Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, sedition, and Mark.

[MrMacSon]

Personally I tend to think that the „flight to Pella“ is a late pious legend. If the church of Jerusalem took an active part in the first Jewish-Roman war, it would explain a lot.

Do these things have to be a reference to the first Jewish-Roman war? Can they be a reference to other conflicts?

[MrMacSon]

Some interesting commentary on "the flight to Pella" - http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyAr ... light.html

[StephenGoranson]

(I think a flight to Pella is plausible.)

[Michael BG]

S G F Brandon in the 1960’s and early 1970’s suggested that within the gospels there are traditions which can be interpreted as seeing Jesus as a political Messiah. I remember reading that in Mark’s gospel those being feed by Jesus were in “companies” like soldiers.

As both Bermejo-Rubio and Brandon point out Jesus is crucified which is the usual punishment for slaves and rebellious provincials.

Now Maryhelena likes to see a link to the death of the Hasmonean king of Judea Antigonus II Mattathias to Jesus’ death. However only Dio Cassius writing in the third century (c. 229) has Antigonus crucified, while Josephus (writing c 94) has him beheaded in Antioch and Plutarch (writing c. 100) has Mark Antony beheading him. Therefore it seems probable that the tradition that has Jesus crucified, no matter how late people see it, does not go back to the crucifixion of Antigonus II because it is unlikely that Antigonus II was crucified.

The mythicists see Jesus Christ as being crucified in the heavens, but there is little or no evidence this was a Jewish belief before Christianity. Also if the early Christians were creating a myth about Jesus Christ as a paschal sacrifice (1 Cor 5:7c) I would expect his sacrificial death would be like the death of lambs at Passover (Shechita), that is he would have his throat cut. Beheading would be more appropriate than crucifixion.

Therefore I think it is likely that Jesus was crucified by the Romans and Mark did not create this but it is in the earliest traditions.

[Ben C. Smith]

The mythicists see Jesus Christ as being crucified in the heavens....

A heavenly crucifixion is just one of the available mythicist options. (Admittedly, it is the one that has received the most recent press.)

[maryhelena]

Now Maryhelena likes to see a link to the death of the Hasmonean king of Judea Antigonus II Mattathias to Jesus’ death. However only Dio Cassius writing in the third century (c. 229) has Antigonus crucified, while Josephus (writing c 94) has him beheaded in Antioch and Plutarch (writing c. 100) has Mark Antony beheading him. Therefore it seems probable that the tradition that has Jesus crucified, no matter how late people see it, does not go back to the crucifixion of Antigonus II because it is unlikely that Antigonus II was crucified.

Where did Cassius Dio get his information on Antigonus from? 1) He had a source that said Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross. 2) He had a copy of the gospel story re a 'King of the Jews' crucified by Rome and he linked that story to Antigonus - realizing that the gospel time frame was the 70th year anniversary of Marc Antony's execution of Antigonus. (that a Jewish writer such as Josephus did not mention that Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross would not be unusual seeing that crucifixion was deemed to be a curse - in fact it could well be argued that that was the very reason Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross - in order to turn the people away from a King they loved so that they would accept a King they hated - Herod...)

Cassius Dio does not say Antigonus died on the stake/cross; he says Antigonus was scourged. (which would still classify as crucifixion as dead bodies were also hung up i.e.dying on a cross was not the only element of a crucifixion. Josephus, in 70 c.e., found a friend of his hung on a cross, had him taken down and he lived). Antigonus was probably in Roman custody some months prior to being beheaded. Thus, both scenarios have validity. i.e. Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross and flogged. He was taken down and later beheaded.

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish background to Christianity

Josephus in fact counts the thirty four years from the execution of Mattathias Antigonus. But Antigonus was executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony {Ant. 14.488-490; Strabo, apud Ant.15.9),"^ and, as is shown by the latter's movements, that occurred in the late autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in
September—October 37."' Thus, there is nothing here to contradict the usage of an autumn 37 era. Apparently, Josephus, or already Herod, was only willing to count the new king's regnal years after Antigonus was completely
removed.

However, as we have seen, in fact at least a few months went by between July 37 and Antigonus' execution.

