Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
RecoveringScot
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:16 pm

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by RecoveringScot »

Why is it assumed (as Mark sets no context of dating other than John the Baptist as earlier than Jesus) that the reference to 'Herod' in 6:14 as 'King Herod' was originally erroneous? What we have is two kinds of reference to a 'Herod'. The first is to 'King Herod' and the second to 'Herod'. In GMk there are one or two 'anachronisms', for instance the alliance of 'Pharisees and Herodians', generally regarded as not credible in 30s Galilee, and the reference to 'Judea and beyond the Jordan' as a joint territory in Mk 10:1. Both of these latter woud have been possible as occurring together in the 40s under Agrippa I (a great friend of the Jews), who had been gifted rule over both Judea and Perea by Caesar.

My suspicion (strong but unproveable) is that Mark had found in the document which he is using ('UrMark') a reference to two chronologically close Herods (King Herod (Agrippa I) and Herod (Antipas), the latter a flashback, which Mark then assumed to refer to one Herod. In Josephus Ant. 18 Agrippa I is referred to as a king but is never referred to as 'King Herod', nor is Antipas referred to as 'King'. In Acts 12:1 however Agrippa I is referred to as 'Herod the king' (correct title, wrong name) by the author. This suggests that, if I am right, Josephus would not be not the common source for the confusion. Matthew corrected Mark's supposed title 'error', little realising that it was the particular Herod who was an error.

If, as I believe, the story was originally set in the 40s under Agrippa I, Pilate (gone by 36) is a later addition by Mark who wrongly assumed an earlier framework for the story. If the crucifixion, to Mark, was only considered a Roman punishment, Mark had to use Pilate as the relevant governor to carry it out. He was perhaps unaware of the use of crucifixions by e.g Janneus. Also the idea that the Baptist story and the crucifixion story were very close in time (rather than some years apart) would not be have to be true.

If the Herod involved was Agrippa I, anyone claiming to be or represent a messianic 'King of the Jews' (which Agrippa I certainly was, there was no Roman governor in Judea in his time - he had complete local control, unlike the mere tetrarch Antipas) would be on a very tricky path. Agrippa I was also a very Romanized individual himself per Josephus.

However my reading involves adding no extraneous data, and would only involve the deletion of the (unnecessary) verse 6:16 which adds only one thing new to 6:14, that is the beheading of JtB. But Mark maybe only added this because, since he thinks that the two Herods are one, he is distinguishing the 'real' reason from the general explanations of the previous verse. It also gives him the springboard for the sensational Salome story.

Pure speculalion of course.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2902
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by maryhelena »

RecoveringScot wrote:Why is it assumed (as Mark sets no context of dating other than John the Baptist as earlier than Jesus) that the reference to 'Herod' in 6:14 as 'King Herod' was originally erroneous? What we have is two kinds of reference to a 'Herod'. The first is to 'King Herod' and the second to 'Herod'. In GMk there are one or two 'anachronisms', for instance the alliance of 'Pharisees and Herodians', generally regarded as not credible in 30s Galilee, and the reference to 'Judea and beyond the Jordan' as a joint territory in Mk 10:1. Both of these latter woud have been possible as occurring together in the 40s under Agrippa I (a great friend of the Jews), who had been gifted rule over both Judea and Perea by Caesar.

My suspicion (strong but unproveable) is that Mark had found in the document which he is using ('UrMark') a reference to two chronologically close Herods (King Herod (Agrippa I) and Herod (Antipas), the latter a flashback, which Mark then assumed to refer to one Herod.
To be able to support this idea, ie that 'King Herod' = Agrippa I, you need external evidence Agrippa I used the Herodian family name of 'Herod'. Antipas did use it on some of his coins: "Herod the Tetrarch" . I don't know of any coins where Agrippa I used 'Herod' on his coins.

In Josephus Ant. 18 Agrippa I is referred to as a king but is never referred to as 'King Herod', nor is Antipas referred to as 'King'. In Acts 12:1 however Agrippa I is referred to as 'Herod the king' (correct title, wrong name) by the author.
Acts is not history - so can't be used to support an identification of it's 'King Herod' with Agrippa I.

This suggests that, if I am right, Josephus would not be not the common source for the confusion. Matthew corrected Mark's supposed title 'error', little realising that it was the particular Herod who was an error.

If, as I believe, the story was originally set in the 40s under Agrippa I, Pilate (gone by 36) is a later addition by Mark who wrongly assumed an earlier framework for the story. If the crucifixion, to Mark, was only considered a Roman punishment, Mark had to use Pilate as the relevant governor to carry it out. He was perhaps unaware of the use of crucifixions by e.g Janneus. Also the idea that the Baptist story and the crucifixion story were very close in time (rather than some years apart) would not be have to be true.

If the Herod involved was Agrippa I, anyone claiming to be or represent a messianic 'King of the Jews' (which Agrippa I certainly was, there was no Roman governor in Judea in his time - he had complete local control, unlike the mere tetrarch Antipas) would be on a very tricky path. Agrippa I was also a very Romanized individual himself per Josephus.

However my reading involves adding no extraneous data, and would only involve the deletion of the (unnecessary) verse 6:16 which adds only one thing new to 6:14, that is the beheading of JtB. But Mark maybe only added this because, since he thinks that the two Herods are one, he is distinguishing the 'real' reason from the general explanations of the previous verse. It also gives him the springboard for the sensational Salome story.

Pure speculalion of course.
Sure, nothing wrong in speculating.....However, in this case, the gospel Jesus story, is a story that is set, by all four gospels, to the time of Pilate. Josephus giving dating of Pilate anywhere from 18/19 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. Yes, of course, one can question Josephus on dating Pilate. Or one can argue, like you have done, that Pilate was 'updated' to the time of Agrippa I. But once one does this - taking the gospel Jesus story forward - one is also then free to take the gospel Jesus story backwards to the time of King Herod I. Which means, of course, that the gospel story is a serial story; a story that developed over time. The gospels placing the end point of it's crucifixion story somewhere around the 15th year of Tiberius. If one wants to run the gospel story to the time of Agrippa I - then one needs to interpret the gospel story as being something more than a crucifixion story. ie one needs to view the literary gospel Jesus figure as being a composite figure. That way the gospel story can run forward to the death of Agrippa I. (44 c.e. being about 14 years - 7 + 7 - from a crucifixion date around 30 c.e.)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
RecoveringScot
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:16 pm

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by RecoveringScot »

[quote="maryhelena"]

To be able to support this idea, ie that 'King Herod' = Agrippa I, you need external evidence Agrippa I used the Herodian family name of 'Herod'. Antipas did use it on some of his coins: "Herod the Tetrarch" . I don't know of any coins where Agrippa I used 'Herod' on his coins.

[/quote]

He didn't. He was styled as 'Great King Agrippa' on his coins. I don't dispute that the 'King Herod' reference on the face of it doesn't specifically refer to Agrippa I in Mk 6:14, but the placement after the story of John the Baptist (and his death) if my adjustment were accepted as plausible would suggest that the Acts figure of the same name and he are the same person.

[quote="maryhelena"]

Acts is not history - so can't be used to support an identification of it's 'King Herod' with Agrippa I.

[/quote]

Oh I don't think Acts is history, but the storyline is generally taken to refer to Agrippa I at 12:1. I've not heard anyone doubt that identification of the character in the story.


[quote="maryhelena"]

Sure, nothing wrong in speculating.....However, in this case, the gospel Jesus story, is a story that is set, by all four gospels, to the time of Pilate. Josephus giving dating of Pilate anywhere from 18/19 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. Yes, of course, one can question Josephus on dating Pilate. Or one can argue, like you have done, that Pilate was 'updated' to the time of Agrippa I. But once one does this - taking the gospel Jesus story forward - one is also then free to take the gospel Jesus story backwards to the time of King Herod I. Which means, of course, that the gospel story is a serial story; a story that developed over time. The gospels placing the end point of it's crucifixion story somewhere around the 15th year of Tiberius. If one wants to run the gospel story to the time of Agrippa I - then one needs to interpret the gospel story as being something more than a crucifixion story. ie one needs to view the literary gospel Jesus figure as being a composite figure. That way the gospel story can run forward to the death of Agrippa I. (44 c.e. being about 14 years - 7 + 7 - from a crucifixion date around 30 c.e.)[/quote]


I'm not sure what you mean about 'updating Pilate to Herod Agrippa I'. My view is that PIlate was not in the original story, nor was any Roman governor. The only reason he was written in by Mark was that Mark wrongly took Herod Antipas to be the 'Herod' who tried Jesus and his (Antipas') dates would require Pilate to be the Roman governor in the story, for the purposes of the crucifixion. Three people in the Gospels and Acts are shown to have appeared before a Herod (Jesus, Simon Peter, Paul). In the canonical Gospels none are shown as being killed by that Herod - all except Jesus are released/escape. This strongly suggests to me that the original story had no crucifixion and that the prisoner got off free (in the case of Jesus cf. 'Barabbas'). I also reckon that all are versions of the same tale. Why Mark's crucifixion story? Because he was following Paul's (or another's?) requirement of the 'crucified Jesus'. My version of the story is off the topic here, but has some similarites to that of Roger Parvus, in that I believe that the hero of the story was called Symeon or Simon, who believed himself to be 'Jesus'/'The Great Power' come in the flesh, and that he shows up in the Acts story in various guises. By the time that the Gospel of Peter was written, the two stories had merged - i.e. there was a crucifixion, but the 'King of the Jews' (that title again!) was the culprit.

As to the 'King Herod' referring to King Herod the Great, I'd have to think about that one. I don't think the putative Gospel timeline supports that, at least, not in the way it's usually taken.

Thanks.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2902
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by maryhelena »

RecoveringScot wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
To be able to support this idea, ie that 'King Herod' = Agrippa I, you need external evidence Agrippa I used the Herodian family name of 'Herod'. Antipas did use it on some of his coins: "Herod the Tetrarch" . I don't know of any coins where Agrippa I used 'Herod' on his coins.
He didn't. He was styled as 'Great King Agrippa' on his coins. I don't dispute that the 'King Herod' reference on the face of it doesn't specifically refer to Agrippa I in Mk 6:14,
End of story then - no means to identify 'King Herod' with Agrippa I.

but the placement after the story of John the Baptist (and his death) if my adjustment were accepted as plausible would suggest that the Acts figure of the same name and he are the same person.
NT interpretation does not trump history.
maryhelena wrote:
Acts is not history - so can't be used to support an identification of it's 'King Herod' with Agrippa I.
Oh I don't think Acts is history, but the storyline is generally taken to refer to Agrippa I at 12:1. I've not heard anyone doubt that identification of the character in the story.
Storyline is one thing - history something else.

maryhelena wrote:
Sure, nothing wrong in speculating.....However, in this case, the gospel Jesus story, is a story that is set, by all four gospels, to the time of Pilate. Josephus giving dating of Pilate anywhere from 18/19 c.e. to 36/37 c.e. Yes, of course, one can question Josephus on dating Pilate. Or one can argue, like you have done, that Pilate was 'updated' to the time of Agrippa I. But once one does this - taking the gospel Jesus story forward - one is also then free to take the gospel Jesus story backwards to the time of King Herod I. Which means, of course, that the gospel story is a serial story; a story that developed over time. The gospels placing the end point of it's crucifixion story somewhere around the 15th year of Tiberius. If one wants to run the gospel story to the time of Agrippa I - then one needs to interpret the gospel story as being something more than a crucifixion story. ie one needs to view the literary gospel Jesus figure as being a composite figure. That way the gospel story can run forward to the death of Agrippa I. (44 c.e. being about 14 years - 7 + 7 - from a crucifixion date around 30 c.e.)

I'm not sure what you mean about 'updating Pilate to Herod Agrippa I'. My view is that PIlate was not in the original story, nor was any Roman governor.
Wow - but if you want to go in that direction you have to go back to the Toledot Yeshu and Queen Helene.....

The only reason he was written in by Mark was that Mark wrongly took Herod Antipas to be the 'Herod' who tried Jesus and his (Antipas') dates would require Pilate to be the Roman governor in the story, for the purposes of the crucifixion.
All you are doing here in interpreting what Mark wrote. Interpretations are two a penny.....

Three people in the Gospels and Acts are shown to have appeared before a Herod (Jesus, Simon Peter, Paul). In the canonical Gospels none are shown as being killed by that Herod - all except Jesus are released/escape. This strongly suggests to me that the original story had no crucifixion and that the prisoner got off free (in the case of Jesus cf. 'Barabbas').
Why are you using the story in Acts as a means to interpret the gospel story?

