Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 04-26-2013, 03:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

///// .....[trimmed].....////

p.27

"New discoveries are not likely to disprove the obvious conclusion that
neither II Maccabees, nor Philo, nor Josephus were ever reabsorbed into
the Jewish tradition. They remained operative only in Christian learning.

Thanks, Pete

I do think that without Philo and Josephus - that gospel story would not have had legs to run.....

I totally agree, and therefore wonder precisely how much of these authors' texts were "Christianised" by the Christian operators who preserved the texts. Eusebius certainly thought that Josephus witnessed the appearance of Christ in the "TF", and likelwise certainly thought that Philo witnessed the earliest Christian monastic cult around Alexandria with the description of the "therapeutae" in "Vita Contemplativa".

We now know that Eusebius was indulging in common forgery mistaken on both counts.

Do you happen to know whether Eusebius mentions the Hasmonean/Jewish history at all, and if so, what he reports of it?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

No, don't know re Eusebius and Hasmonean/Jewish history....

Actually, by the time of Eusebius, to my thinking anyway, the gospel JC story was up and running. Whatever, if any, changes were made to that story - it's central premise, a Jewish messiah figure was executed by Rome - remains. That is the premise of the gospel JC story that reflects actual Hasmonean/Jewish history.

Quote:

At the suggestion of Herod, who was afraid to allow Antigonus to be taken to Rome in the triumphal train of Mark Antony, lest he should there successfully plead for his rights, this last king of the Hasmonean house was taken to Antioch, and there fell beneath the executioner's ax. It was the first time that the Romans had ever thus put a king to death. The last king of pure Jewish blood fell before the intrigues of the first king of Judea not entirely of Jewish birth.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...nus-mattathias

aa5874 · 04-26-2013, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I totally agree, and therefore wonder precisely how much of these authors' texts were "Christianised" by the Christian operators who preserved the texts. Eusebius certainly thought that Josephus witnessed the appearance of Christ in the "TF", and likelwise certainly thought that Philo witnessed the earliest Christian monastic cult around Alexandria with the description of the "therapeutae" in "Vita Contemplativa".

We now know that Eusebius was indulging in common forgery mistaken on both counts....

Please, there is no credible corroborative evidence the writings of Josephus were forged in the 4th century or before c 360 CE.

Please refer to "Against the Galileans".

Julian the Emperor did not appear to know that Josephus mentioned Jesus or Paul.

Julian challenged his readers to pronounce that he was a Liar if they could have produce well known writers of antiquity who mentioned Jesus or Paul.

The writings attribute to Eusebius appear to have been manipulated or are blatant forgeries.

Up to c 360 CE, it would appear that the TF was unknown to Julian.

Iskander · 04-26-2013, 04:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I totally agree, and therefore wonder precisely how much of these authors' texts were "Christianised" by the Christian operators who preserved the texts. Eusebius certainly thought that Josephus witnessed the appearance of Christ in the "TF", and likelwise certainly thought that Philo witnessed the earliest Christian monastic cult around Alexandria with the description of the "therapeutae" in "Vita Contemplativa".

We now know that Eusebius was indulging in common forgery mistaken on both counts.

Do you happen to know whether Eusebius mentions the Hasmonean/Jewish history at all, and if so, what he reports of it?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

No, don't know re Eusebius and Hasmonean/Jewish history....

Actually, by the time of Eusebius, to my thinking anyway, the gospel JC story was up and running. Whatever, if any, changes were made to that story - it's central premise, a Jewish messiah figure was executed by Rome - remains. That is the premise of the gospel JC story that reflects actual Hasmonean/Jewish history.

Quote:

At the suggestion of Herod, who was afraid to allow Antigonus to be taken to Rome in the triumphal train of Mark Antony, lest he should there successfully plead for his rights, this last king of the Hasmonean house was taken to Antioch, and there fell beneath the executioner's ax. It was the first time that the Romans had ever thus put a king to death. The last king of pure Jewish blood fell before the intrigues of the first king of Judea not entirely of Jewish birth.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...nus-mattathias

Antigonus was not a king, only a quisling aristocrat wishing to be one.

"After the crippling defeat of Crassus at Carrhae in 53 B.C and during the roman civil war, Parthia made a determined effort to conquer Syria.

The Parthian king Pacorus I launched a major invasion of Syria aided by Roman traitors like Q. Labienus “who styled himself “Particus Imperator”,

The Parthian army proved invincible and killed and conquered at will. Most of the client kings defending Rome were disloyal or incompetent.

At Jerusalem Pacorus set up a king, Antigonus, of a cadet branch of the royal house. The damage and disgrace was immense, Rome suffered immensely.But the domination of Parthia was transient. Brundisium freed the armies of Rome."

