Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 03-01-2011, 03:41 AM

Hi maryhelena,

I think the story parallel of King Antigonus' beheading/scourging/crucifixion and Kings John/Jesus beheading/scourging/crucifixion is really interesting.

I am wondering about distinguishing between reference and description in this. In fiction, we are often getting references to historical events without getting real descriptions of them. For example, Superman in the early 1940's comic book fought against Nazis. This does provide a reference to historical events of the time, World War II, but it is not meant to be a description of an event that took place in World War II. The story may have meant to make a reference to King Antigonus that would be well known to the initiated, but not in any way to describe the actual historical circumstances.

What I find most interesting is the three major changes in both stories. Both John and Jesus undergo 1) holy birth, 2) holy rebirth (through baptism) and 3) holy resurrection.

The idea of John's Holy resurrection can be found in the synoptics:

Quote:

Mat 14:1 At that time Herod the tetrarch heard of the fame of Jesus,
Mat 14:2 And said unto his servants, This is John the Baptist; he is risen from the dead; and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.

Mar 6:14 And king Herod heard [of him]; (for his name was spread abroad

and he said, That John the Baptist was risen from the dead, and therefore mighty works do shew forth themselves in him.
Mar 6:15 Others said, That it is Elias. And others said, That it is a prophet, or as one of the prophets.
Mar 6:16 But when Herod heard [thereof], he said, It is John, whom I beheaded: he is risen from the dead

Luk 9:7 Now Herod the tetrarch heard of all that was done by him: and he was perplexed, because that it was said of some, that John was risen from the dead;
Luk 9:8 And of some, that Elias had appeared; and of others, that one of the old prophets was risen again.
Luk 9:9 And Herod said, John have I beheaded: but who is this, of whom I hear such things? And he desired to see him.

Thus as noted, there is material in a John-Herod story where:

1) John is born to be King
2) John gets baptized (There is no John baptism story per se, but the synoptics suggest that there was one. Jesus asks (Mark 11:30) "John's baptism--was it from heaven, or from men? Tell me!" We may assume from the clues that the baptism story which involves a man moving from and going to the wilderness and heaven opening up, must have originally been about John.
3) John returns after his death and continues "mighty works."

We may see these as three separate stories about John, a birth, a rebirth and a resurrection story. In doing a retcon of the story with Jesus, the writers have simply used up most of the John material by switching it to Jesus. the tiny part that they didn't use has been left to John.

One can imagine it as almost a palimpsest, where John has been crossed out of 90% of the material and Jesus written in.

On this hypothesis, we should be able to find more John material that is the basis for much of the Jesus material, especially in the gnostic gospels.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena and Doug Shaver,

I think the text from Chapter one of Luke is setting us up for a John-the-next-king story:

Quote:

67 And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:

68 “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,

69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
In the house of David His servant—

70 As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old—

71 Salvation From Our Enemies
And from the hand of all who hate us.

It is kind of ridiculous to think that Zacharias (possessed by the Holy Spirit, no less) is announcing that his son will save Israel by announcing that someone else will save Israel. It only makes sense if he is announcing that his son John is going to be the new savior and King of Israel.

A Father (possessed by the Holy Spirit) announcing the birth of his son who will announce the birth of another son who will save Israel might happen in a comedy set in Freedonia, but not in Judea.

Yes, it’s interesting what Luke is doing with the John storyline - he wants to retain a high profile for John but does not want to be too conspicuous about it - inferences instead of a clear intent as in the gospel of James.

But that is all Luke can do. Once the main element of the John character, “destined to be king”, has been removed from that character, in order to have just one king story, the canonical gospel Jesus story -then there is no going back from that position. And, of course, if the two king scenario was a reflection, an interpretation, of specific historical realities, then the new gospel development, a one king story, has, in effect, hidden the earlier king history. However, the one king gospel Jesus story still wants a forerunner in the drama. So, John comes back into the story as JtB - the son of Elizabeth and Zechariah - with his wings clipped.

I think the earlier John king story, in the gospel of James, is based upon Antigonus - the Hasmonean son of the High Priest and King, Aristobulus II. Antigonus was crucified and beheaded by Mark Antony.

Cassius Dio

Quote:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...s_Dio/49*.html

“These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.”

