stephan huller

You're right. Jesus is a retelling of the Antigonus story BECAUSE Antigonus was crucified in Antioch AND a later writer who wrote long after Mark identified Antioch as the place Christianity got started. I see it now. Christianity as a collective body were determined to 'hitch their wagon' to Antigonus - a figure unmentioned in any Jewish or Christian document outside of Josephus. No one cared about Antigonus except for this small circle of followers of a fictitious Jesus who were busy 'inventing details' to realize their mythical aspirations.

And just think of the coincidence! How many large cities that Antigonus could have been crucified in? If it had happened in Jerusalem you'd say 'and Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem.' If it had happened in Bethlehem you'd say 'and Jesus was born in Bethlehem.' If had happened in Galilee you'd say 'and Jesus was a Galilean.' The list goes on and on.

But Jesus never went to Antioch. Therefore, this is worst argument yet, the weakest possible connection between a Jesus you allege never existed, never had any semblance of reality and Antigonus because ...

IF JESUS WAS ENTIRELY A FICTITIOUS 'LIE' AND THE GOSPEL WRITERS WERE FREE TO 'MAKE UP' ANYTHING THEY WANTED ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF HIS DEATH - WHY - IF THEY WERE SO INTENT ON CONNECTING THIS 'MYTH' TO ANTIGONUS WHY WOULDN'T THEY HAVE JESUS CRUCIFIED IN ANTIOCH?

Other than that, you're theory is quite solid.

maryhelena

And why would they seek to be so obvious?
The Jesus story, a symbolic or mythological story, is not an exact re-telling of the Antigonus history - it is an interpretation of that history. An interpretation with its grand finale in Jerusalem - a city of OT prophetic significance - unlike Antioch....

spamandham

Stephen, did any Roman customs influence Christians customs in your mind? Has the vampire theme influenced the zombie theme in modern story telling?

To say that the story of Antigonus influenced the story of Jesus is not the same as saying Antigonus is the historical Jesus....or that the Jesus story was constructed from the Antigonus story. Josephus did record Antigonus. Did Josephus record every ruler of the region? If not, then it's fair to say there was something memorable about Antigonus.

stephan huller

Aaah, yes. Why be so obvious? In that case ANY CITY fits the bill to prove a connection between Jesus and Antioch.

If Jesus had been crucified in Alexandria, you could have said that both Alexandria and Antioch begin with the letter 'A.'

But there's more. Here's another one you might have missed. Antigonus and Antioch both begin with the same four letters and 'Jesus' and 'Jerusalem' begin with the first two letters. Maybe that's another 'secret clue.'

Another uncanny similarity between Jesus and Antigonus - they were both Jewish men whose names end with the letter 's.'

The possibilities are endless ...

maryhelena

The gospel Jesus is not historical - that figure is figurative, symbolic or mythological. That is the perspective from which I work - and that is the perspective from which the historical crucifixion of Antigonus in 37 bc can be viewed as a model for the crucifixion of the gospel mythological Jesus. There is no direct equation - and the historical Antigonus is not the model for the entire gospel storyline re Jesus. He is only the model for the gospel symbolic crucifixion story.

stephan huller

I don't think the story of Antigonus influenced the story of Jesus. At best one might argue that Antigonus's biting off of the high priest's ear could have influenced the gospel narrative about the high priest's δοῦλον losing his ear. That's the only part that really fits. But that has nothing to do with Jesus and we know too little about who this δοῦλον was to make a definitive statement about him. Nevertheless his name 'malchus' seems to indicate more of a connection with Antigonus given that it derives from the Hebrew word for 'king.'

But then again Antigonus bit the ear of someone else; the 'king' here had his ear taken off by a sword.

It all never quite fits.

stephan huller

And upon reflection a much more convincing case can be made that the gospel narrative has something to do with Judas the Galilean than a long forgotten figure like Antigonus. While it is never explicitly stated that Judas was crucified, it has been widely assumed that this happened. After all Judas's sons were crucified.

Of course all such speculation ultimately leads nowhere but at the very least there are traditions that the guy on the cross was a disciple named Judas. And then there is the sign that Pilate wrote. If it was written in Hebrew - rather than Aramaic - it might compliment the story retained in Islamic sources i.e. al Zamakhshari that a disciple named Judas was crucified in the place of Jesus.

Ultimately tradition seems to date back to the time of Augustine, Against Faustus Book XIV.8 and other contemporary sources (Augustine "It is true, some ignorantly distinguish between hanging on a tree and being crucified. So some explain this passage - i.e. cursed is everyone hanging on a tree - as referring to Judas. But how do they know whether he hung himself from wood or from stone? Faustus is right in saying that the apostle obliges us to refer the words to Christ.")

If Pilate is imagined to have written the sign in Hebrew one can imagine that it could have been taken as a reference to the 'king of the Jews' or (poetically) to a 'king Judas.'

But let's leave that argument alone for a second. Even the idea that the Emperor Titus might have served as the model for Jesus (i.e. Joe Atwill's theory) has at least (theoretically) the support of countless Islamic sources (they mention a figure named Tatian, Titus or even Simon as the one crucified).

My difficulty is treating the serious work of scholarship as a creative writing exercise. If an opinion cannot find the support of at least ONE ancient witness, that theory probably isn't worth considering.

maryhelena

The gospel of John, in contrast to the synoptic gospels, has a more detailed account of what Pilate wrote on the sign above the gospel crucified Jesus.

A sign in three languages and a sign 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?

bacht

If I understand this argument, the idea is that Christians supported the Hasmonean dynasty and the Herodians were their enemies and ultimate victors in the political struggle. Would that make Christians either identical with or sympathizers with the Sadducees? This would explain the anti-Pharisee material in the gospels, though I didn't think they were normally considered Herodian supporters.

I guess the Sadducees would have had some common interests with gnostics who rejected the oral Torah of Ezra, and also with Samaritan 'fundamentalists' who only used the Pentateuch.

stephan huller

I have no idea what having the sign posted in three languages has to do with a bilingual coin from the reign of Antigonus. You seem to hint that his real name was 'Matthew' so what?

And here is the biggest problem for your theory. Yes, Antigonus was taken to Antioch BUT HE WAS BEHEADED NOT CRUCIFIED. (Josephus Ant. 14.15.8-16.2 §§439-80; J.W. 1.16.7, 18.3, 320-57, Dio Cassius 49.22, Plutarch Anthony 36)

I took your word that Antigonus was crucified. Then I checked all the sources and the consensus of scholars. THEN I REALIZED YOU DIDN'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK. AGAIN.

I've said it before. Being a scholar is more than a creative writing exercise. All good scholarship begins with familiarizing yourself with ALL the available sources. You should stop wasting everyone's time with half-baked comments, criticisms, theories and ideas.

There is apparently an advantage to actually 'knowing stuff.'

But then again, maybe that's what these forums are for. I don't know I am new here.