Greg Doudna: A Narrative Argument that the Teacher of Righteousness was Hyrcanus II

What has long been overlooked is that a Qumran text, widely acknowledged to have been authored at about this very time, speaks directly of a Jewish ruler being “hung up alive”—just like Dio Cassius’s account of the fate of Antigonus Mattathias. This is found at 4QpNah 3-4 i 8-ii 1, which is a pesher unit consisting of a biblical quotation followed by its interpretation. The text introduces this unit with the words: “concerning the one hanged up alive on a stake it is proclaimed:”, or “to the one hanged up alive on a stake he (i.e. God) proclaims:”.
.........
In what may come to be regarded as one of the more unusual, indeed astonishing, oversights in the history of Qumran scholarship, so far as is known it seems no previous scholar has proposed that Antigonus Mattathias, the last Hasmonean king of Israel, executed by the Romans in 37 BCE, might be the figure underlying the Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk or the doomed ruler of Pesher Nahum. The actual allusion of the figure of these texts, Antigonus Mattathias, remained unseen even though it was always in open view, as obvious as it could be. And in wondering how Antigonus Mattathias was missed in the history of scholarship I include myself, for I too missed this in my 2001 study of Pesher Nahum.

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/201 ... 8018.shtml

------------------------------------
To return to the OP and Bermejo-Rubio.

4) The mocking of Jesus by the soldiers in the employ of Rome, involving a burlesque parody of kingly epiphany (which includes clothing him in a purple cloak, putting on him a crown of thorns, and kneeling down in raillery homage to him: Mk 15.16–20; Jn 19.1–
---------------------------------

One approach to this gospel story is to consider Philo' story about Agrippa I and Carabbas. (Flaccus)
In Philo's story Agrippa I is called a Syrian by birth. Josephus gives Agrippa I a genealogy from Herod I and Mariamne. i.e. he carries Hasmonean blood from Marimane through his father, Aristobulus. Agrippa I is the first King carrying Hasmonean blood since Antigonus. The Hasmonean connection with Syria? Syrian Antioch is where Antigonus was executed by Rome.

Philo' symbolism in the Agrippa I and Carabbas story is reflecting the Hasmonean/Jewish history of two kings, Agrippa I and Antigonus. Agrippa is, as it were, a stand-in for the mocking of Antigonus. (by the Roman general Sosius)

The gospel story re Jesus and Barabbas is, as it were, Take 2, of Philo’s story.

Take 1. Philo’ story: Agrippa I and Carabbas = Agrippa I being a stand-in for the mockery of Antigonus.

Take 2. Gospel story: Elements of the Philo's Agrippa I and Carabbas story are shared between Jesus and Barabbas. The mocking of Agrippa I (reflecting the mocking of Antigonus) by Carabbas is placed on Jesus. The insurrection, seditious, elements of Antigonus history being applied to Barabbas. The Agrippa I prison story being applied to Barabbas. i.e. Agrippa I was set free.

The result being that the Jesus crucifixion story is able to present a sinless man able to provide ‘salvation’ for all. Theology trumping history. Barabbas becomes the fall guy to take up the insurrectionist/seditious elements from the Antigonus history - allowing the Jesus figure to be the lamb to the slaughter….(yes, the insurrectionist Barabbas is set free - a gospel story without any historical basis) However, theology can be turned on it’s head by allowing history to call the shots….

(Yes, Agrippa I was not an insurrectionists - but he was put in prison by Tiberius because, as Josephus relates, he was heard to say he wanted Tiberius gone…set free by Caligula. Philo does not seem to mention the reason why Agrippa I was in prison. He has Agrippa simply saying that Tiberius put him in prison....On the Embassy to Gaius )

And no, I don't think Antigonus = the gospel Jesus figure. I view the gospel Jesus figure as a composite literary figure. The history of Antigonus is primarily reflected in the gospel crucifixion story - and there is more to the gospel story than it's crucifixion story. In other words; the gospel story is a political allegory upon which is built a theological and philosophical superstructure. Hasmonean/Jewish history is, as it were, the subterranean stream that sustains the top growth of theology and philosophy.

