maryhelena

Stephan - sometimes I don't know who you are replying to. Why not name the poster?

Anyway, yes, Pilate can be dated earlier than 26 c.e. - i.e. from 18/19 c.e. the argument for that is, to my mind, convincing. But you are putting Archelaus, as either ruling in Judea or alive in Gaul, into that early Pilate dating. You don't have a convincing argument for that...

DCHindley

What is the context of this, Stephen?

It looks to me like Josephus is digressing, giving us a history lesson about the region inhabited by the tribe of Judah.

stephan huller

I guess I don't have one. But the reality is that I don't see any evidence outside of Josephus that Archelaus ever ruled anywhere at any time.

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/greec...chelaus/i.html

It's just 'Herod the Tetrarch' - as far as I can see neither Josephus nor the NT ever refer to Archelaus as 'Herod.' The point is assumed because of the parallel with Dio. But isn't it simply possible that the coins belonged to Dio's guy and Archelaus was someone else.

stephan huller

I don't know. It was just something I saw standing at McCarran Airport. It strikes me as odd that the parallel with Dio assumes that Herod = Archelaus (something unsupported in any known historical source that I am aware of) and then suddenly he introduces just such a switch with Antipas.

stephan huller

I don't know if this is the place to discuss this but there is an argument that the Christian redactor of Josephus read Dio. An example anticipated by Millar (1964: 214-18) who discusses Josephus' false Alexander in the context of the false Neros described by Cassius Dio.

Steve Mason writes that this story "remarkably anticipates, by a century and half, Cassius Dio's account of a false Alexander [the Great]: active in 221 CE, and resembling the great general of a half-millennium earlier, he gathered much support, including accommodation and provisions, as he moved through Moesia and Thrace (Dio 79.18.1-3). More directly relevant for Josephus' audience: we know of 3 different characters who pretended to be Nero in the years following that emperor's suicide (June 68 CE), and Tacitus claims that there were many (Hist. 2.8). The first appeared in 69 CE and impressed people with his singing and lyre-playing, and with his facial resemblance to Nero; he established his strongest following on the Greek island of Cynthos, only about 60 miles (100 km) N of Melos — the stronghold of Josephus' impostor here (see below): cf. Tacitus Hist 2.8; Dio 64.9.3. The second, active in Titus' reign (79-81 CE), was named Ter- entius Maximus: Dio 66.19.3. The third, who appeared in the middle of Domitian's reign (ca. 88-89 CE) was supported by the Parthians as a provocateur (Tacitus ... Since at least the first of these impostors must have been known to War's Roman audience, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Josephus is evoking a parallel— thereby commenting further on the pitfalls of monarchical succession ... Millar (1964: 214-18) who discusses Josephus' false Alexander in the context of the false Neros described by Cassius Dio. http://books.google.com/books?id=NHR...een%22&f=false

stephan huller

If Josephus could have read Dio here he certainly read Dio to construct the parallel account of Archelaus as 'Herod of Palestine' and more importantly connecting the Herodian Archelaus with Archelaus of Cappadocia and introducing his daughter Glaphyra

maryhelena

Actually, Stephan, coins attributed to Archelaus have the title "Ethnarch" on them. Tetrarch is on coins attributed to Antipas.

There is no picture re this coin - just details.

The Herodian history in Josephus is questionable. I've no doubt about that. However, I don't go with the forgery route. I happen to think that the Josephan writer had a finger in that gospel pie. i.e. Josephan Herodian history supports the gospel story. The Josephan writer wrote pseudo-history alongside history. That writer wrote prophetic history, ie an interpretation of Jewish history, alongside his historical writing. The chronology of the gospel story covers a wider time frame than the 15th year of Tiberius. The gospel story has been reset, updated, upgraded, as real history moved along. The ambiguity over the Josephan dating of Pilate allows that gospel story to be retold in different time frames. Pilate's Josephan ambiguous dating can be used to support crucifixion dates around 20 c.e., 30 c.e. and 36 c.e. Those dates don't accommodate conventional dating for Archelaus.

As I said in an earlier post in this thread - to get Archelaus ruling later than the conventional date for his banishment in 6 c.e. - one has to challenge the assumed Josephus dating for the death of Herod the Great. If HG did not die in 4 b.c. but only ended his sole rule in that year, a co-regency by his sons would allow for a later dating for Archelaus' rule, i.e. Archelaus' sole rule would be from the death of HG - which might well have occurred in 6 c.e. A dispute over the will of HG could have resulted in Archelaus being appointed Ethnarch as late as 7/8 c.e. A 10 year rule and it's 18/19 c.e. for his banishment to Gaul - or later if the Josephan writer is simply using 10 years as the length of time of a co-regency.....from 4 b.c. to 6 c.e.

Stephan, the debate over Archelaus dating boils down to challenging the assumed Josephan dating for the death of Herod the Great. A co-regency, possibly with Antipater and then Archelaus, goes a long way to shedding some light on the source that connects Archelaus with Pilate to an early, pre 15th year of Tiberius, gLuke, crucifixion story.

stephan huller

But where does it say "Archelaus"? I find these conversations frustrating because I think it should be obvious what I am saying. I am saying we have "Herod coins" which make no reference to "Archelaus" and which we take to be "Archelaus coins" solely because of Josephus and you go on to say that we have "Archelaus coins" that say "Herod." It's annoying. Please find me "Archelaus coins" that say "Archelaus" somewhere on them.

stephan huller

In my Roman provincial coins book there are Herod the Tetrarch coins - just no "Archelaus" coins.

stephan huller

You see here is a King Archelaus and his coins say "King Archelaus"



BASILEWS ARCELAOU FILOPATRIDOS TOU KTISTOU