offa

Shameless Hussy Quote:
Originally Posted by offa

Salome did not want John's head on a platter. She wanted him stripped of his position as the #1 cleric of the Samaritans. John was a "chief priest" and he wore a head cap of the sort that would denote his position. Salome wanted that head-dress taken from him.



Why?

And if that is true, why did Salome leave it up to Herodias?
----------------------------------------------------------------
And my answer is.....

Fri Sep 21 at 4 a.m. AD 31 (ISBN 0-06-067782-1)
The headdress worn by the baptist as Zadokite high priest
(Ezek 44:18) is brought in. The Baptist is imprisoned at Macherus
and subsequently put to death (Ant. 18:119).

EZE 44:18 They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall
have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves
with any thing that causeth sweat.

ANT 18-119
Accordingly, he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious
temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there
put to death. Now the Jews had the opinion that the destruction of
his army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's
displeasure with him.

Now, this Salome is not Herodias' biological daughter, but a servant
(priestess) who works in Herodias' circle. Readers always take it
for granted that mother and father are biological parents when they
are not not. It is the same with begat, begat does not mean I am
your daddy, it is a bar mitzvah and the father is the presiding
priest.

Here is a story from the New Testament,


Luke 02:42 And when he was twelve years old, they went
up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast.
Luke 02:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they
returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and
his mother knew not of it.
Luke 02:44 But they, supposing him to have been in the
company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their
kinsfolk and acquaintance.
Luke 02:45 And when they found him not, they turned back
again to Jerusalem, seeking him.
Luke 02:46 And it came to pass, that after three days they
found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both
hearing them, and asking them questions.
Luke 02:47 And all that heard him were astonished at his
understanding and answers.
Luke 02:48 And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his
mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold,
thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
Luke 02:49 And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought
me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
Luke 02:50 And they understood not the saying which he spake
unto them.
Luke 02:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth,
and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in
her heart.


The above event occurred AD 16-17 and Eleazar Annas is high priest
(father). Jesus is 24 years old (Jesus was a 1-year old Child in AD 6
when the census occurred and was born in 7 b.c.e.)

offa

Shameless Hussy

After reading all three of those references (though I had to find Judith online), I find those connections to be extremely flimsy. Actually, I don't see connections at all, other than one contains a feast and a beheading under entirely different circumstances and offering an entirely different lesson(Judith); one contains a daughter dancing, again under totally different circumstances and teaching something entirely different(Judges), and the narrative in Kings is also a huge stretch, for the reasons you already mentioned. They don't fit, except in that weird way that some bible students have of forcing connections to make the Bible stories seem more cohesive. *shrug*

If anything, the story in Judith reminded me of Jael, but I haven't gone back to review that one. And then there is The Jezebel Issue, which would be another thread entirely.

Yes, the problem re: Salome's age is why I'm still hoping someone can tell me what word was used for "daughter" in the orginal texts, and if it can have some other usage than what we are assuming.

I'd describe Herod's "half my kingdom" as a common colloquialism, rather than pure hyperbole. A modern example might be a host telling his guest, "Please, my home is your home." That is generally understood by both parties to be an expression of hospitality and generosity, not a literal offer to call up the title company and have the deed transferred. It's so common (where I live, anyway) that it doesn't have the air of hyperbole. However, ages from now I can see misguided scholars studying us and saying, "Wow, those people sure went all out for their friends! Even gave up their homes!"

The part about him not being able to refuse her request has me on the fence. While I understand that oaths were SERIOUS BUSINESS in the OT, I think that had more to do with promises made to God, not to girls. And Herod wasn't exactly a clean-living guy. Would Herod have really been so much on the hook in front of his guests? I don't know. There is that macho stereotype of not wanting to back down... but in this case, under these circumstances, for this kind of request, when he was supposedly afraid to kill John? This is why this story intrigues me. I'm fine with it being an allegory rather than a historical incident, but I'm still left puzzled by it.

Shameless Hussy

Okay. And still I ask... why do you say Salome want John stripped of this? None of the quotes above address my question.

Do you have any sources to support your assertions that:
a) Salome was a priestess, and not the daughter of Herodias; and
b) begat means bar mitzvah?

offa

Is there a place in the Gospels where "Salome" is specifically mentioned as dancing for Antipas? Or is it "Herodias' daughter?" Myself, I am not positive, but I feel that "Salome" may be added by readers/writers making the wrong assertion. Herodias, as the queen of the cult would be referred to as "Mother".

here is a citation from
JESUS and the RIDDLE of the DEAD SEA SCROLLS, p.225,

Fri Sep 21 at midnight (Thu) At the Julian beginning of the equinox, the Herods agree that the baptist's prophecies have failed. Helena, leading the liturgical dance (Contemp. Life 83-87) is asked by Herodias to influence them to depose John and give the headship to Simon Magus. (Mk 6:21-24, Mt 14:6-7).

It is something you learn from reading the gospels and Josephus. In Luke children two years old are killed and Jesus is hidden away. King Herod the Great died in 4 b.c.e., so, therefore, Jesus would have been born before Herod's death. Augustus Caesar ordered a census in AD 6 and Jesus is a 1 year-old Child. Go back 13 years from the census and you are now 2 years before Herod's death.

Josephus writes that Herod is 15 years old when he is made governor of Galilee in 47 b.c.e. If he was 15 in 47 b.c.e. then he would have been born in 62 b.c.e., yet, Josephus writes that he was 70 when he died in 4 b.c.e.! Therefore, Herod was born in 74 b.c.e. making him 27 in 47 b.c.e.

