FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 11-06-2010, 05:31 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Darwin, Australia
Posts: 874
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
Who is this Godfrey who has tumbled to the truth when all of the professionals are in error.
C'est moi. I am Neil Godfrey, and I have never claimed to have the truth against all the professionals. I have done nothing more than point out the simple logic and facts of the published claims of New Testament historians and contrasted them with what one reads in the area of other nonbiblical historiography.

My views were prompted by the "minimalists" Philip R. Davies, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson who had a major impact in exposing the circularity underlying the historiography of Old Testament or Biblical Israel historiography. They argued for bringing OT historiography up to the same standards of any other ancient historical enterprise, which meant relying on the primary evidence first and foremost, and interpreting the secondary evidence through the primary. This led to the undermining of "Albrightianism".

There are no primary sources (in the strict von Rankean or classical sense, meaning sources physically traceable to the very time of Jesus) for Christianity, but the above "minimalists" also addressed other fundamental principles of historical inquiry, such as external controls and independent corroboration as means of assessing the value of sources and their contents.

I found that these same principles were addressed long ago -- a century ago -- by biblical historians, including Albert Schweitzer, but their warnings and advice have gone unheeded.

I attempt in my blog posts to offer enough source material for any reader to check for themselves the methods and facts discussed.

Readers of my blog posts can see the responses of scholars like James McGrath, James Crossley and R. Joseph Hoffmann -- whose works I have critiqued -- and make up their own minds about the strength of my critiques against their own claims and responses.

(I have also addressed and corresponded with other scholars with whom I have seen eye-to-eye, but I am singling out the above because they have expressed very strong criticisms of my comments.)

One only has to examine the way historians (ancient, medieval and classical) handle sources and compare with NT scholars to see the difference for themselves. No-one needs Neil Godfrey to post on it. But I have done my bit to point out the differences between the two in this post.

Case in point: Some NT historians like to stress that the methods they use are the same as those used by nonbiblical historians. In the above linked post I show (from a NT scholar who addresses the same point) that those methods are a range of "criteria". NT scholars use those criteria to try to establish what data in a narrative is probably a historical fact and what is probably not. But nonbiblical historians use those same criteria to interpret what is clearly already an objective, tangible, universally accepted "fact". That is the difference. It is as stark as night from day. One set of scholars use X to try to find what might be a fact, the other set use the same X to interpret known objective tangible facts.

When one attempts to point out such differences to NT scholars and gets only insults and abuse in response, one does wonder if one has touched a vulnerable spot in their methodologies and assumptions.
neilgodfrey is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 05:38 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Italy
Posts: 708
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve

...Thus we have a contest between a hobbyist on one hand any many recognized scholars on the other, in the scholars field of expertise. Gee, I wonder who is more likely to be right?
.
The study about the true origins of Christianity and of real historical profiles of the personages involved in the story of the Gospel, have been began about three centuries ago, with the affirmation of the principles of the Enlightenment. Traditionally one does officially date back the inauguration of this event to the figure of H. S. Reimarus, which opened the way for an exegetical interpretation significantly different from that followed until then

However, although a period of approximately three centuries since then it is elapsed, and despite the fact that you are committed in such a research "many scholars recognized", yet nobody has been able to write the 'end' word to such research, inasmuch, basically, things are remained circa in the same way as leaved they Reimarus! ... Do you know to give a plausible explanation to this? ..

Even if you, like many others here in the forum, feed legitimate 'remore' (doubts) about what I'm writing by over 2 years in this forum, however I can assure you that I managed to find the key of the whole affair, and I do not are by no means a "recognized scholar," because I have not even a degree (I simply have a diploma in electrotechnical).

