Sunday, September 27, 2026

David Osborn (1807-1893): Did He Believe Joseph Smith Predicted the Second Coming in 1890/91?

In his journal for April 20, 1874, David Osborn recorded his reminiscence of Joseph Smith’s teachings concerning seeing Jesus if he were to live to 85 years of age (cf. D&C 130:15):

 

In one of his discourses at Nauvoo he said at one time he inquired of the Lord how long or how many years it would be till He would come? He said the answer he received was this: "My servant, Joseph, if you live to be eighty five years old, you shall see my face." In reading his history I find that at the dedication of the Temple at Kirtland, which was in the year 1835, he prophesied the 56 years more would bring the winding up scene of this generation. Which will bring this important event to take place in the year '90 or '91. (David Osborn, Journal, April 20, 1874, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [36], Church History Library, MS 23445, copy in my possession)

 

Did Osborn believe that the Second Coming (Parousia) would occur in 1890/91? It appears that his understanding of Joseph Smith’s teachings and the “winding up scene of this generation” was not the Second Coming. For example, on April 3, 1891(!) we read the following:

 

Again I have thought if I had my life to live over again I could improve in another direction. Our errand or chief purpose in coming to this world, was to get a tabernacle of flesh and also to raise up a posterity. Well, I raised up a few children from Cynthia, my first wife, and have never regretted it, but when I lost her why did I not get a wife that was likely to bring me a few more? A question which I can not answer to my own satisfaction. So it seems that I have failed in improving on the talents with which I have been entrusted, and as it is only our privilege to pass through this life but one time, it is too late to make amends. But it may be that provisions may be made to receive wives and increase in the Millennium by proxy. I will wait and see for I did hear Joseph say that our future Kingdom or exaltation depended to a certain extent on the number of our posterity. (David Osborn, Journal, April 3, 1891, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [92])

 

Here, Osborn speaks of “the Millennium” being a then-future event as of April 1891, and says that he will “wait and see” concerning proxy provision for wives and posterity.

 

Earlier, in an entry for November 20, 1880, Osborn wrote the following:

 

I have received no reply to a very lengthy letter I addressed to S. B. Harrah, my cousin, in Indiana. In this letter I again bore my humble testimony concerning the Latterday work, appealing to the scriptures in proof of the second coming of the Savior and the great events to precede it. (David Osborn, Journal, November 20, 1880, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [57])

 

What is odd is that he would appeal to Scripture to teach about the truth of the Second Coming, but not make reference to the fact that Jesus would return in ~10 years time (unless Osborn did not believe Joseph Smith was teaching the Parousia would take place in 1890/91).

 

Elsewhere, during a High Priest’s theological class study held December 17, 1883, there is a discussion of the Second Coming, but no reference to it taking place in ~7-8 years time:

 

Last fall we had 6 or 7 Elders more ordained into the High Priests Quorum by our President Br. Roskelly. We were counseled by him to change the order of our meetings into a Theological Class, taking up at each meeting a certain subject or principle of the Gospel to investigate. We have spoken on the following subjects: Faith Repentence and Baptism, The Gift and Office of the Holy Spirit, The Gathering of the House of Israel, The Second Coming of the Savior with all His Saints, The Restitution of all Things Spoken by the Ancient Prophets. I am now engaged in getting the Genealogy of the High Priests in our ward for our President to put on the record of the Cache Valley Stake of Zion. I have written and sent off several letters inquiring for the names and Genealogy of my kindred but get no answer. I have not visited my children at Three Mile or Bear Lake Valley for the past season, it seems a long time since we were together. (David Osborn, Journal, December 17, 1883, in Personal Journal of David Osborn, c. 1964, [71])

 

It appears that Osborn did not interpret Joseph Smith as teaching that the Second Coming/Parousia would take place in 1890/91.

 

Further Reading:

 

Resources on Joseph Smith’s Prophecies (e.g., Did Joseph Smith Predict that the Second Coming would happen in 1890/91?)

