Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 05-12-2012, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Re. the historical evidence for Antigonus:

Quote:

These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him.

Cassius Dio
Roman History

Book XLIX

It is time for maryhelena to dump her argument that gMark' passion story is based on the flogging and mocking of Antigonus as stated the writings of Cassius Dio.

Maryhelena very well knows that "Roman History" attributed to Cassius Dio was written in the THIRD century, AFTER C 229 CE possibly 100 years AFTER the Jesus stories were well known.

In fact, it may be investigated whether Cassius Dio used gMark for the flogging and mocking of Antigonus.

Cassius Dio was born c 150 and died c 235 CE.

Now Josephus was born c 39 CE and died sometime around 100 CE.

The author of gMark most likely used Josephus' Jesus son of Ananus, Jesus Son of Sapphias, Jesus brother of James and three Crucified for his Jesus story rather than Casius Dio's Roman History of the 3RD CENTURY..

The flogging and mocking of Jesus in gMark could NOT have come Cassius Dio if gMark was written BEFORE 150 CE.

la70119 · 05-12-2012, 08:01 PM

For maryhelena to be able to make an effective case, then, she would have to find another historian, perhaps one contemporary with or predating josephus, like Justinus of Tiberias.

What's that??? His works are no longer extant??? That Photius in the 9th Century said that Justinus' works didn't contain ANY mention of Jesus Christ???

And then his works were "conveniently" "lost!"

Looks like all maryhelena has to go by then is the game of telephone called Oral Tradition.

In other words, Chinese Whispers.

maryhelena · 05-13-2012, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Re. the historical evidence for Antigonus:

Quote:

These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him.

Cassius Dio
Roman History

Book XLIX

It is time for maryhelena to dump her argument that gMark' passion story is based on the flogging and mocking of Antigonus as stated the writings of Cassius Dio.

Maryhelena very well knows that "Roman History" attributed to Cassius Dio was written in the THIRD century, AFTER C 229 CE possibly 100 years AFTER the Jesus stories were well known.

In fact, it may be investigated whether Cassius Dio used gMark for the flogging and mocking of Antigonus.

Cassius Dio was born c 150 and died c 235 CE.

Now Josephus was born c 39 CE and died sometime around 100 CE.

The author of gMark most likely used Josephus' Jesus son of Ananus, Jesus Son of Sapphias, Jesus brother of James and three Crucified for his Jesus story rather than Casius Dio's Roman History of the 3RD CENTURY..

The flogging and mocking of Jesus in gMark could NOT have come Cassius Dio if gMark was written BEFORE 150 CE.

So, are you suggesting that Cassius Dio has used the JC story of gMark, a story about the flogging and mocking and crucifixion of a 'king of the Jews' (under Pilate and Tiberius, around 30 c.e.) and applied that story to the historical figure of Antigonus, killed in 37 b.c.?

Could well be - the history of the fate of Antigonus at the hands of Rome would be a history long in it's telling. A history that allowed an oral tradition full scope for storytelling...

Very interesting is it not - that a later historian would (mistakenly or not) link the history of Antigonus with the gospel story of JC...An oral tradition fictionalized in 30 c.e. - but an oral tradition with a very long history all the way back to 37 b.c.

:constern01:

maryhelena · 05-13-2012, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Ok, got it. So where is this common source?

The only common source is Jewish/Hasmonean history. What else could it possibly be? How each writer used that history in the creation of their fictional figures is up to their individual imagination.

Visions and stories are easily overturned by the next big thing. Historical events are grounded; they can't be wished away. Why do you thing the mythicist ideas have not entered mainstream thinking? The JC historicists don't have evidence for their claims re a historical gospel JC. And yet - mythicists ideas are not able to capitalize on this weakness in the historicist position. Why? Intellectual arguments are proving inadequate. Why? Surely it's because ideas are only of value if they can be seen to have relevance for the physical reality we live in. Building a house of spiritual 'cards', intellectual theories, is a house without a foundation. The mythicists are not building a foundation for the intellectual house they are seeking to build. It's all pie in the sky.

The JC historicists are upholding the necessity for a foundation for the JC story. A foundation laid in reality, in historical realities. Indeed, they are unable to dig that foundation themselves - being, as it were, blinded by the notion of a historical gospel JC. In other words; they believe their assumed historical JC is that foundation. Mythicists say this gospel JC figure is not historical. So, who should be laying that foundation upon which to build the theological/spiritual or intellectual superstructure? Offering the JC historicists a spiritual JC is to offer them a theory; a spiritual, an intellectual construct; a theory. They want a solid foundation not an intellectual theory. They want apples - and the mythicists are offering oranges...They are talking past one another.

