aa5874

How can it be claimed that there was NO reference to "crucifixion" in antiquity when Josephus in his autobiography mentioned that many were CRUCIFIED during the time of Titus Caesar?

And it may be that the crucifixion of the three characters in the NT was derived from the crucifixion story in Josephus where ONE of three of his CRUCIFIED acquaintances survived AFTER they were taken down.

"Life of Flavius Josephus" 75.

So based on Josephus, there were CRUCIFIXIONS in antiquity and the victims were not normally removed.


And in "Annals" 15 by Tacitus, the writer claimed people were NAILED to CROSSES.

"Annals 15" People were nailed to crosses and many were crucified based on sources of antiquity.

I think Samuelsson is a QUACK. His thesis is completely BOGUS.

stephan huller

Toto,

I was citing Drijvers for background information on the Protonike situation. Drijvers references many attempts to connect Protonike to Berenice as well as Protonike to Helen of Adiabene but ultimately comes away dissatisfied. I for one am convinced about the connection and feel it is the only way to explain the Protonike story.

Here is von Dobschütz summary of the person of Berenice:

http://books.google.com/books?id=V2A...tonike&f=false

He references the connection to Protonike. What almost everyone seems to forget is that there is an uncanny parallel of the fusion of Berenice and Helena of Adiabene and that is the Yosippon (and related rabbinic texts) fusion of Berenice's brother Marcus Agrippa and Helena's husband (son?) Monobaz. The Jewish tradition incredibly makes Monobaz the son of Agrippa (!). While this seems comical at first the reason why this occurs is not so funny - there must have been two parallel interpretations of Daniel 9:24 - 27 in first century Judea one which connected Agrippa as the messiah (Dan 9:26) and another which promoted Monobaz for that role. In the end, 'father and son' are both killed by Vespasian just before the destruction of the temple.

In the same way Berenice and Helena get confused as rival female companions of Christ. I don't want to speculate too much about Helena right now but Drijvers spends a great more time demonstrating the evidence which suggests she was behind Protonike:

http://books.google.com/books?id=50Z...renice&f=false

I am not at all convinced. I think that the name necessarily suggests an origin with Berenice who is clearly remembered as an important Christian saint and indeed a first century Palestinian saint. Here is an overview of her role in the parallel 'discovery of the garment of Christ' narrative.

Eusebius of Caesarea:

But since I have come to mention this city, I do not think it right to omit a story that is worthy to be recorded also from those that come after us. For they say that the woman who had a haemorrhage, and who, as we learn from the sacred Gospels, found at the hands of our Saviour relief from her affliction, came to this place, and that her house was pointed out in the city, and that marvelous memorials of the good deed, which the Savior wrought upon her, still remained. For that there stood on a lofty stone at the gates of her house a bronze figure of a woman, bending on her knee and stretching forth her hands like a suppliant, while opposite to this there was another of the same material, an upright figure of a man, clothed in comely fashion in a double cloak and stretching out his hand to the woman; at his feet on the monument itself a strange species of herb was growing, which climbed up to the double cloak of bronze, and acted as an antidote to all kinds of diseases. This statue, they said, bore the likeness of the Lord Jesus. And it was in existence even to our day, so that we saw it with out own eyes when we stayed in the city.
John Malalas:

In his grief King Herod, the son of Philip, came from Judea, and a certain wealthy woman, living in the city of Paneas, called Bernice, approached him, wishing to set up a statue to Jesus, for she had been healed by him. As she did not dare to do this without imperial permission, she addressed a petition to King Herod, asking to set up a golden statue to the Saviour Christ in that city.

