The word “euangelion” was adapted by the New Testament writers but not developed by
them. In the Greek and Roman world euagnelion was a technical term for a message
of military victory and also referred to joyful information concerning political or personal
success. When the good message, or euangelion, was heard and received the gods
were thanked and sacrifices were offered. Anytime the divine emperor sent out a decree,
made a speech or performed some deed, the information of this event was euangelion
or the “gospel” of the emperor or king
Euangelian was absolutely typically a military victory.
There was a war in Galilee-Peraea for whom sides were being chosen. Do you think it was underdiscussed as an influence on the Gospels?
Josephus goes into lengthy detail and associates John the Baptist with it. And Dr. McGrath confirmed that it’s the same time period as the missions:
CHAPTER 5. HEROD THE TETRARCH MAKES WAR WITH ARETAS, THE KING OF ARABIA, AND IS BEATEN BY HIM AS ALSO CONCERNING THE DEATH OF JOHN THE BAPTIST.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Herod Antipas had broken his marital alliance with his long-time Nabataean Arab wife Phaesalis (he’s not lineage Jewish himself either, but patrilineally Edomite, Nabataean maternally) for Herodias who was the last female lineage Hasmonean (but still mostly Edomite and a little Nabataean.)
So Antipas didnt give back her towns in Moab (under Nabataean aegis, and before that Midianite). The Nabataeans are such softies they send a general to do their conflict, and what happens is they win because Herod Phillip’s people *flip* to the Nabataean side, maybe somebody’s been banquering them and warning them to get on the side of the Kingdom of [high-altitude] Heaven?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert