Euhemerism, the gospels and Hasmonean Jewish history

[maryhelena]

The JC historicists uphold the view that by removing all the mythological elements in the gospel story they, somehow, find a historical, flesh and blood, Jesus. Since, it seems, that Jewish people were not about mythologizing any human man, this theory of the JC historicists is untenable. The opposite view, held by some ahistoricists/mythicists is that the gospel JC is a historicizing, a mythologizing, of the Pauline cosmic Christ figure. i.e. the gospel story is pseudo-history and hence can be set aside as of no relevance.

Both sides in this debate view the gospel story as a mythological literary construct. Thus, the question of mythology is central to the debate. Since the theory about a flesh and blood Jesus underneath the gospel mythology is fundamentally flawed (it would be against Jewish sensibilities) this does not mean that there is no historical relevance to the gospel story. Likewise, an ahistoric/mythicist theory that would proposes that the gospel story is wholly some sort of spiritual/intellectual exercise is inherently flawed. Such a myth would not have the inherent ability to sustain itself. All in the mind, pure imagination, does not produce a meaningful story, a myth, without any significance for living on terra-firma. An empty belly cannot be filled with imagination.

What follows is an argument that the gospel story is a mythologizing of Hasmonean/Jewish history. Being a mythologizing of history the gospel writers had at their disposal the whole mythological arsenal of OT prophetic interpretations, allegory, midrash, theology and philosophical musings. All these used to build a story that has it's core, it's roots, in Hasmonean/Jewish history.

So, to the JC historicists - there was no flesh and blood Jesus - but there is history behind, underneath, that gospel story. To the ahistoricists/mythicists - history, not imagination, is the core, the root, of the gospel story.

========================================

Euhemerism:

Euhemerism is a rationalizing method of interpretation, which treats mythological accounts as a reflection of historical events, or mythological characters as historical personages but which were shaped, exaggerated or altered by retelling and traditional mores. It was named for its creator Euhemerus. In more recent literature of myth, such as in Bulfinch's Mythology, Euhemerism is called the "historical interpretation" of mythology.[1] Euhemerism is defined in modern academic literature as the theory that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.[2] Euhemerus was not the first to attempt to rationalize mythology through history, as euhemeristic views are found in earlier writers, including Xenophanes, Herodotus, Hecataeus of Abdera and Ephorus.[3][4] However, Euhemerus is credited as having developed the theory in application to all myths, considering mythology to be "history in disguise".[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euhemerism

Mythology:

Myths may arise as either truthful depictions or overelaborated accounts of historical events, as allegory for or personification of natural phenomena, or as an explanation of ritual.

One theory claims that myths are distorted accounts of real historical events.[23][24] According to this theory, storytellers repeatedly elaborated upon historical accounts until the figures in those accounts gained the status of gods

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythology#Euhemerism

Using the standard definition of Euhemerism as a tool to interpret, to understand, the gospel story, a chart dealing with Jewish history can be drawn up.i.e. the gospel mythological story has a foundation, a root, a linkage, to Hasmonean/Jewish history. Yes, of course, such a linkage raises many questions - but that linkage also opens up a road forward in searching for early christian origins. The ahistoricists need to put 'Paul' and his imagination aside for a while and consider the historical realities that the gospel writers are dealing with. The historical canvas, the historical realities, from which the gospel writers created their mythological JC story is wide. It stretches way back from 70 c.e., way back into the BCE period.


==========================
Posted March 22. 2012. FRDB BCHF

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart below has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used. This chart is the historical backdrop that allows the gospel literary, mythological JC, a veneer of historicity, an ability to reflect historical events. It is this reflection, this veneer of historicity, that has allowed the assumption that the gospel JC figure is a historical figure. That assumption, when considered in the light of history, the Hasmonean and Herodian coins, and that history’s narrative as set down by Josephus and Philo, is unfounded.

