TedM

Why can't it be a reaction AND a sequence? That's what I've been saying. The second in the sequence is the quarrel which he next describes. The quarrel would be an occasion of enmity too. Josephus doesn't say that the quarrel was a second occasion of enmity, but it sure seems to me that it could be read that way.

Ok. I think the public could easily have made the same connections Mark did, so I guess we just see it differently.

take care,

ted

Amaleq13

I don't see how that make any sense since it requires us to assume that they had this border dispute after Aretas had destroyed Herod's army.

I don't know if you are basing your argument on Muller or simply agree with him but you both clearly assume a delay between the divorce issue and the war which is entirely unsupported by what Josephus writes. There is absolutely no suggestion of any significant delay between the divorce issue and the start of the war. It is interesting to note that Muller dates the border dispute to 33-34ce which completely agrees with my suggestion that it preceded the divorce/remarriage issue.

Once we eliminate the unsubstantiated notion of a delay, my suggested reading has to be considered the more reasonable. Despite an ongoing dispute over the border, Aretas "made this the first occasion of his enmity" and started a war.

TedM

I don't think it requires that at all because I'm not interpreting an 'occasion of enmity' as being an occasion of war, but rather as an occasion of dispute which furthers an enemy relationship.

I haven't read Muller on this, but now I'm curious as to what he wrote so will check it out.

I agree that there is no suggestion of a significant delay between the divorce and the start of the war. But should we expect such a suggestion given Josephus' style of writing about events that preceded his birth? Does not he skip over years on other occasions? As I read it he is giving some of the background that led to the war. He cuts right in the middle of 2 passages to discuss JTB, then goes back to it. Assuming this passage isn't an interpolation, are we to assume that JTB was murdered just before the war too? The point is that if Josephus jumps around on his sequencing, then maybe the timing of his events can't easily be determined from his style of writing--so what we normally might infer about timing can't be given a lot of weight.

Yes it does, but it is consistent with theory of a delay unmentioned as such by Josephus, which the language and possibly the style of Josephus supports--one having the divorce being the first occasion of enmity, followed some years later by a second occasion of enmity being the border dispute--followed some years later by the raising of armies. The case for this would be strengthened by other examples in Josephus' writings in which he skips over years when describing the factors that led to an event.

We have to first establish (through Greek/style analysis) that your interpretation of the first part of the sentence is more reasonable, before we accept your sequencing of the second part. IF that can be done and if it can be shown that there are no other examples in Josephus' writings of delays that are skipped over in a similar manner then I'd agree with your position.

ted

TedM

Mullers evidence to support a delay between the divorce of Herod and the war with Aretas, from his website:

1. 2.3.4.Comments?

ted

Amaleq13

The first two obviously don't argue for a delay, they assume it and then point out that the other events had to occur later. If we don't assume a delay, the timing works out just fine with the divorce taking place not long before the start of the war.

The third assumes that Mark's story can be relied upon for history with regard to the dance of Salome but there doesn't appear to be any good reason for the assumption. The choice of identifying some bits as "quasi-legendary" and others as "a valuable piece of information" seems rather circularly guided by the preferred conclusion.

Given that we aren't provided any specific time reference for the fourth, I don't see how it requires or even suggests the assumed delay.

TedM

I don't see that. The first basically says that wars wouldn't take place quickly, as is implied by your interpretation of the passage. The second gives a reason for the quarrel as likely being 2-3 years earlier, which which argues for a delay not on the assumption of a delay but on the assumption that the divorce preceded the border dispute.


I agree that all we can rely on is that "Mark" was smart enough to place Herodia's daughter as unmarried--which is consistent with a pre 33AD date. Can we even date Mark's crucifixion of Jesus to anything prior to 36AD, Pilate's last year of reign? If not, and Mark was first, then this argues that Mark had a pre-33AD date in mind. Why would he have, as opposed to 36AD?
It could also argue for interpolation of Mark 6 by someone who later presumed the date had to have been pre 33AD.

