Jesus Ben Annanias?

[patrick457]

Hagan doesn’t comment on Gallius and Paul. Gallius sounds a lot like Gamaliel when Peter and John were arrested.

That he was consul of Achaea seems reasonable to assume in A.D. 52. How long he had been consul prior to that or after that is open to speculation. I haven’t researched it. Acts also said that the incident occurred before Paul left Corinth completely, so it could have occurred any time in the latter part of Paul’s 18 month stay in that corrupt city.

So there is a lot of leeway here time-wise.

I’d like to answer this first.

After this Paul left Athens and went to Corinth. And he found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome. And he went to see them, and because he was of the same trade he stayed with them and worked, for they were tentmakers by trade. And he reasoned in the synagogue every Sabbath, and tried to persuade Jews and Greeks.

When Silas and Timothy arrived from Macedonia, Paul was occupied with the word, testifying to the Jews that the Christ was Jesus. And when they opposed and reviled him, he shook out his garments and said to them, “Your blood be on your own heads! I am innocent. From now on I will go to the Gentiles.” And he left there and went to the house of a man named Titius Justus, a worshiper of God. His house was next door to the synagogue. Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with his entire household. And many of the Corinthians hearing Paul believed and were baptized. And the Lord said to Paul one night in a vision, “Do not be afraid, but go on speaking and do not be silent, for I am with you, and no one will attack you to harm you, for I have many in this city who are my people.” And he stayed a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.

But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him before the tribunal, saying, “This man is persuading people to worship God contrary to the law.” But when Paul was about to open his mouth, Gallio said to the Jews, “If it were a matter of wrongdoing or vicious crime, O Jews, I would have reason to accept your complaint. But since it is a matter of questions about words and names and your own law, see to it yourselves. I refuse to be a judge of these things.” And he drove them from the tribunal. And they all seized Sosthenes, the ruler of the synagogue, and beat him in front of the tribunal. But Gallio paid no attention to any of this.

After this, Paul stayed many days longer and then took leave of the brothers and set sail for Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila. At Cenchreae he had cut his hair, for he was under a vow. And they came to Ephesus, and he left them there, but he himself went into the synagogue and reasoned with the Jews. When they asked him to stay for a longer period, he declined. But on taking leave of them he said, “I will return to you if God wills,” and he set sail from Ephesus.

(Acts 18:1-21 ESV)

If we go by Acts Paul stayed “many days longer” at Corinth after being brought to Gallio at the least, so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that it would have been at the end of his stay. As for Gallio:

In AD 15 Tiberius brought out an ordinance commanding that provincial office-holders “should take their departure [from Rome] by the first day of June.” Claudius in AD 42 advanced the depature date: “The governors who were chosen by lot were to set out before the first day of April, for they had been in the habit of tarrying a long time in the city.” Apparently it didn’t have much of an effect (since travelling by sea was still difficult by early spring), so the following year he repeated this ordinance but made for a slight allowance: governors had to be out of Rome by mid-April at the latest.

Assuming that the average journey to a post took a month, this would have given the newcomer a further month in which to familiarize himself with the local situation before assuming full responsibility. After all, proconsuls only held office for one year (although occasionally for two years), and one couldn’t waste a significant period of that year while the new appointee found his way around. So, allowing for travel time, the term of office would have started in early summer and lasted from summer to summer: the beginning of July to the end of June the next year is a reasonable guess.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Going back to the Delphi Inscription for a moment, from other inscriptions we know that Claudius was first acclaimed imperator on January 25th, AD 41, that he was acclaimed for the 22nd, 23rd, and 24th times on his eleventh year, and that his 27th acclamation occurred no later than August 1st of AD 52, his twelfth year of rule. While we don’t know the dates of the 25th and 26th acclamations (the one mentioned on the inscription), they could not have occurred before late AD 51 and must have been prior to August 1, 52, when Claudius was acclaimed for the 27th time.

We also know that Claudius held the tribunician power for the 12th time from January 25th, AD 52, through January 24th, AD 53. So the inscription must refer to an event sometime between January 25 and August 1 of AD 52. From the inscription the proconsular year of Gallio cannot have been 52-53, since the emperor’s response cannot antedate the report. However, we cannot simply assume, from the title given to Gallio, that this was in fact the year. Even if he were already out of office, he would have naturally given the title which authorized his report to the emperor.

