Clivedurdle

Could you give some more framework, outline, context to this?

I think you are saying Jesus was a priest in 4BCE when a massacre occurred. Are you arguing the Gospels are older than Paul? It sounds like Paul has no relationship to this at all!

A real massacre gets muddled by gnostic and messianic ideas?

Charles Wilson

1. Thanx Sven. I'm blocking out the main parts now. I got into this posting mess because I wanted to get some feedback for such a radical thesis. I should have just started writing.

2. Clive: Let me give you some history (as in: Mine!) and some history. ~2 years ago, I picked up Hyam Maccoby's _The Mythmaker_. Dr. Maccoby rips Paul a new one and challenged scholarship in a way I had not seen. Two Problems: He sees Paul as real and at the time that was OK with me (It's not now but that is irrelevant to my work now).

Second, and more importantly, Maccoby leads right up to the doorstep of saying, "Paul had no vision. He made it all up!". Maccoby will not walk through the door and state the obvious - It's all made up. "OK...Now what?!??"

3. I performed a bit of a Kantian exercise - if you strip away the trappings of a later religion from the Jesus stories, is there anything left? Maccoby had shown that the Jesus stories were undeniably political. What else is there?

I looked at early Mark. At this time, I had no idea of how to fit in a crucifixion scenario. I accepted the standard time line, born in 4 BCE to 2/3 CE, taught in 30 - 33 CE, etc. I just wanted to look at the early Mark stories. Matthew and Luke could come later. I had heard that Mark was "the first gospel" so that would be a good place to start.

4. I found that if you eliminate the metaphysics early on, you could look at the stories as political. Maybe even...historical - but that came a little later. The first part of Mark, concerning John, would have to wait. When I got to Mark 1: 21 - 28, a totally different understanding presented itself. The demon possessed man is in the synagogue! (I always feel I have to capitalize here.) The demon screams, "We know who you are , you are God's holy One!" Something appeared changed in the text. Jesus is already seen as a real person - "...God's holy One", but the implication was clear. Someone knew who Jesus was - not in a GOD sense but in a real sense, as if you had, after many years, recognized an old friend - or enemy.

Maccoby helped me recognize the politics here. The demon possessed man is a collaborator with the Romans. Jesus knows who HE is and calls out the demon. Whatever happened before was decided in Jesus' favor - THIS time.

5. I read on. Much was not understandable to me. I stop for a moment (as in, "right now") to look at Ch. 3, which came in understanding much later. I did not know how to take the man with the withered hand, but I knew there was something important here: "Is it right to hurt or help on the Sabbath, to save life or to kill?" I did not understand this for so long but I ask you to consider it as one of the important sections in the NT.

6. By the time I got to understand the last of Mark 5, I was convinced that this was more than political. Whatever the original, there was a history written in a symbolic - not Mythic - form. The Squall story was a history written by someone who did not - or could not - write directly about something that happened, something was absolutely without precedent to this person.

What did it all mean?

7. Then I got to Ch. 5. "Legion". The lunatic is possessed by Legion. It was political and the first order of business was to get rid of the unclean Romans. But why did Jesus send the Lunatic, "Clothed and in his sober senses," to The Decapolis? It is a story that is obviously about Judah - or is it Israel? Hmmm...

8. In "The Squall", the most important verse in the NT is given in Mark: "He was sleeping on the cushion in the stern; so they woke him up saying, "Teacher, are we to drown for all you care?" It is completely hidden in Matthew and Luke. It is only here that you get a clue that something else is implied by this story.

9. In Mark 5: 21 +, the most important story in the NT is given: "Jairus' Daughter" combined with "The Woman with the Twelve Year Issue of Blood." I cannot tell you the impact these passages have had on me. At this point, there is a record of some of my thoughts, for I found "Philosopher Jay" Raskin, who kindly pointed me to another group to which I could post.

