Who Was Onias III ?
A somewhat obscure High Priest from the time when Judea was controlled by the Ptolemaic and then Seleucid Kingdoms, Onias III has somehow become a magnet for all kinds of oddball theories about him.
Onias III was the grandson of Onias II, the son and successor of Simon II, and the High Priest from 190-172 BC. Some folks, especially some folks online (and some in the academy) claim all kinds of wild things about this somewhat obscure — but admittedly significant — historical figure. Articles exist which make a case that Onias III was the Teacher of Righteousness of the Qumran Community (the online randoms).1 There are articles arguing that some of Daniel’s prophecies refer to Onias III (these are those mainly from the academy side). There’s even a YouTube channel or two where the hosts claim Onias III was the Messiah (eg, my friend and sometimes debate opponent, Judah Natzarah)! To be frank, the truth is a lot less sensational than any of those … so let’s find out, just who was Onias III?
THE POLITICAL BACKGROUND DURING THE TIME OF ONIAS III
After Alexander the Great’s death in 323 BC, his Empire was divided into three separate empires. Here is the breakdown of the Kingdoms of the Diadochi:
— The Antigonids ruled Macedonia and Greece
— The Ptolemies ruled over Egypt and the Levant coast
— The Seleucids ruled over Syria, Mesopotamia, and Iran
Judea, initially part of the Ptolemaic Empire, was also within the sphere of the political influence of the Seleucid part of Syria. Here’s how those twin realities played out in history.
Greek-based Hellenistic populations built cities on the coast of Israel. From there, Hellenistic culture spread out into the larger Jewish population. Much of the Jewish upper class, including the aristocratic priests, were pro-Hellenist; many readily accepted and even desired the intrusion of Greek ways of life into Judea.
Under Ptolemaic rule, there was no governor of Judea. Practically speaking, the High Priest became the most important political functionary. In his chapter on “The Sociological Settings of the Components of 1 Enoch”, Patrick Tiller writes: “At the beginning of Ptolemaic rule over Judea the Jerusalem high-priesthood had attained a position of power at the head of what amounted to a temple-state.”2 This de facto political importance may be why some people understand Onias III to be "the prince of the covenant" of Daniel 11:22 (more on that later).3 By default, Onias III was essentially the political head of Judea at this time.
TRANSITION: FROM PTOLEMAIC TO SELEUCID RULE
Continuing on with the general governmental structure in Judea at that time: underneath the High Priest (Onias III in our timeline) was the gerusia (γερονσία) or “Council of Elders”. Then there was the National Assembly, which became more important later, under the Maccabean rule.
Around 200 BC, Judea came under Seleucid rule after Antiochus III bested the Ptolemies. Antiochus III allowed the free practice of Judaism. He even gave a three year tax exemption to Judea. He even financially supported an expansion of both Jerusalem and the temple.
At this time, the religiously faithful Onias III (Onias is his Greek name; his Hebrew name was Honi) was the High Priest in Jerusalem (a post he took in 198 BC). Evidence indicates that as a “traditionalist”, Onias III had pro-Ptolemaic sympathies. During King Seleucus IV Philopator’s reign (187–175 BC), Onias III supported the Ptolemies.
These facts (and perhaps opportunism) would lead the Pro-Seleucid faction party accused him of being disloyal to the Seleucid rulers. Onias III went to meet with King Seleucus IV to exonerate himself, for he wasn’t a political rebel. Onias III did not succeed. He had to end up staying in Antioch, as an exile. Meanwhile, Seleucus IV was murdered by Heliodorus in 175 BC.
Seleucus IV had a brother named Antiochus IV, also known as Epiphanes (1 Maccabees 1:10). Antiochus IV was the Seleucid king who followed Seleucus IV to rule over Syria. Israel at this time was considered part of Greater Syria. Antiochus IV was a true-blue hardcore Greek. He forcibly pushed Hellenism throughout the Seleucid Empire during his reign of 175-164 BC. Judea was not excluded.
HELLENIZATION IN JUDEA
Onias’ brother, Jason (2 Maccabees 1:7), wanted to replace Judaism with Hellenism. This is Hellenization, the process of adopting Greek customs. Jason was backed by a rich and powerful family, the pro-Seleucid Tobiad family.4 After Seleucus’ death, Jason bribed Antiochus IV to become the High Priest (2 Maccabees 4:7-10). Antiochus IV needed the extra money. The High Priest was supposed to keep his office until his death. Nonetheless, Jason promised to Hellenize Jerusalem by building a gymnasium and organizing the young men into a Greek cultural organization for military and athletic training.
