The Best Case for Jesus

[Leucius Charinus]

The connection of Simon of Cyrene to the crucifixion story, the history of that city involving an insurrection of Jews during the time of Vespasian and the Jewish War, the crucifixion of Jews after that War, indicates that the Jesus crucifixion story involves insurrection against Rome.

Options:

(1) the gospel story is reflecting events of that Jewish insurrection of 70/73 c.e. and backdating them to the time of Pilate.
(2) the gospel Jesus figure was connected to a zealot movement - as in Reza Aslan's Zealot.
(3) the connection of Simon from Cyrene to the gospel crucifixion story, is reference to an insurrection in 40 b.c.e. - an insurrection that led, 3 years later, to the execution of the last King of the Jews. Antigonus being hung on a cross and scourged.

All of these three options suggest that the gospel Jesus crucifixion story is being linked to an insurrection against Rome - and since there was no Jewish insurrection against Rome in the time of Pilate - the other two options are in play. Cyrene was involved in insurrection around the time of the Jewish War - but it was the insurrection of 40 b.c.e. that led, in 37 b.c.e., to the Roman crucifixion of the last King of the Jews.

Thanks maryhelena. Supposing for the moment that the literary school that was responsible for the Greek authorship of the NT books used option (3) as an historical "motif".

When did they write the NT, who were the "they" and why did they write?



LC

[maryhelena]

The connection of Simon of Cyrene to the crucifixion story, the history of that city involving an insurrection of Jews during the time of Vespasian and the Jewish War, the crucifixion of Jews after that War, indicates that the Jesus crucifixion story involves insurrection against Rome.

Options:

(1) the gospel story is reflecting events of that Jewish insurrection of 70/73 c.e. and backdating them to the time of Pilate.
(2) the gospel Jesus figure was connected to a zealot movement - as in Reza Aslan's Zealot.
(3) the connection of Simon from Cyrene to the gospel crucifixion story, is reference to an insurrection in 40 b.c.e. - an insurrection that led, 3 years later, to the execution of the last King of the Jews. Antigonus being hung on a cross and scourged.

All of these three options suggest that the gospel Jesus crucifixion story is being linked to an insurrection against Rome - and since there was no Jewish insurrection against Rome in the time of Pilate - the other two options are in play. Cyrene was involved in insurrection around the time of the Jewish War - but it was the insurrection of 40 b.c.e. that led, in 37 b.c.e., to the Roman crucifixion of the last King of the Jews.

Thanks maryhelena. Supposing for the moment that the literary school that was responsible for the Greek authorship of the NT books used option (3) as an historical "motif".

When did they write the NT, who were the "they" and why did they write?



LC

I would think the NT story was written while historical knowledge was still fresh, i.e. not faded. Josephus, for instance, writes that he consulted Agrippa II. Agrippa having a connection to the Hasmoneans - as did Josephus. Perhaps that would be the end-date for acquiring accurate historical knowledge. Antigonus was executed in 37 b.c.e. Agrippa died around 100 c.e. - that being 140 years since Antigonus took Jerusalem.

Who were 'they'? My money is on the Hasmoneans.

Why? First as an attempt, in the gospel story, to write their history in a prophetic and symbolic format. Secondly, the prophetic/symbolic format allowed for theological or philosophical developments.

That the gospel's prophetic/symbolic format came to be viewed as history - well, that says more about the readers of that story than those who created that story.....

[bcedaifu]

Bernard Muller wrote
Why, if there was one male named Simon, from Cyrene (said to have carried Jesus' cross), whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and with "Mark" knowing them (at least the brothers), how that does not demonstrate “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

Hi Bernard,

If one travels to youtube, there one will discover a video posted by a "Bernard Muller", handsome chap, judging by his photo, and that video from UPenn, (Ben Franklin's school), posted a couple years ago, discusses neurodegenerative disorders.

Bernard, do you suppose that it would, then, be "objective" on my part, to write, here on the forum, that our own, charming Bernard Muller, suffers from Multiple Sclerosis?
Of course not.

I don't even know that you are that same person, let alone, whether or not the individual posting the video suffers himself, from that dreadful disease. How many Bernard Mullers were there on planet earth in 2013, when that video was posted?

Do you think it would be "objective" on my part to assume that the youtube Bernard Muller, whoever that may be, is, or was, at that time, a faculty member in the department of Neurology, at UP?

If you indeed are a faculty member there, then you must know Marty, Mike, Don and Dave (Emeritus) http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/neuro/faculty/

Simon and his two sons, may or may not have existed in reality. Mark may or may not have actually met the two sons. I may or may not know some clinical faculty. What is a daifu Bernard?

