Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 05-20-2013, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Maryhelena has insisted that I ask my questions here about her views on the relationship between Antigonus and Mark's Gospel Jesus, even though this thread hasn't had any action for two weeks, and has degenerated into a ditty-fest.

I'm sure I don't need to summarize Mh's position on Antigonus, we are all basically familiar with it. However, I must confess now to some perplexity. Some time ago I gained the impression that one of Mh's claimed "parallels" was that Antigonus was crucified. Apparently that was a wrong impression. (Antigonus was not an historical figure that I was that familiar with in any great detail.) And I didn't catch the anomaly when I read through her chart.

But if this is the case, then there is even less of a comparison to be made between Antigonus and Mark's Jesus than I thought she was claiming. So I will rephrase the questions I asked on the other thread.

What would the history of Antigonus himself have had to do with any interests Mark shows in his gospel? The simple fact that he was executed by the Romans (beheaded by Mark Antony at Herod's instigation) is hardly conclusive, let alone reveals why he would be of any interest to Mark.

Antigonus II Mattathias

Quote:

Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him." In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."

Those are the three sources on the execution of Antigonus. Where did Cassius Dio get his information that Antigonus was bound to a cross and scourged? He does not say. Is Cassius Dio statement overruled by Josephus and Plutarch? There is no reason to claim such an overruling. Marc Antony executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean Antigonus. Antigonus was killed by being beheaded. That does not rule out his being bound to a cross and scourged, belittled, humiliated and shamed prior to his execution. Yes, most probably the gospel JC crucifixion story was known at the time Cassius Dio wrote what he did. Did Cassius Dio connect the gospel JC story of a crucifixion with Roman involvement with the Roman execution of Antigonus? Whatever the source of Cassius Dio’s claim re the events surrounding the execution of Antigonus - that claim cannot simply be refuted by the other two writers not mentioning all the details that were involved. Particularly, in the case of the Josephan writer, a sensitivity to Jewish views on crucifixion, on suspending human bodies above the ground (Deut. 21:23) could well be in play. That the last King and High Priest of the Jews was “accursed” is hardly an event that would be willingly talked about.

As to someone being hung on a cross and later taken down alive - the Josephan writer has that story in 'Life". Surviving a crucifixion, surviving being suspended and humiliated and flogged on a stake, only to die later - or be executed via other means - is a possibility.

A little while back PhilosopherJay pointed me towards this book:

Quote:

Pagan Christs, by John M. Robertson published in 1911.

14. Possible Historical Elements.

The scourging and crucifixion of Antigonus, again, must have made a profound impression on the Jews; and it is a historic fact that the similar slaying of the last of the Incas was kept in memory for the Peruvians by a drama annually acted. It may be that the superscription "This is the King of the Jews," and even the detail of scourging, came proximately from the story of Antigonus; though on the other hand it is not unlikely that Antony should have executed Antigonus on the lines of the sacrifice of the mock-king.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch41.htm

Quote:

Thousands of Jews were executed by the Romans (and Herod) in the period preceding Mark.

Sure, and so was the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean, Antigonus.

Quote:

Was Antigonus to be viewed as a sacrifice for mankind, or even the Jews, and where can we see any hint of this in Mark's story, or that Mark could have considered him an archetype for his Jesus in that respect?

Earl, lets keep theology out of this - theology has no bearing on the history that the chart has outlined - history that is reflected in the gospel JC story. Mark has his JC crucified - all Mark needs, for his pseudo-history, is to fashion it upon a historical event. That gives Mark’s story a veneer of historicity.

Quote:

In fact, wasn't he a traitor to his country by trying to further his ambitions of power by aligning himself with invading Parthians?

Politics, Earl, is a dirty business at the best of times. My chart is referencing history that has reflections on the gospel JC figure - not politics.

Quote:

Did Antigonus preach Cynic-style wisdom teachings? Did he advocate apocalyptic expectations as Mark's Jesus does? Did Antigonus know anything about the Danielic Son of Man or share in any aspect of such a figure, one who is an essential part of Mark's Jesus character?

Earl, the Markan writer wrote pseudo-history for his JC figure. What words were put into the mouth of the gospel JC were words put there by the Markan writer. The gospel JC figure is not a photo-copy of Antigonus. The history of Antigonus re his crucifixion and execution by Rome is central to the crucifixion story of the gospel JC figure. There is more to the composite figure of the gospel JC than that figure reflecting the Roman execution of Antigonus.

Quote:

Did Antigonus rise from the dead, and if not, why would he be regarded as the archetype of a Savior figure?

This is nonsense, Earl, nobody has ever risen from the dead.

Quote:

How on earth could Mark have had Antigonus in mind when fashioning his Jesus when they have nothing of any relevance in common?

Both figures, the historical last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean, Antigonus, and the gospel pseudo-historical figure of JC - were executed by Rome. The Markan writer clearly stating that the notice over the crucified gospel JC reads: King of the Jews.

