We all have our biases. We all have our comfort zones. As mentioned in one of the other posts, academics usually over-analyze details and miss the bigger picture. This is what I refer to as a "bottom up" approach to research. "Top-down" thinking (a.k.a. synthesis) is generally discouraged, because it requires development of a new model (other than the generally accepted one). The bottom-up theorizing of Eisenman reaches tantalizingly close to the top, but still not close enough to require the old way of thinking about Jews and Herodians to be radically changed.
I am not Jewish and don't know Robert Eisenman personally, so I can't speak for him. I can only speculate that he has been programmed to think of Jews as the ultimate underdogs, both now and especially in Herodian times. The thought of Herodians being taken seriously as Jews and filling all the major New Testament roles is unthinkable! The "converted" Jews of Mesopotamia, such as Helen and Izates, are less disturbing to his ancient world view. He also doesn't necessarily take the sister-wife relationship of Helen with Agbarus literally, and probably it wasn't, even if they part of the same extended royal family.
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.