These stories are real historical markers to real events in history. Only one problem: The history is only given by Josephus, with rare exception. If you require corroborating history, you are mostly S - O - L. This has been the biggest pain to getting this taken seriously. Some would rather consider this all Mythic Reality. The frustration came in realizing that the "Sun God" relata carried more weight than a straightforward tying of the material to a known historian (Even here there was a surprise.)

Something was terribly wrong with our understanding of "Jairus' Daughter". If this was not the story of a God/Man AND the story referenced some "real" event, what did it mean? As soon as you realize this, you are in the middle of "The Woman..." story. First realization: This is political. Realization two: This is not the story of getting rid of the Romans. The woman has been unclean for 12 years. She is unclean by something that was done by Jesus' group and/or others. What? This is a pure historic marker. If we can date this, we can date the writing of most of the original stories concerning "Jesus".

The Woman touches Jesus' clothes and Jesus is quite emphatic here - "Who touched my clothes?" The Lunatic was found "Clothed and in his proper senses." Clothes must have a central meaning, one that was not apparent to the later redactors. It must refer to something central in the stories - Jesus was a Priest! Something happened to the nation because of the Priests! What??? Clothes cover the nakedness of the man, the Priestly clothes cover the uncleanliness of the nation. What could the Temple Priests have done?

10. Jairus' Daughter must refer to something that covers the previous material. There must have been some plan and the plan was... stopped? Crushed? What? When the woman touches Jesus, a "Healing Virtue" leaves him. Was Jesus involved with this Plan? Was he a survivor of some atrocity where he was protected by...other Priests? I just did not know.

11. I would ask people if they knew of some event that happened in ~ 18 CE, 12 years before the "known ministry" of Jesus. Nothing cataclysmic, nothing that appeared to be of such import as to trigger the Jesus stories. Nothing matched up. NOTHING!

12. Went to the library, pulled an older book about _The Jews in the Roman World_. I read the timelines that were given from Josephus. Nothing. I then looked at earlier dates.

13. "Fifty Jews go to the emperor to plead for an end to the Herodians." The Plan! Jay could tell you how I sounded. I could not believe it! When, WHEN?

4 BCE? 4 BCE?!?? What was this? There, paralleling the story of the 50 Jews, was the story of a Slaughter, one that occurred in 4 BCE.

Suddenly everything matched.

Herod dies. Archelaus assumes the throne of the King. The Priests (Not all are in agreement with this assertion at the time of my original posts...) are agitating for great change. They are into their sacrifices during the night, recruiting " for the sedition", according to Josephus. Archelaus sends in a "Tribune in charge of a Cohort" to try to "reason" with these seditionists. Most of these soldiers are stoned and killed. A few escape and Archelaus sends in the entire garrison, with the cavalry on the surrounding areas of Jerusalem. Josephus reports that 3000 were killed - in the Temple!

14. Suddenly, and I mean suddenly, I was reading almost as a synesthesiac. Realizations were coming almost hourly. Jesus vs. Archelaus had a meaning.

This is the start, anyway. As always, more later. Hope this helps.

Charles

Charles Wilson

A few brief comments on "Jairus' Daughter":

Looking back on what has been accumulated here, some note is needed to solidify the relation between the Temple Slaughter and The Plan.

1. "Jairus' Daughter" is twelve years old, the same number of years as the Woman's Issue of Blood. If this is historic to the Temple Slaughter, this places the composition of the Jesus stories at ~ 8 CE. This implies that the "Raising of Jairus' Daughter" from the dead is a statement of political ressurrection: The Plan is still seen as valid and is an alternative to some "Judas of Galilee" type "messiah" - lower case. The "Woman..." has visited many doctors, given up all of her wealth and was actually worse off. This is not "Sun God" mythology here. This is a Last Call to Honor.

2. Reread the "Demon in the Temple" story in early Mark again and see if it now makes more sense. "We know who you are, you are God's holy One..." The Priests who escaped the Slaughter and lived are out of exile and are back.