Quote:

All the alleged parallels in the world, Mh, are of no value if questions like these (and I'm sure I could think of others) cannot be answered in your favor. Without such answers, the alleged connection makes no sense. But perhaps you feel you do have some positive answers to my questions. Let's put them under the spotlight, since you have a very persistent presence on FRDB, not only championing your "terra-firma history" position and Antigonus himself as the embodiment of it, but your constant belittling of my own theories without actually engaging with my arguments.

Earl Doherty

What my chart has done is put Hasmonean/Herodian history on one side and the gospel JC story on the other side. From my OP:

[T2]Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative.

Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart (above) has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used. This chart is the historical backdrop that allows the gospel literary, mythological JC, a veneer of historicity, an ability to reflect historical events. It is this reflection, this veneer of historicity, that has allowed the assumption that the gospel JC figure is a historical figure. That assumption, when considered in the light of history, the Hasmonean and Herodian coins, and that history’s narrative as set down by Josephus and Philo, is unfounded.

While the chart has set down the historical backdrop in which to view the gospel JC figure, the chart is not the whole JC story. That story goes on to include OT midrash and mythological elements. However, without the historical backdrop, the gospel JC story would have had no legs upon which to run; no legs to allow it to be viewed as a plausible historical account.

Crucified itinerate carpenters might well present historical possibilities and assumptions. However, belief in historical possibilities is something down the line, not something immediate. The immediate reality does not allow for possibilities - it allows only for what reality is. And that is historical reality not assumptions or possibilities.

The gospel JC story is not history; it is a mythologizing of history; an interpretation of history; salvation history. History viewed through a Jewish philosophical and a prophetic lens.
[/T2]

Earl Doherty, from his website:

Quote:

"I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

Since, Earl, you have acknowledged that "elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus", you have no basis upon which to reject outright the historical figures that I have referenced in my chart.

By all means provide the names of other historical figures - evidence being required for any figures you deem to be historical and relevant to the creation of the JC figure. Until you can do that Earl, all your shouting down of my chart says more about your own struggle to provide rational arguments for your own theory of a fleshly sub-lunar. Attempting to discredit my chart as a means of diverting attention away from your own errors; errors that aa and Shesh are continually pointing out to you, is foolhardy. Earl, you have had years to show some interest in my ideas - and all I have got from you is 'gobbledygook'. That you now want to engage with my chart is not out of genuine interest - it's an attempt to divert attention away from your own errors. Your theory is on the ropes, it is sinking fast - and not too soon either.

Maryhelena, this will not do. Not only have you not engaged with my questions, which are entirely pertinent to the question of why Mark would model his Jesus on Antigonus when they have virtually nothing in common beyond execution by Rome, you throw up the most pathetic red herring of them all, which Shesh has indulged in as well: I'm questioning your case in order to divert attention from the problems of my own! Both you and he ought to be ashamed to indulge in that kind of juvenile behavior. It is not mature, it is not scholarly.

And you continue to twist my admission that any figure in any story has to have elements modelled on other actual human beings. I try to use analogies such as James Bond was modelled on spies in general but not on one spy in particular, but it sails right over your head. Mark's Jesus gets crucified by Rome because that's what Rome did to rebels and those who stirred up the people. It says zero about whether Mark modelled himself on a particular crucified figure.

I do not "reject outright." I point out that there is no basis for your insistence on such a modelling. And I note you try to hang on to Dio Cassius' account of Antigonus as crucified and discredit earlier accounts of him being beheaded (even Josephus!), simply to retain even that small comparison between Jesus and Antigonus, without which you would have virtually nothing, if not indeed nothing at all.

And your "What words were put into the mouth of the gospel JC were words put there by the Markan writer" is essentially wrong. With the exception of the words relating to the dying and rising dimension which he has attached to Jesus, Mark's words for Jesus' ministry come from the Q tradition that preceded him. That in itself demonstrates what Mark was "modelling" his Jesus on, the preaching tradition that he was a part of. Where would Mark have gotten his "words" about the coming kingdom prophecies, the Son of Man, the controversy with the Jewish establishment, etc. He just made them up out of thin air? Based on nothing that preceded him?

And to suggest that Josephus could have simply "made up" all or even some of the detailed historical material he supplies in his monumental works is one of the most risible things you've put forward yet.

A long-dead king Antigonus had nothing whatever in common with that kingdom preaching ethos or tradition. To introduce him alongside the Q preachers when he fulfilled nothing of what the Markan Jesus is all about makes no sense whatsoever. And by dismissing my questions, you have admitted that Antigonus did in fact have nothing to do with any of Mark's interests in his Jesus figure.

He was "king of the Jews" according to the plaque on the cross? Is Mark presenting his Jesus as someone who would be king of the Jews in any sense that Antigonus was? Mark has virtually disassociated himself from the Jews. He is a gentile writer with gentile interests. How is his Jesus going to be king of the Jews? The epithet on the cross is presented as a taunt, a belittling by Pilate. Why would Mark create such a thing if he was associating this "kingship" with Antigonus? Was he belittling Antigonus? If so, that hardly fits in with your alleged intended association between the two figures.