HISTORY and Coins.	Philo (died about 50 c.e.) Flaccus	JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.) Antiquities: (about 94 c.e.)	The composite gospel Jesus figure based upon the historical figures of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus; and Philip the Tetrarch.
King Antigonus: Mattathias: High Priest of the Jews: Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek...(40-37 b.c.)	...	Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.)	John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear the High Priest's servant.
...	...	Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared all enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16	gJohn indicates a three year ministy for JC
Cassius Dio: Antigonus. These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him. Roman History, Book xlix, c.22		Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. ..Antigonus, without regard to either his past or present circumstances, came down from the citadel, and fell down at the feet of Sosius, who took no pity of him, in the change of his fortune, but insulted him beyond measure, and called him Antigone [i.e. a woman, and not a man;] yet did he not treat him as if he were a woman, by letting him go at liberty, but put him into bonds, and kept him in close custody.......	The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilinqual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
...	...	...and then .but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...)	Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3
...	...	Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1	Acts: 11:16. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Philip the Tetrarch: Herodian Coins. (died, re Josephus in the 20th year of Tiberius)	...	When Philip also had built Paneas, a city at the fountains of Jordan, he named it Cesarea. He also advanced the village Bethsaids, situate at the lake of Gennesareth, unto the dignity of a city, both by the number of inhabitants it contained, and its other grandeur, and called it by the name of Julias, Antiquities: Book 18 ch.2	John 1:43-45. Philip, Andrew and Peter come from Bethsaida. Around the villages of Casearea Phillipi JC asked the disciples who do people say he is. Peter says: "You are the Messiah". Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16: 13-16.
...	...	(about 34 c.e.)About this time it was that Philip, Herod's ' brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty- seven years. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him; he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp. His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy. Antiquities: Book 18 ch.4	disciples/apostles: John 6:70; Mark 3:14; Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13. A rich man from Arimathea, Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. Matthew 27:57-59. Mark 15:43. Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. JC crucified during rule of Pilate - which ends in 36 c.e.
Agrippa I (d.44/45 c.e.) Herodian Coins.	The mocking of Carabbas:... a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick ..., he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, .....Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians;....when Flaccus heard, or rather when he saw this, he would have done right if he had apprehended the maniac and put him in prison, that he might not give to those who reviled him any opportunity or excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chastised those who dressed him up for having dared both openly and disguisedly, both with words and actions, to insult a king.	...	The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. ..... The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him............Pilate released Barabbas.

While the chart has set down the historical backdrop in which to view the gospel JC figure, the chart is not the whole JC story. That story goes on to include OT midrash and mythological elements. However, without the historical backdrop, the gospel JC story would have had no legs upon which to run; no legs to allow it to be viewed as a plausible historical account. Crucified itinerate carpenters might well present historical possibilities and assumptions. However, belief in historical possibilities is something down the line, not something immediate. The immediate reality does not allow for possibilities - it allows only for what reality is. And that is historical reality not assumptions or possibilities.

The gospel JC story is not history; it is a mythologizing of history; an interpretation of history; salvation history. History viewed through a Jewish philosophical and a prophetic lens.

===========================
footnote:
Dating manuscripts does not have relevance for the gospel storyline. How could it? What would happen if a new ancient manuscript turns up - a manuscript of gMark, for instance. What would then happen to the theory of first a celestial being - then an earthly being? Would the JC historicists then have the trump card in the HJ/MJ debate? Surely not.

[neilgodfrey]

Likewise, an ahistoric/mythicist theory that would proposes that the gospel story is wholly some sort of spiritual/intellectual exercise is inherently flawed. Such a myth would not have the inherent ability to sustain itself. All in the mind, pure imagination, does not produce a meaningful story, a myth, with any significance for living on terra-firma. An empty belly cannot be filled with imagination.

Unfortunately this is where you lose me, Mary. William Tell, a totally ahistorical figure, was a meaningful story that was sustained for centuries among the Swiss. Ned Ludd was a powerful and deeply meaningful figure despite being a myth. Ditt for Juan Diego. God and gods do not need to have any historical reality to be meaningful for millions of people. There are many totally mythical stories about various deities and supernatural figures throughout the world that carry deep meaning for many people. False memories can be implanted or acquired by persons and, though totally out of touch with any reality in the past, destroy people's lives.

The imagination is what makes us what we are, it is the substance of our identity and our purposes in life. People will willingly die to live out their dreams and beliefs however fantastical.

