stephan huller

Andrew is correct here. The Marcionites (and Origen) held that these were human rulers. There is no earlier interpretation of the Apostle than the Marcionites. Tertullian condemns the Marcionites for this belief (see Against Marcion Book Five's Treatment of 1 Corinthians chapter 2 and 3) but they were undoubtedly correct:

But according to Marcion not even the apostle in this passage permits of ignorance against the Lord of glory being ascribed to the powers of the Creator, because in effect he will not have it that they are referred to as the princes of this world. And so, as it appears that he was not speaking of spiritual princes, then it was secular princes he meant, the princely people—which was not reckoned among the nations—and its rulers, the king Herod, and even Pilate, and him in whom sat in authority the major principality of this world, the majesty of Rome. [Against Marcion 5.7]

The question is thus settled. The Marcionites (as always) have the ultimate authority on what the Apostle meant, what the Apostle believed. Of course the Marcionites ALSO believed that Jesus only APPEARED crucified - i.e. that he only seemed to be crucified. Go figure.

DCHindley

In that little elipsis from Schurer, there was this:

For previously there had never been several 'Augusti'. The first contemporary SEBASTOI are Tiberius and his mother Livia, who took the title Augusta after the death of Augustus in accordance with the instructions expressed in his will. [n44 Tac. Annal. i 8, 'Livia in familiam Iuliam nomenque Augustum adsumebatur'. Tiberius and Livia (Julia) are called SEBASTOI on some inscriptions]. But at the time of Tiberius (at least fifty years after the death of Lysanias I), it is hardly likely that one of Lysanias' freedmen would have built a road and erected a temple, as the incription records. Nymphaeus is unquestionably the freedman of a later tetrarch Lysanias.

I cannot find any confirmation of the assertion that Livia was called "Augusta" before the death of her husband, as this honorific title was granted to her, and to his adopted son Tiberius, in his will.

If the author of Luke knew that Josephus had referred to a tetrarchy of Lysanias being given to Agrippa in 37 CE, mentioning such a fellow as a known client prince in the region just seems natural, especially if the 15th year of Tiberius be dated to 29/30 ce.

Hmmm, 63 bce to 6 ce is 68 years. What significance is there to 70 years?

Anyways, southern Ituraea (including Galilee & the regions of Abilene) was conquered by Aristobulus I sometime in 104-103 BCE and forced to convert to Judean religious customs (Ant 13:318). The author of Luke is naming all of the areas where Jews were traditionally settled: Judea (including Idumaea and Samaria, under direct Roman government), Galilee (including Peraea, under Herod Agrippa), Ituraea (apparently meaning Batanaea and/or Auranitis) and Trachonitis (under Philip), and Abilene (under Lysanias). That sounds relevant to me, and doesn't require dragging Antigonus into the mix.

Now if you could find a rabbinic tradition that saw some significance in Antigonus' scourging on a cross and later execution, then I'd find your hypothesis more interesting.

DCH

Doug Shaver

If he existed, then that is a fact. If he existed, then it is also a fact that some of his followers had something to do with founding the religion we call Christianity.

maryhelena

It's just a number that is considered meaningful in Jewish history and religion. Numerical patterns - numbers - are seen to play a part in their interpretations of history and religious ideas. As of course numbers play a part in other aspects of our existence - cycles of life, planets, seasons...

Philo also being interested in numbers.

The reference in the Wikipedia article is to a coin of Augustus on which Livia appears. Coin RPC 2466 at:

http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/ric/augustus/t.html


As to a rabbinic tradition finding some significance re Antigonius and his crucifixion and beheading by the Romans. Hardly. After all, finding significance in an ignoble death is surely the province of those early christians - it is the crucifixion that is the raison d'être of Paul's theology. A humiliating death as the basis for some sort of meaningful outcome, some relevant significance- a human sacrifice - hardly a very Jewish take on things. It's the christians that wear the symbol of the cross around their necks - surely an abhorrent symbol to Jews.

Paul was either a madman or a visionary - he had a hard sell either way. Dawkins said it best:

maryhelena

Further to the above post:

From the BBC article:

So - reading Luke 3:1 as though referencing all of the above as being in office in the 15th year of Tiberius in 29/30 ce - is wishful thinking. Wishful thinking that should remain the province of apologists not skeptics. No, Luke is not a bad historian. He is writing his 'history' to fit his interest in symbolic, to Jewish thought, numerical patterns. The number involved here - 70 years - is his blueprint, his working plan.

