RogueBibleScholar

I see that there are discussions about the Testimonium Flavianum at the FRDB (e.g. here, here, here and here); and John the Baptist also (e.g. here); but it seems like certain connections are typically being missed in these discussions; allowing some to conclude that the arguments for and against authenticity are nearly equal.

First, many of the writers are aware that there are two or more versions of the TF written by Eusebius, but not that signs of active revision are present in them. It seems a logical idea, but the existence of the "quotations" of the TF cited by Eusebius are cited far more often than are the evidences of revision in them.

He quotes it in his Demonstratio Evangelica thus:
This work is thought to have been completed in 311 CE, according to the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion (s.v. " Eusebius of Caesarea"). In his later Ecclesiastical History, thought to have been finished by 325 CE in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, he presents it thus:

The Theophania, thought by the Schaff-Erzog Encyclopedia to have been written much later, has:
We can see a clear pattern of this passage undergoing revision, and Eusebius has a clear theological interest in it. It acquires new elements as time rolls on, and morphs from "He was called Christus" to "And this was the Messiah (Christ)." In the first version, Jesus is a "teacher of men who reverence the truth," but in the latter two, they are those who receive "the truth in gladness" and who "with pleasure, received Him in truth." While a historian might write an account of history in his or her own words with such variations, such variations cannot be accounted for by choice of words for translation alone - although the Wars, in any event, were probably written in Aramaic originally, and some variation in transcription may have been considered fashionable. "... the tribe of the Christians has not failed." becomes "the race of the Christians has not been wanting to Him." The former implies the possibility of failure, but the latter suggests the issue is only pleasing Jesus, not survival - and it is also in the present tense, as if from the Christian viewpoint that Jesus was still alive, when it is not clear that Josephus would have thought so. "his first followers did not cease to revere him" becomes "those who formerly loved Him were not reduced to silence." The received version of the TF most closely resembles Eusebius' second version, i.e. the Ecclesiastical History version. The only thing the received version of Josephus has in addition to this of any significance that Eusebius' second version does not is the "ten thousand other things" phrase. Whether or not Eusebius himself arranged for new versions of the Antiquities to be produced with this new reading, or later Church scribes began following him, it is clear that this passage is clearly undergoing revision by Eusebius, and since he is the first recorded person to know of it, it thus seems probable that Eusebiius' second version of it had a profound effect on our received version of the TF.

A second point that is often missed is that while it is known that Eusebius has embraced some level of falsehood in his writing, a good example of it already has been identified. When Constantine conquered Rome from his base in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, he is said to have had a vision in which he saw a Christian sign, and is told "in this sign, conquer." (The symbol is often said to be the Chi-Rho symbol: one that had been used as an abbreviation of Christ, but previous to the Christian era, had been used as a marker in pagan Latin texts for sacred passages.) The account by one of his star pupils, Lactanius, can be compared with Eusebius' own, concerning this premonition:

Now let us compare Eusebius' version:

Under Eusebius' mellifluous pen, Constantine's dream has also occurred as in Lactanius, but is joined by a vision of a trophy which appeared above the sun, in view of his whole army. While such apparitions are not necessarily, per se, impossible, the simpler explanation, especially in view of the passage about "falsehood as a remedy," is to conclude that Eusebius is here exaggerating too. Lactanius has previously reported the same incident, and has no record of any such thing, nor hints at anything more substantial than a dream, and Eusebius had reported it without the vision in front of the whole army himself, in his Ecclesiastical History. It seems probable that there are no surviving accounts of any of Eusebius' troops describing this vision above the sun.