3. Several historic markers now fit the timeline. The "Woman Bent Over Double.." story is now marked as history. Count from the decree from Herod that all shall make an oath to the emperor and Herod in 6/7 BCE to about 12 CE. (look also at the Parable of the fig tree - "Don't cut it down [after 3 years of "fruitless growth"], give it one more year.") The stories were written between 8 - 12 CE. In GJohn, the Old Man by the Pool has been waiting by the Temple (Priestly) Entrance for 38 years. Count back to the Battle of Actium and read what Herod did and did not do by way of a general appointed to watch his every move (See Cleopatra's moves here also.) Herod also killed a number of the Sanhedrin and made the High Priest an appointed position in opposition to the Hasmonaean hereditary HP. What great use of symbolism - "By the Pool" - to tell an economical story of the murderous politics of Herod.

Note that the Old Man wants to get into the pool - get back into the international power scene through his reacquaintance with the power of the HP position. Jesus tells him to "pick up his mat and walk."

And so on. Ask yourself right now if this seems "More Real" and a better explanation than all of the Mythic Sun God alignment stories you've been reading lately. Even if every verse in Mark can be tied to an alignment story in Moses/Egyptian/Babylonian/Whatever Mythic Motif, it does not follow that THESE stories are explained thus.

No one doubts that the stories have rearranged, Re-Valued and recast into some sort of Savior guise. Jairus/Lazarus/Eleazar are all rewrites into a Jesus Mythology. Something happened to these stories around 150 CE and this trail goes cold looking back any earlier than this. Or so say some. Like some Mythic Hegel, if there is no "das Noumena" - no story-in-itself, then all that is left is "My Mytic Tale is better than you Mythic Tale." These people state that there is no Jesus without the gospels, and that there are no gospels without Mark and Mark is shown to be a complete fabrication, based on old Moses stories and so on.

No. No.

Not just yet.

Only after all historic ties can be refuted can that Mythic Assertion be made plausible. This work states that there may yet be one historic possibility left.

CW

FreezBee

Hi Charles!

Interesting stuff :thumbs: But I have to admit that I have grown somewhat skeptical to these pesherim-in-reverse interpretations. How do we know that your reversed pesher is more the real story than, say, Barbara Thierring's? How does John the Baptist and Pilate fit in?

I'm not saying you're wrong, nor am I in a position to judge that, but the competition is tough in this area of gospel interpretations, so could you give a short reason, why we should think that your theory is better than all the rest? I mean, apart from it being your theory and the plain and simple truth, that is


- FreezBee

Charles Wilson

The very short answer is "There is no reason for you to believe that my theory is better than anyone else's." There is only one external historic source, Josephus, and this is compromised by the fact that his version is plagiarized from Nicholas of Damascus, the emperor's Political Control Officer in the Herodian court. Josephus himself is being challenged now as a construct from Roman based understanding and material. Nicholas of Damascus argues in front of the emperor and argues better than Perry Mason. What gives there?

John the Baptist is a REAL problem here. On this view, John the Baptist is a bit of a cipher. He is now backmapped to having been killed in the time preceding the re-organization of the surviving Priests. Possibly, he was killed in the years between 6 - 8, after Judas of Galilee. One problem: There is the verse explaining that the least in the Realm of Heaven was greater than JtB. Why? Because those who made it to the Realm of Heaven were at least alive. John is dead. So: Was JtB killed in the Slaughter in 4 BCE? He lives in the desert. He would have urged (in theory) a group surrounding him to run for the "safety"of the desert, unaware that the cavalry is waiting under orders (Josephus) to chase those who escape outside of the city and kill them. Finally, it has yet to be shown that JtB is not an amalgam or a contributor to the Jesus persona himself. One construction would be that JtB was being compared to the survivors in a story composed sometime in 8 - 12. Special Pleading? Real problems here.

"Pilate" is an obvious exclusion. Besides the fact that nothing he does in the gospels AS WRITTEN have him doing anything that a Roman would do in this situation, the fact that I assert that the Base Stories were written in 8 - 12, excludes him in totality. You don't agree? See ya!

