aa5874

Josephus may had some problems with the Greek language.

Antiquities of the Jews 20.11.2

spin

Antipas would have been out of his mind to allow her to go back to Aretas. That would have been tantamount to stirring up a war. Going to Machaerus only makes sense if it were in Herodian hands.

Sending to Machaerus makes sense, if Machaerus was a location where agents of her father were found, a likely situation, as Machaerus was the Judean bulwark to Nabataea and the nearest thing to a frontier town. You would expect Nabataeans to be there. A message sent there would have gone on to Petra, "so all things necessary for her journey were made ready for her by the general of Aretas's army".


spin

RogueBibleScholar

Josephus and Greek: Here is the whole quote:

Josephus is pretty satisfied with the state of the books. He admits he cannot pronounce Greek, but makes no such admission about written Greek. What's more, although he probably wrote the Wars in Aramaic from what I understand, he had the scribe Epaphroditis to help him with his Greek. Thus, I would tend to see bad Greek as signs of textual tampering, in general. In this case, however, since what you report as bad Greek sounds a lot like the existing Greek passage, he may have said it wrong, and Epaphroditis may have simply thought he had used a similar-sounding bad Greek phrase; which he uncharacteristically would have written down instead of correcting.

Andrew: If the passage indeed should be corrected to "TOTE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELH," then the passage on John is more clearly a forgery; but if not, it seems like a very unlikely move for Antipas at that time; no matter what state of mind he was in. That being said, I would still be interested an explanation as to how the ms. reading is bad Greek. I'm not disagreeing, but we might pick up some indication of what was meant from what was there. It might be tampering. I am a big advocate of reading what the text says, not what we think it ought to say. That's part of how Western Civilization got in this whole mess in the first place.

Not so. As far as Herod knew, she would have been visiting people just inside the territory where she was born, as she had done before; perhaps to get news. As far as Herod knew, she had no idea he was planning to divorce her; so there was no reason not to let her go, without her getting suspicious.

spin

For those interested, it should be clear that Machaerus had always been a Judean possession since before Herodian times. The Romans supported the Herodian family and protected their possessions. The notion that Machaerus would pass out of Herodian hands into Nabataean hands would have been as likely as the Romans giving up Judea without a fight.

Antipas allowing his Nabataean wife to pass out of his control, especially when he has effectively repudiated her, would have been highly risky. While allowing her to go to the ends of the kingdom would have been acceptible, allowing her to leave would have put her out of his control. The daughter of a foreign king as wife is a pact between the two realms, giving the daughter back (which is effectively what allowing ehr to go home would mean) is a rupture of the pact.

And we mustn't forget the relevance of foreigners in frontier settlements, which makes sense of the notion of sending "to Machaerus, and to the one subject to her Father".


spin

RogueBibleScholar

It may even be that the writer of 18.5.1 thinks that by sending to Marcherus, Phasaelis would be able to contact her father's general; although Josephus has left the fortress in Herodian hands, earlier in the Antiquites; such that this might be a forgery, and that 18.5.2 has the fortress again in Herodian hands, but has Herod send John to this territory on the border of his mortal enemy at a time when Herod himself has no army - again perhaps signs of an interpolation. Working out the ages of these people when these events are said to have happened may help more. It is actually not unthinkable that Rome might have let Macherus out of the hands of the Herods. True, they were to later support Antipas, but it might housed mainly Roman troops, and (although I hate to do it,) one could again appeal to a hypothetical transaction of the fort. At this point, it seems more likely that it did not happen. I don't know where you get the bit about it having been in Judean hands from BEFORE the time of the Herods.

BTW: It is also possible that Herod had executed John between late 33 and 36, but that the passage on John was nonetheless added by another hand, and later projected back a few years in history by the Gospels. I certainly can see a Christian theological motive here, however; that John in Josephus is made a martyr which God then punishes with the destruction of Herod's army. Perhaps little matter to the forger, or to Josephus, that it is not the fault of Herod's soldiers that Herod betrayed Phasaelis.

I have not given up sorting this tangle out; but hope that perhaps more can be determined once I extend another promising avenue I have in the investigation of Josephus.

squiz

How easily did such fortresses change hands? Wouldn't it take a significant siege effort (or at least treachery) to take it? If so, why doesn't Josephus mention it?

maryhelena

RogueBibleScholar wrote:

Rouge
The link to the info that I gave in my second post is:

http://ebook30.com/theology-occultis...mmer-2006.html


This takes one to the download page - and I was able to download the whole PDF file of the JBL without having to register. The article is well worth reading. ( if that does not show the link - try this one.)

http://www.mediafire.com/?3z2yjmqwydy

The author of the article, Ross S. Kraemer is: Professor of Religious Studies and Judaic Studies at Brown University:

“Professor Kraemer's areas of expertise include early Christianity and other
religions of the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, including ancient Judaism,
especially in the Diaspora. Her research focuses on aspects of women's
religions in the Greco-Roman world, particularly Christian and Jewish women.
In addition, she is also interested in questions of theory and method in the
academic study of religion, and the relationship between religion and modern media.”.