It is people that motivate people; it is people that inspire others to greatness. Ideas blow in the wind. Yes, philosophy is necessary - but more important is a hand to hold. It's reality, flesh and blood, historical reality, social/political reality that grounds our experiences. To produce an account of early christian origins that rests upon theories; an account that has no connection to historical realities - that's a theory that will not sell - it will not overturn the historicists position.

Yes, as the historicists so often have said, a flesh and blood gospel JC is the most parsimonious reading of the JC story - all the related problems notwithstanding. Why? Because it provides an historical foundation. So, the gospel JC does not exist - but that fact does not remove the necessity for a historical foundation for early christianity. And that's the mythicist blind spot....

Can you reconstruct what that hypothetical source might have looked like?

I am not sure if you can find the same structure, sequence, and specific detail that we find in both Wars 6.5.3 and gMark. That is my proposition here. So if there was a source, a story that related to Antigonus that included:

1. Disruption in the Temple
2. Arrest by Jewish officials
3. Handing over to Roman Governor
4. Questioning/flogging by Roman Governor
5. Killed accidentally/unwillingly by Rome

And within that sequence, the same details (struck by Jewish officials, did not respond to accusations, the name Jesus, etc), then I would have to agree that there was a commons source. I do not think there is such a source existing relating to Antigonus, or anybody else. Therefore, at least to me, it seems like gMark used Josephus to provide his structure, sequence, and even some details to his Jesus passion narrative.

I do not believe, with Crossan, and based on this proposition, (if one accepts it) that a Passion Narrative pre-existed the time of Josephus.

If that is where you are coming from - that the gMark Passion Narrative is a post-70 c.e. story - then, obviously, you need to put the history of Antigonus aside, as of no consequence to the pseudo-historical story of gMark.

If you think that gMark used a Josephan story, set in 70 c.e., and backdated the structure of that story to his own story based around the time of Pilate - then you are giving yourself more problems than you might think you have answered.

Why would gMark use Josephus as the blueprint for his own story?
Who was Josephus that gMark would find it relevant to be connected with this figure?
What was the purpose, the focus, the intention, of Josephus with his story of Jesus ben Ananus?

If gMark can be accused of writing pseudo-history - why should Josephus get a free pass? Yes, you have said, it's immaterial to your position whether or not Jesus ben Ananas is a historical figure - you are only interested in any literary dependency. Sure, as I posted previously, there is a literary dependence, or relationship, there. So, what to do about it?

If the gMark writer can create the JC figure from OT scripture and Paul's musings - and then needs to turn to a supposedly non-christian writer in order to fill in the details of his main event - sounds highly improbable to my thinking. The two alternatives: 1. Jewish/Hasmonean history was the oral telling available to both writers; 2. the Josephan writer and the writer of gMark were both writing for the same pseudo-historical 'school'...

Quote:

1. Disruption in the Temple

Jerusalem and its Temple were under siege in 37 b.c.

Quote:

2. Arrest by Jewish officials

Obviously, Antigonus was not arrested by Jewish officials....He was, however, taken captive by the joint forces of Herod the Great and Roman legions. (Herod being a half-Jew)

Quote:

3. Handing over to Roman Governor

Quote:

Ant. 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.

Quote:

War of the Jews Book 1 Chapter 18

Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.

Quote:

4. Questioning/flogging by Roman Governor

Quote:

Ant. book. 15 ch.1

Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they be forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod."

Quote:

These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him.

(Cassius Dio, _Roman History_ Book XLIX chapter 22 section 3-6)

Quote:

5. Killed accidentally/unwillingly by Rome

Accidental killing - well, that certainty does not apply either to the gospel JC nor to Antigonus. History, and the gospel pseudo-history, involve Roman agents in the killing. As does the Josephan pseudo-history of Jesus ben Ananas.

Who was the King of the Jews that was given a dishonorable death by Rome?

maryhelena · 05-13-2012, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

For maryhelena to be able to make an effective case, then, she would have to find another historian, perhaps one contemporary with or predating josephus, like Justinus of Tiberias.

What's that??? His works are no longer extant??? That Photius in the 9th Century said that Justinus' works didn't contain ANY mention of Jesus Christ???

And then his works were "conveniently" "lost!"

Looks like all maryhelena has to go by then is the game of telephone called Oral Tradition.

In other words, Chinese Whispers.

