DCHindley

If you can wait another month or so I could work Antigonus into Don't Fear the Reaper.

DCH

maryhelena

It's 'Bring Him Home' that is relevant here....metaphorically speaking of course...i.e bringing the history of Antigonus re his execution by Rome, into the discussion of a composite gospel JC. Yep, Bring Him Home....



------------------
Alfie will be singing 'Bring Him Home' at the Washington National Memorial Day Concert on the 26th May......

EarlDoherty

Maryhelena has insisted that I ask my questions here about her views on the relationship between Antigonus and Mark's Gospel Jesus, even though this thread hasn't had any action for two weeks, and has degenerated into a ditty-fest.

I'm sure I don't need to summarize Mh's position on Antigonus, we are all basically familiar with it. However, I must confess now to some perplexity. Some time ago I gained the impression that one of Mh's claimed "parallels" was that Antigonus was crucified. Apparently that was a wrong impression. (Antigonus was not an historical figure that I was that familiar with in any great detail.) And I didn't catch the anomaly when I read through her chart.

But if this is the case, then there is even less of a comparison to be made between Antigonus and Mark's Jesus than I thought she was claiming. So I will rephrase the questions I asked on the other thread.

What would the history of Antigonus himself have had to do with any interests Mark shows in his gospel? The simple fact that he was executed by the Romans (beheaded by Mark Antony at Herod's instigation) is hardly conclusive, let alone reveals why he would be of any interest to Mark. Thousands of Jews were executed by the Romans (and Herod) in the period preceding Mark.

Was Antigonus to be viewed as a sacrifice for mankind, or even the Jews, and where can we see any hint of this in Mark's story, or that Mark could have considered him an archetype for his Jesus in that respect? In fact, wasn't he a traitor to his country by trying to further his ambitions of power by aligning himself with invading Parthians?

Did Antigonus preach Cynic-style wisdom teachings? Did he advocate apocalyptic expectations as Mark's Jesus does? Did Antigonus know anything about the Danielic Son of Man or share in any aspect of such a figure, one who is an essential part of Mark's Jesus character?

Did Antigonus rise from the dead, and if not, why would he be regarded as the archetype of a Savior figure?

How on earth could Mark have had Antigonus in mind when fashioning his Jesus when they have nothing of any relevance in common?

All the alleged parallels in the world, Mh, are of no value if questions like these (and I'm sure I could think of others) cannot be answered in your favor. Without such answers, the alleged connection makes no sense. But perhaps you feel you do have some positive answers to my questions. Let's put them under the spotlight, since you have a very persistent presence on FRDB, not only championing your "terra-firma history" position and Antigonus himself as the embodiment of it, but your constant belittling of my own theories without actually engaging with my arguments.

Earl Doherty

maryhelena

Antigonus II Mattathias


Those are the three sources on the execution of Antigonus. Where did Cassius Dio get his information that Antigonus was bound to a cross and scourged? He does not say. Is Cassius Dio statement overruled by Josephus and Plutarch? There is no reason to claim such an overruling. Marc Antony executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean Antigonus. Antigonus was killed by being beheaded. That does not rule out his being bound to a cross and scourged, belittled, humiliated and shamed prior to his execution. Yes, most probably the gospel JC crucifixion story was known at the time Cassius Dio wrote what he did. Did Cassius Dio connect the gospel JC story of a crucifixion with Roman involvement with the Roman execution of Antigonus? Whatever the source of Cassius Dio’s claim re the events surrounding the execution of Antigonus - that claim cannot simply be refuted by the other two writers not mentioning all the details that were involved. Particularly, in the case of the Josephan writer, a sensitivity to Jewish views on crucifixion, on suspending human bodies above the ground (Deut. 21:23) could well be in play. That the last King and High Priest of the Jews was “accursed” is hardly an event that would be willingly talked about.

As to someone being hung on a cross and later taken down alive - the Josephan writer has that story in 'Life". Surviving a crucifixion, surviving being suspended and humiliated and flogged on a stake, only to die later - or be executed via other means - is a possibility.

A little while back PhilosopherJay pointed me towards this book:

Sure, and so was the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean, Antigonus.
Earl, lets keep theology out of this - theology has no bearing on the history that the chart has outlined - history that is reflected in the gospel JC story. Mark has his JC crucified - all Mark needs, for his pseudo-history, is to fashion it upon a historical event. That gives Mark’s story a veneer of historicity.

Politics, Earl, is a dirty business at the best of times. My chart is referencing history that has reflections on the gospel JC figure - not politics.