[maryhelena]

Likewise, an ahistoric/mythicist theory that would proposes that the gospel story is wholly some sort of spiritual/intellectual exercise is inherently flawed. Such a myth would not have the inherent ability to sustain itself. All in the mind, pure imagination, does not produce a meaningful story, a myth, with any significance for living on terra-firma. An empty belly cannot be filled with imagination.

Unfortunately this is where you lose me, Mary. William Tell, a totally ahistorical figure, was a meaningful story that was sustained for centuries among the Swiss. Ned Ludd was a powerful and deeply meaningful figure despite being a myth. Ditt for Juan Diego. God and gods do not need to have any historical reality to be meaningful for millions of people. There are many totally mythical stories about various deities and supernatural figures throughout the world that carry deep meaning for many people. False memories can be implanted or acquired by persons and, though totally out of touch with any reality in the past, destroy people's lives.

The imagination is what makes us what we are, it is the substance of our identity and our purposes in life. People will willingly die to live out their dreams and beliefs however fantastical.

Neil, please don't think that I'm seeking to downplay the role of imagination in living a life that is more than simple existence. And yes, people are willing to die for their dreams. But that does not grant any sort of validity to their dreams. It is not dreams of pure imagination that have anything to offer in actually living in the here and now, living on terra-firma.

All men dream, but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds, wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act on their dreams with open eyes, to make them possible.

T. E. Lawrence

It is dreams that fill the belly, dreams of the day, dreams that serve the life we live in our historical context, that have the wherewithal to sustain our physical existence. Yes, of course, intellectual philosophizing has it's place - it's the cherry on the cake, if you like - but the belly must first be full before it's luxuries can be enjoyed.

Neil, we don't just live in our heads. We also live in the world of physical reality. Dreams of pure imagination, dreams without any relevance to reality, however meaningful, and believed in, they might be to some people, are dreams of vanity. And, surely, if it's a search for early christian origins that we seek - then chasing the imaginary dreams of 'Paul' is as likely to ever reach that goal as is chasing the wind...

As to my quote above: the context is the ahistoric/mythicist theory "...an ahistoric/mythicist theory that would proposes that the gospel story is wholly some sort of spiritual/intellectual exercise is inherently flawed. Such a myth would not have the inherent ability to sustain itself". I stand by that view - I don't think the gospel mythological story would have been able to sustain itself if it was nothing more than pure imagination. Without a historical root, without some relevance to historical realities, that mythological story would not have had the legs to run. One imaginative story, one cosmic vision, is no better than the next one. That the gospel story won the mythological lottery suggests that its feet were firmly placed on terra-firma.

Anyway, Neil, my chart stands on it's own. The writers of the gospel story have used Hasmonean/Jewish history in the creation of their mythological, euhemerized, gospel story.

[neilgodfrey]

Neil, please don't think that I'm seeking to downplay the role of imagination in living a life that is more than simple existence. And yes, people are willing to die for their dreams. But that does not grant any sort of validity to their dreams. It is not dreams of pure imagination that have anything to offer in actually living in the here and now, living on terra-firma.

Beliefs don't have to have any real-world reality in them to inspire people to live and die for them and to find fulfilled meaning in them. People here on terra firma find life-sustaining meaning in all sorts of beliefs regardless of the real-world truth of those beliefs. Look at some of the examples I cited. Surely there is plenty of evidence of that.

It is dreams that fill the belly, dreams of the day, dreams that serve the life we live in our historical context, that have the wherewithal to sustain our physical existence. Yes, of course, intellectual philosophizing has it's place - it's the cherry on the cake, if you like - but the belly must first be full before it's luxuries can be enjoyed.

I'm not talking about intellectual philosophizing. People's lives are changed and given meaning and fulfilment by beliefs that very often, we know from many examples, are in themselves false. Their truth makes no difference. People always believe what they believe to be true by definition of belief.

Neil, we don't just live in our heads. We also live in the world of physical reality. Dreams of pure imagination, dreams without any relevance to reality, however meaningful, and believed in, they might be to some people, are dreams of vanity. And, surely, if it's a search for early christian origins that we seek - then chasing the imaginary dreams of 'Paul' is as likely to ever reach that goal as is chasing the wind...

