Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 11-06-2010, 12:53 PM

Hi maryhelena,

Great catch. The crucifixion and King of the Jews motifs in the Antigonus story seem to form the canvas for the gospel story.

I would also note the questions about the identity and relationship of John the Baptist and Jesus that run throughout the gospels. I think it is quite funny that Jesus was cruxified and John beheaded while Antigonus was both cruxified and beheaded. (Funny-odd, not funny-haha.)

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCH,

{snip}

I like that - "a 'reference' to an historical event".

The usual dating re the gospel crucifixion story is either 30 ce or 33 ce. Luke references the 15th year of Tiberius and details historical rulers that stretch his storyline back 70 years - to 40 BC (Lysanias of Abilene). In that year the Hasmonean Antigonus seized Jerusalem and sent his uncle into exile - and cut off his ear. Three years later, in 37 BC, Herod the Great took Jerusalem and sent Antigonus to Mark Anthony in Antioch where he was crucified and beheaded. Antigonus was the last Priest/King of the Jews.

So - a historical event that was worked over, given some new details and time frame - and ends up being the passion/crucifixion narrative in the gospel Jesus story.

I think the theory of George Wells holds out some ability to move forward with the Jesus debates ie. separate the passion/crucifixion gospel story from the Galilean preacher story - who according to Wells was not crucified. Wells finds no way to link Paul's spiritual Jesus construct with Galilee.

Sure, with the gospel crucifixion story the resurrection is bound up - the dying and rising god scenario. But mythology and theology aside - the grain of historicity most likely rests with the fate of the last Hasmonean Priest/King of the Jews - Antigonus.

Roman History by Cassius Dio
published in Vol. V
of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1917

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...s_Dio/49*.html

Quote:

The World that shaped the New Testament: Calvin J Roetzel (or via: amazon.co.uk)

page 25

Herod returned to Jerusalem for the final siege and capture of the city in 37. Antigonus prostrated himself at the feet of Sosius, the Roman general, begging for his life. Rportedly, Sosius laughed and called his abject prisoner “Antigone,” the feminine from of Antigonus. Once in Herod’s custody, the new king passed a double death sentence on Antigonus. He was first crucified, then beheaded.

my bolding

maryhelena · 11-06-2010, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

Great catch. The crucifixion and King of the Jews motifs in the Antigonus story seem to form the canvas for the gospel story.

I would also note the questions about the identity and relationship of John the Baptist and Jesus that run throughout the gospels. I think it is quite funny that Jesus was cruxified and John beheaded while Antigonus was both cruxified and beheaded. (Funny-odd, not funny-haha.)

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Yep, one stone to kill two birds......one historical event that provides the two fictional characters with their 'identities'.....

Another point re Antigonus and the Jesus crucifixion story. The gospels have a sign over the cross in three languages with two designations.
Jesus the Nazarene and King of the Jews.

What is interesting about this sign is that the coins that Antigonus minted during his reign - were bilingual coins - and coins that detailed his two designations, High Priest and King. On one side he used his Herbrew name of Mattatayah: “Mattataya the High Priest and the Council of the Jews”, and on the other side of the coin his Greek name, Antigonou Basileos; “of King Antigonus”.

http://www.forumancientcoins.com/cat...os=0#Hasmonean

It could be that this notice over the gospel crucified Jesus is reflecting Antigonus' dual designations - High Priest and King of the Jews - and with that notice - are we not dealing with a Hasmonean connection to the early origins of christianity?

I did start a thread on this subject a while back....

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....14#post6469514

The historical crucifixion of Antigonus as a model for the Jesus crucifixion story.

maryhelena · 11-06-2010, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Luke 3;1 mentioning Lysianas the tetrarch of Abilene [mid 1st century CE] hardly brings the story to the time of Lysanius the son of Ptolemy, king of Chalcis in the time that Herod was fighting to take physical possession of his kingdom [Ant 14:330 & 15:92, about 38 BCE].

As far as I'm aware the existence of a Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abiline in 29/30 ce is questionable. Whereas the existence of Lysanias in 4O BC is not. And interestingly, according to Wikipedia, this Lysanias was a cousin of Antigonus - and like Antigonus was killed by Mark Anthony (or on orders...)

Quote:

Lysanias

Lysanias in Josephus

Lysanias was the ruler of a tetrarchy, centered on the town of Abila. This has been referred to by various names including Abilene, Chalcis and Iturea, from about 40-36 BC. Josephus is our main source for the life of Lysanias.
His father was Ptolemy son of Mennaeus who ruled the tetrarchy before him. Lysanias was cousin of Antigonus, who he helped during the latter's attempt to claim the throne of Judea in 40 BC with the military support of the Parthians.