The petition ran as follows: To the august toparch Herod, lawgiver o Jews and Hellenes, king of Trachonitis, a petition and request from Bernice, a dignitary of the city of Paneas. Justice and benevolence and all other virtues crown your highness's sacred head. Thus, since I know this, I have come with every good hope that I shall obtain my requests. My words as they progress will reveal to you what foundation there is for this present preamble. From my childhood I have been smitten with the affliction of an internal haemorrhage; I spent all my livelihood and wealth on doctors but found no cure. When I heard of the cures that Christ performs with His miracles, He who raises the dead, restores the blind to sight, drives demons out of mortals, and heals with a word all those wasting away from disease, I too ran to Him as to God. I noticed the crowd surrounding him and I was afraid to tell Him of my incurable disease in case he should recoil from the pollution of my affliction and be angry with me and the violence of the disease should strike me even more. I reasoned to myself that, if I were able to touch the fringe of His garment, I would certainly be healed. I touched Him, and the flow of blood was stopped and immediately I was healed. He, however, as though He knew in advance my heart's purpose, cried out, Who touched Me? For power has gone out of Me. I went white with terror and lamented, thinking that the disease would return to me with greater force, and I fell before Him covering the ground with tears. I told Him of my boldness. Out of His goodness He took pity on me and confirmed my cure, saying, Be of good courage, My daughter, your faith has saved you. Go your way in peace. So, your august highness, grant your suppliant this worthy petition.

When King Herod heard the contents of this petition, he was amazed by the miracle and, fearing the mystery of the cure, said, This cure, woman, which was worked on you, is worthy of a greater statue. Go then and set up whatever kind of statue you wish to Him, honouring by the offering Him who healed you. Immediately, Bernice, who had formerly suffered from a haemorrhage, set up in the middle of her city of Paneas a statue of beaten bronze, mixing it with gold and silver, to the Lord God. This statue remains in the city of Paneas to the present day, having been moved not many years ago from the place where it stood in the middle of the city to a holy place, a house of prayer. This document was found in the city of Paneas in the house of a man called Bassus, a Jew who had become a Christian.

Sozomen:

Among so many remarkable events which occurred during the reign of Julian, I must not omit to mention one which affords a sign of the power of Christ, and proof of the Divine wrath against the emperor.

Having heard that at Caesarea Philippi, otherwise called Paneas, a city of Phonicia, there was a celebrated statue of Christ which had been erected by a woman whom the Lord had cured of a flow of blood, Julian commanded it to be taken down and a statue of himself erected in its place; but a violent fire from heaven fell upon it and broke off the parts contiguous to the breast; the head and neck were thrown prostrate, and it was transfixed to the ground with the face downwards at the point where the fracture of the bust was; and it has stood in that fashion from that day until now, full of the rust of the lightning. The statue of Christ was dragged around the city and mutilated by the pagans; but the Christians recovered the fragments, and deposited the statue in the church in which it is still preserved. Eusebius relates, that at the base of this statue grew an herb which was unknown to the physicians and empirics, but was efficacious in the cure of all disorders. It does not appear a matter of astonishment to me, that, after God had vouchsafed to dwell with men, he should condescend to bestow benefits upon them.

Philostorgius:

There is also the statue of the Saviour in the city of Paneas, a work of magnificent execution put up by the woman with the haemorrhage whom Christ healed, and erected on a notable site in the city... Now an herb grew up by the feet of our Saviour's image and the reason for this was sought, for in the passage of time both the person portrayed and the reason for the monument had been forgotten; it stood in the open with nothing to cover it, and much of the body was buried in the dirt that kept falling upon it from highter ground especially in times of rain, the dirt covering the writing that explained each of the matters. An inquiry was therefore instituted, the buried part was dug out, and the writing was found that told the whole story... The Christians removed it and put it in the sacristy of the church. The pagans pulled it down, fastened ropes to the feet, and dragged it through the public square until it was broken up bit by bit and so destroyed. Only the head was left; that was seized by someonw while the pagans were raising their clamor and speaking blasphemies and utterly disgraceful words against our Lord Jesus Christ, words such as no one had ever heard.

I have absolutely no doubt that St. Berenice was developed from an original Christian association with Queen Berenice. There are a number of arguments for this proposition but the most compelling is when you actual go to the shrine that Eusebius and Sozomen and everyone else went on a pilgrimage in Paneas you realize at once that it physically stood in what was originally Queen Berenice's front yard. I posted the photo of modern Banias on my blog:

http://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/20...berenices.html

Now with all of that in mind you have to start taking a look at commonalities between the Protonike story and the Berenice stories and low and behold - once you see the same pattern. The Addai narrative begins with an effort to connect Protonike to the ruling Julio-Claudian line. Just as Berenice is connected with “Titus the son of Tiberius” in the Vengeance of the Savior tradition, we see “Protonike” identified as “the wife of Claudius the Emperor, whom Tiberius made the second man of his empire.” Just as the original narrative of Vengeance is set during the Jewish War, the material in the Protonike narrative tells of that “at that time” Claudius “set out to make war on the Spaniards who had rebelled against him.”

