Jonathan was the high priest over Jerusalem for only one year or less in 36 AD Josephus says he was offered to serve again under King Agrippa I, but declined asking the king to consider his brother Matthias, which the king did and appointed Matthias high priest. He was the brother of Jonathan and fourth son of Annas, the Jews’ first high priest appointed by Rome when Judea became a Roman province. The question is, however, did Jonathan ever reign again as high priest. I didn’t think so, but after rereading Josephus’ account of Jewish history around the time of Paul’s imprisonment, I’ve had to change my point of view.
Just before the term of Felix as governor of Judea, Cumanus had the governorship, and there was a small sedition between the Jews and the Samaritans. It was begun by the Samaritans according to Josephus, but Cumanus was induced through bribery to overlook the offenses committed. The problem is Quadratus, the Syrian governor, heard what had occurred and at first blamed the Jews. He became involved in the dispute and found out that the responsibility of the sedition may have been on the part of the Samaritans, and covered up by Cumanus. He, therefore, then sent all responsible parties to Rome to be heard before Caesar, and Ananias, the high priest, was sent to Rome in chains. When Quadratus went to Jerusalem, expecting to find the Jews in an uproar, instead he found them peaceable and quietly worshiping God during their Holy Day season.
Since the death of Herod of Chalcis, the responsibility of appointing Jerusalem’s high priests had gone to Herod Agrippa, son of Agrippa I who had killed James in Acts 12. Josephus tells us that when a later high priest was detained in Rome, he appointed a new high priest [Antiquities of the Jews; 20, 8, 11]. However, Josephus is silent about what became of the priesthood, when Ananias had been taken to Rome in chains. He says this occurred during the time of a Jewish festival, which argues for the Jews to be in an uproar over what had occurred to their high priest, but Josephus records that when the Syrian governor went to Jerusalem, he found all was peaceful. What had occurred to produce such peace?
Josephus says that, after the proceedings in Rome went in the Jews’ favor, with the aid of King Agrippa, Claudius made Felix governor and banished Cumanus [Antiquities of the Jews; 20, 6, 3 & 20, 7, 1]. Later Josephus tells us that Felix was appointed governor of Judea by Claudius at the request of Jonathan [Antiquities of the Jews; 20, 8, 5]. What possible say could Jonathan have had over who should have the governorship of Judea, unless he had been appointed high priest? Josephus tells us that Agrippa was already in Rome when Ananias had arrived in chains to be heard by Claudius. Was he there by chance or did he go there after appointing Jonathan as high priest to see how the proceedings would fall? Again Josephus is vague. Yet he refers to Jonathan as the high priest who had been interfering in Felix’ affairs.
Felix had been appointed governor of Judea in 52 AD. After he arrived he busied himself in taking care of the robber problem that plagued the Jews. However, he no sooner got rid of what appeared to be the ring leader, Eleazar, when three other types of bands arose: the Sicarii, impostors claiming to be sent by God, and one particular false prophet from Egypt, concerning whom Paul was at first believed to be (Acts 21:37-38). My point here is to show that Jonathan may have been the reigning high priest at the time of Paul’s imprisonment at Jerusalem and Caesarea.
In his address to the Jews, who had driven him from the Temple to be stoned, Paul refers to “the high priest” who could verify his testimony that he had at one time persecuted the Way that he now preached as true (Acts 22:4-5). Paul could not have been referring to Ananias who had obtained the honor much later.
Ananias, son of Nebedaeus, the high-priest of the Jews, succeeded Joseph, son of Camith, A.D. 47. He was sent by Quadratus, governor of Syria to Rome, to answer for his conduct to the emperor Claudius; but he justified himself, was acquitted, and returned. Jos. Ant. xx. 6. 2. He did not, however again recover the high priesthood; for during the time that Felix was procurator of Judea, Jonathan, the successor of Ananias, was high-priest. But Felix having caused him to be assassinated in the temple, (Jos. Ant. xx. 8. 5.) the office remained vacant, until king Agrippa gave it to Ishmael the son of Phabeus (ib. xx. 8.8). [Calmet’s Dictionary of the Holy Bible; I. Ananias; p.57]
Josephus’ accounts of the robbers, Sicarii and the impostors claiming to be sent by God, and particularly the Egyptian false prophet, seem to be placed in his history as editorials surrounding his account of Jonathan’s death at the hand of Felix. There is no compelling reason to believe Jonathan was murdered before the Egyptian impostor arrived on the scene. All seem to be the backdrop upon which Josephus tells the story of Jonathan’s death.
“Felix also bore an ill-will to Jonathan the high priest, because he frequently gave him admonitions about governing the Jewish affairs better than he did, lest he (i.e. Jonathan) should himself have complaints made of him by the multitude, since he it was who had desired Caesar to send him as procurator of Judea. So Felix contrived a method whereby he might get rid of him, now he was become so continually troublesome to him; for such continual admonitions are grievous to those who are disposed to act unjustly. Wherefore Felix persuaded one of Jonathan’s most faithful friends, a citizen of Jerusalem whose name was Doras, to bring the robbers upon Jonathan, in order to kill him; and this he did by promising to give him a great deal of money for so doing. Doras complied with the proposal, and contrived matters so, that the robbers might murder him in the following manner:—Certain of those robbers went up to the city, as if they were going to worship God, while they had daggers under their garments; and, by thus mingling themselves among the multitude, they slew Jonathan; and this murder was never avenged…” [Antiquities of the Jews; 20, 8, 5; (parenthesis and emphasis mine)]
It appears that it was this very type of people who had put themselves under a vow to slay Paul (Acts 23:12-15). This would mean that the high priests were using such robbers to carry out their own illegal activities, which Josephus also verifies [Antiquities of the Jews; 20, 8, 8]. Notice in the above quote from Josephus that Felix was under pressure by Jonathan to act out of his office “unjustly.” If Jonathan was indeed the high priest reigning at the time of Paul’s capture and imprisonment, he may have been constantly requiring Felix to slay Paul, and that he owed him (Jonathan) this favor for requesting him specifically for his present office as procurator over the Jews. If this is so, I find it very interesting that Jonathan should be slain by the very men that he employed to kill Paul.
Smoodock's Blog 