stephan huller

When I received my last warning from the moderators it was because I was under the erroneous belief that you actually cared about the truth or at least finding the most likely argument to explain a given phenomenon in ancient history. Now I have no doubt that you have no interest in allowing the stronger argument to come out on top so you will I avoid any attempt to implore you to see reason especially an impassioned one.

You cited Wikipedia yes but then you continued to speak about Antigonus being 'crucified.' No ancient source says this. Your whole claim of a connection to the gospel narrative of Jesus being crucified (i.e. suffering a death from hanging from a stauros) is what is written in ONE source contradicted by all others and written AFTER the gospel narrative had already been established (making it impossible to be a source for the gospel writer). This material comes from the third century or might even represent an error on the part of the 11th century John Xiphilinus, says:

These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a stake (stauroi) and flogged,— a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans,— and slit his throat.

As such your claims about crucifixion and then beheading are also false. There are two rival traditions - he was either (a) "beheaded with an axe." (so Josephus, Stabo and Plutarch) or (b) "tortured at the stake and then had his throat slit." (Cassius Dio) There is no source that says he was crucified and then beheaded. One might argue this if the greek verb in the Cassius Dio account is taken to mean a general reference to his 'being killed' and then we RECONCILE this account with the weightier evidence that he was beheaded BUT it is more likely that the Greek verb means "his throat was slit" and we have a RIVAL tradition and not one that can be simply fused with what disagrees with it.

Again nothing in any of this material suggests a connection with the gospel narratives.

I do think that truth matters. If that stigmatizes me as someone that has a 'messianic complex' I don't know what to say. Your continued promotion of an unworkable theory only demonstrates you to have an agenda to the pursuit of truth.

As such this will be the end of my engaging or entertaining this unworkable theory.

maryhelena

Well, this really is great stuff from a man who rejects the scholarly consensus that the Herodian coins demonstrate, are evidence for, two Agrippa. Agrippa I and Agrippa II. Not words, not ancient documents - hard evidence. Herodian coins.

And all I am doing is accepting the report of a Roman historian whose account of the manner of the death of the Hasmonean Antigonus is not even at odds with all other reports - its just a report that adds a detail regarding this death that Stephen Huller finds unacceptable. And why? Because such a detail re a crucifixion of Antoginus can be used as a model for the gospel crucified Jesus storyline - a mythological storyline that Stephen Huller, seemingly, rejects. Vested interest here, methinks...

maryhelena

It's not a case of christians supporting a Hasmonean dynasty. The Hasmonean dynasty was no more. It's the possibility that the Hasmoneans could have, because of their historical context, been the ground zero re the development of alternative ideas. Ideas re a spiritual kingdom of god.

I would put it this way: The gospel storyline re a crucified mythological Jesus has been modeled upon, drawn from, the historical crucifixion of the Hasmonean Antigonus. ie the gospel crucifixion story is a re-telling, in a symbolic form, of a historical event. It is an interpretation of history, a prophetic interpretation - 'salvation' history.

The relevant history prior to Herod the Great's siege of Jerusalem in 37 bc - was Hasmonean history. What the Hasmoneans did re developing a new role for themselves in the new Herodian era is the big question.... With the loss of their rule as Kings and Priests - did they turn to a spiritual kingdom rather than a future earthly kingdom - ie a Hasmonean restoration in Jerusalem. It is the Hasmonean historical context which provides a possibility for some new intellectual or spiritual developments.

What exactly developed, how it developed, no records remain....We do have the NT and its Jesus story - a mythological origin story. In other words - the actual historical roots of early christian origins have yet to be historically established.

maryhelena

Yes - IF Josephus had recorded the crucifixion of Antigonus - the game was up....

The link, as I have demonstrated above, between the crucifixion of Antigonus and the gospel crucified Jesus, would demonstrate the mythical nature of the gospel Jesus. It would demonstrate that the Antigonus history had, in the gospel storyline re the crucifixion, been used as a model or template. It would be evidence that the gospel storyline re the crucified Jesus is not a historical story.

And Josephus played along - like the non-barking dog in that mystery novel - it is what Josephus does not tell that clinches the deal, that solves the mystery...

bacht

So we're looking at a death and resurrection story for Israel, but not a kingdom "of this world", is that right? A new king/high priest but not on an earthly throne?

If the Zealots really did believe that they should have no ruler but God then the "kingdom of heaven" was a very political, very concrete idea. The gospel writers may have wanted to neutralize this kind of thinking.

maryhelena

You got it....

Well - if the 'heavenly' kingdom has neither male nor female, neither Jew nor Greek - then it's about time that 'heavenly' kingdom came down to earth. A new 'heaven' being the prerequisite for a new 'earth. Not of course, re the castration aberration - but the creation of a social/political environment in which people come before concepts of race, religion, sex....

bacht

I dunno, sounds like an all too familiar Christian interpretation. I tend to think the kingdom of heaven started as a non-spiritual goal of those who sought to re-establish a theocracy, a return to "the good old days" of pre-Hellenistic times.

In a way the rabbis actually did accomplish this, since their people no longer had a political identity after 135.

aa5874

The death of Antigonus occurred about 75 years before the birth of Josephus so unless you think Josephus made up the story of Antigonus it is almost certain that he used some earlier source.

You cannot show that Josephus used the same source as Cassius Dio.

Toto

Should someone correct that wikipedia article?

It does appear that being tied to a "stauros" and scourged is close to being crucified as far as some modern readers go, but is it close enough?

Russellonius

If it was the Hasmoneans who developed Christianity, with its illegal blood drinking, lack of circumcision requirement, welcoming of pagans and having no use for Temple tradition, then the deposed Hasmoneans behaved very much like Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his Israelite allies:

Christianity is very much against the spirit of Judas Maccabeus as well as against the policies of later Hasmonean rule:

Hasmoneans had compelled their neighbors to be circumcised, but Christians said, hey, no big deal. We don't have to do that anymore so why should you? I wonder why the Hasmoneans would have gone so directly against their inherited ideals. Christianity seems very un-Hasmonean in its details. Why would they suddenly turn against the very principles for which they had previously stood?

That Rome was the ultimate victor detracts greatly from maryhelena’s argument. Victors write history. Rome allied with two Jewish groups: The Pharisees during the Hasmonean dynasty and the Herodians later. Rome allowed the Pharisees to gather at Yavneh, then later Galilee, to develop Rabbinic Judaism. Christianity solved problems that the Herodians had been experiencing with theologically conservative semi-compatriots. ('Semi-' because Herodians had Idumean blood and had been compelled to convert to Judaism under Hyrcanus. How sincere is forced conversion?)

Why does the story show Roman soldiers recognizing that Jesus was such a big holy deal and his 'Jewish' followers repeatedly throughout having eyes that do not see, and having ears that do not hear and not remembering that Jesus fulfilled all those prophesies? Why is salvation offered to Agrippa, Berenice, Drusilla and her husband Felix? Are any Hasmoneans recorded as being eligible for salvation though Christ?

Why do we find Mary, called Magdalene and her friend Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's steward at the foot of the cross and at the tomb, witnesses to the resurrection? This is the event that changed everything! According to the story, Jesus' disciples did not believe the women associated with the court of Herod Antipas when they told them he was risen.

I'm finding lots of Herodian and Roman characters in the mythology - soldiers, tax collectors and sinners are good people! - and lots of Jewish buffoonery. The NT exudes a spirit much more like Jason and Menelaus than their ideological opponents.

Why would loss of power cause Hasmoneans to abandon their traditionalist ideals? There are still Jews today who have not.