However, if you look to see alignment and correlation in a Non-metaphysical, non-God/Man mapping to an incident that offers full explanatory power, even to End Times, ESPECIALLY End Times written material, not involved with the destruction of Jerusalem, you could do a lot worse than look at this .

Thank you,

Charles

Charles Wilson

One quick note.

I shy away from the GMark explanation in Ch. 6. It is too "Obvious" to me that it is different in tone , style and placement from the surrounding material. "IF" it is an original story, excluding "Herodias", "timeline" etc., then "Bring me the head of JtB" must mean that JtB is a "Head", a leader in the movement of the Priests and sympathetic members of the Herodian Court. This, then, is a military order, minimized in Joesephus/Nicholas, to kill the "Leaders of the Sedition" during the Slaughter. This also implies (echoing "Philosopher Jay" Raskin) that JtB has been liberally massaged and even destroyed as an independent character so that Jesus can be the one "killed". The resurrection of The Plan is now the resurrection of a God/Man.

JtB then, is killed, whether in the Slaughter or after 6 CE but his story is not to be known. Lazarus/Jairus/Eleazar is not to be known. It is to be this "Jesus" character who is to have these predicates applied. If we change the characters, their names, the timelines, we can proceed to make an alloy of the paganized Judea and work these barbarians with their circumcisions and Purity Laws into being good Romans.

CW

Chris Weimer

Could you please show how it is different in tone, style, and placement from the rest of the surrounding material.

Charles Wilson

Chris!
You made it to the party!
Welcome.

To Prove: The beheading of John in Mark 6 is a later addition, using my - Charles Wilson's - criteria and not so much of someone else's.

1. The Blunt Instrument approach: The assertion that the original stories were written in ~ 8 - 12 CE is rock solid. Therefore, any story that has a teenage daughter in ~ 28 - 30 CE dancing in front of "King Herod" is a later addition.

QED

But wait! There's more!

2. It is a later development and assertion in this work that when Jesus often tours the small towns, he is not traveling to a physical burg surrounding the Sea of Galilee f'rinstance. He is moving about the encampments surrounding Jerusalem and the Temple before Passover. The room with couches all spread is in the Hasmonaean Palace (I believe...tentatively.) and is symbolically referenced as "The Boat." The area and the people surrounding the Temple are "The Sea."

Keep this in mind as we open Chapter 6. Chapter 6 opens after the Raising of Jairus' Daughter, "Leaving there, he went to his native place, followed by his disciples." We have no guarantee that this is the order in the originals. No matter. The important phrase is that "Jesus" went to his native place. Galilee? No. "His Father's House": The Temple in Jerusalem.

We see a revision, although it might not be outright creation. The "large audience was astounded...". So astounded by the miracles that Jesus performs with his hands that he cannot perform them. (See Leviticus for the sacrifices and the Laying on of the Hands of the Sacrificial victims.) As I say, this might not be a created addition but a compressing of the original, if the original states something like "The other Priests and Herodians were not impressed with this interloper who threatened their positions with the Romans." ( I paraphrase...)

3. Jesus makes a tour of the "villages" and sends his disciples into the villages 2 by 2, with nothing but "the shirt on their backs". This is traditionally seen as a wonderful example of faith. It is good political expediency. As stated earlier, most everyone knows what's going to happen. If captured, the disciples would literally have nothing to show for their works. Their cell phones would certainly not give any information...

4. So: On this view the disciples, in verses 12 - 13 went out around the Temple and preached repentance and cast out demons and and anointed sick people with oil.

The beheading of John occurs in verses 14 - 29. Let's skip this story for a moment and pick up the story in verse 30:

Mark 6: 30 - 32:

"Now the apostles gathered to meet Jesus, and reported to him all they had done and taught. He said to them, "Come away by yourselves to some lonely spot and get a little rest" (for there were many people coming and going, and they could get no time even to eat.). So they went away privately in a boat to a lonely spot."