It’s more difficult to determine the earliest year that Gallio could have been proconsul. It is unlikely, however, that could have been appointed before AD 49, since only in that year did his brother, the philosopher Seneca, return from his place of exile in Corsica (where he was sent by Claudius in AD 41 on a charge of adultery with Caligula’s sister Julia Livilla) at the behest of Claudius’ fourth wife Agrippina the Younger. After all, in the Roman system, the disgrace of one member affected the whole family. Gallio doesn’t appear to be a man of exceptional character of ability, so it is probable that his nomination as proconsul of Achaia was materially assisted by the influence of his brother, who, on his rehabilitation, became the tutor of Nero.

Theoretically it’s not impossible that Gallio served a term of two years because he may have been extra sortem (i.e. outside the usual assignment of provinces by lot), and officials of this type, like legates in the imperial provinces, served at the emperor’s pleasure; their tenue was not limited to one year. But in reality the question of Gallio’s precise status is irrelevant because he did not complete his term of office. His brother Seneca wrote (Epistulae morales 104.1):

I have run off to my villa at Nomentum, for what purpose, do you suppose? To escape the city? No; to shake off a fever which was surely working its way into my system. It had already got a grip upon me. My physician kept insisting that when the circulation was upset and irregular, disturbing the natural poise, the disease was under way. I therefore ordered my carriage to be made ready at once, and insisted on departing in spite of my wife Paulina’s efforts to stop me; for I remembered master Gallio’s words, when he began to develop a fever in Achaia and took ship at once, insisting that the disease was not of the body but of the place.

In addition, Pliny (speaking of the health benefits of travelling by sea) reported that Gallio felt the need for a long sea-voyage to recuperate after his consulship (Naturalis Historia 31.62):

Sea-water also is employed in a similar manner for the cure of diseases. It is used, made hot, for the cure of pains in the sinews, for reuniting fractured bones, and for its desiccative action upon the body: for which last purpose, it is also used cold. There are numerous other medicinal resources derived from the sea; the benefit of a sea-voyage, more particularly, in cases of phthisis, as already mentioned, and where patients are suffering from haemoptosis, as lately experienced, in our own memory, by Annaeus Gallio, at the close of his consulship: for it is not for the purpose of visiting the country, that people so often travel to Egypt, but in order to secure the beneficial results arising from a long sea-voyage.

If we accept what Seneca says of a “malady … of the place,” it is natural to assume that Gallio took a dislike to Achaia and used illness as an excuse to leave his post. Such an unreasoning aversion to a place is normally the result of a first impression; it may intensify as time passes, but it does not usually begin late. If this assessment is correct, it’s unlikely that Gallio remained in Achaia more than four months, i.e. from June to September. Otherwise, he would have been stuck there for the winter, when (as I implied earlier) ships only travelled for the most serious reasons because one could be tossed by storms for three continuous months.

Even if Gallio did not depart before the winter, the fact of the ‘closed sea’ has implications for the time of the transmission of his report concerning Delphi to Rome. It was not a matter of high priority, and since we have no reports of any serious disturbances in Achaia around that time which would demand immediate communication, it must be assumed that the report went with the normal courier traffic outside the winter season.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

Luke states that upon arrival in Corinth Paul “found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had commanded all the Jews to leave Rome.” The 5th century Christian historian Paulus Orosius reported that the expulsion of the Jews occurred in the ninth year of Claudius’ reign (January 24th, AD 49-January 23rd, AD 50), although his source for it is a non-existent quote from Josephus (Seven Books of History against the Pagans 7.6). Nevertheless, despite the questionable nature of Orosius, most scholars basically agree that his dating is at least plausible when checked with other evidence. We might argue Orosius couldn’t have arrived at this date just by looking at Acts (if so, why did he name Josephus?) or inventing all of it in his head (why put himself at risk by adducing for his invention a source that was quite well known?), as some people thought; it’s more likely that he might have read about the date somewhere, but along the way he misremembered and misattributed it to Josephus.

