maryhelena

Stephen

This exchange has been beneficial to me. The rabbinic literature that you referenced regarding King Agrippa, even if it is perhaps ambiguous (as Schwartz indicated) in that it makes no attempt to specify what details relate to which Agrippa - has allowed me to develop my own theory regarding Philip the Tetrarch and King Agrippa. I'm quite prepared to consider that the rabbinic literature reference only one Agrippa. However, the NT - and Josephus, indicates two such figures. Consequently, from a christian perspective, this needs to be taken into account. The rabbinic literature cannot be given the final say.

So, my thanks for the exchange.

maryhelena

More thoughts on the ‘controversy’ regarding Agrippa ie whether according to an interpretation of rabbinic literature there was only one King Agrippa - or the work of Josephus which indicates two kings named Agrippa during the NT time frame. In a previous post I suggested that Josephus has switched the roles of Agrippa I and Agrippa II i.e. giving Agrippa I the territory of Agrippa II. On further consideration I now think that is not so. So, here is a revision of that earlier post:

Josephus is very often suspect with what he writes in connection to Herodian history during the NT time period. It is easy to simply call him out as being a bad historian. But this would be short sighted. Josephus, by his own words, states that he is not *just* a historian.

One cannot just pick a quote out of Josephus and claim that settles the matter - there is much more to Josephus than being a historian.....hence his written work needs to be viewed as containing history plus whatever interpretations of history, dreams and prophetic interpretations he deemed it fitting to include in his Antiquities.

(see the book: Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk)"[/I] by Robert Karl Gnuse.

Google Books.)

In connection with trying to gain an understanding of early Christian origins, Josephus needs to be approached with his whole wardrobe of ‘hats’ in mind. If, as I have posted earlier, the historical figure of Philip the Tetrarch has been the historical figure that became the inspiration for the gospel Jesus storyline - then turning to Josephus for history on this figure could well prove to be difficult. Particularly since the NT storyline, itself, has been an interpretation of history. Put the two together, the NT and Josephus, and one is on a mystery trail. In other words, since both can contain interpretations of history the face value of any statement has to be considered in the wider historical context. A protective cover, rather than a criminal cover-up.

The Herodian coins relate to two kings by the name of Agrippa. The first Agrippa ruled from 36/37 ce to 44 ce. It is generally thought that this Agrippa is a son of Aristobulus (a son that Herod the Great is reported to have killed). The storyline in Josephus re this Agrippa is bizarre. From what amounts to a scandalous early life he suddenly becomes King Agrippa the Great. A rapid rise to power that can only be described as meteoric, mind-blowing. Highly implausible. If Aristobulus had a son named Agrippa (who is the brother of Herodias) and had such a scandalous early life - then the possibility that he is not King Agrippa the Great is a very strong possibility. And of course, with his father possibly being killed, any sons would more than likely be disinherited. Thus, not standing in any heritage log.

So, Agrippa, son of Aristobulus, brother of Herodias, can be simply ignored as far as being a candidate for King Agrippa the Great. (so I get to get rid of him after all....) Josephus has used the scandalous figure of Agrippa, brother of Herodias, as a decoy, a cover, for the concealing of the true identity of Agrippa I.

Who was King Agrippa the Great. He was Philip the Tetrarch. Josephus says Philip died in 34 ce. A Latin version of Josephus says Philip died in the 22nd year of Tiberius - 36 ce. Was Philip alive later than either of the dates given by Josephus? During the war of 36/37 ce, the war between Antipas and Aretas, Josephus says this:

If Philip was already dead then this reference does not make a lot of sense. After this war, around 39 ce, Antipas was exiled. Exiled, seeming, through the manipulation of his wife that he should have a crown like Agrippa. My theory is that Philip is still alive until 44 ce. In 36 ce Philip would have ruled for 40 years from his capital in Casearea Philippi. What ‘died’ around 36 ce was Philip’ title as Tetrarch. Philip became King - with a new name, Agrippa. From 36 ce Philip started a new phase of his rule - thus the coins of Agrippa the Great. Coins that relate about 7 or 8 year rule. Later, after the exile of Antipas - Agrippa becomes ruler of Galilee - and Judea. Thus the restoration of the kingdom of Herod the Great by his son Philip, his Hasmonean heir. A short reign - probably only 3 years.

Name changing was a common practice:

After the death of Agrippa the Great in 44 ce, his young son, Marcus Julius Agrippa, was possibly in the care of his own elder sister, Salome, now married to Aristobulus of Chalcis. Eventually, Agrippa II became ruler of his father’s territory, the Tetrarchy of Philip. He did not rule Judea - and was thus not the last king of the Jews. That king was Agrippa I - Philip the Tetrarch.