Third of all, here are some quotes that show Josephus was not very Christian. I have seen evidence that a number of critical scholars are aware of Josephus' identification of Vespasian as the best candidate for the Messiah, but not a survey for other Jewish and Christian themes in the works. Mine is not thorough, but should serve to demonstrate the point. Although many Jews of Josephus' day considered Josephus to be a traitor, Josephus himself, in attitudes and customs, still appears to have remained quintessentially Jewish. If Josephus were Christian, surely one of the most primitive Christian issues by which to make such a determination is the ban on divorce, commonly related in the "Let not man separate that which God has joined together." dictum. He relates Moses' regulations allowing divorce without comment or dissent (Antiq. 4.8.23). Josephus' Autobiography was written well after the Antiquities, and yet he records having married a wife in Jotapata at Vespasian's command, divorcing her, marrying one at Alexandra (Vida 75), divorcing her, and marrying a Jewess who had lived at Crete (Vida 76). If he had been a Christian, he was not showing its effects well after the 'Jewish War'. He should have no necessity of hiding it, since many of the earliest Christians were Flavians. After all, Seneca the Elder, a pagan philosopher of Nero's era, had already criticized divorce openly. Another basic issue to look at is animal sacrifice. For example, in Against Apion, thought to have been written after the Antiquities, Josephus defends sacrifice thus:

There are lost gospels quoted in Patristic sources, in which Jesus threatens judgment unless the sacrifice is ended, while in others, He is a vegetarian; and, after all, He is depicted as overturning the tables of the money-changers for the buying and selling of animals in the Temple. No Christian communities have ever been known to perform sacrifices, and so here too, we find Josephus at variance with Christian practice, in favor of the Jewish practice he had known before capture. At the end of his penultimate work, Josephus sounds ready to start the sacrifice again with little hesitation, if given the chance. He had, after all, tried to revive the sacrifice just before the destruction of the Temple - in an eye of the storm of the battle.

Josephus, after all, had been a Jewish priest, and a general in the revolt against Rome. He was the author of prodigious works on their history and defended their antiquity. If he were a Christian, there seems to be no hint of it in the remaining corpus of his works (save for the spurious Discourse on Hades). Josephus' information is multiply redundant (although not usually repetitive). Too much of Josephus has survived intact to long maintain the pretense that it was at all likely that Josephus was Christian, either in secret or in public, much before the completion of his works. Changing one small part to make him appear Christian cannot obscure the overall pattern, especially when that change recommends an entirely different person as Messiah, i.e. Vespasian; and thus leaves the matter of the real designee in conflict.

The matter as to the authenticity of the narrative about John the Baptist in the Antiquities, and if the Fortress of Macherus was in Herod's hands or not has already been discussed in this forum, in the link given at the top of this post. Here is the meat of my findings on the subject. First, the John the Baptist passage:

I thought I was the first to notice this, but someone else had already pointed it out. In a book published some years ago (Frank R. Zindler, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew (or via: amazon.co.uk) (NJ: American Athiest Press), 2004), Zindler had already pointed out the matter of the curious fort. Yes, Josephus did mention a fortress of Macherus previously. He had just told a story about it in the previous section. In it, Herod Antipas makes an enemy of Aretas, the king of Arabia Petros, when he, being married to Phasaelis, Aretas' daughter, makes plans to marry Herodian when in Rome, and divorce the unnamed daughter of Aretas. We pick up the story:

We see here that the fortress of Macherus was at this time "subject to her father", i.e. Aretas. Then, we read of how the incensed Aretas destroys the army of Herod Antipas. Now, if the fortress were subject to Aretas, and Aretas had just destroyed your army, would you want to send a sensative political prisoner there, even if for safe disposal? No. You would be sending him into the arms of a man you are at war with. The latter passage presupposes that Marcherus is in Herod's control, since John is to be sent there, when the earlier passage has just left it in control of a king hostile to Herod.