In light of this, I am convinced (given the bewildering characteristic of the evangelical story and of the hallucinating speculations performed on it by the forger fathers, both those of the origins that the ones of the successive centuries, virtually until to the present day) that only a 'outsider' like me would have could to have the 'chances' of success in investigating the history of the origins of Christianity, inasmuch the 'Recognized scholars' are fatally 'sentenced' to follow the methodology, like they have learned in academy, and this means that they can not go beyond where they arrived the academics who preceded them in this 'cyclopic' effort, such as the one to recover all data and information needed for a reconstruction of the events of two thousand years ago, with sufficient historical reliability.



Greetings


Littlejohn

.
Littlejohn is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 05:53 AM   #23
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by neilgodfrey View Post
One only has to examine the way historians (ancient, medieval and classical) handle sources and compare with NT scholars to see the difference for themselves. No-one needs Neil Godfrey to post on it. But I have done my bit to point out the differences between the two in this post.
One problem is that this post is largely a comparison of the methods of NT scholars and the methods of historians of the modern and (later) medieval period.

Ancient History, (in general), cannot be done by the methods applicable for (relatively) modern history. (1066 is modern in this context.)

What might be more interesting is a comparison between NT scholars and Ancient Historians studying such issues as the Historical Socrates, pre-Socratic philosophy, the Catiline conspiracy, the Druids, the life of Alexander the Great etc.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 06:24 AM   #24
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 5,714
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
Dog-on:

One actual historical fact about Jesus is that he was crucified by the Romans.

Steve
Not all Christians thought so.

Paul thought that Jesus was crucified by demons. The word that Paul uses for "rulers" is a word he regularly uses for demonic "heavenly" spirits.
Can you provide passages to support that statement? Paul refers to "rulers" [archon] in the following passages:
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

1 Cor 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought:

1 Cor 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
There is also another reference to Eph 2:2 ("the prince of the power of the air") which is not generally considered written by Paul.

In Rom 13:3, "archon" appears to refer to earthly rulers.

In 1 Cor 2:6, "archon" also appears to refer to earthly rulers, since it doesn't make sense that Paul would infer that Christians might be talking about the "wisdom of demons" among them "that are perfect", e.g. if we use that meaning, we see this:
1 Cor 2:6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor [the wisdom of demons], that come to nought...
Does Paul really need to tell his readers that Christians were not talking to other Christians about the wisdom of demons? Does Paul even talk about the "wisdom" of demons at all anywhere else? Given that Paul is also talking about human wisdom in the passage directly before (in 1 Cor 2:5: "your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God"), then "wisdom of demons" in 1 Cor 2:6 seems out of place.

One thing to ask here is whether Paul is alluding to the OT. One hint is in Acts, which also refers to "rulers":
Acts 4:26 The kings of the earth stood up, and the rulers [archon] were gathered together against the Lord, and against his Christ.
27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together...
Acts 4:26 is a reference to Psalm 2, which talks about the Lord and His Annointed, who is the Son:
Psa 2:1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
Psa 2:3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
Psa 2:4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
...
Psa 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Psa 2:8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.
Psa 2:9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.
Psa 2:10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way
This Psalm seems to provide the context to Paul: the rulers of the earth gather together against the Lord, but it is in vain, as the Anointed One of God shall break them. This Anointed One is the "begotten son". Elsewhere Paul tells us that Christ was appointed Son of God after crucifixion and resurrection. Psalm 2 tells the kings to "be wise", and serve the Lord. In Paul, though, we see that they weren't wise. The "rulers of this age" crucify Christ, and the crucifixion leads to Christ being appointed Son of God, and thus the kings will perish.
GakuseiDon is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 09:28 AM   #25
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 2,014
Default Fairy Tale Plus Falsification of An Historical Event

Hi DCH,

Good, thoughtful points. Thanks.

I think that the passion narrative should be treated as a different source than the rest of the gospels. Nowhere are the gospels in agreement about events as they are in the passion narrative. The plot, characters, times and places are largely in agreement in all four gospels (with somewhat significant exceptions). This should lead us to treat it as coming from a single source text.

