THE GOSPEL OF ME - FOUND AGAIN!

p. 83

Miriam, Hasmonaean princess - Gottheil writes “Wife of Herod the Great; the first of this name. She was the daughter of the Hasmonean Alexander, a son of Aristobulus II., who was conquered and put to flight by Herod's father, Antipater. Her mother was Alexandra, daughter of the reigning prince Hyrcanus II. When Herod, at that time tetrarch, entered Jerusalem in triumph in 42 B.C., Alexandra sought to bring about the marriage of her daughter to him, hoping thus to avoid the ruin of her house (Josephus, "Ant." xiv. 12, § 1; idem, "B. J." i. 12, § 3). The war, however, left Herod no leisure; and not until five years after his betrothal to Mariamne, and three years after he had become nominal king of Judea, did he leave the siege of Jerusalem, in 37 B.C., and celebrate his marriage in Samaria ("Ant." xiv. 15, § 14; "B. J." i. 17, § 8). Mariamne bore him three sons, Alexander, Aristobulus, and one who died young, and two daughters, Salampsio and Cypros. The marriage proved an unhappy one. The king, indeed, loved the beautiful woman passionately … The queen ruled the king completely. This was made manifest when Alexandra insisted that her son, Mariamne's brother, should be made high priest. On the advice of Dellius, the friend of Antony—who wished to give the latter's passion another direction—she sent pictures of her two beautiful children to the Egyptian queen, Cleopatra. Antony had, in fact, designs on the youthful Aristobulus; and since Mariamne also asked the favor of the king, he found himself obliged to make the youth high priest (35 B.C.; "Ant." xv. 2, § 6; "B. J." i. 22, § 3), although, in reality, only to kill him on a suitable occasion. When, later, Herod was obliged to justify before Antony at Laodicea the killing of Aristobulus, he placed Mariamne under the protection of Joseph, his brother-in-law, commanding him to kill her in case he (Herod) should not return alive. As Joseph had occasion to associate a good deal with Mariamne in connection with governmental affairs, he good-naturedly told her of the boundless love the king felt for her and of the secret instructions which Herod had given him. A false report of Herod's death being circulated, Mariamne sought refuge with the Roman legions. Herod, however, was dismissed with the favor of Antony. On his return Salome accused Mariamne of adultery with Joseph. Herod at first would not believe the charge; but it chanced that the queen reproached him for the secret commission he had entrusted to Joseph, and this convinced Herod of the criminality of Joseph and Mariamne. In his anger he caused Joseph to be put to death immediately, and he would have similarly disposed of Mariamne had not his love for her been greater than his anger. He, however, threw Alexandra into prison (34 B.C.) as the instigator of the scandal ("Ant." xv. 3, §§ 5-9; "B. J." i. 22, §§ 4-5). In the spring of the year 30, Herod visited Augustus in Rhodes. He left Mariamne and her mother under the protection of a certain Joseph and of the Iturean Sohemus. Again he commanded that his wife should be killed in the event of his death. The king had hoped to find love on his return; instead he found himself hated and avoided. The king's mother and sister found him ready to listen to their slanders. Salome told him that Mariamne sought to poison him. Thereupon the king questioned Mariamne's favorite eunuch, who said he knew nothing of the poison, but that the queen was offended because of what Sohemus had told her in regard to his secret instructions. Sohemus met the same fate as had Herod's brother-in-law,and Herod caused Mariamne to be accused before a tribunal composed of his friends, which pronounced sentence of death. The king and some of the judges did not wish to hasten the execution, desiring merely to put Mariamne in prison; but Salome represented that the people might raise a disturbance and seek to release Mariamne, and the latter was consequently led to death. During the entire route to the place of execution her own mother, Alexandra, desiring to rehabilitate herself in Herod's eyes, reviled her, accusing her of adultery and of ingratitude toward Herod. Mariamne answered not a word, and died calm and composed ("Ant." xv. 6, § 5; 7, § 6), being about twenty-eight years of age (29 B.C.). The fact that Mariamne was twice accused under similar circumstances of adultery with the regent, makes it probable that Josephus' account contains some inaccuracies, the more so as the second account is wholly lacking in "B. J." (Destinon, "Di Quellen des Josephus," p. 113). The second account, however, can not be a simple repetition on the part of Josephus of the first, since Josephus himself, in relating the second incident, refers to the first ("Ant." xv. 7, § 1). It is remarkable that Josephus mentions Joseph the second time without any further particulars (ib. 6, § 5), which looks, it is true, as though he had before him two parallel accounts which he tried to combine in this way. According to "B. J.," Mariamne was put to death in the first case—that is, in the year 34. But this is impossible, since she could not have borne five children between the years 37 and 34. Indeed on closer scrutiny the two incidents do not appear at all identical, since in the second case it is not the regent Phreroras with whom Mariamne is associated, but Sohemus, who was of comparatively low rank. Hence the two incidents are probably historical, and the omission of the second account in "B. J." is due to the fact that Josephus, as usual, has condensed his narration in that work. The historian Nicholas of Damascus believed in Mariamne's guilt ("Ant." xvi. 7, § 1) … Josephus relates also that after her death Herod tried in hunting and banqueting to forget his loss, but that even his strong nature succumbed and he fell ill in Samaria, where he had made Mariamne his wife ("Ant." xv. 7, § 7). The Mariamne tower in Jerusalem, built by Herod, was without doubt named after her; it was called also "Queen" (Βασιλίς "B. J." ii. 17, § 8; v. 4, § 3) Josephus writes the name Μαριάμη, adding the inflectional ending to Μαριάμ (= ), the Septuagint form of the name. In some editions of Josephus Μαριάμμη stood with double "μ"; this was dissimilated to "mn" in the Middle Ages, and the name has so remained (S. Pape-Benseler, "Wörterbuch der Griechischen Eigennamen," 3d ed. 1870, s.v.). Bibliography: Grätz, Gesch. 4th ed., iii. 187, 200, 216; Derenbourg, Hist. p. 151; Schürer, Gesch. 3d ed., i. 358-386; Well hausen, I. J. G. 4th ed., pp. 325, 328. 2. Wife of Herod the Great; the second of this name. She was held to be very beautiful; and Herod, on first seeing her, was seized with an ardent passion for her. Since he did not wish to obtain possession of her by force, he thought it best to marry her. He advanced her father, Simon the son of Boethus (a man of humble birth, originally from Alexandria, but at that time living in Jerusalem), to the position of high priest (25 B.C.) a few years after the execution of the first Mariamne (Josephus, "Ant." xviii. 5, § 4; comp. ib. xvii. 1, § 2; idem, "B. J." i. 28, § 4).Mariamne bore Herod one son, also called Herod ("Ant." xvii. 1, § 2), who married Herodias (ib. xviii. 5, § 4), and who was in fact the destined heir to the throne ("B. J." i. 29, § 2; comp. ib. 30, § 3). Mariamne knew of Herod's intention in regard to her son (ib. 30, § 7). Josephus always writes Μαριάμη or Μαριάμμη, as he does also in the case of other persons of the same name.