G. P. Luttikhuizen on Elkesite Beliefs Concerning the origins of their Holy Book

Critiquing Louis Midgley and the topic of angels being used to reveal new scriptural texts, Matthew A. Paulson wrote the following:

 

Angels Who Bring Heavenly Books

 

BYU professor Louis Midgley has states [sic],

 

Those steeped in traditional theological perspectives are offended because the text Joseph Smith gave us, the story of its recovery, and the relics are difficult to explain away as allegorical, mythical, or merely highly symbolic ways of talking about what is ultimately ineffable and entirely mysterious. Among such hostile professors of religion, either sectarian or secular, is the dogma that angels simply do not bring books of new scripture.” (Quote is from Louis Midley’s persona book review of By the Hand of Mormon: The American Scripture that Launched a New World Religion by Terryl L. Givens on Amazon website; www.amazon.com. [viewed Jan. 10, 2006])

 

Despite the false claims of Mormon scholars, the Book of Mormon is not the only book that has come from heaven. Besides the Qur’an, another holy book came from heaven to the Elkesites. According to Hippolytus (AD 170-236), the Elkesites arrived in Rome with a book Alcibiades from Apameia from Syria who was an evil man. He brought this book of modern revelations to have come from Elkesai, the founder of the group. It was recorded that the book had fallen from the sky. (Matthew A. Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship Regarding Classical Christian Theology and the Book of Mormon [Livermore, Calif.: WingSpan Press, 2006], 232)

 

Firstly, it should be obvious that Louis Midgley (whom I know personally) was speaking about the acceptance of additional books of revelation as authentic revelation by 19th century and modern Christians. Of course, Louis knows about the Qur’an and other works (including the book of Revelation, which was revealed, by Jesus, via an angel, to John). Furthermore, Paulson’s presentation of (1) Elkesite beliefs concerning the origins of their holy book and (2) Hippolytus’ understanding in “Refutation of all Heresies” is, to put it nicely, inadequate.

 

The best monograph in English on the topic is that of:

 

G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985)

 

The following are key excerpts dealing with the above two topics:

 

(1) On Elkesite understandings of the origin of their holy book:

 

 

The Two Heavenly Figures of Gigantic Size

 

Most likely, the interest of the book was more in the male angel than in his female companion. This is apparent from the passage (the opening passage?) in which the two figures were introduced. As can be inferred from the four parallel accounts of this passage, the male figure was mentioned first, subsequently his enormous measurements were recorded; only then reference was made to his companion, the Holy Spirit, a female being of equally great size. Note further that in his speaking of the revelatory character of the book, Alcibiades made explicit reference only to the male angel: “it (the book) had been revealed by an angel whose height was 24 schoeni . . .” (Hippolytus, Ref IX 13,2). Cf. 13,4a: “he” had proclaimed a new remission of sins.

 

If we may rely on the above two passages of Hippolytus, Ref IX 13, the message of the book was said to have been revealed particularly by the male figure. This quite possibly implies that the words, “I bear witness to you (plur.) on the Day of the Great Judgment”, were presented as a declaration made by this angelic being. It would seem, in other words, that in the Aramaic book it was the great male angel himself who declared that on the Great Judgment-day he would assist the hearers of his revelation.

 

The gigantic (or rather cosmic?) dimensions of the angel and his being accompanied by the Holy Spirit indicate that he was thought to be a heavenly figure of high rank and position. Perhaps some kind of esoteric speculation underlies the detailed calculation of their measurements.

 

A few features of the manlike angel may be elucidated by comparing them with ideas about such celestial figures as the archangel Michael, the heavenly Melchizedek, and the Son of Man in 1 Enoch.

 

As we have seen above, pp. 181f and 186f, there are reasons to assume that the angel was called hyl(’) ksy(’), “Hidden Power”. It is attractive to explain this name in the light of the concept of the hidden Son of Man as it occurs in the Similitudes of Enoch. According to 1 Enoch 62,7, the Son of Man was hidden from the beginning and preserved in God’s presence; but now God had revealed him to the elect (cf. 48,6f), and before long he would manifest himself in order to save the righteous and to punish and destroy the sinners, the kings and the mighty (1 Enoch 46,4–6; 48,8f; 55,4; 62,3–10). The Son of Man was clearly regarded as an eschatological Saviour figure; his hiddenness was therefore just temporary. In the near future he would be revealed to the whole world. I think that the enormous male angel of the book was called “Hidden Power” for a similar reason: as yet he was hidden with God but in the imminent universal war he was believed to manifest himself and to intervene in behalf of the faithful.