It has been suggested the the passage where Marcherus was in Aretas' control was referring to a different time to the one about John the Baptist, and so this is not a contradiction. This is a poor dodge. It has been hypothesized that Macherus might have been given to Herod Antipas in between the two passages, and that it has not been recorded. Let us try that on for size. Phasaelis arrives at Macherus saying that Herod is planning to marry another while still married to her. When Aretas hears about it, he probably ordered his army to attack Herod's in anger, and it was probably not long afterwards. He then destroys Herod's entire army. So first, it is very probable that there would have not been long for Aretas to give the fort to Herod between the time his daughter was at the fort and it was under his control, and the time his daughter reached him. She probably went as directly to her father as safety warranted, and she was in Aretas' territory now. Yes, those two incidents should probably not be separated by more than say, three weeks. Second, if the daughter were traveling more or less directly to her father, Aretas probably would have reneged on the deal as soon as he heard his daughter's news. Finally, if he did not, Herod's army had just been destroyed - and on the border of a territory with a man mad enough to have killed your whole army is the last place a person with a sensitive political prisoner would want to send him. Even if the fort had been given to Herod, he no longer had an army to control it. Even if there were some left, he would not know Aretas' intentions regarding the fort he recently held. Second, since Herod now has no army, and is sending the Baptist to a fort just described as in Aretas' hands and on the border, why does not Josephus explain this apparent gaff to his readers? Josephus is normally quite good with explaining things that would otherwise strike the reader as odd. Those who do not see this as a contradiction are either not thinking it through, or giving it the force it deserves, or both. It seems unlikely that the same mind wrote both passages, as Josephus was clear in the former passage about whose fort it was. The passage on John the Baptist has very likely been added to make it seem like God deals out huge punishments for offenses against Christian figures, but it is probably not original; and the whole section seems to be implicated.

A fuller write-up of my observations is available at my website in the 'Christian Editing In Josephus' Works' section. Soon, I'll have more about the TF and other Christian tampering in the Antiquities on my website; some of which may be novel. I am inviting questions and comments regarding my findings, in case there is anything of importance I might be missing.

TIA,
The Rogue Bible Scholar

Roger Pearse

I presume the translations are from existing translations? But you're going to need to work from the original language texts, you know, and translate them yourself.

You will have difficulties with the Theophania, since nearly all the Greek text is lost, and we are reliant on a Syriac translation. This translation is extant in a manuscript dated 411 AD -- the earliest Syriac manuscript known -- and so very early indeed. I don't know if you know Syriac, but it would be wise to be cautious; many Syriac translations are quite free. The fragments of Eusebius' Quaestiones ad Stephanum found in a Syriac catena are apparently a fairly free rendering of the Greek, according to the translator who is working on them for me.

I am a little sad to see another attack on the integrity of Eusebius. These attacks are all rather distasteful. The first of which I am aware is that of Gibbon, in which the latter engages in some sleight-of-hand designed to confuse his readers into supposing that Eusebius confessed to being dishonest. Gibbon's real opinion is shown by his extensive use of Eusebius, as indeed he could hardly avoid doing. The attacks made ca. 1850 originate from anti-Hapsburg propaganda, of all things. We all owe an immense amount to Eusebius; the invention of the world chronicle of dates and events in a tabular format where each line is a year, given a number (although he used AA rather than AD), the integration of the Greek chronographic tradition into it, thereby rescuing it from getting more and more corrupt; the system of verbatim quotation of authorities; the preservation of a huge amount of otherwise lost classical and patristic material; and a generally humane and civilised attitude towards the culture of antiquity which facilitated its preservation. Captious attacks on him always remind me of the critic who was said to treat the great minds of the past as so many lampposts on which to mark his territory. It is ungenerous, and I recommend avoiding that option.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

maryhelena

Hi, Rogue
I’ve been interested in the Josephan reference to John the Baptist for some time now. My ideas might not carry weight with the scholars on this list - I’m just an interested amateur so can sometimes just let my mind run free....Anyway, here is my latest take on John the Baptist.

Whether Josephus wrote everything in his work, whether he later went back and did his own editing, whether someone else did the editing, whether someone else is writing under that name - all interesting avenues to research - but we have what we have - so here is one way to try and resolve some issues related to the gospel storyline and the Josephan account of John the Baptist.
------------------------------
Josephus and John the Baptist

The Josephan account of JtB can quite easily be read as indicating that JtB was killed close to the war of Herod Antipas with Aretas IV - the father of Antipas’ divorced wife. This war is dated 36/37 CE.

“1. About this time Aretas (the king of Arabia Petres) and Herod had a quarrel on the account following: Herod the tetrarch had married the daughter of Aretas, and had lived with her a great while;.............. however, he fell in love with Herodias,.............. his wife having discovered the agreement he had made with Herodias;.......... she desired him to send her to Macherus, which is a place in the borders of the dominions of Aretas and Herod,....... and she soon came to her father, and told him of Herod's intentions. So Aretas made this the first occasion of his enmity between him and Herod, who had also some quarrel with him about their limits at the country of Gamalitis. So they raised armies on both sides, and prepared for war,...... and when they had joined battle, all Herod's army was destroyed.........” Ant.18 ch.5.

