Here's the link I neglected to include in my last post regarding Antipater and Ptolemy of Cyprus. He is the only Ptolemy unaccounted for, and was not in pole position for succession, therefore a likely collaborator in the Roman takeover of Egypt and Judea to improve his own standing.
But at what cost did Antipater gain his franchise? For example, was his own son Antipater or grandson Herod actually sired by a Roman? (The Patriarchal system in place in ancient times seems to have been just an extension of the primitive alpha-male instinct in nature. That is, the dominant male maintained access to all the females for the purpose of royal reproduction. As the "Godfather" he could either sire children himself, have one of his sons to do, or otherwise dictate royal matchmaking. This is not to discount the role leading royal women played in this process. I make the following caveat: I am not endorsing that system, only attempting to understand it.)
Yes, there seems to be some unwritten rule among academics about not mixing chocolate and peanut butter. You don't mix the study of Hasmoneans with Ptolemies, etc. In reality the leading families of the ancient world were constantly intermarrying, and usually by direction of the dominant king and queen.
Perhaps the family of Onias also also intermarried with the Boethus line, at least eventually, but they were not one and the same. Yes, I do equate Mariamne II (the Boethian) with Cleopatra of Jerusalem. I am not the first to do so. I probably am the first to equate Mariamne IV with Glaphyra. Please read recent commentaries of Eisenman's "New Testament Code" for the rationale.
Responses To This Message
© Charles N. Pope, US Library of Congress. All rights reserved.