Herod the Great was appointed King of the Jews by the Roman senate in 40 BC. But it was in 37 BC, when he captured Jerusalem which Antigonus the beleaguered Hasmonean ruler of Palestine had held on to, that he became undisputed King. That is why official history chronicles his reign as spanning the years 37 BC to 4 BC. In truth, however, his reign commenced in 40 BC.
Based on their reading of the apocryphal book of Enoch, the Herodians (and much of the Jewish establishment) naively reckoned that the world had been created in 3941 BC (Year 0) and that it was going to last for a total of 4900 years, or approximately 5000 years, before God came down to assume direct rule of Earth, a setup called a theocracy.
In line with this reckoning, therefore, the year 41 BC marked exactly 3900 years since creation and the onset of the final, 1000-year epoch, a millennium. As such, the apocalyptic Last Judgement was expected to occur between 960 AD and 1000 AD. When Paul in his epistles stressed that “we are in the last days”, he essentially spoke in this context though mistakenly so of course.
Now, in those days, a generation amounted to 40 years. Herod therefore called the first 40 years from 41 BC as Generation 1. Generation 1 was to be dedicated to an indoctrination of the world – disguised as evangelising – with the notion of the Kingdom of God. Herod’s aim was for his descendents to rule not only Palestine but the whole wide world so that when God (not Jesus, please take note) descended to establish a theocracy, he would find a Herodian on the planet’s geopolitical throne.
Joseph, Theudas Barabbas, and their fellow Essenes took very strong exception to such a scenario. As far as they were concerned, God had to find a Davidic King on the world throne when he came circa 1000 AD. If this prospect was not to come to pass, it was only because Jesus, the next in the Davidic line of succession after his father Joseph, was a divisive figure: he was not universally recognised by the Jerusalem establishment owing to the questionable circumstances of his birth. In order to ensure the Davidic succession was not forever jeopardised, Joseph set about siring a son in a manner that perfectly conformed to the prescribed dynastic procreational parameters so that this son was acknowledged by all and sundry as a fitting Davidic heir. Of particular importance was that the son had to be born in the right month – September, the holiest month in the Jewish calendar. Joseph did not intend to disinherit Jesus: he was simply hedging his bets.
JAMES, THE COMPROMISE MESSIAH Jesus had been born on Sunday March 7 BC. According to Essene dynastic procreational rules, Joseph had to wait for six years before he sired a second-born (he would have waited for only three years had Jesus been a daughter). And so it was that in December 1 BC, Joseph resumed sexual relations with his wife Mary (since for dynastic families sex was purely for procreation and not for pleasure as per strict Essene chastity rules, the couple had not copulated in the intervening years). Nine months later, they were blessed with a baby boy as per their wish. Joseph gave him the name Cleopas, after one of his two younger brothers who were twins. He would, however, become best-known by the titular names Jacob and James in adulthood.
Since James was born at the prescribed time, he was straightaway hailed as the Jewish messiah by the High Priest of the Jerusalem temple Joazar, at the expense of his elder brother Jesus. The Essenes, however, still held that Jesus was the rightful messiah irrespective of the scandalous nature of his birth. The controversy was to linger for a long time to come, both among the Jews and within Jesus’ own family, with Mary inclined, at least initially, towards a recognition of James and Joseph gravitating towards Jesus. More will be said on these family dialectics as the Jesus Papers progress.
To the Essenes, it was the birth of James that marked the beginning of the countdown to 1000 AD and not the year 41 BC. Hence the year in which James was born was designated AD 1 (it was not called that before: it was called 754 AUC, that is, 754 years after the founding of the city of Rome). The years 41 BC to 1 BC were therefore unilaterally re-designated as Generation Zero by the Essenes. It was the first 40 years from AD 1 that became Generation 1. This revised outlook explains why this period was characterised by fevered evangelising and ministration by Jesus, John the Baptist, and the apostolate.
