Difference between amillennialism & preterism

brinny said:

Would you care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

The Prets use a long wooden lance; the Amils prefer long bows. The pretribbers just bang people over the head with an iron mace.

Gideon said:

The Prets use a long wooden lance; the Amils prefer long bows. The pretribbers just bang people over the head with an iron mace.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the warning.......that's horrifying.

How, may i ask, have you managed to survive such carnage?

brinny said:

Thanks for the warning.......that's horrifying.

How, may i ask, have you managed to survive such carnage?

Click to expand...

I usually sit behind a tree with my long bow and take a pot shot now and again. Knights, it is said, considered longbows to be a cowardly weapon, but the alternative would be great tribulation.

Gideon said:

I usually sit behind a tree with my long bow. Knights, it is said, considered longbows to be a cowardly weapon, but the alternative would be great tribulation.

Click to expand...

Oh dear....

*looks for a tree....*

brinny said:

Oh dear....

*looks for a tree....*

Click to expand...

Thank you for your prayers, brother.

*finds a tree and clanks over to it as quietly as possible*

jgr said:

Where did I say that Barnabas said anything about tribulation?

To reiterate, Barnabas pre-dates Irenaeus, and Barnabas' commentary describes an undecapitated 70th week, contrary to Irenaeus. Period.

And Thomas Ice's commentary rebuts the notion that Irenaeus was a pretribber. Ice doesn't believe he's wrong (and he's not), because his commentary remains in full view on his pretrib site.

Click to expand...

Irnaeus did not deny the entire seventieth week. He divided it into two parts, even as the scriptures themselves do. Both Irenaeus and Hyppolytus clearly said that Daniel's seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future, and Irenaeus only called the last half of the week the "great tribuation," even as do the scriptures.

And as I said, I am fully aware of what Tommy Ice thinks. He has a right to be mistaken, even as you and I do.

brinny said:

Would you care to elaborate?

Click to expand...

For every comment you might dare to make, you will get one friendly and three to ten unfriendly responses.

Biblewriter said:

For every comment you might dare to make, you will get one friendly and three to ten unfriendly responses.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the warning.....

will i need a slingshot?

Biblewriter said:

Irnaeus did not deny the entire seventieth week. He divided it into two parts, even as the scriptures themselves do. Both Irenaeus and Hyppolytus clearly said that Daniel's seventieth week remained to be fulfilled in the future, and Irenaeus only called the last half of the week the "great tribuation," even as do the scriptures.

And as I said, I am fully aware of what Tommy Ice thinks. He has a right to be mistaken, even as you and I do.

Click to expand...

In over 1800 years of post-apostolic Church history, only Irenaeus and Hippolytus detached the 70th week.

Yes, everyone has the right to be mistaken, and some avail themselves of the opportunity to be correct.

jgr said:

In over 1800 years of post-apostolic Church history, only Irenaeus and Hippolytus detached the 70th week.

Yes, everyone has the right to be mistaken, and some avail themselves of the opportunity to be correct.

Click to expand...

This is still incorrect. You are making claims about a history you have never studied. Among the ancients, Justyn Martyr also stated that it was future in chapter 32 of his "Dialogue With Trypho." And it was also taught in the mid 1600s, 150 years before Darby.So at best, your gap in the teaching of this doctrine cannot be longer that 1400 yeas or so. That is, from the time when the church firdt began to tr=urn away from its original teachings about almost everything, until shortly after 1611, when the Bible first became available to the masses. And I am sure that others saw it in between as well, but I have not studied medieval doctrine extensively.

The following article has several key points which disprove the Premill perspective, although the conclusion at the end has some problems.

Gog of Magog - Here a little, there a little - Prophecy


.

Biblewriter said:

This is still incorrect. You are making claims about a history you have never studied. Among the ancients, Justyn Martyr also stated that it was future in chapter 32 of his "Dialogue With Trypho." And it was also taught in the mid 1600s, 150 years before Darby.So at best, your gap in the teaching of this doctrine cannot be longer that 1400 yeas or so. That is, from the time when the church firdt began to tr=urn away from its original teachings about almost everything, until shortly after 1611, when the Bible first became available to the masses. And I am sure that others saw it in between as well, but I have not studied medieval doctrine extensively.

