Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2107
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by Charles Wilson »

Peter Kirby quotes: wrote:Concerning whom we testify that the Lord is he who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus between the two thieves
Will some reasonable person out there please tell me what ARCHELAUS is doing in this quote?
"...who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus..."

Snarks out there can graze on the other side of the pasture. I would request a serious response. How could Archelaus Tag-Team with Pilate to crucify "...our Lord..."?

Thanx,

CW
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Pontius Pilate, Ponticus, and Propaganda

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Charles Wilson wrote:
Peter Kirby quotes: wrote:Concerning whom we testify that the Lord is he who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus between the two thieves
Will some reasonable person out there please tell me what ARCHELAUS is doing in this quote?
"...who was crucified by Pontius Pilate and Archelaus..."

Snarks out there can graze on the other side of the pasture. I would request a serious response. How could Archelaus Tag-Team with Pilate to crucify "...our Lord..."?
I have no ready answer to your question, but I can say that this is one of a number of potential indicators of alternate times and places for the crucifixion of our Lord: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1660.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2843
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by andrewcriddle »

If one had not read Josephus then one might consider that the Archelaus in Matthew 2:22 was the same as the Herod who according to Luke 23 was involved in the trial of Jesus.

Andrew Criddle
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2107
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by Charles Wilson »

Thank you, Ben and Andrew.
Mebbe more later.

CW
Secret Alias
Posts: 18752
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by Secret Alias »

I think a better question might be to check what the evidence is for the dating of the end of Archelaus's reign to 18 CE. If it could be stretched to 21 CE or later it would be a powerful argument in favor of a crucifixion as referenced in Eusebius (= Acts of Pilate, 21 CE).
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18752
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by Secret Alias »

Here is the passage in Antiquities:
WHEN Archelaus was entered on his ethnarchy, and was come into Judea, he accused Joazar, the son of Boethus, of assisting the seditious, and took away the high priesthood from him, and put Eleazar his brother in his place. He also magnificently rebuilt the royal palace that had been at Jericho, and he diverted half the water with which the village of Neara used to be watered, and drew off that water into the plain, to water those palm trees which he had there planted: he also built a village, and put his own name upon it, and called it Archelais. Moreover, he transgressed the law of our fathers (23) and married Glaphyra, the daughter of Archelaus, who had been the wife of his brother Alexander, which Alexander had three children by her, while it was a thing detestable among the Jews to marry the brother's wife. Nor did this Eleazar abide long in the high priesthood, Jesus, the son of Sie, being put in his room while he was still living.

2. But in the tenth year of Archelaus's government, both his brethren, and the principal men of Judea and Samaria, not being able to bear his barbarous and tyrannical usage of them, accused him before Caesar, and that especially because they knew he had broken the commands of Caesar, which obliged him to behave himself with moderation among them. Whereupon Caesar, when he heard it, was very angry, and called for Archelaus's steward, who took care of his affairs at Rome, and whose name was Archelaus also; and thinking it beneath him to write to Archelaus, he bid him sail away as soon as possible, and bring him to us: so the man made haste in his voyage, and when he came into Judea, he found Archelaus feasting with his friends; so he told him what Caesar had sent him about, and hastened him away. And when he was come [to Rome], Caesar, upon hearing what certain accusers of his had to say, and what reply he could make, both banished him, and appointed Vienna, a city of Gaul, to be the place of his habitation, and took his money away from him.

3. Now, before Archelaus was gone up to Rome upon this message, he related this dream to his friends: That he saw ears of corn, in number ten, full of wheat, perfectly ripe, which ears, as it seemed to him, were devoured by oxen. And when he was awake and gotten up, because the vision appeared to beof great importance to him, he sent for the diviners, whose study was employed about dreams. And while some were of one opinion, and some of another, (for all their interpretations did not agree,) Simon, a man of the sect of the Essens, desired leave to speak his mind freely, and said that the vision denoted a change in the affairs of Archelaus, and that not for the better; that oxen, because that animal takes uneasy pains in his labors, denoted afflictions, and indeed denoted, further, a change of affairs, because that land which is ploughed by oxen cannot remain in its former state; and that the ears of corn being ten, determined the like number of years, because an ear of corn grows in one year; and that the time of Archelaus's government was over. And thus did this man expound the dream. Now on the fifth day after this dream came first to Archelaus, the other Archelaus, that was sent to Judea by Caesar to call him away, came hither also.

