maryhelena

Hi, Philosopher Jay

I’ve been thinking about a statement I made in my above post:

I still think that gMatthew should be considered as having the JC crucifixion story at the end of Pilate’s rule, 36 ce - as that date works with the Antiquities JtB story.

However, I now think that the gMark crucifixion story can be considered as early as 21 ce - ie it is in the same time frame as gJohn.

My reasoning is thus:

A lttle while ago I put up a thread:

Slavonic Josephus and the Synoptic Problem. In that OP I set out an argument around the John the Baptist beheading story. I made the suggestion that gMark has the earlier story. A story referencing the John the Baptist encounter with Archelaus (anywhere between 4 b.c. and 6 c.e.). I suggested that gMatthew is referencing a later encounter between John the Baptist and Herod (Antipas).

That argument can be taken further. Apart from gMark and gMatthew offering different takes on ‘King Herod’ verse ‘Herod the tetrarch’ (Archelaus being an ethenrach and Antipas a tetrarch, ie a differentiation between the two Herods), there is also the most interesting point that gMatthew has switched the blame game from Herodias to Herod. In gMark it’s Herodias that has a grudge against JtB, while gMatthew, puts the blame on Herod (Antipas). On the surface probably a small enough difference that allows the story to go unchallenged. If gMatthew is after gMark what reasons can be argued for his failure, not only to not follow the gMark storyline, a storyline that includes the element about Herod offering the daughter of Herodias half of his kingdom, but to do a switch in assigning blame.

However, once this whole Herod/Herodias/Philip/John the Baptist drama is viewed as a symbolic drama, a symbolic drama with a multi-dimensional core, then these differences between gMark and gMatthew can be used to help resolve this puzzle. And to do that one needs Slavonic Josephus.

From the ahistoricist/mythicist perspective, no historical JC, then interpreting the four gospels separately is a possibility, ie no necessity to make everything fit with gLuke and his 15th year of Tiberius. (ie reading gLuke’s chronology on face value alone)

John ch.1 and the questioning of JB – is rather similar to the Archelaus of Slavonic Josephus storyline...

Can gMark, like gJohn, be seen to be referencing a crucifixion story set in 21 ce. I think it can. The argument would revolve around that symbolic drama of Herod/Herodias/Philip/JtB and the different elements that gMark has used from that of gMatthew.

The basis story relates to a marriage that is contrary to Jewish customs. There are lots of problems re the Herodias/Antipas marriage story. Not least of which, but is not often dealt with, the issue of assigning blame to the two Jewish princesses. In particular assigning blame to Herodias. In fact, the very argument that Herodias, being a granddaughter of the Hasmonean princess, Mariamne I, would even consider such a brother in-law marriage, is surely problematic.

The early marriage problems between the Hasmoneans and the Herodians is that of Herod the Great and Mariamne - his great love for her being more a case of his desire to fuse the two bloodlines. (perhaps the gMark reference to King Herod is a reflection on this history). However, when one considers the 6 ce (approximately) meeting between JtB and Archelaus, another marriage issue surfaces. A much bigger issue than that of any assumed marriage between Herodias and Antipas. The marriage of Archelaus to his late brother, Alexander’s wife, Glaphyra.

One could suggest that Archelaus and Glaphyra were the original names, in gMark, in the JtB saga re the immoral brother in-law marriage. One could accept that one is dealing with a symbolic historical drama and not confine this drama to the historical figures that are currently used in the drama storyline. Ie consider a multi-dimensional symbolic drama. A very small detail - a name change - and a whole new perspective on gMark can be considered.

After the execution of Alexander in 7 b.c., Glaphyra married Juba II, King of
Mauretania. Josephus says that Glaphyra married Archelaus after the death of Juba II. Wikipedia says he died in 23 ce. (Josephus seems to be more intent on having Herodias as the ‘fallen woman’ - which, of course, is what gMark is doing with it's literal reading of this symbolic drama....)

Looks to me that it is Glaphyra who had more reason to bear a grudge against that Jewish preacher JtB than did Herodias with her Hasmonean heritage. The two sons of Glaphyra, by Alexander - “disinherited their Jewish descent, deserted their Jewish religion and embraced their Greek heritage, including the religion”. (Wikipedia: Glaphyra).