 

Likewise the designation “Great King” (Epiphanius, Pan 19,3,4; cf. Hippolytus, Ref IX 15,1) suggests that the manlike angel was expected to protect and defend the faithful. It is not improbable that some of the eschatological duties of the guardian angel of Israel, Michael, “the Great Prince”, were transferred to this huge angelic being. The identification of a supreme heavenly being with Michael, the head of the heavenly host, is not an isolated instance: there are strong indications that also the Son of Man, the heavenly “king” Melchizedek (in 11 Qumran Melchizedek), and, in Christian texts, Jesus Christ were identified with Michael.

 

It is not difficult to relate our interpretation of the huge manlike figure as a guardian angel and a heavenly representative of the faithful to the book’s announcement of a war among the impious angels (Hippolytus, Ref IX 16,4). It will be recalled that the future war was said to have repercussions in all impious kingdoms. This feature suggests that the godless angels were thought to be the protagonists of these kingdoms. We may assume that it was part of the revelation granted by the “Hidden Power” to assure his addressees that he would protect them during the imminent final war and that he was about to destroy the godless angels and their protégés upon earth.

 

There are reasons to surmise, in conclusion, that the manlike angel of the book was more than a revealer angel: the idea seems to have been that the eschatological Saviour himself had appeared to the author. It will be clear that this hypothesis enables us to explain why in later Christian traditions the angel is called “Son of God” (Hippolytus, Ref IX 13,3) and “Christ” (Epiphanius, Pan 19,3,4; 19,4,1; etc.).

 

The eschatological functions of this angel and those of his female companion, the Holy Spirit, were left unmentioned in the introductory description of these heavenly figures. Apparently, the purpose of this passage of the book was only to describe their appearance. It is noteworthy that according to the book, the huge male angel was accompanied by an equally tall female figure.

 

I think that the second angel, the Holy Spirit, was conceived as a female being merely because in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages the word for “spirit” is grammatically feminine (cf. above, n. 19). In any case, the belief in the existence of two supreme angels seems to me more fundamental than their being regarded as male and female. Are we dealing with a representation of the two chief manifestations of God according to the Hebrew Bible through an Angel of the Lord and through the Spirit of the Lord (who in Ps. 51:13 and Isa. 63:10 and in later Jewish texts is called “Holy Spirit”)? (G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists [Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985], 196-99)

 

(2) On Hippolytus’s presentation of the origins of the Elkesite holy book in “Refutation of all Heresies”:

 

The Book of Revelations

 

Finally, we present the data in the Refutation relating to the content and the message of the book (ἡ βίβλος, cf. IX 13,1.4; 15,1f.3.5; X 29,1).

 

Evidently, Hippolytus had no direct knowledge of this book. Information about the book is found exclusively in his reports of words and views of Alcibiades.

 

I do not aim at distinguishing clearly between quotations and other references to the book. For, firstly, it is not always easy to decide where we are dealing with a citation, and where not, and, secondly, the other references to the book are not a priori less valuable for our knowledge of the book than literal quotations.

 

a. The book contained the description of a vision of two celestial figures of enormous dimensions who had appeared to the anonymous author of the book.

 

Ref IX 13,2f.: “(Alcibiades said that the book) had been revealed by an angel whose height was 24 schoeni — that is 96 miles — and whose girth was 4 schoeni; from shoulder to shoulder he was 6 schoeni; the tracks of his feet were three and a half schoeni long — that is fourteen miles —, the breath being one and a half and the height half a schoenus. With him was a female whose dimensions, he said, accorded with those mentioned, the male being the Son of God and the female was called ‘Holy Spirit’.”

 

From a comparison between IX 13,3 and 15,1 it appears that the male angel was also designated as “the Great King”.

 

b. It was foretold in the book that within three years a war among the impious angels of the North would break out. Presumably this war was thought of as the opening act of an apocalyptic drama.

