Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 11-22-2010, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Big difference between "NEEDED" and reality, between "fabricate" and historical realities. Big difference between the fabricated gospel Jesus figure and the historical realities of the time period in which that gospel Jesus storyline has been set. Yes, interpretations, evaluations, of historical realities (by all accounts a great Jewish pastime.....) required that the Hebrew Scriptures be used - no need to jettison an already established template for further elaborations re pseudo-historical storytelling.

What are you really saying? What exactly in the historical realities show that the Jesus character was based on a significant historical figure?

Historical realities that were present during the gospel time slot for it's figurative Jesus figure:

1.

Quote:

"About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years. He had shewn himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him, he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgement, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal sat down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint; he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took (or he left no sons behind him) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave orders that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrarchy."

(Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews. Book XV111,ch.1V,par.6)

2. Philip the Tetrarch re-built and re-named the village of Bethsaida to Bethsaida Julias in 30/31 ce - at a time when the gospel of John states that the early disciples came from that village.

Quote:

The numismatist A. Kindler suggested that Josephus may be wrong and that Livia/Julia the wife would lie behind this dedication dated to 30/31 CE. Following Kindler, the archaeologists and theologians currently operating at etTell-identified by them as the site of Bethsaida-Julias-have produced many papers accusing Josephus of error.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=20769141

3. Philip's home town was Casearea Philippi. It is in this area that the gospel storyline of Mark and Matthew places its Jesus figure when that figure askes his disciples who do they say he is.

4. Philip was not a young man during the time of Pilate - 26 ce to 36 ce. The gospel of John has the Jews saying about it's Jesus figure that this figure was not yet 50 years old.

Quote:

What significant Jewish man TAUGHT his disciples that he would be RAISED from the dead on the THIRD Day?

What significant Jewish man could have died for the sins of mankind when THOUSANDS of Jews were crucified?

That's the one in the gospel storyline.....

Quote:

What historical source show that the Jesus character was based on a significant historical figure?

See above for some historical detail...

Quote:

What are you talking about? You are extremely vague? We have the writings of Philo, the Jew, of Alexandria, and Josephus, a Pharisee, who lived in Galilee and these writings covered hundreds of years of Jewish history including virtually the ENTIRE 1st century.

Tacitus' in Histories 5 claimed Jews had a MENTAL concept of DEITY up to the 2ND century.

Histories 5

Quote:

....the Jews have purely mental conceptions of Deity, as one in essence. They call those profane who make representations of God in human shape out of perishable materials.

They believe that Being to be supreme and eternal, neither capable of representation, nor of decay....

What are you talking about? Please say which significant historical Jewish figure was ultimately worshiped as a God, the Creator of heaven and earth and was RAISED from the dead?

It was the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost that was CRUCIFIED in the Gospels, not a man.

aa5874 - I don't want to get off topic here - this thread is about the crucifixion of the claimed HJ that is supposedly behind or underneath the gospel Jesus.

Philip the Tetrarch lived a long life and was not crucified. The history used for the gospel crucifixion storyline was most probably that of the Hasmonean Antigonus:

Antigonus II Mattathias

Quote:

Antigonus II Mattathias was the only anointed King of the Jews (messiah) historically recorded to have been scourged and crucified by the Romans. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a stake and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[2] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king".[3]

footnote:

CAESAREA PHILIPPI: BANIAS, THE LOST CITY OF PAN: John Francis Wilson (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

"He used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in
judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance,
he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be,
and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted
to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly."

The description brings to mind the retinue of an itinerant Bedouin chieftain.

