(September 6, 2013 at 1:42 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Phillip - or Herod II - or Herod Phillip apparently all the same person, died without a son which would have meant that his "kingdom" would have reverted to direct Roman rule. The marriage between Antipas and Herodias was meant to forestall that and unite the two territories under Antipas. For whatever reason, it seemed to be Roman policy whenever they could get away with it to have a member of the Herodian family ruling in Palestine. This would have been a marriage of state and Tiberius' approval would have been required. Josephus recounts that Antipas duly sailed to Rome and obtained that approval. BTW, these people would have been pushing 60 in a time when 60 was an advanced age. The idea that this was some sort of passionate love match is ridiculous. Like many state marriages, this was about money and power.
I just thought of another problem with the "it happened while Philip was alive around 27 CE" argument.
The estranged wife of Antipas ran to her father Aratas when she learned of Antipas' plans, before the divorce was even official. To believe it all happened in the late 20s would mean it took 10 years for her father to get around to doing anything about it. This seems highly unlikely to say the least.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
