Adam

I was simply rebutting Mountainman, nothing more.

la70119

Gerd Thiessen and Annette Merz, The Historical Jesus, p. 455. Preview here.

la70119

Image here shows a Pontius Pilate Coin clearly stamped "LH" which the owner of the website interprets as "LIH."

LH = Year 8: 8th year of Tiberius Caesar = 21-22 CE.

LIH = Year 18: 18th year of tiberius Caesar = 31-32 CE.

The coin marked as "LH" is CLEARLY marked so. I do NOT believe that this was a mistake!

L is an abbreviation that stands for "year."

maryhelena

la - the coins do not name Pilate. All these coins do is relate to specific years of Tiberius. Some of these coins are attributed to Pilate simply because of the gospel of Luke dating to the 15th year of Tiberius - ie Pilate was involved with the crucifixion of JC - therefore - coins with corresponding years of the rule of Tiberius - become coins of Pontius Pilate. Josephus not withstanding - ie Josephus is ambiguous re dating Pilate.

maryhelena

The gospel figure of JC cannot be supported by historical evidence. The JC story, a story about an itinerant Galilean preacher crucified under Pilate, is a story that is impossible to historically verify. A nobody figure produces no historical evidence of having existed. The gospel writings are writings that are open to interpretation. A historical JC verse an ahistorical JC. The first position being one that cherry-picks the JC story by removing the supernatural elements and assuming that a flesh and blood figure existed. A never-ending debate between the ahistoricist/mythicists and the historicists. Clearly testimony to the fact that interpretations of the JC story, fine tuning the Greek translation of words and brow-beating early Christian writers for their attempts at gospel interpretations, is not the way forward if it’s early Christian origins that are being searched for.

An alternative approach: For those who view the gospel JC as ahistorical, that this figure is not a historical figure, the gospel story can be viewed as pseudo-history; ‘salvation history, an interpretation, a meaning of some sort that people found within a specific historical context. After the end of that specific historical time frame, for a little while, it would have been possible to check the JC gospel story against historical realities. For early readers of that JC story, that JC story could be seen as reflecting that historical context; reflecting it, interpreting it - not a historical record of it.

Memories quickly become blurred of past historical events and a shift from that JC story being viewed as a reflection, a ‘salvation’ interpretation of history - to being viewed as history, would start to occur. However, fading memories of historical events could not be relied upon to guarantee the JC story would become viewed as historical. Someone, somewhere, could write a history book - with the potential to bring the JC story into question as an historical event. This possibility would need to be preempted. Josephus rose to the occasion. (and interestingly, made negative comments about another history writer - Justus of Tiberius - whose historical work did not survive.)

What did Josephus do that enabled the gospel JC pseudo-historical story to become viewed as a historical story? He developed a pseudo-history of his own; a pseudo-history of the historical context relevant to the gospel JC story. A reversal, a turning of the table: The gospel JC pseudo-history becomes viewed as history - and the history of the Hasmonean/Herodian period became retold as Josephan pseudo-history. As the gospel writers used the OT for the literary creation of their JC figure - so Josephus as used the history of the Hasmonean/Herodian period to create his pseudo-history.

In the OP, I referred to Josephus and his story regarding Salome, daughter of Herodias and Herod Boethus: Josephus, in Antiquities, writes that this Salome was married to Philip the Tetrarch. I suggested that this Josephan story is a reuse, a replaying, of the historical tape of earlier Hasmonean history regarding Salome Alexandra. Apart from Josephus, there is no way to link Salome, who he writes was married to Philip the Tetrarch, to the wife, named Salome, of Aristobulus of Chalcis. (A wife, incidentally, who has her portrait on Herodian coins connected with Aristobulus of Chalcis.) The question then arises: Is this Josephan Salome, the one he writes was married to Philip, a symbolic or literary device and not a historical figure? What happens if one runs with the idea that this is indeed the case?

1) It brings into question the marriage that this Salome is the child of. That marriage, according to Josephus, is between Herodias and Herod Boethus.
2) It brings into question the historicity of Mariamne II - the mother, via Josephus, of Herod Boethus.
3) What is the point of this Josephan story?
4) A married woman has a child prior to her marriage to another man.
5) This woman leaves her first husband, while he is still alive, takes the child with her - against all the Law, traditions, of her people.
Historically, what could this be a parallel of; what history is being re-told with this Josephan story?

Josephus, makes a rather cryptic statement in War, book 1, ch.22.

1) The eldest two sons born of royal blood when Herod was King. The youngest son born before he became King and died in Rome:
2) Was Mariamne I married and had a child prior to her marriage to Herod the Great? A son that would not be of Herod’s blood. A young son that ‘died’ in Rome.
3) Herod the Great became King in Rome in 40 b.c. and took Jerusalem during the siege of 37 b.c. Any male child born to Mariamne during these years, would, if it is a Hasmonean child, be ‘dead’ as to an legal or ancestral claim to being King of the Jews.
4) Mariamne I married Herod the Great in 37 b.c. What happened to her first husband, whether divorced or killed, is not stated.
Is Herodias, many years later, being used by Josephus, to re-tell an earlier history of Mariamne, her great grandmother? That Mariamne already had a male child of her own prior to her 37b.c. marriage to Herod the Great?

One can take this Mariamne I and Herodias parallel further: Herodias, Antipas and his divorce from Aretas daughter and the war of 36/37 c.e.

