Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RogueBibleScholar · 12-07-2009, 07:57 AM

Hi everybody,

I've finished updating my website with info about John the Baptist in Josephus. You can find the section here. Among the new developments are that I came across the idea that the Josephus passage never has John denounce Antipas' and Herodias' marriage, and so it is at least possible to imagine this as a periscope back in time. The Gospels do have John make such a denunciation, and so we cannot imagine this as a periscope back in time and hold the Gospels infallible. Furthermore, even if we do not hold the Gospels infallible, Josephus does not indicate it is a periscope back in time, so I conclude it probably isn't. As argued above, if the section on John is held to be subsequent to Aretas destroying all of Herod's army, then it is a logical contradiction that it be in Herod's control immediately after Aretas has destroyed ALL of Herod's army.

Furthermore, Herodias' previous husband had been the son of Miraimne, as related in 18.5.4. whereas the Herod Philip that died in 18.4.6 was the son of one Cleopatra, a wife of Herod "the Great." Later, Herod Philip, the tetrarch, son of Miramne, married Salome. The way Josephus describes Herodias' earlier marriage, he says she married Herod, son of Miramne, and had Salome. Had this same Philip later married Salome, he would have been marrying his own daughter! Yet, there is no hit of outrage at this hypothetical incest, as there is in a number of other cases. Thus, through parentage, and through the absurdity of marrying one's own daughter, Herod Philip cannot have been Herodias' previous husband. The Herod whom she had been married to previously, was the son of Miriamne. Since the gospels call him Philip, apparently in error, and yet have John denounce the marriage with Antipas, conservative scholars have concluded that this son of Miriamne was also called Philip; although without basis in Josephus. For the full discussion, please check out the webpage, and let me know if anybody has any corrections or oversights to relate.

TIA,
Da Rogue

maryhelena · 12-07-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueBibleScholar

Hi everybody,

I've finished updating my website with info about John the Baptist in Josephus. You can find the section here. Among the new developments are that I came across the idea that the Josephus passage never has John denounce Antipas' and Herodias' marriage, and so it is at least possible to imagine this as a periscope back in time. The Gospels do have John make such a denunciation, and so we cannot imagine this as a periscope back in time and hold the Gospels infallible. Furthermore, even if we do not hold the Gospels infallible, Josephus does not indicate it is a periscope back in time, so I conclude it probably isn't. As argued above, if the section on John is held to be subsequent to Aretas destroying all of Herod's army, then it is a logical contradiction that it be in Herod's control immediately after Aretas has destroyed ALL of Herod's army.

Furthermore, Herodias' previous husband had been the son of Miraimne, as related in 18.5.4. whereas the Herod Philip that died in 18.4.6 was the son of one Cleopatra, a wife of Herod "the Great." Later, Herod Philip, the tetrarch, son of Miramne, married Salome. The way Josephus describes Herodias' earlier marriage, he says she married Herod, son of Miramne, and had Salome. Had this same Philip later married Salome, he would have been marrying his own daughter! Yet, there is no hit of outrage at this hypothetical incest, as there is in a number of other cases. Thus, through parentage, and through the absurdity of marrying one's own daughter, Herod Philip cannot have been Herodias' previous husband. The Herod whom she had been married to previously, was the son of Miriamne. Since the gospels call him Philip, apparently in error, and yet have John denounce the marriage with Antipas, conservative scholars have concluded that this son of Miriamne was also called Philip; although without basis in Josephus. For the full discussion, please check out the webpage, and let me know if anybody has any corrections or oversights to relate.

TIA,
Da Rogue

Lots of intrigue re Herodias and Philip the Tetrarch...

A couple of points:

First, there is no record of Philip the Tetrarch ever using the name/title of 'Herod'. That is just an assumption on the part of those seeking to somehow harmonize the gospels with Josephus.