If one changes the names in gMark from Herod, Herodias and Philip, to Herod, Glaphyra and Juba, the whole scenario makes more logical sense - as a reflection of a historical situation during the rule of the ethnarch, Archelaus - which ends in 6 c.e. If this is so - then gMark can be interpreted as referencing, like gJohn, a crucifixion storyline at 21 c.e. (ie removing the name of Herodias from the JtB story - and the historical time frame changes). The gMatthew storyline can be viewed as referencing the names of Herodias and Philip - thereby moving the crucifixion storyline to the end of Pilate’s rule in 36 ce. (Philip, according to Josephus dying in either 34 or 36 ce.) which indicates that gMatthew is referencing a time frame after the death of Philip.

One could perhaps even take this further: Is the ‘missing’ birth narrative in gMark the Slavonic Josephus birth narrative of the 15th year of Herod the Great? Obviously, the later storyline development, involving Herod (Antipas) and Herodias necessitated that earlier plot settings had to be abandoned. gLuke even going further with his 15th year of Tiberius and thus closing the door to any earlier interpretations using the 15th year of Herod the Great.

Methinks, the ahistoricists/mythicists need to keep their options open...they should not put themselves in the position of concurring, with the historicists, and labelling anything outside the canonical gospels as ‘heresy’ or ‘forgery’.

Something to think about for all the freethinkers out there...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Maryhelena,

Lots of interesting things to think about.
I think it is most interesting that John's gospel contains no notice of John the Baptist's death. Maybe John was supposed to be the author. Maybe the beloved disciple thing that mixed up and Jesus was the beloved disciple of John the Baptist.

The Slavonic Josephus is interesting. It could represent a translation from the original. The problem is that we have to find where the original was for over 1,000 years and why nobody quoted it. Otherwise, we just have to take it as a medieval writer with a wild imagination.

For the moment, I think the more likely hypothesis is that Josephus wrote nothing about John or Jesus, but his writings were changed to make it look like he did. That seems to me to explain the silence before Eusebius found the amazing quotes.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay

Hi GakuseDon,

Good points. When new comic book writers retell their heroes stories, they may elect to give more powers to their hero or take them away to make them more human and less powerful.

It is wrong to assume either that Jesus starts off as a God and becomes a man or starts off as a man and becomes a God. The facts of each case have to be carefully laid out to judge.

To me the idea of Jesus being a sacrificial Passover Lamb flows directly from the idea that the Jews made impure sacrifices at the Temple as the Essenes claimed. Once Christians were kicked out of Judaism, they had to push the line that Jesus died for the sins of everybody. When the religion starts to be aimed at gentiles - Greeks and Romans - calling Jesus a Jewish sacrificial lamb becomes embarrassing. The whole sacrificial lamb thing gets dropped by simply moving the Passover to Thursday in the Synoptics. Jesus partakes in the Passover Seder, so how could he be a sacrificial lamb? This goes with the revisionism in the story that Jesus let himself be killed to fulfill his father's wishes. The negative aspect of Jesus being killed like a poor weak lamb, gets turned into a positive by having Jesus see his own death as fulfillment of prophecy and obedience to death to his father.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

GakuseiDon

Thanks Jay. Makes sense, I suppose.

maryhelena

But don't we have gMark and gMatthew quoting from it? Where else are they going to get the idea that Herodias was married to Philip? There is no excuse for getting this wrong after Antiquities was published in 93/94 ce.

And that 'heresy' about the 7th year of Tiberius for the crucifixion in 21 ce.? That only makes sense in connection to Slavonic Josephus and the 15th year of Herod the Great. As, likewise, the statement in gJohn that JC was not yet fifty, ie from 25 b.c. to 21 c.e. about 46/47 years old.

Obviously, once gLuke was written, then any older prophetic interpretations re Daniel ch.9, would have to be discarded. (Slavonic Josephus indicating that that is what was going on re the 15th year of Herod the Great).

What happened to the wonder-worker story in Slavonic Josephus once gLuke was up and running - goodness knows. The Acts of Pilate got discarded - and one would assume that that is what would happen to the storyline in Slavonic Josephus. Who preserved it - 'heretics' probably. Perhaps not everyone was enthralled with gLuke - and gMatthew for that matter with it's leaving open just when within the rule of Herod the Great did JC's birth story fit in.