Interestingly, if the rabbinic literature is indicating that messianic speculation was related to King Agrippa the Great - then it is, inadvertently, providing support for the identifying of the historical figure that has been the inspiration for the gospel Jesus storyline.

All the above can be dismissed as just speculation - but it can also be an avenue worth exploring in the quest for early christian origins.

maryhelena

According to Josephus he was a son of Herod the Great by Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Josephus states that Philip was married to Salome, the daughter of Herodias.

Nikos Kokkinos has questioned Josephus re the marriage to Salome. Kokkinos suggests that Philip was actually married to Herodias. The gospels of Mark and Matthew speak about a Philip that was married to Herodias. Slavonic Josephus speaks of Herodias being married to Philip the Tetrarch. Consequently, a question mark hangs over the historical figure of Philip the Tetrarch - and over Herodias. Who was she actually married to. Josephus says she was married to Herod, son of Mairamne II - who was the daughter of the high priest Simon Boethus. Mariamne II was divorced from Herod the Great and her son Herod was not included in the will of Herod the Great - ie he was disinherited from the dynastic log. Herodias and Herod, son of Mariamne II, lived in Rome.

As suggested in a previous post, Philip the Tetrarch, after 40 years of rule, became King Agrippa the Great, Agrippa I. Around 41 ce he became King of the Jews when Judea was added to his territory. Seemingly, rabbinic literature suggests that King Agrippa was considered a messianic figure by the Jews. However, since a son of Herod the Great would be a very controversial messianic figure, the possibility arises as to just what was the bloodline that King Agrippa the Great carried. Is there a possibility that he was not in fact a son of Herod the Great ie that Herod the Great was not his father. I think a case can be made to suggest that this is the case.

Herod the Great married Mariamne I after his siege of Jerusalem in 37 ce. This marriage took place after a 3 or 4 year betrothal period. Mariamne I had three sons. Two of these sons, Aristobulus and Alexander are said to have been killed by Herod. The third unnamed son is said to have died in Rome. Herod the Great was very jealous of Mariamne I - to the point of wanting her to be killed should he, himself, be killed. Mariamne I does end up being killed by Herod - over some sort of allegation re her faithfulness to Herod.

Was Mariamne I unfaithful to Herod? Unfaithful not during her marriage to Herod but prior to that marriage - during the years of the betrothal. Or was Mariamne already married prior to her marriage to Herod and had given birth to a son. Thus the long betrothal period in which either a divorce was achieved - or Mariamne I simply conceived a child by an unknown father during that long betrothal to Herod. Was the child born to Mariamne I prior to her marriage to Herod a child with the ‘pure’ Hasmonean bloodline?

Interestingly, Josephus makes a rather cryptic statement in War, book 1, ch.22.

Thus, one of the sons of Mariamne I was born prior to Herod becoming King - possibly prior to the siege of Jerusalem - after which he married Mariamne. Two sons were of royal blood, sons of Herod the Great - and the other, the young son of Mariamne prior to her marriage to Herod. A child that would have been of ‘pure’ Hasmonean bloodline. Did this child die? Or was this child, at that time, simply not considered a son of Herod the Great re dynasty considerations. Herod was after establishing a Hasmonean/Herodian bloodline - not a continuation of a Hasmonean bloodline. What happened to Mariamne’s young son at the time of her marriage to Herod? Possibly cared for by her Hasmonean relatives.

As things turned out, for Herod the Great, his two Hasmonean/Herodian sons were involved in some sort of conspiracy re their father. Herod’s eldest son, Antipater and his mother, Doris, were sidelined. Palace intrigue led to the death of all three of these sons. (or at least their disinheritance). Prior to their deaths, the two Hasmonean/Herodian sons were married. Both marriages were not with Hasmoneans. Herod’ ‘dream’ of a Hasmonean/Herodian dynasty was in the process of being watered down. He has one last chance - with the Hasmonean son of Mariamne. He arranges a marriage between this son and his Hasmonean/Herodian grand-daughter Herodias. Possibly, at some stage in all of this, the Hasmonean son of Mariamne I was adopted by Herod the Great - thus making a future legal inheritance of part of Herod’s kingdom possible. (and causing real dynastic ‘war’ with his other sons....)

(Gaius Octavius Thurinus, was adopted posthumously by his great-uncle Gaius Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Tiberius was adopted by Augustus, by which act he officially became a Julian, bearing the name Tiberius Julius Caesar).

