Herod Antipas and the shaken reed.

[Ben C. Smith]

Adding more argument to a 19 c.e., re Josephus, JC crucifixion story is all very well.....however, such arguments do not remove the gLuke birth narrative set in the 6 c.e. Quirinius census and it's Jesus story set during the 15th year of Tiberius. The problem for JC historicists remains.

Sure. So what? Jesus is also said by some to have died under Claudius, or to have lived under Alexander Jannaeus. What do these variants have to do with the timing of one particular datum? My tentative contention is that the reed saying corresponds better with one timeline than with others. Of course there are other variants and tensions in the proposed timelines; otherwise there would have been no need for me to have made such an argument in the first place.

[maryhelena]

Adding more argument to a 19 c.e., re Josephus, JC crucifixion story is all very well.....however, such arguments do not remove the gLuke birth narrative set in the 6 c.e. Quirinius census and it's Jesus story set during the 15th year of Tiberius. The problem for JC historicists remains.

Sure. So what? Jesus is also said by some to have died under Claudius, or to have lived under Alexander Jannaeus. What do these variants have to do with the timing of one particular datum? My tentative contention is that the reed saying corresponds better with one timeline than with others. Of course there are other variants and tensions in the proposed timelines; otherwise there would have been no need for me to have made such an argument in the first place.

The point I was attempting to make is that by opting for one set of data and ignoring the contrary data is not particularly useful.

Anyway, the gLuke Jesus story ministry is based in/from the 15th year of Tiberius - hence the 20 c.e. coin of Antipas with the reed does not cancel out the gLuke Jesus story. Yes, the gospel Jesus birth narratives allow for various crucifixion scenarios - but privileging one set of data over another is not useful. All available date - from Alexander Jannaeus to Claudius - suggest a Jesus story long in the making. Privileging one set of data in order to support the assumed historicity for the gospel Jesus figure is shortsighted.

[Ben C. Smith]

Adding more argument to a 19 c.e., re Josephus, JC crucifixion story is all very well.....however, such arguments do not remove the gLuke birth narrative set in the 6 c.e. Quirinius census and it's Jesus story set during the 15th year of Tiberius. The problem for JC historicists remains.

Sure. So what? Jesus is also said by some to have died under Claudius, or to have lived under Alexander Jannaeus. What do these variants have to do with the timing of one particular datum? My tentative contention is that the reed saying corresponds better with one timeline than with others. Of course there are other variants and tensions in the proposed timelines; otherwise there would have been no need for me to have made such an argument in the first place.

The point I was attempting to make is that by opting for one set of data and ignoring the contrary data is not particularly useful.

Yes, that is obviously not useful, and also obviously not what is going on here.

Privileging one set of data in order to support the assumed historicity for the gospel Jesus figure is shortsighted.

Again, this is obviously correct, and also obviously not what is going on here.

[Secret Alias]

Ben she has a pet project to prove that Jesus lived when King Jannai (= Alexander Jannaeus) lived. I am not sure if you have a score card handy for all the hobby horse spokespeople in the forum. Thought I'd explain why she feels you're not being 'open' to all historical possibilities. The forum is filled with dozens of lobbyists for bizarrely obscure POVs. Got to keep up to date on your forum marginalia.

[maryhelena]

Adding more argument to a 19 c.e., re Josephus, JC crucifixion story is all very well.....however, such arguments do not remove the gLuke birth narrative set in the 6 c.e. Quirinius census and it's Jesus story set during the 15th year of Tiberius. The problem for JC historicists remains.

Sure. So what? Jesus is also said by some to have died under Claudius, or to have lived under Alexander Jannaeus. What do these variants have to do with the timing of one particular datum? My tentative contention is that the reed saying corresponds better with one timeline than with others. Of course there are other variants and tensions in the proposed timelines; otherwise there would have been no need for me to have made such an argument in the first place.

The point I was attempting to make is that by opting for one set of data and ignoring the contrary data is not particularly useful.

Yes, that is obviously not useful, and also obviously not what is going on here.

Privileging one set of data in order to support the assumed historicity for the gospel Jesus figure is shortsighted.

Again, this is obviously correct, and also obviously not what is going on here.

OK

Ben: My tentative contention is that the reed saying corresponds better with one timeline than with others.

Only if you make the interpretation that the reed in the gospel saying refers to a coin of Antipas that is dated to his 24th year, i.e. 20 c.e. - and that is one very big assumption. An alternative interpretation of the reed can be made - that it is a symbolic reference to the entirety of Roman/Herodian power. As such, that alternative interpretation of the reed can apply to wherever one chooses to date the gospel crucifixion story - as gLuke has no problem with utilizing this story in his Jesus story set in/from the 15th year of Tiberius.

[maryhelena]

Ben she has a pet project to prove that Jesus lived when King Jannai (= Alexander Jannaeus) lived.

