StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Mar 05, 2024 1:45 pm
If I may ask, is there anyone, real name, who accepts your long-proposed version of history, so I can read that?
Stephan, connecting the Jesus story to Hasmonean history is not something new.
Mead discusses the Toledot Yeshu and Epiphanius.
An old Jesus Mysteries post from Rene Salm: dated Sun Jul 17, 2011
Hi, Rene. I am not sure I follow. Epiph "knew" explicitly from his gospels
that there was no Jannaeus at the time of Herod and Pilate. So what could he
mean if he knew that his readers could see themselves that this was the case?
Unless he didn't hold the gospels to be very sacred, which by his time must have
been something of a sacrilege. It would be like a historian saying that George
Washington was the president during the Civil War when everyone could see in
their records that this was not the case. It's not some obscure detail!<
Hi Dave and all,
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-mead/ ... /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=world ... &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=K22xQJ ... s_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
Another book is The Jesus the Jews Never Knew by Frank Zindler.
Zindler deals with the Toledot Yeshu, Epiphanius - and Rabbi Wise comment on Antigonus.
Two posts of mine to the Jesus Mysteries forum: July 14 and July 18, 2011
Apart from the quotation mentioning that Epiphaneus has some ideas about
historical events prior to the 'standard' gospel position, one could consider
the following two quotes:.
Melito of Sardis (d.160 c.e.)
"For the philosophy current with us flourished in the first instance among
barbarians; and, when it afterwards sprang up among the nations under thy rule,
during the distinguished reign of thy ancestor Augustus,"
TERTULLIAN AD NATIONES (160 - 220 c.e.)
"This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was
taught with all clearness and publicity; under Nero it was ruthlessly condemned,
and you may weigh its worth and character even from the person of its
persecutor. If that prince was a pious man, then the Christians are impious; if
he was just, if he was pure, then the Christians are unjust and impure; if he
was not a public enemy, we are enemies of our country: what sort of men we are,
our persecutor himself shows, since he of course punished what produced
hostility to himself."
Augustus (born 63 b.c. - died 14 c.e. - Augustus caesar from 27 b.c.)
Why mention Herod - well, Herod ruled from 40/37 b.c. - and born sometime
around 74/73 b.c. (Wikipedia). So he does fit in the time frame of Augustus.
Mythicists, to my mind, too often are moving things forward - seeking to place
the whole JC scenario as far away as possible from the early years of the lst
century. However, to my way of thinking, if we want to move forward re
understanding the origins of early christian history - it is backwards we must
go...
Mary
PS - to move backwards it's necessary to put gLuke on the shelve for a while
- think of the possibilities that can present themselves once the 15th year of
Tiberius is placed on the backburner. Indeed, this gospel has it's place in the
JC storyboard - however, it's more top dressing than a foundation stone.
.......one has to consider history first and foremost. Then one can consider the
gospel JC storyline. Yes, Epiphanius has made rather a hash of the gospel JC
birth narratives - but methinks that the modern day historicists have not done
very much better! Why does Epiphanius reference the Hasmonean connection re
'Christ'? Apart from the possibility that stories were doing the rounds, stories
about historical figures that often contain nonsense as well as fact, he just
might have been able to understand that elements of the gospel JC story were
being based upon, connected to, an actual historical event that had something to
do with the time of Alexander Jannaeus and Salome Alexandria.
Let me try this analogy: Pretend for the moment that you like baking
cakes....Out you go to the supermarket to buy the ingredients; the butter and
eggs, flour and sugar, some vanilla essence and the best chocolate for a great
Black Forest cake. Oh, and don't forget the cream, the cherries and the Kirsch
liqueur.
Right: The supermarket is the historical context. You select from history the
events, the people, the time, the place. You mix all the historical ingredients
and the mixture goes in the intellectual oven. What comes out of the oven, your
cake, has transformed the ingredients, the historical details, into something
new. That something new that has been created out of history, is the gospel
pseudo-historical JC. What comes next, for we don't want a bare bones, naked JC
- is to dress up your cake. A sprinkle of Kirsh for the supernatural mind
blowing kick; lashes of cream for the soft emotional touch, and just to add some
colour, those glorious cherries will add the mythological fancy dressing.
OK, so now you have your tea party. And your visitors are simply dying for your
recipe for Black Forest Cake. How much sugar, whole eggs or did you separate
them. Flour, self-raising or plain. Oh, and what is that intriguing flavour? Did
you add a little orange juice? And so on...
Those are the sort of questions, translated from baking ingredients, to
historical 'ingredients', that we should be asking re the gospel figure of JC.