According to Josephus (B.J. 1.248), he offered the Parthian satrap Barzapharnes "a thousand talents and 500 women to bring Antigonus back and raise him to the throne, after deposing Hyrcanus". However, Josephus in his later work, the Jewish Antiquities 14.330-331, relates that it was Antigonus who made the offer to the Parthians. Whichever the case, Lysanias was put to death by Mark Antony for his Parthian sympathies, at the instigation of Cleopatra, who had eyes on the territories of Lysanias.

Coins from his reign indicate that he was "tetrarch and high priest".

Quote:

There was also a "house of Lysanius" that assisted Zenodorus, apparently a client ruler of Trachonitis, Batanea and Auranitis, in pillaging Damascus from bases in Trachonitis, contributing to Zenodorus' execution at the hands of Caesar's governor of Syria, Varro, and the addition of Zenodorus' territories to Herod's kingdom some years into his rule (Ant 15:344).

That the kingdom of Chalcis cannot be the same as the kingdom or tetrarchy of Lysanias is proved by Wars of the Jews 2:247

247 After this, Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from [the kingdom of] Chalcis into a greater kingdom; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, which contained Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis: he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias [which he calls the tetrarchy of Lysanias in Ant 20:138], and that province [Abilene] which Varus had governed.

I think the passage you cite in Cassius Dio is taken out of context. The full passage in Cassius Dio is this:

Gaius Sosius received from [Antony] the governorship of Syria and Cilicia. 3 This officer subdued the Aradii, who had been besieged up to this time and had been reduced to hard straits by famine and disease, and also conquered in battle Antigonus, who had put to death the Roman guards that were with him, and reduced him by siege when he took refuge in Jerusalem. 4 The Jews, indeed, had done much injury to the [preceeding was missing from the online version cited originally] Romans, for the race is very bitter when aroused to anger, but they suffered far more themselves. The first of them to be captured were those who were fighting for the precinct of their god, and then the rest on the day even then called the day of Saturn.7 5 And so excessive were they in their devotion to religion that the first set of prisoners, those who had been captured along with the temple, obtained leave from Sosius, when the day of Saturn came round again, and went up into the temple and there performed all the customary rites, together with the rest of the people. 6 These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he [that is, Sosius] bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.

What you have here is Antony's general Sosius punishing Antigonus in such an exemplary manner for daring to kill, in a fit of Jewish nationalism, the Roman soldiers who had been previously garrisoned in Jerusalem when he took Jerusalem from his brother Hyrcanus with Parthian help. It was not Herod who did this to Antigonous. It should also be noticed that Sossius did not execute the priests who were captured while defending the temple precincts in the midst of the fighting, but immediately released them to continue their ministrations after a week of purification, out of respect for their religious zeal.

DCH

Sure, Herod did not crucify and behead Antigonus - he sent him to Mark Anthony at Antioch - a city that was later to be the place at which the disciples were first called Christians...

Quote:

Ant.16.4

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.

my bolding

Now, that's interesting - money changed hands re the crucifixion and beheading of Antigonus.....

TedM · 11-06-2010, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

?

I did start a thread on this subject a while back....

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....14#post6469514

The historical crucifixion of Antigonus as a model for the Jesus crucifixion story.

I see that you never responded to the final posts in that thread, one of which follows. Would you care to do that now? :

Quote:

Originally Posted by steven huller

This is just silly. First of all you never mentioned anything about beheading in your original post. You said Antigonus was crucified. Now you decide to mention Dio Cassius reference to being flogged while bound to a STAKE (stauroi) before being beheaded (remember all of Samuelsson's recent work - stauroi here DOES NOT MEAN T SHAPED CRUCIFIX) but noticeably absent from the discussion are all the other references I mentioned. Kaplan clearly demonstrates that Dio Cassius's claims about Antigonus being chained to a stake and then having his throat slit are completely at odds with all other reports of Antigonus being beheaded with an ax. All Kaplan says is that Dio Cassius, a man writing long after the gospel account had already been established got his information from some other lost source other than Josephus who cites Strabo and the 'beheaded by ax' understanding which is universal. So we have no cross, no crucifixion, a beheading and the claim that the beheading of a king was unprecedented is complete hogwash. For Josephus demonstrates a number of rebellious Hasomneans who were beheaded before Antigonus. There are an endless number of kings from other nations cited by Kaplan who were similarly BEHEADED.

Yes IF Antigonus was indeed crucified that would be unprecedented and could POSSIBLY have been used as a source for the gospel BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED so that should be the end of this unworkable theory.

maryhelena · 11-06-2010, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

?

