Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 07-18-2010, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let's just say that Kokkinos is disagreeing with our main source about Herodian times. Mary Helena has provided no coherent logic to dismiss Josephus's consistent report about the marriage of Herodias. Josephus is clear in his belief that Herodias was married to the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne (AJ 18.136). He also talks of the trouble derived from Antipas's marriage to Herodias sufficiently after the death of Philip. This latter marriage sent the daughter of Aretas back to Petra to set off a war between the Nabataeans and Antipas in the last year of the reign of Tiberius while Philip died about two years earlier (in the 20th year of Tiberius (AJ 18.106)). Why does Josephus think Salome was married to Philip? And why after the death of Philip that she married Aristobolus son of Agrippa (AJ 18.137)?

Herodias was born circa 15 BCE. That means that by 35 CE she would have been about 50 years old and past the usual age of bearing children.

Now claiming that Josephus is "suspect" regarding Herodian history requires some serious reasoning to support the claim. It cannot be based solely on the opinions of Kokkinos. We need to get our hands dirty with the evidence, but as Josephus is our major source on Herodian history it's very hard to get an evidence based alternative view.

Quite, and until such time that other scholars decide to prove that the ideas of Kokkinos are not supportable - then I'm going along with Kokkinos re Herodias being married to Philip - a position that is also supported by the gospels of Mark and Matthew

Quote:

Why people have so much difficulty with the existence of John the Baptist, when he is given a prominent role in Josephus and the gospels are forced to mention him, always makes me wonder. John the Baptist is not a christian development. John is a problem in christianity. He has no real role. He is someone chritsianity has to accommodate. Even his disciples continue after his death as the gospel writers believe and Apollos we are told in Acts doesn't know about Jesus but he proclaims the beliefs of John the Baptist. It's obvious that John had nothing originally to do with christianity and has been appropriated. His religious views lived after him and separately from christianity. John has been co-opted. We don't have any better candidate for the genesis of the baptist movement. So, while John may not have been historical, there is no better explanation for the existence of the beleif system attributed to him than his having engendered it.

If one is going to have a go at Josephus, one should have a modicum of evidence to justify the attack.

spin

I did provide in earlier posts on this thread links to two books on Josephus and his role as a prophet, interpreter of dreams. Josephus is not simply a historian. Alternative methods, alternative interpretations, are therefore as relevant as any plain reading of his work. Particularly so when what he writes has some significance for the NT storyline. And in that connection, the Herodias and Philip question becomes relevant.

Quote:

JBL 125, no. 2 (2006): 321–349
Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter
in the Death of John the Baptizer:
A (Christian) Theological Strategy?
ross s. kraemer

Josephus and the Gospel writers provide different names for the husband whom Herodias left to marry Antipas. Josephus says quite clearly that Herodias left Antipas’s own brother, another son of Herod the Great and Mariamme, who was also named Herod, while Mark and Matthew say that the prior husband was named Philip. All manuscripts of Mark and most of the major ancient witnesses for Matthew attribute the name of Philip to the brother of Herod Antipas. Major witnesses to Luke also lack the name of Philip. Various explanations have been proposed for this apparent discrepancy. Scholars seeking to harmonize Josephus and the Gospels have sometimes postulated a person known both as Herod and as Philip. Others have taken Mark’s ascription of the name Philip to be erroneous and an indication that the entire account is improbable. Although he seems to have no a priori commitment to the reliability of the Gospels, Kokkinos accepts the Markan claim that Herodias’s husband prior to Antipas was named Philip, but thinks this Philip was not the otherwise unattested “Herod Philip” but rather the well-attested Philip the Tetrarch.

Philip the Tetrarch

Quote:

There is no evidence for contemporary use of the name 'Herod Philip'. 'Herod Philip I' is better known as Herod II. 'Herod Philip II is better known as Philip the Tetrarch. It is an example of the great difficulty in establishing the relationships of various holders of the same name in the same area or family - especially in the Herodian dynasty (see [1]. Kokkinos says (p 223) “The stubborn existence of many theologians in referring to Herod III as ‘Herod Philip’ is without any value” (233), and again on p. 266, “No illusory Herod Philip ever existed”. The Cambridge Ancient History [2]Vol.10, says that Philip the Tetrarch, “unlike his brothers, did not use Herod as a dynastic name”, and refers to him throughout as Philip, or Philip the Tetrarch. The predecessor CAH [3] had already stated that Philip’s half-brothers Archelaus and Antipas had adopted the name of Herod, "presumably" for a dynastic claim from Herod the Great