Assuming that Orosius is correct about his reference to an expulsion of Jews from Rome in AD 49, we may have the following scenarios: (1) if the edict was issued in January of 49, and Paul came to Corinth within six or so months of the edict, then an eighteen-month stay in Corinth would indicate that his trial may have occurred after late spring of AD 50 and “many days” before January of AD 51, since Gallio assumed office no earlier than the spring of 50 under any dating of the Delphi inscription; (2) if Claudius’ edict was issued in December of 49, then under the same assumptions Paul arrived by the summer of 50 and his trial mightt have occurred “many days” prior to January of 52. However, if we put the dangers of Mediterranean winter travel into consideration and Seneca’s statement that his brother did not finish his term of office, one could argue that it would be impossible to place Gallio’s encounter with Paul in the latter part of AD 51-52 (assuming that that date is Gallio’s term). It must have taken place between July (when Gallio would have arrived in Corinth) and September-October of AD 51, the last date when he could have sailed to Rome. Luke himself mentions that Paul “set sail for Syria” with Priscilla and Aquila after his year-and-a-half stay at Corinth - in this scenario we might assume that Paul left at about the same time, which would then put his arrival at the city around April of AD 50.

 

[patrick457]

When you start picking and choosing what you will and will not accept from an ancient source, especially the Gospels, you are de facto compromising whatever conclusions you might draw. A slippery slope. That Salome was somehow a factor in JB’s death is hard to discount.

Dude, I just hope you’re not doing a pot calling the kettle black type thing here.

That JB was tremendously popular is demonstrated by Antipas not executing him immediately, as certainly at least Herodias wanted. Antipas, a somewhat sympathetic character, was probably planning on releasing JB after his military operations concluded.Neither Jesus or Theudas or any of the others got that consideration. And there was a cult of John, as Acts suggests.

If you’re referring to the “disciples” in Ephesus who only knew John’s baptism at Acts 19:

Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures. He had been instructed in the way of the Lord. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, though he knew only the baptism of John. He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. And when he wished to cross to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples to welcome him. When he arrived, he greatly helped those who through grace had believed, for he powerfully refuted the Jews in public, showing by the Scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.

And it happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the inland country and came to Ephesus. There he found some disciples. And he said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was to come after him, that is, Jesus.” On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking in tongues and prophesying.

(Acts 18:24-19:6 ESV)

While we do have references to John’s disciples in the gospels, in this particular passage from Acts the only things we see are Apollos (who is apparently a Christian “though he knew only the baptism of John”) and the “disciples” who haven’t even heard about a Holy Spirit - we might infer that these were people taught by Apollos, who is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. They might be disciples of John, but it’s rather unlikely that the word “disciples” without any qualification can be understood to mean “disciples of John the baptist.”

 

[steve53]

Outstanding scholarship, Patrick.

I haven’t looked closely at things, or how they might fit into Hagan’s time line, or how that might effect the presumed A.D. 36 crucifixion date (are you close to conversion?!), but for now I will only note the following:

That winter travel across the Ionian sea in winter was probably a routine thing- the distance is only 80 miles or so between Italy and Greece at its shortest point and the wind fetch is very small compared to traveling from Rome to far points in the empire. For such a short distance, I doubt that many ships cowered in port when the weather signs were favorable, for there was money to be made.

The inscription is clear that Gallio was consul in A.D. 52., so that has to be accepted.

It is unlikely that Gallio was only in office for four months. Remember, a lot of these positions, especially in peaceful areas, were for purposes of gaining a pension. One of Tiberius’ appointments as President of Syria, Lamnia, never even left Rome in administering his “domain.” He did receive income from it, which was the purpose.

That the position in Achaea was created just for Gallio, and that he was the brother of the powerful Seneca, suggests that this was a patronage position for the purpose of lining Gallio’s pockets. He might well have spent most of his time in Rome, or Athens, such a short distance away. He could be sick of the region, but still administer it, and gain money from it, from afar.

At the time, A.D. 52, it was Agrippina the Younger who ran the show, and Senaca was clearly her man. Claudius did what he was told. With such a minor position as Achaea, the rules could easily have been bent and he remained in power but not IN Achaea for longer than one might think, with the Senate going along with it.

In Acts, the “days” referring to Paul’s sojourn could have been figurative and not literal- like the “dog days of summer.” So the time period could be measured in weeks if not months that Paul stayed in Corinth after his “trial” before Gallio.

 

[patrick457]

Outstanding scholarship, Patrick.