The book, 'Herod Antipas in Galilee' (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Morten Jensen remarks on this fact about Philip the Tetrarch. In regard to some inscriptions it says: "

Quote:

Both inscriptions are dedicated to "Herod the Tetrarch, Son of King Herod'. It is not likely that this dedication could refer to Philip as well, since the name 'Herod' is never used in connection with Philip, who always included his own name on his coins, unlike Antipas who always referred to himself as 'Herod' on his coins"

This books also makes reference to the position of Nikos Kokkinos regarding the marriage of Herodias to Philip the Tetrarch - that Philip was her second husband and after his death in 33 CE she re-married for the third time, to Antipas - probably for political reasons.

(this book is on google books - where one can read a few pages....)

Secondly, keep in mind that in order for the gospel time line re Herodias and Herod Antipas to have been married prior to 30/33 CE - i.e. prior to the death of Philip - something had to be done to try and keep this earlier marriage quite - and what could be a more off putting scenario than having Josephus write that it was the daughter of Herodias, Salome, that was married to Philip?

Methinks, its not just the TF in Josephus that is supporting the gospel storyline - and its time line.

RogueBibleScholar · 12-07-2009, 08:12 PM

That sounds like a reasonable basis for just calling him Philip, as Josephus does. Still, the lack of his name on coins is not sufficient to demonstrate that he never used the name as such. In Roman usage, the full name was a family name followed by a personal name, such as Flavius Vespasian. Since his family name was Herod, Herod Philip would be a natural thing to call him if he inclined toward the Romans, and one were to use his entire, as opposed to only personal, name. I do not, however, think that a coin with Herod the Tetrarch should be held to refer to Herod Philip, at least to judge from Josephus, who takes to calling Antipas simply Herod in B. 18, but never calls Philip anything but Philip - which further supports the conjecture.

You write: "First, there is no record of Philip the Tetrarch ever using the name/title of 'Herod'. That is just an assumption on the part of those seeking to somehow harmonize the gospels with Josephus."

I agree, but I would say an example of it is Whiston supplying "Philip" in square brackets, to make Herod son of Mariamne of Simon out to be a Philip, in order to try to harmonize, not the biblical chronology, but the otherwise unsupported claim in the Gospels that Herodias had ever been married to a Philip at all! I suppose a problem of few years, in terms of Gospel contradictions, was one of the more minor contradictions the early Christian writers had to deal with - and so it never got fixed.

I need some more exposure to what Kokkinos is saying, but what I have read of what others say of his ideas seems dubious to me. Consider the following passage in Josephus:

Quote:

"But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; ..." (Antiq. 18.5.4)

To take the text at face value, Josephus only enumerates TWO marriages for Herodias here. The first one resulted in a daughter, Salome, who married Philip the Tetrarch. If Herodias had ever been married to Philip the Tetrarch, Josephus is intentionally suppressing it here, and Philip would have been married to the mother at one time, and the daughter at another.

Supposing that a Christian editor of Josephus wanted to suppress a hypothetical marriage between Philip the Tetrarch and Herodias, which ended when Philip died, and had changed the text, they would have done nothing to alleviate the chronological problem; because the text, as it now stands, is in contradiction to the Gospel timeline, since John the Baptist denounces the marriage between Antipas and Herodias in the Gospels - an event which Josephus has take place well after the supposed onset of Jesus' purported ministry; no matter who Herodias had been married to before.

I have as yet, no firm evidence that Herodias was ever married to a Philip at all, outside of the Gospels, and Whiston's attempt to pencil him in. I suppose rather, that they had read of the death of Philip the Tetrarch, and thought the following passage pertained to him rather than Herod son of Miriamne of Simon - a mistake that has been remarkably persistent over the centuries. If we get away from the suspect John the Baptist passage, and into 18.5.4, Josephus is quite coherent on the subject, and would have been well-informed on the family tree of the Herods. I am certainly willing to hear any firm evidence that Herodias was ever married to a Philip, or that Philip never married Salome, but if you assert that the account has been altered to harmonize the chronology with the Gospel account, it has not been, since the underlying problem still has not been solved: that Antipas and Herodias made plans to marry about the time of the death of Philip the Tetrarch (which by no means requires that the two events should in any other way be associated). Making Herodias married to only Herod son of Miriamne of Simon instead of Philip the Tetrarch does nothing to remove the chronological problem between the Gospels and Josephus, and so I conclude, until evidence demands otherwise, that this was not an editorial interest that was at play in these sections of Josephus. While I take the John the Baptist passage to be work of an editor who either was not very astute at or interested in chronology, or was writing before the Gospels appear in a very modern form, I do not, e.g. take the surrounding passages to be such, since they contradict the John passage if we suppose John's execution to have been a recent event.

