TedM

Why are you reading things into it that aren't there Amaleq13? In this particular translation it clearly says there was a first occasion of enmity and also there was another issue between Herod and Aretas that led to the war. The most literal interpretation is the one I've given. "Also" doesn't mean "simultaneous". Also means "in addition to"-- it is silent about the time because the time element was already dealt with by using the word "first". "First" could mean "primary" in importance, but why not just say "primary"? Then you go and suggest that actually the land issue was the primary reason! Certainly things can be read into differently, but the most literal reading is simply what he says: The first occasion of enmity was the divorce issue, and after that was there was also a land issue. IF the divorce issue was first as he says, then it follows that the land issue came later.


I see a few possibilities here: The quarrel over land could have been existing and just made worse from the daughter situation. I reject that because Josephus specifies that the divorce was the first occasion of enmity. Or it could have been created as a result of the daughter situation. I think that is possible. Or it just happened independently some time later. All of these are possible. What I don't think is likely is that it happened immediately afterwards, because if that had been the case it is awkward for Josephus to have made a point about the divorce issue as being the 'first occasion of enmity'. This description implies a sequence AND a passage of time. It's like saying "I first became enemies with Joe when he did X". If the two events were simultaneous it would have made more sense for Josephus to have left out 'first occasion of enmity' and just said that it--along with a land dispute--led to the war. That's why I say it isn't reasonable to assume these things all happened simultaneously. It reads like an enmity that escalated, initially sparked from the spurning of Aretas' daughter.

At the least we can't put a date on the divorce and the murder, so an assertion that the death occurred in 36c.e is really just a guess that is no better than one that is in sinc with the timing in the gospels.

Political rebellions involve dissent. Dissent comes from criticism over SOMETHING. According to Josephus John was concerned about individual virtue. To NOT exploit a marriage to his brother's wife would be strange, wouldn't it? I can't prove it, but why does that seem so unlikely to you--especially given that Josephus had just talked about it, places Herod in an unfavorable light, John in a good light, blames Herod's personal life in part for the war, and then says that the Jews blamed the war on Herod's murder or John? Why is this connection such a stretch to you? Mark's reason fits perfectly.

ted

TedM

Let's take a look

The passage doesn't say JBap was sent there while Herod was fighting with Aretas. It doesn't say WHEN Jbap was sent there at all. So we don't know who had control of the castle when Jbap was sent there. While it is true the passage says that Macherus was 'subject to her(Aretas') father' do we know exactly what that means? Josphus also describes Macherus as a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod, and we know from Josephus elsewhere that Herod the Great had rebuilt the Hasmonean fortress here and constructed an elaborate palace there before Herod Antipas, and that Rome took it from the Jews later on, after Herod Antipas. When did the Arabs get and then lose control? Josephus never tells us. Possibly Herod always had control of the palace, and the 'subject to her father' is wrong or misleading--maybe the daughter actually went to the border at Macherus (the passage doesn't say she went to the castle at all!), or Herod had gained back control of the palace by the time JBap was sent there later.

Since the passage regarding JBap specically references Macherus as the place mentioned before it seems especially dumb for an interpolator to have not noticed the reference to it being 'subject to her father'. He could have chosen some other place. Clearly JBap was killed somewhere. Does it make sense to make up a place other than where he was really killed? I don't think so. What purpose would that serve? It's problematic, I agree, but for me it falls into the category of 'we don't have all the information to make sense of it' rather than 'this was a deliberate interpolation'.

From what little I just read this is seen as a clever interpolation because it sounds like Josephus. Why would clever interpolation include such a dumb and unnecessary reference? It doesn't make sense.

I can't find the Josephus attribution, but the attribution in the JBap passage isn't Josephus', its the Jewish people who followed JBap. Is the "chatter" attribute talking about this war? If not, it's compariing apples to oranges. If by "bad end" it is talking about Herod's death, that is a different issue that didn't happen for another 5 years.


I"m getting lazy--I couldn't tell whether The War of the Jews says anything of the war in question between Aretas and Herod. If it doesn't, then we wouldn't expect JBap to be mentioned.