Click to expand...

Barnabas pre-dates all.

What is the quote from Martyr that supports detachment?

jgr said:

Barnabas pre-dates all.

What is the quote from Martyr that supports detachment?

Click to expand...

Actually, we know neither who wrote the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," nor when it was written. The only thing we know about its date is that it was first cited in document written by Clement of Alexandria, and believed to have been written no earlier that A.D. 195, that it, a minimum of seven years after Irenaeus published "Against Heresies," and long after Justyn Martyr said:

"I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. But you, being ignorant of how long he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the “time” as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man of sin must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in order that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel — “and times” — to be two times only." ("Dialogue With Trypho," by Justyn Martyr, chapter 32.)

Biblewriter said:

"I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. But you, being ignorant of how long he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the “time” as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man of sin must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in order that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel — “and times” — to be two times only." ("Dialogue With Trypho," by Justyn Martyr, chapter 32.)

Click to expand...

This quote has nothing to do with Daniel chapter 9.

It comes from other parts of the book of Daniel that deal with the desecration of the temple and the city of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes during 167 BC.

Apparently these early Church Fathers are like many of us, who have never read the writings of Josephus or ignore them in order to make our doctrine work.

.

Biblewriter said:

Actually, we know neither who wrote the so-called "Epistle of Barnabas," nor when it was written. The only thing we know about its date is that it was first cited in document written by Clement of Alexandria, and believed to have been written no earlier that A.D. 195, that it, a minimum of seven years after Irenaeus published "Against Heresies," and long after Justyn Martyr said:

"I will mention to you other words also spoken by the blessed David, from which you will perceive that the Lord is called the Christ by the Holy Spirit of prophecy; and that the Lord, the Father of all, has brought Him again from the earth, setting Him at His own right hand, until He makes His enemies His footstool; which indeed happens from the time that our Lord Jesus Christ ascended to heaven, after He rose again from the dead, the times now running on to their consummation; and he whom Daniel foretells would have dominion for a time, and times, and an half, is even already at the door, about to speak blasphemous and daring things against the Most High. But you, being ignorant of how long he will have dominion, hold another opinion. For you interpret the “time” as being a hundred years. But if this is so, the man of sin must, at the shortest, reign three hundred and fifty years, in order that we may compute that which is said by the holy Daniel — “and times” — to be two times only." ("Dialogue With Trypho," by Justyn Martyr, chapter 32.)

Click to expand...

Epistle of Barnabas from Wikipedia:

Origin
The first editor of the epistle, Hugo Menardus (1645) advocated the genuineness of its ascription to Barnabas, but the opinion today is that Barnabas was not the author. It was probably written between the years 100 – 131 and addressed to Christian Gentiles.[citation needed]In 16.3–4, the Epistle reads:

Furthermore he says again, 'Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it.' It is happening. For because of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.

This passage clearly places Barnabas after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. But it also places Barnabas before the Bar Kochba Revolt of AD 132, after which there could have been no hope that the Romans would help to rebuild the temple. The document must come from the period between the two revolts. The place of origin remains an open question, although the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean appears most probable (Treat).[citation needed]

John Dominic Crossan quotes Koester as stating that New Testament writings are used "neither explicitly nor tacitly" in the Epistle of Barnabas and that this "would argue for an early date, perhaps even before the end of 100 C.E." Crossan continues (The Cross that Spoke, p. 121):

Richardson and Shukster have also argued for a first-century date. Among several arguments they point to the detail of "a little king, who shall subdue three of the kings under one" and "a little crescent horn, and that it subdued under one three of the great horns" in Barnabas 4:4-5. They propose a composition "date during or immediately after the reign of Nerva (96-8 C.E.) . . . viewed as bringing to an end the glorious Flavian dynasty of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. . . when a powerful, distinguished, and successful dynasty was brought low, humiliated by an assassin's knife" (33, 40).