This does not necessarily mean that the passion material is historical whereas the rest of the gospel material is fictional. I would compare it to the 1907 film by Edwin S. Porter "The Teddy Bears"

Mama, Papa and Baby Bear in the movie "The Teddy Bears"

The plot begins with a retelling of the "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" fairy tale which was first published in 1837 in a volume of writings by English author and poet Robert Southey.

Quote:
Mary I. Shamburger and Vera R. Lachmann put forth the suggestion in the Journal of American Folklore in 1946 that the poet conflated a Norwegian tale about three bears with the scene from "Snow White" in which the heroine enters the dwarves' house, tastes their food, and falls asleep in one of their beds.[8] In a manner similar to Southey's bears, the dwarves cry, "Who's been sitting on my stool?", "Who's been eating off my plate?", "Who's been drinking my wine?", and "Who's been lying in my bed?". (Three Bears, Wikipedia)
The little girl in the story went from being called Silver Hair (1853) to Silver Locks (1858), Golden Hair (1868) Little Golden-Hair (1889) and finally Goldilocks in Old Nursery Stories and Rhymes in 1904.

The 13 minute 1907 film called "The Teddy Bears," is the first filmed version of the story. It follows the well known fairy tale to a certain extent, but suddenly, near the end, while the bears are chasing Goldilocks, President Theodore Roosevelt shows up and shoots the "Mama" and "Papa" Bears. He spares the "Baby" bear, but turns him into a pet for Goldilocks.

This ending is based on an historical event (Wikipedia):

Quote:
The name Teddy Bear comes from former United States President Theodore Roosevelt, whose nickname was "Teddy". The name originated from an incident on a bear-hunting trip in Mississippi in November 1902, to which Roosevelt was invited by Mississippi Governor Andrew H. Longino. There were several other hunters competing, and most of them had already killed an animal. A suite of Roosevelt's attendants, led by Holt Collier,[2] cornered, clubbed, and tied an American Black Bear to a willow tree after a long exhausting chase with hounds. They called Roosevelt to the site and suggested that he should shoot it. He refused to shoot the bear himself, deeming this unsportsmanlike,[3] but instructed that the bear be killed to put it out of its misery[citation needed], and it became the topic of a political cartoon by Clifford Berryman in The Washington Post on November 16, 1902.[4] While the initial cartoon of an adult black bear lassoed by a white handler and a disgusted Roosevelt had symbolic overtones, later issues of that and other Berryman cartoons made the bear smaller and cuter.[5]

Morris Michtom saw the drawing of Roosevelt and the bear cub and was inspired to create a new toy. He created a little stuffed bear cub and put it in his shop window with a sign that read "Teddy's bear," after sending a bear to Roosevelt and receiving permission to use his name. The toys were an immediate success and Michtom founded the Ideal Novelty and Toy [3] company.



Cartoons that popularized and associated Roosevelt with the bear

At the same time in Germany, the Steiff firm, unaware of Michtom's bear, produced a stuffed bear from Richard Steiff's designs. They exhibited the toy at the Leipzig Toy Fair in March 1903 and exported 3,000 to the United States.[6][7]

By 1906 manufacturers other than Michtom and Steiff had joined in and the craze for "Roosevelt Bears" was such that ladies carried them everywhere, children were photographed with them, and Roosevelt used one as a mascot in his bid for re-election
In the film, "The Teddy Bears," we have material that is obviously fictional with an ending that has an historical person and event attached. However note the differences. In the historical event, Roosevelt did not kill any bear. In the movie, he killed two bears. In the movie he saved the Baby bear and gave it as a pet to Goldlocks. In the real event, he ordered the bear cub killed.

Thus in the historical event:

1. Roosevelt killed no bear
2. Ordered cub killed to put it out of its misery

While In the movie:
1. Roosevelt killed two bears
2. Captured and gave the Baby bear to Goldilocks.

