PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

I think the crucifixion of Antigonus, the last King of the Jews in 37 B.C.E., does seem to be an important historical event that may very well have inspired the passion narrative. The two seem to have a relationship.
However proving the exact nature of that relationship is difficult. Fiction often has a very complex relationship with history.

For example there were two Hollywood movies made staring Frank Sinatra, "Suddenly" in 1955 and "Manchurian Candidate" in 1962, where there is an attempted assassination of a president using rifles. Until that time all the Presidential assassination attempts had been with handguns. In fact, I could not find evidence of any major figure being assassinated with a rifle before that time. (Although Medger Evers, a civil rights work was assassinated with a rifle five months before Manchurian Candidate opened, but after it had been filmed.)
Yet in 1963 President Kennedy was assassinated with a rifle and in 1967, Martin Luther King was assassinated with a rifle.

There is some evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had seen both films, so he might have been influenced by them. However, we really can't be sure if those two films had any influence on the event. There was also Stanley Kubrick's 1955 film "The Killing," where an army sniper (Timothy Carey), uses a rifle to assassinate a racehorse in order to cause a panic at a racing track to cover up a robbery. Carey's performance is much more realistic and chilling than anything in the other two films.

In any case, anybody who sees "Suddenly" or "the Manchurian Candidate" today and knows about the Kennedy assassinate, assumes that the films were based on the historical event in some way. Coming before the event it is clear that neither were based on it.

Thus while seeing the crucifixion of Antigonus as an influence on the passion stories is a good hypothesis, we still cannot be sure how direct an influence it had on the gospel writers.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

It cannot be a good hypothesis when the very authors did say how their story was fabricated.

Time after time they stated that all that was done by Jesus in their stories is FOUND in Hebrew Scriptures from his birth in Isaiah 7.14 to his crucifixion in Psalms.

It is exactly the same with the Superman character. It does NOT matter what people speculate about the origin of Superman it is the originator who will tell you how he invented his Superman.

And further, in the earliest Jesus story in gMark, it is NOT the crucifixion itself that is most significant but that Jesus was Betrayed, Abandoned, Denied and Rejected by his own disciples and the Jews and that Prophecy was fulfilled.

The God of the Jews will have his own Temple destroyed and make Jerusalem desolate.

The earliest Jesus story in gMark had Prophetic value--Antigonus did NOT.

maryhelena

A man after my own heart....
Yes, one can't prove how much of an influence the crucifixion of Antigonus was for the NT writers. However, it's good to keep in mind that such an influence cannot be denied either. At least by the ahistoricist/mythicists. Once we are in the realm of storytelling, of pseudo-history, then history is bound to take a backseat. The question becomes - what influences can be discerned within that story or pseudo-history. All one can really debate is the extent of any influences one might discern. And with no specific dating possible for 'Paul', then the 37 b.c. crucifixion of Antigonus does come into the NT picture frame.

(Once the JC story is ahistorical then using it's date stamp for 'Paul' becomes nonsensical. Acts is not christian history but a christian origin story. 'Paul's Damascus escape can as well be dated to around 63 b.c. (Aretas III) as to around the 36 c.e. gospel time frame. 63 b.c. being the year Antigonus was taken prisoner to Rome - escaping in 57 b.c.)

Steven Carr

Robin Lane Fox does not consider the stories historical data.

For example, he regards the birth narratives as theologically driven and riddled with contradictions, such as putting a census in the time of Herod.

But he still concludes Jesus was born about 4 or 5 BC.

This is rather like taking the stories of Obama being born in Kenya and using them to do history about Obama while claiming that the stories are false.

That is real scholarship, not the old-fashioned kind which tries to use stories which were not invented as historical data.

mountainman

The answer to this question will directly depend on one's hypothetical chronology.

(1) Those entertaining a 1st century chronology for the authorship of the Jesus story may draw from the 1st century CE and all centuries beforehand - the history of BCE. We are all familiar with this chronological hypothesis, and related 1st century influences such as Apollonius of Tyana.

(2) Those entertaining a 2nd century chronology for the authorship of the Jesus story may draw from the 2nd century CE and all centuries beforehand. Influences in the second century include Trajan and Marcus Aurelius.

(3) Those entertaining a 3rd century chronology for the authorship of the Jesus story may draw from 3rd century CE influences, and all centuries beforehand. Examples of 3rd century influences include Mani's crucifixion in Persia, Manichaean churches and their persecution in the Roman Empire, the rise of the Platonist philosophical schools, the "Second Sophistic", "Vita Apollonius" and the appearance of the Tetrarchy.


99% of the consensus (whether HJ or MJ) appear to be running with a hypothetical chronology in century (1) or (2). The historical Jesus of Robin Lane-Fox, at least in 1992, hypothetically moved in century (1), and his echoes in the authorship of the nt canon followed in (1) and (2).

Doug Shaver

What you think skepticism was designed for is irrelevant. There is no way to use it to separate fact from fiction.

Nothing becomes fiction just because you don't believe it.

There you go again, channeling evangelical apologists. Just because I don't presuppose X doesn't mean I have dismissed the possibility of X.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

If one looks in the Superman comic books, the author/s tell us again and again that he comes from the planet Krypton, just before its destruction. It is possible that the original author was a great astronomer and had discovered this planet and even saw its destruction. Thus we may suppose, if we have faith in Jerry Siegal's writings, Superman really does come from Krypton.
However, knowing the history of the period, 1930's United States, and the author was only nineteen when he got the idea, it is more likely the author got his planet Krypton by reading numerous science fiction pulp magazines and watching the movie serial "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe."

In the claims of the gospel authors that the actions of Jesus fulfilled Jewish prophecy, we don't necessary find an accurate story of how or why they created the character and his actions. We still need to study history to try to understand why they put in the actions and events they did.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

It is NOT necessary to speculate why an author wrote a fiction story. It is the author that will tell us.

We need to study Hebrew Scriptures when the authors showed us that they did use them to fabricate their Jesus.

Once we stop speculating and USE the evidence supplied by the writers then we will resolve the matter and do so rather easily.

The earliest Jesus story, gMark, was fabricated using Isaiah 6 and other books of the prophets.

mountainman

Be careful. Porphyry is usually attributed to the claim that the apostles were inventors, and I would not call Porphyry an evangelical apologist.


The possibility that these "Minimal Historical Jesus Facts" (as presented in 1992 by Robin Lane-Fox) are derived from inventions in a fictional story (i.e. not from historical sources cited by RLF) is the possibility being suggested in the OP. If you dont dismiss this possibility can you provide (1) a provisional and hypothetical name of the author of the invention, and/or (2) a provisional and hypothetical century of the invention.

mountainman

It is necessary to speculate, hypothesize and theorize - and from historical sources OUTSIDE of the author's fiction story - WHEN an author wrote a fiction. Philosopher Jay continually provides chronological contexts that I find quite relevant in the exploration of the literary phenomenom called "Early Christian (Literary) Origins".

Until one knows WHEN the fiction was written, how does one truly begin to understand the WHY the author wrote what he/she did in such a military, political, social, religious and.or philosophical CONTEXT. The context of the emergence of Superman is not to be found in the works of the author of the Suoerman fiction, but in the emerging context of earlier works by other authors such as "Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe."

WHAT (evidence), WHO (people), WHERE (space), WHEN (time), HOW (means) and WHY (motives) are massively parallel and interrelated questions.


What did Robin Lane-Fox have to say c.1992 about his primary source Eusebius?