Just as Protonike encounters one of the disciples of Simon and is converted. The conversion sounds very much like the Edessan material we just saw where “Protonike” like Berenice is said to have seen “the signs and wonders and mighty acts he did in the name of Christ, and she foreswore the heathenism of her forefathers …[gave up her idols] … and believed in our master, Christ.”

Because of this life changing experience “Protonike” goes to Jerusalem with her two sons and one daughter in search of the tomb of Jesus. She wants to take over the religion of Christianity. We hear that “when she came to Jerusalem the whole town came out to meet her and they received her with great honor, as was due a queen … where she dwelt in the royal palace of king Herod.” The Berenice legends frequently connect her with the Herodians (because after all she was Julia Berenice)

We read that when Protonike discovers where the tomb of Jesus was located she seems dismayed to find that “it is under the stewardship of the Jews” – so in effect she wants to appropriate it and – in effect – bring it back to the Herodian castle where she is staying. Her object is to wrest control of Christianity away from the Jews for, as one believer explains to her “[t]hey have taken possession of them and they do not permit us to go thither and worship before the Calvary and the tomb, [n]either will they give us the tree of the cross.”

This effort then to “discover” the sepulcher is as much an effort to “liberate it” from the control of Jews. When she hears that Christians are being persecuted by the Jews she demands that they hand over these things to the Church “in order that they may perform their service there, according to the customs of the service.” Nevertheless when she arrives she finds herself in need of performing a miracle of her own too.

She gets into the tomb and almost immediately “her daughter, a virgin, fell and died without pain and without sickness and without cause of death.” It is her son who comes forward and announces that the death of his sister might be a good thing because he recommends that they put her body on each one of the crosses to discover which one belongs to Jesus and thus resurrect her to prove the greatness of their Lord.

The story of Protonike, like many of these narratives is ultimately of course, a stupid story. Nevertheless it illustrates the manner in which something of the original history of Christianity never died or went away – it just became deliberately obscured. In due course the whole “Protonike” tradition was developed by Constantine for the sake of the new state religion of Rome.

This effort to change names from the original material underscores the unspoken reality which we see in our next Berenice tradition - that of the so-called “Clementine Literature” a collection of texts coming out of Egypt in the second century A.D. In one overlooked story “Berenice” is still the appellation of the “daughter” the mother can still be determined to have been named “Salome.” However we can begin to see what is the start of the ultimate absorption and redefinition of the family in this narrative as belonging now to the “house of Caesar” from that of the “house of Herod.”

For in the Clementia (i.e. books associated with Clement) our narrator or lead commentator now is “Clement” – a son who has lost his parents. The editor, doing his best to “cleanse” an older layer to the story, invents a scenario where “Clement” supposedly has two families. That of his biological mother and father who are from the “house of Caesar” on the one hand and another “adopted” mother and sister who interestingly remain fixed not only to the Palestinian soil but how amazingly have a place in the gospel!

So “Clement” is now “really” a Roman, his association with his Palestinian 'gospel family' is now just that of an adopted son. Clement now claims that his parents “having changed our names [these Roman parents] sold us to a certain widow, a very honourable women, named Justa.”

We read in the Clementine Homilies Clement's mother is “Justa, a Syro-Phoenician, by race a Canaanite, whose daughter was oppressed with a grievous disease.” As many scholars have already determined before me - Justa is the woman in Matthew 15, Mark 7 and Berenice was her daughter who Jesus healed in the narrative.

I won't go into my theories about the gnostic interest in Prunikos but I think it is yet another variation of the original Berenice/Protonike tradition.