But the examples I gave say exactly that. Beliefs are not just "head things". They infuse our whole being with meaning. Beliefs by definition make life meaningful for people and are reality and guide people in their worlds. Religious beliefs are not intellectual only -- they infuse one's whole being, identity, outlook, purposes. We have many cases where that is so though the beliefs are in themselves false. As I said, lives are ruined or made on the basis of false beliefs, look at the beliefs in non-Christian cultures for starters.

[maryhelena]

Neil, please don't think that I'm seeking to downplay the role of imagination in living a life that is more than simple existence. And yes, people are willing to die for their dreams. But that does not grant any sort of validity to their dreams. It is not dreams of pure imagination that have anything to offer in actually living in the here and now, living on terra-firma.

Beliefs don't have to have any real-world reality in them to inspire people to live and die for them and to find fulfilled meaning in them. People here on terra firma find life-sustaining meaning in all sorts of beliefs regardless of the real-world truth of those beliefs. Look at some of the examples I cited. Surely there is plenty of evidence of that.

I'm not denying that people find meaning, inspiration, in beliefs that "don't have any real-world reality in them".

It is dreams that fill the belly, dreams of the day, dreams that serve the life we live in our historical context, that have the wherewithal to sustain our physical existence. Yes, of course, intellectual philosophizing has it's place - it's the cherry on the cake, if you like - but the belly must first be full before it's luxuries can be enjoyed.

I'm not talking about intellectual philosophizing. People's lives are changed and given meaning and fulfilment by beliefs that very often, we know from many examples, are in themselves false. Their truth makes no difference. People always believe what they believe to be true by definition of belief.

I'm not denying that....

Neil, we don't just live in our heads. We also live in the world of physical reality. Dreams of pure imagination, dreams without any relevance to reality, however meaningful, and believed in, they might be to some people, are dreams of vanity. And, surely, if it's a search for early christian origins that we seek - then chasing the imaginary dreams of 'Paul' is as likely to ever reach that goal as is chasing the wind...

But the examples I gave say exactly that. Beliefs are not just "head things". They infuse our whole being with meaning. Beliefs by definition make life meaningful for people and are reality and guide people in their worlds. Religious beliefs are not intellectual only -- they infuse one's whole being, identity, outlook, purposes. We have many cases where that is so though the beliefs are in themselves false. As I said, lives are ruined or made on the basis of false beliefs, look at the beliefs in non-Christian cultures for starters.

I'm not denying that...

My point relates to the gospel story; a mythological story. A story that is believed by many many people to have a historical component. i.e. they believe that there is some history that is relevant to that mythological story. Now then, the ahistoricists/mythicist can turn around and say it's all just myth; it's all just a literary creation. And as such, can have as much meaning or significance as any believer cares to ascribe to that mythological story. i.e. it's not necessary for there to be any history involved in that mythology. Fine, all well and good - as long as one does not expect such an approach to the gospel mythology to, in any manner, lead the way in a search for early christian origins. That search requires that history be put on the table. Consequently, it is necessary to use an euhemerism type approach to the mythological gospel story. It is necessary to try and identify if there is any historical reflection, any historical grounding, to that gospel story. If this exercise fails - then by all means pursue the theory that the gospel story is all imagination. The aim of the OP, the aim of the chart, is to demonstrate that an euhemerism approach to the gospel mythological story does not fail in identifying the historical component to that story. Just as much as a literary approach to that gospel story can identify OT midrash etc - so, likewise, an euhemerism approach can identify a historical component to that gospel story.

The chart, Neil, is what this thread is about. Whether people find meaning in purely imaginative myths is not the issue here. The chart and what it outlines re Hasmonean/Jewish history - and that history's reflection in the gospel story - is what is important.

[arnoldo]

JSTOR has the following article available in full for free;

Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27)

A central question from the article is quoted below.

Could it be that this Herodian palace complex, last renovated and used by Archelaus but still standing in Jesus's day, triggered the Archelaus motif we find in the Parable of the Pounds?

[maryhelena]

JSTOR has the following article available in full for free;

Jesus as Archelaus in the Parable of the Pounds (Lk. 19:11-27)

A central question from the article is quoted below.