I haven’t looked closely at things, or how they might fit into Hagan’s time line, or how that might effect the presumed A.D. 36 crucifixion date (are you close to conversion?!), but for now I will only note the following:

Far from it. I’ve reached a certain point where it doesn’t really matter to me exactly when Jesus died or anything: heck, it could be in AD 30, 33, or as you say 36. Or maybe earlier than that: say, 29 or 27 - as long as it’s within the accepted range (Pilate’s term: AD 26-36). Or perhaps by some miracle Vardaman was actually right and we should move back New Testament chronology by some years, giving us a date of AD 21. I’d say it: if you’re trying to ‘convert’ me, it’d be pointless.

That winter travel across the Ionian sea in winter was probably a routine thing- the distance is only 80 miles or so between Italy and Greece at its shortest point and the wind fetch is very small compared to traveling from Rome to far points in the empire. For such a short distance, I doubt that many ships cowered in port when the weather signs were favorable, for there was money to be made.

I don’t have much time now, so I’ll just answer this one.

Not exactly. It’s true that the trade was very lucrative, but as a rule travel by sea was off-limits during the winter months. Between the September and March equinoxes the Atlantic spreads depressions throughout the Mediterranean, unsettling the climate and causing winds such as the northeasterly bora. Acts 27 shows just how dangerous travelling could be at that time of year.

In settled times trading routes were defined by wind and currents. Since ships were square-sailed they did best in a following wind and in the eastern Mediterranean these prevailed from north to south. The so-called Etesian winds which prevailed in mid-May to mid-September ships to sail quickly from Italy eastward to the Near East (only around 10 to 21 days), but it made journey from the east westward difficult, so sailors had to take much the longer, more comfortable route along the coast of Asia Minor, passing Crete, Malta and Sicily.

The distance between Greece and Italy may be short, but there’s some complications. The crossing between the Ionian sea and Sicily was always challenging since even in midsummer it could be disrupted by unfavorable winds. The meeting place between the Adriatic and the Ionian Sea was particularly tricky.

In other words, going eastward from Rome was relatively easy, but going westward to Rome was harder - mainly because the wind (and the current) was against you. And while it took three days to sail from Athens to Rhodes and a further four days on to Egypt, the journey back would take twice as long. Even around the 16th century, the journey from Venice to the Holy Land by ship took forty-three days, but the return journey took ninety-three.

 

[steve53]

Sure. On the open Mediterranean.

A short hop from Italy to Greece is very doable- especially if you are oar-powered, which the Roman military elite would be well-equipped with.

So you will have to do more than argue the prevailing winds to convince me everything shut down for six months out of the year.

 

[patrick457]

Sure. On the open Mediterranean.

A short hop from Italy to Greece is very doable- especially if you are oar-powered, which the Roman military elite would be well-equipped with.

So you will have to do more than argue the prevailing winds to convince me everything shut down for six months out of the year.

Just so we can have a reference:

You haven’t heard of the phrase ‘closed sea’ or mare clausum? That was what they called the sea during winter - when most navigation was suspended except for the direst need. The sea may not be totally ‘closed’, but no ancient sailor would ever dream of having to travel during that season, and non-urgent, ‘normal’ affairs was usually put up for the more navigable summer months or before or after that.

It’s not just the winds: during winter a much greater incidence of cloudiness obscures the sun by day and the sky by night. Now the dry compass was only invented in medieval Europe around 1300; the Chinese only started to employ the magnetic compass (invented during the Han Dynasty: 206 BC-AD 220) for navigation around the 11th century - up to then it was only used for geomancy and fortune-telling. Which means, that navigation was partly up to observing the sky or the coastlines. If it was cloudy or foggy, well…

Luke himself notes how dangerous the sea could get:

Since much time had passed, and the voyage was now dangerous because even the Fast = Yom Kippur, September-October] was already over, Paul advised them, saying, “Sirs, I perceive that the voyage will be with injury and much loss, not only of the cargo and the ship, but also of our lives.” But the centurion paid more attention to the pilot and to the owner of the ship than to what Paul said. And because the harbor was not suitable to spend the winter in, the majority decided to put out to sea from there, on the chance that somehow they could reach Phoenix, a harbor of Crete, facing both southwest and northwest, and spend the winter there.

