maryhelena

A mythicist position holds that the gospel Jesus is figurative, symbolic or mythological, ie not historical. This position is able to view the gospel crucifixion story as a theological construct. A replay or application of the ancient dying and rising god mythology. Interestingly, this Sumarian mythology is thought to have been based upon or connected, in some way, with a king named in the Sumerian King List - Damuzi. (Actually two such named Kings - one a shepherd and the other a fisherman....).

While the gospel crucifixion storyline can undoubtedly be given a theological or spiritual interpretation - with or without a historical Jesus figure - does the application of this ancient mythology also, as in its earliest application, have a historical connection?

When the gospel crucified Jesus story is viewed as a historical event, then, automatically, the 37 bc crucifixion of the Hasmonean, Antigonus, is purely an interesting but sideline detail. A detail having no relevance to the supposed crucifixion event 29/30/33 ce. A mythicist position, however, allows for the Antigonus crucifixion to be relevant to the gospel storyline.

The gospel storyline connects the birth of Jesus prior to the slaughter of innocents by Herod the Great in 37 bc - at the siege of Jerusalem. At the end of this siege, Antigonus, the Hasmonean King/Priest, is “...bound to a stake and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.” This event is 70 years prior to the dating of the gospel story - somewhere around 29/30/33 ce. A 70 year time period is a red flag as regards OT prophetic interpretations.

(the 33 ce date being a result of the 3 year ministry of gJohn).

OT history is prophetic history; an interpretation of historical events as ‘salvation’ history. Which is basically the use of symbolic numbers in connection with prophetic interpretation. Cycles of time, as there are cycles to life, to the planets etc. History repeats itself, fashions come back, nothing new under the sun...Repeating patterns of symbolic or ‘salvation’ time periods.

Is the 37 bc historical crucifixion of Antigonus being utilized, by the gospel writers, as the model for the crucifixion of their Jesus figure? A repeat, a replaying of the historical tape within a symbolic or figurative context; within a symbolic number framework of 70 years. The end, the historical crucifixion of 37 bc, becomes in 29/30/33 ce, the symbolic new beginning. An interpretation of a past historical event becomes the framework for the new spiritual comprehension. The 70 year time slot of the gospel storyline suggests such a possibility.

After the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus a new development takes place - the resurrection. If, as indicated above, the events of 29/30/33 ce are viewed as replaying the historical tape of 37 bc - how does the 29/30/33ce ‘resurrection’ event reflect back on the after events of the crucifixion of 37 bc. In other words: What happened to the Hasmoneans after 37 bc. Did they all die along with Antigonus? Or did they see the writing on the wall re Herod and made contingency plans?

What was ‘sacrificed’, spilled, in 37 bc, was the blood of Antigonus, Hasmonean blood. No more Hasmonean King/Priests. The end had come. With no realistic hope of reclaiming their rule over Judea - Rome being too strong a force - what were their options? To just accept their lot or to learn from the disaster. To look back upon these historical events in order to find some indication that not all was lost. A literal kingdom might have ended - but a spiritual kingdom was possible. OT interpretation, re-interpretation of the Mosaic Law - or more correctly a re-evaluation with emphasis upon the spirit of the ‘Law’ rather than it’s legalistic aspects. The historical, Hasmonean, context was there. All it needed was to be given a voice, an outlet. An ‘Hasmonean’ based spiritual 'resurrection' story. A new spiritual comprehension, a new messianic spiritual messiah concept. In other words - the gospel Jesus mythological figure. The spiritual King/Priest like Melchizedek.

The mythological Jesus figure of the gospels reflects more than one historical figure. The historical figure that lived during those symbolic 70 years of the gospel timeframe was not, of course, the Hasmonean Antigonus. There was another Hasmonean that did. Philip the Tetrarch. Philip is normally viewed as a son of Herod the Great. - and not as having any Hasmonean bloodline. However, Josephus is not simply writing history. He is a prophet, an interpreter of dreams, a dreamer of dreams, a prophetic interpreter. Hence his recording of the historical time period from Herod the Great - a time period that is of great interest to a historical reconstruction of the actual history underlying the gospel story - cannot be taken at face value - as cannot the gospel story itself. The coins of Philip the Tetrarch reveal a very interesting fact. He never used the Herodian family name of ‘Herod’. (a family name used by both Antipas and Archelaus). Perhaps an indication that he did not see himself as belonging to the Herodian family of Herod the Great. Suggesting that he was an adopted son rather than a natural born son of Herod the Great. (more on this in another post... )So - if the gospel Jesus crucifixion storyline, dated around the years 29/30/33 ce is the re-telling, in symbolic form, of the historical crucifixion of Antigonus in 37 bc (70 years earlier) - then, is this not a clear indication that it was the Hasmoneans who had the historical context in which a new spiritual comprehension could germinate....And Alexandria, not Jerusalem, the intellectual hot spot for early Christian origins.

