maryhelena

Once the gospel JC story is viewed as historical - crucifixion to time of Pilate - then that's it! No need to consider an Alexander Jannaeus type parody. It's only when one opts for the ahistorical JC position that all this other 'stuff' comes into the picture - and needs to be considered. No longer is the crucified messiah figure, hung on a tree, tied to Pilate, or to a 1 or 3 year ministry. That's the end product not the prototype. The historical field of relevance for the JC story becomes much much wider....

Duvduv

But the gospels provided specific historical information and were considered Christian sacred scripture. Epiphanius would have known that as part of his religion. This is straightforward. So either he didn't accept the four gospels or they weren't written yet.

maryhelena

But the gospels provide no historical information for their JC figure. All the gospels give us is a historical time frame - a historical time frame in which the gospel writers have set down their JC story.

So, the question becomes, because Epiphanius has his Christ figure born under Alexander Jannaeus (103 - 76 b.c.) why would he do this if he had the gospel story in front of him? A story that places the birth of it's JC in the time of Herod the Great (40/37 - 4 b.c.) - and in the time of the census of Quirinius in 6 c.e.

Epiphanius has in front of him a JC storyboard with two contradictory birth narratives. That's not history - that is storytelling - a moving of the goalposts to accommodate prophetic interpretations.

He also has in front of him a story about a Christ figure born in the time of Alexander Jannaeus - and a death in the time of Queen Helene (the subject of this OP....) A story about a messiah figure, hung on a tree, way before the time of Pilate.

How did Epiphanius resolve this in his own mind? We don't know. All we have is his mention of a birth of a Christ figure during the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

I'm suggesting the possibility that Epiphanius was aware of the fact that the gospel JC storyboard is not history but a reflection, a prophetic interpretation, of Hasmonean and Herodian history.

Why else would be he interested in a birth of a Christ figure in the time of Alexander Jannaeus?

Indeed, the Toledot Yeshus story is fiction. But it is fiction placed within a specific historical time frame - as is the gospel JC storyboard. It is these historical time frames that should be considered if we are searching for early christian origins. We need to establish the historical backdrop, the historical canvas, that allowed a story about a messiah figure, hung on a tree, to be created. What was it in history, in Hasmonean history, that suggested that such a messianic story be created?

The answer, I would suggest, is the history of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, the Hasmonean Antigonus. Grandson of Alexander Jannaeus - and most probably born during his rule.

Antigonus II Mattathias

Duvduv

Let me offer another option: the English in the paragraph is awkward, and the writer might not be saying that Jesus was born at that time, but is merely INTRODUCING the subject of the succession after mentioning the birth. This doesn't mean that his Jesus was born under Jannaeus. I actually PREFER this explanation as making the most sense.

maryhelena

Yep, lots of possibilities....

It's easy to discard the Alexander Jannaeus timeline as being irrelevant to the gospel JC storyboard. However, since that search for early christian origins seems to be getting nowhere fast - methinks backtracking might have something to offer. What's that old saying - in order to go forward - sometimes one has to take a step backwards. A bit like remembering where one has come from...

Duvduv

Please reread my posting before this one. I changed it.

maryhelena

Have a look at this Jesus Mysteries thread and this post from Rene Salm. Seems to me that Epiphanius has put the birth of his Christ figure during the time of Alexander Jannaeus.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusM.../message/60451

[T2]The question that is probably in all our minds is if the Epiph passage in
question actually dates Jesus to the time of Janneus or not. Today I checked a
third English translation, that of Ph. Amidon, which supports Mead, i.e, Jesus
ca. 80 BCE. I give all three translations below. For those who can use it, the
Greek is at http://khazarzar.skeptik.net/books/panariog.htm. We're talking about
a couple of sentences in section 29.3.3, in the chapter on the "Nazoraeans."
This post is fairly long, so I'll restrict myself to raw data, and leave
discussion to others posts. Let me know if you spot an error in the below.

(1) GRS Mead (London: Theosophical Publishing Society, 1903.
http://www.gnosis.org/library/grs-me..._100/ch19.html, p. 392.)

NOTE: Mead has a footnote on p. 393: "I use the most recent text of W. Dindorf
(Leipzig; 1859-1862), who took as the groundwork of his edition the valuable and
hitherto unused MS. in St. Mark's Library at Venice (Codex Marcianus 125), which
is dated 1057 A.D. The MS. contains a much more original text than any of those
previously used for our printed editions, the oldest MS. previously employed
bearing date 1304 A.D." Thus, it should be noted that Mead is 2 translations
removed from the original: (a) the Greek text of 1057 CE; (b) a 16th cent. Latin
translation ("Adversus Haereses", see Wikipedia "Panarion"). This was edited by
Dindorf and published in Latin c. 1860
[http://www.worldcat.org/search?qt=wo...ion&fq=dt%3Ab\
ks]; (c) Mead's (own?) English translation from the Latin.