The war between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV resulted in the defeat of the army of Herod Antipas. An event that Josephus says the Jews saw as punishment from God for the death of JtB.

“2. Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him,...”. Ant.18 ch.5.

One way to accommodate the gospel storyline with the Josephan account, is to work in a longer period of time between the death of JtB and the war with Aretas IV. Another way to resolve the problems between the Josephan account of JtB and the gospel account of JtB, would be to accept the Josephan account (JtB killed close to the war of 36/37 CE) and adjust the gospel dateline to synchronise with it. However, for those who want to keep the crucifixion to either 30 or 33 CE, this would not be acceptable as JtB, in the gospel storyline, is beheaded prior to the crucifixion. (the crucifixion being dated with the number of Passovers and the 15 year of Tiberius in 29/30 CE...)

If it is accepted, for the sake of argument, that it is the intent of the gospel writers to place the crucifixion in either 30 or 33 ce - then conflict with the Josephan account is inevitable.

In order to keep to the gospel storyline regarding the beheading of JtB prior to the crucifixion, it has to be assumed that Aretas IV was prepared to contain his anger at Herod Antipas over the divorce of his daughter - to restrain his wish for retribution - for somewhere between 4 to 7 years.

The major problem for the gospel storyline concerns the date of the marriage between Herodias and Herod Antipas - hence a problem directly relating to the divorce of Aretas IV’ daughter from Herod Antipas. Did this marriage take place prior to 30 CE, and thus fitting into the gospel storyline?

Or did this marriage take place later, closer to the war between Herod Antipas and Aretas IV, the father of the divorced wife of Herod Antipas. A war that took place in 36/37 CE. ?

If this war followed shortly after the divorce of Herod Antipas from Aretas’ daughter, and Herod Antipas’ remarriage to Herodias, then there is a big problem for the gospel storyline; i.e. that during the time of the gospel storyline Herodias was not married to Herod Antipas. Hence the story of the beheading of JtB that is related to this marriage, a marriage taking place prior to the events of 30 CE, is suspect - and with it, of course, the historical reliability of other parts of the gospel storyline.

The gospel storyline could be viewed as having later historical events backdated to fit the gospel storyline. In that case, the Josephan account and the gospel storyline can be more easily accommodated. The events of 36/37 CE have been backdated to 29/30 CE. However a problem still remains, a problem that backdating later events does not solve - for during the time period that began in 29/30 CE the evidence for Herodias’s marriage to Herod Antipas is not there.

Josephus, John the Baptist, Herodias and Herod Antipas

The date for the marriage of Herodias and Herod Antipas seems to be problematic. Wikipedia gives the date for Herodias’ first marriage, to Herod Boethus, as 1 or 2 CE. - and her marriage to Herod Antipas as 23 CE. On the Wikipedia entry for Aretas IV, father of the divorced wife of Herod Antipas, the date for the marriage between Herodias and Herod Antipas is given as 36 CE.

Wikipedia on Herodias

“Around the year AD 1 or 2, she married her uncle, Herod II, also called Herod Boethus, son of Herod the Great and Mariamne II, daughter of the high priest Simon Boethus.”

“However, around 23 CE, she divorced her husband and married another uncle, Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea.”

Wikipedia

“Aretas IV Philopatris was the King of the Nabataeans from roughly 9 BC to AD 40.

"His daughter Phasaelis married Herod Antipas (4 BC – AD 39), otherwise known as Herod the Tetrarch. When Herod divorced Phasaelis to take his brother's wife Herodias, mother of Salome, in 36, Phaesalis fled to her father. Relations between Herod and Aretas IV were already strained over border disputes, and with his family honour shamed, Aretas IV invaded Judea, and captured territories along the West Bank of the Jordan River, including the areas around Qumran.”
“The classical author Josephus connects this battle, which occurred during the winter of AD 36/37, with the beheading of John the Baptist, which occurred about the same time.”