Is it not easier to suppose that the Gospels had wrongly associated the passage on Philip's death with Herodias' marriage plans in the subsequent section, and had passed over a chronological problem of less than a handful of years for the sake of a compelling alteration of history; than to invent an extra marriage for Herodias, deny that Philip the Tetrarch had ever married Salome, and insist that Josephus has been tampered to fix the chronology of the Gospels, when the proposed change results in no improvement in the chronological problems of the Gospels? While Josephus does play fast and loose with some facts, he seems to do so far less than the Gospels. His particular sort of madness is to take a lot of facts, and put his own miraculous interpretation on them in terms of Jewish tradition, rather than to change facts at will, in support of their revised miraculous history, whereas Atwill and others posit a large number of reworked passages of Josephus' with significant changes in the facts (not always intentional), in the Gospels.

Take heart, however. I do have some observations about the passage on James that may point to significant later editing being turned up in Josephus that will appear on my site in coming weeks; and another possibility regarding a non-Christian figure. I will update my site not to use Herod Philip (until something compels me to a different usage), and will try to find out more about why Kokkinos is saying what he is. I wish there were something online, to relieve me from having to buy the book, or get it on ILL.

Thanks for the feedback, no matter what I finally make of Kokkinos' material.:grin:

maryhelena · 12-08-2009, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueBibleScholar

That sounds like a reasonable basis for just calling him Philip, as Josephus does. Still, the lack of his name on coins is not sufficient to demonstrate that he never used the name as such. In Roman usage, the full name was a family name followed by a personal name, such as Flavius Vespasian. Since his family name was Herod, Herod Philip would be a natural thing to call him if he inclined toward the Romans, and one were to use his entire, as opposed to only personal, name. I do not, however, think that a coin with Herod the Tetrarch should be held to refer to Herod Philip, at least to judge from Josephus, who takes to calling Antipas simply Herod in B. 18, but never calls Philip anything but Philip - which further supports the conjecture.

You write: "First, there is no record of Philip the Tetrarch ever using the name/title of 'Herod'. That is just an assumption on the part of those seeking to somehow harmonize the gospels with Josephus."

I agree, but I would say an example of it is Whiston supplying "Philip" in square brackets, to make Herod son of Mariamne of Simon out to be a Philip, in order to try to harmonize, not the biblical chronology, but the otherwise unsupported claim in the Gospels that Herodias had ever been married to a Philip at all! I suppose a problem of few years, in terms of Gospel contradictions, was one of the more minor contradictions the early Christian writers had to deal with - and so it never got fixed.

I need some more exposure to what Kokkinos is saying, but what I have read of what others say of his ideas seems dubious to me. Consider the following passage in Josephus:

Quote:

"But Herodias, their sister, was married to Herod [Philip], the son of Herod the Great, who was born of Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest, who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country, and divorced herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod [Antipas], her husband's brother by the father's side, he was tetrarch of Galilee; but her daughter Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis; ..." (Antiq. 18.5.4)

To take the text at face value, Josephus only enumerates TWO marriages for Herodias here. The first one resulted in a daughter, Salome, who married Philip the Tetrarch. If Herodias had ever been married to Philip the Tetrarch, Josephus is intentionally suppressing it here, and Philip would have been married to the mother at one time, and the daughter at another.

Supposing that a Christian editor of Josephus wanted to suppress a hypothetical marriage between Philip the Tetrarch and Herodias, which ended when Philip died, and had changed the text, they would have done nothing to alleviate the chronological problem; because the text, as it now stands, is in contradiction to the Gospel timeline, since John the Baptist denounces the marriage between Antipas and Herodias in the Gospels - an event which Josephus has take place well after the supposed onset of Jesus' purported ministry; no matter who Herodias had been married to before.