[John] precursor to my messianic revelation –

“John” the priestly reformer –

“Mary who is called Magdala -

the Greek “Mary Magdala” - Boid writes “I think the change from Magdalta to Magdelayta happened in the Aramaic original of the original single long gospel, by DELIBERATE change, not accident. If you think the assumption of a single original long Gospel in Aramaic is unnecessary, then I would still say the change was DELIBERATE, and was from the Greek megalE, great, to magdalEnE. I still insist that in Greek style, and Hebrew and Aramaic style as well, a phrase of the form “Maryam hE kaloumenE magdalta” meaning Maryam known as the Magdalene implies that magdalEnE was a TITLE, but this would only make sense if it had originally been Greek megalE or Aramaic Magdalta.”

made up stories of my Jewish grandmother - Baba Batra 3b-4a Gottheil “There is a Talmudic legend concerning the marriage and death of Mariamne, although her name is not mentioned. It is to the effect that when the whole house of the Hasmoneans had been rooted out, she threw herself from the roof and was killed (B. B. 3b). Out of love for her, Herod is said to have kept her body preserved in honey for seven years (ib.; S. Geiger, in "Oẓar Neḥmad," iii. 1). In the Talmud this sort of mental derangement is called a "deed of Herod" (Sanh. 66b).

Miriam Meggdela - The rabbinic tradition literally means “hairdresser” but the whore idea is implicit.

how dangerous the Herodian devotion to “Mary” was to the Pharisees - see Josephus “As for ourselves, who come of a family nearly allied to the Asamonean kings, and on that account have an honorable place, which is the priesthood, we think it indecent to say any thing that is false about them, and accordingly we have described their actions after an unblemished and upright manner. And although we reverence many of Herod's posterity, who still reign, yet do we pay a greater regard to truth than to them, and this though it sometimes happens that we incur their displeasure by so doing. (16:7:1)