Not sure how much weight to give that. Is the passage still in that Greek version? If so, that weakens the argument, because then it is a matter of who decided what goes into the table of contents.. obviously not every passage is referenced in those tables.

ted

Amaleq13

Josephus says that Aretas "made" the first occasion of his enmity. Your "literal" interpretation ignores the apparent suggestion of a choice on the part of Aretas rather than a chronological arrangement about which he could make no choice.

Why say "made" if Josephus meant it happened first? Did you miss that I was asking a question about what this entire phrase meant rather than asserting a meaning?

Why the exclamation point suggesting incredulity? Border disputes are quite common motivations for war and quite often of a long-standing nature.

But Josephus doesn't say the divorce issue was first, he says Aretas "made" it first. A truly literal interpretation would include this rather significant part of the statement, I would think.

Your choice of characterizing what is said in the passage about John's teachings as "individual virtue" seems more an effort to support your claims than to accurately describe what is written. Josephus describes what he meant by commanding his fellow Jews to "exercise virtue" when he goes on to identify "righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God". If John had specifically said something against Herod with regard to the divorce, this would have been a great place to mention it but the simple fact is that he does not. Also, mentioning adherence to the Law would be more supportive of your claim than what is actually present in the text.

It seems obvious to me that Herod would have plenty of reason to be worried that John's message would apply to his rule regardless of the divorce issue. Are the people going to be motivated to rebel because of the divorce or because Herod was working with the Romans in keeping the Jewish people subjugated? Given Herod's ongoing lack of "righteousness" in this regard, it seems ridiculous to suggest that the primary motivation was this new offense.

To not mention that John made public statements about it and that those statements were a reason for Herod to kill him is what seems strange. Especially given that he just mentioned the divorce issue. Rebellion was a concern for Herod because he was working with the Romans not because of his lack of virtue in his personal life. If John was making specific critical statements against Herod, why wouldn't Josephus include them?

It is a stretch because there is simply no basis for it in Josephus. You are reading Gospel details into the text to obtain your conclusion and I don't consider that a legitimate way of interpreting Josephus.

The author's reason fits nothing perfectly except the author's desire to avoid a rather politically problematic reference to rebellion against Roman domination while retaining a reference to the death of John. This is the same reason Pilate is depicted as ridiculously free from any guilt for the death of Jesus.

TedM

This just doesn't seem that awkward to me. Josephus could have said "this was the first time Aretas made Herod his enemy", or "this is the first time Herod became Aretas' enemy" both sound ok, although the second is a bit ambiguous because it isn't clear who is reacting. You ask "why say 'made' if Josephus meant it happened first. I can't think of a way to say it without 'made' that doesn't leave some ambiguity.. He could have said "this is the first time Herod became Aretas' enemy", or even "this is the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod". Aretas did 'make' Herod his enemy, so either it is left out and implied or kept in and stated clearly. For this reason I just don't see why including 'made' potentially changes the meaning.

I think you are comparing the following possibilities: Did he make the divorce the primary source (motivator) of enmity? Or did he make the divorce the source of enmity for the first time? As for 'first' vs 'primary' I guess I'd have to see the Greek to know more. I assume 'first' is more accurate than 'primary', and thus the passage is referring to chronology as opposed to an emphasis of importance.

I used the exclamation point becuase you had just finished suggesting that using 'first' for the divorce may have implied that it was a primary motivating factor, and then you switched to saying that maybe really it was the land.


I agree. We do need to understand why this was included. To me it just gives the ownership of the enmity to Arestas, who obviously made a choice to let the divorce bother him.



I agree. Those are good points. I don't know why he doesn't mention it. Maybe Josephus didn't really know, and said all he did know. It seems hard to believe that Josephus knew it and didn't mention it but as you state, the official reason for the arrest may have been Herod's 'working with the Romans in keeping the Jewish people subjugated".

It also seems just as hard to believe that John knew it and didn't mention it. John would have known it and would have disapproved. And if John did mention it, it is no stretch to see why Herod might have been motivated to arrest him for personal reasons, even if his official reason was different.