Yes, having Herodias married to Philip does nothing to harmonize the gospel timeline with Josephus. What it does do though is raise questions regarding the historicity of the gospel timeline. Kokkinos, seemingly, is quite happy to have the gospel timeline move to around 36/37 CE - crucifixion included - to harmonize with the Josephan account re Antipas and his divorce from Aretas's daughter - and consequent marriage to Herodias. Methinks, however, that many a NT scholar or theologian might not be so happy. The bugbear, if you will, is that gospel date stamp involving the 15th year of Tiberius....

Quote:

I have as yet, no firm evidence that Herodias was ever married to a Philip at all, outside of the Gospels, and Whiston's attempt to pencil him in. I suppose rather, that they had read of the death of Philip the Tetrarch, and thought the following passage pertained to him rather than Herod son of Miriamne of Simon - a mistake that has been remarkably persistent over the centuries. If we get away from the suspect John the Baptist passage, and into 18.5.4, Josephus is quite coherent on the subject, and would have been well-informed on the family tree of the Herods. I am certainly willing to hear any firm evidence that Herodias was ever married to a Philip, or that Philip never married Salome, but if you assert that the account has been altered to harmonize the chronology with the Gospel account, it has not been, since the underlying problem still has not been solved: that Antipas and Herodias made plans to marry about the time of the death of Philip the Tetrarch (which by no means requires that the two events should in any other way be associated). Making Herodias married to only Herod son of Miriamne of Simon instead of Philip the Tetrarch does nothing to remove the chronological problem between the Gospels and Josephus, and so I conclude, until evidence demands otherwise, that this was not an editorial interest that was at play in these sections of Josephus. While I take the John the Baptist passage to be work of an editor who either was not very astute at or interested in chronology, or was writing before the Gospels appear in a very modern form, I do not, e.g. take the surrounding passages to be such, since they contradict the John passage if we suppose John's execution to have been a recent event.

Is it not easier to suppose that the Gospels had wrongly associated the passage on Philip's death with Herodias' marriage plans in the subsequent section, and had passed over a chronological problem of less than a handful of years for the sake of a compelling alteration of history; than to invent an extra marriage for Herodias, deny that Philip the Tetrarch had ever married Salome, and insist that Josephus has been tampered to fix the chronology of the Gospels, when the proposed change results in no improvement in the chronological problems of the Gospels? While Josephus does play fast and loose with some facts, he seems to do so far less than the Gospels. His particular sort of madness is to take a lot of facts, and put his own miraculous interpretation on them in terms of Jewish tradition, rather than to change facts at will, in support of their revised miraculous history, whereas Atwill and others posit a large number of reworked passages of Josephus' with significant changes in the facts (not always intentional), in the Gospels.

The problem is that it's not just a few years that are involved. If Herodias married Herod Boethus around 1 CE and gave birth to Salome shortly thereafter - and left Herod Boethus soon after the birth - there could be close to 30 years involved. Or even from the other date given for the birth of Salome, 14 CE - which makes Herodias childless for a very long time - there is still around 15 years to account for before she marries Antipas. And remember, that Josephus reports that the marriage between Antipas and the daughter of Aretas was a long one - Antipas ".... had lived with her a great while;". Hence, its these large number of missing years of Herodias's life that are raising questions.....

Quote:

Take heart, however. I do have some observations about the passage on James that may point to significant later editing being turned up in Josephus that will appear on my site in coming weeks; and another possibility regarding a non-Christian figure. I will update my site not to use Herod Philip (until something compels me to a different usage), and will try to find out more about why Kokkinos is saying what he is. I wish there were something online, to relieve me from having to buy the book, or get it on ILL.

Thanks for the feedback, no matter what I finally make of Kokkinos' material.:grin:

The fact that Josephus does not mention a third marriage for Herodias is revealing - particularly as the lack of such a mention can be utilized as support for the gospel timeline - a timeline that requires Herodias to be married to Antipas around 29/30 CE.