Peter Kirby thinking that he knows what he is writing about stated:
Still, despite the circumvented ban, I'm granting a pardon. For now anyhow.

Thanks, Proudfootz. you are as generous as you are erudite. I do require a pardon, for having committed some sort of crime, and perhaps I will learn the nature of my crime in the next life. I did not read Kirby's apology to Leucius Charinus. I am waiting for it. In my opinion, it is Kirby, not me, who needs the pardon. I expelled no one, unjustly. Emperor Proudfootz, feel free to expel me, any time. I neither seek, nor beseech an audience with you or the pope. A bit of advice: reflect just a tiny bit, prior to adopting as truth, input from SH.
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... otic+twins

[maryhelena]

Josephus on insurrection in Cyrene:

War: book 7

437 The madness of the Sicarii infected even the cities around Cyrene. 438 A rogue named Jonathan, a weaver by trade, took refuge there and winning the attention of a number of the poorer class he led them out into the desert with the promise of showing them signs and visions. 439 He concealed his knavery from the others and fooled them, but the highest ranking the Jews of Cyrene told Catullus, the ruler of the Libyan Pentapolis, about his exodus and what he planned for it. 440 So he sent out cavalry and infantry in pursuit, and defeated them easily, as they were unarmed. Many of them were killed in the fight, and some were taken alive and brought to Catullus. 441 The leader of this affair, Jonathan, escaped for a time, but after a thorough search of the whole country for him was finally captured. When he was brought to Catullus, he found a way to escape punishment himself but which caused Catullus to do a large amount of harm, 442 for he falsely accused the richest of the Jews of being the instigators of the whole thing.

443 Catullus easily accepted his calumnies and greatly exaggerated the matter with theatrical cries, to give himself the appearance of putting an end to some Jewish war. 444 But what was worse, not only did he give easy credence to his stories, but he taught the Sicarii to accuse men falsely. 445 He told this Jonathan to indict a Jew called Alexander, with whom he had formerly quarreled and openly professed to hate, and to involve his wife Berenice along with him. These were his first victims, and after them he killed all the rich and well-to-do, three thousand in all, 446 reckoning he could safely do, since he confiscated their property and added them to Caesar's revenues.
<snip>

But Vespasian still had some suspicion about the matter and enquired how far it was true, and when he understood that the accusation against the Jews was an unjust one, at the request of Titus he acquitted them, and sentence Jonathan as he deserved, for he was first tortured and then burned alive.

[Bernard Muller]

to neilgodfrey,

There certainly is one such male and he certainly does appear in the story. The trick is in knowing how to tell when a story is narrating what really happened outside that story.

This is not an argument against my point.
Why would "Mark" add that Simon of Cyrene had two sons named Alexander & Rufus?
I think mentioning only Simon of Cyrene would have been enough. And there was no christological/theological benefit about Jesus' suffering being alleviated a bit by having someone else carrying his cross.

Cordially, Bernard

[Bernard Muller]

to bcedaifu,

If one travels to youtube, there one will discover a video posted by a "Bernard Muller", handsome chap, judging by his photo, and that video from UPenn, (Ben Franklin's school), posted a couple years ago, discusses neurodegenerative disorders.

Bernard, do you suppose that it would, then, be "objective" on my part, to write, here on the forum, that our own, charming Bernard Muller, suffers from Multiple Sclerosis?
Of course not.

What does that have to do with my question:
Why, if there was one male named Simon, from Cyrene (said to have carried Jesus' cross), whose children had been named Alexander and Rufus, and with "Mark" knowing them (at least the brothers), how that does not demonstrate “objectively” that Jesus lived in the first century?

Maybe you are suggesting there were more than one Simon of Cyrene, with two sons named Alexander and Rufus in the first part of the 1st century? I agree it is possible. But then what?

Cordially, Bernard

[maryhelena]

to neilgodfrey,

There certainly is one such male and he certainly does appear in the story. The trick is in knowing how to tell when a story is narrating what really happened outside that story.

This is not an argument against my point.
Why would "Mark" add that Simon of Cyrene had two sons named Alexander & Rufus?
I think mentioning only Simon of Cyrene would have been enough. And there was no christological/theological benefit about Jesus' suffering being alleviated a bit by having someone else carrying his cross.

Cordially, Bernard

Sure, no christological/theological benefit re Simon carrying the cross of Jesus. Why not look outside that box?