Now when the south wind blew gently, supposing that they had obtained their purpose, they weighed anchor and sailed along Crete, close to the shore. But soon a tempestuous wind, called the northeaster, struck down from the land. And when the ship was caught and could not face the wind, we gave way to it and were driven along. (Acts 27:9-15 ESV)

Pliny is even more succinct when he said ( 2.47Naturalis Historia): “The spring opens the seas for the navigators.” Yet at the same time he notes:

Yet the severity of the storms [in winter] does not entirely close up the sea. In former times, pirates were compelled, by the fear of death, to rush into death, and to brave the winter ocean; now we are driven to it by avarice.

Also Dio Cassius (60.11.1-2):

On the occasion of a severe famine [Claudius] considered the problem of providing an abundant food-supply, not only for that particular crisis but for all future time. For practically all the grain used by the Romans was imported, and yet the region near the month of the Tiber had no safe landing-places or suitable harbours, so that their mastery of the sea was rendered useless to them. Except for the cargoes brought in during the summer season and stored in warehouses, they had no supplies for the winter; for if any one ever risked a voyage at that season, he was sure to meet with disaster.

Dio Cassius’ note is unconsciously confirmed by Suetonius (Claudius 18):

When there was a scarcity of grain because of long-continued droughts, [Claudius] was once stopped in the middle of the Forum by a mob and so pelted with abuse and at the same time with pieces of bread, that he was barely able to make his escape to the Palace by a back door; and after this experience he resorted to every possible means to bring grain to Rome, even in the winter season. To the merchants he held out the certainty of profit by assuming the expense of any loss that they might suffer from storms, and offered to those who would build merchant ships large bounties, adapted to the condition of each: to a citizen exemption from the lex Papia Poppaea; to a Latin the rights of Roman citizenship; to women the privileges allowed the mothers of four children. And all these provisions are in force to‑day.

Note how Claudius had to convince (well - bribe) merchants to brave the winter seas.

 

[steve53]

I don’t disagree, but we are talking about a short hop for a military/political purpose.

large passenger crafts and commercial boats laden with cargo would certainly not risk THE OPEN MEDITERRANEAN.

But from Italy to Achaea is about 80 miles.
A 200 man Trireme could maybe handle it easily in a single day. And the best and fastest craft were military.
And the people back then were not idiots and certainly had methods to predict at least twenty four hours in advance.

From a quick google about triremes:

“Average speed was 6 knots whilst 7.5 knots could be maintained for short periods of time using both sails and the oarsmen. At cruising speed, a trireme could travel between 50 - 60 miles per day. Newer boats with experienced crews were allegedly travelling up to 180 miles per day. This depended on weather conditions and the condition of the oarsmen. The cargo limit was approximately six tons.”

Point being to pin a complicated Pauline theory on the presumption that Gallio would not dare cross over from Italy to Greece in the winter months is not reasonable, in my opinion.

 

[steve53]

I re-read Hagan and I see what you are getting at.

His Timeline has the Jerusalem meeting where the “rules” for Christian conversion were softened- specifically to allow the non-circumcised to join-would be in A.D. 53.

Paul’s journey and 1 1/2 year sojourn to Corinth occurred after that date. In Corinth, he was tried before Roman Consul Gallio and found innocent and released, and remained in Corinth for a time.

The Delphi inscription places Gallio as Achaean consul in A.D. 52. If, as you argue, his tenure was for only four months, Hagan’s time line is untenable.

As I previously posted, Gallio could have served for years before A.D. 52 and years after A.D. 52. Plus, being a Consul doesn’t necessarily mean that you had to spend the entire time in the region. Lamnia, who was the President of Syria, spent most of his time in Rome and not Antioch.

For that matter, being Consul of Achaea could have been a special creation, with its own rules of tenure. Not much is known about the office. Achaea, from all reports, was a very peaceful area.

From Hagan’s perspective, I would guess that the “trial” of Paul before Gallio had to be in A.D. 54.

There is some interesting background that should be part of the considerations.

There was a lot of tumult in the East just prior to the Jerusalem Summit of (maybe) A.D. 53 (you could make a case for A.D. 52). In fact, Cumanus, the previous procurator, had been removed by Syrian President Quadratus in A.D. 51 and sent to Rome for trial before Claudius for crimes. Also sent was the high Priest of the Second Temple, Ananias and other high-ranking Jews. There were widespread uprisings and many Jews were executed. Quadratus had his hands full.