This is a seamless narration. It flows easily from the traveling around the villages on their (political preparatory ) mission to reporting back to Jesus. The story of the beheading is an insertion.

5. Verse 14 opens awkwardly. "King Herod" hears of these incidents, "for the name of Jesus had become well known." Really?

First, which Herod? It is an "easy" question, isn't it? Perhaps not. The proper Herod is apparently well known to the author(s) here, for no other designation is needed at this time. In any event, this Herod states, "John the Baptist has risen from the dead, that is why miraculous powers are working through him."

This is an introductory device, possibly culled from a sentence fragment in the original. It goes to the core of what the stories were and what "Jesus" became. "John the Baptizer" was killed and did come back from the dead - The Plan was crushed and is now attempting a political rebirth. Again, recall the demon in the synagogue, "We know who you are, you are God's holy One!" This section leads me to believe that if there was a JtB, he was literally killed in the Slaughter in 4 BCE by Archelaus. The lower probability being that he did escape and was killed sometime after Judas of Galilee has been killed. If JtB is a symbol for the rebirth of Israel, it marks the necessary change that was made to submerge the meaning of the original anti-Roman message.

6. Verse 17 attempts to answer the above question: "For THIS Herod..." Its style is very different, much more of a straight description, even when possibly referring to internal states ("Herodias had a grudge against him;...") Contrast this with "The Woman With the Issue of Blood": "If only I can touch his clothes, she said to herself, "I will recover."

There is an awkward fragment here continuing the quote: "...she wanted him killed , but she could not manage it, for Herod stood in awe of John, knowing he was a just and holy man; so he protected John - he was greatly exercised when he listened to him, *still he liked to listen to him*." Note the awkwardness of the starred clause.

7. The most interesting quote comes in verse 21: Then came a holiday when Herod held a feast on his birthday for his chief officials and generals and the notables of Galilee. I have a friendly critic who advises not to read too much into this and I will not. I use a Moffatt translation for most of this work. It may be an idiosyncratic translation here. But..."chief officials and generals and notable of Galilee." Hmmm...

8. The great rewrite, if that is what this is, comes here. It is *reflective* of the Slaughter, not descriptive. The girl is a young teenager, 16 - 18 in 28 - 30 CE and this is positively indicative of a rewrite to reset the timeline so that nothing matches up with the original events. Nonetheless, it is reflective. JtB, on a promise made by Herod, is beheaded. The politics is more submerged than ever, with promises to political controllers - "I will give you whatever you want, were it half my realm..." being barely recognizable But Mother (Rome) knows best and JtB is beheaded.

9. "...so the king sent one of the guard with orders to bring his head. Low probability here but possible: "Guard" => "Guard of the Realm", the second highest level of Herod's courtly divisions. If an original story is to be found here, this political ordering made it through the rewrites. This places the writer of this story as an insider, not one of the Jesus group - a scribe with a withered hand, perhaps? Ahh, speculation!

10 Finally, "When his disciples heard it, they went and fetched his body and laid it a tomb." Consider the bodies here, Lazarus/Jairus/Eleazar, John and even possibly a rewritten Jesus, an amalgam of all of these. This points to the several levels of rewrites that had to happen before the stories were "frozen" into a story of a God/Man.

Tone? Style? Placement? It's obvious - at least to me...

Thanx,

Charles

Charles Wilson

I'm not posting much these days. This will probably continue.
However, today I post and the post is one of those infinitely small probability statements: "It is now ten to the minus forty-three seconds after the big bang. Calculate the probability that 13.7 billion years from now, a physicist, contemplating the Big Bang, will turn to his spouse and say, "Dear! I'm gonna go to the corner store and buy a pack of cigarettes. Want somepin'?"

_War_, 2,1,2:

"2. Upon this the multitude were pleased, and presently made a trial
of what he intended, by asking great things of him; for some made a
clamor that he would ease them in their taxes; others, that he would
take off the duties upon commodities; and some, that he would loose
those that were in prison; in all which cases he answered readily to
their satisfaction, in order to get the good-will of the multitude;
after which he offered [the proper] sacrifices, and feasted with his
friends."

2 Kings 22: 8 - 20:

"8
The high priest Hilkiah informed the scribe Shaphan, "I have found
the book of the law in the temple of the LORD." Hilkiah gave the
book to Shaphan, who read it.
9
Then the scribe Shaphan went to the king and reported, "Your
servants have smelted down the metals available in the temple and
have consigned them to the master workmen in the temple of the
LORD."
10
The scribe Shaphan also informed the king that the priest Hilkiah
had given him a book, and then read it aloud to the king.
11
When the king had heard the contents of the book of the law, he
tore his garments
12
and issued this command to Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, son of
Shaphan, Achbor, son of Micaiah, the scribe Shaphan, and the king's
servant Asaiah:
13
"Go, consult the LORD for me, for the people, for all Judah, about
the stipulations of this book that has been found, for the anger of
the LORD has been set furiously ablaze against us, because our
fathers did not obey the stipulations of this book, nor fulfill our
written obligations."
14
So Hilkiah the priest, Ahikam, Achbor, Shaphan, and Asaiah betook
themselves to the Second Quarter in Jerusalem, where the prophetess
Huldah resided. She was the wife of Shallum, son of Tikvah, son of
Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe. When they had spoken to her,
15
she said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: 'Say to
the man who sent you to me,
16
Thus says the LORD: I will bring upon this place and upon its
inhabitants all the evil that is threatened in the book which the
king of Judah has read.
17
Because they have forsaken me and have burned incense to other
gods, provoking me by everything to which they turn their hands, my
anger is ablaze against this place and it cannot be extinguished.'
18
"But to the king of Judah who sent you to consult the LORD, give
this response: 'Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: As for the
threats you have heard,
19
because you were heartsick and have humbled yourself before the
LORD when you heard my threats that this place and its inhabitants
would become a desolation and a curse; because you tore your
garments and wept before me; I in turn have listened, says the LORD.
20
I will therefore gather you to your ancestors; you shall go to your
grave in peace, and your eyes shall not see all the evil I will
bring upon this place.'" This they reported to the king."



Mark 14 : 55 - 64

"55. Then the chief high priests and their entire council, sought
testimony to condemn Jesus to death and they could not find it.
56. For while many testified against him, their testimony was not
convincing.*
57. However, there rose against him persons, bribed witnesses, and
said,
58. "We heard him say, that I will unravel this temple that is
built by hands and in three days I will build another that is not
made with hands."
59. And neither did this testimony hold up.*
60. And the chief of the high priests stood up in the center and
asked Jesus and said, "You do not return an explanation? Why are
they testifying against you?"
61. However, Jesus remained silent and replied nothing. And the
chief of the high priests asked him again, "Are you that Messiah,
the Hallowed Son?"
62. Then Jesus told him, "I am, and you will see the Son of Man
sitting from the right of the Power, and coming over the clouds of
heaven."
63. The chief of the high priests then tore his garment, and said,
"As of now what do we need witnesses for?
64. "Behold, you have heard the blasphemy from his mouth. Did you
not see it?"* They then all judged him deserving of death.*

Archelaus has assumed the kingship after his father Herod's death, a mere four or so days after his father has changed his will making him king, subject to the emperor's approval. He sits on the throne, makes judgements, OFFERS SACRIFICES.

2 Kings 22 is a well studied section. All sorts of reasoned speculation about which section of the Pentateuch the found "Law Book" is placed. Notice what the king does: "When the king heard the contents of the book, he tore his garments..."

This also is a phrase that deserves study. A leper would even know what to do, much less a king, when confronted by an affront to God.

"Go, consult the LORD for me, for the people, for all Judah, about
the stipulations of this book that has been found, for the anger of
the LORD has been set furiously ablaze against us, because our
fathers did not obey the stipulations of this book, nor fulfill our
written obligations."