Jason introduced Hellenistic institutions in Jerusalem. As Daniel Schwartz translates 2 Maccabees 4:7: “When he got royal approval and took control of the government, he immediately brought his co-religionists over to the Greek style.” These moves were popular, as Butler writes: “The Jews who looked favorably (and there were large numbers of them) on Greek culture opposed Onias and espoused the cause of his brother, Jason.” These pro-Greek actions were strongly condemned in 2 Maccabees 4:11.
FROM ONIAS III TO JASON TO MENELAUS …
In 172 BC, three years after Jason became High Priest, a rival named Menelaus, bribed Antiochus with even more money. According to 2 Maccabees, Menelaus was a Benjamite — one of many reasons he was not qualified to be High Priest. Needing the additional tribute, Antiochus IV removed Jason from the high priesthood and gave it to Menelaus. Jason was forced into exile. 2 Maccabees 4:33 relays that Onias III publicly exposed the fact that Menelaus had robbed the Temple. 2 Maccabees 4:32 tells us this is true. Menelaus “stole some of the gold vessels” of the temple to sell.
Onias III denounced all this shenanigans.
THE DEATH OF ONIAS III
Menelaus instigated the murder of Onias III at Antioch in 171 BC (the Syrian governor Andronicus had it carried it out). We find Onias III at Antioch, having fled near the heathen sanctuary of Daphne.5 This is a strange place to find a zealous and (forcibly) retired High Priest. Commentators note that wild sex parties consecrated the groves of Daphne. The account from the RSV translation of reads:
2 Maccabees 4:34-35
“Therefore Menelaus, taking Andronicus aside, urged him to kill Onias: Andronicus came to Onias, and resorting to treachery offered him sworn pledges and gave him his right hand: And in spite of his suspicion persuaded Onias to come out from the place of sanctuary: Then, with no regard for justice, he immediately put him out of the way: For this reason not only Jews, but many also of other nations, were grieved and displeased at the unjust murder of the man.”
Josephus gives a somewhat different version in Antiquities 12:05, "About this time, Onias having died, he (Epiphanes) gives the high-priesthood to his brother Jesus, for the son whom Onias left was only a child. This Jesus, who was brother of Onias, was deprived of the high-priesthood. The king, being angry with him, gave it to his youngest brother Onias." Oddly enough, 1 Maccabees does not even include the death of Onias III.
Menelaus was from a prominent family, but not related to Jason or Onias III. From reading his larger related account, it seems Josephus mistakes Menelaus as Oniad, the third brother of Onias III and Jason.
Antiochus was irritated by all the hoopla but another bribe from Menelaus mellowed him out — for now.
FROM JASON TO MENELAUS AND THEN BACK TO JASON …
Eventually, Jason drove out Melenaus. But then, Jason got killed. Apparently, Antiochus seemed to think that Judea was essentially in a state of revolt. He may have even felt his royal dignity was somehow insulted. He attacked Jerusalem and plundered the Temple. Many Judeans were led away as slaves. Antiochus banned Jewish customs, including circumcision, in December of 167 BC. The punishment for violation is the death penalty. Additionally, the Jews would now have to sacrifice to Zeus! It’s reported that a statue for Zeus and an altar for pig sacrifices were erected in the temple.
HERE COME THE MACCABEANS
This would lead to a priest named Mattathias (Matityahu of the Chanukah story) and his Hasmonean family galvanizing the Maccabean revolt. The revolt succeeded by 160 BC. One of his five sons, Judas Maccabeus, led the ensuing revolt and declared himself high priest in 165 BC. He would be followed in the office by two of his brothers, from 153-135 BC. The Judean kingdom achieved independence in 140 BC.
For the next 100 years, politics of the region were heavily influenced by the Maccabeean family. The apocryphal book of 1 Maccabees describes the events between 170 and 130 BC. Book XII of Josephus’s Antiquities covers the era of 323-165 BC.6
With some historical context in view, let us return to an issue raised briefly earlier in this piece: is the death of Onias written about in Daniel 11:22?
ONIAS III as THE PRINCE OF THE COVENANT of DANIEL 11:22
Is there any historical support for the belief that the "Prince / Leader of the Covenant" in Daniel 11:22 was Onias III? Was this term even used of the High Priest High Priest of Israel? First, here is the verse:
Daniel 11:22
“Armies shall be utterly swept away before him and broken, even the prince of the covenant.”
There is no reference that I can find anywhere to a High Priest ever being called the "Prince / Leader of the covenant". This is not definitive, of course, but it is notable. I suppose one could argue that, as the High Priest, it fell to Onias III to ensure that Israel properly maintained covenant with Yahweh. Some may respond that this line of reasoning is an unnatural stretch. As of now, I tend to agree with the aforementioned critcisim, but I am not absolutely certain.