Prior to Josephus? What we have is Philo and his story re the mocking of the madman Carabbas - Carabbas being a 'substitute' for King Agrippa - a Herodian King carrying Hasmonean blood. So, the gMark writer is using Philo and Josephus for his JC story - looks to me these two writers, Philo and Josephus, have played a very big role in the development of gMark's JC story....

And you know what - one could develop a Jesus story without the gospel story.

1, the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, 37 b.c.
2, the Toldot Yeshu story. A story set from the time of Alexander Janneaus (103-76 b.c.) The identity of Queen Helena being debatable - hence the date for the death of Yeshu is questionable.
3, the mocking of Carabbas as a substitute for the Herodian King Agrippa, a king carrying Hasmonean blood. Philo's Flaccus.
4, Slavonic Josephus and it's wonder-doer story.
5, Josephus War and it's references to Antigonus; plus its Jesus ben Ananas story.
6. Josephus Antiquites and its TF story.
7. Cassius Dio and his Antigonus reference.

If one is looking for non-christian sources for the gospel JC story - look no further...

Sure, the gospel JC Passion Narrative is a polished version - but that story is following an oral tradition that developed from real flesh and blood history.

aa5874 · 05-13-2012, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, are you suggesting that Cassius Dio has used the JC story of gMark, a story about the flogging and mocking and crucifixion of a 'king of the Jews' (under Pilate and Tiberius, around 30 c.e.) and applied that story to the historical figure of Antigonus, killed in 37 b.c.?...

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!!! I have merely EXPOSED your blatant errors.

Cassius Dio's claim that Antigonus was flogged and mocked in "Roman History"could NOT have been used by the author of gMark if the story of the Passion was written BEFORE 150 CE--Cassius Dio was born c 150 CE.

Roman History by Cassius Dio was written c 229 CE PERHAPS 100 years after the Jesus story of the crucifixion was already known and circulated.

On the other hand, Wars of the Jews with Jesus Son of Ananus being flogged is considered to have been written since around 75 CE.

And the story of the THREE CRUCIFIED and ONE SURVIVED in "The Life of Flavius Josephus" was written sometime BEFORE 100 CE.

Your use of Cassius Dio's 3rd century Roman History has been turned into Rubble.

maryhelena · 05-13-2012, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, are you suggesting that Cassius Dio has used the JC story of gMark, a story about the flogging and mocking and crucifixion of a 'king of the Jews' (under Pilate and Tiberius, around 30 c.e.) and applied that story to the historical figure of Antigonus, killed in 37 b.c.?...

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!!! I have merely EXPOSED your blatant errors.

Cassius Dio's claim that Antigonus was flogged and mocked in "Roman History"could NOT have been used by the author of gMark if the story of the Passion was written BEFORE 150 CE--Cassius Dio was born c 150 CE.

Roman History by Cassius Dio was written c 229 CE PERHAPS 100 years after the Jesus story of the crucifixion was already known and circulated.

On the other hand, Wars of the Jews with Jesus Son of Ananus being flogged is considered to have been written since around 75 CE.

And the story of the THREE CRUCIFIED and ONE SURVIVED in "The Life of Flavius Josephus" was written sometime BEFORE 100 CE.

Your use of Cassius Dio's 3rd century Roman History has been turned into Rubble.

You failed to answer my question....:devil3:

aa5874 · 05-13-2012, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, are you suggesting that Cassius Dio has used the JC story of gMark, a story about the flogging and mocking and crucifixion of a 'king of the Jews' (under Pilate and Tiberius, around 30 c.e.) and applied that story to the historical figure of Antigonus, killed in 37 b.c.?...

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!!! I have merely EXPOSED your blatant errors.

Cassius Dio's claim that Antigonus was flogged and mocked in "Roman History"could NOT have been used by the author of gMark if the story of the Passion was written BEFORE 150 CE--Cassius Dio was born c 150 CE.

Roman History by Cassius Dio was written c 229 CE PERHAPS 100 years after the Jesus story of the crucifixion was already known and circulated.

On the other hand, Wars of the Jews with Jesus Son of Ananus being flogged is considered to have been written since around 75 CE.

And the story of the THREE CRUCIFIED and ONE SURVIVED in "The Life of Flavius Josephus" was written sometime BEFORE 100 CE.

Your use of Cassius Dio's 3rd century Roman History has been turned into Rubble.

You failed to answer my question....:devil3:

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!!! I have EXPOSED your BLATANT mis-leading use of Cassius Dio's "Roman History" written c 229 CE to support your argument that gMark may have used it for his Passion story.

Please, please, please, do not waste any more time. If you cannot admit your error then it does NOT make much sense to respond.