According to Josephus, Herodias was married to Herod, son of the daughter of the high priest Simon Boethus. A daughter named Mariamne II. Rather than reading this as a new marriage of Herod the Great - it makes more sense if Josephus is here replaying the earlier marriage of Herod to Mariamne I. A marriage with the purpose of creating a Hasmonean/Herodian dynasty. In this case Herod is arranging a marriage of his grand-daughter to his Hasmonean heir, the son of Mariamne I, his own adopted son. A second shot at creating a Hasmonean/Herodian dynasty. But history would be his undoing - for by the time that the son of his grand-daughter is old enough to rule - a Hasmonean/Herodian kingdom is no longer a possibility for Judea. No longer, if it ever was, as an acceptable dynasty to the Jews. The ‘real’ messiah figure, the ‘real’ King of the Jews, had come and gone: Philip the Tetrarch, Agrippa the Great - the Hasmonean King of the Jews, the last King of the Jews.

It’s easy to see reflections of this argument re Herod the Great and Mariamne I within the gospels re the mythological Jesus, Mary and Joseph storyline. A ‘virgin’, a young woman, betrothed and a child on the way. Joseph, the ‘real’ father disappears and the son is later ‘adopted’ by ‘god’ and becomes the anointed one.

maryhelena

Did Josephus write history? Or did Josephus write a mixture of history and prophetic or symbolic ‘history’? A fusion of interpretation, prophetic interpretation, with actual historical events. Resulting, in the case of the Herodian period, a symbolic drama rather than a clear cut, factual, historical account.

Josephus writes that Philip the Tetrarch died in the 20th year of Tiberius, around 33/34 ce and that there is then a 3 or 4 year gap before Agrippa I inherits his territory ie in 37 ce. This dating for Agrippa I presents problems re coins that he struck in his 6th year. Coins without any human figure and depicting a royal canopy or umbrella; and three ears of corn.

While these coins have been dated to 6 years from 37 ce ie to 43 ce, this dating has itself proven problematic. An article by K. Lönnqvist has suggested that these coins should be dated to Agrippa II.

A more recent investigation into these coins has confirmed the original dating to Agrippa I. However, this does still not answer the question as to why these particular coins, with no human figures on them, were minted around 41 ce.

(the coin being examined is the year 6 coin - pictures on the site)

Dating the canopy coins to 43/44 ce is based upon the assumption that Agrippa I received the territory of Philip the Tetrarch in 37 ce. While this dating of the coins is consistent with the assumed dating for Agrippa I, it, nevertheless, does not answer the question as to why these coins were minted in that year. In other words, what was the significance of the 6th year of his reign, in 43/44 ce, that these unusual coins were minted. If these coins were indicating a change of status, a royal canopy, then the big year would not be 43/44 ce but the year 41 ce when a big change did occur in the life of King Agrippa. In that year, 41 ce, he became King of Judea. Thus, these coins do not depict the images from his earlier coins. These coins reflect the sensitivity of his Jewish subjects in Judea.

But if the 6th year of his reign runs to 41 ce - then the first year of his reign as King Agrippa is not 37 ce but 34 ce. The year in which Josephus says Philip the Tetrarch died. Is it possibly that Josephus is here just indicating a change in the life of Philip and not his actual death? What ‘died’ is Philip’ position as Tetrarch. Philip becomes King Agrippa and rules as such until 44 ce. Three years of which, from 41 ce, were as King Agrippa of Judea. Thus the new coins of the 6th year, 41 ce, depicting symbols that would not be offensive to his new Jewish subjects - and simultaneously, with the royal canopy, indicating his new royal position.

The storyline in Josephus regarding Agrippa in prison in Rome can be considered as a symbolic storyline and not a historical one. A re-telling of the story of Joseph in Genesis. (thus, the historical existence of this ‘agrippa’ becomes questionable...). Philip the Tetrarch, as I laid out in earlier posts in this thread, can be viewed as the first born son of Mariamne I, the Hasmonean wife of Herod the Great. Josephus indicates that this first son of Mariamne I died in Rome. Again, one can view this ‘death’ as being symbolic, a change of circumstances. Was the Hasmonean son of Mariamne ‘sold’ by his brothers? Did Mariamne I have to leave her son behind, elsewhere, when she married Herod the Great? - and only much later was her son adopted by Herod.