ZECHARIAH IS KILLED During the reign of Herod Archelaus, the dynamics radically changed at Qumran. First, the Diaspora Essenes became much more influential and increasingly assertive. The Diaspora Essenes, who included the Theraputae, were doctrinally more liberal than the rigid Palestinian Essenes, the latter of whom included Simeon and Joseph the father of Jesus. Because of their relaxed moral rules, the Diaspora Essenes were cynically branded as “seekers-after-smooth-things”. Second, schisms emerged, renting asunder the solidarity that held firm all along. There was a peace faction on the one hand and a belligerent faction on the other.
The belligerent faction was led by a fire-breathing nationalist known as Judas of Galilee, who had arrived at Qumran in AD 4 as commander of the Zealots, the private though ragtag guerilla army of the Essenes. Barabbas too was initially a member of the belligerent faction, as was Judas Iscariot, both of whom would in time become disciples of Jesus.
The belligerent faction was privately sponsored by Herod Archelaus and supported by High Priest Joazar. Its aim was to drive away the Romans and therefore win independence for Palestine. In order to effectively inculcate to his army the art of war, Judas of Galilee wrote up a war manual, now called the War Scroll and which was among the Dead Sea find. It was under Judas of Galilee that the Zealots became a household name.
The peace faction was led by Simeon, the Essene’s second-ranking (Abiathar) priest who also went by the title Angel Gabriel. It included Joseph and Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist who sat at the apex of the Essene priestly hierarchy. Its aim was to act as a check on the insurrectionist propensities of the belligerent faction though to no avail.
Now, Archelaus seemed to have a kind of split personality. Although he professed a predilection to free the Jews in the behind-the-scenes counsels with the Essene high command, he ruled his subjects with an iron fist. He was said to be even more callous than his deceased father.
The peace faction therefore had justification to suspect that he was actually working in cahoots with Rome as an agent provocateur whilst pretending to be allied with the Essenes. As a result, the peace faction convinced Barabbas to defect from the pro-Archelaus belligerent faction and join forces with them in a plot to eliminate Archelaus and depose a supine Joazar from the priesthood.
This conspiracy was broached at a top-secret meeting where Zechariah, Simeon, and Joseph were in attendance early in AD 6. Also present was Annas, the “new kid on the block” who was tipped to replace Joazar as High Priest. Annas, who in future would part-preside over the trial of Jesus, had undertaken to recognise Jesus, now on the cusp of 12 years of age, as the Davidic messiah, a position that had consistently been the stance of the Essenes.
The meeting was a stormy and fateful affair. For reasons that are not amply chronicled in the records of the day, sparks flew and violence ensued. In the process, Zechariah was killed by an agent of Judas of Galilee. Joseph’s younger brother Ptolas, Cleopas’s twin, also died in this same scuffle. As the spiritual leader of the Essenes – and probably as a term simply of veneration – Zechariah was also known as the Teacher of Righteousness, a titular distinction that is regularly encountered in the pages of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Shortly thereafter, his only child, young John the Baptist, was named as his successor. In other words, Little John was the new Zadok Priest, Archangel Michael, Lord God, and Teacher of Righteousness, all titles of which his father had carried. He was to be mentored and chaperoned by the patriarchal Simeon. Meanwhile, Annas was briefed to hold fort for Little John till he was 30, the age of high priesthood.
ARCHELAUS IS DEPOSED Herod Archelaus was vindictive to a point of self-destruction. Josephus relates that he “used not the Jews only, but the Samaritans also, barbarously; and this out of his resentment of their old quarrels with him”. When he had 3000 protesting Jews slaughtered in the temple whilst his father was in his death throes in 4 BC, he was petitioned before Roman Emperor Augustus Caesar. The Jews bemoaned to the emperor that they had had enough of Herodian tyranny and would rather they were directly ruled by a Roman authority than a dynasty of dubious Jews. They bid the emperor that Judea be overseen by the Roman governor in charge of Syria, one reason Archelaus was put on an open-ended probation. It was apparent that this probation now seemed to have run its course.