Interestingly, also, regarding the gospel timeline, Josephus says that Philip renamed the village of Bethsaida as Bethsaida Julias in honour of Julia daughter of Caesar. In effect placing this renaming prior to the banishment of Julia in 2 BC. This Josephan statement has now been discredited. Nikos Kokkinos’s article, ‘The Foundation of Bethsaida-Julias by Philip the Tetrarch’ - unfortunately only an abstract online:

Quote:

The Foundation of Bethsaida-Julias by Philip the Tetrarch
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
KOKKINOS Nikos (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) University College London, ROYAUME-UNI
Résumé / Abstract
Josephus (Ant. 18.27) explicitly names Julia 'the daughter' of Augustus, distinguished from Livia/Julia 'the wife', as the person to whom the town of Bethsaida was dedicated. This must have taken place by 2 BCE when Julia was banished, denounced for multiple adulteries. The numismatist A. Kindler suggested that Josephus may be wrong and that Livia/Julia the wife would lie behind this dedication dated to 30/31 CE. Following Kindler, the archaeologists and theologians currently operating at etTell-identified by them as the site of Bethsaida-Julias-have produced many papers accusing Josephus of error. Reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the original suggestion should have never been made.

With Josephus putting the re-naming of Bethsaida Julias prior to 2 BC - he has cleared the road, so to speak, in that he does not have to relate any special activities by Philip the Tetrarch regarding Bethsaida Julias in 30/31 CE. He does not have to present any special events in Bethsaida that might conflict or compromise with the gospel storyline i.e. Jesus of Nazareth is also visiting Bethsaida during that year and choosing some disciples from that place ...

While the gospel storyline has John the Baptist making much of the marriage between Herodias and Antipas "..it is not lawful for you to have her” - Josephus makes no such mention of John the Baptist making any issue over a marital scandal of Antipas taking Herodias as his wife .

Josephus, however, does mention another son of Herod the Great who was in trouble re taking a brother’s wife. The brother is dead, the widow re-married - and while she was married to her second husband, Archelaus falls in love with her - and Glaphyra leaves her husband for Archelaus.

Quote:

Ant.17

...moreover, he transgressed the law of our fathers (23) and married Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, who had been the wife of his brother Alexander, which Alexander had three children by her, while it was a thing detestable among the Jews to marry the brother's wife.

......Glaphyra his wife, who was the daughter of king Archelaus, who, as I said before, was married, while she was a virgin, to Alexander, the son of Herod, and brother of Archelaus; but since it fell out so that Alexander was slain by his father, she was married to Juba, the king of Lybia; and when he was dead, and she lived in widowhood in Cappadocia with her father, Archclaus divorced his former wife Mariamne, and married her, so great was his affection for this Glphyra;

War 2.

Then it was that Archelaus, the ethnarch, saw her, and fell so deeply in love with her, that he divorced Mariamne, who was then his wife, ,and married her.

However, in all of this it seems that Josephus is mistaken - Juba 11 was not dead when Glaphyra left him; he died in 23 CE - and Archelaus was banished from Judea in 6 CE. Thus, Archelaus took his brother’s wife, his widow, from her then living second husband - and earned reproach from Josephus. And yet Josephus has John the Baptist silent, some years later, re the marriage of Antipas to Herodias...

(after all he does have a problem - just who is Antipas taking Herodias from prior to 36/37 CE and the war with Aretas...Philip dead in 33 CE - and seemingly, also Herod Boethus... )

Quote:

http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Egypt/ptolemies/selene_ii.htm

The dates are uncertain, but are bounded by the fact that her marriage to Juba occurred between her first and third marriages, which were to two sons of Herod of Judea: Alexander, who Herod executed shortly before his own death in 4 BC, and Archelaus, who was deposed as ethnarch c. 6/7 AD. Josephus also says that Glaphyra married Archelaus after the death of Juba, but cannot be correct, since Juba died in 23 AD. Presumably there was a divorce, but Josephus was unaware of this (it not being important for his purposes).

Looks like Josephus might well have had his own agenda re his recording of the goings on of the Herodians....