I prefer to see it as applying common sense to John's character based on what we know from Josephus. Does it really make sense for John to have NOT said anything about it and that if he did Herod and/or Herodias wouldn't have cared about it? I agree with your analysis of Josephus with regard to the silence. I take back saying that Josephus implied that John had said something. However, it seems likely that in reality John probably did say something, so if we are looking just at the probability that the gospel reason for the arrest is true, I still conclude that it is likely that it is true given Josephus' own description of the events, though Mark may indeed have intentionally focused more on the religious than political aspects in his account.


ted

Amaleq13

It all depends on what he meant, doesn't it? I don't know how you can conclude it isn't awkward when you don't really know what it means. It seems to me that, absent knowledge of the original language, it would be helpful to know whether Aretas and Herod had other clashes. If this was not the first of several, then a reconsideration on your part seems to be in order. I get the impression from Josephus that this was it between them. Aretas and Herod fought this once and Aretas kicked his ass. Reading the section from the beginning, Josephus starts by describing the quarrel about the divorce then adds that they "also" had one over a border. It certainly seems to me that Josephus is implying that the border dispute preceded the divorce quarrel.

It seems to me that including "made" is clearly what creates the problem for your interpretation. Note how you caused the problem to disappear by ignoring it and pretending that Josephus simply stated this to be the first occasion. But that is not what he wrote so, despite your claim to the contrary, we are left with a phrase that is rather awkward in English. You don't tend to find references to people making things first that are already first in a chronological sequence. Instead, you find people making things first that are not necessarily first in a sequence. Do you understand? Even though they had on ongoing border dispute, Aretas "made" this the first occasion of his enmity. Problem solved without ignoring any of the words.

Of those two, the former seems to make more sense than the latter even though it denies you the temporal disconnect you wish to establish.

I just finished suggesting that Aretas made the divorce the primary motivation even though the border dispute was possibly the true motivation.

Why is it hard to believe that John was not an idiot with a death wish? Josephus presents him as making general statements to his fellow Jews about how they should all change their ways. He goes on to explain that Herod perceived this as a potential threat. The John you suggest would be no potential threat because the idiot would have been publicly denouncing him before large crowds. That is a pretty explicit threat to one's position, don't you think?

Did every minister and priest in this country specifically discuss Clinton's blowjob from their pulpits or did they preach in more general terms about moral behavior and, possibly, make references to "even those in authority"? Do you think they would be more circumspect or more explicit if Clinton had the power to have them arrested and executed for their statements?

Personal reasons? Wouldn't making public denouncements of Herod constitute an explicitly treasonous act that would require no other excuse for a death sentence?

Yes and it would be consistent with how Josephus describes him (ie giving commands to all Jews to change their behavior).

TedM

I just don't see how 'made' necessarily makes a difference. These two sentences are basically equivalent to me: "Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity" with "Aretas first considered Herod to be his enemy because of this", so I don't see the translated words as awkward. I don't agree that people don't use first as an appropriate qualifier when naming things that happened sequentially. For example, if my parents were to describe the order of their children they would likely say "Wayne came first, then Frank, etc.." The problem for my case is that Josephus doesn't use a time qualifier for the border dispute, he only states that it also existed. Whether that means it existed during or before the time of the divorce, or only existed after the divorce--thus being the second occasion for enmity--is just not clear. IF it is the latter, then I'm saying some time elapsed between 'events of enmity' which led to the raising of armies, which places the divorce an unspecified amount of time prior to the war.

IF we are talking about 'first occasion' as chronology, this interpretation works if there were other, later occasions of enmity but I think neither of us know of any at this point. So, it is possible, and I'll now say even a reasonable interpretation. If this is correct, there is no need for time to elapse before raising armies and the traditional reading makes the most sense--placing the divorce just before the war.

However, you indicated that you prefer an intepretation of the 'first occasion' as meaning a primary source (motivator) of enmity. I just don't see that. For that to work, 'occasion of' would have to mean something like 'reason for', which doesn't seem correct. It seems more correct that 'occasion of' would mean 'time of' or 'event of'

Are you suggesting that John didn't know the danger he was in with the kinds of crowds he was attracting? I doubt it. He apparantly was more concerned with his message and being righteous and helping others to aspire to righteousness than for his own safety. That's why I say it also seems just as hard to believe that John knew about Herod's scandalous divorce and didn't mention it. I'll take back the comparison with Josephus though, since John did have more to lose than Josephus.

Actually the public denoucement of Herod by John isn't even required for the 'word on the street' to have been what we see in the gospels. Virtually everyone knew about this divorce and the scandalous marriage, and of course there was plenty of disapproval. Even if you are right that John valued his own life too much to mention it, it is plausible that the public thought Herod arrested John for offending him personally, based on what we know of John's ministry (call to piety and virtue) in Josephus' works alone.