Wars of the Jews with Jesus son of Ananus was written c 75 CE and "The Life of Flavius Josephus with the THREE Crucified and One survived was written BEFORE c 100 CE.,

If gMark was written BEFORE 150 CE then the author may have used the works of Josephus but could NOT have used Cassius Dio "Roman History.

maryhelena · 05-13-2012, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So, are you suggesting that Cassius Dio has used the JC story of gMark, a story about the flogging and mocking and crucifixion of a 'king of the Jews' (under Pilate and Tiberius, around 30 c.e.) and applied that story to the historical figure of Antigonus, killed in 37 b.c.?...

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!!! I have merely EXPOSED your blatant errors.

Cassius Dio's claim that Antigonus was flogged and mocked in "Roman History"could NOT have been used by the author of gMark if the story of the Passion was written BEFORE 150 CE--Cassius Dio was born c 150 CE.

Roman History by Cassius Dio was written c 229 CE PERHAPS 100 years after the Jesus story of the crucifixion was already known and circulated.

On the other hand, Wars of the Jews with Jesus Son of Ananus being flogged is considered to have been written since around 75 CE.

And the story of the THREE CRUCIFIED and ONE SURVIVED in "The Life of Flavius Josephus" was written sometime BEFORE 100 CE.

Your use of Cassius Dio's 3rd century Roman History has been turned into Rubble.

You failed to answer my question....:devil3:

Strawman, Strawman, Strawman!!!! I have EXPOSED your BLATANT mis-leading use of Cassius Dio's "Roman History" written c 229 CE to support your argument that gMark may have used it for his Passion story.

Please, please, please, do not waste any more time. If you cannot admit your error then it does NOT make much sense to respond.

Wars of the Jews with Jesus son of Ananus was written c 75 CE and "The Life of Flavius Josephus with the THREE Crucified and One survived was written BEFORE c 100 CE.,

If gMark was written BEFORE 150 CE then the author may have used the works of Josephus but could NOT have used Cassius Dio "Roman History.

You continue to fail to answer my question....:devil1:

la70119 · 05-13-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

For maryhelena to be able to make an effective case, then, she would have to find another historian, perhaps one contemporary with or predating josephus, like Justinus of Tiberias.

What's that??? His works are no longer extant??? That Photius in the 9th Century said that Justinus' works didn't contain ANY mention of Jesus Christ???

And then his works were "conveniently" "lost!"

Looks like all maryhelena has to go by then is the game of telephone called Oral Tradition.

In other words, Chinese Whispers.

Prior to Josephus? What we have is Philo and his story re the mocking of the madman Carabbas - Carabbas being a 'substitute' for King Agrippa - a Herodian King carrying Hasmonean blood. So, the gMark writer is using Philo and Josephus for his JC story - looks to me these two writers, Philo and Josephus, have played a very big role in the development of gMark's JC story....

And you know what - one could develop a Jesus story without the gospel story.

1, the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, 37 b.c.
2, the Toldot Yeshu story. A story set from the time of Alexander Janneaus (103-76 b.c.) The identity of Queen Helena being debatable - hence the date for the death of Yeshu is questionable.
3, the mocking of Carabbas as a substitute for the Herodian King Agrippa, a king carrying Hasmonean blood. Philo's Flaccus.
4, Slavonic Josephus and it's wonder-doer story.
5, Josephus War and it's references to Antigonus; plus its Jesus ben Ananas story.
6. Josephus Antiquites and its TF story.
7. Cassius Dio and his Antigonus reference.

If one is looking for non-christian sources for the gospel JC story - look no further...

Sure, the gospel JC Passion Narrative is a polished version - but that story is following an oral tradition that developed from real flesh and blood history.

Why bring Cassius Dio into it??? Cassius Dio wrote in 225 CE, long after stories about Jesus began circulating in the Second Century CE. Remember, the fragment of gJohn 18 (no. P52) is dated to 125 CE by paleographers.

And still, you have no source of evidence that Josephus used the history of Antigonus to, in a paraphrase of what you said previously, fabricate First Century Jewish History.

And what motive would he have to make things up???? :huh:

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

05-12-2012, 08:01 PM	#112
la70119 Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: The only Carribean port not in the Tropics. Posts: 359	For maryhelena to be able to make an effective case, then, she would have to find another historian, perhaps one contemporary with or predating josephus, like Justinus of Tiberias. What's that??? His works are no longer extant??? That Photius in the 9th Century said that Justinus' works didn't contain ANY mention of Jesus Christ??? And then his works were "conveniently" "lost!" Looks like all maryhelena has to go by then is the game of telephone called Oral Tradition. In other words, Chinese Whispers.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.