Herod Antipas and the shaken reed.

[maryhelena]

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.

Stephan, I don't appreciate your attempt to misrepresent my position on the gospel Jesus story. I am not attempting any ''RADICAL TIME SHIFT''. I am not a Jesus historicist. Consequently, it is absurd to suggest that anything in my posts relates to a historical Jesus living in the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

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.

By all means reject the gospel of Luke and it's birth and crucifixion stories. Pin your hopes on that 7th year of Tiberius story in Acts of Pilate. Good luck with that. I much prefer to move forward with the gospel of Luke, fully aware that the gLuke story has deep roots in earlier versions of the Jesus story. It is the development of the Jesus story that interests me. I'm not interested in placing bets on any one of it's dating scenarios. I'm not a Jesus historicist trying to reconcile contradictory data in order to support a historicist assumption.

[Secret Alias]

By all means reject the gospel of Luke ...

Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, manifestly reject that gospel of which he claims to be a disciple [AH 3.14.3]

This is the whole point of 'Luke' - to set up a false narrative that if you 'reject' the present shape of THIS gospel (i.e. the canonical text) then you can't have any of the gospel. This is repeated over and over again in Irenaeus and recycled by Tertullian. But it is a false dichotomy. I don't have to either accept Luke the way it is or reject all the things with in it. I thought such simple-mindedness died centuries ago.

[maryhelena]

By all means reject the gospel of Luke ...

Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will, manifestly reject that gospel of which he claims to be a disciple [AH 3.14.3]

This is the whole point of 'Luke' - to set up a false narrative that if you 'reject' the present shape of THIS gospel (i.e. the canonical text) then you can't have any of the gospel. This is repeated over and over again in Irenaeus and recycled by Tertullian. But it is a false dichotomy. I don't have to either accept Luke the way it is or reject all the things with in it. I thought such simple-mindedness died centuries ago.

Cherry-picking the gospel of Luke - oh well - I suppose that is one way to sidestep the problems this gospel presents with it's birth and crucifixion scenarios......

---------------
added later

Quite frankly, Stephan, I don't see how a Jesus crucifixion in 21 c.e. adds anything of value to your Markus Julius Agrippa theory (Agrippa II) - unless - your focus is now on Agrippa I (Markus Julius Agrippa) born re Wikipedia around 11 b.c.. This figure would be around 32 in 21 c.e. and thus, re your theory, a Markus Julius Agrippa could be at the Jesus crucifixion in that year. But that scenario would indicate that you now go along with Josephus and his two Agrippas - and have put aside the Rabbinic literature which only has one Agrippa.....ah, but now you have, re your recent post on another thread - a problem re Bernice and Titus...........

Agrippa II, born re Wikipedia around 27 c.e., does not work with your theory about Marcus Julius Agrippa being at a Jesus crucifixion in 21 c.e. However, Agrippa II could, re your theory, be at a gLuke crucifixion story set in 36/37 c.e. - being about 9 so years old.

Just trying to get to grips with what a Jesus crucifixion in 21 c.e. does to your (original? ) Marcus Julius Agrippa theory.....

A suggestion: gMatthew and gLuke have two very different birth and crucifixion scenarios. Ditch the historical Jesus assumption and take a literary approach to the gospel story. That way you can have a Markus Julius Agrippa (Agrippa I) at a crucifixion set in 21 c.e. and a Markus Julius Agrippa (Agrippa II) at a crucifixion set in 36/37 c.e.

----------------------
Yes, 21 c.e. happens to be 49 years (7x7) from the siege of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 c.e. However, a crucifixion story set, re gLuke, in 36/37 c.e. is 100 years from the siege of Jerusalem by Pompey in 63 b.c.

[DCHindley]

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?

In my New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocrypha (RSV Apocrypha 1965, exp ed 1977), 3rd Maccabees had nothing to do with the Maccabees, but precedes Maccabean times by about 50 yrs, relating to the time of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-203 BCE) who was in conflict with the Syrian king Antiochus III (223-187 BCE), just after the battle of Raphia (217 BCE).