Wikipedia on Herod Antipas

“It was in 36 CE that the conflict with Aretas of Nabatea, caused by Antipas' divorce and the rulers' disagreement over territory, developed into open war. Antipas' army suffered a devastating defeat after fugitives from the former tetrarchy of Philip sided with the Nabateans, and Antipas was forced to appeal to Tiberius for help. The emperor ordered Lucius Vitellius, governor of Syria, to march against Aretas and ensure that he was captured or killed.[37] Vitellius obediently mobilized two legions, sending them on a detour around Judea while he joined Antipas in attending a festival at Jerusalem. While staying there he learned of the death of Tiberius (16 March AD 37), concluded he lacked the authority to go to war, and recalled his troops.”

Josephus Ant.18

“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,...”.

Wikipedia gives the date for the birth of Salome as 14 CE.

The possible dates for the divorce of Herodias from Herod Boethus:

14/15 CE. after the birth of Salome, re Josephus
23 CE. Wikipedia date for the divorce.
30 CE. Prior to the gospel storyline.
36 CE. Wikipedia date for the divorce shortly before the war with Aretas IV.

Working from the birth date of Salome, in 14 CE - at which time Herodias leaves her first husband - and even working from the later Wikipedia date of 23 CE for the marriage to Herod Antipas - one is left with the quite unrealistic idea that Aretas IV waited somewhere between 13 and 22 years in order to avenge his family honour over the divorce of his daughter from Herod Antipas.

Working from the gospel time-line there would have been between 3 to 7 years from the beheading of JtB to the war with Aretas IV. If, as seems the more realistic dating for this marriage i.e. shortly before the war between Herod Antipas and the father of his divorced wife, Aretes IV – a war that took place around 36/37 CE - the big question revolves around Herodias.

What was Herodias doing between her divorce from Herod Boethus - after the birth of Salome in 14 CE - until she married Herod Antipas shortly before his war with Aretes IV in 36/37 CE.?

Josephus gives Herodias two marriages. The gospel storyline, however, indicates another marriage - to Philip the Tetrarch. Herod took Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife.

“Now Herod had arrested John and bound him and put him in prison because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, for John had been saying to him: “It is not lawful for you to have her”. Herod wanted to kill John.....” Matthew 14:3,4.

The ambiguity surrounding the gospel phrase ‘It is not lawful for you to have her’ - is usually resolved with what Josephus says regarding the marriage of Herodias to Herod Boethus i.e. that she divorced him: “ 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],”.

Thus, in order to accommodate what Josephas has to say regarding the divorce of Herodias and Herod Boethus, the Philip in Matthew 14:3,4 is assumed to be Herod Boethus and is re-named Herod Philip 1. And Philip the Tertarch becomes Herod Philip 11. Although, in the case of Philip the Tetrarch, there seems to be no evidence that he ever used the name of ‘Herod’.

When one takes the passage from Matthew on face value, as Herodias having been married to Philip, immediately two rather large problems arises: 1. For the gospel storyline: If, originally, Herodias had divorced her first husband, Herod Boethus, for Philip the Tetrarch - and had stayed with him until his death in 34 CE - she would not have been married to Herod Antipas at the time of the gospel storyline. 2. For Josephus: The fact that Josephus has been silent on this marriage raises a question regarding the reason for his silence - and the issue of an intentional cover up, the issue of complicity, raises its head.

Philip the Tetrarch dies in 34 CE - after which time Herodias gets married to Herod Antipas - which shortly thereafter, in 36/37 CE, leads to the war with Aretas VI. The scandal at this time would not have been Herod Antipas taking Herodias as his wife - she now being the widow of his late brother Philip. The scandal involved Herod Antipas’ divorce from Aretas daughter - a divorce that is being contrasted with Herodias’ own earlier divorce from her first husband, Herod Boethus. Thus, the reference to ‘taking his brother’s wife’, inferring that the brother was alive, relates not to Herod Antipas but to Philip the Tetrarch who took Herodias, the wife of his living half-brother, Herod Boethus, as his wife.