 

Ref IX 16,3: “Honour also the Sabbath, since it is one of these days. But beware of undertaking anything on the third day of the week too, for, when again three years of Emperor Trajan are completed, from the time he reduced the Parthians to his own sway, when three years have been completed, the war among the impious angels of the North breaks out. Thereby all impious kingdoms are troubled.”

 

c. The book seems to have stipulated how men should act if they wished to be sure of “peace and a share with the just” (cf. IX 15,3).

 

Ref IX 13,4: “(Alcibiades said) that he (the male angel) had proclaimed a new remission of sins ‘as good news to men in the third year of Trajan’s reign.’”

 

Ref IX 15,3: “. . . also to you there will be peace and a share with the just, as soon as you have heard this book (and have been baptized a second time with your garments on).”

 

Ref IX 15,2f.: “Let him call to witness the seven witnesses written in this book: ‘Lo, I call to witness the heaven and the water and the holy spirits and the angels of prayer and the oil and the salt and the earth. I call to witness these seven witnesses that I shall sin no more, I shall not commit adultery, I shall not steal, I shall not do injustice, I shall not be greedy, I shall not hate, I shall not break faith, nor shall I take pleasure in any evil deeds.’”

 

d. The prescription, “honour the Sabbath” (IX 16,3), indicates that we are dealing with a Jewish book. More questionable is whether the author was familiar with Christian ideas. Alcibiades’ designation of the male angel as the Son of God seems to be a reference to (Jesus) Christ, but we are not warranted to say that this title and its possible application to Jesus Christ stem from the text of the book. The references to Parthia, the Parthians, and in particular to Emperor Trajan and his victory over the Parthians (IX 13,1.4, and 16,4 according to Roepper’s emendation) give a clue to the historical situation in which the book was written. (G. P. Luttikhuizen, The Revelation of Elchasai: Investigations into the Evidence for a Mesopotamian Jewish Apocalypse of the Second Century and Its Reception by Judeo-Christian Propagandists [Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 8; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1985], 87-88)

 

Further Reading:


Listing of articles responding to "Breaking the Mormon Code"


David J. A. Clines (1993) Interpeting Haman's Fate in the Book of Esther as Impalement, not Hanging

  

The second dimension is of course the more momentous: it continues to fuel the progress of the story well beyond the time when the conflict of Haman and Mordecai has ceased, with Haman impaled on the pole prepared for Mordecai (7.10). (David J. A. Clines, The Esther Scroll: The Story of a Story [Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993], 12)

 

Haman is the only enemy the Jews have. Even his family are not portrayed as anti-Jewish, just anti-Mordecai. Zeresh his wife indeed recommends that Haman should arrange for Mordecai to be impaled on a 75-foot pole in their courtyard (5.14), but this advice seems more to humour her husband who confesses that every honour does him no good, 'so long as I see Mordecai sitting at the king's gate' (5.13), rather than out of any settled hatred of the Jewish people as such. (Ibid., 43)

 

But the important point, which the commentators miss, is that Haman's associates evince no indelible anti-Jewish sentiment but capitulate to the Jewish side as soon as Haman suffers no more than a symbolic rejection. They were eager enough to have Mordecai impaled when Mordecai's continued tenure of office was taking the edge off Haman's delight in hobnobbing with the royals (5.13f.), but the moment Haman tells them of the rather farcical charade in which he—still 'one of the king's most noble princes' according to his own job description (6.9)—has paraded Mordecai through the streets they meekly accept that their patron has no chance before the unstoppable Jewish people. Haman is out in the cold, where he has always really been, the enemy of the Jews, their one and only. (Ibid., 44)

 

In the narrative, unlike the summary, the king did not give orders 'in writing' for the execution of Haman or the impalement of Haman and his sons. . . . Of lesser significance is the fact that the summary gives the impression that Haman and his sons were impaled at the same time, whereas in the narrative some months have intervened between the two events. The compression of the two events is understandable in a summary. (Ibid., 53)

 

The plot-element of the threat to Mordecai has been essentially located within the court: it has been the king's servants at the king's gate who in the first place noticed his insubordination to Haman (3.3), and it has been only at home with his wife and confidants that the fate of Mordecai has been discussed. An eunuch in attendance on the king has discovered that the pole in Haman's courtyard has been prepared for the impalement of Mordecai (7.9). (Ibid., 64)