Quote:

Antigonus II Mattathias

^ Josephus merely says that Marc Antony beheaded King Antigonus. Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8-9). Roman historian Dio Cassius says scouraged, crucified then put to death. See The University Magazine and Free Review, Volume 2 edited by John Mackinnon Robertson and G. Astor Singer (Nabu Press, 2010) at page 13. Merging the material from Josephus and Dio Cassius leads to the conclusion that Antigonus was scourged, crucified, and beheaded.

The developing gospel JtB storyline uses this historical beheading. The crucifixion of Antigonus being retained for the Jesus storyboard, ie the Jesus character, in it’s crucifixion context, is reflecting Antigonus.

Slavonic Josephus has retained a political interest for its JtB figure.

Quote:

3. He came to the Jews and summoned them to freedom, saying: "God hath sent me, that I may show you the way of the Law, wherein ye may free yourselves from many holders of power.
4. And there will be no mortal ruling over you, only the Highest who hath sent me."
5. And when the people had heard this, they were joyful. And there went after him all Judæa, that lies in the region round Jerusalem.

6. And he did nothing else to them save that he plunged them into the stream of the Jordan and dismissed them, instructing them that they should cease from evil works, and [promising] that there would [then] be given them a ruler who would set them free and subject to them all that is not in submission; but no one of whom we speak (?),1 would himself be subjected.

Slavonic Josephus has a very different picture of it’s wonder-worker. However much the people wanted him to overturn the Romans - the wonder-worker scorned such ideas.

Quote:

11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. 12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.

13. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives facing the city. 14. And there also he avouched his cures to the people. 15. And there gathered themselves to him of servants (Knechten) a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude.

16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us. 17. But that one scorned it.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm

Slavonic Josephus has JtB interested in political power, in setting people free. The wonder-worker scorns ideas of over throwing the Romans. JtB, still with a reflection, however dim, of political interests. (which is, of course, something that Josephus indicates about JtB and a possible rebellion in Ant.)

Slavonic Josephus keeps JtB and the wonder-worker separate, they do not meet. The family connection of John to Jesus, in the gospel of James has been lost. (what has been lost is John’s “destined to be king” identity).

The gospels of John, Mark and Matthew have JC and JtB connect. But it is only in gLuke that the circle closes - JtB and JC are back in a family relationship via Elizabeth and Mary - albeit with the son of Elizabeth without his “destined to be king” political interests. Luke’s birth narrative, of both JC and JtB is 6 ce. This is also the dating given in Slavonic Josephus - JtB is preaching in the reign of Archelaus (4 bc – 6 ce).

Josephus, in Antiquities, has JtB ‘alive’ until around 36 ce (the last dating for Pilate) Seeing that the canonical gospel storyline re dating the crucifixion of JC can be read various ways - both JtB and JC are, as it were, finished of by 36 ce.

I’m beginning to think that the two king story in the gospel of James is maybe the earliest Jesus and John storyline. If these two literary creations are modelled upon historical people, then, logically, the two historical figures are not contemporaries. A new king follows on from an earlier king. If a storyline is wanting to develop a condensed interpretation of history, then a contemporary linkage between the two kings storyline would be necessary. In this case the two pregnancies between two related woman.

Bottom line in all of this - or to sum up - the literary gospel character of JC is based upon two historical, non contemporary figures, two kings. The JtB forerunner figure, while contemporary in the gospel’s conflated pseudo-history, is, in part, based upon a king from a much earlier historical context than the time of Pilate.

That’s about how I see things as of now - always open to review of course...

Chili · 03-01-2011, 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Thus, the question becomes, as it does with the wording in the canonical gospels - why these words. What was the author endeavoring to convey with them.

I've given my answer, and you've given yours. The thread's readers can decide which is more credible.

Let me add my short version wherein Jesus and John are bosom buddies with John born from the TOL, or netherworld or soul or water containing the Alpha via Elizabeth and Jesus from the TOK or upper world or fire containing the Omega via Mary who was also from the present generation, and so it is in Elizabeth that the linage of Luke's Jesus is made known.

maryhelena · 03-01-2011, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi maryhelena,

I think the story parallel of King Antigonus' beheading/scourging/crucifixion and Kings John/Jesus beheading/scourging/crucifixion is really interesting.