Philip died in the city of Julias in the fall of 33 AD, in the twentieth year of the reign
of Tiberius, and the thirty-seventh year of his own. He left no heirs, and so his territory,
including Banias, was annexed to the province of Syria, but with the right to administer
its own revenues. This latter provision probably indicates that the Romans still regarded
the region as having an independent integrity and this arrangement nothing more than a
sort of interregnum. Josephus says that his body was ‘carried to that monument which he
had already erected for himself beforehand’ and that he was ‘buried with great pomp’. It
is usually presumed that this monument was located in Bethsaida-Julias, but excavations
there show the place to be very modest at best, and besides, Philip’s capital and home were
at Banias. It seems more reasonable to understand Josephus to mean that a sad procession
carried the remains of this successful ruler, respected by both the Romans and his own
subjects, northward along the banks of the nascent Jordan’s cool waters to the springs of
Banias. There, somewhere, he was laid to rest.

As to who exactly Philip the Tetrarch was - here is a link to a post re issues relevant to that question.

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....98#post6446498

aa5874 · 11-23-2010, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa5874 - I don't want to get off topic here - this thread is about the crucifixion of the claimed HJ that is supposedly behind or underneath the gospel Jesus.

You the one who FIRST claimed that there was a significant figure behind the Jesus character.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Philip the Tetrarch lived a long life and was not crucified. The history used for the gospel crucifixion storyline was most probably that of the Hasmonean Antigonus...

You are just guessing.

It can shown be that the history may NOT have been based on a SINGLE character but multiple characters and events in the writings of Josephus who lived in Galilee.

In the Gospels, three characters were CRUCIFIED and ONE eventually resurrected.

In the "LIFE of Josephus", three acquaintances of Josephus were crucified and ONE eventually SURVIVED.

The "Life of Flavius Josephus"

Quote:

.....as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance.

I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered....

You simply cannot show that Jews would have worshiped a known man as a God who was crucified.

The crucifixion of Jesus, described as the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost and the Creator of heaven and earth who was EQUAL to the God of the Jews, appears to be based on MYTHOLOGY, Hebrew Scripture, and the writings of Josephus, rather than actual BIOGRAPHY.

maryhelena · 11-23-2010, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

aa5874 - I don't want to get off topic here - this thread is about the crucifixion of the claimed HJ that is supposedly behind or underneath the gospel Jesus.

You the one who FIRST claimed that there was a significant figure behind the Jesus character.

You are just guessing.

It can shown be that the history may NOT have been based on a SINGLE character but multiple characters and events in the writings of Josephus who lived in Galilee.

And I never said that the gospel Jesus figure was "based on a SINGLE CHARACTER". I proposed two historical figures ........if you want to add some more - then be my guest....

Quote:

In the Gospels, three characters were CRUCIFIED and ONE eventually resurrected.

In the "LIFE of Josephus", three acquaintances of Josephus were crucified and ONE eventually SURVIVED.

And can you historically establish the identity of the Josephan character that survived his crucifixion story?

Quote:

The "Life of Flavius Josephus"

Quote:

.....as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance.

I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered....

You simply cannot show that Jews would have worshiped a known man as a God who was crucified.

And I have not done so - nor do I have any intention of doing so...

Quote:

The crucifixion of Jesus described as the OFFSPRING of the Holy Ghost and the Creator of heaven and earth who was EQUAL to the God of the Jews appears to be based on MYTHOLOGY rather than actual BIOGRAPHY.

aa5874 · 11-23-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

You the one who FIRST claimed that there was a significant figure behind the Jesus character.

You are just guessing.

It can shown be that the history may NOT have been based on a SINGLE character but multiple characters and events in the writings of Josephus who lived in Galilee.

And I never said that the gospel Jesus figure was "based on a SINGLE CHARACTER". I proposed two historical figures ........if you want to add some more - then be my guest....

Do you even read your own post?

Do you recall making this statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....A nobody - no-way.......
Of course, the gospel Jesus figure is a nobody in the sense that this figure is not historical. However, there are elements in the storyline that do suggest that a historical figure has been used, seen as significant, seen as relevant - and that this historical figure was most certainty not a nobody...