The Mead text reads as follows: "For with the advent of the Christ, the
succession of the princes from Judah, who reigned until the Christ Himself,
ceased. The order [of succession] failed and stopped at the time when He was
born in Bethlehem of Judaea, in the days of Alexander, who was of high-priestly
and royal race; and after this Alexander this lot failed, from the times of
himself and Salina, who is also called Alexandra, for the times of Herod the
King and Augustus Emperor of the Romans; and this Alexander, one of the anointed
(or Christs) and ruling princes placed the crown on his own head. . . After
this a foreign king, Herod, and those who were no longer of the family of David,
assumed the crown." (All brackets, parentheses, and punctuation are Mead's.)

(2) F. Williams (The Panarion, Brill, 1987.
http://books.google.com/books?id=K22...=gbs_toc_r&ca\
d=4#v=onepage&q&f=false, p. 114):

29.3.3: "For at Christ's arrival the rulers in succession from Judah came to an
end. Until his time <the> rulers <were anointed priests>, but after his birth in
Bethlehem of Judaea the order ended and *changed with Alexander, a ruler of
priestly and kingly stock. (4) After Alexander this heritage from the time of
Salina--also known as Alexandra--died out under King Herod and the Roman Emperor
Augustus."

NOTE: (a) Williams uses a dagger, where I have an asterisk above. At the
beginning of his edition, he explains that it "marks a presumably miscopied word
or phrase corrected by Holl." (b) < > "Words restored by Holl." (c) () "Words
supplied by the translator."

(3) Ph. Amidon (The Panarion, Oxford Univ. Pr. 1990, pp. 90–91). His text reads:

"3. For those who in succession from Judah were rulers ceased with the advent of
Christ. For down to his time <the?> rulers <were the anointed ones?>, but the
order ceased to exist and was changed from the time that he was born in
Bethlehem of Judaea in the time of Alexander, who was of priestly and royal
stock. 4. After Alexander this office, which had existed since the time of
Salina, also called Alexandra, ceased, this being the time of King Herod and the
Roman emperor Augustus." (All brackets and punctuation are Amidon's.)

Rene[/T2]

Duvduv

Couldn't this just mean that "Ephiphanius" thought that the Hasmoneans ruled until the time of "Herod" who he thought took over around the time of the birth of Jesus according to the gospels? Of course this would mean that Epiphanius had no historical sources such as Josephus to see it differently. All those translations are very awkward anyway.

maryhelena

If Epiphanius wanted to connect the birth of his Christ figure to the gospel time frame of Herod the Great - he could do so simply by placing the birth of his Christ figure in the time of the Hasmoneon Antigonus i.e. Antigonus and Herod the Great were both Kings from 40 b.c. Instead, Epiphanius missed out Antigonus, missed out the father of Antigonus, Aristobulus II - and placed the birth of his Christ figure in the time of the grandfather of Antigonus - the Hasmoneon Alexander Jannaeus.

Why he did so - ninety nine dollar question......

Even if one wants to run with the idea that Epiphanius got his Hasmonean history mixed up; mixing up Antigonus with Alexander Jannaeus - i.e. he thought his Christ figure was born during the rule of the last Hasmonean ruler - Antigonus - that would put the birth of his Christ figure at the latest at 37 b.c. That dating would allow Epiphanius to run with the JC story in gMatthew, re a birth narrative in the time of Herod the Great. It would also put Epiphanius in line with a crucifixion story, re the Acts of Pilate and Eusebius, in the 7th year of Tiberius. (either 19 or 21 c.e. counting from a co-regency or sole rule). Dating Pilate, re Josephus, being ambiguous. It would also put him in line with gJohn and a JC being a mature man at time of crucifixion.

So there you go - either Epiphanius was really wanting to bring Hasmonean history from the time of Alexander Jannaeus into the JC time frame - or Epiphanius was running with gMatthew and a birth narrative in the time of Herod the Great - which was also the time of the last Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. However - gLuke cannot be harmonized with either scenario.

Bottom line in all of this - Epiphanius is linking Hasmonean history to his Christ figure.

Duvduv

The problem is that Epiphanius doesn't make the claims about the activities of his Jesus during the lifetime of Alexandra as indicated in the Talmud and then Toldoth. So it could be a simple error of dating the Hasmoneans, with "Herod" taking over in year "0" from the Hasmoneans.