IF the odds that John denounced Herod was 50% and nearly 100% that the public knew this AND the odds that the rumor was that John did denounce Herod even though he didn't was also 50%, that gives us a probability of 75% that the divorce was the believed reason for his arrest. Oh well, I"m speculating, but I am still doing it on the basis of what Josephus has told us about John and Herod and the cause of the war.

I"m tiring of this now, so I hope we are close to wrapping up Thanks for your insights.

ted

Amaleq13

That is a bad example because your parents really could say they "made" Wayne first. An analogous example would involve a sequence outside the control of the individual yet with the individual described as having "made" the first, first. I would be interested in any genuinely analogous example you might imagine but, as it stands, it certainly seems like an awkward sentence in English and only more so given your interpretation of a sequence of events.

You should have checked a dictionary on that one, Ted. Dictionary.com gives the following as meanings of "occasion":

Given no evidence of subsequent "occasions" of enmity, I would think this is the likely intended meaning.

I wish someone who knew Greek would chime in with an assist.

No. I'm suggesting John was more interested in preaching his message than becoming a martyr and more interested in convincing his fellow Jews to change their ways than making political statements. A public denouncement of Herod suggests otherwise.

I agree that you're speculating but it doesn't appear to me to be based on Josephus since the evidence of his text hardly supports a 50% chance of a denouncement of Herod. It doesn't really support the notion at all.

I've got nothing to add. I think it has been pretty well establish that there is no good reason to accept any of the speculative objections offered against interpreting Josephus as dating the death of John the Baptist not long before the war in 36ce between Aretas and Herod.

TedM

That works for 'occasion for' but it doesn't sound right to me for 'occasion of'. I'm not sure if the Greek allows for a translation of 'occasion of'. Can you think of an example using 'occasion of' that you can apply the above definition to?

Let's take out 'first' and see what we have:

"Aretas made this an occasion of enmity between himself and Herod"
"Aretas made this an occasion for enmity between himself and Herod"

I don't have a problem with 'made' because Aretas does have control over his reactions to things. To me Josephus could be saying that Aretas made Herod his enemy and the other words 'first occasion of' are words giving further description about this action, so I don't have the same problem you have with the word 'made'.

The above 2 examples sounds slightly awkward, but not very much to me. IF 'for' is not acceptable and 'of' is, then would you agree that though it may sound a bit awkward the first sentence is most likely referring to an 'occurance' than a 'reason'?



Ok, you may be right. Let me ask this: Do you think--given what we know from Josephus, that the public understanding of WHY John was arrested could have over time been that it was over a public denouncement of Herod and if so what odds would you give it? To me the odds are decent since the public hated Herod and since the marriage was a big issue that caused the war they blame Herod's murder of John on AND since John's message was clearly against the kind of behavior Herod engaged in..

ted

Amaleq13

I agree it is awkward and stilted sounding in English but I've found that to be often the case in translations of ancient Greek texts.

I doubt it because in English we would tend to use "justification" with "of" rather than "reason". There are, of course, ample examples of "justification of" in English.

"Aretas made this the justification of enmity between himself and Herod."

If it is a reaction rather than a sequence, then "first" should be understood more as "primary" than "initial" which is what I have been suggesting. You can't make something the first of a sequence except by creating a second but you can certainly choose to make something your first priority or primary reason for doing something.

No. I don't think we can reach a sound conclusion based on the apparent awkwardness of an English translation. It seems to me that the absence of any subsequent "occurance" of enmity would pretty much eliminate the idea that Josephus is talking about the first of a sequence. If Aretas and Herod never fought again, it wouldn't make any sense to refer to this battle as their "first", would it?

I think it is entirely possible that the author of Mark followed your same line of speculation to create a new reason for John to be executed but there doesn't appear to be any good reason to generalize that to "the public". I think it would have been clear to the people that John, Josephus says, was considered a threat and eliminated because he was popular and preaching a message of change.

CX

We notice in Mark's gospel that the author does not have a very expansive Greek vocabulary. The result is often text which is choppy, disjointed and otherwise convoluted. I interpret this much more as the author's lack of facility with Koine than anything else. In any case NC's analysis is clearly off the mark for the reasons already stated.