In AD 6, things came to a head. Once again, Archelaus was arraigned before Augustus. Josephus: “In the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar.” As he sailed to Rome to answer to the charges preferred against him, Archelaus was almost certain this was a one-way voyage. The Qumran sage Simeon had indicated to him that that might well be his fate. Archelaus had had a dream in which he saw “nine ears of corn, full and large, but devoured by oxen”. Seeking an explanation to this riddle, he consulted Simeon, who Josephus acknowledges as the greatest fortune teller of his day. Simeon spelt out to him that he would rule no more than 9 years, after which an eerily dark chapter would dawn in his life. Exactly five days later, Archelaus was summoned to Rome, distressed that AD 6 was his 9th year on the throne.
The glory days were certainly over. At Rome, Augustus confirmed the inevitable. He had given Archelaus more than ample time – or was it ample rope? – to prove himself and he had been an absolute fiasco. He was dethroned and banished to Vienna in modern-day France, where he would die in obscurity. The Jews were now going to be given what they had requested of Caesar in 4 BC. Judea, along with Samaria and Idumea, was annexed to Syria. It was to be overseen by the governor of Syria and directly administered by a Roman procurator. The first such procurator was Lucius Coponius though the most famous is Pontius Pilate.
Now that Judea had come under direct Roman rule, Augustus commissioned Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, the governor of Syria, to conduct a census there for purposes of assessing potential tax income (LUKE 2:2). All Jews who owned property in Judea were required to return home for the census. This included Joseph, who although officially domiciled in Galilee (for strategic purposes) actually had property in Jerusalem bequeathed to him by his father Jacob-Heli. At the time though, Joseph was already in Judea, at Qumran, with Mary and young Jesus, who was being prepared for his Bar-Mitzvah ceremony which had fallen due now that he was 12 years old.
The AD 6 census was the first one of its kind in Palestine. Judas of Galilee, the Zealot commander, vowed he would resist it to the death. To him, Rome was consolidating its rule over the Jews rather than relax it. Besides, he was indignant that his secret allies Archelaus and Joazar had been deposed. So having disposed of Zechariah, Judas of Galilee broke ranks with fellow Essenes and incited a full-scale revolt against the incoming Roman administration (ACTS 5:37). The upheaval was promptly put down by Coponius and Judas was captured and killed. The bulk of the insurrectionists, however, simply melted into the civilian population Al Qaeda-style.
The failure of the Judas uprising meant the belligerent faction at Qumran had lost out in the bigger picture and the peace faction had triumphed. In the event, Annas, who was allied with the peace faction, replaced Joazar as High Priest, trusted by Coponius to foster harmonious relations between Jews and Rome. That, however, did not mean that the Zealots were no more. They remained very much a cornerstone of the Essene institutional edifice as they were central to a future popular revolution that was always imminent. In fact, following the demise of Judas the Galilean, another Judas promptly took his place. He was Judas Iscariot.
The Central Bank has by way of its Monetary Policy Statement informed us that the Botswana economy is likely to contract by 8.9 percent over the course of the year 2020.
The IMF paints an even gloomier picture – a shrinkage of the order of 9.6 percent. That translates to just under $2 billion hived off from the overall economic yield given our average GDP of roughly $18 billion a year. In Pula terms, this is about P23 billion less goods and services produced in the country and you and I have a good guess as to what such a sum can do in terms of job creation and sustainability, boosting tax revenue, succouring both recurrent and development expenditure, and on the whole keeping our teeny-weeny economy in relatively good nick.
Joseph’s and Judah’s family lines conjoin to produce lineal seed
Just to recap, General Atiku, the Israelites were not headed for uncharted territory. The Promised Land teemed with Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These nations were not simply going to cut and run when they saw columns of battle-ready Israelites approach: they were going to fight to the death.
Parliament has begun debates on three related Private Members Bills on the conditions of service of members of the Security Sector.
The Bills are Prisons (Amendment) Bill, 2019, Police (Amendment) Bill, 2019 and Botswana Defence Force (Amendment) Bill, 2019. The Bills seek to amend the three statutes so that officers are placed on full salaries when on interdictions or suspensions whilst facing disciplinary boards or courts of law.