Carrying the cross, sharing the weight, sharing responsibility for what is leading to the imminent crucifixion. The Jews in Cyrene were involved in an insurrection against Rome in 73 c.e. Cassius Dio indicates another insurrection against Rome that resulted in Antigonus being bound to a cross, scourged and then beheaded. There is no evidence to support historicity for Simon from Cyrene. That leaves the 40 - 37 b.c.e. history as being the primary focus of gMark's crucifixion story.

Going a step further - who shared the responsibility for the insurrection of 40 b.c.e.? Aristobulus II. Yes the man was dead - but it was his legacy that ran on with his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus. Both sons being executed by Rome.

Sure, gMark had no need to mention two sons of Simon from Cyrene if christology/theology was all that he was about. If, on the other hand, Hasmonean history was being symbolically represented - then indeed - the two sons of Aristobulus needed to be placed in the symbolic picture frame.

[outhouse]

Why,

Wow your cold. You show so little class it is pathetic.

[maryhelena]

Bart Ehrman going to give new talk:

Talks at the Smithsonian, March 21

11 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Did Jesus Favor Violent Revolution?

From the first account of the historical Jesus by Hermann Samuel Reimarus in the 1770s to the 2013 Aslan book, authors have made the provocative claim that Jesus was no pacifist and favored military action to overthrow the Romans in control of Israel’s promised land. Is it plausible that Jesus advocated military violence rather than peace?

http://ehrmanblog.org/talks-at-the-smit ... -march-21/

[steve43]

Josephus on insurrection in Cyrene:

War: book 7

437 The madness of the Sicarii infected even the cities around Cyrene. 438 A rogue named Jonathan, a weaver by trade, took refuge there and winning the attention of a number of the poorer class he led them out into the desert with the promise of showing them signs and visions. 439 He concealed his knavery from the others and fooled them, but the highest ranking the Jews of Cyrene told Catullus, the ruler of the Libyan Pentapolis, about his exodus and what he planned for it. 440 So he sent out cavalry and infantry in pursuit, and defeated them easily, as they were unarmed. Many of them were killed in the fight, and some were taken alive and brought to Catullus. 441 The leader of this affair, Jonathan, escaped for a time, but after a thorough search of the whole country for him was finally captured. When he was brought to Catullus, he found a way to escape punishment himself but which caused Catullus to do a large amount of harm, 442 for he falsely accused the richest of the Jews of being the instigators of the whole thing.

443 Catullus easily accepted his calumnies and greatly exaggerated the matter with theatrical cries, to give himself the appearance of putting an end to some Jewish war. 444 But what was worse, not only did he give easy credence to his stories, but he taught the Sicarii to accuse men falsely. 445 He told this Jonathan to indict a Jew called Alexander, with whom he had formerly quarreled and openly professed to hate, and to involve his wife Berenice along with him. These were his first victims, and after them he killed all the rich and well-to-do, three thousand in all, 446 reckoning he could safely do, since he confiscated their property and added them to Caesar's revenues.
<snip>

But Vespasian still had some suspicion about the matter and enquired how far it was true, and when he understood that the accusation against the Jews was an unjust one, at the request of Titus he acquitted them, and sentence Jonathan as he deserved, for he was first tortured and then burned alive.

Good you are reading Josephus seriously, Helena, and looking past Josephus' two references to Jesus.

Cyrene was the last of the outposts of the Jewish Zealots and refugees to be subdued in A.D. 73 or thereabouts. At that time, Vespasian was firmly in power.

Probably more interesting about Cyrene is that Ismael, the son of Fabi, was beheaded there early in the revolt- probably around A.D. 66-68. Ismael had resigned the High Priest position in A.D. 61 in order to be a part of Poppea's (and presumably Nero's) court in Rome. A very confounding move that suggests ulterior motives.

Stringing things together, as Hagan does in Fires of Rome, we can give Ismael a "mastermind" incendiary role against the early Christians- intentionally maneuvering himself into the good graces of the Imperial Court to stomp out the Christians/Zealots once and for all.

In a three-year period- A.D. 62-A.D. 63, not only were the Christian leaders wiped out in Jerusalem, to include James the Just, but in late A.D. 64 the Christian leaders in Rome (Paul and Peter) and a large number of "common" Christians were executed as well (if you believe Tacitus.)

This brings us back to Cyrene.

When the Jewish revolt began, what was Ismael, a Jewish aristocrat/priest if there ever was one, doing in Cyrene?

It is not unreasonable to speculate that Ismael was either sent there by Nero to try to smooth things over with the rowdy population, or perhaps the instruction came from Jerusalem itself- though the Second Temple Priesthood was in disarray and had its hands full in Judea and the Galilee.

He failed in his mission, was captured, and beheaded by the Sicarii/Zealots there.