The Blood Issue: The drinking of symbolic blood in connection with the crucified gospel Jesus and the New Covenant.

It is easy to view the blood issue as being applicable to a spiritual context. It is another matter to give the symbolic drinking of blood an interpretation that does not offend Jewish sensibilities, nor contradict the Noahide and Moaisic Covenants. It’s the switch over from the literal to the spiritual use of blood that is difficult to pin down. What is need is the missing link, the switch over that allowed for a symbolic use of blood to not be offensive.

The gospel Jesus on the cross the switch over? Hardly. What significances is there in a gentle Jesus who preached for around a year, upset a few people with his theological ideas and ends up crucified. There is only theological interpretations possible from such a scenario; whether Jesus was historical or mythological, his death has no historical significance. But the 'Law' was historical - at least in the sense that the Jews had a set code of right conduct. The question is - could the 'Law' have had, or was seen to have had, within a historical setting, a re-interpretation in a purely spiritual context; a change in focus from the literal historical context to a spiritual context. The gospel storyline suggests that this was so. The question then becomes - if not the gospel Jesus - then who, where and when. I don't think a literary interpretation of the gospel Jesus story is going to answer these question. It's back to the history books - and the event of 37 bc and the crucifixion of the Hasmonean, Antigonus.

A historical core, or template or model, allows for the gospel crucifixion story to be interpreted in purely a spiritual/intellectual context. A completely different context from its historical core. From a Hasmonean perspective, the event of 37 bc - the crucifixion of Antigonus, was the end of their rule, their ‘Law’ - an aspect, an element of the Law came to an end. For the Hasmoneans that would be the legitimacy of the Jerusalem temple with its priests now appointed by the foreigner and oppressor, Herod the Great. Sacrifices in the Jerusalem temple, for the Hasmoneans, were meaningless. The historical crucifixion of Antoginus, could be viewed, from a Hasmonean perspective, as the literal sacrifice to end all literal sacrifices What continued to go on in the Jerusalem temple until 70 ce, was, from a Hasmonean perspective, a charade. The events of 37 bc had enabled them, forced them, to move on spiritually.

A historical core for the gospel crucifixion story allows for a switch from the literal, the historical, to a spiritual context. A spiritual context wherein the symbolic drinking of blood does not negate the importance of the OT prohibition on drinking blood.

The basis of the OT view on not drinking blood was based upon the idea that “the life of every creature is its blood”. Pouring out the blood, drinking the blood, are actions that arise from killing. It’s not the blood in and of itself - it’s what is represented by that blood - life. To drink the blood is to take a life. (and of course the 6th Commandment – you shall not murder...). Lifeblood was sacred - whether human blood or the blood of animals- blood is to be poured out on the ground and covered with dust.

The question is - how can this sanctity of blood be maintained within a spiritual context? A spiritual context that is utilizing the drinking of symbolic blood. How is killing not appropriate in a literal sense but encouraged within a spiritual/intellectual context? One way out of this problem is to view intellectual ‘killing’ as being not evil but as good.

Our intellectual, spiritual, world, consists of ideas, thoughts etc. But ideas very often seek to outlive their sell by date. Intellectual evolution demonstrates that they often don’t go gracefully to their netherworld but seek to cling on to the glory days of their youth. Thus necessitating the chop, the ‘killing’ off. Life, death and rebirth are as much a part of our intellectual life as they are within the natural world that surrounds us. The difference is that while the natural world has its own inbuilt mechanism for rebirth - our intellectual world needs our cooperation. It often needs to be kick-started...

In other words - we, symbolically, drink our own intellectual ‘blood’. We ‘sacrifice’ outdated mental images, ideas, in order for the new to flourish! A spiritual messiah requires intellectual sacrifices.

The New Covenant is not a rejection of the Old Covenant but only a new spiritual interpretation of that Covenant. It would not, as Acts upholds, be advocating something that would be abhorrent to Jews. The Mosaic Law was fulfilled not rejected - fulfilled by being re-interpreted. Law and Freedom co-exist. Elements of the Law can indeed be contextual and thus need to be re-interpreted to fit new historical situations - but society needs to function as much with a bedrock of ‘law’ as it does with the freedom of intellectual flights of fancy.