The above was extracted from:
The roman revolution, Ronald Syme.OUP 2002, page 223
ISBN 8780193803207

Antigonus was an ally of Pacorus, Rome could have never made a deal with him.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia is worthless. The Jews never spoke in terms of a king of “Jewish blood” and Herod was the right arm of the Romans in that region.

maryhelena · 04-26-2013, 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I totally agree, and therefore wonder precisely how much of these authors' texts were "Christianised" by the Christian operators who preserved the texts. Eusebius certainly thought that Josephus witnessed the appearance of Christ in the "TF", and likelwise certainly thought that Philo witnessed the earliest Christian monastic cult around Alexandria with the description of the "therapeutae" in "Vita Contemplativa".

We now know that Eusebius was indulging in common forgery mistaken on both counts.

Do you happen to know whether Eusebius mentions the Hasmonean/Jewish history at all, and if so, what he reports of it?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

No, don't know re Eusebius and Hasmonean/Jewish history....

Actually, by the time of Eusebius, to my thinking anyway, the gospel JC story was up and running. Whatever, if any, changes were made to that story - it's central premise, a Jewish messiah figure was executed by Rome - remains. That is the premise of the gospel JC story that reflects actual Hasmonean/Jewish history.

Quote:

At the suggestion of Herod, who was afraid to allow Antigonus to be taken to Rome in the triumphal train of Mark Antony, lest he should there successfully plead for his rights, this last king of the Hasmonean house was taken to Antioch, and there fell beneath the executioner's ax. It was the first time that the Romans had ever thus put a king to death. The last king of pure Jewish blood fell before the intrigues of the first king of Judea not entirely of Jewish birth.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...nus-mattathias

Antigonus was not a king, only a quisling aristocrat wishing to be one.

"After the crippling defeat of Crassus at Carrhae in 53 B.C and during the roman civil war, Parthia made a determined effort to conquer Syria.

The Parthian king Pacorus I launched a major invasion of Syria aided by Roman traitors like Q. Labienus “who styled himself “Particus Imperator”,

The Parthian army proved invincible and killed and conquered at will. Most of the client kings defending Rome were disloyal or incompetent.

At Jerusalem Pacorus set up a king, Antigonus, of a cadet branch of the royal house. The damage and disgrace was immense, Rome suffered immensely.But the domination of Parthia was transient. Brundisium freed the armies of Rome."

The above was extracted from:
The roman revolution, Ronald Syme.OUP 2002, page 223
ISBN 8780193803207

Antigonus was an ally of Pacorus, Rome could have never made a deal with him.

The Jewish Encyclopaedia is worthless. The Jews never spoke in terms of a king of “Jewish blood” and Herod was the right arm of the Romans in that region.

I take it you don't like the statement in the Jewish Encyclopedia, that uses the word 'blood'....

Quote below from Josephus - contrasting the Hasmonean blood lineage to that of Herod who came from a " vulgar family".

Quote:

Aniquities book 14 ch.16

So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, and carried Antigonus with him in bonds to Antony; but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family.

maryhelena · 04-26-2013, 06:50 AM

Judean Kingdom, Mattathias Antigonus (Mattatayah), 40 - 37 B.C.

Quote:

JD55103. Bronze AE 20, Hendin 1163, Meshorer TJC 37, VF, flan flaw on obverse, Jerusalem mint, weight 7.145g, maximum diameter 20.4mm, die axis 135o, obverse Hebrew inscription, Mattatayah the High Priest and Council of the Jews, single cornucopia tied with ribbons, grapes and grape vine hang; reverse BACILEΩC ANTIΓONOY (of King Antigonus), legend within wreath and border of dots; ex Amphora Coins (David Hendin); scarce; $160.00

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/cat...ns.com/Coins2/

Iskander · 04-26-2013, 08:09 AM

The comments of Josephus are silly.

Antigonus belonged to the Hasmonean dynasty, his uncle was Hyrcanus II.
Herod came from an Idumean family and the Idumeans had been forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus. Forcible conversion is the very thing that Christians and Islam were later accused of doing to Judaism.

Antigonus was the puppet would-be king of the invading armies of Parthia, and he may have minted coins and called himself king, but he was only the candidate of Parthia.

Rome responded by elevating Herod, the son of Antipater, to the status of king. Te Romans made Herod a king with the standard title of, socious et amicus populi romani ( partner and friend of the Romans)

Parthia was defeated and in 37 BC Jerusalem was taken by Herod with Roman support and the life of the puppet king of Parthia came to an end, but the life of the puppet king of Rome flourished.

I think the Israelites said something about a shoot of Jesse for dynastic preference.
:wave:

maryhelena · 04-26-2013, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The comments of Josephus are silly.

Maybe - but those comments are what they are....

The point of issue is not what we, today, think about Antigonus. Nor is it relevant what the Romans thought of Antigonus. The point of issue is what the Josephus writer has written about Angigonus. Antigonus was the last Hasmonean King and High Priest of the Jews. That's a historical fact. Antigonus was as much a King as was Herod - in fact, as Josephus points out - Antigonus comes from a royal line - and Herod from a vulgar family. Sure, not nice to our modern ears - but that was a point being made by the Josephan writer - a writer who, himself, claimed Hasmonean ancestry.