As for J. M. Robertson, I'm glad for your sake that someone floated the same idea, even if it was a century ago. I have a copy of Pagan Christs, but the book has no index. It would have been nice if you'd quoted page number or even chapter number for people to look up to see the context. In any case, Robertson seems to offer it only as a possibility. And I would ask him the same questions I've asked you. Hopefully, he would answer them a little more professionally than you've done.

Anyway, this latest round of exchanges with you has not produced any movement on my part in your direction. Let's leave it at that.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena · 05-20-2013, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Maryhelena has insisted that I ask my questions here about her views on the relationship between Antigonus and Mark's Gospel Jesus, even though this thread hasn't had any action for two weeks, and has degenerated into a ditty-fest.

I'm sure I don't need to summarize Mh's position on Antigonus, we are all basically familiar with it. However, I must confess now to some perplexity. Some time ago I gained the impression that one of Mh's claimed "parallels" was that Antigonus was crucified. Apparently that was a wrong impression. (Antigonus was not an historical figure that I was that familiar with in any great detail.) And I didn't catch the anomaly when I read through her chart.

But if this is the case, then there is even less of a comparison to be made between Antigonus and Mark's Jesus than I thought she was claiming. So I will rephrase the questions I asked on the other thread.

What would the history of Antigonus himself have had to do with any interests Mark shows in his gospel? The simple fact that he was executed by the Romans (beheaded by Mark Antony at Herod's instigation) is hardly conclusive, let alone reveals why he would be of any interest to Mark.

Antigonus II Mattathias

Quote:

Josephus states that Marc Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him." In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."

Those are the three sources on the execution of Antigonus. Where did Cassius Dio get his information that Antigonus was bound to a cross and scourged? He does not say. Is Cassius Dio statement overruled by Josephus and Plutarch? There is no reason to claim such an overruling. Marc Antony executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean Antigonus. Antigonus was killed by being beheaded. That does not rule out his being bound to a cross and scourged, belittled, humiliated and shamed prior to his execution. Yes, most probably the gospel JC crucifixion story was known at the time Cassius Dio wrote what he did. Did Cassius Dio connect the gospel JC story of a crucifixion with Roman involvement with the Roman execution of Antigonus? Whatever the source of Cassius Dio’s claim re the events surrounding the execution of Antigonus - that claim cannot simply be refuted by the other two writers not mentioning all the details that were involved. Particularly, in the case of the Josephan writer, a sensitivity to Jewish views on crucifixion, on suspending human bodies above the ground (Deut. 21:23) could well be in play. That the last King and High Priest of the Jews was “accursed” is hardly an event that would be willingly talked about.

As to someone being hung on a cross and later taken down alive - the Josephan writer has that story in 'Life". Surviving a crucifixion, surviving being suspended and humiliated and flogged on a stake, only to die later - or be executed via other means - is a possibility.

A little while back PhilosopherJay pointed me towards this book:

Quote:

Pagan Christs, by John M. Robertson published in 1911.

14. Possible Historical Elements.

The scourging and crucifixion of Antigonus, again, must have made a profound impression on the Jews; and it is a historic fact that the similar slaying of the last of the Incas was kept in memory for the Peruvians by a drama annually acted. It may be that the superscription "This is the King of the Jews," and even the detail of scourging, came proximately from the story of Antigonus; though on the other hand it is not unlikely that Antony should have executed Antigonus on the lines of the sacrifice of the mock-king.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch41.htm

Quote:

Thousands of Jews were executed by the Romans (and Herod) in the period preceding Mark.

Sure, and so was the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean, Antigonus.

Quote:

Was Antigonus to be viewed as a sacrifice for mankind, or even the Jews, and where can we see any hint of this in Mark's story, or that Mark could have considered him an archetype for his Jesus in that respect?

Earl, lets keep theology out of this - theology has no bearing on the history that the chart has outlined - history that is reflected in the gospel JC story. Mark has his JC crucified - all Mark needs, for his pseudo-history, is to fashion it upon a historical event. That gives Mark’s story a veneer of historicity.

Quote:

In fact, wasn't he a traitor to his country by trying to further his ambitions of power by aligning himself with invading Parthians?

Politics, Earl, is a dirty business at the best of times. My chart is referencing history that has reflections on the gospel JC figure - not politics.

Quote:

Did Antigonus preach Cynic-style wisdom teachings? Did he advocate apocalyptic expectations as Mark's Jesus does? Did Antigonus know anything about the Danielic Son of Man or share in any aspect of such a figure, one who is an essential part of Mark's Jesus character?

Earl, the Markan writer wrote pseudo-history for his JC figure. What words were put into the mouth of the gospel JC were words put there by the Markan writer. The gospel JC figure is not a photo-copy of Antigonus. The history of Antigonus re his crucifixion and execution by Rome is central to the crucifixion story of the gospel JC figure. There is more to the composite figure of the gospel JC than that figure reflecting the Roman execution of Antigonus.

Quote:

Did Antigonus rise from the dead, and if not, why would he be regarded as the archetype of a Savior figure?

This is nonsense, Earl, nobody has ever risen from the dead.

