Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 08-05-2010, 08:56 AM

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 ofAntigonus. Once in Herod’s custody, the new king passed a double death sentence on Antigonus. He was first crucified, then beheaded.

my bolding

maryhelena · 08-05-2010, 09:43 AM

Surviving a crucifixion......albeit in the case of Antigonus he was later beheaded...

Josephus: Life

Quote:

And when I was sent by Titus Caesar with Cerealins, and a thousand horsemen, to a certain village called Thecoa, in order to know whether it were a place fit for a camp, as I came back, I saw many captives crucified, and remembered three of them as my former acquaintance. I was very sorry at this in my mind, and went with tears in my eyes to Titus, and told him of them; so he immediately commanded them to be taken down, and to have the greatest care taken of them, in order to their recovery; yet two of them died under the physician's hands, while the third recovered.

my bolding

maryhelena · 08-05-2010, 10:29 AM

Re: crucifixion

Ancient Jewish and Christian perceptions of crucifixion: David W. Chapman (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Quote:

Page 70

The penalty was certainly among the worst possible punishments, being specifically treated in several places as the greatest misfortune to befall a man. In Roman literature, barbarian peoples are frequently said to crucify, thus insinuating a kind of barbarous feel to the penalty. Lately, many writers have emphasized the great shame attached to such a penalty - a naked man, beaten and ridiculed, hanging for all to see while he slow dies, his carcass becoming food for birds. Naturally, these perceptions often are mirrored in the Jewish sources. However, since Jewish revolutionaries, especially in the first century CE, frequently suffered the horrors of the cross, our sources sometimes favour the vantage point of the victims over that of their Roman oppressors.

A consideration of the account of Dio and that of Josephus - with much Greek - ends with this:

Quote:

Footnote on page 70

Therefore, save for the fairly remote possibility that Josephus may have wished to downplay any crucifixion overtones in this story (such a claim would require both Dio’s account to be accurate, and Josephus to have known about the scourging ) there are no extant Jewish perceptions of crucifixion tied to this event.

So it boils down to Josephus once more - why would he choose not to record a crucifixion of Antigonus? His recording of the Herodian history as it relates to the NT is not without question. Consequently, in this case, with a record of such a crucifixion by a Roman historian - then a question mark needs to be raised. What is not recorded can be as relevant as what is recorded - as is obvious from the book of Acts. Perhaps a bit like one of those Agatha Christie mysteries - the case of the dog that did not bark....

Of course, the humiliating reality of a crucifixion is enough not to want to be reminded of it - looks like the Hasmonean Jews were not willing to go the route of the Christian churches - wearing a constant reminder of the instrument of humiliation around their necks...

But Josephus does tell us about a crucified man taken down from the cross - after the siege of Jerusalem in 70 ce - could be his way of replaying the historical tape of 37 bc....

stephan huller · 08-05-2010, 10:43 AM

This is just silly. First of all you never mentioned anything about beheading in your original post. You said Antigonus was crucified. Now you decide to mention Dio Cassius reference to being flogged while bound to a STAKE (stauroi) before being beheaded (remember all of Samuelsson's recent work - stauroi here DOES NOT MEAN T SHAPED CRUCIFIX) but noticeably absent from the discussion are all the other references I mentioned. Kaplan clearly demonstrates that Dio Cassius's claims about Antigonus being chained to a stake and then having his throat slit are completely at odds with all other reports of Antigonus being beheaded with an ax. All Kaplan says is that Dio Cassius, a man writing long after the gospel account had already been established got his information from some other lost source other than Josephus who cites Strabo and the 'beheaded by ax' understanding which is universal. So we have no cross, no crucifixion, a beheading and the claim that the beheading of a king was unprecedented is complete hogwash. For Josephus demonstrates a number of rebellious Hasomneans who were beheaded before Antigonus. There are an endless number of kings from other nations cited by Kaplan who were similarly BEHEADED.

Yes IF Antigonus was indeed crucified that would be unprecedented and could POSSIBLY have been used as a source for the gospel BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED so that should be the end of this unworkable theory.

stephan huller · 08-05-2010, 10:45 AM

And if you had any intention of having this theory taken seriously as anything other than a creative writing exercise you should change the name of the thread now to "the historical BEHEADING of Antigonus as a model for the MYTHICAL crucifixion of Jesus" and see how many flies you attract ...

aa5874 · 08-05-2010, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So it boils down to Josephus once more - why would he choose not to record a crucifixion of Antigonus? ...

Josephus' claim that Antigonus was SLAIN is confirmed by Cassius Dio.

Cassius Dio claimed that Antigonus was BOUND to a cross, flogged and then SLAIN.

stephan huller · 08-05-2010, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena
So it boils down to Josephus once more - why would he choose not to record a crucifixion of Antigonus? ...
Josephus' claim that Antigonus was SLAIN is confirmed by Cassius Dio.

Cassius Dio claimed that Antigonus was BOUND to a cross, flogged and then SLAIN.

No it comes down to a non-existent reference to a non-existent 'crucifixion' of Antigonus as the basis to an allegedly 'mythical' crucifixion of Jesus. Let me say it again THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO ANTIGONUS BEING CRUCIFIED. Cassius Dio - in contradiction to ALL other reports - says that Antigonus was chained to a stake and tortured before having his throat slit.