Somebody seem to like making up stories.....

[Secret Alias]

Why is this a problem for anyone?

however, such arguments do not remove the gLuke birth narrative set in the 6 c.e. Quirinius census and it's Jesus story set during the 15th year of Tiberius

Who cares? You make it sound like Luke is so titanic a wall that if we reject its authenticity (via Marcion or some such argument) then we have this wide open vista where ANY AND ALL alternative possibilities are equally valid (= hence my comments about hobby horses). But that isn't the case. There still are the same time markers (= 'Tiberius,' 'Pilate,' 'Herod,' etc). All of which work with a SLIGHT time shift from 28 - 33 CE to 19 - 21 CE. But not the RADICAL TIME SHIFT you think a rejection of Luke allows for or sanctions.

FWIW a better approach for you is the one which Mead argues on behalf of viz.

1. Clement cites 'the fifteenth year of Tiberius' as '15 Tybi' and
2. this time marker could have happened any year so why not 100 BC

The difficulty as always are those time markers - viz. Pilate, Herod etc. As you know I don't think the allusion to 'King Jannai' in the rabbinic and medieval literature necessarily line up with Alexander Jannaeus. The Soncino notes that many of these line up with Agrippa i.e. that Agrippa (which ever one you want to identify as 'Agrippa') and so not a disturbance in the first century CE dating. Neusner has demonstrated at length that the rabbinic literature is unreliable about ANY historical details.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

If, on the other hand, the shaken reed is taken in the sense intended by Lucian, then that image corresponds well with the spineless lifestyle of a collaborator with Rome, and the contrast is clear.

Agreed. In this scenario it would work.

btw I lost my interest in Theissen's interpretation years ago, because I'm not fully convinced that the plant on the coins is in fact a reed.

Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context, page 29: The first (and oldest) type of coin very probably shows a reed (Canna communis) on the obverse....

If it would be an image from ancient South America, I assume we all would agree that it's a maize plant. If I remember correct there was a Pilgrimage report around 500-600 AD, which described very tall millet plants in Galilee. At the end I thought I could be a reed, but also a millet plant or maybe another plant. Have you ever studied this problem?

[Ben C. Smith]

If, on the other hand, the shaken reed is taken in the sense intended by Lucian, then that image corresponds well with the spineless lifestyle of a collaborator with Rome, and the contrast is clear.

Agreed. In this scenario it would work.

btw I lost my interest in Theissen's interpretation years ago, because I'm not fully convinced that the plant on the coins is in fact a reed.

Gerd Theissen, The Gospels in Context, page 29: The first (and oldest) type of coin very probably shows a reed (Canna communis) on the obverse....

If it would be an image from ancient South America, I assume we all would agree that it's a maize plant. If I remember correct there was a Pilgrimage report around 500-600 AD, which described very tall millet plants in Galilee. At the end I thought I could be a reed, but also a millet plant or maybe another plant. Have you ever studied this problem?

I have looked into it only so far as Theissen himself goes. I remember trying to look up iconographic representations of reeds, including from that church that Theissen mentions (I do not have the book open in front of me at the moment). I recall satisfying myself at the time that it was probably a reed, though there is room for doubt. But that was years ago.

[DCHindley]

Thanks Ben for thinking of me.

Just to clarify a point, I do *not* suggest that the text of Josephus Antiquities was changed by Christians. My suggestion was that it was changed on the orders of Constantine *in order to* secure Christian support. Whether they are "spurious" or not I have no opinion one way or another.

My suspicion was that whatever entries they contained relating to Jesus was not pleasing to Christians, bringing up a sore point that most thought was behind them long before. It is one thing to be hated for "hatred of mankind" (refusing to offer alms to the local pagan deities) but another to have their founder portrayed as a rebel laying illegal claim to the royal crown. Since Eusebius says that there were acta being published supposedly from the hands of *both* Pilate and Jesus, and these acta were maintained by most all persons who exercised Roman rule when they held the powers of life and death and commanded army units, perhaps this suggests that Jesus was a royal claimant, not sanctioned by Rome, against whom Pilate had taken military action. In the skuffle to quell the rebellion, the acta of the Claimant (Jesus) were located and taken by the Prefact (Pilate) among with his personal possessions, including his own acta of his period of rule, which he would take with him into exile in Gaul around 39 CE.

If they were authentic, these acta would be a very valuable source. It is our misfortune that no copies were preserved. The sheer numbers of Christians around 305 CE, and the superior organizational structure of their interconnected churches, apparently overcame any attempt by pagans to continue on and press the case for them. If inauthentic, it would still be informative to see what was being alleged. There could be a kernal of truth in the story they present. Just the same, we just don't have any copies.