[Michael BG]

A heavenly crucifixion is just one of the available mythicist options. (Admittedly, it is the one that has received the most recent press.)

No matter where the mythicists say the Jesus Christ myth has Jesus crucified my point about his being beheaded would be a better fit for the theological meaning of his death still stands.

Now Maryhelena likes to see a link to the death of the Hasmonean king of Judea Antigonus II Mattathias to Jesus’ death. However only Dio Cassius writing in the third century (c. 229) has Antigonus crucified, while Josephus (writing c 94) has him beheaded in Antioch and Plutarch (writing c. 100) has Mark Antony beheading him. Therefore it seems probable that the tradition that has Jesus crucified, no matter how late people see it, does not go back to the crucifixion of Antigonus II because it is unlikely that Antigonus II was crucified.

Where did Cassius Dio get his information on Antigonus from? 1) He had a source that said Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross. 2) He had a copy of the gospel story re a 'King of the Jews' crucified by Rome and he linked that story to Antigonus - realizing that the gospel time frame was the 70th year anniversary of Marc Antony's execution of Antigonus. (that a Jewish writer such as Josephus did not mention that Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross would not be unusual seeing that crucifixion was deemed to be a curse - in fact it could well be argued that that was the very reason Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross - in order to turn the people away from a King they loved so that they would accept a King they hated - Herod...)

Cassius Dio does not say Antigonus died on the stake/cross; he says Antigonus was scourged. (which would still classify as crucifixion as dead bodies were also hung up i.e.dying on a cross was not the only element of a crucifixion. Josephus, in 70 c.e., found a friend of his hung on a cross, had him taken down and he lived). Antigonus was probably in Roman custody some months prior to being beheaded. Thus, both scenarios have validity. i.e. Antigonus was hung on a stake/cross and flogged. He was taken down and later beheaded.

And no, I don't think Antigonus = the gospel Jesus figure. I view the gospel Jesus figure as a composite literary figure. The history of Antigonus is primarily reflected in the gospel crucifixion story

Maryhelena states “Cassius Dio does not say Antigonus died on the stake/cross; he says Antigonus was scourged.” Therefore Antigonus II can’t be the model for the crucifixion of Jesus by dying on the cross, which is my point.

Maryhelena gives us Greg Doudna also stating “‘hung up alive’—just like Dio Cassius’s account of the fate of Antigonus Mattathias” and not dying on the cross. Greg Doudna states, “The Roman historian Dio Cassius says Antigonus was scourged and crucified, or maybe the sense is he was put up on a cross for scourging as part of the execution (Roman History 5.49.22).”

She quotes Doudna quoting 4QpNah 3-4 i 8“concerning the one hanged up alive on a stake it is proclaimed:”, or “to the one hanged up alive on a stake he (i.e. God) proclaims”.

I would question this translation. The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1xA ... 01&f=false) translates it as “in Israel aforetimes, for the one hanged up alive o[n the tree is to be re]ad”. Also I would question that this refers to the following text, it seems to refer to the previous text “And he fills with prey] his holes and his lairs with torn flesh.” I assume the person doing this is the Young Lion of Wrath, which this book states is Alexander Jannaeus who according to Josephus crucified 800 rebels. Doudna even agrees that the Young Lion of Wrath is Alexander Jannaeus.

Doudna also states, “Strabo followed by Josephus says Antigonus was beheaded.” Strabo wrote his history around 20 BCE only about 17 years after the death of Antigonus II. Therefore the earliest account has Antigonus II beheaded and the account where Antigonus is scourged is written over 260 years after the events.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not necessary refer to Antigonus II Mattathias as being crucified and the only source we really have for his being scourged is written over 260 years after the event. Therefore when Mark wrote his gospel it is unlikely that he created the idea that Jesus was crucified, especially as Paul also has Jesus crucified. A crucified Messiah is not clearly pre-Christian and therefore most likely Jesus being crucified is an historical event that pre-dates Mark and does show that Jesus was executed as a rebellious provincial.

[Ben C. Smith]

A heavenly crucifixion is just one of the available mythicist options. (Admittedly, it is the one that has received the most recent press.)