Quote:

How on earth could Mark have had Antigonus in mind when fashioning his Jesus when they have nothing of any relevance in common?

Both figures, the historical last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean, Antigonus, and the gospel pseudo-historical figure of JC - were executed by Rome. The Markan writer clearly stating that the notice over the crucified gospel JC reads: King of the Jews.

Quote:

All the alleged parallels in the world, Mh, are of no value if questions like these (and I'm sure I could think of others) cannot be answered in your favor. Without such answers, the alleged connection makes no sense. But perhaps you feel you do have some positive answers to my questions. Let's put them under the spotlight, since you have a very persistent presence on FRDB, not only championing your "terra-firma history" position and Antigonus himself as the embodiment of it, but your constant belittling of my own theories without actually engaging with my arguments.

Earl Doherty

What my chart has done is put Hasmonean/Herodian history on one side and the gospel JC story on the other side. From my OP:

[T2]Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative.

Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart (above) has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used. This chart is the historical backdrop that allows the gospel literary, mythological JC, a veneer of historicity, an ability to reflect historical events. It is this reflection, this veneer of historicity, that has allowed the assumption that the gospel JC figure is a historical figure. That assumption, when considered in the light of history, the Hasmonean and Herodian coins, and that history’s narrative as set down by Josephus and Philo, is unfounded.

While the chart has set down the historical backdrop in which to view the gospel JC figure, the chart is not the whole JC story. That story goes on to include OT midrash and mythological elements. However, without the historical backdrop, the gospel JC story would have had no legs upon which to run; no legs to allow it to be viewed as a plausible historical account.

Crucified itinerate carpenters might well present historical possibilities and assumptions. However, belief in historical possibilities is something down the line, not something immediate. The immediate reality does not allow for possibilities - it allows only for what reality is. And that is historical reality not assumptions or possibilities.

The gospel JC story is not history; it is a mythologizing of history; an interpretation of history; salvation history. History viewed through a Jewish philosophical and a prophetic lens.
[/T2]

Earl Doherty, from his website:

Quote:

"I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

Since, Earl, you have acknowledged that "elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus", you have no basis upon which to reject outright the historical figures that I have referenced in my chart.

By all means provide the names of other historical figures - evidence being required for any figures you deem to be historical and relevant to the creation of the JC figure. Until you can do that Earl, all your shouting down of my chart says more about your own struggle to provide rational arguments for your own theory of a fleshly sub-lunar. Attempting to discredit my chart as a means of diverting attention away from your own errors; errors that aa and Shesh are continually pointing out to you, is foolhardy. Earl, you have had years to show some interest in my ideas - and all I have got from you is 'gobbledygook'. That you now want to engage with my chart is not out of genuine interest - it's an attempt to divert attention away from your own errors. Your theory is on the ropes, it is sinking fast - and not too soon either.

Maryhelena, this will not do. Not only have you not engaged with my questions, which are entirely pertinent to the question of why Mark would model his Jesus on Antigonus when they have virtually nothing in common beyond execution by Rome, you throw up the most pathetic red herring of them all, which Shesh has indulged in as well: I'm questioning your case in order to divert attention from the problems of my own! Both you and he ought to be ashamed to indulge in that kind of juvenile behavior. It is not mature, it is not scholarly.

“this will not do’. Really?. Earl, what more can be expected from someone holding to a theory of a fleshly sub-lunar crucifixion of JC. Nothing else will ever do, will it Earl? It’s either that fleshly sub-lunar JC crucifixion or nothing...And yet, from this closed off world theory - you deem to strike at the heart of those who propose a JC (of whatever gospel variant) who walked the sands of Palestine. The audacity of such an attempt never fails to astound me.

As to 'scholarly'. My goodness. Earl, I have watched your posting on forums for about 10 or so years now - and scholarly is the last word I would use regarding any of your posting...

Quote:

And you continue to twist my admission that any figure in any story has to have elements modelled on other actual human beings. I try to use analogies such as James Bond was modelled on spies in general but not on one spy in particular, but it sails right over your head. Mark's Jesus gets crucified by Rome because that's what Rome did to rebels and those who stirred up the people. It says zero about whether Mark modelled himself on a particular crucified figure.

Twisting your ‘admission’? Earl, you said it, it’s there in black and white. What I have tried to do, over the years, is get you to get real about what you said. As to James Bond - that figure was based on many people. People who can be named. I have asked you to do the same with the historical figures, you said, have “fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus,”. You continually fail to do so. You continue to evade the issue - while doing everything you can to discredit one of the historical figures that I am proposing “fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus’.