 

In MT, of course, the Jews slay the sons of Haman in the course of the massacre they carry out on Adar 13; and there Esther's request to the king is only that—after their death—Haman's sons should be impaled, and so, presumably, meet the same fate as their father already has. (Ibid., 80)

 

The king's command to hang/impale Haman on his own gallows/stake (AT 8.13; MT 7.10) is now followed by a report: 'So they impaled Haman on the pole which he had prepared for Mordecai'. (Ibid., 99)

 

The second half of ch. 5 (vv. 9-14) must belong to the Mordecai source since it depicts Raman's wrath against Mordecai, and puts forward the idea that Mordecai should be impaled by Haman; and these verses are necessarily preceded by some account of a banquet given by Esther. (Ibid., 120)

 

I have earlier (section II above) voiced the suspicion that at MT 7.8 the Esther source gave some account of Haman's end—which has now been supplanted by the much more fitting punishment of impalement on the very pole that he had destined for Mordecai. The MT of 7.8 is far from clear, but the AT does give a hint of a more explicit account of Haman's end. After exclaiming 'Does he also rape my wife before my eyes?', in the AT (8.1 If.) the king commands, 'Let Haman be taken away, and let him not seek (? mercy)' (απαχθητω Αμαν και μη ζητω)—to which is added, 'And so he was led away' (και ουτως απηγετο). (Ibid., 129)

 

A eunuch reveals to the king that Haman has been preparing to impale Mordecai on a pole in his courtyard.3 Such a crime against the man who 'spoke good concerning the king' (AT 8.12) can only be correctly punished by the principle of talion. So Haman is impaled, and Mordecai is installed in Haman's place (AT 8.15; MT 8.2); perhaps also some more formal installation of Mordecai as vizier, such as we have in MT 8.15, concluded the tale, but the notice of such an event as we have it in AT 8.39-40 does not appear to be original to the AT but dependent on the MT shape of the story. (Ibid., 142)

 

In the LXX of Esther also, at two critical junctures, we read that 'God changed the spirit of the king to gentleness' (καί μετέβαλεν ό θεός τό πνεύμα τού βασιλέως είς πραύτητα) when Esther entered his presence (D8 = 15.8); and that on the crucial night before the planned impalement of Mordecai, 'the Lord kept sleep from the king' (ό δέ κύριος άπέστησεν τόν ύπνον άπό τού βασιλέως, 6.1). (Ibid., 170)

 

In this particular AT 8.37 agrees with Addition E (AT 8.28 = LXX 16.18); but the relationship between this element of AT and Addition E is not very clear. It may be added that Addition E contradicts the MT and LXX on another aspect of this episode: according to MT, Haman was impaled on the twenty-third of the third month (8.9), but his sons were not impaled until the fourteenth of the twelfth month (9.13). (Ibid., 189 n. 28)

 

Saturday, September 26, 2026

Scriptural Mormonism Podcast Episode 109: Kirk Watson on 2 Nephi 3 and the Indian Prophet Traditions

 

Episode 109: Kirk Watson on 2 Nephi 3 and the Indian Prophet Traditions








2 Catholics Vs 2 Mormons: Who Has the Correct Authority From God?

Here, Blake and Jacob destroy two Roman Catholics (including Voice of Reason; I hope neither shook hands with him . . . )


2 Catholics Vs 2 Mormons: Who Has the Correct Authority From God?







George Van Kooten: Athenagoras and Justin Martyr Believed in Creation Ex Materia, Not Ex nihilo

  