No matter where the mythicists say the Jesus Christ myth has Jesus crucified my point about his being beheaded would be a better fit for the theological meaning of his death still stands.

Yes, true; I was nitpicking a bit because exchanges like the following annoy me a bit:

Roger Parvus: In the debate you said that, as you see it, “there is only one defensible, plausible theory that Jesus did not exist.” And you summarize the theory this way: “This is the view that Christianity actually began with revelations, actual or purported, of a divine being named Jesus who underwent a death and resurrection in the lower heavens and preached through revelations. If you look at the letters of Paul, Paul never refers to Jesus having a ministry, he never refers to anyone seeing or meeting him while he was alive. He only talks about people receiving revelations of Jesus. That’s what made someone an apostle. It was having a revelation of the Christ.” I’m on board with everything in that statement except the phrase “in the lower heavens.” I grant that a lower heavens location for the death and resurrection of the divine being is defensible and plausible, but so is an “on earth” location. In the religious literature of the relevant time are there not many examples of gods taking on the guise of men to perform some task on earth?

Richard Carrier: Yes, but those would be deemed historical events on earth. That corresponds to Docetism. Docetism is not mythicism; it’s historicity: a historical Jesus who is “interpreted” to have been an illusion of some form. .... Although the more extreme scenario you envision, of a Jesus who comes all the way to earth only for a few hours and is crucified where no one is around to see it, is mythically possible, but it would require more ad hoc reasoning than the sublunar theory.

Roger Parvus: No, in the scenario I propose the crucifixion occurred in Judaea and there would have been people around to see it. It is just that they would not have realized that they were seeing the crucifixion of the Son of God. To all appearances the one being crucified looked like a man. Just as, in the Ascension of Isaiah, the Son who descends through the heavens attracts no attention because he had changed his appearance, so when he descended for a few hours into the world to change places with a man being crucified he would not have attracted any special attention either.

Richard Carrier: I’m not sure I understand. How would this not be a historical Jesus? If there was an actual man seen crucified outside Jerusalem in the ordinary way, that’s a historical person, not a mythical one. And why would the apostles confuse a man they didn’t know as being the messiah after the fact? It doesn’t make sense that they’d see some random stranger crucified and then “dream” later that he was the Jesus Lord.

Roger Parvus: It would be mythical in the sense that it didn’t really happen. You and I both know that the Son of God didn’t descend to earth for a few hours, transform his appearance and surreptitiously change places with a man being led out for crucifixion by the Romans. But I think the first Christians did believe this. They believed it was historical.

Richard Carrier: - [Crickets.]

Notice how Carrier has difficulty even imagining a mythicist scenario in which the myth has Jesus crucified on earth. There appears to me to be a trend in which at least some mythicists (and some historicists) regard a crucifixion in the heavens as the only "real" mythicist option, to the point where Ellegård and Wells and Mead and their ilk are virtually forgotten, their brand of mythicism ignored as if it did not exist. Hence the urge on my part to make sure that the terms "mythicism" and "crucifixion in the heavens" are not treated as if they were interchangeable. The latter does not comprise the former; it is a subset.

Pedantry over. Carry on.

Ben.

[maryhelena]

Maryhelena gives us Greg Doudna also stating “‘hung up alive’—just like Dio Cassius’s account of the fate of Antigonus Mattathias” and not dying on the cross. Greg Doudna states, “The Roman historian Dio Cassius says Antigonus was scourged and crucified, or maybe the sense is he was put up on a cross for scourging as part of the execution (Roman History 5.49.22).”

She quotes Doudna quoting 4QpNah 3-4 i 8“concerning the one hanged up alive on a stake it is proclaimed:”, or “to the one hanged up alive on a stake he (i.e. God) proclaims”.

I would question this translation. The Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1xA ... 01&f=false) translates it as “in Israel aforetimes, for the one hanged up alive o[n the tree is to be re]ad”. Also I would question that this refers to the following text, it seems to refer to the previous text “And he fills with prey] his holes and his lairs with torn flesh.” I assume the person doing this is the Young Lion of Wrath, which this book states is Alexander Jannaeus who according to Josephus crucified 800 rebels. Doudna even agrees that the Young Lion of Wrath is Alexander Jannaeus.

Doudna also states, “Strabo followed by Josephus says Antigonus was beheaded.” Strabo wrote his history around 20 BCE only about 17 years after the death of Antigonus II. Therefore the earliest account has Antigonus II beheaded and the account where Antigonus is scourged is written over 260 years after the events.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not necessary refer to Antigonus II Mattathias as being crucified and the only source we really have for his being scourged is written over 260 years after the event. Therefore when Mark wrote his gospel it is unlikely that he created the idea that Jesus was crucified, especially as Paul also has Jesus crucified. A crucified Messiah is not clearly pre-Christian and therefore most likely Jesus being crucified is an historical event that pre-dates Mark and does show that Jesus was executed as a rebellious provincial.

Greg Doudna' translation and interpretation of the relevant DSS material is, as is all interpretation, open to question. One can, as it were, take ones pick of what interpretations are available. That you don't find value in Doudna' interpretation is of course your prerogative. That such an interpretation can be made, I, obviously, find of interest. Doudna has no axe to grind re the gospel crucifixion story. For someone running with the historicist Jesus assumption then it's par for the course that Doudna' interpretation, running as it does with a Roman crucifixion, a hanging on a stake/cross of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, would present uncomfortable possibilities. Particularly now when memory theory is being used by the Jesus historicists in a last-ditch attempt to preserve their historicist assumption. Memory theory is the Achilles Heel of the Jesus historicists - because whatever the method by which the Romans executed Antigonus - memory theory allows for gist memory to have value. Thus, whether Antigonus was killed by crucifixion, beheading, strangled, knifed or drowning - the fact of his execution by Rome remains. Consequently, that the gospel story relates a crucifixion of a 'King of the Jews' by crucifixion is, ultimately, of secondary concern. Are you really going to suggest that if the gospel story had Jesus beheaded - then the connection to Antigonus would be valid? - and thus out the window would go your historicist assumption................it seems to me that the historicist assumption is so ingrained that it's proponents can't see the wood for the trees.....

[maryhelena]

A heavenly crucifixion is just one of the available mythicist options. (Admittedly, it is the one that has received the most recent press.)

No matter where the mythicists say the Jesus Christ myth has Jesus crucified my point about his being beheaded would be a better fit for the theological meaning of his death still stands.

Yes, true; I was nitpicking a bit because exchanges like the following annoy me a bit:

Roger Parvus: In the debate you said that, as you see it, “there is only one defensible, plausible theory that Jesus did not exist.” And you summarize the theory this way: “This is the view that Christianity actually began with revelations, actual or purported, of a divine being named Jesus who underwent a death and resurrection in the lower heavens and preached through revelations. If you look at the letters of Paul, Paul never refers to Jesus having a ministry, he never refers to anyone seeing or meeting him while he was alive. He only talks about people receiving revelations of Jesus. That’s what made someone an apostle. It was having a revelation of the Christ.” I’m on board with everything in that statement except the phrase “in the lower heavens.” I grant that a lower heavens location for the death and resurrection of the divine being is defensible and plausible, but so is an “on earth” location. In the religious literature of the relevant time are there not many examples of gods taking on the guise of men to perform some task on earth?

Richard Carrier: Yes, but those would be deemed historical events on earth. That corresponds to Docetism. Docetism is not mythicism; it’s historicity: a historical Jesus who is “interpreted” to have been an illusion of some form. .... Although the more extreme scenario you envision, of a Jesus who comes all the way to earth only for a few hours and is crucified where no one is around to see it, is mythically possible, but it would require more ad hoc reasoning than the sublunar theory.

Roger Parvus: No, in the scenario I propose the crucifixion occurred in Judaea and there would have been people around to see it. It is just that they would not have realized that they were seeing the crucifixion of the Son of God. To all appearances the one being crucified looked like a man. Just as, in the Ascension of Isaiah, the Son who descends through the heavens attracts no attention because he had changed his appearance, so when he descended for a few hours into the world to change places with a man being crucified he would not have attracted any special attention either.