Quote:

Josephus: Life

001 The family from which I come is not ignoble, but is descended from priests away back, and as rank is reckoned differently among different peoples, among us the priestly rank is what makes a family illustrious. 002 Not alone am I of a priestly clan but from the first of the twenty-four priestly ranks; and as there is considerable difference between the ranks, I come from the best family of them. I am of royal blood on my mother's side as the children of Hasmoneus, from whom her family springs, for a long time held both the office of high priest and king.

Duvduv · 04-26-2013, 10:25 AM

Technically speaking it is not forced conversion, i.e. dragging men to be circumcised and holding a sword over them when they ate food to make sure it was kosher. It was more a case of voluntarily conversion with no other choice available, as was apparently only done among the elites of the Edomites. However, all rabbinical sources have condemned this type of conversion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

The comments of Josephus are silly.

Antigonus belonged to the Hasmonean dynasty, his uncle was Hyrcanus II.
Herod came from an Idumean family and the Idumeans had been forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus. Forcible conversion is the very thing that Christians and Islam were later accused of doing to Judaism.

Antigonus was the puppet would-be king of the invading armies of Parthia, and he may have minted coins and called himself king, but he was only the candidate of Parthia.

Rome responded by elevating Herod, the son of Antipater, to the status of king. Te Romans made Herod a king with the standard title of, socious et amicus populi romani ( partner and friend of the Romans)

Parthia was defeated and in 37 BC Jerusalem was taken by Herod with Roman support and the life of the puppet king of Parthia came to an end, but the life of the puppet king of Rome flourished.

I think the Israelites said something about a shoot of Jesse for dynastic preference.
:wave:

Onias · 04-26-2013, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I totally agree, and therefore wonder precisely how much of these authors' texts were "Christianised" by the Christian operators who preserved the texts. Eusebius certainly thought that Josephus witnessed the appearance of Christ in the "TF", and likelwise certainly thought that Philo witnessed the earliest Christian monastic cult around Alexandria with the description of the "therapeutae" in "Vita Contemplativa".

We now know that Eusebius was indulging in common forgery mistaken on both counts.

Do you happen to know whether Eusebius mentions the Hasmonean/Jewish history at all, and if so, what he reports of it?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

No, don't know re Eusebius and Hasmonean/Jewish history....

Actually, by the time of Eusebius, to my thinking anyway, the gospel JC story was up and running. Whatever, if any, changes were made to that story - it's central premise, a Jewish messiah figure was executed by Rome - remains. That is the premise of the gospel JC story that reflects actual Hasmonean/Jewish history.

Quote:

At the suggestion of Herod, who was afraid to allow Antigonus to be taken to Rome in the triumphal train of Mark Antony, lest he should there successfully plead for his rights, this last king of the Hasmonean house was taken to Antioch, and there fell beneath the executioner's ax. It was the first time that the Romans had ever thus put a king to death. The last king of pure Jewish blood fell before the intrigues of the first king of Judea not entirely of Jewish birth.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...nus-mattathias

Mary,
Many historical Jewish messiah figures were executed by Rome in the first century CE aside from the fictional JC of the gospels.
Onias

Onias · 04-26-2013, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iskander

Yes, you have confirmed that Jesus was alive when the Gospels say he was alive.

This has been accepted as a historical fact by Christians and educated non-Christians for almost 2000 years.

What you claimed could not have happened. There is no evidence whatsoever that the character in the NT called Jesus of Nazareth was confirmed to have lived.
May I remind you that the Gospels say Jesus lived as the Son of a Holy Ghost, that he was God the Creator who was a Transfigured Water Walker before he resurrected and ascended in a cloud.

It is virtually impossible for such a character to have lived.

aa,
I agree that " There is no evidence whatsoever that the character in the NT called Jesus of Nazareth was confirmed to have lived." But I usually assume most of us think JC only existed as a fictional literary character within the gospel narrative (just as Captain Kirk existed as a character in Star Trek), though I am not sure what Mary thinks.
Onias

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

04-26-2013, 08:09 AM	#136
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	The comments of Josephus are silly. Antigonus belonged to the Hasmonean dynasty, his uncle was Hyrcanus II. Herod came from an Idumean family and the Idumeans had been forcibly converted to Judaism by John Hyrcanus. Forcible conversion is the very thing that Christians and Islam were later accused of doing to Judaism. Antigonus was the puppet would-be king of the invading armies of Parthia, and he may have minted coins and called himself king, but he was only the candidate of Parthia. Rome responded by elevating Herod, the son of Antipater, to the status of king. Te Romans made Herod a king with the standard title of, socious et amicus populi romani ( partner and friend of the Romans) Parthia was defeated and in 37 BC Jerusalem was taken by Herod with Roman support and the life of the puppet king of Parthia came to an end, but the life of the puppet king of Rome flourished. I think the Israelites said something about a shoot of Jesse for dynastic preference. :wave:

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.