While we can say that the movie references an historical event, it is more difficult to say that the movie portrays an historical event. One might say that the movie falsifies an historical event for its own purposes.

It is quite possible that the gospels follow the same pattern. The story is a retelling of the typical prophet warns Israel to repent story (the fairy tale part) and a falsification of an historical event (the passion part).

In this case I would label the passion narrative as "Trivially" historical, a "reference" to an historical event, rather than a recitation of historical facts. The material for the passion narrative might have come from a Mime play or even a Jewish attempt at an ancient Novel like Daphnis and Cloe.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin



Quote:
Originally Posted by DCHindley View Post
Steve,

That fact is "backed into" on the assumption that Christians would not have conceded that Jesus was crucified, the Roman punishment for political sedition, by a specific Roman governor, unless it was likely very true. They did, of course, make a silk purse out of a sow's ear by making Jesus into a cynic-like wisdom teacher, and shifting the blame for his crucifixion to Judean authorities because they were "jealous" of his "authoritative" style of teaching.

Almost every single regular poster here, with a couple exceptions, think that the source of this crucifixion story is derived from vague Egyptian/Babylonian/Greek/Roman dying and/or resurrected god myths that have been "historicized" in Pilate's governorship of Judea because it seemed to be a believable place and time to place a fictional story.

Don't worry that this deliberate choice of place and manner of death would place the adherents to this historicized mythical story in very real danger of being themselves considered revolutionaries by the Romans, and subject to that same death sentence.

Don't fret that no one can explain what kind of function this "story" served in early Christian communities.

Don't be held back because the parties involved in these dying and/or resurrected god myths from which early Christians fabricated the crucifixion story from are all gods themselves, not fixed to specific times and persons in written history.

Osiris, grandson of the Egyptian god Ra and son of the earth god Geb and the sky god Nut, is killed by his brother Seth, and reanimated by his sister/wife Isis, only to die again to become the god of the underworld. No attempt to equate them with Menes and the kings of the first dynasty.

Getting back to "backing into" a historical crucifixion. If Anointed Jesus was indeed crucified by the Romans for sedition (whether a real king claimant, or imagined to be holding such aspirations), and Christians sought to "explain it away," it seems natural to interpret the development of Christian dogma as an attempt to maintain a community that started as a gentile faction within a movement hoping to find a place in an expected Jewish kingdom of God on earth, and centered on Jesus as the anointed leader, by transforming themselves into a mystery religion that saw Jesus as a divine savior figure called Christ. 2nd century Christian apologists then could say, "do not persecute us for sedition, but tolerate us because we are no different than adherents of the cults of the gods, who you praise."

DCH


Quote:
Originally Posted by Juststeve View Post
Dog-on:

One actual historical fact about Jesus is that he was crucified by the Romans.

Steve
PhilosopherJay is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 09:55 AM   #26
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,808
Default

There is no history to support your "historical" fact, Steve. NOthing but the ramblings of believers which is hardly the same thing. It happens no where except your bible.

Just like Luke Skywalker only blows up the Death Star in Star Wars.

Two fictional events.
Minimalist is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 10:01 AM   #27
Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: the fringe of the caribbean
Posts: 18,988
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GakuseiDon View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by show_no_mercy View Post

Not all Christians thought so.

Paul thought that Jesus was crucified by demons. The word that Paul uses for "rulers" is a word he regularly uses for demonic "heavenly" spirits.
Can you provide passages to support that statement? Paul refers to "rulers" [archon] in the following passages.....
Why are we going around in CIRCLES? You KNOW "Paul" did NOT ever claim he was a witness to the crucifixion. The Pauline writer wrote about a RESURRECTED dead called Jesus who MUST resurrect to save mankind from sin and that he was NOT the apostle of a MAN NOR did he get his gospel from a man.

Ga 1:1-11
Quote:
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead....

11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.....
"Paul" called Jesus the FIRST BORN of the dead.

