maryhelena

If the Josephan historical narrative re Antigonus was part of a story of unknown origin, like the gospel JC story, then those mythicists that are engaged in literary examination of the gospel JC story, would very quickly be pointing the finger at that Antigonus story as an example of literary borrowing by the gospel writers. The fact that the Antigonus story is contained within the writing of Josephus - and is based upon historical evidence (the Hasmonean coins) for the existence of Antigonus - suddenly that Antigonus story is not something that the gospel writers would have taken literary cognizance of. Seems to me that some mythicists might be fighting shy of finding that their anti-historical position is going to fail them.

Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, bound to a cross, flogged and slain in 37 b.c.	70 year Anniversary of the killing of Antigonus, 33 c.e.
JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.) Antiquities: (about 94 c.e.) Antigonus enters Jerusalem in 40 b.c.	The 15th year of Tiberius, 29/30 , c.e, is 70 years from 40 b.c. and the rule of Lysanias of Abilene. Luke 3:1.
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. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.)	John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear the High Priest's servant.
Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared all enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16	gJohn indicates a three year ministy for JC
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.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. ..Antigonus, without regard to either his past or present circumstances, came down from the citadel, and fell down at the feet of Sosius, who took no pity of him, in the change of his fortune, but insulted him beyond measure, and called him Antigone [i.e. a woman, and not a man;] yet did he not treat him as if he were a woman, by letting him go at liberty, but put him into bonds, and kept him in close custody.......	The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilinqual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
...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. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...)	Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3
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. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1	Acts: 11:16. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Solo

Nothing is necessary for a historical background, but also nothing a priori excludes it. The problem with the 'Markan inventon' is that he transparently wrote for a community, actually two of them, that apparently believed something about Jesus already. So, Mark was not writing fiction in the sense Leo Tolstoy or Apuleius were writing fiction, i.e. creating characters without prior reference.

The baptism of Jesus by JtB looks like a literary adaptation of the investiture Joshua (in Joshua 3) yet this does not in any way exclude the possibility of a tradition that the Nazarene was baptized by John. Jesus temple tantrum might have been a ripoff of Nehemiah, but the odds are that some disturbance involving Jesus happened at the temple, especially since John preserved two accounts of Jesus misbehaving in the precinct (2:15, 8:58)- denying in a typical fashion of a frank manic - that either incident had anything to do with his crucifixion.

Best,
Jiri

EarlDoherty

This is nonsense. If James Bond, a fictitious character, is modelled on the actual secret agents of MI-6, of what earthly relevance would it be to give some of the names of those agents? James Bond is based on a class of people who work for British Intelligence, not on any single individual. The same way that the apocalyptic prophet of the Gospels is based on contemporary apocalyptic prophets generally (in my view, namely those of the Q community), not on any single one of them. If I could give half a dozen names of such prophets of the time, what extra iota of understanding would that provide? What iota of existence would it give to the Gospels' own fictional character?

For all of those ten years too, maryhelena, I have been unable to understand what the hell you are trying to say.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Earl, it is not nonsense to present an argument that historical people mattered to the creators of the gospel JC literary figure. We are not dealing with James Bond here. We are dealing with a story, the gospel JC story, that has far reaching social consequences. Anything that can be gleamed, from the historical situation from which that gospel JC story arose, is of fundamental importance. Even vital importance in the search for early christian origins. To label this as *nonsense* says more about your own anti-historical position, than the validity of my suggestion.

As to naming names - you reject this because you can't do so. And without being able to name names, your position on early christian origins is pure assumption.

OK - I'll make it very simple for you. History matters. Reality matters. Without a foothold in history your JC crucified in the sub-lunar realm is as much fiction as is the gospel JC story.

Sad choice is it not - the historicist's JC fiction and the Doherty JC sub-lunar fiction. I'd much rather make a try for history.

EarlDoherty

You go where the evidence leads, maryhelena, not where you'd like it to end up.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Where in that 1 Cor. passage does Paul identify his Christ as "the risen Christ" in the sense of from a death on earth? Nowhere.

Like spin, you are probably basing this on a common misunderstanding of verse 15:45b, usually mistranslated as "became a life-giving spirit" which is always read as implying a progress from human to spiritual upon his resurrection. No such implication can be found in the passage, nor would it fit in anywhere. The verb (which is merely understood in the Greek) has to parallel 45a, which has Adam--what? Progressing from one state to another? No such idea is applicable to him. Instead, the idea in both halves of verse 45 is of Adam and Christ being created, or coming into being, in their respective forms, one physical, the other spiritual. No idea of rising from human to spiritual belongs here, and it is present nowhere else. As Vork has pointed out, Christ is defined as a spiritual being with a spiritual body, the prototype for Christian's resurrected body. He is nowhere dealt with as having been human like Adam, a state of affairs which would have screwed up his entire argument.

Anyway, this is just a heads up for you. I have no intention of having any long dragged-out debate on this. I had enough of that with spin a year or so ago. I don't want to have to deal with any more Pinocchios.

By the way, the heart of Paul's theology is indeed imitatio, but it is a parallel between heaven and earth, in keeping with general Platonic outlook. It is precisely because the redeeming act takes place in heaven by a heavenly deity that it has a guarantee for the devotee on earth. (It's called "paradigmatic parallelism.") No argument in favor of both having to be on earth in human flesh is sounded before Ignatius.

Earl Doherty