So in applying my theory, I've taken another close look at the Hasmonean/Herodian family trees and I have some ideas.
In principle, what I am applying, is a redivision of the traditional hasmonean line, into two parts. Pre 60 BC, and Post 60. Nothing too fancy, but I want to suggest, that we have the Arsacid influence beginning in 40bc, and perhaps as early as 63bc-(i.e.: that rulers took "regnal names" according to their own typology, and therefore we may have more "duplicates" in the Herodian Period than I first assumed.)
I'm working off here: (http://virtualreligion.net/iho/hasmon2.html) and at the top of the page there are also the (traditional) geneologies of the Herodians. What's good about this view is that it has the color coding (see key) (As usual, I present this link with no connection to it, and I don't endorse them anymore than I endorse islam when I go to read Kahlil Gibran for free)
It seems the (Helenist) archetyping of Jesus has a clear form beginning with Mattathias' sons. This is what I was driving at in my previous post. Not ground breaking stuff here, but I sort of forgot about the Hellenist influence on both Parthians and Herodians, when Charles and I were discussing the Parthian indifference later during the fall of the second temple.
All the players have the proper cognomens for typing the Gospels, Matthew, John; and in Josephus later, who traced his lineage to Jonathan Apphus, a possible Luke. No obvious Mark.
Next, after 40bc, and switching to the House of Herod, we have a big change, in that instead of Matthew, Jonathan, and Judah, Herod seems to adopt the Hellenist rooted cognomens in naming his sons Phillip, Alexander, and Boethus. Boethus as HerodII gives a clue. Boethus was MiramneII's father (and his cognomen) so perhaps his later identification as "Rus" is either an attempt to hide that, (or merely a way to avoid confusion)
Are Aristobolus IV, and Antipas really different people, or are they regnal titles, making them duplicates of Alexander and Philip?
That would make TigranesIV of Armenia, brother of Herod of Chalcis and AgrippaI, and not just cousins.
It also calls into question whether Malthace and Cleopatra of Jerusalem were really different people or failing that logic-perhaps of a "handmaid" class from the Abram typology.
Starting with the generations of Roman procurators and client rulers, we lose the thread of Matthews, Jonathans etc, formally adopting regnal names- or did we?
We still have Queen Helen, Abgarus'(and all of his various cognomens)wife. As Eisenman points out, we have the (well attested outside of Paul) conversions of both of these figures:
"Just as the two buffer areas in Northern Syria and Mesopotamia between Rome and the Parthians are contiguous. The only differnce is that, for Josephus, Helen's conversion is to what he thinks is Judaism, not Christianity. The question really is whether at this point there was any perceivable difference" (pg191-JtBoJ)
And Paul was apparently within the court of, or at least an agent of Helen's, in which (I say), he may may have met James and others for the first time (see Acts- but this is Eisenman's point too)
Am I just dense, or do we have to find a cognomen for Helen (why is she the II)and can it be one of the Marys and if so, which one?
These aren't rhetorical questions, I really need the help. Eisenman didn't make it clear enough for me. I was also teased by his association of Helen as "consort of Simon Magus" on pg896.
to be continued.
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.