Jay Curry Treat states on the dating of Barnabas (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, pp. 613–614):

Since Barnabas 16:3 refers to the destruction of the temple, Barnabas must be written after 70 C.E. It must be written before its first undisputable use in Clement of Alexandria, ca. 190. Since 16:4 expects the temple to be rebuilt, it was most likely written before Hadrian built a Roman temple on the site ca. 135. Attempts to use 4:4-5 and 16:1-5 to specify the time of origin more exactly have not won wide agreement. It is important to remember that traditions of varying ages have been incorporated into this work.


The overwhelming evidence is that the Epistle was written no later than 135 AD/CE.


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho from Wikipedia:

Dating
Because the text mentions Justin Martyr's First Apology, which was written sometime between 150-155 CE, Dialogue with Trypho must have been written after it. The date of authorship has been suggested to have been written anywhere between 155-167,[8] with some scholars favoring 155–160,[9][10] or even the specific date of 160.[11]


The overwhelming evidence is that the Epistle of Barnabas was written at least one decade, and possibly two or more, before the Dialogue with Trypho.


As BABerean2 has already pointed out, it is manifestly evident that the quotation from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho has nothing to do with Daniel 9 or the 70th week.

jgr said:

Epistle of Barnabas from Wikipedia:

Origin
The first editor of the epistle, Hugo Menardus (1645) advocated the genuineness of its ascription to Barnabas, but the opinion today is that Barnabas was not the author. It was probably written between the years 100 – 131 and addressed to Christian Gentiles.[citation needed]In 16.3–4, the Epistle reads:

Furthermore he says again, 'Behold, those who tore down this temple will themselves build it.' It is happening. For because of their fighting it was torn down by the enemies. And now the very servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.

This passage clearly places Barnabas after the destruction of the Second Temple in AD 70. But it also places Barnabas before the Bar Kochba Revolt of AD 132, after which there could have been no hope that the Romans would help to rebuild the temple. The document must come from the period between the two revolts. The place of origin remains an open question, although the Greek-speaking Eastern Mediterranean appears most probable (Treat).[citation needed]

John Dominic Crossan quotes Koester as stating that New Testament writings are used "neither explicitly nor tacitly" in the Epistle of Barnabas and that this "would argue for an early date, perhaps even before the end of 100 C.E." Crossan continues (The Cross that Spoke, p. 121):

Richardson and Shukster have also argued for a first-century date. Among several arguments they point to the detail of "a little king, who shall subdue three of the kings under one" and "a little crescent horn, and that it subdued under one three of the great horns" in Barnabas 4:4-5. They propose a composition "date during or immediately after the reign of Nerva (96-8 C.E.) . . . viewed as bringing to an end the glorious Flavian dynasty of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian. . . when a powerful, distinguished, and successful dynasty was brought low, humiliated by an assassin's knife" (33, 40).

Jay Curry Treat states on the dating of Barnabas (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 1, pp. 613–614):

Since Barnabas 16:3 refers to the destruction of the temple, Barnabas must be written after 70 C.E. It must be written before its first undisputable use in Clement of Alexandria, ca. 190. Since 16:4 expects the temple to be rebuilt, it was most likely written before Hadrian built a Roman temple on the site ca. 135. Attempts to use 4:4-5 and 16:1-5 to specify the time of origin more exactly have not won wide agreement. It is important to remember that traditions of varying ages have been incorporated into this work.


The overwhelming evidence is that the Epistle was written no later than 135 AD/CE.


Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho from Wikipedia:

Dating
Because the text mentions Justin Martyr's First Apology, which was written sometime between 150-155 CE, Dialogue with Trypho must have been written after it. The date of authorship has been suggested to have been written anywhere between 155-167,[8] with some scholars favoring 155–160,[9][10] or even the specific date of 160.[11]


The overwhelming evidence is that the Epistle of Barnabas was written at least one decade, and possibly two or more, before the Dialogue with Trypho.