I think this historical event, the beheading/scourging/crucifixion of the last Hasmonean King/High Priest, Antigonus, is important for the gospel writers. And if that is so, it could well mean that a Hasmonean influence is underlying the gospel storyline. Not a wider Jewish interest but a specific Jewish interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

I am wondering about distinguishing between reference and description in this. In fiction, we are often getting references to historical events without getting real descriptions of them. For example, Superman in the early 1940's comic book fought against Nazis. This does provide a reference to historical events of the time, World War II, but it is not meant to be a description of an event that took place in World War II. The story may have meant to make a reference to King Antigonus that would be well known to the initiated, but not in any way to describe the actual historical circumstances.

What is known about Antigonus is, as far as I’m aware, from Josephus. There are coins, of course, his bilingual coins. King and High Priest. And it’s the priestly connection that is left to JtB in the canonical gospels - Zechariah being a priest. While in the gospel of James, Zacharias is the high priest.....

Quote:

And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias,

Of course, it would be those in close contact with Antigonus that would know all the ins and outs of his life. For history, however, it’s the big elements in his life that would be common knowledge. Did the gospel writers have privileged information on Antigonus - his words and thoughts? Oral tradition, family traditions. Perhaps. But what is of interest re the gospel Jesus figure and the JtB figure, is that elements of actual history that related to Antigonus, seem to be fundamental to their creation.

Obviously, Antigonus was not resurrected in some new physical body. However, in the gospel storyline, this forerunner king is brought back from the dead, as it were, to play a role in the JC and JtB gospel storyline. A storyline that is set in a completely different historical time slot than that in which Antigonus lived and died. JtB has conflict with Herod (Antipas) just as Antigonus had conflict with Herod the Great. Interestingly, over a marriage. And was it not a marriage that Herod the Great undertook with the Hasmonean, Mariamne, that led to the Hasmonean/Herodian bloodline: Half his kingdom is what Herod (Antipas) promises Mariamne’s great granddaughter. Looks a bit like the gospel writers are re-running the historical tape, of 37 bc, here...

On the baptism issue. I doubt that Antigonus played any such role in his life. I suspect this is just a theological related idea that the gospel writers have found some use for. My interest is with actual history - and using that history as a tool in understanding how the gospel storyline was created.

Antigonus is not the only historical figure that is reflected in the JC gospel construct. In fact, I would confine the Antigonus element to the crucifixion storyline. In other words, the other historical figure is a figure that was not crucified. The other historical figure is Philip the Tetrarch. (who I do not think is a son of Herod the Great and who did not die in 33/34 ce but became Agrippa I - I developed some ideas on this subject in an earlier thread. http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=289319 )

Philip the Tetrarch lived during the time of Pilate. He developed Bethsaida into a town and renamed in Bethsaida Julius - from which the early disciples came. It was near Caesarea Philippi that JC asked his disciples who they thought he was. Philip, unlike Antigonus, ruled a very long time. From 4 bc until, as Agrippa I, he died around 44/45 ce. - nearly 50 years. A peaceful rule, according to Josephus. Antigonus the freedom fighter and Philip the peacemaker! JC and his split personality.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

One can imagine it as almost a palimpsest, where John has been crossed out of 90% of the material and Jesus written in.

But that is a reflection of history nevertheless. Antigonus ruled for 3 short years. Philip/Agrippa I for nearly 50 years. (the last three of these years as King of Judea...)

It’s one thing to look at history and realize how history has been utilized in the creation of the gospel JC character. It’s another thing to answer the question of why the gospel writers found these particular historical figures to be relevant...

Littlejohn · 03-01-2011, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

John the Baptist: “destined to be king over Israel’?

That’s the storyline in the Infancy Gospel of James.

.

"..John the Baptist: “destined to be king over Israel’?.."

No, at the 99% the John indicated in infancy Gospel of James was John of Gamala, a hasmonean descendant crucified by the Romans to the times of P. Pilate. His human vicissitude was mercilessly and cynically mingled, by counterfeiters who gave birth to the catholic-christian cult, with the story of Jesus of Nazareth, an extraordinary figure of magician, healer, miracle worker, preacher, founder of gnostic sects and rebel leader, in order to give life to the character that the whole world knows: that is to say JESUS 'CHRIST! (ie 'Jesus + Christ', where the latter was none other that John of Gamala!)