Ptolemy had thwarted the plot against him by Theodotus and won decisive victories against his rival Antiochus III, and was making PR visits to the regions bordering and in Egyptian occupied Syria, to boost morale. Although he was offering costly gifts to the Judean temple and other sanctuaries, he wanted to enter the holy of holies to see it. When the Judeans refused this offer, Ptolemy took offense.

To punish this act of ingratitude, he brought his army back to Jerusalem and threatened to force the issue, but just as he was about to desecrate the sanctuary, he has that epileptic seizure which 3rd Maccabees 2:22 described as a paralyzing spasm in which "shaking back and forth like a reed in the wind" he fell to the ground and his attendants removed him for his own safety.

The rest of the account is about the political repercussions to Judeans resident in Alexandria and in Ptolemy's dealing with the Judean province he controlled.

I'm not sure how this then refers to Herod Antipas. It cannot be due to any Hasmonean connection, as the Hasmoneans did not yet exist. Antipas is not Egyptian, either, as was Ptolemy. How would John the Baptist fit into this analogy? This was Why I had before this ("Herod Antipas & the Shaken Reed" thread, Mar 26, 2018 11:19 pm) suggested that the saying could just be a commonplace saying.

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.

On the other hand, could this be Jesus' alluding to a belief that John was making supplications similar to those made by the High Priest Simon (II, son of Onias II?), which God answered with Ptolemy's seizure. If Antipas' thought that John was trying to thwart one of his strategic objectives (to marry his relative) it would explain why Antipas eventually arrested and executed John. This is sort of like the story of Onias the circle drawer, although the times were different (the Hasmonean civil war).

Or was Jesus supposed to be denying that John was a man subject to epileptic seizures (was impotent to do anything major), suggesting that he was very powerful and energetic, and would (or should) agitate against Antipas for all he was worth.

Three options, then, one suitable for every temperament, depending on what you want to think was going on. We just need more points like this to triangulate against, then we might figure out the people and politics of figures like John, or Jesus for that matter.

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

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?

In my New Oxford Annotated Bible: With the Apocrypha (RSV Apocrypha 1965, exp ed 1977), 3rd Maccabees had nothing to do with the Maccabees, but precedes Maccabean times by about 50 yrs, relating to the time of Ptolemy IV Philopator (221-203 BCE) who was in conflict with the Syrian king Antiochus III (223-187 BCE), just after the battle of Raphia (217 BCE).

Ptolemy had thwarted the plot against him by Theodotus and won decisive victories against his rival Antiochus III, and was making PR visits to the regions bordering and in Egyptian occupied Syria, to boost morale. Although he was offering costly gifts to the Judean temple and other sanctuaries, he wanted to enter the holy of holies to see it. When the Judeans refused this offer, Ptolemy took offense.

To punish this act of ingratitude, he brought his army back to Jerusalem and threatened to force the issue, but just as he was about to desecrate the sanctuary, he has that epileptic seizure which 3rd Maccabees 2:22 described as a paralyzing spasm in which "shaking back and forth like a reed in the wind" he fell to the ground and his attendants removed him for his own safety.

I, like Theissen, make two exegetical moves here, each of which seems the most likely on its own merits:

1. I take the "shaken reed" as going along with the "man dressed in soft clothing," and both of these images as standing in opposition to the rugged prophet John.
2. I then take the "shaken reed," not as a symbol of divine judgement (as the 3 Maccabees reference would imply), but rather in the same sense as we find in Lucian.