I have grave difficulty responding to people who cannot remember what they post.

maryhelena · 11-23-2010, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

And I never said that the gospel Jesus figure was "based on a SINGLE CHARACTER". I proposed two historical figures ........if you want to add some more - then be my guest....

Do you even read your own post?

Do you recall making this statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....A nobody - no-way.......
Of course, the gospel Jesus figure is a nobody in the sense that this figure is not historical. However, there are elements in the storyline that do suggest that a historical figure has been used, seen as significant, seen as relevant - and that this historical figure was most certainty not a nobody...

I have grave difficulty responding to people who cannot remember what they post.

OK - aa5874.....

To clarify that statement: At the time period in which the gospel story is dated ie somewhere between 26 ce and 36 ce (Pilate) the historical figure who was relevant to that gospel time period, the historical figure that was actually living at that time period, was Philip the Tetrarch. This historical figure was not crucified. For that part of the gospel Jesus storyline, for that part of the figurative Jesus image, another historical figure is relevant - the Hasmonean Antigonus - a historical figure that was killed, by the Romans, much earlier ie in 37 bc.

Quote:

Antigonus II Mattathias

Antigonus II Mattathias was the only anointed King of the Jews (messiah) historically recorded to have been scourged and crucified by the Romans. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a stake and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[2] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king".

Hopefully, this makes my position clearer to you...

aa5874 · 11-23-2010, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Do you even read your own post?

Do you recall making this statement?

I have grave difficulty responding to people who cannot remember what they post.

OK - aa5874.....

To clarify that statement: At the time period in which the gospel story is dated ie somewhere between 26 ce and 36 ce (Pilate) the historical figure who was relevant to that gospel time period, the historical figure that was actually living at that time period, was Philip the Tetrarch. This historical figure was not crucified. For that part of the gospel Jesus storyline, for that part of the figurative Jesus image, another historical figure is relevant - the Hasmonean Antigonus - a historical figure that was killed, by the Romans, much earlier ie in 37 bc.

Quote:

Antigonus II Mattathias

Antigonus II Mattathias was the only anointed King of the Jews (messiah) historically recorded to have been scourged and crucified by the Romans. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a stake and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[2] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king".

Hopefully, this makes my position clearer to you...

I am not clear about your position at all.

If you have two significantly different historical figures who lived at significantly different times for your Jesus then you should have CLEARLY made them known in your previous post.

DCHindley · 11-23-2010, 08:28 PM

MH,

My understanding of that inscription is that it says "in behalf of the lords (pl genitive) August (sg dative) savior/s (either pl accusative or sg genitive) and their entire household." Inscription talk seems rather stilted.

As for that coin, it is one of two Smyrna coins featured on that coin site. The one with the two heads (Augustus & Livia) says on the left side ZMURNAIOI (not -WN, "of Smyrnians, plural) and to the right SEBASTWi (Augustus, singular). It seems that only Augustus is being referred to here, thus dating the coin to before 14 CE. I wonder, though, on what basis the coin is dated to "ca. 10 BC", not that it matters, though.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

DCH

I had another look at the Wikipedia page - and clicked on the discussion tab - and lo and behold there is Doktorspin......and Roger Pearse..

Here is a bit of the discussion.

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lysanias

Critique of the archaeology theory

Let's consider the archaeological evidence for this Lysanias. It is a fragment whose interpretation, it is claimed, talks of Tiberius and his mother Livia as "August lords", Κυριωι Σεβαστωι. The specific phrase in fact only apparently occurs in this fragment, so the evidence breaks down to the term Σεβαστωι. However, coins minted in Smyrna in 10 BCE show images of Augustus and Livia with the caption Σεβαστωι Σμυρναιωι[1], the "Smyrnean Augusti", ie Augustus and Livia were referred to as Σεβαστωι in 10 BCE, so the fragment could easily refer to a period circa 10 BCE. We also know that during the life of Augustus, a reference to him and his wife as the Θεωι Σεβαστωι, "August gods", was included in the mysteries of Demeter at Ephesus[2]. This means there is no reason to believe that the term Σεβαστωι should be restricted to the time of Tiberius or later, so Nymphaeus, the freedman of Aetus, if the inscription dated to circa 10 BCE, could easily have known of a street that the historically known Lysanias established less than thirty years earlier.