Col 1:18 -
Quote:
And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence....
"Paul" was NOT a witness to the crucifixion. "Paul" wrote about the theology of the resurrected dead, Salvation through the resurrected dead.

Ro 10:9 -
Quote:
]
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
We MUST get credible sources EXTERNAL of the Pauline writings to corroborate that there was a Jesus who was crucified on earth by the Romans.

At this point we ONLY have claims in the Pauline writings what is NOW needed are external sources to CONFIRM the writers' VERACITY and CREDIBILITY.

Why are we continuously going around in circles? The Pauline writers have already established they saw the resurrected dead. The Pauline BEGINS AFTER the resurrection.

"Paul" is NOT a WITNESS to the CRUCIFIXION but to the RESURRECTION.

"Paul" cannot answer questions about the crucifixion of Jesus on earth.

"Paul" DEPENDED on the resurrected dead for his history of the betrayal and the Last supper.


1Co 11:23 -
Quote:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread...
"Paul" cannot ANSWER questions of the history of Jesus . "Paul" cannot answer the questions of the crucifixion of Jesus on earth unless he FIRST consults the RESURRECTED dead.

PLEASE STOP wasting time. "Paul" swears by God that he could NOT recall.

2Co 12:2-3 -
Quote:
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth.....

And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth.....
God knows "Paul" cannot settle the matter of the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans but he was a WITNESS to the resurrection.
aa5874 is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 10:16 AM   #28
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewcriddle View Post
Paul certainly believed that the
Quote:
rulers of this age
crucified Jesus (1 Corinthians 2:8). If, you hold that Paul cannot mean human earthly rulers here because this would contradict Romans 13, then you are left with the strange idea that Paul regarded earthly human rulers as appointed by God but not their angelic heavenly counterparts.
Paul believed angels appointed by God crucified Jesus and they were the 'rulers of this age'?

Surely Paul that bad naughty angels, demons even, were the rulers of this age, not nice good angels appointed by God.


The naughty angels were not appointed by God to be the rulers of this age, surely?

And the fact remains that Paul clearly thought people crucified by the Romans had it coming to them. String them up, he would have thought, it's the only language they understand. Perhaps he had had that Pilate in the back of his cab once....
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 10:16 AM   #29
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: England
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay View Post
Hi DCH,

Good, thoughtful points. Thanks.

I think that the passion narrative should be treated as a different source than the rest of the gospels. Nowhere are the gospels in agreement about events as they are in the passion narrative. The plot, characters, times and places are largely in agreement in all four gospels (with somewhat significant exceptions). This should lead us to treat it as coming from a single source text.

This does not necessarily mean that the passion material is historical whereas the rest of the gospel material is fictional. I would compare it to the 1907 film by Edwin S. Porter "The Teddy Bears"

The plot begins with a retelling of the "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" fairy tale which was first published in 1837 in a volume of writings by English author and poet Robert Southey.

Quote:
Mary I. Shamburger and Vera R. Lachmann put forth the suggestion in the Journal of American Folklore in 1946 that the poet conflated a Norwegian tale about three bears with the scene from "Snow White" in which the heroine enters the dwarves' house, tastes their food, and falls asleep in one of their beds.[8] In a manner similar to Southey's bears, the dwarves cry, "Who's been sitting on my stool?", "Who's been eating off my plate?", "Who's been drinking my wine?", and "Who's been lying in my bed?". (Three Bears, Wikipedia)
The little girl in the story went from being called Silver Hair (1853) to Silver Locks (1858), Golden Hair (1868) Little Golden-Hair (1889) and finally Goldilocks in Old Nursery Stories and Rhymes in 1904.

The 13 minute 1907 film called "The Teddy Bears," is the first filmed version of the story. It follows the well known fairy tale to a certain extent, but suddenly, near the end, while the bears are chasing Goldilocks, President Theodore Roosevelt shows up and shoots the "Mama" and "Papa" Bears. He spares the "Baby" bear, but turns him into a pet for Goldilocks.