While the first, ie John of Gamala(*), was executed, because a rebel, by crucifixion, the second, namely Jesus of Nazareth, was executed by stoning by the Jews around the year 72, after that the Sanhedrin had decreed his death sentence. The main accusation, that did deserve him the death sentence, was to have participated, as rebel leader, to the disastrous rebellion that led to the first open confrontation between the Romans and the Jews: namely, the first Jewish War (66-70)

I would like to reiterate that I write not for convert others to 'my' truth, but simply to indicate, to whom think to be useful such a thing, new avenues of historical research. Only when the whole truth will be revealed, the catholic-christian faithful could confronted with his own conscience and decide what it is wiser to do ...

Greetings

______________________

Note:

(*) - brother of Simon and James, made crucify by Roman procurator of Jewish origin Tiberius Alexandrinus, nephew of Philo of Alexandria, between 46 and 48. The death of James only (Simon was 'saved', in literary way, to be confused, then, with Simon Peter: see Acts of the Apostles) was debited, on grounds of ostracism, to the Judean King Agrippa I of the Herodian family, who was also absolutely stranger from that episode.

Littlejohn

.

aa5874 · 03-01-2011, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The authors of the Gospels appear to have wanted their "historical figures", like John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate, Tiberius to MATCH those very historical figures in the writings of Josephus.

John the Baptist a historical figure just because Josephus mentions him? The other figures in your list, Herod (Antipas) Tiberius and Pilate, do have some confirmation of their historicity outside the pages of Josephus. (taking the Pilate Stone as supporting the historical existence of Pilate). With regard to John the Baptist, Josephus could have been recording hearsay. Or?......

John the Baptist is MENTIONED OUTSIDE of Josephus.

Please EXAMINE gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn and Acts of the Apostles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....Josephus is a prophetic historian. Consequently, his words should not, automatically, be taken at face value.

A prophetic historian deals with historical interpretations as much as historical realities ie. a mix of the the historical and the assumed meaning or interpretation of such....

But, you have just CONTRADICTED yourself. Josephus did INDEED deal with ACTUAL historical events but you just don't like his INTERPRETATIONS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....Josephus needs to be taken to court, put on the stand. The charge: Obstructing the free flow of historical information.
The verdict on Josephus? Guilty as charged! Exposed as the prophetic historian he is, an interpreter of dreams and a dreamer of dreams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

......I’m beginning to think that the two king story in the gospel of James is maybe the earliest Jesus and John storyline. If these two literary creations are modelled upon historical people, then, logically, the two historical figures are not contemporaries. A new king follows on from an earlier king. If a storyline is wanting to develop a condensed interpretation of history, then a contemporary linkage between the two kings storyline would be necessary. In this case the two pregnancies between two related woman.

Josephus will COUNTER SUE and WIN.

It can be SHOWN that you are attempting to INTERPRET stories in the Gospels that were based on PROPHECIES.

Luke 1

Quote:

... But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zechari'ah: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Eli'jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.....

What is your INTERPRETATION of gLuke's story about the PROPHECIES of John the Baptist?

You MUST have noticed that Josephus made NO prophecy about John the Baptist.

maryhelena · 03-02-2011, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

The authors of the Gospels appear to have wanted their "historical figures", like John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate, Tiberius to MATCH those very historical figures in the writings of Josephus.

John the Baptist a historical figure just because Josephus mentions him? The other figures in your list, Herod (Antipas) Tiberius and Pilate, do have some confirmation of their historicity outside the pages of Josephus. (taking the Pilate Stone as supporting the historical existence of Pilate). With regard to John the Baptist, Josephus could have been recording hearsay. Or?......

John the Baptist is MENTIONED OUTSIDE of Josephus.

Please EXAMINE gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn and Acts of the Apostles.

Oh, my, aa5874, your actually recommending that I pay attention to the folks who wrote the JC ghost story! The virgin birth, the walking on water and the resurrection...

Methinks such folk would find the JtB figure a far easier
literary creation to set up...

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

.....Josephus is a prophetic historian. Consequently, his words should not, automatically, be taken at face value.

A prophetic historian deals with historical interpretations as much as historical realities ie. a mix of the the historical and the assumed meaning or interpretation of such....

Quote:

But, you have just CONTRADICTED yourself. Josephus did INDEED deal with ACTUAL historical events but you just don't like his INTERPRETATIONS.