So, two questions to ponder: 1) the historical crucifixion of Antigonus; 2) the symbolic crucifixion of the gospel Jesus. A dualism of body and spirit.

(Interestingly, if the crucifixion of Antigonus has been used by the gospel writers as the historical basis of its own crucifixion storyline - then, in one sense, Antigonus is the historical ‘forerunner’ of the gospel mythological Jesus. A position given in the gospels to John the Baptist - who, like Antigonus, also has his head chopped off....)

stephan huller

What evidence is there to suggest that Antigonus was so important than anyone a hundred years later would remember his crucifixion? This, especially when the gospel was written AFTER the Jewish War when hundreds - if not thousand of Jews - were crucified to great effect. Antigonus was from the perspective of the Evangelist a nebish - a person of no great importance. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

We walk around using Josephus as a bible to the period because we have no other source of information. The people who lived in that time were far more fortunate. Josephus was not their bible. They were living in a contemporary stream of ideas and concepts which is unlikely to have made reference to a second rate figure like Antigonus.

spamandham

The thing that might make Antigonus memorable, is that the end of his reign was the end of the Hasmonian dynasty's rule over Judea - a period considered by many Jews even today to be the most glorious period in Jewish history. Considering the animosity exhibited toward Pharisees in the gospels, is it really so far fetched to think the texts might have been written by someone more aligned with their rivals the Sadducees - Hasmonians?

Maryhelena's idea is not so far fetched, particularly if the memory of Antigonus II Mattathias was conflated (maybe intentionally) with the memory of Antigonus Sokho.

Reading the wiki for our first Antigonus, there are some interesting parallels to the passion story:

1. Antigonus entered and seized Jerusalem forcefully in 40 BCE - Jesus is depicted as triumphantly entering Jerusalem in the passion

2. Antigonus cuts off the ears of his uncle - Jesus repairs the severed ear of the sentry

3. Antigonus had a 3 year reign - Jesus had a 3 year ministry

4. Antigonus is the crucified king of the Jews

stephan huller

Hey anything's possible but here's why it doesn't work

1. Antigonus entered and seized Jerusalem forcefully in 40 BCE - Jesus is depicted as entering Jerusalem like a captured prisoner of war.

2. Antigonus cuts off the ears of his uncle - Jesus does the opposite.

3. Antigonus had a 3 year reign - Jesus had a 1 year ministry (which was later expanded by subsequent editors to many years cf. Clement, Origen, Gaius of Rome and any normal reading of the synoptics)

4. Antigonus is the crucified king of the Jews; Jesus denied being the king of the Jews and was wrongly crucified as such.

But other than that it works. Both were crucified.

maryhelena

Bingo!

It's really pretty obvious once one puts the assumed historical Jesus out of the picture - or at least on the shelve - and considers just what historical events could have influenced the gospel storyline. We are used to the idea that the gospel writers used OT prophecies to create their Jesus figure. But that's only the starting point....OT 'salvation' history is about interpreting historical events. Thus, the gospel writers would have done both - looked to the OT prophecies *plus* interpreting the recent historical events.

Another parallel: Antigonus was mocked after his defeat.

The last king of "pure Jewish blood" - and a king that was crucified and beheaded - and such an event would not be considered to have some relevance re a new spiritual comprehension? Some people, obviously did find some relevance within this history - the evidence is within the gospel storyline. A storyline that could only have had the 'legs' to 'walk' if it was based upon a historical core. An Hasmonean historical origin.

stephan huller

On second thought I can now see the resemblance between what Josephus writes about Antigonus and what the gospel says about Jesus.

"Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish."[Jewish War 1.13.9]

"Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear."[Mark 14.47]

Yes, it would seem that I was in error. It is now self-evident that Mark must have been reading Josephus when he wrote his gospel. There can be no doubt that Jesus was modeled as a second-Antigonus. I am surprised that Joe Atwill missed this. He is such a genius.

You don't even need the other proofs. This is so iron clad, I think that they will start rewriting the history books and put this as the most convincing theory about the origins of the gospel. Way to go!

aa5874

So gMark was probably written AFTER "Wars of the Jews", AFTER "Antiquities of the Jews, AFTER the" Life of Flavius Josephus" or AFTER c 96 CE.

stephan huller

There you go again AA complicating everything with logic.

aa5874

You may be "intellectually lazy". The use of logic is not to make things more complicated. Logic helps in resolution.

Wars of the Jews was written BEFORE gMark based on your own statement.

maryhelena

"....The disciples were first called Christians at Antioch". Acts 11.25.

The city in which Antigonus was crucified....