The silence of Josephus on the marriage of Herodias and Philip the Tetrarch, would not, in and of itself, indicate complicity in seeking to establish the gospel time frame as being historical. But Josephus did not just leave things here. He takes a further step, a step that does indicate complicity and a step that contradicts Matthew 14: 3,4. He has the daughter of Herodias, Salome, marry Philip the Tetrarch - a man 36 or 37 years her senior, her uncle and her great-uncle.

(in all three of Herodias’ marriages, her husbands were between 12, 7 and 5 years older than her - according to Wikipedia dating..)

With Josephus being silent on the marriage of Herodias to Philip the Tetrarch, with his having Salome conveniently ‘married’ to Philip the Tetrarch the whole gospel story time-line for the marriage of Herodias and Herod Antipas - and the death of John the Baptist prior to the crucifixion, is, seemingly, hopefully, ‘historically’ secured.

“Salome was married to Philip, the son of Herod, and tetrarch of Trachonitis;”. Ant.18.

However, Salome was not, obviously, ‘married' to Philip around the time, in the gospel storyline, of her dance at Herod Antipas’ birthday - at which time she would have been either 16 or 19 years old. As the wife of a Tetrarch, it would be extraordinary, and unbecoming, for her to perform an exhibition of dance - and, interestingly, the gospel storyline calls her a ‘girl’ - whereas a married woman would not be referred to in that manner. Depending on the gospel dating, either 30 or 33 CE, and Philip the Tetrarch’ death in 34 CE - Salome had a rather short ‘marriage’....

Although Josephus has ‘historically’ secured the gospel time frame for the marriage of Herodias to Herod Antipas, the birthday episode regarding the dance of Salome and her complying with her mother’s request for the head of JtB, indicates that his ‘historical’ fix does not hold up very well with the drama of the birthday dance - and the gospel storyline, wisely, leaves out the name of Herodias’ daughter!

The time-line of the gospel story required John the Baptist to be beheaded prior to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. The death of John the Baptist required him to be involved with some matter of considerable controversy. The chosen controversy involved Herodias. To create that storyline it was necessary to: 1. Have Herodias married to Herod Antipas prior to 30/33 CE. 2. Have the reference to Philip in Matthew 14:3,4 appear ambiguous due to the statement that it was “not lawful for” Herod “to have” Herodias as his wife. 3. Having Herodias married to Herod Antipas prior to 30/33 CE, necessitated that her marriage to Philip the Tetrarch not be recorded in Josephus’ historical account.

An oversight over the marriage of Herodias to Philip the Tetrarch could be just an oversight. However, the silence of Josephus on this issue, coupled with his having Salome ‘married’ to Philip, does question his silence, hence questions his intent. Consequently, the question of the complicity of Josephus in providing historical cover for the gospel storyline involving Herodias and Herod Antipas, and John the Baptist, cannot be ruled out of hand.

However, all the careful backdating failed to take into account the quarrel between Herod Antipas and the father of his divorced wife - a father willing to go to war in order to extract retribution from Herod Antipas for divorcing his daughter to marry Herodias - a war that took place around 36/37 CE.

Assuming that Aretas IV was prepared to contain his willingness to go to war, over the dishonoring of his daughter - prepared to contain his desire for retribution in order to fit the required number of years that would suit the gospel storyline, a storyline with a prophetic and theological agenda. .....assumes too much. The divorce of Herod Antipas from the daughter of Aretas IV and the war are not, logically, many years apart. It is only the backdating of the marriage between Herodias and Herod Antipas into the gospel story time-line that requires one to assume that Aretas IV was willing to put his desire for war against Herod Antipas on hold.....

And Josephus, on an ironic note, has brought Philip into the 36/37 CE war between Aretas 1V and Herod Antipas........

“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..” Ant.18.

Philip was already dead, in 34 CE, and his tetrarch given to Syria - hence naming him here is unnecessary.....unless, perhaps, some point is being made...
=========================

Was JtB historical? Or yet again, another element in the gospel storyline that has been given ‘historical’ credibility through the writing, editing, or interpolations, within the work of Josephus.

andrewcriddle

In Eusebius and his first use of the TF I argue against the dates you are using for the Demonstratio Evangelica and the Ecclesiastical History

There are 2 problems involved:
a/ The date of 311 for the Demonstratio Evangelica, is probably too early.
b/ It is most unlikely that the TF was only added to the Ecclesiastical History at the time of its final revision in 325.