The Genesis Joseph scenario indicates that his brothers were jealous of Joseph. Joseph ends up in Egypt, in prison, interprets dreams - one of which involves birds - is later released, honoured by Pharaoh and put in charge of the whole of Egypt - and given robes of linen and gold chains. Likewise, the Agrippa in Rome story: this story also features a bird, a bird that features in an interpretation while Agrippa is in prison - and later again, before Agrippa dies, he sees the bird again. (In Slavonic Josephus a bird is also connected to the death of Philip). Agrippa is given a kingdom on his release from prison - and a gold chain.

Why the Josephan parallel of the Joseph of Genesis to Agrippa I ? Hardly some messianic interpretation of Agrippa I as a Herodian/Hasmonean messiah figure. The stigma of Herod the Great’ siege of Jerusalem would taint any son of such a bloodline. However, if the historical figure that is having this Joseph symbolism applied to him is not a son of Herod but the Hasmonean son of Mariamne I - then such messianic inferences would be on target. (Gen.49.22-26)

(Obviously, the analogy of Joseph and Agrippa does not relate to everything that ‘agrippa’ is supposed to have done. As mentioned in an earlier post, the character attributed to ‘agrippa’ does not merit any such meteoric rise to power - that’s simply the window dressing for the sake of distraction from the messianic Joseph symbolism. If Philip became King Agrippa in 33/34 ce - then it was after ruling for 37 years....))

An interesting point re Philip the Tetrarch is that he never used the name or the title of ‘Herod’ - in contrast to his half-brothers, Antipas and Archelaus.

All of the above can be dismissed as speculation. The argument is based not only on historical information from Josephus - but also upon viewing Josephus as a Jewish prophet - and thus looking out for symbolic or figurative re-telling, re-applying, of OT types or earlier historical events, to historical figures of the lst century.
-------------------------------------------------

If, as the above material suggests, (and other earlier posts) Philip the Tetrarch was the Hasmonean son of Mariamne I - what was Josephus up to with his having Philip the Tetrarch the son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem?

Taking a symbolic view of what Josephus says here, his point could be. 1) that Philip has some connection with Egypt - probably Alexandria. 2). His mother is of royal blood. 3) his mother had another son - named Herod, a Herodian son.

There is also some symbolism to be seen in connection with Herod Boethus, the figure Josephus says Herodias marries. His mother is named as Mariamne II - already suggesting a replay or a symbolism to the earlier Mariamne I. In this case Mariamne II has only one son, Herod, who is thus a grandson of the high priest, Simon Boethus. This son, because his mother is involved in some plot against Herod the Great, is disinherited ie he does not feature in his father’s will. As earlier, Alexander and Aristobulus, the Herodian sons of Mariamne I are ‘killed’, or disinherited from their father’s will.

If both these marriages of Herod the Great are purely symbolic, ie meant not as historical, real, marriages, but as symbolic ‘marriages’, then a re-think of Herodian history would be in order. A re-think suggesting that Philip is a Hasmonean, having both the royal and priestly bloodlines. Herodias is marrying the ‘true’ Hasmonean heir, Philip the Tetrarch, who later becomes King Agrippa the Great of Judea. Her leaving ‘Herod Boethus’ the grandson of the high priest, with a young child to marry Antipas becomes a replay of Mariamne I leaving the Hasmonean father of her child to marry Herod the Great.

Josephus says it was the daughter of Herodias that was married to Philip. From the Herodias and Herod Boethus storyline, a figurative or symbolic replay of the earlier Mariamne I and Herod the Great historical event, Herodias is representing the role of her grandmother, Mariamne I. In the later development of this analogy re Salome and Philip, it is not Herodias’ daughter, Salome, that is married to Philip, it is Herodias herself, the granddaughter of Mariamne I who is married to Philip.

So, looks to me, that underneath all the Herodian intrigue is an underlay of Hasmonean intrigue - or is it the other way around - a Hasmonean overlay on Herodian history? A Josephan symbolic drama of the historical time period which saw the development of the gospel story and the historical origin of Christianity.

stephan huller

I have the second (and more recent) article. I can send to you a scanned copy of it in its entirety. It I think you are over complicating the issue here. You simply can't use the surviving texts of Josephus as anything but a general guide to the history of the Jewish people in the period.

To be honest I think Philip was gay but then again I tend to oversimplify things. I always suspect this whenever I come across unmarried RICH Jewish men without children in antiquity.

Incidentally, do you know why Catholics and Jews differ on the issue of whether one is required to make large families based on Genesis 1:28 "וַיְבָרֶךְ אֹתָם, אֱלֹהִים, וַיֹּאמֶר לָהֶם אֱלֹהִים פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ וּמִלְאוּ אֶת-הָאָרֶץ"?