Nikos Kokkinos is author of “The Herodian Dynasty”.

Both Kokkinos and Wikipedia give the birth date for Herodias as 15 BC. Kokkinos gives the date for her first marriage as 1 BC. (Wikipedia date is 1-2 CE). Kokkinos suggests she was betrothed to her first husband, Herod Boethus, around 6/7 BC by her grandfather, Herod the Great, her father having been killed.

Kokkinos and Wikipedia differ on the birth date for Salome - hence the date, or near date, upon which Herodias left her first husband. Kokkinos suggests that Salome was born early in the first century. An argument that does carry weight as it is much more likely for a young bride to give birth earlier than later - i.e. it would seem odd that if, as the case seems to be, that Herodias was fertile, she would conceive later rather than earlier. The Wikipedia date for the birth of Salome, 14 CE, would indicate some early fertility problems for Herodias...

Working from the early date for the birth of Salome would suggest that Herodias left, divorced, her first husband around 3 CE. (Josephus says after the birth of Salome...).

At this time period it would be doubtful if she married Herod Antipas. Josephus suggests that Herod Antipas had a long marriage with the daughter of Aretas, Phasaelis - “and had lived with her a great while”. Kokkinos suggest a date for this marriage between Phasaelis and Herod Antipas, 6/7 BC. The reason being a coin struck that year by Aretas with his daughter’s name on it. Commemorating, he suggest, not her birth but her marriage i.e. her new status as the wife of a ruler.

This marriage probably involved a political alliance between Herod Antipas and Aretas - and thus, ending this marriage was bound to give trouble. Perhaps, as Kokkinos suggests, Herod Antipas had ideas of a bigamous marriage - just adding Herodias as another wife - as his father was wont to do. Herodias had other ideas. Putting the alleged ‘love affair’ on the side - why would Herod Antipas want to take on a woman as defamed as Herodias would be for leaving her living husband? And to risk war over her? On the other hand, if Herodias was coming to Herod Antipas as a woman with a chequered background - how come she was able to lay down the law re Phasaelis?

Things look much different if Herodias is, after being married to Philip the Tetrarch for 30 years, now, in 33 CE, a widow, aged about 47/48 years old, and there is territory at stake. In this case Herodias is in a position to call the shots - and the risk over war with Aretas might seem a small price to pay if the two territories, that of Philip and Herod Antipas, were to be consolidated. (Philip, seemingly, being sterile, there being no sons to inherit his kingdom: there being no record of Herodias having any more children).

Indeed, things did not work out this way - Philip’s kingdom goes to Syria - only to be given to Agrippa 1 around 37 CE. - and shortly after the war with Aretas, Herod Antipas exiled to Gaul - Herodias going with him.

And the storyline in Josephus? Well, something had to be done to give the gospel account some legs to run on....Why not just change the 15th year of Tiberius to around his 20th year, around 34 CE for the start of the ministry of both Jesus and John - things would look better then re the historical, Herodian, individuals the gospel wanted to incorporate into its storyline - but there's the problem - the gospel storyline has an agenda other than recording historical details - its goal is to interpret history in the light of the OT - and that required fitting history into a prophetic agenda/plan...

Re: the issue over Macherus. Probably always under Judean rule - but with the marriage alliance maybe Aretas had some use of it? Whatever the actual facts - his daughter felt safe going there - and Herod Antipas let her go. Trying to reconcile the two events, Aretas daughter going to Macherus and John the Baptist being sent there - two very different accounts. One account having a strong historical possibility - the other account is just story-telling for theological/religious/spiritual ends....

andrewcriddle

It is clumsy Greek because the subject of the clause has to be implied. A very literal translation would be Andrew Criddle

RogueBibleScholar

Hi Andrew,

I checked the Gk. at The Perseus Project. It has TW TE PATRI AUTHS hUPOTELEI. I'm way out of my depth on this, but going with the Feldman spelling TWI, I read it, with my own very speculative reconstruction in italics, as, "now she had sent a good while before to Macherus, one [who was given] and her father [was given] subject".

If we try to translate this directly, one possibility to me seems to be "now she had sent a good while before a subject of her fathers, to Machaerus." I don't see the evidence for the 'to' in "to her father's vassal." The dative case on TIS would refer to the message or word this otherwise unnamed one was given. It is not beyond imagination that Phasaelis might have had a messenger with news of her father's kingdom visiting her. Then again, I may well be butchering the whole thing.