The best that can be said is that there are unanswered questions regarding Herodias and Philip. So, if you care for alternative ideas - stay around - otherwise :huh:

maryhelena · 07-18-2010, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let's just say that Kokkinos is disagreeing with our main source about Herodian times. Mary Helena has provided no coherent logic to dismiss Josephus's consistent report about the marriage of Herodias. Josephus is clear in his belief that Herodias was married to the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne (AJ 18.136). He also talks of the trouble derived from Antipas's marriage to Herodias sufficiently after the death of Philip. This latter marriage sent the daughter of Aretas back to Petra to set off a war between the Nabataeans and Antipas in the last year of the reign of Tiberius while Philip died about two years earlier (in the 20th year of Tiberius (AJ 18.106)). Why does Josephus think Salome was married to Philip? And why after the death of Philip that she married Aristobolus son of Agrippa (AJ 18.137)?

Just a little nitpick re Aristobolus ....

Quote:

Antiquites book 18.ch.5

....but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; and as he died childless, Aristobulus, the son of Herod, the brother of Agrippa, married her; they had three sons, Herod, Agrippa, and Aristobulus..

Quote:

Aristobulus of Chalcis

Aristobulus of Chalcis was a son of Herod of Chalcis and his first wife Mariamne, hence a great-grandson of Herod the Great.

In 55 AD, he was appointed by Nero as King of Armenia Minor, and participated with his forces in the Roman-Parthian War of 58–63, where he received a small portion of Armenia in exchange. He remained its ruler until the area was re-annexed into the Roman Empire in 72. He appears to have also been vested with the kingdom of Chalcis, and his period as a ruler is dated to 57-92.

He was married to Salome after the death of her first husband, Herod Philip II. With her he had three children.Three coins with portraits of him and his wife have been found.[1]

Quote:

JBL 125, no. 2 (2006): 321–349
Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter
in the Death of John the Baptizer:
A (Christian) Theological Strategy?
ross s. kraemer

Another potential problem comes from Josephus’s account that Herodias’s daughter Salome was first married to Philip the Tetrarch (her paternal uncle, and yet another son of Herod the Great), who died in 33 c.e. (Ant. 18:136–37). Josephus also claims that Salome later married her cousin, Aristobulus, who seems to have been born around the same time Philip died. Unfortunately, Josephus does not say when this second marriage occurred, but he does add that it produced three sons (Ant. 18.137). That Aristobulus had a wife named Salome seems confirmed by a coin from Chalcis dated to 54 c.e., the year when Aristobulus ascended to the throne, showing Aristobulus on one side and a woman named Salome on the other. (A coin of Aristobulus from 61 c.e. shows only Aristobulus, suggesting, although not demonstrating, that Salome had died in the interim.) According to Josephus, then, Herodias’s daughter Salome was apparently old enough to have been married to Philip before his death in 33 c.e., yet young enough to have married Aristobulus and had three sons with him some twenty years later. Some scholars have found odd both the age discrepancy between Aristobulus and Salome (who appears to have been between ten and twenty three years his senior, depending on when we date her birth) and the fact that she seems to have had three sons relatively late in life.

my bolding
Yes, lots of 'why" questions re what was the game plan re Josephus and his retelling of Herodian history...

Quote:

If one is going to have a go at Josephus, one should have a modicum of evidence to justify the attack.

spin

spin · 07-18-2010, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let's just say that Kokkinos is disagreeing with our main source about Herodian times. Mary Helena has provided no coherent logic to dismiss Josephus's consistent report about the marriage of Herodias. Josephus is clear in his belief that Herodias was married to the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne (AJ 18.136). He also talks of the trouble derived from Antipas's marriage to Herodias sufficiently after the death of Philip. This latter marriage sent the daughter of Aretas back to Petra to set off a war between the Nabataeans and Antipas in the last year of the reign of Tiberius while Philip died about two years earlier (in the 20th year of Tiberius (AJ 18.106)). Why does Josephus think Salome was married to Philip? And why after the death of Philip that she married Aristobolus son of Agrippa (AJ 18.137)?

Herodias was born circa 15 BCE. That means that by 35 CE she would have been about 50 years old and past the usual age of bearing children.

Now claiming that Josephus is "suspect" regarding Herodian history requires some serious reasoning to support the claim. It cannot be based solely on the opinions of Kokkinos. We need to get our hands dirty with the evidence, but as Josephus is our major source on Herodian history it's very hard to get an evidence based alternative view.

Quite, and until such time that other scholars decide to prove that the ideas of Kokkinos are not supportable - then I'm going along with Kokkinos re Herodias being married to Philip - a position that is also supported by the gospels of Mark and Matthew

So for some reason you decide that you are going to trust the gospels of Matthew and Mark over Josephus, well, Mark over Josephus, as Matthew was using Mark, but wait, Luke (3:19), which also uses Mark, has got rid of the notice about Philip--in the Alexandrian tradition. I wouldn't have much confidence in any of that stuff, would you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

I did provide in earlier posts on this thread links to two books on Josephus and his role as a prophet, interpreter of dreams. Josephus is not simply a historian.

This for some reason means that one can arbitrarily decide what they want to believe in Josephus??

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Alternative methods, alternative interpretations, are therefore as relevant as any plain reading of his work.

What is necessary is evidence. You can have all the alternative methods and interpretations you like, but in the end, it requires a modicum of evidence. Without it those alternatives don't have any justification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Particularly so when what he writes has some significance for the NT storyline. And in that connection, the Herodias and Philip question becomes relevant.

It's interesting that you are willing to side with the gospel tradition against Josephus without any evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Philip the Tetrarch

I've written Wiki stuff myself, until I got sick of working around people whose baggage is more important than the material they are editing. We need real source material.

spin

spin · 07-18-2010, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Just a little nitpick re Aristobolus ....

And how did this nitpick help your argument?

spin

maryhelena · 07-18-2010, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quite, and until such time that other scholars decide to prove that the ideas of Kokkinos are not supportable - then I'm going along with Kokkinos re Herodias being married to Philip - a position that is also supported by the gospels of Mark and Matthew

So for some reason you decide that you are going to trust the gospels of Matthew and Mark over Josephus, well, Mark over Josephus, as Matthew was using Mark, but wait, Luke (3:19), which also uses Mark, has got rid of the notice about Philip--in the Alexandrian tradition. I wouldn't have much confidence in any of that stuff, would you?

This for some reason means that one can arbitrarily decide what they want to believe in Josephus??

What is necessary is evidence. You can have all the alternative methods and interpretations you like, but in the end, it requires a modicum of evidence. Without it those alternatives don't have any justification.

It's interesting that you are willing to side with the gospel tradition against Josephus without any evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Philip the Tetrarch

I've written Wiki stuff myself, until I got sick of working around people whose baggage is more important than the material they are editing. We need real source material.

spin

As I said, spin, we can just wait upon the scholars to refute Kokkinos - we can sit it out - or we can look for alternative answers to the questions related to Josephus and the gospels re Herodias and Philip. Much more interesting to attempt to unravel the puzzle than wait and wait and wait - until some scholar decides the questions re Herodias and Philip are worth his, or her, time....Sure, my interpretations may not be the 'true' answer - but seeing that interpretation is anyone's game - I'll be playing along and seeing how far I can go....

The other alternative is of course - just chuck the whole lot out - and go take in a movie

But somehow or another the fascination with the gospel story beguiles us all - not of course meaning any theological sense - just the unfathomable mystery of it!

maryhelena · 07-18-2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Just a little nitpick re Aristobolus ....

And how did this nitpick help your argument?

spin

I thought I was helping yours.....

aa5874 · 07-18-2010, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quite, and until such time that other scholars decide to prove that the ideas of Kokkinos are not supportable - then I'm going along with Kokkinos re Herodias being married to Philip - a position that is also supported by the gospels of Mark and Matthew.....

Please tell me who were "Mark" and "Matthew"? Even the very names of the authors of gMark and gMatthew are not credible.

You have placed yourself in a very precarious position when you "go along" with anonymous fiction writers.

It must be noted that the authors of gMark and gMatthew both AGREE and provided NAMED witnesses for events that did NOT ever happen.

Examine this event recorded in gMatthew and gMark when John the Baptist baptised Jesus, the offspring of a Ghost of God.

Matthew 3:13-17 -

Quote:

13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him........ 16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased....

Mark 1.9-11

Quote:

9And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.