Earl, the Markan writer wrote pseudo-history for his JC figure. What words were put into the mouth of the gospel JC were words put there by the Markan writer. The gospel JC figure is not a photo-copy of Antigonus. The history of Antigonus re his crucifixion and execution by Rome is central to the crucifixion story of the gospel JC figure. There is more to the composite figure of the gospel JC than that figure reflecting the Roman execution of Antigonus.


This is nonsense, Earl, nobody has ever risen from the dead.

Both figures, the historical last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean, Antigonus, and the gospel pseudo-historical figure of JC - were executed by Rome. The Markan writer clearly stating that the notice over the crucified gospel JC reads: King of the Jews.

What my chart has done is put Hasmonean/Herodian history on one side and the gospel JC story on the other side. From my OP:

[T2]Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative.

Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart (above) has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used. This chart is the historical backdrop that allows the gospel literary, mythological JC, a veneer of historicity, an ability to reflect historical events. It is this reflection, this veneer of historicity, that has allowed the assumption that the gospel JC figure is a historical figure. That assumption, when considered in the light of history, the Hasmonean and Herodian coins, and that history’s narrative as set down by Josephus and Philo, is unfounded.

While the chart has set down the historical backdrop in which to view the gospel JC figure, the chart is not the whole JC story. That story goes on to include OT midrash and mythological elements. However, without the historical backdrop, the gospel JC story would have had no legs upon which to run; no legs to allow it to be viewed as a plausible historical account.

Crucified itinerate carpenters might well present historical possibilities and assumptions. However, belief in historical possibilities is something down the line, not something immediate. The immediate reality does not allow for possibilities - it allows only for what reality is. And that is historical reality not assumptions or possibilities.

The gospel JC story is not history; it is a mythologizing of history; an interpretation of history; salvation history. History viewed through a Jewish philosophical and a prophetic lens.
[/T2]


Earl Doherty, from his website:

Since, Earl, you have acknowledged that "elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus", you have no basis upon which to reject outright the historical figures that I have referenced in my chart.

By all means provide the names of other historical figures - evidence being required for any figures you deem to be historical and relevant to the creation of the JC figure. Until you can do that Earl, all your shouting down of my chart says more about your own struggle to provide rational arguments for your own theory of a fleshly sub-lunar. Attempting to discredit my chart as a means of diverting attention away from your own errors; errors that aa and Shesh are continually pointing out to you, is foolhardy. Earl, you have had years to show some interest in my ideas - and all I have got from you is 'gobbledygook'. That you now want to engage with my chart is not out of genuine interest - it's an attempt to divert attention away from your own errors. Your theory is on the ropes, it is sinking fast - and not too soon either.

Sheshbazzar

Would well explain this bit;
It is noteworthy exactly in what manner this inscription -grows- in Matthew and John's accounts.

Seems like having the last commonly and publicly acknowledged historical 'KING OF THE JEWS' executed by Romans soldiers would make a relevant and memorable lasting impact on the public consciousness, whether it be Jewish or Gentile memories.



.

maryhelena

And gLuke re-runs the historical tape 70 years later. 40 b.c. to 37 b.c. replayed via the gospel story from 29/30 c.e. to 33 c.e.

Sheshbazzar

And finally written as the anonymous 'Gospel' which came to be called 'Luke' in .....when???
Bible scholars make guesses ranging anwhere from 37 to 120+ CE.

maryhelena

Yes, dating is of course of interest re the development of the written gospel. I'll play safe and date gLuke post 70 c.e......

The point I am making does not resolve around dating gLuke - however interesting that dating might be. My interest is in setting down the historical backdrop to that gospel JC figure and story. A historical backdrop that is independent from the dating of the written gospel. It's the composition of that JC figure - what is 'he' made from - that interests me. What historical figures played a part, via the gospel writers, in creating that composite literary figure. What history is being reflected in that literary figure. Yes, OT interpretations are at play - but so too are historical realities - as they have been relevant throughout the OT and it's 'salvation history'.

Sheshbazzar

Naturally they would be. Anyone with a book of 'prophecies' would be looking for any one in the near past, or their present day, that they could fit these prophecies too.
And whom they stuck 'em to would make ripples in textual interpretations down through history. Still does.

maryhelena

Yes, all very arbitrary re fitting historical events, or figures, to OT prophecies. But that's a very Jewish way of doing 'salvation history'. The relevance of this - for a search for early christian origins - is that by identifying the Hasmonean/Herodian history that has been used as the backdrop for the gospel JC story, a foothold is placed, as it were, on a road forward. The fog of interpretation lifts and the daylight of history is able to shed light on the gospel story....