Cumanus was convicted removed and Felix assumed office of Judean Procurator in A.D. 52. Interestingly, he was the brother of Pallas, the treasurer of the Roman Empire and one of its wealthiest men. That Gallio was appointed to a high position in Achaea about the same time and was a brother of another rich and powerful man, Seneca, is interesting.

Claudius had foolishly made Agrippina the Younger’s son, Nero, his heir. Agrippina was packing most all Roman positions of power, and the Senate, with those loyal to her. Gallio could have been part of that group, as was Felix, and so this argues for a longer tenure, as their purpose was to smooth the transition of Nero to power after Claudius’ death, which Agrippina arranged in A.D. 54. Claudius had a natural son that was strong and capable, apparently, and had his supporters.

Interesting that the Summit occurred right after this. The time was likely the Passover of A.D. 53. During the Passover, James the Just could outwardly go about his Priestly duties in the Temple, but then surreptitiously celebrate the risen Christ with the Christian leadership at the right time. The confusion in Jewish leadership brought about by Quadratus could have made James feel safe about convening Christians from around the empire in Jerusalem. And, very possibly, the Jewish leadership had been put on notice about their treatment of the Christians, so James was especially confident. Maybe.

Certainly Felix, newly installed in A.D. 52, was not above giving the Jews and the former high Priest Jonathan a hard time. Pushing back, Jonathan found himself assassinated by agents of Felix in A.D. 56.

With a mandate from James and the Jerusalem leadership, Paul then started to spread the good news for the rest of the year around the Christian world. He visited many places, but likely did not remain in any place for longer than a few weeks. The news of the new inclusiveness of Christianity was to spread!

The orthodox Jews might have been especially angry over this, and could have been the reason Paul met such renewed antagonism in Corinth. As usual, when brought before the Romans, the Roman officials did not care much about inter-Jewish conflicts, as was the case with Gallio.

So I don’t think Hagan is necessarily debunked on the time line, though perhaps a better case can be made for a summit meeting in A.D. 52, which would make the Gallio confrontation in A.D. 53. This would fit in with some of the suppositions you have made.

 

[patrick457]

I’m sorry for the absence, Steve. I’m just avoiding spending too much time here for a change - just give me a few more days.

 

[patrick457]

When you start picking and choosing what you will and will not accept from an ancient source, especially the Gospels, you are de facto compromising whatever conclusions you might draw. A slippery slope. That Salome was somehow a factor in JB’s death is hard to discount.

Before I return to Paul, I’d like to address this briefly. (Just to warn you, I’m probably not be gonna as active as I was last, so this talk might take quite some time.)

Let’s recap: the two gospels which recount JB’s death, Matthew and Mark, nowhere names the girl. Matthew identifies the daughter as “the daughter of Herodias” (ἡ θυγάτηρ τῆς Ἡρῳδιάδος). Most manuscripts of Mark read the same, but in early witnesses of that gospel we also have the reading “his [Herod’s] daughter Herodias” (τῆς θυγατρὸς αὐτοῦ Ἡρῳδιάδος). So we have a disagreement between these two readings: is the girl supposed to be Herodias’ daughter (so Matthew), or a daughter of Antipas named ‘Herodias’ (so early manuscripts of Mark)?

Now Josephus does mention a daughter of Herodias from her former marriage named Salome, although to be fair, nowhere is she named in the context of JB’s death, so drawing any connection between her and JB’s death derives not from Josephus per se, but from the gospels, specifically from Matthew. That’s a reasonable assumption, but only if you follow Matthew’s reading. On the other hand, if you assume Mark’s “his daughter Herodias” is more correct, perhaps what you have might be an offspring of the older Herodias and Antipas that Josephus somehow forgot to mention, the result of the incestuous union that the gospels’ JB condemned. Again, it’s just sheer speculation, but it’s no better or worse than Hagan’s or anyone’s, if you ask me. It does add a monkey wrench to Josephus, but how to synchronize the gospels and Josephus as they are is already an issue. IMHO the existence or non-existence of a putative daughter named “Herodias” is probably not gonna be a very big problem.

 

[steve53]

One point, and that is if Antipas had a daughter of Royal standing, the mother would have had to have been Pharaelis, the daughter of King Aretas of Nabotea. Such issue would have been a very big deal and complicated the flight of Pharaelis when she fled Antipas after learning about his intentions with Herodias. Josephus doesn’t mention it.