Nothing new under the sun, history repeats itself. Thus allowing earlier events to have some impact upon the present. Albeit in this case with the 37 bc crucifixion and beheading of Antigonus - history used as a model for a 'salvation' story re a mythological/figurative gospel figure of Jesus 70 years after the historical event in Antioch.

Long ago - for Luke that was not so long ago - just 70 years back to Antigonus and his three short years of rule. The last Hasmonean priest/king of the Jews who was crucified and beheaded by the Romans - with the complicity of Herod the Great and his payment to Mark Anthony.

Steve Weiss

Are we all talking about the same person here? Is this the Jesus that walked on water, had god for a dad, was related to King David through Joseph who didn't actually do the deed with Mary. Is it the one who arose from the dead, but no one saw the actual event, not even the two Roman soldiers who were asleep at their posts at the time. Is this the same Jesus that promised salvation within a generation at most and who warned of Judgement Day when the non-believers will go to the hot place? Is this the same guy that people talk about but haven't a shred of evidence about? It's 2000 years later, and still no sign of old J.H.C., unless you count images of his alleged likeness on cheese sandwiches. Really, Zeus was more believable.

Doug Shaver

No, not that one. Another one. But that's not to say a lot of people don't have trouble telling them apart.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Marhelena,

One can see concepts as tools and material. When people make things they always have a limited number of tools and material. It determines the product.

I think the historical fact of the last King of the Jews being crucified, scourged and beheaded by a Roman leader (Mark Antony) after being sent to him by Herod is important.

Ancient people had the concept that what happens in the visible world is a clue to the invisible world. It is not hard to see later religious Jews believing that the Jewish God (Yaweh the Savior - Joshua - Jesus) might also have been crucified. The leap from the Jewish King (anointed one) being crucified in the visible world to the Jewish King/anointed one (Christ) Jesus being crucified in the invisible world is not a great one.

The appearance of Jesus to people like Paul would be proof that the Jewish God had been resurrected. This might indicate a coming general resurrection of the Jewish dead.

I also find this noteworthy (from Epigonus, Wiki):

Compare to the gospels

Cutting off the ear of the servant of the High Priest does not have any symbolic meaning. Cutting off the ear of the "son" of the High Priest to prevent him from becoming high priest makes far more sense. Having Peter cut off the ear of the son of the high priest would have meant that Jesus was contesting for Earthly power. This could explain why it was changed to a servant instead of the son, as happened in real Jewish history with the scourged and crucified Jewish King Antigonus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena

And the tools at their disposal were historical tools, history. I so often think that working from the NT in order to establish the history involved with the storyline is a bit like putting the cart before the horse. First try for the history and see what could have been found relevant within that history for the NT storyline.

Yes, the earthly and the heavenly Jerusalem sort of thing. Reflections of one another. So the jump from a historical crucifixion to a spiritual or mythological crucifixion is not so big a jump. Although, obviously, Paul had work on his hands....
Interesting point there re 'slave' or 'son'. I think perhaps that the original writer, writers, were weary in going to far with the Antigonus connection. In that the connection, although easy enough to discern, is nevertheless not really where the new focus is going to be - the new spiritual/mythological/theological Jesus construct. It's not Antigonus that is the basis for 'salvation' but the spiritual counterpart. So a reflection not a case of two stories being synonymous with every little element being in its 'correct' place. And Josephus? Played along nicely by failing to mention that Antigonus was crucified - thus allowing the gospel Jesus construct to fly free from its dislodged historical anchor. Cassius Dio - with no need to reflect any particular Jewish interests was able to write history instead of interpretations of historical events...

Russellonius

Abraham and Isaac? That was a cultural precedent of great significance.

An afterlife in which there was reward to the righteous unjustly killed was a pedigreed cultural resolution to the problem of evil. We can trace the evolution of the idea in the Jewish texts: Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37:11-14, Psalms 16:9-11, 49:15, Daniel 12:2 and Hosea 6:1-2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
cf/Theodicy

The Greatest Product Ever Sold was a hard sell? In what way? It seems to me a product of the Hellenization of a great monotheistic tradition, a long time coming and inevitable.

I agree. It's a pity that many here don't seem to think that way. Some even work backwards from later than the NT.

How does Paul fit with your theory that Hasmoneans were behind the Christ myth? What Hasmonean problem was Paul trying to fix?