This is getting silly.

maryhelena · 08-05-2010, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

This is just silly. First of all you never mentioned anything about beheading in your original post.

This is the quote from my OP - clearly indicating both a crucifixion and a beheading - so please double check to make sure you are reading correctly ....

Quote:

Antigonus II Mattathias

Antigonus was handed over by Herod to the Romans for execution in 37 BC, 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."[2] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king".

Quote:

You said Antigonus was crucified. Now you decide to mention Dio Cassius reference to being flogged while bound to a STAKE (stauroi) before being beheaded

Please re-read the Wikipedia quote from my earlier post - it clearly mentions the source as Cassius Dio's Roman History.

Quote:

(remember all of Samuelsson's recent work - stauroi here DOES NOT MEAN T SHAPED CRUCIFIX) but noticeably absent from the discussion are all the other references I mentioned. Kaplan clearly demonstrates that Dio Cassius's claims about Antigonus being chained to a stake and then having his throat slit are completely at odds with all other reports of Antigonus being beheaded with an ax. All Kaplan says is that Dio Cassius, a man writing long after the gospel account had already been established got his information from some other lost source other than Josephus who cites Strabo and the 'beheaded by ax' understanding which is universal. So we have no cross, no crucifixion, a beheading and the claim that the beheading of a king was unprecedented is complete hogwash. For Josephus demonstrates a number of rebellious Hasomneans who were beheaded before Antigonus. There are an endless number of kings from other nations cited by Kaplan who were similarly BEHEADED.

Yes IF Antigonus was indeed crucified that would be unprecedented and could POSSIBLY have been used as a source for the gospel BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED so that should be the end of this unworkable theory.

The Roman historian Dio Cassius says otherwise.

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.

Amazing, absolutely amazing - for a man who is basing so much of his own theory on ancient tradition and documents - to now have the nerve to criticize someone else for wanting to reference an ancient historian in support of their theory - well, that is just not allowed in Stephen Huller's world....come off it Stephen - your not some messianic pretender with a hot line to 'truth'...

maryhelena · 08-05-2010, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena
So it boils down to Josephus once more - why would he choose not to record a crucifixion of Antigonus? ...
Josephus' claim that Antigonus was SLAIN is confirmed by Cassius Dio.

Cassius Dio claimed that Antigonus was BOUND to a cross, flogged and then SLAIN.

No it comes down to a non-existent reference to a non-existent 'crucifixion' of Antigonus as the basis to an allegedly 'mythical' crucifixion of Jesus. Let me say it again THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO ANTIGONUS BEING CRUCIFIED. Cassius Dio - in contradiction to ALL other reports - says that Antigonus was chained to a stake and tortured before having his throat slit.

You are contradicting yourself - you have just written that 'Cassius Dio - in contradiction to ALL other reports" - Cassius Dio is telling a different story, or to be correct, he is telling a fuller story, a fuller report.

Quote:

This is getting silly.

You said it....

Ah - but that is it, is it not Stephen - "an allegedly 'mythical' crucifixion of Jesus'. If what you are upholding is a historical Jesus - then it's quite understandable that you will seek to discredit any alternative mythicist perspective. Bottom line Stephen - is that there is no historical gospel crucified Jesus - and any theories related to such an assumption are nothing but wishful thinking...

OK Stephen - you want to reject the report by the Roman historian - OK, I get that. However, what you cannot do is tell me to do likewise...

maryhelena · 08-05-2010, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

So it boils down to Josephus once more - why would he choose not to record a crucifixion of Antigonus? ...

Josephus' claim that Antigonus was SLAIN is confirmed by Cassius Dio.

Cassius Dio claimed that Antigonus was BOUND to a cross, flogged and then SLAIN.

Correct.....

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

08-05-2010, 10:43 AM	#24
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This is just silly. First of all you never mentioned anything about beheading in your original post. You said Antigonus was crucified. Now you decide to mention Dio Cassius reference to being flogged while bound to a STAKE (stauroi) before being beheaded (remember all of Samuelsson's recent work - stauroi here DOES NOT MEAN T SHAPED CRUCIFIX) but noticeably absent from the discussion are all the other references I mentioned. Kaplan clearly demonstrates that Dio Cassius's claims about Antigonus being chained to a stake and then having his throat slit are completely at odds with all other reports of Antigonus being beheaded with an ax. All Kaplan says is that Dio Cassius, a man writing long after the gospel account had already been established got his information from some other lost source other than Josephus who cites Strabo and the 'beheaded by ax' understanding which is universal. So we have no cross, no crucifixion, a beheading and the claim that the beheading of a king was unprecedented is complete hogwash. For Josephus demonstrates a number of rebellious Hasomneans who were beheaded before Antigonus. There are an endless number of kings from other nations cited by Kaplan who were similarly BEHEADED. Yes IF Antigonus was indeed crucified that would be unprecedented and could POSSIBLY have been used as a source for the gospel BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED so that should be the end of this unworkable theory.

08-05-2010, 10:45 AM	#25
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And if you had any intention of having this theory taken seriously as anything other than a creative writing exercise you should change the name of the thread now to "the historical BEHEADING of Antigonus as a model for the MYTHICAL crucifixion of Jesus" and see how many flies you attract ...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.