Richard Carrier: I’m not sure I understand. How would this not be a historical Jesus? If there was an actual man seen crucified outside Jerusalem in the ordinary way, that’s a historical person, not a mythical one. And why would the apostles confuse a man they didn’t know as being the messiah after the fact? It doesn’t make sense that they’d see some random stranger crucified and then “dream” later that he was the Jesus Lord.

Roger Parvus: It would be mythical in the sense that it didn’t really happen. You and I both know that the Son of God didn’t descend to earth for a few hours, transform his appearance and surreptitiously change places with a man being led out for crucifixion by the Romans. But I think the first Christians did believe this. They believed it was historical.

Richard Carrier: - [Crickets.]

Notice how Carrier has difficulty even imagining a mythicist scenario in which the myth has Jesus crucified on earth. There appears to me to be a trend in which at least some mythicists (and some historicists) regard a crucifixion in the heavens as the only "real" mythicist option, to the point where Ellegård and Wells and Mead and their ilk are virtually forgotten, their brand of mythicism ignored as if it did not exist. Hence the urge on my part to make sure that the terms "mythicism" and "crucifixion in the heavens" are not treated as if they were interchangeable. The latter does not comprise the former; it is a subset.

Pedantry over. Carry on.

Ben.

Yes, sadly, the mythicist position has been compromised; compromised by those advocating a 'crucifixion in the heavens' as though that position nullifies any on the ground relevance for the gospel story. Whatever way one wants to interpret the Pauline epistles, that interpretation cannot cancel out the necessity of allowing the gospel story to present a different scenario. Putting all ones eggs in a Pauline basket is not a sensible thing to be doing. Whatever the dating of the gospel material, post Paul or pre Paul, the gospel material must be allowed to stand on it's own feet. Dating manuscripts does not date the story they relate. The current emphasis in NT studies on memory theory clearly indicates that the gospel Jesus story preceded any written record of that story.

As for Carrier:

Richard Carrier: page 53/54 of On the Historicity of Jesus - Why we might have reasons to doubt

Unlike the minimal theory of historicity, however, what I have just said
is not strictly entailed. If 'Jesus Christ began as a celestial deity' is false,
it could still be that he began as a political fiction, for example (as some
scholars have indeed argued-the best examples being R.G. Price and Gary Courtney).
But as will become dear in following chapters (especially Chapter 11), such a premise
has a much lower prior probability (and thus is already at a huge disadvantage over
Premise 1 even before we start examining the evidence), and a very low consequent
probability (though it suits the Gospels well, it just isn't possible to explain the evidence in the
Epistles this way, and the origin of Christianity itself becomes very hard
to explain as well). Although I leave open the possibility it may yet be vindicated
I'm sure it's very unlikely to be, and accordingly I will assume its prior probability
is too small even to show up in our math. This decision can be reversed only by a
sound and valid demonstration that we must assign it a higher prior or consequent,
but that I leave to anyone who thinks it's possible. In the meantime, what we have
left is Premise 1, such that if that is less probable than minimal historicity, then I
would be convinced historicity should be affirmed (particularly as the 'political fiction' theory
already fits historicity and thus is not really a challenge to it-indeed that's
often the very kind of fiction that gets written about historical persons)

What both the Carrier mythicists and the Jesus historicists need to grasp is that the debate is not over 'heavenly' or earthly crucifixion. Both scenarios are relevant to the NT story. i.e. there are two Jesus stories in the NT. The Pauline celestial, heavenly, intellectual, 'crucifixion' (of ideas) and the gospel earthly crucifixion. In other words' the Jerusalem above, our intellectual capacity, reflects the Jerusalem below, our physical reality. 'Salvation' value is found in our intellectual evolution - i.e. heavenly 'crucifixion' has value. Physical crucifixion is tragedy and thus valueless. The gospel story has it's focus on earthly reality. The Pauline focus is on heavenly, intellectual reality. As in life, so too in the NT story: body and mind interact and influence each other. Resulting, in the NT story, of a measure of overlap between the gospel story and the Pauline story. However, if an understanding of early christian origins is our aim - then the overlap has to be sidelined in order to see clearly the separate focus of the gospel story and the Pauline epistles.