And now - by your lights, the TF is suddenly history?

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....Josephus needs to be taken to court, put on the stand. The charge: Obstructing the free flow of historical information.
The verdict on Josephus? Guilty as charged! Exposed as the prophetic historian he is, an interpreter of dreams and a dreamer of dreams.

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

......I’m beginning to think that the two king story in the gospel of James is maybe the earliest Jesus and John storyline. If these two literary creations are modelled upon historical people, then, logically, the two historical figures are not contemporaries. A new king follows on from an earlier king. If a storyline is wanting to develop a condensed interpretation of history, then a contemporary linkage between the two kings storyline would be necessary. In this case the two pregnancies between two related woman.

Quote:

Josephus will COUNTER SUE and WIN.

That's my laugh of the day, thanks, aa5874...No sane lawyer would be so foolish as to defend him as an impartial, reliable, historian. Josephus was not simply a historian, he was a historian with prophetic interests - following where the "prophets leave off...."

Quote:

Josephus: Preface to the War of the Jews

.... where the writers of these affairs and our prophets leave off, thence shall I take my rise, and begin my history....

Quote:

It can be SHOWN that you are attempting to INTERPRET stories in the Gospels that were based on PROPHECIES.

Luke 1

Quote:

... But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zechari'ah: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John.

14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God.

17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Eli'jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.....

What is your INTERPRETATION of gLuke's story about the PROPHECIES of John the Baptist?

You MUST have noticed that Josephus made NO prophecy about John the Baptist.

Whether the gospel writers got their storyline wholesale from OT prophecy or mixed historical interpretations with OT prophecy - the result is the same - the gospel JC story. Sure, OT prophecy can help in discerning how the story was created - but so can historical realities. Jewish interests are related to history - as the OT testifies to. Can't have prophecy without history - that would be pure imagination. Need some historical facts to back up the fulfillment of prophetic speculation!

As to Josephus not making any prophecy regarding John the Baptist - he did not have to - the gospel writer of gLuke did it for him. Josephus simply played along with the gospel writers creativity...you know, like giving a little 'historical' stamp of approval to gLuke's literary figure. :wave:

Littlejohn · 03-02-2011, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Littlejohn

No, at the 99% the John indicated in infancy Gospel of James was John of Gamala, a hasmonean descendant crucified by the Romans to the times of P. Pilate. His human vicissitude was mercilessly and cynically mingled, by counterfeiters who gave birth to the catholic-christian cult, with the story of Jesus of Nazareth, an extraordinary figure of magician, healer, miracle worker, preacher, founder of gnostic sects and rebel leader, in order to give life to the character that the whole world knows: that is to say JESUS 'CHRIST! (ie 'Jesus + Christ', where the latter was none other that John of Gamala!)
.

"..an extraordinary figure of magician, healer, miracle worker ..."

Obviously, nothing earth-shattering, since he was a man and not a God!

For 'miracle worker' shall mean a prestidigitator illusionist, as, for example, the modern David Copperfield and the like. Jesus, through his sojourn in Egypt (see Celsus and the Talmud), honed very much his illusory art, becoming a 'magician' more powerful than John the Baptist, despite what is reported in the literature of the Mandaeans (latest followers of the sect that 2000 years ago was led by John the Baptist), according to which John operated 'wonderful things' (pseudo-miracles) more powerful than those of Jesus. After all, it's no wonder that John the Baptist was a magician, since Simon Magus and Dositheus, two 'magicians' well-known at that time, were his students (see Recognitiones and Homilies of the pseudo-Clement )

Littlejohn

.

aa5874 · 03-02-2011, 06:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

....As to Josephus not making any prophecy regarding John the Baptist - he did not have to - the gospel writer of gLuke did it for him. Josephus simply played along with the gospel writers creativity...you know, like giving a little 'historical' stamp of approval to gLuke's literary figure. :wave:

Josephus will COUNTER-SUE you and WIN.

You have NOW EXPOSED your ERROR.

You have ADMITTED that it was the author of gLuke that "DID IT"

Luke 3

Quote:

......the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. 3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

4 As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.....

It was the authors of the Jesus stories who USED so-called Prophecies to FABRICATE history.

Josephus simply INTERPRETED the meaning of EVENTS.

The author of gLuke used so-called Prophecies to INVENT the PAST.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.