JoeWallack

JW:
Naah, this isn't the use of BASILEUS I remember. It wouldn't, er, shouldn't help Steven much anyway for the reasons you gave. I think it's here (emphasis mine):

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...ote_ANT_17.10a

"HOW THE PEOPLE RAISED A SEDITION AGAINST ARCHELAUS, AND HOW HE SAILED TO ROME.

1. AT this time also it was that some of the Jews got together out of a desire of innovation. They lamented Matthias, and those that were slain with him by Herod, who had not any respect paid them by a funeral mourning, out of the fear men were in of that man; they were those who had been condemned for pulling down the golden eagle. The people made a great clamor and lamentation hereupon, and cast out some reproaches against the king also, as if that tended to alleviate the miseries of the deceased. The people assembled together, and desired of Archelaus, that, in way of revenge on their account, he would inflict punishment on those who had been honored by Herod; and that, in the first and principal place, he would deprive that high priest whom Herod had made, and would choose one more agreeable to the law, and of greater purity, to officiate as high priest. This was granted by Archelaus, although he was mightily offended at their importunity, because he proposed to himself to go to Rome immediately to look after Caesar's determination about him. However, he sent the general of his forces to use persuasions, and to tell them that the death which was inflicted on their friends was according to the law; and to represent to them that their petitions about these things were carried to a great height of injury to him; that the time was not now proper for such petitions, but required their unanimity until such time as he should be established in the government by the consent of Caesar, and should then be come back to them; for that he would then consult with them in common concerning the purport of their petitions; but that they ought at present to be quiet, lest they should seem seditious persons.

2. So when the king had suggested these things, and instructed his general in what he was to say, be sent him away to the people; but they made a clamor, and would not give him leave to speak, and put him in danger of his life, and as many more as were desirous to venture upon saying openly any thing which might reduce them to a sober mind, and prevent their going on in their present courses, because they had more concern to have all their own wills performed than to yield obedience to their governors; thinking it to be a thing insufferable, that, while Herod was alive, they should lose those that were most dear to them, and that when he was dead, they could not get the actors to be punished."

JW:
Perseus is still out so with all due respect I think I'll just wait for Spin to confirm the hit. You've got to love the style of Josephus here:

"The people made a great clamor and lamentation hereupon, and cast out some reproaches against the king also, as if that tended to alleviate the miseries of the deceased."

So much more entertaining than those depressing ol gospels.

Actually your old friend, Richard Carrier, one who speaks with Authority, thinks Josephus made reference to Archelaus as King too (emphasis mine):

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...nds&rcid=41896

"=== ATTEMPTED SOLUTION #1 - Looking in Luke for a Different Date ===

Some observe that Luke says John the Baptist was born during the reign of "Herod the King" ([[Luke 1:5|1:5]]) and appears to have Jesus born less than a year later ([[Luke 1|1:22-24]], [[Luke 1|1:31-36]], [[Luke 1:80|1:80]], [[Luke 2:1|2:1]], [[Luke 2|2:40-42]]), which appears to agree with Matthew. However, Matthew does not mention or date the birth of John, and despite the impression given by English translations, Luke is unclear how much time actually passed between his birth and that of Jesus. More importantly, Archelaus was also called Herod (even on his own coins) and even Josephus calls him a king (''Antiquities of the Jews'' 18.93). Unlike Matthew, Luke provides no detail indicating either he or his source meant anything other than Herod Archelaus when dating the birth of John. Therefore, unless we assume Luke is contradicting ''himself'', we can't assume he dated either the birth of John or Jesus to the time of Herod the Great. So there is no case to be made from [[Luke 1:5|1:5]] that Luke agreed with Matthew."



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

spin

Sorry, Joe, but the verb only has an implied subject. Whiston has supplied "the king".

kai o men tauta upeipwn kai didaxas ton strathgon ekpempei pros autous.

spin

JoeWallack

JW:
I've asked Richard Carrier to quote his reference and I definitely remember Farrell Till saying Josephus referred to Archelaus as King. But maybe they are merely referring to one of the things that have already been explained here as not any or at least not a clear use of "King" for Archelaus. Nice work guys (Spin, Jeffrey).