We have to first establish the history of the relevant time period - not just
from Herod the Great in 40/37 b.c. but the events that led to his siege of
Jerusalem in 37 b.c. and the initial consequences of that siege. That requires
that we consider Hasmonean history.
And it is considering Hasmonean history that will take one to the last King and
High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, and his being bound to a cross, crucified,
flogged and beheaded in 37 b.c. It will take one back to Antigonus being taken
prisoner to Rome in 63 b.c. It will take one back prior to that - to the time
of his birth - which would have been during the later years of Alexander
Jannaeus. And what happens then is that one is face to face with those old
Jewish Toledot Yeshu stories. Whatever the strange goings on with these stories,
one thing is very clear - they are set in a time period prior to Herod the
Great, ie during Hasmonean rule. Why would a Jewish 'propaganda' story place a
gospel parody years prior to the gospel time frame. Well, is it not that that
gospel time frame is itself contradictory? And put gLuke on the shelve (being
the last of the synoptic) and one does not have the 15th year of Tiberius as any
sort of marker.
Pilate? Dating Pilate is not so simple either. A case can be made that he was in
Judea from 19 c.e. - hence an early date is possible for the JC crucifixion
story. So, a first JC crucifixion story around the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e.
(mentioned by Eusebius) - and the later update from gLuke and the crucifixion
story moves onward to after the 15th year of Tiberius. Thus, back to that Black
Forest chocolate cake - it's now getting a bit stale but you have plenty left
over. What now? Well, how about a chocolate trifle - more strong stuff,
perhaps some sherry mixed with brandy, a layer of fruit salad to mix with the
cherries, another layer of some great home made custard, lashes more cream and
topped with toasted flaked almonds. A trifle worthy of the dinner table!
In other words, gLuke has erected a barrier across the road that leads back to
Antigonus and thus forced a consideration of historical realities from 6.c.e.
Which would indicate that the Toledot stories started during a time prior to
gLuke being written. (yes I know, dating manuscripts is one thing - but
storyline something else - after gLuke, dating a JC parody to the Hasmonean
period would be nonsensical...) Thus, the JC brand, like history itself, does
not stand still but moves and reacts with the current historical realities.
....
Don't confuse history with the composite JC and his gospel pseuod-history. Since
there is no historical crucified gospel JC, then the gospel dating has other
than a historical JC birth narrative in mind when it provides such contradictory
dating. A problem for sure, for the historicists - but an invitation to the
ahistoricists/mythicists to go treasure hunting...
Mary
As for my interest in numbers .....Philo had such an interest.
Philo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo
Numerology
Philo frequently engages in Pythagorean-inspired numerology, explaining at length the importance of the first 10 numerals:[31]
One is God's number and the basis for all numbers.[32]
Two is the number of schism, of that which has been created, of death.[33]
Three is the number of the body ("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 2 [i. 44]) or of the Divine Being in connection with His fundamental powers ("De Sacrificiis Abelis et Caini," § 15 [i. 173]).
Four is potentially what ten is actually, the perfect number ("De Opificio Mundi," §§ 15, 16 [i. 10, 11], etc.); but in an evil sense four is the number of the passions, πάθη ("De Congressu Quærendæ Eruditionis Gratia." § 17 [i. 532]).
Five is the number of the senses and of sensibility ("De Opificio Mundi," § 20 [i. 14], etc.).
Six, the product of the masculine and feminine numbers 3 × 2 and in its parts equal to 3+3, is the symbol of the movement of organic beings ("De Allegoriis Legum," i. 2 [i. 44]).
Seven has the most various and marvelous attributes ("De Opiticio Mundi," §§ 30-43 [i. 21 et seq.]; comp. I. G. Müller, "Philo und die Weltschöpfung," 1841, p. 211).
Eight, the number of the cube, has many of the attributes determined by the Pythagoreans ("Quæstiones in Genesin," iii. 49 [i. 223, Aucher]).
Nine is the number of strife, according to Gen. xiv. ("De Congressu Qu. Eruditionis Gratia," § 17 [i. 532]).
Ten is the number of perfection ("De Plantatione Noë," § 29 [i. 347]).
Philo determines also the values of the numbers 50, 70, and 100, 12, and 120. There is also extensive symbolism of objects is very extensive. Philo elaborates an extensive symbolism of proper names, following the example of the Bible and the Midrash, to which he adds many new interpretations.[34]
A recommended book on Philo:
Goodness how time flies - and memory fades - forgot altogether about that recipe for Black Forest Cake.....
