Why Are Historicists So Certain That Jesus Existed?

[Secret Alias]

The story in Taanit is interesting. The context is three days (the 12th, the 13th and the 14th) in the month of Adar being devoted to the celebration of the overthrow of the enemies of Israel. The book of Esther is supposed to be read on the 14th but some read it early on the 13th but that is supposedly 'Nicanor's Day (the general of ) while the 12th is the 'Day of Trajan' (= the day two officials came and struck him with gezirin).

The Day of Nicanor is described as follows:

And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame the Greeks and emerged victorious over them, they killed Nicanor in battle, cut off his thumbs and big toes, and hung them on the gates of Jerusalem, saying: The mouth that spoke with pride, and the hands that waved over Jerusalem, may vengeance be taken against them.

That's the 12th. The 13th is the day Trajan was punished. The 14th the day Haman was hanged.

[Secret Alias]

I must admit I don't know where you see the difference between a "cut piece of wood" and a club.

Yes I see that in Eusebius the term is indistinguishable too.

[Secret Alias]

I wonder whether טוריינוס is really 'Trajan' or Tyrianus. Church Fathers reference a figure of this name being the governor of Judea under Hadrian https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_T ... onsul_127)

[DCHindley]

Have these Rabbinic sources been brought up?

[Bab. Kethuboth 30a-b http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/ ... th_30.html

(a) Did not R. Joseph say, and R. Hiyya teach: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four forms of capital punishment have not ceased? 'They have not ceased,' [you say]? Surely they have ceased! But [say] (b) the judgment of the four forms of capital punishment has not ceased. He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation, is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation.

See also Bab. Sotah 8b http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_8.html

MISHNAH. IN THE MEASURE with which a man measures it is meted out to him. She adorned herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, made her repulsive. She exposed herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, held her up for exposure. She began the transgression with the thigh and afterwards with the womb; therefore she is punished first in the thigh and afterwards in the womb, nor does all the body escape.

GEMARA. R. Joseph said: Although the measure has ceased, [the principle] IN THE MEASURE has not ceased. For R. Joseph said, and similarly taught R. Hiyya: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased to function, the four modes of execution did not cease. But they did cease! — [The meaning is:] The judgment of the four modes of execution did not cease. He who would have been condemned to stoning either falls from a roof [and dies] or a wild beast tramples him [to death]. He who would have been condemned to burning either falls into a fire or a serpent stings him. He who would have been condemned to decapitation is either handed over to the [Gentile] Government or robbers attack him. He who would have been condemned to strangulation either drowns in a river or dies of a quinsy [from Gk kunankhē = dog collar that controls by strangling, latter meaning c 1300 tonsillitis with abscesses].

This is all fuel for the fire, of course^TM, but interesting.

DCH

[DCHindley]

For a moment I was beginning to question my senses (that's a new thing for me, maybe not for others) as I had previously posted that παρέδωκε λευσθησομένους (paredoke leusthesomenos) meant something like "hand over for disposition."

But when I re-read the passage right at the end of Ant 20:200, for λευσθησομένους BibleWorks 8 returns the definition as

λευσθησομένους verb participle future passive accusative masculine plural

[LS] λεύω
λεύω, f. λεύσω: aor. i ἔλευσα: (λᾶας):-to stone, Thuc., Eur.: - Pass., λευσθῆναι πέτροις Soph.

This seemed to be confirmed by a search for this work at Perseus.org.

λευσθησομένους part pl fut pass masc acc
[from] λεύω stone
λεύω , fut. λεύσω （κατα-) Ar.Ach.285: aor. ἔλευσα （κατ-) Hdt.9.5, Th.1.106: — Pass., fut.
A. [select] “λευσθήσομαι” J.Ap.2.27: aor. “ἐλεύσθην” S.OC (v. infr.), Hp.Ep.27: (λᾶας): — stone, Th.5.60; “πέτροις λ. μνῆμα” E.El. 328; “τὸ λευσθῆναι πέτροις” S.OC435, cf. E.IA1350.

Yet I remember once reading that the word λευσθησομένους really meant "disposition." Could I have remembered wrongly?