I also reckon that all are versions of the same tale. Why Mark's crucifixion story? Because he was following Paul's (or another's?) requirement of the 'crucified Jesus'. My version of the story is off the topic here, but has some similarites to that of Roger Parvus, in that I believe that the hero of the story was called Symeon or Simon, who believed himself to be 'Jesus'/'The Great Power' come in the flesh, and that he shows up in the Acts story in various guises. By the time that the Gospel of Peter was written, the two stories had merged - i.e. there was a crucifixion, but the 'King of the Jews' (that title again!) was the culprit.

As to the 'King Herod' referring to King Herod the Great, I'd have to think about that one. I don't think the putative Gospel timeline supports that, at least, not in the way it's usually taken.

Thanks.
Indeed - that gospel timeline....if one wants to run it to the death of Agrippa I in 44 c.e. - then one also has the freedom to run that gospel timeline back to King Herod. (40/37 b.c.e. to 4 b.c.e.)
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
RecoveringScot
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:16 pm

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by RecoveringScot »

maryhelena wrote:
Why are you using the story in Acts as a means to interpret the gospel story?
Because literary connections are all we have. I don't share your confidence that we can identify 'history' in these tales, at least not without the discovery of some independent new evidence that attests not just to the setting of the story in a particular period, but the reality of the supposed events alleged to be described in them (is that possible for a god/man who converses with demons?).

What I've done is try to cobble together a plausible overall story for myself that accounts for why the documents appear as they do, and how they might otherwise have appeared originally. It's a guessing game.

If you can demonstrate that the story exemplifies 'Hasmonean History' and make a convincing case, fire away. Otherwise that's just another 'story' too.

Thanks again.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by Stephan Huller »

... and a story which never ceases to inspire her participation in these and other forums in spite of the fact the idea has very little going for it in terms of hard evidence.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2902
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by maryhelena »

RecoveringScot wrote:
maryhelena wrote:
Why are you using the story in Acts as a means to interpret the gospel story?
Because literary connections are all we have.
Not so. We have Hasmonean and Jewish history.

I don't share your confidence that we can identify 'history' in these tales, at least not without the discovery of some independent new evidence that attests not just to the setting of the story in a particular period, but the reality of the supposed events alleged to be described in them (is that possible for a god/man who converses with demons?).
History is not dependent upon the gospel story. History is primary. The gospel story contains reflections of history - but to discern the reflection one has to first have the historical reality in view. i.e. one does not look through the gospel story as though it was a lens to a historical reality. One uses a historical lens in order to see historical reflections within gospel story.

What I've done is try to cobble together a plausible overall story for myself that accounts for why the documents appear as they do, and how they might otherwise have appeared originally. It's a guessing game.
And as long as it remains a guessing game no forward movement towards early christian origins is possible.

If you can demonstrate that the story exemplifies 'Hasmonean History' and make a convincing case, fire away. Otherwise that's just another 'story' too.
Stories are secondary not primary. One has to deal with history. This thread is not about my theories so I'll just give you a link.

viewtopic.php?p=15048#p15048
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2902
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by maryhelena »

Stephan Huller wrote:... and a story which never ceases to inspire her participation in these and other forums in spite of the fact the idea has very little going for it in terms of hard evidence.
All the hard evidence is historical evidence. All the rest is storytelling.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
RecoveringScot
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2014 11:16 pm

Re: Herod the king in the Gospel of Mark

Post by RecoveringScot »

maryhelena wrote:
The gospel story contains reflections of history - but to discern the reflection one has to first have the historical reality in view. i.e. one does not look through the gospel story as though it was a lens to a historical reality. One uses a historical lens in order to see historical reflections within gospel story.
As others have pointed out before me, the assumption that history is 'reflected' in the Gospels is just that. If that comes out at all, it should be at the end of the interpretative process, not the beginning. I am sceptical that any historical certainty will ever come out of the Gospels and Acts, as I said, without independent attestation of their own 'stories' and not just by grabbing parallels or assumed connections (coincidences of names and theoretical political similarities etc.) from other external stories, even if these others are reckoned 'historical'. What we have in the various Gospels and Acts and epistles are tales which include various markers (historic people, buildings, datings etc.). This does not lead to the assumption that the stories themselves are 'true'. All we can do is trace internal connections of thought, either harmonious or contradictory, in terms of subject matter, literary techniques, and language and see what 'falls out'.

Thanks again, and for the link. I'll investigate it.
Post Reply