The Jews say that one should only be fruitful if it is a blessing. In other words, if you can't afford to have a large family you aren't legally required to produce children.

Philip had more than enough money to justify being fruitful. Again, I suspect he wasn't fruitful because he was a fruit.

maryhelena

Stephen, the link would be appreciated re the latest report re the 6th year coins.

I can't read Greek so the above *********is over my head - and, really, the charge re Philip being gay is unwarranted. Josephus can be read as indicating that when Philip died he left no son old enough to rule. As later the storyline re the son of Agrippa I being too young to rule as Agrippa II after the death of his father. (who, as you can see from my posts, is, I believe Philip the Tetrarch...). Slavonic Josephus gives Philip four children.

Josephus only as a general guide? Does that mean one can pick and choose the bits that fit our theory? Come on Stephen - if what Josephus writes is problematic on a purely historical basis - then try a different model of reading Josephus. Consider what he himself says about himself - that he is interested in prophecy, has dreams, can interpret those dreams etc. In other words, consider that Josephus is not just writing history but mixing, fusing, history with his own prophetic insights etc...

stephan huller

I acknowledge that it ultimately becomes subjective. But this is how we read the historical references in the rabbinic literature and other 'stupid' histories of antiquity. There is this absurd 'sacredness' that is attached to Josephus. Why not just include it with the rest of the stupid histories and treat them the way ancients would testimony from a slave.

Those who had the opportunity to read the histories of Josephus and Justus side by side couldn't believe how much the - for instance - the narrative of the destruction of the temple completely disagreed with one another. This means that at least one of the reports in unreliable. Now that one of those two reports has disappeared, the other is taken to be a reliable witness? Really? How do we know that we have the 'right one'? How do we know that what passes as Josephus was developed to reflect a view of history which was more compatible with official Christianity?

I look at Josephus the way I do a fight between a married couple that fights all the time. I don't take sides because both are probably irrational morons.

On the subject of gay Philip I think it is the most reasonable of all possibilities. In antiquity (much like the culture in Africa today) homosexuality is identified as either (a) A PHYSICAL INCAPACITY for a man to maintain an erection long enough to penetrate a woman and make children and (b) a man allowing himself to be penetrated 'like a woman' by another man.

I have always been amused in my business dealings with east Africans that they don't consider themselves 'gay' for penetrating men. They actually boast that it demonstrates their virility and 'manliness' that they can have sex with men, eighty year old women, cats, dogs etc.

A common feature of ancient society is the requirement that men produce children. Even if east African men have wives and regularly have sexual intercourse with them, the failure to produce children is a backhanded 'sign' of their latent homosexuality.

The 'punishment' for failure to procure children for the greater family is the ignominy they will face after they day. Childless males are buried with a large stick in their anus as an apparent 'open sign' of what was 'hidden' - allegedly - during their marriage - i.e. their homosexuality which 'caused' their failure to have children.

I am not saying that you can assume ALL cultural features of one society apply to another. Nevertheless, I think there is a basic sameness about the duty of men - even if they engaged in homosexual acts, pedastry etc. - to produce children. Philip's failure in this respect is very strange and I think is best explained by his being a homosexual.

One other note, ancient Greeks and Romans believed that homosexuals could be suffer an inability to maintain an erection owing to engaging in too much sodomy (i.e. on the receiving end). Remember they didn't have viagra in antiquity. If a man couldn't his 'soldier to salute' (to use the modern urban terminology) he would find it impossible to have children.

maryhelena

OK - that clarifies that - your very subjective use of Josephus....

As to your speculation re Philip the Tetrarch being gay - I don't think it is warranted as per the points I noted in the above post - and really, I see no point in depicting Philip as such. Would Philip, if he was gay, somehow mean that the man is outside the pale? I really don't get your point.

Oh, and Stephen - the link please to the more recent article re the year 6 coins.

stephan huller

I prefer to characterize my employment of Josephus as the 'critical' use of a source but even with that not withstanding better the 'subjective' of a source than uncritical and irrational employment of its ultimately corrupt contents. :notworthy:

Again, it's like your going out with a stripper and you start verbally abusing her, calling her a 'whore' and the like. The surviving MSS of Josephus can be likened to a prostitute. They've been with a lot of men/editors. In that sense they are no different than the surviving manuscripts of the New Testament.

If you're having a relationship with a whore mistaking her for a virgin you're going to have an unsuccessful relationship. Spend your time trying to 'redeem' your whore, it just might work (as long as you don't get frustrated with your lack of success).

maryhelena

Oh, come now - subjective is not free from being uncritical or irrational......:wave: