogies. At any rate, Josephus is a major historian who provides details of the high priests between the Hasmonean period and the destruction of the Temple. Since he is, after all, our principal source for this period (possibly our only good source for the period), I can't understand why we shouldn't assume him to be accurate unless demonstrated to be otherwise. Of course, it remains to be demonstrated that this list is explicitly derived from Josephus, and I would assume that the dates, at least, probably derive from Byzantine chronographs or possibly Eusebius, rather than from Josephus directly. But I don't see why material should be questioned simply because it derives from Christian sources. Other than including Caiaphas, I can't think of any particular reason to fabricate names for the list. And, obviously, any source on the subject is bound to be biased - I fail to see why Josephus + Christian chronographs should be refuted by the apparent silence of Hebrew sources on the subject. john k 21:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Quotes from Josephus:

upon [Augustus's] death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia's son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratis had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor. (Antiquities 18.2.2); Besides which, [Vitellius] also deprived Joseph, who was also called Caiaphas, of the high priesthood, and appointed Jonathan the son of Ananus, the former high priest, to succeed him. (Ant. 18.4.3); Whereupon [Vitellius]...went up to Jerusalem to offer sacrifice to God, an ancient festival of the Jews being then just approaching; and when he had been there, and been honorably entertained by the multitude of the Jews, he made a stay there for three days, within which time he deprived Jonathan of the high priesthood, and gave it to his brother Theophilus. But when on the fourth day letters came to him, which informed him of the death of Tiberius, he obliged the multitude to take an oath of fidelity to Caius; (Ant. 18.5.3) And when Agrippa had entirely finished all the duties of the Divine worship, he removed Theophilus, the son of Ananus, from the high priesthood, and bestowed that honor of his on Simon the son of Boethus, whose name was also Cantheras whose daughter king Herod married, as I have related above. (Ant. 19.6.2) Thus did Petronius take care of this matter, that such a breach of the law might be corrected, and that no such thing might be attempted afterwards against the Jews. And now king Agrippa took the [high] priesthood away from Simon Cantheras, and put Jonathan, the son of Ananus, into it again, and owned that he was more worthy of that dignity than the other. But this was not a thing acceptable to him, to recover that his former dignity. So he refused it, and said, "O king! I rejoice in the honor that thou hast for me, and take it kindly that thou wouldst give me such a dignity of thy own inclinations, although God hath judged that I am not at all worthy of the high priesthood. I am satisfied with having once put on the sacred garments; for I then put them on after a more holy manner than I should now receive them again. But if thou desirest that a person more worthy than myself should have this honorable employment, give me leave to name thee such a one. I have a brother that is pure from all sin against God, and of all offenses against thyself; I recommend him to thee, as one that is fit for this dignity." So the king was pleased with these words of his, and passed by Jonathan, and, according to his brother's desire, bestowed the high priesthood upon Matthias. (Ant. 19.6.4) And now he took the high priesthood away from Matthias, and made Ilioneus, the son of Cantheras, high priest in his stead. (Ant. 19.8.1); [here a break]; But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Ananias, the son of Zebedee, his successor. (Ant. 20.5.2). There's a great deal more. Josephus does not provide a full list of the high priests, but he gives us a lot of information. john k 22:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