Here is the relevant passage from Lucian:

Lucian, Hermotimus 68: So, if you are to recognize the best of the Stoics, you will have to go to most, if not all, of them, make trial, and appoint the best your teacher, first going through a course of training to provide you with the appropriate critical faculty; otherwise you might mistakenly prefer the wrong one. Now reflect on the additional time this will mean; I purposely left it out of account, because I was afraid you might be angry; all the same, it is the most important and necessary thing of all in questions like this--so uncertain and dubious, I mean. For the discovery of truth, your one and only sure or well-founded hope is the possession of this power: you must be able to judge and sift truth from falsehood; you must have the assayer's sense for sound and true or forged coin; if you could have come to your examination of doctrines equipped with a technical skill like that, I should have nothing to say; but without it there is nothing to prevent their severally leading you by the nose; you will follow a dangled bunch of carrots like a donkey; or, better still, you will be water spilt on a table, trained whichever way one chooses with a finger-tip; or again, a reed [καλάμῳ] growing on a river's bank, bending to every breath, however gentle the breeze that shakes it [διασαλεύσῃ αὐτὸν] in its passage.

Compare:

Matthew 11.7: 7 And as these were going away, Jesus began to speak to the multitudes about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed [κάλαμον] shaken [σαλευόμενον] by the wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' palaces. 9 But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet."

Luke 7.24: 24 When the messengers of John had left, He began to speak to the crowds about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed [κάλαμον] shaken [σαλευόμενον] by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who are splendidly clothed and live in luxury are found in royal palaces! 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet."

I would normally be all in favor of going with the Jewish literature first, but in this case the shaken reed as a symbol of judgment makes less sense than the shaken reed as a symbol of a lack of conviction, of the kind of political wishy-washiness that might be exercised by a softly dressed man who lives in a palace. So I tend to agree with your sober assessment, David:

This was Why I had before this ("Herod Antipas & the Shaken Reed" thread, Mar 26, 2018 11:19 pm) suggested that the saying could just be a commonplace saying.

As applied to Herod Antipas, whose first political symbol was apparently a reed, this commonplace symbolism for a lack of conviction would be the perfect choice for the man who opposed the prophet John.

[DCHindley]

I, like Theissen, make two exegetical moves here, each of which seems the most likely on its own merits:

1. I take the "shaken reed" as going along with the "man dressed in soft clothing," and both of these images as standing in opposition to the rugged prophet John.
2. I then take the "shaken reed," not as a symbol of divine judgement (as the 3 Maccabees reference would imply), but rather in the same sense as we find in Lucian.

Here is the relevant passage from Lucian:

Lucian, Hermotimus 68: So, if you are to recognize the best of the Stoics, you will have to go to most, if not all, of them, make trial, and appoint the best your teacher, first going through a course of training to provide you with the appropriate critical faculty; otherwise you might mistakenly prefer the wrong one. Now reflect on the additional time this will mean; I purposely left it out of account, because I was afraid you might be angry; all the same, it is the most important and necessary thing of all in questions like this--so uncertain and dubious, I mean. For the discovery of truth, your one and only sure or well-founded hope is the possession of this power: you must be able to judge and sift truth from falsehood; you must have the assayer's sense for sound and true or forged coin; if you could have come to your examination of doctrines equipped with a technical skill like that, I should have nothing to say; but without it there is nothing to prevent their severally leading you by the nose; you will follow a dangled bunch of carrots like a donkey; or, better still, you will be water spilt on a table, trained whichever way one chooses with a finger-tip; or again, a reed [καλάμῳ] growing on a river's bank, bending to every breath, however gentle the breeze that shakes it [διασαλεύσῃ αὐτὸν] in its passage.

Compare:

Matthew 11.7: 7 And as these were going away, Jesus began to speak to the multitudes about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed [κάλαμον] shaken [σαλευόμενον] by the wind? 8 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings' palaces. 9 But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet."

Luke 7.24: 24 When the messengers of John had left, He began to speak to the crowds about John, "What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed [κάλαμον] shaken [σαλευόμενον] by the wind? 25 But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Those who are splendidly clothed and live in luxury are found in royal palaces! 26 But what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet."