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

You mean the one who says he speaks with authority and who often "proves" his claim to authority by pointing to his "credentials", especially when anyone challenges the validity of his analysis of Greek text.

Interesting. Here's the text:

ἔπρασσε δὲ ὅμοια ηρώδὴ καὶ ὁ ἐπικατασταθεὶs αuτω βασιλεὺs αρχέλαοs υἱὸs ὤν, οὗ ρωμαῖοι παραδεξάμενοι τὴν ἀρχὴν ἐκράτουν τῆs στολῆs τοῦ ἀρχιερέωs ἀποκειμένηj ἐν οἴκ λίθοιj οἰκοδομηθέντι ὑπὸ σφραγῖδι τῶν τε ἱερέων καὶ τῶν γαζοφυλάκων τοῦ φρουράρχου τὸ ἐφ' ἡμέραν ἑκάστην λύχνον ἅπτοντοs.

I note with interest that Josephus doesn't quite say what RC says he says. There is no ascription of the title BASILEUS to Archelaus here.

Looks like RC is relying more on an English translation of Josephus than upon Josephus himself to tell us what Jospehus said. If so, it doesn't bode well for any ascription to him as, or any claim on his part to be, "one who speaks with authority".

And what's with the silly capitalization of words, Joseph?

Jeffrey Gibson

jgibson000

For your thanks, my thanks in return.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
Well done sir. Now this is bringing back memories (of my argument with Till. I was arguing your side). "βασιλεὺs αρχέλαοs". "βασιλεὺs" is the verbal form of "BASILEUS".

"βασιλεύς, �*ως, ὁ (Hom. +; loanw. in rabb.)

�* one who rules as possessor of the highest office in a political realm, king, gener. of a male ruler who has unquestioned authority (exceptions are client rulers who owe their power to the grace of Rome) in a specific area ποιεῖν τινα β. make someone king J 6:15. βασιλεῖς τῆς γῆς earthly kings Mt 17:25; Rv. 1:5; 6:15 (Ps 2:2; 88:28) al.; Ac 4:26 (Ps 2:2); β. τῶν ἐθνῶν Lk 22:25; (w. ἡγεμόνες; cp. ἡγούμενοι ἐθνῶν καὶ β. Orig., C. Cels. 2, 32, 22) Mt 10:18; Mk 13:9; Lk 21:12. Of kings gener. (w. προφῆται; 2 Macc 2:13; Boll 139) Lk 10:24. Of Pharaoh Ac 7:10 (Tat. 38, 1); David Mt 1:6; Ac 13:22 (Just., A I, 35, 6); Herod I (Jos., Ant. 14, 382; 385; OGI 414, 2; 415, 1; 416, 2; 417, 3; Just., A I, 40, 6; D. 78, 1]) Mt 2:1, 3; Lk 1:5; Herod Antipas (not really a king [Jos., Ant. 17, 188; OGI 414, 2; 415, 1; 416, 2; 417, 3], but occasionally given that title: Cicero, Verr. 4, 27) Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14; GPt 1:2 (ASyn. 341, 20); Herod Agrippa I (Jos., Ant. 18, 237; 19, 274; OGI 418, 1; 419, 1; 428, 4) Ac 12:1; Agrippa II (Jos., Bell. 2, 223; OGI 419, 2; 423, 1; 425, 3; 426, 2) 25:13, 24, 26; Aretas, king of the Nabataeans 2 Cor 11:32; Melchizedek, king of Salem Hb 7:1f (Gen 14:18). Of the Rom. emperor (Appian, Iber. 102 §444, Bell. Civ. 2, 86 §362 Ῥωμαίων β. Ἁδριανός al.; Herodian 2, 4, 4; IG III, 12, 18; CIG II, 2721, 11; POxy 33 II, 6; 35 verso, 1; BGU 588, 10; PGM 4, 2448 Ἁδριανὸς β.; 2452; Jos., Bell. 3, 351; 4, 596; 5, 563, Vi. 34; Magie 62; βασιλεῦ Ar. 1, 1 al. Tat. 4, 1; 19, 1; Mel., HE 4, 26, 6) 1 Ti 2:2 (the pl. is generic as Appian, Prooem. 15 §62; Jos., Ant. 2, 71; PEg2 48; on the topic s. LBiehl, D. liturg. Gebet für Kaiser u. Reich ’37); 1 Pt 2:13, 17 (s. Pr 24:21 and esp. Vi. Aesopi I c. 26 p. 288, 17 Eberh.: τ�*κνον, πρὸ πάντων σ�*βου τὸ θεῖον, τὸν βασιλ�*α δὲ τίμα); Rv 17:9; 1 Cl 37:3."

Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. 2000. A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature. "Based on Walter Bauer's Griechisch-deutsches Wr̲terbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frhüchristlichen [sic] Literatur, sixth edition, ed. Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, with Viktor Reichmann and on previous English editions by W.F. Arndt, F.W. Gingrich, and F.W. Danker." (3rd ed.) . University of Chicago Press: Chicago


JW:
It is the verbal form of "King" and the predominant usage refers to a King. Looks like on occasion it could slip in to refer to an Ethnarch/Tetrarch. So it looks like Josephus never ascribes the title "King" directly to Archelaus. The most that can be said is Josephus uses the related verbal form which normally refers to a King but does look to have a range of meaning that might include an Ethnarch in some Ancient's vocabularies and Josephus does use a description of "Kings" in an anecdote that includes Archelaus and two Kings.

We also have a little more Ammo for Steven with the Herod Antipas reference above.

So, as the BASILEUS said in the classic Amadeus, "There it is."



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Is it? In this passage in the Antiquities?


What verbal form?

Do you mean this?

Herod Antipas (not really a king [Jos., Ant. 17, 188; OGI 414, 2; 415, 1; 416, 2; 417, 3], but occasionally given that title: Cicero, Verr. 4, 27) Mt 14:9; Mk 6:14; GPt 1:2 (ASyn. 341, 20);

Is the Gospel of Peter contemporary, let alone good, evidence for 1st century Palestinian/Greco-Roman usage?

And does Cicero really designate Antipas as King? I've searched Verr. 4 But I cannot find Cicero calling Antipas "Rex" there.

Have I missed it?

Actually, it would have been IMPERATOR. To my knowledge, Emperor Joseph II never claimed or had or was addressed with/by the title "king", nor did he rule as, "king".

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Reign/rule/government? Like I said, I don't have Perseus available. Aren't I doing the right thing by your standards? Asking you? You could save some time by just donating the specific Form here and English translation but I do have to confess that I appear to have run out of things to threaten you with. Maybe I could promise to reduce my Capital letter usage.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

Umm .... no. Unlike Carrier (and contrary to what E.D. has said I have done), I have never claimed to be an/the expert on all things Greek, let alone one whose statements about Greek are to be regarded as unassailable. So no, my "standards" do not entail you or anyone consulting me in order to get the truth on what's what on matters Greek. Nor have I asked you to do so.

Nor, so far as I can see, did you ask me anything. You made a statement.

Please note that my question to you in my last message was to find out what your grounds were for saying not only that there is a verbal form of BASILEUS, but that BASILEUS was being used in Ant. 18.93 as anything other than a noun.

Since, so far as I can see, the issue at hand was the grounds on which you were claiming that BASILEUS was being used as a verbal in Ant 18.93, I don't see how my saving anyone's time was/is relevant, let alone how donating anything, even if time was not an issue, is my job.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
Jeffrey, it would seem that at times it is more important to you to demonstrate what others don't know than to demonstrate whether the Christian Bible is in error. This is your choice of course. Similarly, do I make a big deal about you not identifying that Josephus did use BASILEUS in connection with Archelaus in 18.93? That would also be a distraction and secondary to the issue of "Matthew's" use of exact titles.

If you don't want to clarify at this point that's your choice too. I'll just wait for Perseus, Carrier or Spin to do so. If you think Steven is wrong here why stop at just challenging him to produce evidence? If you are aware of any evidence that would help him or even only make him think it helps than why not give it to him? I mean what's more important, demonstrating that "Matthew" is wrong or demonstrating that Steven is either wrong or can't support his position? Obviously the Skeptics here don't consider Steven any type of authority. Why not help him make the best argument possible for his position?



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page