1) Herod the Great divorced, or sent away, his first wife, Doris, in order to marry Mariamne I., in 37 b.c.
2) The Josephan marriage of Herodias to Antipas, followed his sending away, his divorce, from Aretas daughter - and the war of 36/37 c.e.
3) The historical parallel here, the historical replay, being between Doris and the daughter of Aretas.
4) Prophecy - diviners - were consulted by Aretas: Inferring, on the part of Josephus, that this whole war story between Antipas and Aretas, is not history. Rather it is a past historical event being replayed. Tiberius dead in 37 c.e. as Antigonus was killed in 37 b.c. Mention of Antioch being a parallel to the killing, in Antioch, of Antigonus by Marc Antony
5)

Quote:

“It was also reported, that when Aretas heard of the coming of Vitellius to fight him, he said, upon his consulting the diviners, that it was impossible that this army of Vitellius's could enter Petra; for that one of the rulers would die, either he that gave orders for the war, or he that was marching at the other's desire, in order to be subservient to his will, or else he against whom this army is prepared. So Vitellius truly retired to Antioch; but Agrippa, the son of Aristobulus, went up to Rome, a year before the death of Tiberius, in order to treat of some affairs with the emperor, if he might be permitted so to do”. (Ant: Book 18 Chapter 5)

6) If the marriage of Herodias to Herod Boethus and the child that was born from that marriage is simply a Josephan replay of earlier Hasmonean and Herodian history - then this marriage is not history.
7) That being the case, neither Herod Boethus nor his mother, Mariamne II, nor Salome, are historical figures. They have simply been created, by Josephus, to replay the historical events of 37 b.c.

Using this earlier history to unravel the Josephan story of Herodias/Herod Boethus and Antipas is relevant for the gospel JC story. In that gospel JC story, Herodias is married to Herod (Antipas). Since, the Josephan story of Herod Boethus and Herodias and Antipas can be shown to be a replaying of the historical tape re Mariamne I and Herod the Great - and is thus not history - the gospel inclusion of the Herodias/Herod (Antipas) story suggests a writer who is following a Josephan pseudo-historical script

Where did the gospel writers get their version of the story from? Probably not Antiquities - as gMark and gMatthew reference Herodias as being married to Philip and Antiquities has Salome married to Philip. The storyline in Slavonic Josephus is most probably the original source of the gospel storyline.
In Slavonic Josephus, Herodias is married to Philip the Tetrarch. In that story, on the death of Philip, Herodias marries *Herod*. No specific identification given. Prior to Antiquities, with its more specific story re Herodias marrying Herod (Antipas) - the *Herod* in Slavonic Josephus could be assumed to be, by the gospel writers, Herod ( Antipas) (Archelaus is already exiled in 6.c.e.)

If the Herodias/Herod (Antipas) marriage is a Josephan replaying of earlier Hasmonean history re Mariamne and Herod the Great - then the gospel storyline needs to be questioned. Particularly, as the gospel story involving Herodias and Herod (Antipas) is part and parcel of the gospel story regarding John the Baptist.

The big question from all of this is - did Herod the Great have Mariamne I killed? Most probably not. Her ‘death’, like the later story of the killing of her two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus, was merely symbolic. A change, for whatever reason, in their circumstances. In the case of Mariamne, Josephus has more stories to tell. And a new story needs a new Marimane and a new son, Mariamne II and her son, Herod Boethus. The great-granddaughter of Mariamne I, Herodias, replays the historical drama of 37 b.c. A story that is a re-play of the earlier story of Mariamne and her marriage to Herod the Great and her having a child previous to that marriage.

Mariamne I and Mariamne II are the same person. The Josephan story re the divorce of Mariamne II and the killing of Antipater in 4 b.c. – is another replay of 37 b.c. The Hasmoneans, Mariamne and Antigonus, against Herod the Great. As it was in the beginning - so it was at the end.....

The basic point being made in this material is simple. Josephus has re-used, replayed, earlier historical events for his reconstruction of later Hasmonean/Herodian history. In effect, Josephus has built a roadblock; a roadblock that prevents the real history of the gospel time frame from being reached. Consequently, if we are seeking early Christian origins - Josephus has to be put in the dock...

Footnote: While the Josephan ‘history’ re Herod (Antipas,) Herodias and her daughter, is featured in the gospel storyline re John the Baptist, this does not, to my mind, suggest that Josephus was the originator of that gospel JC story. I’m more inclined to think that the Josephan input to that story, if only through his historical reconstructions, is more a case of building on, and supporting, a storyline that originated elsewhere.

Littlejohn

Yet, one senses from the same Gospels that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem. The same thing you can perceive from the proto-Gospel of James, which practically rules out that Jesus was born in Judea.

In fact, Jesus was born in a cave not far from Nazareth. Important particular, the birth in a cave was NOT the result of the urgency of the moment, but almost certainly it was a choice that the Virgin Mary had done some time before the birth ....

Littlejohn

.

steve_bnk

A rather lengthy post about someone who never existed...

Horatio Parker

As a human...

maryhelena

Yep - wish it could be said in one sentence....

Since, JC, for me, has been viewed as ahistorical for something like 30 years now - my primary interest in not in arguments or debates over that specific issue. Its the origin story - the where, when and how that story came to be - and that is a far more fascination story than Greek words, gospel interpretations or bashing early christian writers.

steve_bnk

mary_helena

While you atre around, what is the status, participation, and influence of Christianity in Soutrh Africa, both black and white.

It does appear that the biblical debates are as important to non believers as well as believers.