There is a gap between gJohn, gMark, and gMatthew and gLuke - even working from War around 75 ce - there is a 20 year gap before Antiguities and Herodias marriage issues being redefined. And if the story in Slavonic Josephus preceded even War - then it's a great deal earlier than gMatthew and gLuke. (I'd put my money on Philo, who died in 50 ce.......)

Methinks, the ahistoricists/mythicists should not be running with the historicists on the question of Slavonic Josephus. They just might be looking a gift horse in the face and turning the other way....

Kosh

GJohn Anachronism: instructions to Jews if they have been expelled from the Temple for accepting Christ (or something like that).

Working off the top of my head, so I may not have all the details right.

Didn't happen until what, 90 AD?

Source: "Who wrote the New Testament" (or via: amazon.co.uk).

How would you explain that?

maryhelena

John ch.16 and it’s mention that “..they will put you out of the synagogues”?

1) It’s an interpretation of this verse as prophecy (ie as way in the future)that links it to, supposedly, around 90 c.e.

2) Wikipedia: Council of Jamnia, uses “hypothetical’ in relation to this council. It’s possible of course that some ‘official’ view was taken re Jewish-Christians - but dating it to this assumed Council is not really relevant. JC was, according to gMark saying that his followers would be “flogged” in the synagogues. gLuke tells the story of the Jews being furious with JC in the synagogue and threw him out of town. Thus, pretty standard fare - the synagogues, the Jews, would be very defensive regarding what they held their religion to be about. Attempting to put an “official” date on this Jewish ‘persecution’ of Jewish-Christians in no way undercuts the argument that it would, were JC to be viewed as historical and living in Palestine in the assumed gospel time-frame, to be only that - an ‘official’ acknowledgement of a prior ongoing situation. It’s surely illogical to imagine the Jews are going to wait 40 odd years before they decide to do something about that infiltration of heretical ideas into the synagogues.

3) And not forgetting Paul of course....

PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

You probably caught this already, but I thought it was interesting in light of your Antigonus theory. From Pagan Christs, by John M. Robertson, [1911]

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

The mix up of beheading and crucifixion in the Antigonus story matches the development in the beheading/crucifixion John and Jesus story. As you know, I think Jesus is just a rewrite of an earlier John gospel where John is the main character and Jesus is the name for God or the word of God.

Do you know if Slavonic Josephus is identical to the common Josephus on this story. I suspect that beheading was not seen as a dishonorable death, but crucifixion was. Could this passage have been tampered with to replace the word "crucifixion" with beheading.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena

Thanks, Philosopher Jay, no I had not seen this quote re Antigonus. Interesting, indeed....

Don't you think it all makes much more sense to view the crucifixion, the mocking and later beheading of Antigonus, as the basis, or perhaps the historical spark, that set off a rethinking of spiritual matters on the part of the Hasmoneans? Long before the events of 70 ce. My ideas is that the Antigonus history, being a binding to a cross, flogged and beheaded has been split in two re the JtB and the JC figures. JtB being the more obvious, within the JC storyline, depicting a big nightmare for the Herodians ..ie keeps turning up to give them a fright.... - Herod thinking JtB had come back to life. The crucifixion element being assigned to JC. In other words, to my way of thinking, another historical figure is relevant to the composite JC storyboard. In this case a man of peace as opposed to Antigonus being a man of war. (Philip the Tetrarch who was not crucified and lived a long life and lived during the big time stamp on that gospel JC story - the 15th year of Tiberius.)

And in the earlier Ant.book 14.ch.16, no mention of beheading - Antigonus was 'slain'.

Yes, perhaps Josephus is of two minds here - the dishonorable death is surely the crucifixion, being tied to a cross. And lets not forget that Josephan story re his three friends being tied to a cross - and he goes to Titus and has them taken down - and one survived. Who knows but a passing nod to the after effects of that siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. when Antigonus was bound to a cross - only to survive that dishonorable experience and later to fall under the axe.

Here is War book 1.ch.18
Here is Slavonic Josephus, page 170 - details below.
Both War and Slavonic Josephus use *axe* for the method of death for Antigonus. I copied from the google view of the book

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison (or via: amazon.co.uk)

http://books.google.com/books?id=gu5...page&q&f=false