4. The like accident befell Glaphyra his wife, who was the daughter of king Archelaus, who, as I said before, was married, while she was a virgin, to Alexander, the son of Herod, and brother of Archelaus; but since it fell out so that Alexander was slain by his father, she was married to Juba, the king of Lybia; and when he was dead, and she lived in widowhood in Cappadocia with her father, Archclaus divorced his former wife Mariamne, and married her, so great was his affection for this Glphyra; who, during her marriage to him, saw the following dream: She thought she saw Alexander standing by her, at which she rejoiced, and embraced him with great affection; but that he complained o her, and said, O Glaphyra! thou provest that saying to be true, which assures us that women are not to be trusted. Didst not thou pledge thy faith to me? and wast not thou married to me when thou wast a virgin? and had we not children between us? Yet hast thou forgotten the affection I bare to thee, out of a desire of a second husband. Nor hast thou been satisfied with that injury thou didst me, but thou hast been so bold as to procure thee a third husband to lie by thee, and in an indecent and imprudent manner hast entered into my house, and hast been married to Archelaus, thy husband and my brother. However, I will not forget thy former kind affection for me, but will set thee free from every such reproachful action, and cause thee to be mine again, as thou once wast. When she had related this to her female companions, in a few days' time she departed this life.

5. Now I did not think these histories improper for the present discourse, both because my discourse now is concerning kings, and otherwise also on account of the advantage hence to be drawn, as well for the confirmation of the immortality of the soul, as of the providence of God over human affairs, I thought them fit to be set down; but if any one does not believe such relations, let him indeed enjoy his own opinion, but let him not hinder another that would thereby encourage himself in virtue. So Archelaus's country was laid to the province of Syria; and Cyrenius, one that had been consul, was sent by Caesar to take account of people's effects in Syria, and to sell the house of Archelaus.
Is that enough to secure the facts of the duration of the reign of Archelaus? I remember reading somewhere that there is little or no evidence for this claim about Glaphyra the daughter of another Archelaus from Commagene I think.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18752
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by Secret Alias »

I wonder whether this whole episode about Archelaus of Judea was a reworking of details originally reported in a contemporary historical source about Archelaus of Commagene. It's the marriage to Glaphyra that is so problematic. From what I remember there is no supporting evidence and even a lot against it. She becomes the connection throughout the report about Judean Archelaus to effectively 'transport' the essence of the report about Commagene Archelaus, her father. Here is what Wikipedia notes:
Although Archelaus was liked by the Romans, he experienced less success with his subjects.[21] On one occasion during the reign of Augustus, some Cappadocian citizens lodged an accusation against Archelaus in Rome.[21] The future Roman Emperor Tiberius, beginning his civil career, defended Archelaus from these accusations which ended with no action being taken.[21]

Archelaus gave greater attention to Gaius Caesar, one of Augustus’ grandsons, instead of Tiberius who was one of Augustus’ stepsons. This caused Tiberius to become jealous in time, leading to his hatred of him.[16] Between 2 BC–6 AD, Tiberius was living on the Greek island of Rhodes, while Gaius Caesar was in the Eastern Mediterranean performing various political and military duties on behalf of Augustus. Archelaus showed more attention to Gaius Caesar over Tiberius because Gaius was in the ascendant over Tiberius at the time as successor to the throne.

In 14 AD Augustus died and Tiberius succeeded his adoptive father as Roman Emperor. By this time, Archelaus’ health had failed.[20] In 17, Archelaus had reigned over Cappadocia for fifty years and had lived to an advanced age.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18752
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by Secret Alias »

Indeed evidence shows that Glaphyra was married to someone else completely. A statue was also set up in honour of Juba II's second wife, Glaphyra, daughter of Archelaus I of Cappadocia. This is how historians make sense of matter:
Marriages and children[edit]
First marriage to Greek Ptolemaic princess Cleopatra Selene II (40 BC – 6 AD). Their children were:
Ptolemy of Mauretania born in ca 10 BC – 5 BC[4]
A daughter of Cleopatra and Juba, whose name has not been recorded, is mentioned in an inscription. It has been suggested that Drusilla of Mauretania was that daughter, but she may have been a granddaughter instead. Drusilla is described as a granddaughter of Antony and Cleopatra, or may have been a daughter of Ptolemy of Mauretania.[4]

Second marriage to Glaphyra, a princess of Cappadocia, and widow of Alexander, son of Herod the Great. Alexander was executed in 7 BC for conspiracy against his father. Glaphyra married Juba II in 6 AD or 7 AD. She then fell in love with Herod Archelaus, another son of Herod the Great and Ethnarch of Judea. Glaphyra divorced Juba to marry him in 7 AD. Juba had no children with Glaphyra.
But is that believable? The fact that Juba married Glaphyra is incontestable as a statue survives. The fact that he was married to another woman until 6 CE forces historians to make this absurd claim that he married and divorced her in the same year given what 'Josephus' says about the end of Archelaus's reign. But this is patently absurd. I don't believe the information provided about the fate of Archelaus of Judea at all. It is just bits and pieces recast from the life of another Archelaus, Archelaus of Commagene.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18752
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by Secret Alias »