Antipas was probably sterile, much to Pharaelis’ disappointment early on, and Herodias’ later in life. Antipas’ brother the tetrarch Philip also could have been sterile. He had no issue with Salome, Herodias’ daughter, though admittedly he was a few years older than Antipas and probably sickly.

The entire Herod clan died out after three generations, according to Josephus, due to this inbreeding, which was outlawed in Rome.

 

[Simca]

Jesus would have been known as Jesus Ben Joseph, or Jesus, son of Joseph. Clearly a different person than Jesus Ben Annanias, whose father was apparently named Annanias.

In Judaism, it was believed there were 2 different Messiahs: The triumphant ruling Messiah who would sit on David’s Throne and rule for all times: He was given the name Messiah Ben David. There was also a suffering Messiah as seen in passages such as Isaiah 53. The Jewish scholars looked for a title to name the suffering messiah, just as they had named the triumphant messiah Messiah Ben David. They looked at Joseph in the Old Testament who suffered innocently at the hands of his brothers, so they named the suffering messiah ‘Messiah Ben Joseph’. The fact that Jesus’ father was named Joseph is clearly a sign that Jesus was the Messiah the Jewish people had been expecting.

 

[patrick457]

In Judaism, it was believed there were 2 different Messiahs: The triumphant ruling Messiah who would sit on David’s Throne and rule for all times: He was given the name Messiah Ben David. There was also a suffering Messiah as seen in passages such as Isaiah 53. The Jewish scholars looked for a title to name the suffering messiah, just as they had named the triumphant messiah Messiah Ben David. They looked at Joseph in the Old Testament who suffered innocently at the hands of his brothers, so they named the suffering messiah ‘Messiah Ben Joseph’. The fact that Jesus’ father was named Joseph is clearly a sign that Jesus was the Messiah the Jewish people had been expecting.

Just to comment: the idea of a “Messiah ben-Joseph” (or as he’s more commonly known, “Messiah ben-Ephraim”) is a rather late concept developed only in the Talmud - where he’s only mentioned once! (Sukkot 52a-b) - and in midrashic literature.

Besides, the only thing that Jesus and the Messiah ben-Ephraim have in common is that they both die. However, the Ephraimite messiah is a militant figure who is fated to die in battle with the enemies of Israel after he had gathered the tribes of Israel under his banner and reconquered Jerusalem. Plus, his death isn’t meant to be atoning in any sense; Isaiah 53 isn’t considered to apply to this figure. (In fact, there isn’t even any agreement as to what will happen to his corpse: will it lie unburied or hidden by the angels first?) And while he participates in the general resurrection, he isn’t the one who inaugurates it: it is the Messiah ben-David who will raise the Messiah ben-Ephraim back to life. And he’s known as “son of Joseph” or “son of Ephraim” for a reason: he is thought to hail from that tribe.

Technically speaking, the idea of a dying messiah properly appears only for the first time in Jewish literature (excluding the NT books) in an apocryphal work known as 4 Ezra, aka 2 Esdras, written somewhere around the late 1st to the early 2nd century. (7:26-34)

For behold, the time will come, when the signs which I have foretold to you will come to pass, that the city which now is not seen shall appear, and the land which now is hidden shall be disclosed. And every one who has been delivered from the evils that I have foretold shall see my wonders. For my son the Messiah shall be revealed with those who are with him, and those who remain shall rejoice four hundred years. And after these years my son the Messiah shall die, and all who draw human breath. And the world shall be turned back to primeval silence for seven days, as it was at the first beginnings; so that no one shall be left. And after seven days the world, which is not yet awake, shall be roused, and that which is corruptible shall perish. And the earth shall give up those who are asleep in it, and the dust those who dwell silently in it; and the chambers shall give up the souls which have been committed to them. And the Most High shall be revealed upon the seat of judgment, and compassion shall pass away, and patience shall be withdrawn; but only judgment shall remain, truth shall stand, and faithfulness shall grow strong.

Again, the only real similarity with Jesus and this messiah is that they died. But 4 Ezra’s messiah - here a transcendent figure who will remain hidden with God (who calls him his “son”) until the time comes for his revelation - will die along with the rest of mankind at the end of the world and the conclusion of his four-hundred year reign. After seven days of “primeval silence” the resurrection will occur, but what will happen to the messiah isn’t mentioned. He just does his thing and drops out of the picture quickly. Come to think of it, he isn’t even that important to the sequence of events.