Additionally, there is a text critical issue (covered in Endnote 7 below) in Daniel 11:22 regarding the phrase “prince / leader of the covenant”.7 I’m not saying it’s impossible that the murder of Onias III is prophesied in Daniel 11:22 … but I’m definitely not convinced. Nonetheless, there are those who hold the death of Onias III is mentioned in Daniel 9:26.
ONIAS III as THE ANOINTED ONE of DANIEL 9:26
Those who hold that the death of Onias III can be found in Daniel 11:22 may tie in Daniel 9:26 as well, arguing that as high priest, Onias III was “an anointed one” (Hb. mashiakh).8 The prophecy of Daniel 9:26 was given in about 536 BC. The verse reads as follows:
Daniel 9:26
”And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.”
Based on what I’ve read this far, Daniel 9:26 is much more likely to be a reference to the death of Jesus than to the death of Onias III.9 Some take “an anointed one” and “the prince” to be one and the same, as in an “anointed prince” (Gr. christou hegoumenon). This understanding is doubtful in my judgment. The “anointed one” is “cut off” in 9:25a, making it unlikely that he is also “the prince” of 9:25b.
One reason (more in the endnote10) that 9:26 is likely foretelling the death of Jesus is because of the preceding verse, Daniel 9:25:11
Daniel 9:25
Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.
On the interpretation, influential New Testament scholar D.A. Carson writes (bolded mine):12
Critical scholarship, setting the writing of Daniel in the context of the second century BC, sees the period in view as intended to stretch from the sixth century to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (the four hundred and ninety years being understood either in round terms, or literally and, perhaps, mistakenly). But from the perspective of the NT, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Anointed One (25) is fulfilled in Jesus Christ whose coming brings atonement and the end of guilt.
Nonetheless, I suppose a “typological fulfillment” or even “dual fulfillment” is possible for Daniel 9:26 (meaning that it refers to both Onias III and then later — and ultimately — to Jesus), if one holds to that kind of interpretation as a prior possibility. I say that as a possible assistance to a position that I do not hold, however.
As a side note, the “prince” (Hb. nagid) here is also seen as various figures, including the Roman General Titus, who destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. I think Titus the most likely candidate doe as of now for “the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.”
A NOTE ON THE WORD MESSIAH
The word “messiah” is Hebrew. Messiah means “anointed one.” “Christos” is the Greek translation of Messiah. When Israel was ruled by kings, the king was anointed during the inauguration ceremony. Oil was poured on his head, as in 1 Samuel 10:1 and 2 Samuel 23:1.
DANIEL 9 AND ONIAS III IN BIBLICAL PROPHECY, REDUX
As discussed, some see a reference to Onias III's murder in Daniel 11:22, as they identify Onias with The Prince of the Covenant, the Nagid Brit.13 As mentioned, many of these scholars also believe Daniel 9 is about Antiochus and Onias III the High Priest. It’s important to remember that critical scholars tend to believe that Daniel was written around 165 BC. This would make Daniel 9:25-26 a pseudo-prophecy about somewhat current events and fallaciously placed in the words of the angel Gabriel.
All this raises another set of questions: did Onias III accomplish the soteriological predictions of Daniel? Daniel foretold the making of the Atonement and the taking away of sin. Wouldn’t a duly ordained High Priest need to perform these actions in the temple?
The Daniel 9 prophecy lays out the following things to happen:
Finish the transgression
Make an end of sins
Reconciliation for iniquity
Bring in everlasting righteousness
Seal up the vision and prophecy
Anoint the most Holy
This section of Scripture is hotly contested, to be sure. Exploring it in greater detail goes outside of the scope of this post. Yet, please allow me to say a few more things about Onias III being the fulfillment of Daniel 9:24. The short version: it strikes me as more unlikely than likely at this point. Not impossible, but of low probability. Why?
Onias III did not make the atonement, take away sin, or bring everlasting righteousness. When Onias was killed, there was no stoppage of temple service. Antiochus looted the temple in 170 B.C. Abolition of the sacrifices didn’t start until 167 BC. Basically, Onias III was High Priest before Antiochus’ desecration of the temple.
Onias III wasn’t around to make atonement for the Temple, restore true worship, or revive the Law. He played no role in the restoration of the temple. Instead, Onias III was murdered as a fugitive outside of the city near a heathen sanctuary to a false god, Daphne. Basically, Onias III ministry had ended before the events of Daniel 9:24 began to unfold.14
There are many attempts to ID the TR. See this FF Bruce piece in the Jewish Virtual Library.