Quote:

James Bond

Inspiration

Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".[5] Among those types were his brother, Peter, who had been involved in behind the lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war.[6] Aside from Fleming's brother, a number of others also provided some aspects of Bond's make up, including Conrad O'Brien-ffrench, Patrick Dalzel-Job and Bill "Biffy" Dunderdale.[5]

Tastes

Fleming also endowed Bond with many of his own traits, including sharing the same golf handicap, the taste for scrambled eggs and using the same brand of toiletries.[7] Bond's tastes are also often taken from Fleming's own as was his behaviour,[8] with Bond's love of golf and gambling mirroring Fleming's own. Fleming used his experiences of his espionage career and all other aspects of his life as inspiration when writing, including using names of school friends, acquaintances, relatives and lovers throughout his books.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bond

Quote:

I do not "reject outright." I point out that there is no basis for your insistence on such a modelling. And I note you try to hang on to Dio Cassius' account of Antigonus as crucified and discredit earlier accounts of him being beheaded (even Josephus!), simply to retain even that small comparison between Jesus and Antigonus, without which you would have virtually nothing, if not indeed nothing at all.

Please re-read what I wrote above regarding the death of Antigonus. Your comment clearly indicates that the point I made above has not been considered.

Quote:

And your "What words were put into the mouth of the gospel JC were words put there by the Markan writer" is essentially wrong. With the exception of the words relating to the dying and rising dimension which he has attached to Jesus, Mark's words for Jesus' ministry come from the Q tradition that preceded him. That in itself demonstrates what Mark was "modelling" his Jesus on, the preaching tradition that he was a part of. Where would Mark have gotten his "words" about the coming kingdom prophecies, the Son of Man, the controversy with the Jewish establishment, etc. He just made them up out of thin air? Based on nothing that preceded him?

Oh, dear - back to Q - not going there with you Earl. Q is debatable, it’s ‘existence’ is questioned by some scholars. Richard Carrier on Q and Mark Goodacre:

Quote:

Mark Goodacre is one of my favorite scholars in the field. He is one of the world’s leading experts on the intertextuality of the Gospels, and is most famous for being, like me, an ardent advocate of a “fringe” theory: that there was no Q source behind what the Gospels of Luke and Matthew added to Mark, that Luke just copied and redacted Matthew (and Mark).

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2839

Quote:

And to suggest that Josephus could have simply "made up" all or even some of the detailed historical material he supplies in his monumental works is one of the most risible things you've put forward yet.

Oh, dear - and how does that work for the Josephan TF. Oh yes, back to that old standby - interpolation......

Quote:

A long-dead king Antigonus had nothing whatever in common with that kingdom preaching ethos or tradition. To introduce him alongside the Q preachers when he fulfilled nothing of what the Markan Jesus is all about makes no sense whatsoever. And by dismissing my questions, you have admitted that Antigonus did in fact have nothing to do with any of Mark's interests in his Jesus figure.

The “kingdom preaching ethos or tradition’ - not going back to Q with you Earl. Don’t put words in my mouth, Earl. I have admitted no such thing as you are inferring.

Quote:

He was "king of the Jews" according to the plaque on the cross? Is Mark presenting his Jesus as someone who would be king of the Jews in any sense that Antigonus was? Mark has virtually disassociated himself from the Jews. He is a gentile writer with gentile interests. How is his Jesus going to be king of the Jews? The epithet on the cross is presented as a taunt, a belittling by Pilate. Why would Mark create such a thing if he was associating this "kingship" with Antigonus? Was he belittling Antigonus? If so, that hardly fits in with your alleged intended association between the two figures.

Interpretation and speculation as to what the author of gMark was doing with the King of the Jews sign above the cross of the gospel JC. Another person, Earl, can make other interpretations and speculations - each to his own in that regard. Don’t set yourself up as the judge of such things.

Quote:

As for J. M. Robertson, I'm glad for your sake that someone floated the same idea, even if it was a century ago. I have a copy of Pagan Christs, but the book has no index. It would have been nice if you'd quoted page number or even chapter number for people to look up to see the context. In any case, Robertson seems to offer it only as a possibility. And I would ask him the same questions I've asked you. Hopefully, he would answer them a little more professionally than you've done.

There is a link to the index on the page my link leads to.
Yes, Earl, the idea that the Roman execution of Antigonus is the ‘model’ for the gospel crucifixion story of JC has been floated - and will continue to be floated. I suggest that you keep it in mind.

Quote:

Anyway, this latest round of exchanges with you has not produced any movement on my part in your direction. Let's leave it at that.

Earl Doherty

What you posted above indicates one thing only. A reluctance to engage with the historical realities, the realities of the Hasmonean/Herodian history, that are the backbone of the gospel JC story. That reluctance, in view of your own other worldly, fleshly sub-lunar, imaginative speculation, was to be expected. Earl, you really do need to come back down to earth - to put your feet on terra-firma and take on board the realities of Hasmonean/Herodian history and how these historical realities have influenced the gospel story and it's composite, literary, figure of JC.

If you can't do that, if you continue to fight against these historical realities as having a relevance for the gospel JC story - then your legacy in the ahistoricist/mythicist environment will be badly tarnished. A sad reflection of the dangers of dogmatic fundamentalism within the ahistoricist/mythicist camp.

EarlDoherty · 05-21-2013, 09:43 AM

Mh, I won't bother to quote any of your previous posting, the readers can look back on it for themselves. I searched in vain for any actual counter-argument to anything I said previously, and failed to find anything. All I can see is more scorn and personal attack on me, ridicule of my own ideas as though that automatically gives credence to your own, and plenty of bluster. Where's the beef?