This ending is based on an historical event (Wikipedia):



In the film, "The Teddy Bears," we have material that is obviously fictional with an ending that has an historical person and event attached. However note the differences. In the historical event, Roosevelt did not kill any bear. In the movie, he killed two bears. In the movie he saved the Baby bear and gave it as a pet to Goldlocks. In the real event, he ordered the bear cub killed.

Thus in the historical event:

1. Roosevelt killed no bear
2. Ordered cub killed to put it out of its misery

While In the movie:
1. Roosevelt killed two bears
2. Captured and gave the Baby bear to Goldilocks.

While we can say that the movie references an historical event, it is more difficult to say that the movie portrays an historical event. One might say that the movie falsifies an historical event for its own purposes.

It is quite possible that the gospels follow the same pattern. The story is a retelling of the typical prophet warns Israel to repent story (the fairy tale part) and a falsification of an historical event (the passion part).

In this case I would label the passion narrative as "Trivially" historical, a "reference" to an historical event, rather than a recitation of historical facts.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin
I like that - "a 'reference' to an historical event".

The usual dating re the gospel crucifixion story is either 30 ce or 33 ce. Luke references the 15th year of Tiberius and details historical rulers that stretch his storyline back 70 years - to 40 BC (Lysanias of Abilene). In that year the Hasmonean Antigonus seized Jerusalem and sent his uncle into exile - and cut off his ear. Three years later, in 37 BC, Herod the Great took Jerusalem and sent Antigonus to Mark Anthony in Antioch where he was crucified and beheaded. Antigonus was the last Priest/King of the Jews.

So - a historical event that was worked over, given some new details and time frame - and ends up being the passion/crucifixion narrative in the gospel Jesus story.

I think the theory of George Wells holds out some ability to move forward with the Jesus debates ie. separate the passion/crucifixion gospel story from the Galilean preacher story - who according to Wells was not crucified. Wells finds no way to link Paul's spiritual Jesus construct with Galilee.

Sure, with the gospel crucifixion story the resurrection is bound up - the dying and rising god scenario. But mythology and theology aside - the grain of historicity most likely rests with the fate of the last Hasmonean Priest/King of the Jews - Antigonus.

Quote:
Antigonus II Mattathias

Antigonus was handed over by Herod to the Romans for execution in 37 BCE, after a short reign of three years during which he had led a fierce struggle of the people for independence against the Romans and Romanizers such as Herod.

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." In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king".


Roman History by Cassius Dio
published in Vol. V
of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1917

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

Quote:

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:
The World that shaped the New Testament: Calvin J Roetzel (or via: amazon.co.uk)

page 25

Herod returned to Jerusalem for the final siege and capture of the city in 37. Antigonus prostrated himself at the feet of Sosius, the Roman general, begging for his life. Rportedly, Sosius laughed and called his abject prisoner “Antigone,” the feminine from of Antigonus. Once in Herod’s custody, the new king passed a double death sentence on Antigonus. He was first crucified, then beheaded.
my bolding
maryhelena is offline  
Old 11-06-2010, 12:32 PM   #30
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Mondcivitan Republic
Posts: 2,550
Default

Luke 3;1 mentioning Lysianas the tetrarch of Abilene [mid 1st century CE] hardly brings the story to the time of Lysanius the son of Ptolemy, king of Chalcis in the time that Herod was fighting to take physical possession of his kingdom [Ant 14:330 & 15:92, about 38 BCE].

There was also a "house of Lysanius" that assisted Zenodorus, apparently a client ruler of Trachonitis, Batanea and Auranitis, in pillaging Damascus from bases in Trachonitis, contributing to Zenodorus' execution at the hands of Caesar's governor of Syria, Varro, and the addition of Zenodorus' territories to Herod's kingdom some years into his rule (Ant 15:344).