RogueBibleScholar · 12-08-2009, 01:57 PM

I read that paper about Herodias and Salome, and it seems to be a fine overview of recent literature on John. The section where he says Agrippa's trip may have started in 23 CE (Antiq. 18.145–60ff.), after which found Antipas and Herodias already married; but Josephus says this is in fact a trip that took place after Tiberius' death, and it occurs after the John the Baptist passage. Also, I don't see why he insists that Salome had to be born either just before Herodias left Herod, son of Miriamne of Simon, or just after they were married. Any time in between should do fine, and you can make her any age you want; from the point of view of fitting her age with other evidence. It does appear that Herodias may well have married Antipas rather late in life. Age may not have been a barrier to love.

This is not to say that I think the Gospel accounts factual. A Herod offering away half of his kingdom to his wife's daughter, whom he was enamored with, sounds like more the stuff Christian "romance" than a move to be made by Antipas, who had vied with his brother to become the king of all of Herod's former territories. This fits well with some texts, which claim that Antipas had been fascinated with the dance of "his daughter, Herodias." This idea is rendered more somewhat more probable by Atwill's satirical parallels. Kokkinos' contention that Antipas used the marriage as an opportunity to inherit Philip's tetrarchy is dubious at best, since Agrippa was later awarded that tetrarchy instead. The proposal that the writer of Mark created the John/Herodias/Salome scene to underscore Jesus' separate identity from John makes it seem like gross overkill. I suppose that the early Gospel writers were instead trying to over-vilify unpopular actions of the Herods, and whitewash aspects of their reigns that reflected on Rome, where possible. It appears that the John the Baptist story in the Gospels has grown out of the one in Josephus, but this is not to say that it is not an insertion by another - since the Macherus matter seems to have Antipas sent to a fort he could not control at that time, and does not enlighten us that the incident with John either took place earlier. Josephus had been a general in the Jewish revolt, and so probably would have noticed the impossibility of Herod controlling the fort after the marriage with Herodian. While I suppose that a figure named Jesus and named John the Baptist probably existed, although I base this on the additional accounts from the Mandaean scriptures, the Mandaean scriptures have John crossing the Euphrates with the other Mandaeans in search of a new home at the end of their story. This is not to say that it is conclusive that a daughter of Herodias never demanded John's head, or that there wasn't at least a John that was beheaded by Antipas, but it seems unlikely. What I am saying, is that it seems probable that the passage on John the Baptist was not originally part of Josephus work; but that I don't see a firm basis for suspecting the surrounding passages, which is the reverse of Kokkinos. One indication of this, is the uncanny way the passage before John the Baptist dovetails with the one after; but Kraemer fails to even mention the fortress of Macherus, nor that the text flows better without the John the Baptist passage..

RogueBibleScholar · 12-08-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

He does not have to present any special events in Bethsaida that might conflict or compromise with the gospel storyline

The text as it now stands compromises the Gospel story line, in the date of Herodias' marriage to Antipas. I fail to see anything that compels me to think of this as a rationale of Josephus'.

Quote:

The fact that Josephus does not mention a third marriage for Herodias is revealing - particularly as the lack of such a mention can be utilized as support for the gospel timeline - a timeline that requires Herodias to be married to Antipas around 29/30 CE.

Since this does nothing to alleviate the chronological contradiction with the gospels, it seems like quite a stretch.

Quote:

(after all he does have a problem - just who is Antipas taking Herodias from prior to 36/37 CE and the war with Aretas...Philip dead in 33 CE - and seemingly, also Herod Boethus... )

I see no reason at all to conclude that Herod Boethus was dead by the time Herodias married Antipas. I read Josephus to say he was still alive, if by Herod Boethus you mean Herod, son of Miriamne of Simon.

I am not holding Josephus as perfect, but just because he has been proven wrong in a few particulars is a) no evidence that it was intentional, and b) no reason to dismiss him perfunctorily, when he disagrees with the Gospels. Kokkinos is still trying to uphold the idea that Herodias was ever married to a Philip, an idea that arises only in the Gospels - something that I have no firm evidence of.

maryhelena · 12-09-2009, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogueBibleScholar

Quote:

He does not have to present any special events in Bethsaida that might conflict or compromise with the gospel storyline

The text as it now stands compromises the Gospel story line, in the date of Herodias' marriage to Antipas. I fail to see anything that compels me to think of this as a rationale of Josephus'.