As for the analogy about James Bond, you are simply proving my point. James Bond was based on a class of historical predecessor, not on any individual. It is hardly relevant that all those individuals could theoretically be named, as you continually demand that I do in regard to my statement about historical precedents to the Jesus figure. (You want me to name everyone executed by the Romans in the preceding two centuries?) That he was based on a class is totally natural and inevitable, otherwise he would not make sense to the reader. Do you think that this supports in any way your claim that the Markan Jesus was based on one individual, Antigonus? It simply does not logically follow.

Besides, the analogy to what you are claiming would be if you claimed James Bond was based on some figure who wasn't even a spy! I have shown that the figure of Antigonus conforms in no way to the figure Mark creates in his gospel, not even, as it turns out, the element of crucifixion, since we can hardly let Dio Cassius in the 3rd century override Josephus in the first, coming from Palestine himself, and Josephus has Antigonus beheaded. And my series of questions was designed to demonstrate that Antigonus did not fit any of the important features which Mark presents in his Jesus. All of those questions you blithely dismissed as irrelevant, which is complete nonsense.

You can certainly give the last word on your own thread, as you call it, but if it is no more substantive than the empty posturing and personal attacks on me that you've restricted yourself to thus far, it won't accomplish anything.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena · 05-21-2013, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Mh, I won't bother to quote any of your previous posting, the readers can look back on it for themselves. I searched in vain for any actual counter-argument to anything I said previously, and failed to find anything. All I can see is more scorn and personal attack on me, ridicule of my own ideas as though that automatically gives credence to your own, and plenty of bluster. Where's the beef?

As for the analogy about James Bond, you are simply proving my point. James Bond was based on a class of historical predecessor, not on any individual. It is hardly relevant that all those individuals could theoretically be named, as you continually demand that I do in regard to my statement about historical precedents to the Jesus figure. (You want me to name everyone executed by the Romans in the preceding two centuries?) That he was based on a class is totally natural and inevitable, otherwise he would not make sense to the reader. Do you think that this supports in any way your claim that the Markan Jesus was based on one individual, Antigonus? It simply does not logically follow.

You are talking nonsense, Earl. Did you ever read my chart? If you had done so you would not be making statements such as:

"Do you think that this supports in any way your claim that the Markan Jesus was based on one individual, Antigonus? "

I suggest Earl, that you withdraw this statement as it does not reflect anything that I have posted on this thread. I have never not made such a claim as you are stating that I have done. Play fair, Earl. This method of attacking your opponents does you no credit.

Quote:

Besides, the analogy to what you are claiming would be if you claimed James Bond was based on some figure who wasn't even a spy! I have shown that the figure of Antigonus conforms in no way to the figure Mark creates in his gospel, not even, as it turns out, the element of crucifixion, since we can hardly let Dio Cassius in the 3rd century override Josephus in the first, coming from Palestine himself, and Josephus has Antigonus beheaded. And my series of questions was designed to demonstrate that Antigonus did not fit any of the features which Mark presents in his Jesus. All of those questions you blithely dismissed as irrelevant, which is complete nonsense.

The James Bond wikipedia names names, Earl. Something you repeatedly fail to do. Something you seek to evade. Antigonus was executed by Rome. That is history Earl. The gospel story has JC crucified via Roman involvement. The whole climax, the whole thrust, of that gospel JC story involves a crucifixion; it centers on a Jewish messiah figure executed by Rome. No fleshly sub-lunar crucifixion of JC theory can, in any way whatsoever, provide any argument that can over-rule, cancel out, negate, the terra-firma context of that gospel JC crucifixion story.

Quote:

You can certainly give the last word on your own thread, as you call it, but if it is no more substantive than the empty posturing and personal attacks on me that you've restricted yourself to thus far, it won't accomplish anything.

Earl Doherty

Earl, running to charges of personal attacks does you no favors. Your own posts demonstrate your own ability to denigrate your opponents on this forum. You have just told a member of this forum: "You are a disgrace to any DB.".

As to your fleshly sub-lunar JC crucifixion speculation - that is fair game - it's ripe for the picking - and will be continually picked over until such time this illogical and speculative theory hits the dust.

EarlDoherty · 05-21-2013, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh

You are talking nonsense, Earl. Did you ever read my chart? If you had done so you would not be making statements such as:

"Do you think that this supports in any way your claim that the Markan Jesus was based on one individual, Antigonus? "

I suggest Earl, that you withdraw this statement as it does not reflect anything that I have posted on this thread. I have never not made such a claim as you are stating that I have done. Play fair, Earl. This method of attacking your opponents does you no credit.

So now you are saying that the Markan Jesus was NOT based primarily on Antigonus? Why, because I have shown that this is an unsupportable proposition? All I have ever heard you say is Antigonus, Antigonus, Antigonus. Talk about moving the goalposts!

Quote:

The James Bond wikipedia names names, Earl. Something you repeatedly fail to do.