John: Thanks for the detailed response. So then it would seem that perhaps the right thing to do now is to RENAME it List of High Priests of Israel according to Josephus, given that this article was started by you based only on the writings of Josephus, without serious input from other reliable Judaic sources. After all, this is a subject relevant to Judaism and Jewish history almost exclusively so it is important to have maximum input from reliable Jewish sources. IZAK 03:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your comment. I urge you to cite reliable Jewish sources to improve the article that we have. I understand your point of view that the list could have been skewed, but this is understandable from any list of sufficient age. Adequate disclaimers and well-researched (but not original research) lists should be acceptable. I can't speak to the value of the original source, the Regnal Chronologies website, as it does not explicitly cite Josephus although it is likely that it has Josephus an an ultimate source, at least in part. By offering a researched explanation of the potential built-in biases in the article, I think it becomes sufficiently neutral. You are in the best position to do that and I urge you to make the appropriate changes so that we can resolve this neutrality conflict. JRP 04:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, given that Josephus is the only notable historical source on this period, and certainly the only one to give a high amount of detail about the succession of high priests, I don't see why we shouldn't use it. Our other lists of ancient rulers don't say things like "List of kings of Persia according to Diodorus," even though Diodorus is our principal source for this list. If you want to dispute Josephus, you'll have to provide some evidence that what he says is disputed. john k 17:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll get straight to the point: within Judaism, Josephus is widely considered to be a traitor. If you EVER use Josephus as an uncorroborated source on matters relating to Judaism, you're using a source which is suspect to many (most?) religious Jews. And this article is of interest almost exclusively to religious Jews. Nathan Zook 01:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You do realize that the only source for Josephus being a traitor is, er, Josephus? Basically, I don't really care what "religious" (read: Orthodox) Jews believe about whether a historian is reliable. What matters is what classicists and historians of the ancient Near East think of him. And as far as I am aware, Josephus is viewed as the primary source on the history of this period. There is simply no other source which gives a historical narrative of this period. And knowledge should not be written to cater to tiny religious minorities, but to explain what modern scholarship says. I'm still not sure what modern scholarship says on this subject, but it certainly doesn't view Josephus as an unreliable source on first century Judea. john k (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Although you may not like it, Christians still value our religious heritage which includes this part of Judaism. I think having a comparative list with Josephus and traditional Jewish sources would be wise, give all information available, and let the reader decide. The lists could be placed in a table template with the sources and their lists next to each other. In addition, the popularity of the author is irrelevant (I refer to the paragraph above). Traitor or not, Josepheus is regarded as a historian, not the complete authority however.CJ Day 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John K and CJ Day. This article, like all others, operates under NPOV and Verifiability. Though given the subject nature, Jewish sources (Bible, but also Josephus) will play a prominent role, neither this article nor its sources must pass a test of being sufficently Jewish (whatever that means). And no, this article is of interest not only to "religious Jews" but also to religions that developed from Judaism, such as Christianity, and also to people who simply interested in the history. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

the hebrew wikipedia here has a different list, I do not know their source. Also the Rambam in the introduction to the Mishneh Torah, 7 says that both Ezra and Simeon the Righteous where High Priests, I cannot find either on the list unless Simon I is Simeon the Righteous. Jon513 13:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Because Ezra never was High Priest. However, some persons of the post-exilic period have sometimes been identified with each other, e.g. Ezra with Shealtiel in the book 2 Esdras. But something like this was going on. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no real list of High Priests, therefore I thought it was better to show the lists of the bible, Josephus and that Medieval chronicle next to each other. Now the readers can see how the Wikipedia consensus has arived, and can judge for themselves what order is most likely for them. Mismeret (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Two quibbles with that or rather the current state of the article:

1. To what source does "Important priests in the Tanakh" refer to?
2. Why include a list that never claims to be a list of high priests but is rather a genealogy of the latter high priests (from Zadok onwards)?

Also, I don't think we need separate columns in cases of agreement. Str1977 ^(talk) 10:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Onias VI Might have been the Teacher of Righteousness

That's the view I hold, thou it also means we have to throw out certain assumptions abut the orign of the DSS.

Quite impossible. Onias IV went to Egypt and stayed there. The followers of the Moreh Tzedek went to Qumran and insisted very much on the connection with the "Land of Israel". Str1977 ^(talk) 10:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Dates

What is the source for the dates given? A lot of them seem to go back to about March 2006. The article currently gives Jaddua's service as c. 371-320 BC. It then gives the service of his son Manasseh as c. 245-240 BC. This could conceivably have occurred if Manasseh had been born when his father had been high priest for fifty years (making Jaddua a very elderly father), and Manasseh had then become high priest at the age of 74/5. But it looks unlikely. The Jewish Encyclopedia article "High Priest" does not (perhaps wisely) attempt to provide dates. The JE article "Jaddua" discusses the chronological difficulties.The JE article "Onias" gives the death of Onias II about 181 BC.

The sequence of precise dates in Regnal Chronologies starts with the end of Onias III's tenure in 175 BC. Incidentally, I am not sure how that page uses 'early' and 'late' for BC centuries. "Onias I late 300's" is followed by "Simon the Just early 200's" which might imply that "late 300's" means c. 301 BC and "early 200's" means c. 299 BC. But then "Joshua late 500's" is *followed* by "Joiakim mid 500's".

James C. VanderKam, 'From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests After the Exile', 2004, page 491 also does not give dates before 175 BC, but does give details of contemporaries. I suggest that this article should follow that source.

Thoughts/comments? Alekksandr (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Melchizedek?

Wasn't Melchizedek high priest who anointed Abraham in his time? I had figured although it remains somewhat sparse with information concerning the personage extant today from early sourcing; that he was at least attestable from originating material. Nagelfar (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized this would per definition predate Israel. I was taking it as an article of Abrahamic high priests in the tradition of Judaism generally. Nagelfar (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Yehoshua

Why is Yehoshua shown next to Izus?

What is the reason and reference for this?

I cannot find a Yehoshua referenced at this time.

Mythosmann (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythosmann (talk • contribs) 14:05, 16 April 2023 (UTC)