I would normally be all in favor of going with the Jewish literature first, but in this case the shaken reed as a symbol of judgment makes less sense than the shaken reed as a symbol of a lack of conviction, of the kind of political wishy-washiness that might be exercised by a softly dressed man who lives in a palace. So I tend to agree with your sober assessment, David:

This was Why I had before this ("Herod Antipas & the Shaken Reed" thread, Mar 26, 2018 11:19 pm) suggested that the saying could just be a commonplace saying.

As applied to Herod Antipas, whose first political symbol was apparently a reed, this commonplace symbolism for a lack of conviction would be the perfect choice for the man who opposed the prophet John.

The strongest reason for considering "shaking like a reed in the wind" a form of divine judgement on an insolent king is the almost exact wording between Luke 7:24-25 and 3 Macc 2:22. Matthew 11:7-8 is close to Luke:

RSV Matthew 11:	BGT Matthew 11:	RSV Luke 7:	BGT Luke 7:	RSV 3 Maccabees 2:	BGT 3 Maccabees 2:
7 As they [the messengers of John] went away, Jesus began to speak to the crowds concerning John:	7 Τούτων δὲ πορευομένων ἤρξατο ὁ Ἰησοῦς λέγειν τοῖς ὄχλοις περὶ Ἰωάννου·	24 When the messengers of John had gone, he began to speak to the crowds concerning John:	24 Ἀπελθόντων δὲ τῶν ἀγγέλων Ἰωάννου ἤρξατο λέγειν πρὸς τοὺς ὄχλους περὶ Ἰωάννου·	21 Thereupon God, who oversees all things, the first Father of all, holy among the holy ones, having heard the lawful supplication [from the Judean HP Simon],	21 'Ἐνταῦθα ὁ πάντων ἐπόπτης θεὸς καὶ προπάτωρ ἅγιος ἐν ἁγίοις εἰσακούσας τῆς ἐνθέσμου λιτανείας,
"What did you go out into the wilderness to behold?	τί ἐξήλθατε εἰς τὴν ἔρημον θεάσασθαι;	"What did you go out into the wilderness to behold?	τί ἐξήλθατε εἰς τὴν ἔρημον θεάσασθαι;	scourged him [Ptolemy] who had exalted himself in insolence and audacity.	τὸν ὕβρει καὶ θράσει μεγάλως ἐπηρμένον ἐμάστιξεν αὐτόν,
A reed shaken by the wind? [the implied answer to this rhetorical question is "No"]	κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον;	A reed shaken by the wind? [the implied answer to this rhetorical question is "No"]	κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου σαλευόμενον;	22 He [God] shook him [Ptolemy] on this side and that as a reed is shaken by the wind,	22 ἔνθεν καὶ ἔνθεν κραδάνας αὐτὸν ὡς κάλαμον ὑπὸ ἀνέμου
				so that he lay helpless on the ground and, besides being paralyzed in his limbs, was unable even to speak,	ὥστε κατ᾽ ἐδάφους ἄπρακτον ἔτι καὶ τοῖς μέλεσιν παραλελυμένον μηδὲ φωνῆσαι
				since he was smitten by a righteous judgment.	δύνασθαι δικαίᾳ περιπεπληγμένον κρίσει
8 Why then did you go out to see?	8 ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν;	25 What then did you go out to see?	25 ἀλλὰ τί ἐξήλθατε ἰδεῖν;
A man wearing soft things?	ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἠμφιεσμένον;	A man wearing soft raiment?	ἄνθρωπον ἐν μαλακοῖς ἱματίοις ἠμφιεσμένον;
Behold, those who wear soft raiment are in kings' houses.	ἰδοὺ οἱ τὰ μαλακὰ φοροῦντες ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις τῶν βασιλέων εἰσίν.	Behold, those who are gorgeously appareled and live in luxury are in kings' courts.	ἰδοὺ οἱ ἐν ἱματισμῷ ἐνδόξῳ καὶ τρυφῇ ὑπάρχοντες ἐν τοῖς βασιλείοις εἰσίν.

