Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

[Secret Alias]

Mason wrestling with the 'mistake' made by Josephus - https://books.google.com/books?id=NHRbu ... ns&f=false But it is not simply a 'mistake' it is a crucial piece of evidence to help determine the reliability of Josephus. His report about the ghost of Alexander must be regarded as a lie invented by 'Josephus.' For it is based on a misunderstanding of chronology which the author/editor alone makes. He can't have 'read' somewhere that Juba died and then Glaphyra married Archelaus. This chronology is his own invention and since it comes out of the ghost's mouth the entire ghost narrative is his own fiction. It was not a 'report' that he wrote down.

So the question is why does the author/editor add this fantastic detail to the end of his chapter? Clearly his intention is to underscore that Archelaus died at a date long before the gospel narrative and that Archelaus wasn't the Herod at the crucifixion as the Epistle of the Apostles gospel clearly stated. I disagree with Andrew that the author of the Epistle simply 'inferred' that the 'Herod' of the gospel was Archelaus. It must have been part of a pre-existent tradition which Josephus was going out of his way (with ghost stories and 'factual reporting') to silence. Why? Because Jesus was crucified in 21 CE.

[Charles Wilson]

Of Nicholas of Damascus, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... 14822.html :

"Nicholas' Universal History provided the basis of Josephus' description of Herod's kingdom in The Jewish War (book 1) and Antiquities (books 15–17). As is to be expected from a courtier and collaborator in the policy of the king, Nicholas' books about Herod are a panegyric upon him. Marked by their dramatic tension and replete with pathetic descriptions, these books are written in a spirit of open hostility toward Antipater, the son of Herod and Nicholas' mortal enemy. These characteristics are also notable in Josephus' account, except that in the Antiquities Josephus makes a conscious effort to free himself from the panegyrical approach of Nicholas. Josephus' dependence on Nicholas is further shown by a comparison between his account and the excerpts preserved in Nicholas' autobiography, and by the fact that for the period no longer covered by Nicholas' work (after 4 B.C.E.) Josephus' narrative is meager..."

Great stuff, Stephan. Thank you.

Nicholas of Damascus play a huge role in the record of History. If his Authorship of Source for Josephus ends at 4 BCE, then Josephus is looking at another's History.
Or we find evidence that the Text of Josephus has been "Mutilated" to fit a later scheme.

CW

[Secret Alias]

It is also worth noting that the baby Jesus narrative reported by Celsus has the infants slaughtered by 'Herod the tetrarch' - Ἡρώδῃ τῷ τετράρχῃ

After these matters this Jew of Celsus, instead of the Magi mentioned in the Gospel, says that "Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among the others

[Secret Alias]

It is also striking how similar Archelaus coins appear when compared to Agrippa coins:

Archelaus coins - https://www.google.com/search?q=archela ... ins++judea

Agrippa coins - https://www.google.com/search?q=archela ... ins++judea

If writing styles are dated to epochs it is hard to believe that the two types of coins weren't made consecutively.

[Secret Alias]

Interesting also is the fact that Josephus doesn't specify who Mariamne the wife of Archelaus was. Was she the Mariamne who first married the Herodian Antipater? It might well be. But there is this sloppiness in Josephus which is hard to ignore. Women are just thrown into marriages with Herodian kings to fill in the narrative. In this case we would have to believe (theoretically) that both Mariamne and Glaphyra 'added themselves' to consecutive Herodian monarchs. So Antipater dies Mariamne marries Archelaus. Alexander dies Glaphyra marries Archelaus. To me at least this is just indicative of a general laziness on the part of Josephus (or his later editors). They don't want to research things too deeply so they just 'assign' Herodian queens to the next ruler.

[Secret Alias]

Do any coins of Archelaus of Judea say 'Augustus' on them? This would help date what 'year' they were minted in (the coins say 'year' this or that but no Emperor as far as I can see).

[Secret Alias]

None of the surviving coins of Archelaus were dated apparently or allow for dating (i.e. no 'year X' ever appears, no reference to an Emperor):

The coins of Archelaus bear maritime symbols, anchors and ships; the usual cornucopia and palm branches; a helmet; a bunch of grapes. They bear only Greek inscriptions, variations on HEROD and ETHNARCH, often abbreviated.

Josephus cannot be contradicted by the numismatic evidence.

[andrewcriddle]

Even if Archelaus lived into the 20's CE he had been deposed many years before in the reign of Augustus.

Andrew Criddle