As BABerean2 has already pointed out, it is manifestly evident that the quotation from Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho has nothing to do with Daniel 9 or the 70th week.

Click to expand...

I spoke of what we know, not of what we surmise.

BABerean2 said:

This quote has nothing to do with Daniel chapter 9.

It comes from other parts of the book of Daniel that deal with the desecration of the temple and the city of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes during 167 BC.

Apparently these early Church Fathers are like many of us, who have never read the writings of Josephus or ignore them in order to make our doctrine work.

.

Click to expand...

So-- Justyn, a scholar that lived soon after the time Jerusalem was destroyed, and a martyr for Christ, did not know as much as you do about what actually happened at that time?

Anyone who, like myself, has actually read what Josephus wrote, knows that he most certainly did not describe anything even approximately like what is recorded in either Daniel 7:25 or in Daniel 9:27.

But Daniel seven does not tie the coming events to the first coming of Messiah, as does Daniel 9, and as did Josephus. So Josephus was most certainly speaking of Daniel 9, as well as of Daniel 7.

Biblewriter said:

So-- Justyn, a scholar that lived soon after the time Jerusalem was destroyed, and a martyr for Christ, did not know as much as you do about what actually happened at that time?

Anyone who, like myself, has actually read what Josephus wrote, knows that he most certainly did not describe anything even approximately like what is recorded in either Daniel 7:25 or in Daniel 9:27.

But Daniel seven does not tie the coming events to the first coming of Messiah, as does Daniel 9, and as did Josephus. So Josephus was most certainly speaking of Daniel 9, as well as of Daniel 7.

Click to expand...

Did Josephus, who was a Jewish general during the war of 70 AD, know more about what happened during 70 AD and the Book of Daniel, when compared to the Early Church Fathers?

Absolutely.

Based on John 10:22, the Jews of Jesus time celebrated the festival of Hanukkah each year and therefore understood the events of 167 BC.

Joh 10:22　 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter.　


For those who want to read "Wars of the Jews" by Flavius Josephus, it is now available for free on e-Sword. I have had it downloaded into my laptop for several years now and it has allowed me to "actually read" the writings of Josephus.


You are "most likely" forcing the text of the Early Church Fathers to fit your modern Dispensational doctrine.


An Amazing Prophecy in the Book of Daniel

.

I have read "The Wars of the Jews," by Josephus, from cover to cover. And I assure anyone and who reads this discussion, that it is simply nonsense to even pretend that what Josephus described is a fulfillment of anything written in the book of Daniel, other than Daniel 9:26.

Biblewriter said:

I have read "The Wars of the Jews," by Josephus, from cover to cover. And I assure anyone and who reads this discussion, that it is simply nonsense to even pretend that what Josephus described is a fulfillment of anything written in the book of Daniel, other than Daniel 9:26.

Click to expand...

From Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus, Book 12, Chapter 5

(Bolding and underlining by me)


"CHAPTER 5
HOW, UPON THE QUARRELS ONE AGAINST ANOTHER ABOUT THE HIGH PRIESTHOOD ANTIOCHUS MADE AN EXPEDITION AGAINST JERUSALEM, TOOK THE CITY AND PILLAGED THE TEMPLES. AND DISTRESSED THE JEWS' AS ALSO HOW MANY OF THE JEWS FORSOOK THE LAWS OF THEIR COUNTRY; AND HOW THE SAMARITANS FOLLOWED THE CUSTOMS OF THE GREEKS AND NAMED THEIR TEMPLE AT MOUNT GERIZZIM THE TEMPLE OF JUPITER HELLENIUS.
1. ABOUT this time, upon the death of Onias the high priest, they gave the high priesthood to Jesus his brother; for that son which Onias left [or Onias IV.] was yet but an infant; and, in its proper place, we will inform the reader of all the circumstances that befell this child. But this Jesus, who was the brother of Onias, was deprived of the high priesthood by the king, who was angry with him, and gave it to his younger brother, whose name also was Onias; for Simon had these three sons, to each of which the priesthood came, as we have already informed the reader. This Jesus changed his name to Jason, but Onias was called Menelaus. Now as the former high priest, Jesus, raised a sedition against Menelaus, who was ordained after him, the multitude were divided between them both. And the sons of Tobias took the part of Menelaus, but the greater part of the people assisted Jason; and by that means Menelaus and the sons of Tobias were distressed, and retired to Antiochus, and informed him that they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king's laws, and the Grecian way of living. Wherefore they desired his permission to build them a Gymnasium at Jerusalem. (15) And when he had given them leave, they also hid the circumcision of their genitals, that even when they were naked they might appear to be Greeks. Accordingly, they left off all the customs that belonged to their own country, and imitated the practices of the other nations.