That the kingdom of Chalcis cannot be the same as the kingdom or tetrarchy of Lysanias is proved by Wars of the Jews 2:247
247 After this, Caesar sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to be procurator of Galilee, and Samaria, and Perea, and removed Agrippa from [the kingdom of] Chalcis into a greater kingdom; for he gave him the tetrarchy which had belonged to Philip, which contained Batanea, Trachonitis, and Gaulonitis: he added to it the kingdom of Lysanias [which he calls the tetrarchy of Lysanias in Ant 20:138], and that province [Abilene] which Varus had governed.
I think the passage you cite in Cassius Dio is taken out of context. The full passage in Cassius Dio is this:
Gaius Sosius received from [Antony] the governorship of Syria and Cilicia. 3 This officer subdued the Aradii, who had been besieged up to this time and had been reduced to hard straits by famine and disease, and also conquered in battle Antigonus, who had put to death the Roman guards that were with him, and reduced him by siege when he took refuge in Jerusalem. 4 The Jews, indeed, had done much injury to the [preceeding was missing from the online version cited originally] Romans, for the race is very bitter when aroused to anger, but they suffered far more themselves. The first of them to be captured were those who were fighting for the precinct of their god, and then the rest on the day even then called the day of Saturn.7 5 And so excessive were they in their devotion to religion that the first set of prisoners, those who had been captured along with the temple, obtained leave from Sosius, when the day of Saturn came round again, and went up into the temple and there performed all the customary rites, together with the rest of the people. 6 These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he [that is, Sosius] bound to a cross and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and afterwards slew him.
What you have here is Antony's general Sosius punishing Antigonus in such an exemplary manner for daring to kill, in a fit of Jewish nationalism, the Roman soldiers who had been previously garrisoned in Jerusalem when he took Jerusalem from his brother Hyrcanus with Parthian help. It was not Herod who did this to Antigonous. It should also be noticed that Sossius did not execute the priests who were captured while defending the temple precincts in the midst of the fighting, but immediately released them to continue their ministrations after a week of purification, out of respect for their religious zeal.

DCH

Quote:
Originally Posted by maryhelena View Post
The usual dating re the gospel crucifixion story is either 30 ce or 33 ce. Luke references the 15th year of Tiberius and details historical rulers that stretch his storyline back 70 years - to 40 BC (Lysanias of Abilene).

In that year the Hasmonean Antigonus seized Jerusalem and sent his uncle into exile - and cut off his ear. Three years later, in 37 BC, Herod the Great took Jerusalem and sent Antigonus to Mark Anthony in Antioch where he was crucified and beheaded. Antigonus was the last Priest/King of the Jews.

So - a historical event that was worked over, given some new details and time frame - and ends up being the passion/crucifixion narrative in the gospel Jesus story.

I think the theory of George Wells holds out some ability to move forward with the Jesus debates ie. separate the passion/crucifixion gospel story from the Galilean preacher story - who according to Wells was not crucified. Wells finds no way to link Paul's spiritual Jesus construct with Galilee.

Sure, with the gospel crucifixion story the resurrection is bound up - the dying and rising god scenario. But mythology and theology aside - the grain of historicity most likely rests with the fate of the last Hasmonean Priest/King of the Jews - Antigonus.

Roman History by Cassius Dio published in Vol. V of the Loeb Classical Library edition, 1917

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

Quote:
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:
The World that shaped the New Testament: Calvin J Roetzel (or via: amazon.co.uk)

page 25

Herod returned to Jerusalem for the final siege and capture of the city in 37. Antigonus prostrated himself at the feet of Sosius, the Roman general, begging for his life. Rportedly, Sosius laughed and called his abject prisoner “Antigone,” the feminine from of Antigonus. Once in Herod’s custody, the new king passed a double death sentence on Antigonus. He was first crucified, then beheaded.
my bolding
DCHindley is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:51 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.