So, I check my old Greek-English Lexicon of the NT and Other Early Christian Literature (4th revised & augmented edition, 1952), and lo, the verb λεύω is not listed. For the word to mean "to stone" would require it to be based on λιθάζω "to stone." For λεύω to mean here "to stone" seems to only be the case when stones are mentioned in connection with the verb. There's no word for stones here in Ant 20.200 (9.1).

To mean "disposition" would require something like λύω

[GING]
—1. loose, untie, set free lit. break. Fig. untie, free, release ; permit
—2. break up, tear down .
—3. destroy, bring to an end, abolish, do away with; repeal, annul, abolish.

I'm kind of thinking that λεύω alone to mean "to stone" is made up for the occasion so that Ant 20.200 HAS to mean James was "stoned?"

Can λευσθησομένους be a variant form of λύω?

grumble ...

DCH

Edit: Changed spacing so we don't get "smilie faces" ( ) due to formatting in Perseus' version of L&S lexicon or BW's lexicons.

[Peter Kirby]

But when I re-read the passage right at the end of Ant 20:200, for λευσθησομένους BibleWorks 8 returns the definition as

λευσθησομένους verb participle future passive accusative masculine plural

[LS] λεύω
λεύω, f. λεύσω: aor. i ἔλευσα: (λᾶας):-to stone, Thuc., Eur.ass., λευσθῆναι πέτροις Soph.

This seemed to be confirmed by a search for this work at Perseus.org.

λευσθησομένους part pl fut pass masc acc
[from] λεύω stone
λεύω , fut. λεύσω （κατα-) Ar.Ach.285: aor. ἔλευσα （κατ-) Hdt.9.5, Th.1.106:—Pass., fut.
A. [select] “λευσθήσομαι” J.Ap.2.27: aor. “ἐλεύσθην” S.OC (v. infr.), Hp.Ep.27: (λᾶας):—stone, Th.5.60; “πέτροις λ. μνῆμα” E.El. 328; “τὸ λευσθῆναι πέτροις” S.OC435, cf. E.IA1350.

This is really good research, DCH.

Finally someone looks at the most relevant facts!

Now if only more would be so bold as to come to the obvious conclusion.

Sometimes it really is that simple.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm kind of thinking that λεύω alone to mean "to stone" is made up

Nein, nein, nein, nein, nein!

You were so close.

[Giuseppe]

But when I re-read the passage right at the end of Ant 20:200, for λευσθησομένους BibleWorks 8 returns the definition as

λευσθησομένους verb participle future passive accusative masculine plural

[LS] λεύω
λεύω, f. λεύσω: aor. i ἔλευσα: (λᾶας):-to stone, Thuc., Eur.ass., λευσθῆναι πέτροις Soph.

This seemed to be confirmed by a search for this work at Perseus.org.

λευσθησομένους part pl fut pass masc acc
[from] λεύω stone
λεύω , fut. λεύσω （κατα-) Ar.Ach.285: aor. ἔλευσα （κατ-) Hdt.9.5, Th.1.106:—Pass., fut.
A. [select] “λευσθήσομαι” J.Ap.2.27: aor. “ἐλεύσθην” S.OC (v. infr.), Hp.Ep.27: (λᾶας):—stone, Th.5.60; “πέτροις λ. μνῆμα” E.El. 328; “τὸ λευσθῆναι πέτροις” S.OC435, cf. E.IA1350.

This is really good research, DCH.

Finally someone looks at the most relevant facts!

And comes to the most sensible conclusion!

Astounding.

If I understand well, is DCH implying that the modern translations of Ant. 20:200 report that James was ''stoned'' (and not simply "handed over for disposition) in order to harmonize the Josephus's episode with what we know from Hegesippus & company ?

That James the brother of Jesus ''called Christ'' was not even killed by Ananus but only ''handed over''?

[Ulan]

That James the brother of Jesus ''called Christ'' was not even killed by Ananus but only ''handed over''?

I already cited the footnote from perseus.org that claims exactly this.

[Giuseppe]

That James the brother of Jesus ''called Christ'' was not even killed by Ananus but only ''handed over''?

I already cited the footnote from perseus.org that claims exactly this.

Thank you but where precisely do you cite this footnote in this thread? And what is DCH adding to that footnote (that is already per se surprising, in my view)?