I did start a thread on this subject a while back....

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....14#post6469514

The historical crucifixion of Antigonus as a model for the Jesus crucifixion story.

I see that you never responded to the final posts in that thread, one of which follows. Would you care to do that now? :

Quote:

Originally Posted by steven huller

This is just silly. First of all you never mentioned anything about beheading in your original post. You said Antigonus was crucified. Now you decide to mention Dio Cassius reference to being flogged while bound to a STAKE (stauroi) before being beheaded (remember all of Samuelsson's recent work - stauroi here DOES NOT MEAN T SHAPED CRUCIFIX) but noticeably absent from the discussion are all the other references I mentioned. Kaplan clearly demonstrates that Dio Cassius's claims about Antigonus being chained to a stake and then having his throat slit are completely at odds with all other reports of Antigonus being beheaded with an ax. All Kaplan says is that Dio Cassius, a man writing long after the gospel account had already been established got his information from some other lost source other than Josephus who cites Strabo and the 'beheaded by ax' understanding which is universal. So we have no cross, no crucifixion, a beheading and the claim that the beheading of a king was unprecedented is complete hogwash. For Josephus demonstrates a number of rebellious Hasomneans who were beheaded before Antigonus. There are an endless number of kings from other nations cited by Kaplan who were similarly BEHEADED.

Yes IF Antigonus was indeed crucified that would be unprecedented and could POSSIBLY have been used as a source for the gospel BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED so that should be the end of this unworkable theory.

My reply to Stephan
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....54#post6470654

TedM · 11-06-2010, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

I see that you never responded to the final posts in that thread, one of which follows. Would you care to do that now? :

My reply to Stephan
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....54#post6470654

Mary, I'm sorry to have wasted your time due to my carelessness. I see now that the thread continued on the next page..:banghead:

maryhelena · 11-06-2010, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

My reply to Stephan
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....54#post6470654

Mary, I'm sorry to have wasted your time due to my carelessness. I see now that the thread continued on the next page..:banghead:

No worry - it's easy to get mixed up with posts and posters and threads.....:wave:

DCHindley · 11-06-2010, 02:34 PM

MH,

So, you are going to use a Wiki page that simply lumps the regions of Abilene, Chalcis and Iturea together into a single "tetrarchy of Lysianas" rather than differentiate them as presented by Josephus?

E Schurer, Revised edition of Jewish People in Age of Jesus Christ, vol 1, page 568 (Appendix I: History of Chalcis, Ituraea and Abilene)

... it appears that prior to A.D. 37, the tetrarchy of Abila belonged to a certain Lysanias. And because Josephus alludes earlier only to the Lysanias who was contemporary of Antonius and Cleopatra, it has been assumed that there was no since then, and that the Abilene tetrarchy got its name from that older Lysanias. This is impossible. Under Lysanias I, Ituraea posessed the same frontiers as under his father, Ptolemy. It's capital was Chalcis. It is true that the region of Abila belonged to it, for the territory bordered the territory of Damascus. But it certainly formed only a small part of that considerable kingdom [of the Ituraeans] which embraced practically the whole territory of Lebanon. So it is impossible that the region of Abila would have been described as the 'tetrarchy of Lysanias'. It should rather be assumed that the Abilene region was in the meantime divided from the kingdom of Chalcis and ruled by a later Lysanias as tetrarch.

The existence of a later Lysanias [drum roll as you wait for it] is also attested by the following inscription found in Abila:

UPER (T)H(S) TWN KURION SE[BASTWN]
SWTERIAS KAI TOU SUM[PANTOS]
AUTWN OIKOU, NUMFAIOS AE[TOU]
LUSANIOU TETRARCOU APELE[UQEROS]
THN ODON KTISAS K.T.L.
As the correctness of the restoration SE[BASTWN] is not in question, the inscription cannot be placed earlier than the time of Tiberius. For previously there had never been several 'Augusti'. ... Thus, when Luke (3:1) suggests that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius a certain Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, he would seem to be right.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Luke 3;1 mentioning Lysianas the tetrarch of Abilene [mid 1st century CE] hardly brings the story to the time of Lysanius the son of Ptolemy, king of Chalcis in the time that Herod was fighting to take physical possession of his kingdom [Ant 14:330 & 15:92, about 38 BCE].