NB Although there are differences in the Greek texts of the TF in the Ecclesiastical History and the Demonstratio Evangelica, most of the differences you cite are issues of English translation. You really really can't do the type of analysis you are attempting without using the original languages.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I discuss whether or not Josephus genuinely claims that Machaerus was subject to Aretas in Machaerus Josephus and John the Baptist

Andrew Criddle

spin

Feldman provides tw_i te as the original form in the Greek, but provides tote in the transcription, and footnotes the translation "and to him who was subject to her father". He runs with "which at that time was subject..." without explanation. His handling of the issue is a little glib.

I'd think there is not enough in the text to use as substantive evidence for Machaerus being in the hands of Aretas.


spin

maryhelena

After spending a bit of time doing a Google search re John the Baptist, Herodias and Herod Antipas I found an interesting article from the 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).

The article does a summary of the views of Nikos Kokkinos. I don’t want to quote as I don’t want to violate copyright...Anyway here are a few points

1.Herodias was born around 15 b.c.
2.She married Herod Boetus around 1.b.c.
3.Salome was born in the early years of the lst century.
4.Herodias divorced soon afterwards and married Philip the Tetrarch.
5.Philip the Tetrarch died childless in September 33 c.e.
6.Herod Antipas saw an opportunity to acquire his late brother’s estate.
7.Offers a bigamous marriage to Herodias – who decides that Aretas’ daughter must go.
8.War results between Aretas and Herod Antipas
9.Salome was not married to Philip the Tetrarch.
10.Salome too old, near 30, to be the girl dancing at the birthday of Herod Antipas.
11.The dancer is possibly Herod’s daughter by his first wife, daughter of Aretas, possibly named Herodias 11
or Herodias 11-Salome.

It is suggested in the article that the gospel storyline and Josephus should be seen as separate narrative and should not be amalgamated. Issues between the two accounts remain.

While the Josephan writings can be viewed as ‘historical’ support for the gospel storyline - they can just as well be viewed, through editing and interpolation, as an attempt at giving historical validity to the gospel storyline. Two quite different things alltogether...

aa5874

Once Josephus was a prisoner of war, a POW of the Romans, it would have been suicidal to claim that a Jew was the Christ. Josephus may have been tortured before he wrote his books since there is information that people who were arrested by the Romans were tortured.

It would not be expected that Josephus would admit that he was tortured while he was imprisoned.

And if Jesus of the NT did exist and was called the Messiah, Josephus would have had to deny that Jesus was Christ, perhaps to save his own life.

RogueBibleScholar

Roger; You are right about studying the revisions in their original languages. A textual matter like that MUST be studied in the original languages to be conclusive; and I knew it when I wrote it, but somehow failed to make note of it. That is a much more involved job, although it will be easier with the Greek than the Aramaic for me. I'll look and see if you are right about the underlying Greek being roughly equivalent. I'm sorry if it makes you sad to see Eusebius attacked, but that's not enough to make him honest. Even so, it is not merely an attack on Eusebius. I think earlier layers of tampering could be present, too; although my ideas on this are still somewhat formative.

Andrew: As to the order of the books of Eusebius that the TF appears in, that will take some time to evaluate. As to your alternate translation of the phrase putting Macherus in Aretas' control, it is an interesting conjecture. My Greek is rather rudimentary at this point. Are there inflections in the ms. text which would indicate if it were a fort or a person being referred to as under subjection to Aretas? I would like you to explain why the original text is awkward, as a full description might help us understand what is going on. Is it common practice to use "the" when "a" is intended, such that when "and to a one subject to her Father" is written, it can be understood as "and to a one subject to her father"? If not, then "the" would be without a referent. Josephus has not established who "the" was referring to.