It has been the bedrock of this work that the "Jesus" group consisted of Priests, attempting to call Israel back to the Book of the Law in a real, literal sense, that, "If we do these things, Gods will rescue us and stand beside us in our moment of trial."

There was also a plan. 50 Jews petition the emperor to allow the resumption of Priestly rule, under the rulership of some kindly Syrian General. The "internal" story tells of recruitment of youths for the Priesthood in anticipation of possible struggle years down the road.

Then there is Herod. Herod is in the plan. Later, during the 8 - 12 re-birth of the movemnet, Herod is seen as the sick servant of the army-captain (See above). Herod recovered "the next day." He died!

The problem is to put together a reasonable plan that included Herod.

Herod is sick and dying a week or two before Passover, 4 BCE. As I have stated, I REALLY have problems with the the "Bring me the head of John the Baptist" insertion in Mark 6. It is an ill fitting story, "obviously" written by someone else. Nonetheless, there appears to be some data there.

There are those in the court who want JtB dead. Herod still enjoys talking to JtB. He 'Protects" him from immediate death. He loves to talk to him. If women are the symbols for nations, as they often are in Mark, who is "Herodias?" The daughter? Make allowances for renaming.

So: What's the Plan? With a probability only slightly higher than the "Big Bang" problem above, it would be something like this:

Certain Priests have "cultivated" Herod. Following "Philosopher Jay", it may have even been John. Part of the Plan involves a re-appointment of the hereditary line of (Hasmonaean?) Priests. In parallel with the Hilkiah story above, Herod, near death is to be told that his "happiness" will be assured even in his death, if he "repents" and allows the preaching of the coming "Kingdom of God." Of course, "...those hack High Priest appointments have to go."

Bad news. Herod dies a week too soon. When feeding the 7000, "We only have one loaf of bread." The Plan was prepped for Herod and Herod only. I still feel that the entire event of Archelaus was staged by Ol' Nicholas et. al., knowing the true version of the Plan (See Nicholas' accurate assessment of the Sedition actually being directed against Caesar. Dead right!). There can be no interregnum. The survival of the client state must be of utmost importance. It's Archelaus, and Nicholas will handle the emperor, if the emperor hasn't already decided to go this way anyway.

The parallels are striking in the two quotes. On hearing the Book of the Law, the king rips his robes and asks the High Priests to ask God for his disposition. Herod is supposed to hear a similar story and die peacefully, knowing that his care of Judah was not in vain.

When he dies, the Roman crowd, including the High Priest(s), question Jesus/Priestly group. Instead of tearing their clothes over the hearing of God's word, they tear their robes because there is no Word of God that they will consider. "The chief of the High Priests tore his robes...".

With this, their fate is sealed. Yet, Archelaus reigned!

CW

Charles Wilson

Look for a moment at Luke 19, verses 39 - 40:

"Some Pharisees in the crowd said to him, "Check your disciples,
Teacher." But he replied, "I tell you, if they were to keep quiet,
the very stones would shout."

Recall Josephus, selected passages:

"and although Archelaus sent many to speak to them, yet they treated
them not as messengers sent by him, but as persons that came of
their own accord to mitigate their anger, and would not let one of
them speak."

" At this Archelaus was aftrighted, and privately sent a tribune,
with his cohort of soldiers, upon them, before the disease should
spread over the whole multitude, and gave orders that they should
constrain those that began the tumult, by force, to be quiet."

"so they made an assault upon the soldiers, and came up to them, and
stoned the greatest part of them, although some of them ran away
wounded, and their captain among them; and when they had thus done,
they returned to the sacrifices which were already in their hands."

The initial assault on the soldiers (and others who were sent) is seen in Luke 19. We now have the approach to Jerusalem, the takeover of the Temple and the first stoning of the soldiers. The Temple Assault is described over and over, the aftermath as well.

Any doubters out there?

Charles