As far as I'm aware the existence of a Lysanias, Tetrarch of Abiline in 29/30 ce is questionable. Whereas the existence of Lysanias in 4O BC is not. And interestingly, according to Wikipedia, this Lysanias was a cousin of Antigonus - and like Antigonus was killed by Mark Anthony (or on orders...)

maryhelena · 11-06-2010, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

MH,

So, you are going to use a Wiki page that simply lumps the regions of Abilene, Chalcis and Iturea together into a single "tetrarchy of Lysianas" rather than differentiate them as presented by Josephus?

E Schurer, Revised edition of Jewish People in Age of Jesus Christ, vol 1, page 568 (Appendix I: History of Chalcis, Ituraea and Abilene)

... it appears that prior to A.D. 37, the tetrarchy of Abila belonged to a certain Lysanias. And because Josephus alludes earlier only to the Lysanias who was contemporary of Antonius and Cleopatra, it has been assumed that there was no since then, and that the Abilene tetrarchy got its name from that older Lysanias. This is impossible. Under Lysanias I, Ituraea posessed the same frontiers as under his father, Ptolemy. It's capital was Chalcis. It is true that the region of Abila belonged to it, for the territory bordered the territory of Damascus. But it certainly formed only a small part of that considerable kingdom [of the Ituraeans] which embraced practically the whole territory of Lebanon. So it is impossible that the region of Abila would have been described as the 'tetrarchy of Lysanias'. It should rather be assumed that the Abilene region was in the meantime divided from the kingdom of Chalcis and ruled by a later Lysanias as tetrarch.

The existence of a later Lysanias [drum roll as you wait for it] is also attested by the following inscription found in Abila:

UPER (T)H(S) TWN KURION SE[BASTWN]
SWTERIAS KAI TOU SUM[PANTOS]
AUTWN OIKOU, NUMFAIOS AE[TOU]
LUSANIOU TETRARCOU APELE[UQEROS]
THN ODON KTISAS K.T.L.
As the correctness of the restoration SE[BASTWN] is not in question, the inscription cannot be placed earlier than the time of Tiberius. For previously there had never been several 'Augusti'. ... Thus, when Luke (3:1) suggests that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius a certain Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, he would seem to be right.

DCH

Well, at least the Wiki page does mention that Josephus only mentions one Lysanias and that the inscription can relate to the fact that "Augustus and Livia together were referred to during their lifetimes as SEBASTWI, ie Augusti,"

Quote:

But Josephus does not refer to a second Lysanias. It is therefore suggested by others[citation needed] that he really does refer to the original Lysanias, even though the latter died decades earlier. In BJ 2.215 Josephus refers to the realm as being "called the kingdom of Lysanias", while Ptolemy writing circa 120 AD in his Geography Bk 5 refers to Abila as "called of Lysanias"[7]

The explanation given by M. Krenkel [8] is that Josephus does not mean to imply that Abila was the only possession of Lysanias, and that he calls it the tetrarchy or kingdom of Lysanias because it was the last remnant of the domain of Lysanias which remained under direct Roman administration until the time of Agrippa.

As far as I can see the question of a second Lysanias ruling as tetrarch in the 15th year of Tiberius is something that is not resolved.

Sure, one can maintain that Luke is historically correct re a second Lysanias - but such a Lysanias would not provide any insight into why such a figure would be relevant to Luke's history re his Jesus figure. Creating possible scenarios to support such a second Lysanias only serves to cloud the implications of Luke's mention of Lysanias rather than provide any forward movement.

As to the dating in gLuke ie the 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 ce, and the census in the time of Quirinius in 6 ce - both these dates are noteworthy as being 70 years from important historical events in Jewish history. 40 bc for Antigonus taking Jerusalem - and 63 bc for Pompey's siege of Jerusalem.
Thus, in the case of Luke 3.1 and it's mention of Lysanias of Abilene - the historical events involving Lysanias and Antigonus would indicate that it is 40 bc that Luke is viewing as relevant - not some other Lysanias that has no relevance to Jewish history in 29/30 ce.

JoeWallack · 11-06-2010, 03:32 PM

JW:
Oy. I've inventoried the reasons to doubt that Jesus was crucified here:

Was Paul the First to Assert that Jesus was Crucified?

http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.ph...&postcount=162

Quote:

Weakness of potential historical witness evidence:

1) No extant writing by first-hand historical witness asserting crucifixion.

2) Paul never claims Jesus' crucifixion while contemporary to Jesus.

3) Potential second-hand historical witness Paul, never asserts that first-hand historical witness asserted crucifixion.

4) In the disputed Corinthians (which I think is original) Paul only says that historical witness agrees with him that Jesus died (doesn't really narrow it down, does it?). That would have been a good time to mention the crucifixion, yet not only does Paul not mention crucifixion, he phrases historical witness as opposed to him.