Many of the early Christians who adopted Plato’s explanation in their interpretations of the creation account in Genesis 1 agreed with the former, literal Platonic interpretation that the cosmos was created in time; with Plato’s Timaeus, they believed that this was not a creation from nothing, but a creation from pre-existing, disorderly matter which was put in order. These early Christians include Justin and Athenagoras. Interestingly, their interpretation of the account in Genesis 1 as an explanation how chaotic, disorderly, pre-existing matter was organized in creation has been vindicated by many modern exegetes of Genesis 1, who are of the opinion that Genesis 1 does not reflect the notion of a creation from nothing, but that the depiction of how “the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep” (Gen 1:2) describes the preliminary situation, which is changed by the creation that is already announced in the opening line of the book of Genesis (Gen 1:1) and subsequently described in what follows the description of preliminary chaos. (George Van Kooten, “’Mind the (Ontological) Gap!’: The Collateral Loss of the Pauline-Stoic Creation ‘From God’ in the Joint Attack of the Arian-Nicene Creation ‘From Nothing’ on the platonic Creation ‘From Disorderly Matter,’” in From Protology to Eschatology: Competing Views on the Origin and the End of the Cosmos in Platonism and Christian Thought, ed. Joseph Verheyden, Geert Roskam, and Gerd Van Riel [Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum 130; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2022], 168-69)

 

Friday, September 25, 2026

Notes on Esther 2:23 and Impalement/Crucifixion

  

impaled on stakes. The Hebrew appears to say “were hanged on a tree,” but the historical evidence points to impalement, not hanging, as the customary form of execution in the ancient Near East. In many instances, the condemned person was put to death in some other fashion and his impaled body was then displayed as a form of humiliation. (Robert Alter, The Hebrew Bible, 3 vols. [New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2019], 3:723)

 

 

Gallows are a structure made from upright posts and a crossbeam from which a person was hanged with a rope, or he was nailed to the crossbeam. The Hebrew is literally “hanged on a tree [or, wood],” but the exact meaning of this phrase is not entirely clear. It can refer to hanging, but alternatively it can mean “impaled on a stake” (see Ezra 6:11), and historical evidence indicates that the Persians did use that form of punishment. This second interpretation is followed by njv, “the two were impaled on stakes.”

 

Also possible is the view that crucifixion is meant; but because of the height of the structure built by Haman in 5:14, many interpreters think that the references to hanging in Esther 2:23; 5:14; 6:4; 7:9, 10; 8:7; 9:13, 14, 25 all refer to gallows, that is, to strangulation by hanging from a rope that is tied around the neck (so tev and nearly all translations).

 

Where structures for hanging are not known, it may be necessary to use a descriptive phrase; for instance, “a wooden structure for hanging [or, killing].” (Roger L. Omanson and Philip A. Noss, A Handbook on the Book of Esther: The Hebrew and Greek Texts [UBS Handbook Series; New York: United Bible Societies, 1997], 85)

 

 

The Heb. word typically translated “gallows” here literally means “tree,” or simply “wooden object.” There is no evidence in antiquity for execution by hanging someone with a noose around their neck and allowing them to strangle. More likely, the text refers to the common practice of impaling victims on wooden stakes. This barbaric practice could be used either as an actual method of execution, or—more often—it could be used to display the bodies of people who were executed by other means. As a method of execution, impalement would have been very painful; the real purpose of the practice, however, was not so much torture as to make a public display of the malefactors. Another possibility, though less likely, is that the text was referring to crucifixion, which the Persians also practiced (Hist. 7.33, 194; see also Clines, 292–93). (Anthony Tomasino, Esther [Evangelical Exegetical Commentary; Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2016], 206)

 

 

Ezra 6:11 may imply that the Persians continued to use impalement as a method of execution. The references to “hanging” in Esther (2:23; 5:14) probably refer to either impalement or crucifixion. The “hangman’s noose” was not commonly used in Persia during the biblical period. The word translated as “gallows” in the NKJV refers not to a scaffold for hanging with a rope, but a pole or stake for impaling.

 

Crucifixion on a stake or cross was practiced by the Greeks, notably Alexander the Great, who hung 2,000 people on crosses when the city of Tyre was destroyed. During the period between Greek and Roman control of Palestine, the Jewish ruler Alexander Jannaeus crucified 800 Pharisees who opposed him at Bethome. But these executions were condemned as detestable and abnormal by decent-minded people of Jannaeus’s day as well as by the later Jewish historian, Josephus. (Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary, ed. Ronald F. Youngblood, F. F. Bruce, and R. K. Harrison [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., 1995], Logos Bible Software edition)

 

Blog Archive