2. Now Antiochus, upon the agreeable situation of the affairs of his kingdom, resolved to make an expedition against Egypt, both because he had a desire to gain it, and because he contemned the son of Ptolemy, as now weak, and not yet of abilities to manage affairs of such consequence; so he came with great forces to Pelusium, and circumvented Ptolemy Philometor by treachery, and seized upon Egypt. He then came to the places about Memphis; and when he had taken them, he made haste to Alexandria, in hopes of taking it by siege, and of subduing Ptolemy, who reigned there. But he was driven not only from Alexandria, but out of all Egypt, by the declaration of the Romans, who charged him to let that country alone; according as I have elsewhere formerly declared. I will now give a particular account of what concerns this king, how he subdued Judea and the temple; for in my former work I mentioned those things very briefly, and have therefore now thought it necessary to go over that history again, and that with great accuracy.
3. King Antiochus returning out of Egypt (16) for fear of the Romans, made an expedition against the city Jerusalem; and when he was there, in the hundred and forty-third year of the kingdom of the Seleucidse, he took the city without fighting, those of his own party opening the gates to him. And when he had gotten possession of Jerusalem, he slew many of the opposite party; and when he had plundered it of a great deal of money, he returned to Antioch.
4. Now it came to pass, after two years, in the hundred forty and fifth year, on the twenty-fifth day of that month which is by us called Chasleu, and by the Macedonians Apelleus, in the hundred and fifty-third olympiad, that the king came up to Jerusalem, and, pretending peace, he got possession of the city by treachery; at which time he spared not so much as those that admitted him into it, on account of the riches that lay in the temple; but, led by his covetous inclination, (for he saw there was in it a great deal of gold, and many ornaments that had been dedicated to it of very great value,) and in order to plunder its wealth, he ventured to break the league he had made. So he left the temple bare, and took away the golden candlesticks, and the golden altar [of incense], and table [of shew-bread], and the altar [of burnt-offering]; and did not abstain from even the veils, which were made of fine linen and scarlet. He also emptied it of its secret treasures, and left nothing at all remaining; and by this means cast the Jews into great lamentation, for he forbade them to offer those daily sacrifices which they used to offer to God, according to the law. And when he had pillaged the whole city, some of the inhabitants he slew, and some he carried captive, together with their wives and children, so that the multitude of those captives that were taken alive amounted to about ten thousand. He also burnt down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel in the lower part of the city, (17) for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the [Jewish] multitude, from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. And when the king had built an idol altar upon God's altar, he slew swine upon it, and so offered a sacrifice neither according to the law, nor the Jewish religious worship in that country. He also compelled them to forsake the worship which they paid their own God, and to adore those whom he took to be gods; and made them build temples, and raise idol altars in every city and village, and offer swine upon them every day. He also commanded them not to circumcise their sons, and threatened to punish any that should be found to have transgressed his injunction. He also appointed overseers, who should compel them to do what he commanded. And indeed many Jews there were who complied with the king's commands, either voluntarily, or out of fear of the penalty that was denounced. But the best men, and those of the noblest souls, did not regard him, but did pay a greater respect to the customs of their country than concern as to the punishment which he threatened to the disobedient; on which account they every day underwent great miseries and bitter torments; for they were whipped with rods, and their bodies were torn to pieces, and were crucified, while they were still alive, and breathed. They also strangled those women and their sons whom they had circumcised, as the king had appointed, hanging their sons about their necks as they were upon the crosses. And if there were any sacred book of the law found, it was destroyed, and those with whom they were found miserably perished also.