5) Paul does not provide any details for the crucifixion.

6) The best potential extant historical witness, Q, makes no mention of crucifixion.

7) There's an implication from Paul's letters that after he proselytizes in virgin territory, historical witness comes in to clean up his shit and convinces many that Paul is not accurately promoting Jesus. The supposed crucifixion could be part of this.

8) Paul's comment that a Christ crucified is foolishness to the Jews.

9) Subsequent Christian crucifixion Assertians seem to use Paul as a primary source.

"Mark" appears to have used Paul's figurative use of "crucify" in Galatians to subdue and extinguish passion as a key idea for "Mark's" Passion narrative. To the extent it can be demonstrated that the original crucifixion narrative ("Mark") has major elements of fiction, such as "Mark's" Jesus' lack of passion during the Passion being based on Paul's advice to followers to subdue and extinguish their passions, this undermines the historical potential of all elements of the Passion, including the crucifixion itself.

10) Paul's followers, late first century, who presumably would have been in the best position to know what the historical Paul and his writings meant, never mention Peter.

11) The first known crucifixion narrative, in "Mark", in general has an anti-historical witness attitude and specifically casts the best potential first-hand witness, Jesus' Disciples, as opposing the idea/prediction of Jesus' Passion, never understanding/accepting the need and not witnessing the crucifixion or subsequently promoting Jesus after.

12) There's general agreement that the ending of "Mark" showing disciples as aware of the crucifixion is forged. The other Canonical Gospels using original "Mark" as the basic story, have differing disciple awareness of the crucifixion. This suggests that there was no historical witness of the crucifixion available to the Canonical authors.

13) Christianity is blessed with multiple forged claims of first-hand witness to the crucifixion (I have Faith that every Ruler of the Age is covered here, Peter, Caiphais, Herod, Pilate as well as the ending of "Mark", Amen).

14) "Mark's" related narrative is smeared with implausibility indicating a lack of historical details.

15) Subsequent crucifixion narratives closely follow "Mark" indicating lack of available historical witness.

16) Common sense, always the best argument, tells us that if Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem it's unlikely his movement would have been permitted to promote him in Jerusalem.

17) Statistics (most people, even than, did not die from crucifixion).

18) Possibility that Christianity censored evidence disputing crucifixion.

19) Paul is a very bad witness in general making it more likely that he asserts what was not historical for the following reasons:

1) Age - 2,000 years creates doubt all by itself.

2) Subject matter

a) Religion is a poor source for history.

b) Religion utilizes the figurative more than history (so Paul's use may be figurative).
3) Impeached credibility - A primary argument of Paul is that his Jesus is the logical conclusion of the Jewish Bible which is clearly a wrong conclusion.

4) Source - Paul clearly states that his primary source is revelation and explicitly denies any significant human source.

5) Variation

a) Marcion, a comparable witness to Paul verses the orthodox, saw a significantly different Pauline corpus.

b) Paul's writings contain contradictions and ambiguity.

c) The orthodox version of Paul (Acts) differs significantly from Paul's Paul in that orthodox Paul is a partner with first-hand witness while Paul's Paul is a competitor.
6) Institutional discount - The orthodox have preserved the extant evidence and had motive and opportunity to make changes which improved orthodox assertians. Therefore, any orthodox assertian, such as crucifixion is less likely than the extant evidence indicates.

7) Second hand witness at best

20) And, as the Brits say, "the cruncher":

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...r=3&version=31

Quote:

Galatians 3

1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

An implication from Paul that Jesus' supposed crucifixion was disputed (thanks Spammer).

JW:
Jesus crucified is a long way from a historical fact. Is no one listening to what spin keeps telling youse guys? The issue that should be discussed is Source, Source and Source. No first hand witness that Jesus was crucified. No second hand witness that Jesus was crucified. Fake first hand witness that Jesus was crucified.

We have two potential quality sources here, Paul and "Mark". Are they credible? What were there Sources? Who the hell was "Mark". What were their attitudes towards historical witness?

If you deny/ignore these primary questions and only look at secondary questions your conclusion can not possibly be certain.

That Paul's use of "portrayed" in Corinthians really meant "portrayed" is finally starting to get some interest after 2,000 years. Amen, hallelulah. Is it possible that Paul used "crucified" other than in the way Christians 2,000 years later literally understand it after 2,000 years of theology? Does a Bar take a Peshitta to read in the woods? Does this prove the crucifixion was not historical? Of course not. It has the same source problems and worse of the positive assertion. But it is reason to doubt and [understatement]historical facts should be very short on doubt[/understatement].

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.