Onias

Mary,
I never said I accepted the gospels as history. But in your OP, you draw parallels between Peter and Antigonus. But then you never elaborate much further. If you do not expand on your chart and further elaborate on your views, your thesis remains sterile.

At least Joe Atwill goes into enormous detail in his view and interpretation of the gospels, but you are still on the Title Page of your thesis. Please finish your thesis. Add the detail that could make it a fully baked idea, please.
Onias

mountainman

Surely we are dealing in legends which the gospel authors "BORROWED".

These legends were not just Jewish.


The Emperor Vespasian makes the blind man see in Seutonius.

The following is from Asclepius: The God of Medicine
By Gerald D. Hart, and makes the comparson between Jesus and Asclepius.



There is also the historical figure of Apollonius of Tyana wandering around in the 1st century and his imperial biographer of the 3rd century.

Now while I may agree for the sake of the argument that one part of the fabrication has used the Hasmonean/Jewish history (especially the "King of the Jews" trope) I do not agree that this was all that was used. It is far more complicated than that. We are not dealing exclusively with a Maxwell Smart Jewish "Cone of Silence" that was unconnected with the larger and far more influential pagan milieu.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

maryhelena

Pete, this is what I said in the OP:


[T2]Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.[/T2]

I've never confined the composite JC figure to a figure only reflecting Hasmonean/Jewish history. The point of the OP is that Hasmonean/Jewish history is also relevant to the creation of that gospel figure.

Indeed lots more in that composite gospel figure than a reflection of Hasmonean/Jewish history. However, my focus in on the aspects of that gospel JC figure, and his story, that is reflecting elements of Hasmonean/Jewish history.

maryhelena

Onias.

Atwill wrote a book! This is an internet forum for discussion/debating ideas....

What I have done in the chart is set down the names of three historical figures. Historical figures evidenced by their coins. In two columns I set down the Josephan account of these historical figures, plus an account from Philo. In the fourth column I set down the gospel reflections of the Josephan account, and Philo, of these historical figures.

Did Philo and Josephus make up their accounts of these three historical figures? We have what we have - and can, of course, question the accounts of these three historical figures that these two writers have written.

Onias, my chart is what it is. It stands on it's own feet.

It's a simple exercise that the chart has done. Yes, placing the Josephan, and the Philo, account alongside elements from the gospel story presents it's own questions. New questions that require new answers. I'm pretty sure that people will have their own answers as to why the Hasmonean/Jewish history (and the Josephan take on it, also Philo) is reflected within the composite gospel JC, and within the gospel story. The question of *why* is a big question - however on this thread - the focus is not on the *why* - it is on acknowledging what is there. Alongside all the mythological elements, alongside all the OT interpretations - there sits reflections of Hasmonean/Jewish history.

You want my take on it? The historical core to the gospel JC figure, and his story, is a historical core that reflects Hasmonean/Jewish history. A simple answer to a simple chart. The JC story is not all mythical. It has a foothold in Hasmonean/Jewish history. In other words - that JC story has a foothold on reality. Historical reality. The gospel JC story is not all imagination.

Is this important? Yes - if searching for early christian origins is what we are seeking. The history that was relevant to the writers of the gospel story - should also be relevant to those seeking early christian origins. That history is the foothold, the link, the hook, that allows a historical search into early christian origins to move forward.

The chart is what it is. Whatever the interpretations that can arise from it; whatever the questions and answers raised and answered - the chart stands on its own. That, basically, is the point of the OP; Hasmonean/Jewish history is reflected within the composite gospel JC and the gospel story about this figure.

Onias

Mary,
The title of your thread is HISTORY REJECTS THE ASSUMPTION OF A HISTORICAL GOSPEL JESUS FIGURE, but now you say "that JC story has a foothold on reality. Historical reality. The gospel JC story is not all imagination." Please make up your mind or clarify your position.

You also keep repeating "The historical core to the gospel JC figure, and his story, is a historical core that reflects Hasmonean/Jewish history." OK, fine, but you need to elaborate further and at least write an essay. Your chart is just a starting point. You need to expand on it if your 'theory' is to gain any traction among those who view your posts.
Onias

maryhelena

Make up my mind? I don't understand what point you are trying to make here??

The chart stands on it's own. What you need to do is counter the points made in that chart. You need to counter the reflection that chart has made between Hasmonean/Jewish history and the gospel JC figure and the gospel story. It is the chart that is up for discussion - not what interpretation of that chart I might make. My argument, the argument that chart is proposing, is that the specified history in that chart is reflected in the gospel figure and story of JC. That is what you need to be discussing. Anyone, including you, is free to speculate what the signification, if any, that chart might have.

Onias

Mary,
If you do not see the contradiction between " HISTORY REJECTS THE ASSUMPTION OF A HISTORICAL GOSPEL JESUS FIGURE" , and "that JC story has a foothold on reality. Historical reality. The gospel JC story is not all imagination", then there is no use in continuing this thread. It may as well die on the vine.
Onias

maryhelena

1) The premise in the title of this OP is that a consideration of Hasmonean/Jewish history would reject any suggestion that the gospel figure of JC is a historical figure.

2) That the gospel JC story has a foothold on reality, historical reality; that that story is not all imagination - does not contradict 1).

Hasmonean/Jewish history is reflected in the composite gospel JC and the gospel story. A reflection of such history does not make JC or his story historical. No more than it makes James Bond and his various stories historical because that literary figure reflects various historical figures.

mountainman

Well in that case I can't see that anyone could really disagree with your claim here. We may be looking at a dozen historical realities which were used to underpin the pseudo-history of the JC figure, the Hasmonean/Jewish history being one such strand in the composite.

However I do not agree with your assessment that the gospels were necessarily early, since the same data would have been available for centuries after the events. We know the books of Josephus were very helpful for Eusebius in the 4th century. And by the time of the 4th century there are other historical scenarios that can be added as resources for the pseudo-historical composite, the greatest one in my mind being the Persian history of Mani, the religious leader of the Manichaeans, who wrote a Gospel and epistles to his apostles and who had a flourishing and expanding church, and who was CRUCIFIED in the state capital city.

I am sorry to have introduced Mani's Sassanid Persian history into your discussion of Hasmonean/Jewish history but I have done so for a reason.

I agree with you about the fact that we are dealing with a pseudo-historical gospel JC figure, who may be mapped into Hasmonean/Jewish history.

But until we discover the rest of the many more parts to the composite and put them all together, the evidence for the forgery of the JC figure will not be recognised for what it is.

Let me say that I was not aware of these parallels to the Hasmonean/Jewish history until you tabulated them and presented them here, and for this knowledge I am grateful for your perseverence here.

I am reminded of a quote from Momigliano who said that Eusebius could not have created his church history without Josephus. I can dig it out if need be.

Best wishes







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Onias

Perhaps English is not your first language. I notice you are from South Africa.
Are you a Dutch Afrikaner? Perhaps this may be why we are not understanding one another.

You have written:


Anyway, I do not think the miracle-working 'Jesus' of the extant gospels was an historical figure, but I do think this literary 'Jesus' was derived from historical messiah-aspirants. Is that what you are intending to mean?
Onias