In terms of the Public Service Act, 2008 which took effect in 2010, civil servants who are indicted are paid full salary and not a portion of their emolument. Section 35(3) of the Act specifically provides that “An employee’s salary shall not be withheld during the period of his or her suspension”.
However, when parliament reformed the public service law to allow civil servants to unionize, among other things, and extended the said protection of their salaries, the process was not completed. When the House conferred the benefit on civil servants, members of the disciplined forces were left out by not accordingly amending the laws regulating their employment.
The Bills stated above seeks to ask Parliament to also include members of the forces on the said benefit. It is unfair not to include soldiers or military officers, police officers and prison waders in the benefit. Paying an officer who is facing either external or internal charges full pay is in line with the notion of ei incumbit probation qui dicit, non qui negat or the presumption of innocence; that the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies.
The officers facing charges, either internal disciplinary or criminal charges before the courts, must be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Paying them a portion of their salary is penalty and therefore arbitrary. Punishment by way of loss of income or anything should come as a result of a finding on the guilt by a competent court of law, tribunal or disciplinary board.
What was the rationale behind this reform in 2008 when the Public Service Act was adopted? First it was the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise.
The presumption of innocence is the legal principle that one is considered “innocent until proven guilty”. In terms of the constitution and other laws of Botswana, the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
Withholding a civil servant’s salary because they are accused of an internal disciplinary offense or a criminal offense in the courts of law, was seen as punishment before a decision by a tribunal, disciplinary board or a court of law actually finds someone culpable. Parliament in its wisdom decided that no one deserves this premature punishment.
Secondly, it was considered that people’s lives got destroyed by withholding of financial benefits during internal or judicial trials. Protection of wages is very important for any worker. Workers commit their salaries, they pay mortgages, car loans, insurances, schools fees for children and other things. When public servants were experiencing salary cuts because of interdictions, they lost their homes, cars and their children’s future.
They plummeted into instant destitution. People lost their livelihoods. Families crumbled. What was disheartening was that in many cases, these workers are ultimately exonerated by the courts or disciplinary tribunals. When they are cleared, the harm suffered is usually irreparable. Even if one is reimbursed all their dues, it is difficult to almost impossible to get one’s life back to normal.
There is a reasoning that members of the security sector should be held to very high standards of discipline and moral compass. This is true. However, other more senior public servants such as judges, permanent secretary to the President and ministers have faced suspensions, interdictions and or criminal charges in the courts but were placed on full salaries.
The yardstick against which security sector officers are held cannot be higher than the aforementioned public officials. It just wouldn’t make sense. They are in charge of the security and operate in a very sensitive area, but cannot in anyway be held to higher standards that prosecutors, magistrates, judges, ministers and even senior officials such as permanent secretaries.
Moreover, jail guards, police officers and soldiers, have unique harsh punishments which deter many of them from committing misdemeanors and serious crimes. So, the argument that if the suspension or interdiction with full pay is introduced it would open floodgates of lawlessness is illogical.
Security Sector members work in very difficult conditions. Sometimes this drives them into depression and other emotional conditions. The truth is that many seldom receive proper and adequate counseling or such related therapies. They see horrifying scenes whilst on duty. Jail guards double as hangmen/women.
Detectives attend to autopsies on cases they are dealing with. Traffic police officers are usually the first at accident scenes. Soldiers fight and kill poachers. In all these cases, their minds are troubled. They are human. These conditions also play a part in their behaviors. They are actually more deserving to be paid full salaries when they’re facing allegations of misconduct.
To withhold up to 50 percent of the police, prison workers and the military officers’ salaries during their interdiction or suspensions from work is punitive, insensitive and prejudicial as we do not do the same for other employees employed by the government.
The rest enjoy their full salaries when they are at home and it is for a good reason as no one should be made to suffer before being found blameworthy. The ruling party seems to have taken a position to negate the Bills and the collective opposition argue in the affirmative. The debate have just began and will continue next week Thursday, a day designated for Private Bills.