Now read Jubilees,
JUB 30:02 And there, Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, was snatched away to the house of Shechem, son of Hamor, the Hivite, the ruler of the land. And he lay with her and defiled her, but she was little, only twelve years old.

Maybe this Dinah is 24 years old?

And, about Jubilee dating, if Adam is begat on the first year then he would be begotten on the 1st Jubilee day, however, if he was conceived 13 years prior and if a zero Jubilee was added, then, Adam would be created on the sixth day, thus reconciling Genesis and Jubilees.

Offa

Shameless Hussy

The gospels say "daughter of Herodias". Josephus says that Herodias had one daughter, Salome, from Herodias' previous marriage, so he concludes that she was the dancer Mark and Matthew refer to. The word for "girl" used in the original text refers to a young girl, not a nineteen year-old. I am waiting to see if anyone here knows what word was used in the original text for "daughter", which may shine some light on whether there is leeway for interpretation, and if so, how much leeway.

WHAT cult? If you do not supply sources or references for these statements (or even a line of reasoning which can be objectively verified), then I'm afraid it's not all that helpful.

That's an interesting quote. As I do not have immediate access to that text, can you summarize the author's reasons for asserting this? What gospel is s/he reading from?

Again, this would be more helpful if you offered something which could be objectively verified, such as scholarly conclusions about usage for the word given in the original Hebrew and Greek, in this case whatever word(s) have been interpreted into English as "begat". When you say "something that is learned from reading the gospels", do you mean a credible theory which is now being advanced in bible scholarship, or are you referring to personal impressions?

Shameless Hussy

Nor do I. :huh:

Of course, the Johannites would say that's because JtheB WAS the fulfillment of messianic prophesy, not just the preparer-of-the-way. But then I don't know who they think was the way-preparer, if not JtheB?

Yup, that's what I got out of it. Also, I think the fact that Jezebel made up a fake feast day in order to trick the faithful to act out her plot was a big no-no and something both Elijah and YHWH would have a problem with. In essence, she turned the faith of the people to her own nefarious ends. Diabolical! And the patriarchy who told this story would want to emphasize the "badness" of a husband (Ahab) letting his wife run the show.

Toto

Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Barbara Thiering.

Thiering is regarded as a crackpot by most of NT scholarship, which may or may not recommend her to you.

Shameless Hussy

Oy.

My argument with the likes of Thiering is not that I mind alternate theories/interpretations (for example, I quite enjoy A.N. Wilson), but that I lose patience with circular reasoning and supposition/belief stated as fact. It's just plain dishonest. If she is the author I'm thinking of, she doesn't say "could it be?" (which I would allow), she says "this is the way it is because this is the way my theory said it is which I came up with when I had the idea that that's the way it is". Tautology, ahoy!

offa

Kill the messenger. Knock Thiering. Knock Josephus. You know, biblical scholars have gotten nowhere in thousands of years. Reading Scripture verbatim will get you no where. Locations move, time changes, names change all in the same story. I have given several examples about the "twelve year rule" to no avail. Hit on that one, you fundamentalists. When you learn the "twelve year rule" you discover something hidden, and, by golly, quote one person besides myself, offa, that condones the "twelve year rule". Prove me incorrect!

I quote Thiering and Josephus because I read them often. On this board we have captive minds ... captives are not individuals.

I have been on this board longer than most, plus I lost my original I.D. from the old board. I have not changed. I just pop in now and again to let posters know that I am still around and my atheist mind has not changed.

offa

Shameless Hussy

Who "knocked" Josephus? And what is wrong with questioning the veracity of a theory (such as Thiering's) by holding it up to objective scrutiny? Surely when someone comes along with a radical new idea, they must at the very least be held to the same standards as the traditionalists in their field.

????? Not sure what you mean by "getting nowhere". For instance, I think the work done on striving for accurate translations has gotten "somewhere".

I am not a bible literalist, if that's what you mean. That would be pretty hard for an agnostic like me. But I do expect theories, translations and interpretations to be looked at with as much skepticism as the extant versions. Again, why not hold everyone to the same standard?

Yes, and I appreciated the examples you cited. If I didn't thank you previously, then allow me to do so now. However, what I didn't see (and perhaps this is my own faulty reading of your posts) is HOW the bar mitzvah tradition translates from the word we normally translate as "begat". What's the etymology for this theory? And where is the evidence for the "daughter" being a priestess? And why would a priestess be referred to in the original text as a young girl? And why would a priestess have a bar mitzvah? You see, I'm asking these questions because I would like to give your assertions equal consideration. Perhaps there is something to what you suggest - I won't know until I ask.

Goodness. Are there fundies here?


Ummm... not sure what you mean by quoting others who "condone" the 12-year-rule. (Sorry, I didn't understand the sentence. Could you re-phrase?) As for proving you incorrect, the burden of proof lies with the person making an assertion. In this case, that would be you. Asking us to carry the burden of proving you are NOT correct is asking us to prove a negative, which is logical folly. And anyway, who wants to prove you incorrect? Not me. I'm hoping you can show me why you ARE correct!

I think most of us quote from the sources with which we are most familiar, if not out of sheer necessity then at least out of some preference for those sources.

Well, I'm new here, so perhaps between your long-term-poster atheist mind and my short-term-poster agnostic mind, we could get to the bottom of this muddle together?