That being the case, the temple inscription is of no use for dating the Lysanias it mentions to a time other than that of the Lysanias known from history. Josephus mentioning the kingdom of Lysanias regarding properties gifted by Caligula and Claudius is nothing strange, given the probable long lasting memory of this friend of the Jews. Such long lasting associations between people and places was not uncommon: one need only think of Caesarea Philippi, named after the tetrarch Philip II who died in 34 CE, yet preserved in the New Testament.

The only issue left to be dealt with is the reference in Luke to a Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, at a time when Philip II was tetrarch of the region of Iturea and Trachonitis according to the gospel of Luke. It is interesting that Iturea once contained Abilene, though it may have been separated out in one of the various land redistributions.

The issue cannot be resolved due to insufficient evidence to support this second Lysanias, though on face value it would seem difficult for the gospel account to reflect history. It is unlikely that an otherwise unheard of Lysanias of the same name as a well known ruler appeared 60 years later.

[edit]Returning Lysanias to history

The editor who has removed evidence from this entry seems more interested in apologetics than in getting at the history of the matter. The attempt to put the figure mentioned in Luke on the same level as the verified Lysanias shows no historical methodology. Repetition of errors does not make the error any more correct. The conjectures on the fragment from Abila mentioning Lysanias has been shown to be baseless from the coin evidence cited in the article. Removing it only seems to show a desire to hid facts. If you cannot check the evidence leave it alone. F.F. Bruce is a Christian text scholar and apologist who shows no interest in history. He has no place in an article with pretensions of history. --Doktorspin (talk) 12:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

MH,

FWIW, that coin has σεβαστῷ (SEBASTWi, the I on the coin is the iota subscript associated with the omega, which is sometimes spelled out rather than assumed), which is the dative singular of σεβαστός (SEBASTOS). You will note that Livia stands besides her husband, draped. The appelation is clearly to Augustus only.

For the plural, to include Livia, wouldn't you need σεβαστοι (which, I believe, is how Livia and Augustus are together referred to on inscriptions after the death of Augustus)?

DCH

maryhelena · 11-23-2010, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

OK - aa5874.....

To clarify that statement: At the time period in which the gospel story is dated ie somewhere between 26 ce and 36 ce (Pilate) the historical figure who was relevant to that gospel time period, the historical figure that was actually living at that time period, was Philip the Tetrarch. This historical figure was not crucified. For that part of the gospel Jesus storyline, for that part of the figurative Jesus image, another historical figure is relevant - the Hasmonean Antigonus - a historical figure that was killed, by the Romans, much earlier ie in 37 bc.

Hopefully, this makes my position clearer to you...

I am not clear about your position at all.

If you have two significantly different historical figures who lived at significantly different times for your Jesus then you should have CLEARLY made them known in your previous post.

Try this earlier post of mine to this thread......and a number of others in this forum that you could find by doing a little research re my postings....

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....99#post6582899

maryhelena · 11-23-2010, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

MH,

My understanding of that inscription is that it says "in behalf of the lords (pl genitive) August (sg dative) savior/s (either pl accusative or sg genitive) and their entire household." Inscription talk seems rather stilted.

As for that coin, it is one of two Smyrna coins featured on that coin site. The one with the two heads (Augustus & Livia) says on the left side ZMURNAIOI (not -WN, "of Smyrnians, plural) and to the right SEBASTWi (Augustus, singular). It seems that only Augustus is being referred to here, thus dating the coin to before 14 CE. I wonder, though, on what basis the coin is dated to "ca. 10 BC", not that it matters, though.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

DCH

I had another look at the Wikipedia page - and clicked on the discussion tab - and lo and behold there is Doktorspin......and Roger Pearse..