In fact, it would seem that the dying Messiah concept in 4 Ezra is a Jewish attempt to answer Christian claims about Jesus: note for instance that the appearance of the messiah in the work is claimed to be still in the distant future. Perhaps his minor, incidental role in the work can also be attributed to this.

It’s just my hunch, but maybe even the idea of the Ephraimite warrior messiah arose because of this thinking: a messiah who dies (= fails) can’t be the ‘real’ one. At best, he might be a subordinate messiah to the Davidic one. And which messianic claimant died in battle? Simon bar-Kokhba. Basically the dilemma is: what would happen if the messiah came, but the deliverance of Israel did not follow? A second one who’ll do the job will come, of course. Bar-Kokhba’s failure to live up to his promise perhaps prompted later rabbis to speculate, which resulted in the development of this scenario.

AFAIK, the sect at Qumran did hold to a concept of two messiahs, but that’s where the similarity with the later idea of a “son of David” and a “son of Joseph\Ephraim” ends. The Qumran sectarians expected a ‘Messiah of Israel’ (aka the ‘Messiah of Aaron’) and a ‘Messiah of David’ to come; one of them will be a king and military leader, the other a priest and sage. At least one text also adds a third figure known as “the prophet.” If he’s also a messianic figure then the sectarians apparently expected three messiahs to come in total, which kinds of makes sense: the ones who were ‘anointed’ were kings, priests and prophets.

I’m deliberately avoiding posting series of long posts right now (which is what I used to do), so I’ll just say this for the moment: at the time of Jesus, there wasn’t a hard-and-fast concept of what the messiah exactly is and what he will do, or even how many will be there or even whether if there is a ‘messiah’ at all. I mentioned the sect at Qumran above: keep in mind however that there is not one, single, consistent messianology to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[steve53]

It it very unfortunate that there was not a Josephus-equivalent to write the history of the second Jewish revolt.

 

[patrick457]

I don’t disagree, but we are talking about a short hop for a military/political purpose.

large passenger crafts and commercial boats laden with cargo would certainly not risk THE OPEN MEDITERRANEAN.

But from Italy to Achaea is about 80 miles.
A 200 man Trireme could maybe handle it easily in a single day. And the best and fastest craft were military.
And the people back then were not idiots and certainly had methods to predict at least twenty four hours in advance.

From a quick google about triremes:

“Average speed was 6 knots whilst 7.5 knots could be maintained for short periods of time using both sails and the oarsmen. At cruising speed, a trireme could travel between 50 - 60 miles per day. Newer boats with experienced crews were allegedly travelling up to 180 miles per day. This depended on weather conditions and the condition of the oarsmen. The cargo limit was approximately six tons.”

Point being to pin a complicated Pauline theory on the presumption that Gallio would not dare cross over from Italy to Greece in the winter months is not reasonable, in my opinion.

Let me first ask you: were warships used for transporting passengers? If so, I’d like to see a source.

There were no no passenger ships back then, so people travelling by sea rode on (slower) merchant vessels. Grain ships were the best of the lot.

 

[steve53]

Let me first ask you: were warships used for transporting passengers? If so, I’d like to see a source.

There were no no passenger ships back then, so people travelling by sea rode on (slower) merchant vessels. Grain ships were the best of the lot.

There was a thin line between the political and military. A military craft would certainly be commandeered to transport an important official to a post. The important official likely traveled with a substantial personal escort.

 

[patrick457]

There was a thin line between the political and military. A military craft would certainly be commandeered to transport an important official to a post. The important official likely traveled with a substantial personal escort.

So you’re saying that Rome used its warships to drop and pick up government officials, or rather that government officials had warships with which they can travel on. My two questions remain: (1) why can’t an adequate non-military craft be able to take on a travelling official? (2) Do you have any source for your claims? If you can find me a source stating that warships were indeed used for such a purpose in imperial-era Rome, I’d be impressed.

I have a third one: even if we suppose that officials travelling from Rome commuted on warships, what about officials travelling to Rome?

Anyways, to me it kinda feels like a senator going to and from Congress or whatever (dunno, I’m not American) on an army tank, if you ask me.