Since this does nothing to alleviate the chronological contradiction with the gospels, it seems like quite a stretch.

Quote:

(after all he does have a problem - just who is Antipas taking Herodias from prior to 36/37 CE and the war with Aretas...Philip dead in 33 CE - and seemingly, also Herod Boethus... )

I see no reason at all to conclude that Herod Boethus was dead by the time Herodias married Antipas. I read Josephus to say he was still alive, if by Herod Boethus you mean Herod, son of Miriamne of Simon.

I am not holding Josephus as perfect, but just because he has been proven wrong in a few particulars is a) no evidence that it was intentional, and b) no reason to dismiss him perfunctorily, when he disagrees with the Gospels. Kokkinos is still trying to uphold the idea that Herodias was ever married to a Philip, an idea that arises only in the Gospels - something that I have no firm evidence of.

Regarding the death of Herod Boethus:

Herod Philip I

Quote:

Herod II, sometimes known as Herod Boethus or Herod Philip I (ca. 27 BC - 33 AD)[1] was the son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, the daughter of Simon Boethus the High Priest (Mark 6:17). For a brief period he was his father's heir.

1. ^ Kokkinos, The Herodian Dynasty, p. 237.

It's a pity this book by Kokkinos seems to be out of print.

There is a JBL article that refers to this book quite a bit:

Journal of Biblical Literature. Vol 125, No.2, July 2006. “Implicating Herodias and Her Daughter in the Death of John the Baptizer: A (Christian) Theological Strategy?” (by Ross S Kraemer].

This article presents the idea that Herod Antipas offered Herodias a bigamous marriage:

Quote:

....Antipas proposed marriage to her, a proposal that Kokkinos takes (as do some other interpreters, including Hoehner) to be for a bigamous marriage. Herodias accepted on the condition that Antipas divorce his wife.

Interesting.....here we have Herodias being in a position to call the shots! A woman who has just left a living husband with his young child. Is this really a case of love being blind? That Antipas looked the situation in the face and decided his love for Herodias, the wife of his dis-inherited brother, was worth the very real possibility of war with Aretas. Dis-honoring Aretas daughter by divorcing her - playing fast and loose with whatever political alliance he had had with Aretas? Things can look very much different if Herodias is the widow of Philip the Tetrarch. In this scenario she is in a position of considerable strength. The widow of a renowned ruler with the possibility of a merger of the two territories - Antipas might think such a prize worth taking a chance on war with Aretas - unfortunately....

Ant. 18

Quote:

....all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives, who, though they were of the tetrarchy of Philip, joined with Aretas's army..

The JBL article mentions the argument of Kokkinos that the daughter of Herodias, Salome, would have been much older than Aristobulus of Chalcis - who Josephus has her marrying after the death of Philip the Tetrarch.

Quote:

Kokkinos argues that Aristobulus was three to five years younger than his cousin, Agrippa II, who was born in 27/28 c.e. (Herodian Dynasty, 305 n. 147; also 309ff.).

Since his father died in 48 CE and Aristobulus was only made King in 55 CE - there seems to be an issue over his age when his father died i.e. that he was too young to be declared ruler. If Aristobulus was born between 29 and 34 CE - then Salome had quite a long wait before her re-marriage to him after the death of Philip in 33 CE - which would mean she had three children very late in life...

Strange goings on for these Herodians. First Salome is supposed to have married her great uncle - a man old enough to be her father. Then she is supposed to be married to Aristobulus of Chalcis - and at that stage she is old enough to be her new husband's mother!!

Looks like Josephus has a few crossed wires here!