The claims of 'Josephus' in Antiquities are that:

1. Glaphyra married Alexander
2. Herod killed Alexander and she want back to Commagene
3. She then married Juba
4. When Juba died he went back to her father and later married Archelaus of Judea after he divorced his wife Mariamne

There is no possibility of this scenario being historical. The glaring problem is that Juba's first wife was still alive in 17 CE as some coins of Cleopatra Selene II have been dated to 17 CE. The second fact is that Glaphyra did indeed marry Juba as an honorific inscription to her was made in Athens:

Ή βουλή καί [ό δ]ήμος [Β]ασίλισσαν [Γλυφύραν] βασιλέω[ς] Άρχέλάου θυρ[ατέρα], βασιλέως Ίοβ[ά] γυναίκ[α άρε]τής έν[ε]κα.
The Boule and Demos honors Queen Glaphyra daughter of King Archelaus and wife of King Juba on the account of her virtue.

Given all this evidence it would stand to reason that Josephus's information is unreliable. If Glaphyra did marry Alexander first (which we have no reason to doubt) she could only have married Juba after 17 CE. This necessarily suggests that the information about the marriage to Judean Archelaus is wholly fictional, developed at the end of the book in Antiquities to write Archelaus out of the next book.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Secret Alias
Posts: 18752
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Archelaus in the Epistula Apostolorum

Post by Secret Alias »

Attempts of scholars to somehow reconcile Josephus's inventions with the archaeological evidence:

[12] Three dates have been proposed for her death:

i) c. 5 BC (A. Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides II 366, estimates 4-3 BC). This is based on the assumption that Juba's marriage to Glaphyra indicates that he was a widower at that time, since Juba was a Roman citizen and therefore required to be monogamous by Roman law. The exact date comes from Epigram 18 by Crinagoras (Anthologia Palatina 7.633), which describes a darkening of the moon on her death. This was thought to refer to a lunar eclipse, in particular the eclipse of 23 March 5 BC.

ii) c. 5/6 AD. B. Chanler, Cleopatra's Daughter 356f. n. 188, argued that the date of 5 BC was impossible because it meant that Ptolemy was at least 30 years old when he succeeded Juba as sole king, at a time when Tacitus, Annals 4.23 describes him as a reckless youth. She also noted that Ptolemy begins to appear on dated coins with his father in 5 AD and supposes that this is because Juba wished to start emphasising dynastic continuity immediately after her death. M. Coltelloni-Trannoy, Le royaume de Maurétanie sous Juba II et Ptolémée 38 makes the same argument, and also notes the disappearance of all imagery related to Selene (Egyptian crocodiles, Isiac symbolism etc) in these dated coins.

Chanler also notes notes a fragmentary inscription, now CIL VIII 9343, a monument to the king and queen of Mauretania. She follows the reconstruction of L. Charrier, Description des Monnaies de la Numidie et de la Maurétanie 95, who reconstructs the inscription as referring to the "happy return" of the king and his victory over the Gaetuli, and therefore dates it to c. AD 6. She argues that in this year there was another lunar eclipse visible in Mauretania (now dated to 7 AD), as the date of her death.

iii) c. 18 AD. A hoard of coins, including coins of Juba II dated between year 36 = 11 AD and year 42 = 17 AD, was discovered at Ksar in Morocco in 1907. The hoard included a number of undated coins in mint condition with the head of Cleopatra Selene as well as that of Juba. K. Regling, ZfN 28 (1910) 9, 11, distinguished the style of two engravers in the coins of Juba II, with class II having a smaller head, rougher treatment of the hair and sharper and harder edges that class I. Class II coins were generally in much better condition than class I coins. Dated coins were associated with Class I up to year 36, and with class II in years 41 and 42. Many of the coins showing Cleopatra Selene, although undated, were of class II. Therefore, Regling argued that either Cleopatra's portrait and symbols continued to be minted long after her death, or Juba must have remarried her after his brief marriage to Glaphyra, and she did not die until after the date of the hoard, i.e. 18 or later. The second solution was accepted by G. H. Macurdy, Hellenistic Queens 227f. and J. E. G. Whitehorne, Cleopatras 201, though G. H. Macurdy, Vassal Queens 55, preferred the first. Be that as it may, Regling's analysis is ignored by M. Coltelloni-Trannoy, Le royaume de Maurétanie sous Juba II et Ptolémée 38 and J. Mazard, Corpus Nummorum Numidiae Mauretaniaeque. http://www.tyndalehouse.com/egypt/ptole ... _ii_fr.htm
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
Post Reply