The point raised, that there is a passage in 3rd Maccabees where almost the exact phrase is found, may be significant, but it is not clear exactly what that significance is. Then it may be a commonplace phrase, but that kind of assertion would need some unpacking. When was 3rd Maccabees written? Whose POV did it represent? Was it written at one time and later interpolated to add a phrase that related to the time of Antipas and his foundation of the city of Tiberius?

From Charles' account of the book in Apocrypha & Pseudepigrapha of the OT (vol 1, Apocrypha) the book seems to have been written around 100 BCE, although some attempts have been made to relate it to the times of the Roman conquest of Judea or even Caligula's time (e.g., Ewald).

2:21 Thereupon God, who oversees all things, the first Father of all, holy among the holy ones, having heard the lawful supplication [of the Judean HP], scourged him [i.e., Ptolemy Philopator] who had exalted himself in insolence and audacity.
22 He [God] shook him on this side and that as a reed is shaken by the wind, so that he [Philopator] lay helpless on the ground and, besides being paralyzed in his limbs, was unable even to speak, since he was smitten by a righteous judgment.

That sounds like grand mal epileptic seizure to me, which seemed to be a one time incident in the reign of Philopator. However, I am not aware of anyplace that indicates this was a condition shared by both Philopator and by Herod Antipas. However, if the account of Philopator's struggle against Judeans (and ultimate reconciliation as their protector) was celebrated among the Hasidim (which it appears it was), it is not out of the realm of possibility that it could have been known to either Jesus (who was "quoted" by the author of Matthew 11:7/Luke 7:24), or at least to the author of whatever source was used by Matthew 11:7/Luke 7:24, who put it in the mouth of Jesus.

There is another instance where "reed" is used as a metaphor:

In Ant 10.6-7, Josephus relates that general Rabshakeh publically taunts king Hezekiah, in Hebrew, for expecting the King of Egypt to come to his aid and destroy Sennacherib's army camped against him:

"7 Whereupon he [Rabshakeh] lets him [Hezekiah] know, that if this be what he [Hezekiah] expects [that is, to expect the king of Egypt to come to his aid], he [Hezekiah] is a foolish man, and like one who leans on a broken reed; while such a one will not only fall down, but will have his hand pierced and harmed by it."

It may not relate to being shaken by the wind, but there is a pierced hand written in the 2nd half of the 1st century CE.

Looking a little further, there is a weak analogy to

Wisdom 4.2 When [virtue] is present, men imitate it, and they long for it when it has gone; and throughout all time it marches crowned in triumph, victor in the contest for prizes that are undefiled.	4.2 παροῦσάν τε μιμοῦνται αὐτὴν καὶ ποθοῦσιν ἀπελθοῦσαν καὶ ἐν τῷ αἰῶνι στεφανηφοροῦσα πομπεύει τὸν τῶν ἀμιάντων ἄθλων ἀγῶνα νικήσασα
3 But the prolific brood of the ungodly will be of no use, and none of their illegitimate seedlings will strike a deep root or take a firm hold.	3 πολύγονον δὲ ἀσεβῶν πλῆθος οὐ χρησιμεύσει καὶ ἐκ νόθων μοσχευμάτων οὐ δώσει ῥίζαν εἰς βάθος οὐδὲ ἀσφαλῆ βάσιν ἑδράσει
4 For even if they put forth boughs for a while, standing insecurely they will be shaken by the wind, and by the violence of the winds they will be uprooted.	4 κἂν γὰρ ἐν κλάδοις πρὸς καιρὸν ἀναθάλῃ ἐπισφαλῶς βεβηκότα ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευθήσεται καὶ ὑπὸ βίας ἀνέμων ἐκριζωθήσεται
5 The branches will be broken off before they come to maturity, and their fruit will be useless, not ripe enough to eat, and good for nothing.	5 περικλασθήσονται κλῶνες ἀτέλεστοι καὶ ὁ καρπὸς αὐτῶν ἄχρηστος ἄωρος εἰς βρῶσιν καὶ εἰς οὐθὲν ἐπιτήδειος
6 For children born of unlawful unions are witnesses of evil against their parents when God examines them.	6 ἐκ γὰρ ἀνόμων ὕπνων τέκνα γεννώμενα μάρτυρές εἰσιν πονηρίας κατὰ γονέων ἐν ἐξετασμῷ αὐτῶν

R H Charles "inclines to a date between 50 and 30 B.C. for the first part of the book, and 30 B.C. to A.D. 10 for the second part, which was written in continuation of part I." This passage would be from the 1st part, which languished for a bit before being joined to the 2nd part and published anew. We're a lot closer now to 19 CE.

While a tree is only loosely akin to a reed, if John the Baptist was referring to this passage in the Old Greek translation of Judean holy books, it would at least relate to Antipas' immoral (by strict popular standards) marriage, as a warning that any of his sons who might come from their union would someday meet extinction.

DCH