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

12-07-2009, 07:57 AM	#21
RogueBibleScholar Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Europe Posts: 35	Hi everybody, I've finished updating my website with info about John the Baptist in Josephus. You can find the section here. Among the new developments are that I came across the idea that the Josephus passage never has John denounce Antipas' and Herodias' marriage, and so it is at least possible to imagine this as a periscope back in time. The Gospels do have John make such a denunciation, and so we cannot imagine this as a periscope back in time and hold the Gospels infallible. Furthermore, even if we do not hold the Gospels infallible, Josephus does not indicate it is a periscope back in time, so I conclude it probably isn't. As argued above, if the section on John is held to be subsequent to Aretas destroying all of Herod's army, then it is a logical contradiction that it be in Herod's control immediately after Aretas has destroyed ALL of Herod's army. Furthermore, Herodias' previous husband had been the son of Miraimne, as related in 18.5.4. whereas the Herod Philip that died in 18.4.6 was the son of one Cleopatra, a wife of Herod "the Great." Later, Herod Philip, the tetrarch, son of Miramne, married Salome. The way Josephus describes Herodias' earlier marriage, he says she married Herod, son of Miramne, and had Salome. Had this same Philip later married Salome, he would have been marrying his own daughter! Yet, there is no hit of outrage at this hypothetical incest, as there is in a number of other cases. Thus, through parentage, and through the absurdity of marrying one's own daughter, Herod Philip cannot have been Herodias' previous husband. The Herod whom she had been married to previously, was the son of Miriamne. Since the gospels call him Philip, apparently in error, and yet have John denounce the marriage with Antipas, conservative scholars have concluded that this son of Miriamne was also called Philip; although without basis in Josephus. For the full discussion, please check out the webpage, and let me know if anybody has any corrections or oversights to relate. TIA, Da Rogue

12-08-2009, 01:57 PM	#25
RogueBibleScholar Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Europe Posts: 35	I read that paper about Herodias and Salome, and it seems to be a fine overview of recent literature on John. The section where he says Agrippa's trip may have started in 23 CE (Antiq. 18.145–60ff.), after which found Antipas and Herodias already married; but Josephus says this is in fact a trip that took place after Tiberius' death, and it occurs after the John the Baptist passage. Also, I don't see why he insists that Salome had to be born either just before Herodias left Herod, son of Miriamne of Simon, or just after they were married. Any time in between should do fine, and you can make her any age you want; from the point of view of fitting her age with other evidence. It does appear that Herodias may well have married Antipas rather late in life. Age may not have been a barrier to love. This is not to say that I think the Gospel accounts factual. A Herod offering away half of his kingdom to his wife's daughter, whom he was enamored with, sounds like more the stuff Christian "romance" than a move to be made by Antipas, who had vied with his brother to become the king of all of Herod's former territories. This fits well with some texts, which claim that Antipas had been fascinated with the dance of "his daughter, Herodias." This idea is rendered more somewhat more probable by Atwill's satirical parallels. Kokkinos' contention that Antipas used the marriage as an opportunity to inherit Philip's tetrarchy is dubious at best, since Agrippa was later awarded that tetrarchy instead. The proposal that the writer of Mark created the John/Herodias/Salome scene to underscore Jesus' separate identity from John makes it seem like gross overkill. I suppose that the early Gospel writers were instead trying to over-vilify unpopular actions of the Herods, and whitewash aspects of their reigns that reflected on Rome, where possible. It appears that the John the Baptist story in the Gospels has grown out of the one in Josephus, but this is not to say that it is not an insertion by another - since the Macherus matter seems to have Antipas sent to a fort he could not control at that time, and does not enlighten us that the incident with John either took place earlier. Josephus had been a general in the Jewish revolt, and so probably would have noticed the impossibility of Herod controlling the fort after the marriage with Herodian. While I suppose that a figure named Jesus and named John the Baptist probably existed, although I base this on the additional accounts from the Mandaean scriptures, the Mandaean scriptures have John crossing the Euphrates with the other Mandaeans in search of a new home at the end of their story. This is not to say that it is conclusive that a daughter of Herodias never demanded John's head, or that there wasn't at least a John that was beheaded by Antipas, but it seems unlikely. What I am saying, is that it seems probable that the passage on John the Baptist was not originally part of Josephus work; but that I don't see a firm basis for suspecting the surrounding passages, which is the reverse of Kokkinos. One indication of this, is the uncanny way the passage before John the Baptist dovetails with the one after; but Kraemer fails to even mention the fortress of Macherus, nor that the text flows better without the John the Baptist passage..

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.