Yeah, I'm not sure what he was getting at there, unless we can define 'now' in the passage. All it might do is not preclude the possibility--ie it doesn't work against the idea that the divorce was earlier.

ted

Amaleq13

Observing that wars don't take place quickly doesn't justify or even suggest a decade delay. My interpretation would involve a delay of a year or two at the most.

I don't see any real difference between assuming the divorce preceded the border dispute by several years and assuming a significant delay. The second only establishes that the border dispute preceded the war by a few years and that is exactly what I've been saying. The subsequent divorce issue just gave Aretas the excuse he was apparently looking for ever since.

I would like to have some confirmation of Muller's claims regarding the inappropriateness of a widow doing the dance. He doesn't offer any support for it that I see.

It has been suggested in another thread that messianic expectations were high at this particular time specifically because of interpretations of Daniel.

TedM

Yes, a decade is too long to require. Any delay goes against the typical inference that the war happened immediately, though. This undermines the idea that Josephus was giving us a detail blow by blow account. He likely wasn't. Since he wasn't, it leaves the door open for an elapse of time--even as long as a decade. If either interpretation of the phrase is correct--sequence or primary--then we can't conclude that the divorce/arrest happened around 36AD. All we can conclude is that it happened at some undetermined point prior to 36AD.

There is no suggestion in Mark of it--as might be expected, but I agree that that would strengthen his case.

Do you mean at around 26-30AD? If so, then why would Mark deliberately place Jesus at 36AD, just after JTB's arrest, and then possibly make a reference in Mark 6 that places it all happening earlier? Are you suggesting that Mark thought he could get away with a difference of 6-10 years for the appearance of the Messiah? Wasn't that foolish if those that interpret Daniel calculated an earlier date? Even if it is just a 'story' the intent to present it according to scripture in a way that would have been believable to his audience seems a significant factor to me.

ted

Amaleq13

I'm not aware of anybody who asserts the war happened within a number of days after Aretas heard about the divorce. That seems like a straw man. What is important is that Josephus' story does not imply or suggest a great deal of time took place between Aretas hearing of the divorce and the beginning of the war. A decade, as you acknowledge, is certainly not supported but isn't that exactly what is required in order to match up Josephus with Mark?

This seems like another straw man because nothing I've said requires this assumption.

No, it does not. That would be a rather extraordinary delay and I would think it might have been mentioned. Regardless, I thought you already acknowledged that a decade is too long to assume?

No, we can conclude that it probably happened not very long before the start of the war because Josephus identifies it as Aretas' motivation and does not mention any unusual delay in the preparation for and engagement in war.

I don't know that we can be that specific but it certainly seems that the first half of the 1st century was considered "the time".

First, I don't see any reason to assume the author had such a specific timeline in mind. Second, I don't see any reason to assume the author was concerned about historical accuracy in telling his story. If Muller is correct that an earlier time is implied for the dance, I see no reason to assume the author did this deliberately. It is possible but we really don't know why the author felt compelled to blame Salome. I think Vorkosigan has suggested an origin in Scripture for this "detail" but I can't recall where.

Sure. I don't know of any evidence that a specific year was "the target" at the time. Luke and Matthew have managed to "get away" with birth years that are a decade apart with no problem. Faith provides an astounding ability to ignore such problems, I think.

TedM

A decade is required to match it up. At first reading the passage sounds like it is less than 10 years. The original posts here I think were talking about a period that was nearly immediate. You are allowing for a few years. I've given an interpretation that allows for an unspecified amount of time and I do not think it unlikely for Josephus to NOT tell us the years if it was as many as 10 given his style of writing and jumping around, and referring to events that preceded his birth. I'm suggesting the 10 years as a possibility not to be ruled out from the passage the way it is now.


He suggested Ester, and sees strong similarities. I see a few, but am unconvinced. Actually, Mark just has Salome passing along Herodias' request, but the dance can be tied to Ester in some way.

ted