10And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

11and there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

The anonymous writers of gMatthew and gMark did not get their fiction story of John's baptism of Jesus, the offspring of the Holy Ghost, from Josephus.

spin · 07-18-2010, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So for some reason you decide that you are going to trust the gospels of Matthew and Mark over Josephus, well, Mark over Josephus, as Matthew was using Mark, but wait, Luke (3:19), which also uses Mark, has got rid of the notice about Philip--in the Alexandrian tradition. I wouldn't have much confidence in any of that stuff, would you?

This for some reason means that one can arbitrarily decide what they want to believe in Josephus??

What is necessary is evidence. You can have all the alternative methods and interpretations you like, but in the end, it requires a modicum of evidence. Without it those alternatives don't have any justification.

It's interesting that you are willing to side with the gospel tradition against Josephus without any evidence.

I've written Wiki stuff myself, until I got sick of working around people whose baggage is more important than the material they are editing. We need real source material.

As I said, spin, we can just wait upon the scholars to refute Kokkinos

Why does one have to refute him? He's not put anything substantive forward. I don't see the difference between what you've presented of him and what others have presented of any christian theorist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

we can sit it out - or we can look for alternative answers to the questions related to Josephus and the gospels re Herodias and Philip. Much more interesting to attempt to unravel the puzzle than wait and wait and wait - until some scholar decides the questions re Herodias and Philip are worth his, or her, time....Sure, my interpretations may not be the 'true' answer - but seeing that interpretation is anyone's game - I'll be playing along and seeing how far I can go....

I don't talk about "true" anything. I do talk about evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

The other alternative is of course - just chuck the whole lot out - and go take in a movie

This is not correct. You omit the fact that you have to arbitrarily chuck out the bits of Josephus that you don't like because you are arbitrarily trying to get something out of the gospels. I'd tend to keep the Josephus material as pending, given the track record of what he's written elsewhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

But somehow or another the fascination with the gospel story beguiles us all - not of course meaning any theological sense - just the unfathomable mystery of it!

You're just an old romantic, aren't you?

spin

spamandham · 07-18-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

Cool, I would love to know what writing or what author you think best represents your general model.

I don't have a model (again). What I have are bits and pieces of information that strongly suggest an Egyptian connection (I'm only referring to *influence* from Egyptian ideas, not an origin in them):

1. The existence of the Coptic church early on
2. The infancy story involving Jesus' exodus to Egypt.
3. The transformation of Isis/Horus iconography to Mary/Jesus iconography
4. The Eucharist, which resembles an Egyptian funery rite
5. The concept of bodily resurrection, which resembles Egyptian afterlife beliefs

...to name a few.

Quote:

I read the book at the same time I believed in conspiracy theories. I am someone who used to believe conspiracy theories, with conspiracist literature and conspiracist friends, and my uncle is still very deeply involved in them, so I don't toss out the insulting comparison out of complete ignorance.

Well, hopefully you've rejected these theories because you've honed your bullshit detector and have a better understanding for how human nature can concoct amazing stories from thin air that have no basis in historical reality whatsoever.

maryhelena · 07-19-2010, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

As I said, spin, we can just wait upon the scholars to refute Kokkinos

Why does one have to refute him? He's not put anything substantive forward. I don't see the difference between what you've presented of him and what others have presented of any christian theorist.

I don't talk about "true" anything. I do talk about evidence.

This is not correct. You omit the fact that you have to arbitrarily chuck out the bits of Josephus that you don't like because you are arbitrarily trying to get something out of the gospels. I'd tend to keep the Josephus material as pending, given the track record of what he's written elsewhere.

I'm not actually throwing out "bits of Josephus" - I'm endeavoring to interpret what he says in another context - a more prophetic orientated context - when the historical context does not seem to be warranted. So, the Essenes for example. I don't read Josephus here as being historical. But that does not mean I throw out the Josephan use of the Essenes. Josephus has used his Essenes as prophetic markers - Philo not giving his philosophical Essenes any prophetic role. But Josephus has. In other words - I'm trying to 'rehabilitate' Josephus as the Jewish prophet that he was.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

But somehow or another the fascination with the gospel story beguiles us all - not of course meaning any theological sense - just the unfathomable mystery of it!

You're just an old romantic, aren't you?

spin

And what's wrong with that? Life is not just about the mundane. It's also about celebrating the irrational elements, the leaps of imagination, the flights of fancy - as well as standing in awe at the beauty of nature. Can't be kept down by all the negatives - they are there for sure - but they can't keep a romantic woman, or man, down. So, spin, why not put all those pesky Greek words aside for a while - and come join the party were real life is humming along to that old song - Somewhere over the rainbow.......

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.