That is YOUR demand, not my requirement. I don’t say that Mark’s Jesus was based on any specific nameable individual or individuals. You make an irrelevant demand of me, then when I don’t fill that demand you declare this a deadly omission on my part. That’s called a straw man, Mh. Are you familiar with that fallacy?

As for naming names, I’ve done that in my “ground zero” theory of the Pauline Christ. He is based on the expected “Messiah” of Jewish tradition, one turned into a heavenly Son; and he is based on Hellenistic savior gods who CAN be named: Osiris, Attis, Adonis and the like. And if you want a ‘name’ based in my other “ground zero” he is based on the imagined founder developed in the course of the evolution of the Q sect, though we cannot be sure of what that name was, or whether it was initially Jesus. But you won’t find any Antigonus in that list.

Quote:

Antigonus was executed by Rome. That is history Earl. The gospel story has JC crucified via Roman involvement. The whole climax, the whole thrust, of that gospel JC story involves a crucifixion; it centers on a Jewish messiah figure executed by Rome.

Thousands of people were executed by Rome, even in Palestine. That is history, Mh. But you have failed to demonstrate that one particular execution had any input into Mark’s story. You have failed to demonstrate that Mark’s crucifixion dimension could not have been allegory for the crucifixion of the cultic Christ of Paul, which took place in the heavens. I have supplied far more evidence and argument from the thinking and religion of the times that my option makes more sense and has greater support than yours.

Actually, the whole thrust of Mark’s story is that “the Son of God,” the “Messiah”, the “Son of Man” (a heavenly figure derived from Daniel) was executed. What would be the precedent for this in the history of Antigonus? Was he the Son of God? Was he the Messiah, was he the Son of Man? Did he teach anything, let alone anything resembling what Mark’s Jesus did? Did he speak in parables? Did he have power over the demons and cure people of illnesses? Did Mark regard him as a "ransom for many"? Did he rise from the dead, as Mark portrays it? Was he even crucified, as Josephus would contradict? So on what basis would Mark think to be modeling his Jesus on someone who bears absolutely no resemblance to him other than execution by Rome? What would be the point, and how on earth would Mark’s readers recognize such an alleged parallel?

You have provided zero answers to such question, Mh, and all the evasion and red herring scorn (devoid of counter-argument) toward my own theories does not obscure that.

And if I call <edit>a disgrace to this DB, it is because of the unprofessional antics he indulges in which I have exposed in spades. You seem not that far behind.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena · 05-21-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by mh

You are talking nonsense, Earl. Did you ever read my chart? If you had done so you would not be making statements such as:

"Do you think that this supports in any way your claim that the Markan Jesus was based on one individual, Antigonus? "

I suggest Earl, that you withdraw this statement as it does not reflect anything that I have posted on this thread. I have never not made such a claim as you are stating that I have done. Play fair, Earl. This method of attacking your opponents does you no credit.

So now you are saying that the Markan Jesus was NOT based primarily on Antigonus? Why, because I have shown that this is an unsupportable proposition? All I have ever heard you say is Antigonus, Antigonus, Antigonus. Talk about moving the goalposts!

I notice, Earl, that you have failed to retract your earlier statement. Please do so. Moving goalposts! For heavens sake Earl, read the OP. Making these accusations against me if disgraceful.

Quote:

The James Bond wikipedia names names, Earl. Something you repeatedly fail to do.

That is YOUR demand, not my requirement. I don’t say that Mark’s Jesus was based on any specific nameable individual or individuals. You make an irrelevant demand of me, then when I don’t fill that demand you declare this a deadly omission on my part. That’s called a straw man, Mh. Are you familiar with that fallacy?

Your statement, Earl:

Quote:

"I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

I am holding you to that statement. Please provide the names, and the historical evidence for such names, that "fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus,".

Quote:

As for naming names, I’ve done that in my “ground zero” theory of the Pauline Christ. He is based on the expected “Messiah” of Jewish tradition, one turned into a heavenly Son; and he is based on Hellenistic savior gods who CAN be named: Osiris, Attis, Adonis and the like. And if you want a ‘name’ based in my other “ground zero” he is based on the imagined founder developed in the course of the evolution of the Q sect, though we cannot be sure of what that name was, or whether it was initially Jesus. But you won’t find any Antigonus in that list.

Come on, Earl. This is laughable. I am dealing with Hasmonean/Herodian history. You have stated that historical figures "fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus,". Please name these figures. I don't want your speculation re a fleshly sub-lunar crucifixion of JC - and all your padding that goes with it. Get out of your bubble of speculation Earl. Deal with reality for a change. Deal with historical reality. For heavens sake, "imaginary" founders - I don't play that game. It's useless, it's child's play. Invisible friends and all that....

Quote:

Antigonus was executed by Rome. That is history Earl. The gospel story has JC crucified via Roman involvement. The whole climax, the whole thrust, of that gospel JC story involves a crucifixion; it centers on a Jewish messiah figure executed by Rome.