Here is a bit of the discussion.

DCH

I can't offer any more than what I posted re this issue - I'll Google later and see if I can find anything more. I did drop a hint to spin (on another thread) to see if he has any update or further clarification for what is on the Wikipedia page........but so far no response...

maryhelena · 11-23-2010, 09:22 PM

DCH

First find of the morning re Lysanias....

Quote:

Two copies of the inscription were found at Suk, not far from Damascus, which has been identified with one of the towns called Abila. Schurer quotes the inscription, which was published in Revue Biblique in 1912 (p. 533ff), as follows:

Huper tes ton kurion Se[baston]
soterias kai tou sum[pantos]
auton oikou, Numphaios Ae[tou]
Lusaniou tetrarchou apele[utheros]
ten odon ktisas k.t.l.

This could be translated, "For the salvation of the August lords and of all their household, Nymphaios freedman of Eagle Lysanias tetrarch established this street and other things." The square brackets, [ ], indicate letters that do not appear in the inscription and have to be interpolated; since this occurs at the ends of each of the first four lines, apparently the right edge of this stone was lost. The crucial interpolation here is Sebaston (genitive plural of Augustus); if this is the correct reading, then the argument can be applied that this term was not used prior to 14 CE, based on Tacitus, Annals 1.8: "Tiberius and Livia were his [Augustus Caesar's] heirs, and Livia was adopted into the Julian family with the name 'Augusta.'" Schurer notes that some other inscriptions have been found in which Tiberias and Livia are called Sebastoi. Schurer states "the correctness of the restoration Se[baston] is not in question", and while a skeptic might suggest alternate restorations, I won't challenge him on this point.

If the restoration and subsequent argument are accurate, Nymphaios would have erected this monument some 50 years after the death of the Lysanias described by Josephus. Schurer describes this as "hardly likely", but it also seems hardly impossible; some prestige seems to have been attached to the old name of Lysanias long after his death, which an old freedman could have wished to be associated with still. It seems there is room here for both sides of the argument.

The name Lysanias was something to be reckoned with, as it adhered to parts of his former tetrarchy for a century after his death. Lysanias' old area (or part of it) is still referred to as "the domain of Lysanias" when leased by Zenodorus, even though they had been owned by Cleopatra for fourteen years (Ant. 15.10.1-3 343 ff). Schurer notes this phenomenon himself: even after Abila had been in the hands of Agrippa I and II for many years, "the name of Lysanias clung to the place for a long time. In Ptolemy V 14, 18, [c. 110 CE] Abila is still called Abila epikaloumene Lusaniou [Abila called 'of Lysanias'], presumably because Lysanias not only possessed the city at one time, but founded it (cf. Caesarea Philippi). " This same usage appears in Josephus, for there was another town called Abila farther south, near Gadara, and Josephus distinguishes the two by referring to the northerly one as the "Abila of Lysanias" (Ant. 19.5.1 274-5).

Schurer also refers to the numismatic evidence, which shows the presence of Josephus' Lysanias but none other. See " A Coin of Lysanias ."

My personal opinion is still that Luke's text is suspicious: identifying a ruler of tiny, distant Abila does not appear relevant to Jesus' activities. For myself, the probability is that "Lysanias" here is ether a corruption or a retrojection based on later knowledge of Philip's lands, and if there did happen to really be a Lysanias in Abila at that time, then Luke's text just hit it lucky.

- Gary Goldberg
http://www.josephus.org/FlJosephus2/...Q.htm#Lysanias

So, Luke just 'hit it lucky' - or Luke had his own game plan in mind - a plan that involved using historical figures as 'markers' for his interest in number symbolisms ie in this case the 70 years between Lysanias in 40 bc and Tiberius in 29/30 ce.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.