Got to sleep. Thanks

Littlejohn

For years I support this! .. It seems that the world by the official scholarship is reluctant to give value to rabbinic literature ... And yet, the case of the Judas' Gospel would have had to open the eyes to all those scholars who persist in not wanting to consider the talmudic literature ... (Because that is displeasing to the Vatican! ..)

No, the crucifixion was actually there: only that it is not concerning Jesus of Nazareth, but the man whose figure helped build syncretically the fictitious figure of 'Jesus Christ': that is to say JESUS '+ CHRIST! (The latter is precisely the crucified man)


Greetings


Littlejohn
.

Littlejohn

"..There really is no word which means 'to be crucified' only 'to hang' or 'to suspend.' .."

Indeed! .. In the Talmud you talks, concerning Jesus, of "hanged" and not 'crucified' ... Catholic apologists know all this, however, they seek to persuade us that the talmudic authors, who wrote about Jesus of Nazareth, they meant the crucifixion.

In reality, the passage where is cited the death sentence and execution of Jesus it is clear: ".. he will be stoned to death for having led Israel astray .." Then it is said that he was 'hanged'. But this is exactly what prescribes the 'Parashat Devarim', which states that the bodies of the stoned people must be hunged at a support (pole or branch of tree), so their impure blood does not contaminate the Eretz Kodesh


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Littlejohn

«..Hung or crucified? I suspect seeing as the punishment for sedition was crucifixion he probably was..»

The historical life of Jesus was far more complex than it appears, in a simplified and misrepresented way, in the Gospels. He did not die crucified at the time of Pilate, but stoned at the time of Titus: that is to say a couple of years after the end of the first Jewish War (66-70)

His greatest crime was precisely to have participated in this war of rebellion and his sentence should have been just the his crucifixion: that is the penalty that Roman law prescribed for the crime of rebellion (for both the subjects at the empire and slaves towards their own masters). However, for a 'special' motive, the Romans (ie Tito) gave up Jesus to the Jewish authorities, who, after being subjected to trial before the Sanhedrin, executed him by stoning.

This is because the ancient church fathers was insistently affirming that the Jews had crucified Jesus (to hide the fact that they really had stoned him!).

The event took place around AD 72, near the town of Lydda (now Lud), where Jesus endured his trial before the Sanhedrin. It is highly probable that he was executed along with his twin brother Judas also told 'Thomas', as the Catholic Church indicates in its martyrological he was martyred in the 72 year (although there is specified that the event took place in India!)

In order to celebrate the actual death place of Jesus, without make suspicions arise, the counterfeiter fathers invented a saint 'ad-hoc': SAINT GEORGE !!... (A papal bull of the VI century excluded this saint from the martyrological of the Roman Apostolic Church, since there were practically not one news about the real existence of this saint!)


Greetings


Littlejohn

.

Mars Man

I read it all, and am a bit let down, to some degree, over the quality of the posting...but...'tis life.

I tend to think that it'd be better to use the English word impaled here. Yet, at the same time, would argue that it would not matter at all of any Yeshua who may have lived around that time's had, or had not been, killed in some fashion. Time marches on. . . lot's of folks have (had) been killed for various reasons . . . and yet, time marches on; so no big deal (although we do have a story which is interesting to look at).

James Brown

Not to mention the two references in Acts (5:30, 10:39) where Jesus "died and was hung on a tree." Exactly the reverse sequence depicted in the gospels.

Toto

The General Disarray digression has been split off here

stephan huller

AA

I am happy that you remind us that there were plenty of ancient sects which seemed to deny the fact that Jesus was actually crucified. Yet your 'proof' that there was a bat kol which said that Jesus was the really the son of the Father in no way closes the debate. Let me give you a quick example. Luke ix 35 is preserved in early Syriac texts as 'this is my Son and my Beloved' (as in syr.C, and often elsewhere in Ephrem). It seems the Marcionites applied this TWO different figures (see first statement by Ephrem). I take this to mean the Marcionites emphasized the separation of Jesus AND Christ as the unnamed sect associated with the Gospel of Mark in Irenaeus (AH iii.11.7). A sample from Book One of Ephrem's Against Marcion:

If they say that in truth the Stranger went up to heaven, see how much the Maker despised him and . . . against his disciples and against him [who said], 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' He had sent only two against them.