the “opening up” of their tradition to non-Jews –

had him through another woman – i.e. Mathace

“it is better to be Herod's pig than his son” - Macrobius

Courting the Pharisees –

called “John” in my gospel but who is really, secretly me - Book of the Bee “Mark the Evangelist preached in Rome, and died and was buried there. Some say that he was the son of Simon Peter's wife, others that he was the Son of Simon; and Rhoda [i.e. Heroda] was his sister. He was first called John, but the Apostles changed his name and called him Mark, that there might not be two Evangelists of one name.” Also “Some men have a tradition that when our Lord broke His body for p. 103 His disciples in the upper chamber, John the son of Zebedee hid a part of his portion until our Lord rose from the dead. And when our Lord appeared to His disciples and to Thomas with them, He said to Thomas, 'Hither with thy finger and lay it on My side, and be not unbelieving, but believing.' Thomas put his finger near to our Lord's side, and it rested upon the mark of the spear, and the disciples saw the blood from the marks of the spear and nails. And John took that piece of consecrated bread, and wiped up that blood with it; and the Easterns, Mâr Addai and Mâr Mârî, took that piece, and with it they sanctified this unleavened bread which has been handed down among us1. The other disciples did not take any of it, because they said, 'We will consecrate for ourselves whenever we wish.' As for the oil or baptism, some say that it was part of the oil with which they anointed the kings; others say that it was part of the unguent wherewith they embalmed our Lord; and many agree with this (statement). Others again say that when John took that piece of consecrated bread of the Passover in his hand, it burst into flame and burnt in the palm of his hand, and the palm of his hand sweated, and he took that sweat and hid it for the sign of the cross of baptism. This account we have heard by ear from the mouth of a recluse and visitor (περιοδευτής {Greek: periodeuths}), and we have not received it from Scripture. The word Pentecost is interpreted 'the completion of fifty days.'

p. 89

gnostic parlance which characterizes my gospel - It is simply amazing to me that some scholars do not want to count Marcion as a gnostic merely because he emphasized orthodoxy. They obviously have read too many German Protestant theologians and not enough of what the Church Fathers tell us about Marcion such as Tertullian AM 1:9 “Now I know full well by what perceptive faculty they boast of their new god; even their knowledge. It is, however, this very discovery of a novel thing-so striking to common minds-as well as the natural gratification which is inherent in novelty, that I wanted to refute, and thence further to challenge a proof of this unknown god.” See also the Pagels, the Gnostic Paul for the general methodology of the early Christians “Paul taught two gospels, one for psychics (those who identify with the soul or psyche, the radius in the circle of the self, that which is connected both to the center, the one Consciousness and to the body and matter at the other end) and a secret one for pneumatics (those who identify with the Spirit or Consciousness, pneuma): How can gnostic exegetes and theologians make this astonishing claim? Theodotus explains that Paul, having become “the apostle of the resurrection” through his experience of revelation, henceforth “taught in two ways at once.” On the one hand he preached the savior “according to the flesh” as one “who was born and suffered,” the kerygmatic gospel of “Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2) to those who were psychics, “because this they were capable of knowing, and in this way they feared him.” But to the elect he proclaimed Christ “according to the spirit, as one born from the spirit and a virgin” (cf. Rom. 1:3) for the apostle recognized that “each one knows the Lord in his own way: and not all know him alike.” (Pagels, p. 5) That is, Paul taught to the pneumatics that Christ represents the center or the one Consciousness at the center of the circle of our being. The Valentinians claim that most Christians make the mistake of reading the scriptures only literally. They themselves, through their initiation into gnosis, learn to read his letters (as they read all the scriptures) on the symbolic level, as they say Paul intended. Only this pneumatic reading yields “the truth” instead of its mere outward “image.” The Valentinians agree with other Christians, for example, that Paul intends in Romans to contrast that salvation effected “by works,” “according to the law,” with the redemption that the elect receive “by grace.” But most Christians read the letter only in terms of the outward image—in terms of the contrast between the revelation to the Jews and the revelation extended through Christ to the Gentiles. They fail to see what Paul himself clearly states in Rom. 2:28f, that the terms (“Jew/Gentile”) are not to be taken literally: "He is not a Jew, who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision what is outward in the flesh; (but) he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, pneumatic, not literal." The Valentinians take this passage as Paul’s injunction to symbolic exegesis. While on the literal level he discusses the relation of Jews to Gentiles, simultaneously he intends his words to be read on a pneumatic (that is, symbolic) level. According to such exegesis, Paul’s discussion of Jews and Gentiles in Romans refers allegorically to different groups of Christians—to psychic and pneumatic Christians respectively. Practice of such exegesis enables the Valentinians to interpret Paul’s letters in an entirely new way. They consider the “literal” question of the relation between Jews and Gentiles to be already (c. 140-160) a dated issue, limited to a specific historical and cultural situation. What concerns them in the present is a different issue: how they themselves, as pneumatic Christians inititated into the secret mysteries of Christ, are related to the mass of “simple-minded,” “foolish” believers. They perceive that this problem (i.e., the relation of the “few” to the “many,” the “chosen” to the “called”) has characterized Christian communities from the first—from the time when the savior chose to initiate only a few into the secret meaning of his parables and deliberately let them remain obscure “to those outside” (Mk. 4:11). They conclude that it is this perennial problem (i.e., the relation of the “chosen few,” the elect, to the “many psychics” who are “called) that Paul intends to expound in his letter to the Romans. (Pagels, p. 6-7)

know everyone but never - basilides

flattery – with regards to Agrippa see