5. When the Samaritans saw the Jews under these sufferings, they no longer confessed that they were of their kindred, nor that the temple on Mount Gerizzim belonged to Almighty God. This was according to their nature, as we have already shown. And they now said that they were a colony of Medes and Persians; and indeed they were a colony of theirs. So they sent ambassadors to Antiochus, and an epistle, whose contents are these: "To king Antiochus the god, Epiphanes, a memorial from the Sidonians, who live at Shechem. Our forefathers, upon certain frequent plagues, and as following a certain ancient superstition, had a custom of observing that day which by the Jews is called the Sabbath. (18) And when they had erected a temple at the mountain called Gerrizzim, though without a name, they offered upon it the proper sacrifices. Now, upon the just treatment of these wicked Jews, those that manage their affairs, supposing that we were of kin to them, and practiced as they do, make us liable to the same accusations, although we be originally Sidonians, as is evident from the public records. We therefore beseech thee, our benefactor and Savior, to give order to Apollonius, the governor of this part of the country, and to Nicanor, the procurator of thy affairs, to give us no disturbance, nor to lay to our charge what the Jews are accused for, since we are aliens from their nation, and from their customs; but let our temple, which at present hath no name at all be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius. If this were once done, we should be no longer disturbed, but should be more intent on our own occupation with quietness, and so bring in a greater revenue to thee." When the Samaritans had petitioned for this, the king sent them back the following answer, in an epistle: "King Antiochus to Nicanor. The Sidonians, who live at Shechem, have sent me the memorial enclosed. When therefore we were advising with our friends about it, the messengers sent by them represented to us that they are no way concerned with accusations which belong to the Jews, but choose to live after the customs of the Greeks. Accordingly, we declare them free from such accusations, and order that, agreeable to their petition, their temple be named the Temple of Jupiter Hellenius." He also sent the like epistle to Apollonius, the governor of that part of the country, in the forty-sixth year, and the eighteenth day of the month Hecatorabeom
ENDNOTES
(15) This word" Gymnasium" properly denotes a place where the exercises were performed naked, which because it would naturally distinguish circumcised Jews from uncircumcised Gentiles, these Jewish apostates endeavored to appear uncircumcised, by means of a surgical operation, hinted at by St. Paul, 1Co_7:18, and described by Celsus, B. VII. ch. 25., as Dr. Hudson here informs us.
(16) Hereabout Josephus begins to follow the First Book of the Maccabees, a most excellent and most authentic history; and accordingly it is here, with great fidelity and exactness, abridged by him; between whose present copies there seem to he fewer variations than in any other sacred Hebrew book of the Old Testament whatsoever, (for this book also was originally written in Hebrew,) which is very natural, because it was written so much nearer to the times of Josephus than the rest were.
(17) This citadel, of which we have such frequent mention in the following history, both in the Maccabees and Josephus, seems to have been a castle built on a hill, lower than Mount Zion, though upon its skirts, and higher than Mount Moriah, but between them both; which hill the enemies of the Jews now got possession of, and built on it this citadel, and fortified it, till a good while afterwards the Jews regained it, demolished it, and leveled the hill itself with the common ground, that their enemies might no more recover it, and might thence overlook the temple itself, and do them such mischief as they had long undergone from it, Antiq. B. XIII. ch. 6. sect. 6.
(18) This allegation of the Samaritans is remarkable, that though they were not Jews, yet did they, from ancient times, observe the Sabbath day, and, as they elsewhere pretend, the Sabbatic year also, Antiq. B. XI. ch. 8. sect. 6. "

(Available on e-Sword)

This is only one of several passages about Antiochus Epiphanes and his desecration of the Jewish temple, found in the writings of Josephus.

Joh 10:22　 Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter.
　(Hanukkah)

.