The same problems still stand, however. Why would sending a subject of her father's to Machaerus cause a general of Aretas' army to stand ready to escort her to Petra? Why would Herod send, John, a sensitive political prisoner, to a fortress on the border of a man who had just destroyed his army? Aretas obviously had enough influence there that his daughter would think to send word there in order to contact her father's army, before Herod's army was destroyed, so why would Herod think to send John there now?

Perhaps this is one of the rare cases where archaeology might be able to shed some light on a NT mystery. (I guess I have been spoiled in my OT work.) The site of Machaerus is known. If it shows Arabian occupation in the early First Century, then it may well have been subject to Aretas at that time, contra our expectation when Josephus has it in the hands of the Herods. If it does not, but shows Jewish occupation, the matter is less clear. If it shows a heavily Roman occupation, then we might suppose it might have easily changed hands. Also, the opinion of other(?) expert(s) in Greek on the Macherus passage would be of real help.

squiz asks, "How easily did such fortresses change hands? Wouldn't it take a significant siege effort (or at least treachery) to take it? If so, why doesn't Josephus mention it?" You have to remember that these aren't regular kings, but Roman client kings. They let native kings rule, but only as something like a courtesy to subject nations. If the kings crossed Rome, Rome would simply depose them. If Macherus were housing a large number of Roman troops, or less likely, on a whim, Nero decided that the Herods should give Macherus to Aretas, it would not be unlikely that it would change hands. That's the problem with despots. You might get a Julius Caesar, but one of his successors might be a leader so bad as to, say, despise the ruled. We also can't assume that Josephus recorded all land deals between Jewish kings and others; although I am not entirely comfortable to be hypothesizing one here.

spin says that Herod would have been out of his mind to allow her to go back to Aretas, but I don't see it. There was no great hostility between Herod Antipas and Aretas at this point, and she would have gotten suspicious if he would have forbidden her travel. He says there is not enough to place the fortress in the hands of Aretas, and while that is true that this is not yet done conclusively, again, why otherwise would sending word there mobilize Aretas' general? Even if it was in Herod's hands, Herod would have been out of his mind to send John to the doorstep of so hostile an enemy while he had no army; so either way, the two sections are probably not by the same hand - whoever's hands we might wish to think of them being.

Thanks Andrew, for your link on Eusebius and the TF, and Mary, for the link on Herodias and Phasaelis. I do not now, however, believe that Herodias had been married to Herod Philip, as I have explained previously. Josephus gives the reason that the marriage was unlawful as being that she divorced herself while her husband was yet alive; but Philip had already died. I believe the Gospel writers misread this as Herod Philip, missing the passage some sections down which put the lie to this idea. If Josephus had have meant Herod Philip, I believe he would have said so, but this is an insertion by Whiston. I checked the Greek on Perseus, and it is not in there; so here are two reasons to think it was not Herod Philip she was married to. As to the plausibility of what I read Josephus to be saying, the materials you pointed out could be of help. The Mandaens have a completely different fate for John the Baptist, which conflicts with the received Josephus; if we can give any credence to their scriptures.

I have not updated my website with these considerations yet, but have added a part on the Discourse on Hades, and have gotten a new site that does not have banner ads. It will be some weeks and maybe longer until I can get around to the research and updates I want, but you can find the new page here (** Shameless self-promotion **) I think I may have some interesting research regarding Paul, the Herods, and the Marcionite scriptures; as well as some really odd things regarding the James passage, in the months to come. Then again, the Macherus observation wasn't novel, after all; but these discussions seem to have opened up some interesting avenues on it. You must check every fact you can get to, both for reasonableness and against other facts where sources are preserved; and think things through to see what the writers are really trying to tell you; and what makes sense in the real world. Reading everyone is also good, but I focus on those who bring up interesting matters, and can think well. You must not abandon hard-won, sound conclusions, as so many since Albright seem to have, for the sake of the anthropology of the day. Feel lucky, however, that these matters are far more recent than the well earlier OT scriptures.

Cheers,
The Rogue Bible Scholar

RogueBibleScholar

Here's one for all who do not think the passage is a Christian or other non-Josephan insertion. As squiz wonders, concerning treachery, we are told " all Herod's army was destroyed by the treachery of some fugitives." If Macherus was a safe place for Herod Antipas to send John the Baptist, how was it that he held Macherus when all his army was destroyed? Did he not have some of his army there? How could Aretas not have taken Macherus, and still destroyed all of Herod's army, assuming Herod ever possessed it in the first place (as opposed to another Herod)? It seems one would want to take the fortress early on, if embarking on destroying Herod's army from Petra.

If Aretas did not control Macherus before destroying Herod's army (although Phasaelis seems to behave as if he did), if we only take Josephus at his word in the preceding passage, Aretas would have as a consequence of destroying Herod's army (although Josephus certainly has been caught exaggerating before). If the same mind penned both passages, it is inexplicable that it has not addressed this contradiction.