The Early Enoch Literature, Gabriele Boccaccini and John J. Collins, eds. (Leiden: Brill, 2007), 238.
Keil writes: "This interpretation is not warranted by the facts of history. This murder does not at all relate to the matter before us, not only because the Jewish high priest at Antioch did not sustain the relation of a "prince of the covenant," but also because the murder was perpetrated without the previous knowledge of Antiochus, and when the matter was reported to him, the murderer was put to death by his command (2 Macc. 4:36-38)."
Pro-Hellenists were divided between the Tobiads and the Oniads. The Tobiads, were a wealthy, yet non-priestly family. They heavily influenced the politics of Judea since circa 400 BC. The Oniads, on the other hand, ware an influential dynasty of high priests. High Priest Onias III was representative. The Tobiads desired Hellinization profoundly more than the Oniads. Of course, these two rival factions vied for power in Judea.
At a later time, the son of Onias III, Onias IV, fled to Egypt to avoid death as well. Over time, he established a community in Leontopolis (eastern side of the Nile Delta) and erected a temple there in 151 BC, which stood for over 220 years. Talmud Megilah 10a mentions this: “R. Isaac said: I have heard that sacrifices may be offered in the Temple of Onias at the present day.”
A more modern scholarly resource for this era is by W. D. Davies and Louis Finkelstein, (editors), The Cambridge History of Judaism Volume 2: The Hellenistic Age (Cambridge University Press, 1990). See especially the essays by the incredible Martin Hengel, “The Political and Social History of Palestine from Alexander to Antiochus III” (35-78) and “The Interpenetration of Judaism and Hellenism in the Pre-Maccabean Period” (216).
The Greek of the Septuagint (LXX) omits “the prince of the covenant”, the Hebrew phrase translated from וגם נגיד ברית.
Daniel 11:22, LXX (Swete):
καὶ τοὺς βραχίονας τοὺς συντριβέντας συντρίψει ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ.
The Dead Sea Scrolls don't have the verse extant. This means we don’t have that section of Daniel in the DSS, so we can’t check to see if it’s there.
The later Greek translation of the Tanakh by Theodotion (~150 AD) does includes the phrase.
Daniel 11:22, Theodotion:
καὶ βραχίονες τοῦ κατακλύζοντος κατακλυσθήσονται ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτοῦ καὶ συντριβήσονται, καὶ ἡγούμενος διαθήκης·
Theodotion is not as old as the LXX (the LXX was translated from about 200 to 50 BC, as it was completed in stages). This mean that by the 2nd Century AD, the phrase “prince of the covenant” was in the Hebrew manuscript(s?) that Theodotion worked from. But it apparently was not in the Hebrew MSS that the translators of the LXX worked from.
One can readily see this fact with a side-by-side comparison between Theodotion’s translation on the left and the LXX on the right — notice the visual gap in Daniel 11:22!
For example, see “Did Daniel Prophesy a Seven-Year Great Tribulation?” by
Hank Hanegraaff (Published 2/8/15, Updated 7/21/23).
One not need be a Dispensationalist (as I am not) to hold this view. For example, Reformed Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon’s devotional commentary on Daniel 9:26 shows he believed this verse was about the death of the Messiah. Note that Dr. Dennis M. Swanson’s analysis of Spurgeon’s eschatology indicates that Spurgeon’s overall view lines up with the “historic or covenantal premillennial” position — not Dispensational.
See https://reformed.online/why-daniel-9-is-fulfilled-in-christ, for example.
There’s also a view that believes that the “anointed one” in Daniel 9:25 and the other one in 9:26 are different.
D. A Carson, New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 758.
For example, see John J. Collins’ commentary on Daniel (Fortress, 1993, page 382) or C.L. Seow's commentary (Westminster John Knox Press, 2003, page 150).
The Essenes quote from Daniel directly in DSS manuscript 11Q13/11QMelch, written circa 100 BC. The Qumran commentary gives the seventy weeks prophecy of Daniel 9:25-26 an explicitly messianic interpretation.
According to some, a few references from Qumran (the Testament of Levi and Pseudo-Ezekiel Document 4 Q 384-390) indicate their hoped for eschatological figure would appear between 3 BC and 2 AD.
Some claim that there are also appear to be some non-messianic views of the "seventy weeks" and the "anointed one" in some sources. For example, the “anointed one” who is cut off in 9:26 is thought to be Onias III in Pseudo-Demetrius (circa 2nd ct. BC).
For notes on the Rabbinic view of these verses, here.
In the modern era, one of the most helpful articles on the 70 Weeks can be found here. Although, I do take some different positions than the author, the article is deeply thought-provoking. For a shorter but also helpful piece, go here.