Yet I do see the possibility that "shaking like a reed" was a commonplace for anyone who has no control over their actions. You found a good example in Lucian.

If these two sets of sayings (reed shaking at the mercy of the wind versus soft apparel being bad for a king) are being used in opposition, I would have liked to find a "scriptural" source for the opposing talk about soft apparel making kings soft and thus unworthy of the honor, but could not find a close match (yet).

Ben, you might have better luck at that than I.

DCH

[arnoldo]

Jesus said, "Why have you (plur.) come out into the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in fine apparel [like your] governors and your members of court, who wear fine apparel and cannot recognize truth?"
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mas78.html

[Ben C. Smith]

The strongest reason for considering "shaking like a reed in the wind" a form of divine judgement on an insolent king is the almost exact wording between Luke 7:24-25 and 3 Macc 2:22.

Well, 3 Maccabees 2.22 has "by the wind" (whereas Lucian has αὔρα, "breeze"), but its word for "shaken" is different. Lucian uses διασαλεύσῃ, a compound of σαλεύω, which is the word which Matthew and Luke use (in the form of the participle σαλευόμενον). So Lucian and 3 Maccabees are about equally close in wording, really.

If these two sets of sayings (reed shaking at the mercy of the wind versus soft apparel being bad for a king) are being used in opposition, I would have liked to find a "scriptural" source for the opposing talk about soft apparel making kings soft and thus unworthy of the honor, but could not find a close match (yet).

I do not think they are being used in opposition. I think that the reed shaking in the wind and the man dressed in soft clothing are two images for the same (sort of) man.

[DCHindley]

Jesus said, "Why have you (plur.) come out into the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in fine apparel [like your] governors and your members of court, who wear fine apparel and cannot recognize truth?" http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mas78.html

That's extra clause, "and cannot recognize truth," is in GoT 78 (for anyone just tuning in). Although there are "scholarly quotes" that suggest that this might be a relic of a "common" text that underlays Matt 11:7-8 and Luke 7:24-25, there is not so much as a hint of a phrase like this in the variants for those two passages.

If the Coptic version of the GoT is a century removed from even the late 1st century (when the publication of Matt & Luke are usually dated) and we know that the Coptic version takes liberties with regard to word choices and order that we find in the Greek fragments of it from Oxyrhynchus, why can't talk about the rich not knowing the truth not be a secondary development? After all, wasn't knowledge of a cosmic "truth" that transcends human truth one of the Gnostic's favorite subjects?

DCH

[arnoldo]

Jesus said, "Why have you (plur.) come out into the countryside? To see a reed shaken by the wind? And to see a person dressed in fine apparel [like your] governors and your members of court, who wear fine apparel and cannot recognize truth?" http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... mas78.html

That's extra clause, "and cannot recognize truth," is in GoT 78 (for anyone just tuning in). Although there are "scholarly quotes" that suggest that this might be a relic of a "common" text that underlays Matt 11:7-8 and Luke 7:24-25, there is not so much as a hint of a phrase like this in the variants for those two passages.

If the Coptic version of the GoT is a century removed from even the late 1st century (when the publication of Matt & Luke are usually dated) and we know that the Coptic version takes liberties with regard to word choices and order that we find in the Greek fragments of it from Oxyrhynchus, why can't talk about the rich not knowing the truth not be a secondary development? After all, wasn't knowledge of a cosmic "truth" that transcends human truth one of the Gnostic's favorite subjects?

DCH

This bit in Josephus also describes Herod Antipas the following way.

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod’s army came from God: and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the baptist. For Herod slew him [About Feb. A.D. 32.]; who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue; both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God; and so to come to baptism. For that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away, [or the remission] of some sins [only,] but for the purification of the body: supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified before­hand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crouds about him; for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words; Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise rebellion: (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise:) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause; and not bring himself into difficulties by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod’s suspicious temper, to Macherus; the castle I before mentioned; and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion, that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod; and a mark of God’s displeasure to him.