Thousands of people were executed by Rome, even in Palestine. That is history, Mh. But you have failed to demonstrate that one particular execution had any input into Mark’s story. You have failed to demonstrate that Mark’s crucifixion dimension could not have been allegory for the crucifixion of the cultic Christ of Paul, which took place in the heavens. I have supplied far more evidence and argument from the thinking and religion of the times that my option makes more sense and has greater support than yours.

Earl, please get this in your head when discussing my OP. I've no interest in your fleshly sub-lunar crucifixion of JC. This thread is dealing with history. Hasmonean/Herodian history. Speculation about fleshly sub-lunar crucifixion of JC is of no relevance to this thread. Earl, do you sometimes forget what you previous wrote? Consider this:

Quote:

Where did the crucified Jesus come from, if not from Q which had no crucifixion story? Simple. He came from scripture.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....72#post7358972

Quote:

Even the death and rising dimension of the Gospel Jesus, which Mark added to the Q Jesus, cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ, though I suspect that the latter type of movement had some influence.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....69#post7358669

The gospel JC crucifixion story "cannot be firmly shown to be based on the Pauline Christ". "Where did the crucified Jesus come from, if not from Q which had no crucifixion story? Simple. He came from scripture."

Consequently, Earl, please keep your Pauline speculation away from this thread. The gospel JC crucifixion story has no need for any input from the Pauline epistles. The above are your own statements.

Quote:

Actually, the whole thrust of Mark’s story is that “the Son of God,” the “Messiah”, the “Son of Man” (a heavenly figure derived from Daniel) was executed. What would be the precedent for this in the history of Antigonus? Was he the Son of God? Was he the Messiah, was he the Son of Man? Did he teach anything, let alone anything resembling what Mark’s Jesus did? Did he speak in parables? Did he have power over the demons and cure people of illnesses? Did Mark regard him as a "ransom for many"? Did he rise from the dead, as Mark portrays it? Was he even crucified, as Josephus would contradict? So on what basis would Mark think to be modeling his Jesus on someone who bears absolutely no resemblance to him other than execution by Rome? What would be the point, and how on earth would Mark’s readers recognize such a point?

Earl, try and relate to the OP. It is dealing with history. It is dealing with Hasmonean/Heodian history. Please take your theological musing elsewhere.

Quote:

You have provided zero answers to such question, Mh, and all the evasion and red herring scorn toward my own theories does not obscure that.

Earl, if you cannot discuss the OP without bringing your own fleshly sub-lunar crucifixion of JC theory into this thread - it suggests that you are allowing this speculative theory to dominate any exchange with you.

Quote:

And if I call <edit> a disgrace to this DB, it is because of the unprofessional antics he indulges which I have exposed in spades. You seem not that far behind.

Earl Doherty

Earl, if you find a post offensive for one reason or another - the correct procedure is to report it.Taking it upon yourself to censure another forum member is uncalled for and disrespectful to that forum member - and everyone else on this forum.

You know something, Earl - it is truly frightening the degree to which a theory can hold one in it's grasp.

"The worst of all despotisms is the heartless tyranny of ideas."

Paul Johnson: Intellectuals (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Sheshbazzar · 05-21-2013, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earl Doherty

And if I call <edit> a disgrace to this DB, ....

This is totally unacceptable Earl, and even more so in an exchange with someone other than myself.

It is a violation of Forum rules to so mock or pervert other Forum member names.

Quote:

it is because of the unprofessional antics he indulges in

And what kind of antic is this Earl?

.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2013, 09:43 AM	#203
EarlDoherty Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Ontario, Canada Posts: 1,435	Mh, I won't bother to quote any of your previous posting, the readers can look back on it for themselves. I searched in vain for any actual counter-argument to anything I said previously, and failed to find anything. All I can see is more scorn and personal attack on me, ridicule of my own ideas as though that automatically gives credence to your own, and plenty of bluster. Where's the beef? As for the analogy about James Bond, you are simply proving my point. James Bond was based on a class of historical predecessor, not on any individual. It is hardly relevant that all those individuals could theoretically be named, as you continually demand that I do in regard to my statement about historical precedents to the Jesus figure. (You want me to name everyone executed by the Romans in the preceding two centuries?) That he was based on a class is totally natural and inevitable, otherwise he would not make sense to the reader. Do you think that this supports in any way your claim that the Markan Jesus was based on one individual, Antigonus? It simply does not logically follow. Besides, the analogy to what you are claiming would be if you claimed James Bond was based on some figure who wasn't even a spy! I have shown that the figure of Antigonus conforms in no way to the figure Mark creates in his gospel, not even, as it turns out, the element of crucifixion, since we can hardly let Dio Cassius in the 3rd century override Josephus in the first, coming from Palestine himself, and Josephus has Antigonus beheaded. And my series of questions was designed to demonstrate that Antigonus did not fit any of the important features which Mark presents in his Jesus. All of those questions you blithely dismissed as irrelevant, which is complete nonsense. You can certainly give the last word on your own thread, as you call it, but if it is no more substantive than the empty posturing and personal attacks on me that you've restricted yourself to thus far, it won't accomplish anything. Earl Doherty

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.