Even if it is as you translate, it still may be referring to Aretas' control of the fortress, although this seems unlikely. You render it literally, "'and to the one subject to her Father." That gives us:

If this were Hebrew, I would say that he might have meant it to refer to the fortress, as a type of parallelism; but Josephus does not seem to ordinarily use such biblical style poetic parallelism. Even so, it remains a outside possibility.

Thus, if other language experts agree with your rendering, I can accept Josephus may have been referring to "a one" subject to Aretas, which actually reads a little better, since it is this one who would have been sending word for Aretas to array his army to expedite the return of his daughter. The presence of the particle "the" without a specific person to refer to is a problem however; unless it is the fortress - but then that construction is awkward too.

The fort may have been in the hands of the Herods at that point. It is earlier on:

Nonetheless, I do not believe, even if you are correct, and even if it had previously been in Herod's hands, that this is a rational thing to do. First off, even if the Herods had controlled it previously, it does not appear to be under the control of Antipas then:

Why would sending to a fortress under control of Antipas inform the general of Aretas' army of her arrival? Sure, she could have sent a letter, but the sentence, with the use of the word "so", has it that sending to the fortress alone ought to explain why the general would begin making preparations. Had Josephus intended to say that she sent to this Herod-controlled fort with a letter bound outward for her dad, she would not have been sending to the fort, but through the fort to her dad. This is probably the reason for Feldman's gloss. He probably concluded that the following phrase cleared up the difficulty in the preceding phrase. Could Josephus have been using biblical-style parallelism after all?

Also, I must reiterate, that when a man has just wiped out most or all of your army out of anger at the betrayal of his daughter, you do not send sensitive political prisoners to the border with him. Again, he could not know if Aretas might then have designs on the fort which he formerly may or may not have owned, it being in modern Jordan, after all; or might get word of it, and conduct a raid for the prisoner which then might defame him. While attempts have been made to separate Herodias' planning to escape from the death of John in time, they are entirely unconvincing, given the urgency of matters in the aftermath of Antipas' betrayal.

Mary: I will need some time to work through what you are saying about the timing of the lives of Herodias and the Herods. The passage you point out in Josephus is interesting in this context:

It is interesting to note that this Herod, whom Herodias had been married to in the 18.5.1 context, is "he lodged with Herod, who was his brother indeed, but not by the same mother; for this Herod was the son of the high priest Sireoh's daughter." Yet, in the 18.5.4 local context, this Herod is the son of " Mariamne, the daughter of Simon the high priest." It appears that "the son of the high priest Sireoh" should read "the son of the high priest Simon." It also appears that there is no reason from Josephus why the Gospels call him Philip. Lk. 3:19 calls Antipas' brother, Herodian's former husband, Philip; when Philip has just died.

Where do you get that Herodias was born ca. 15 BCE? She would have been 15+33-1=47 years of age at least. That seems a bit old to attract him from another wife. She may not have been fertile, and may not have had land; as her husband was still alive.

Could Josephus have been covering up for the Herods and Rome? Rather easily. He seems to whitewash Rome and vilify rebels a little bit in his histories; and factual errors and/or distortions of his are known. I think in the Gospels, history may very well have been back-projected to an earlier time; so that incidents which took place later were placed earlier in the biblical narratives.

Thus, in the list you posted, the following errors would be present: I read Josephus to say that Herodias did NOT marry Philip the tetrarch, but Herod (called Boethus by some for unknown reasons), the son of Herod "the Great" and Miraimne. Thus, there was no reason why Antipas would be receiving Herod Philip's estate. Just because Salome was described as a girl dancing at Antipas' birthday does not mean that another Salome was intended; if we suppose that the inventor of the Christian romance was simply mistaken about her age.

Thanks for everybody's helpful comments. The more times I can be proven wrong, the fewer times I'll make a fool of myself by continuing to repeat errors.

Regards,
The Rogue Bible Scholar

andrewcriddle

I'm not sure if I can make it clearer than I did in my original post but I'll try.

It is not primarily a question of translation but of the original text.
Did Josephus originally write the clumsy TW(I) TE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELEI which is what the external evidence of manuscripts reads and which should probably be translated as 'and to the one subject to her Father.' or did he write the smoother TOTE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELH 'which was subject to her father' ?

Andrew Criddle