But [if] they say, ' If . . . is it not clear that because he was very strong on that account he did not overcome [him ? How] could two men [overcome] three ? [Were they just] two men — and not [both] alive, but one alive and one dead — to fight [a God] ! Was the Maker then really afraid to come, and on that account indeed did not come ? So that if He had come, He would have been killed ! Or can then a Divine Nature suffer pain, either the Maker's or the Stranger's ? And if they did not suffer, why did the Maker not come against him ? Or can it be that He really knew that Moses, etc., would be sufficient to meet the attack of the Stranger, and therefore He did not come ? For lo, even the Stranger did not contend with them, and it is clear that he really perceived that they were stronger than he, and on that account he remained quiet (and refrained) from engaging in battle. And as to his preparing battle with the Maker, if [his desires hankered] 34 after men, why was he [lo,] unable to create this ? And if to create men he was too weak, how much more was he too weak to wage war against God ! Again, the Stranger who proclaimed there, 'This is my Son and my Beloved,' whom did He wish to cause to hear (it) ? Can it be that He was calling to Moses, etc., that He might make them His disciples ? Or that He might warn them not to say anything to him (i.e. to Isu) ? And from which heavens did He call ? Was it from the heaven of the Maker ? And why did He descend to it ? If, as it were, on account of the aforesaid Maker the Stranger descended to it, then He did not snatch away men only but also the heaven. Or can it be that the Stranger purchased the angels who were in the heaven together with the heaven ? But if those who were above were not purchased by Him, why did He pass through their abodes ? But if (the voice) came that it might be a witness to the Son, who had no witness on earth, lo ! seeing that the voice came from the heaven of the Maker, who is to tell us that he is not the Son of the Maker, in a case where the voice which came was coming from the heaven of the Maker, especially when the mountain was the mountain of the Maker, and the cloud of Moses, etc., belonged to the Maker, and the prophets likewise who were on the mountain (were the prophets) of the Maker ? [Ephrem Against Marcion Book 1 Mitchell p. 92 - 95]

It's always more complicated than it seems. There are rarely 'proofs' of 'fiction.' Just ambiguous material designed to shield secret teachings (or at least so I interpret them).

Samuelsson's research is useful because it points to the fact that σταυρός is more ambiguous than we naturally assume. There might be another shade of meaning in Aramaic. I am working on that ...

stephan huller

AA

To be honest I think if we are going to probe into questions about the crucifixion the place to start is here:

ω ανοητοι γαλαται τις υμας εβασκανεν τη αληθεια μη πειθεσθαι οις κατ οφθαλμους ιησους χριστος προεγραφη εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος (Gal 3:1)

which is translated in a number of different ways:

O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? (KJV)

Foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth among you as crucified? (World English)

The part that has always puzzled me is the idea of being crucified 'among you' εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος. To me it sounds like an extension of the "From now on let no one trouble me, for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus" (Gal 6:17) concept. In other words, I imagine that the Apostle was really arguing that the proof of the εσταυρωμενος is manifest his own person (i.e. that whatever σταυρός meant it was displayed in the person of the Apostle!)

In other words, the Apostle was walking around with signs on his body that there was a εσταυρωμενος.

I know this sounds crazy but I have always thought that John 20:19 has a bizarre scenario where the disciples are hanging out with a guy that they don't know really is Jesus but this is confirmed when he "showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord."

I still don't know what σταυρός means but neither do any of the experts it seems. My guess is that the original sentence read:

ω ανοητοι γαλαται τις υμας εβασκανεν τη αληθεια μη πειθεσθαι οις κατ οφθαλμους χριστος προεγραφη εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος (Gal 3:1)

In other words, the Apostle was simply reminding his hearers that he was the Christ (implicit in his Marcionite title ho apostolos at least from a Samaritan perspective) and he was publicly displayed as εν υμιν εσταυρωμενος. What stands in the way of this of course is there are usually a great number of variant readings like this i.e. 'Christ' for 'Jesus' or 'Jesus Christ' in our received texts but not here to the best of my knowledge.

Also how does 'they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lust' fit into this discussion'? No clue.