Could it be that this Herodian palace complex, last renovated and used by Archelaus but still standing in Jesus's day, triggered the Archelaus motif we find in the Parable of the Pounds?

Thanks, arnoldo, for that link. Unfortunately, I've already got three articles on my 'shelf' at the moment so can't read this one right now (limit being 3 articles on shelf)

I'd be interested to know how/why the author, links the Lukan parable to Archelaus...

If there are illusions to Jewish history in that parable - putting aside it's philosophical aspects (the more given to one the more expected from one) - it seems to me the appropriate king would not be Archelaus but his father, Herod the Great.

(I notice that the Wikipedia article on Archelaus makes reference to the Lukan parable. Understandable, I suppose, when considered within the consensus views on the gospel story and its dating. However, even if the sins of the father were viewed as being imposed upon the son.......it's the father that shoulders the major burden of guilt. That the Lukan writer uses a story about a king killing his enemies within, supposedly, the time of Archelaus, indicates a replay of the earlier historical tape of 37 b.c. Replaying details of earlier historical events within a story set within a new,later, historical time frame, is no different than back-dating details of historical events to a story set within an earlier time frame. The result being a nice 'historical' pudding...... )

Herod the Great went to Rome and received the kingship of Judea.
At the siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c. there was a major slaughter of it's population; including children, women and the aged.
Herod had Antigonus, the last King and High Priest of the Jews, executed and also executed many of his followers.

From Slavonic Josephus:

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison
H. Leeming (Editor), K. Leeming (Editor)

Immediately the priests started to grieve
and complain to one another, saying among
themselves in secret (things)they would
not dare to say in public because of Herod’s
friends.
For they were saying: ‘The Law forbids us
to have a foreigner (as) king, but we are
expecting the Anointed, the Meek One, of
David’s line. Yet we know that Herod is an
Arab, uncircumcised. The Anointed One
will be called meek but this (king) has
filled our whole land with blood. Under
the Anointed the lame were to walk,
the blind to see, the poor to prosper,
but under this (king) the hale have become
lame, those who could see have gone blind,
the rich are beggared.
But is this (king)the hope of nations?
We detest his misdeeds, are the nations
going to hope in him?”

Two of the articles on my 'shelf' are by Kenneth Atkinson. These articles deal with his interpretation of Psalm of Solomon 17. He interprets this Psalm to be referencing the 37 b.c. period.....the time when Herod the Great had Antigonus executed.

The JSTOR site does not seem to be working well right now.....can't get the url for these two articles...

Novum Testamentum, Vol. 38, Fasc. 4 (Oct., 1996)
contains: Herod the Great, Sosius, and the Siege of Jerusalem (37 B.C.E.) in Psalm of Solomon 17
Kenneth Atkinson

Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 118, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999)
contains: On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17
Kenneth Atkinson

[maryhelena]

It is interesting to consider, in attempting to understand the historical context that the gospel writers referenced in their JC story,
this quote from Daniel Schwartz.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9trW ... &q&f=false

Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History?

From the Introduction by Daniel R Schwartz.

“The overarching issue addressed by the papers in this volume, whether 70 CE should be considered a watershed in Jewish history, has been the object of discussion for more than a century and a half, but the results are still far from unambiguous……..

But if one of the two roots of Graetz’s original error was to under-estimate the significance of politics for Jews in our period, other defenders of the assumption that 70 c.e. was a watershed have erred by overstating that same element. I refer to those many who write as if 70 meant the demise of a Jewish state – which is simply not true. The end of the Jewish state had come already in 63 BCE, when Pompey conquered Hasmonean Judea; or at least in 6 CE, when Rome put an end to even the Herodian vassal state and incorporated Judea directly into the empire. …….many decades before 70 there had been no Jewish state. In this light, we can understand why the central modern account of Jewish history of our period that is written from a political point of view in fact defines the period without any particular regard for 70……

But if the criterion historians normally use for defining periods – who is ruling the people or country in question? – does not point to 70 as a watershed, what, if anything, does? It is not easy to say.”

Interestingly, from 63 b.c. until the 6 c.e. is approximately 70 years. One date of which, 6 c.e., the Lukan writer makes much of by dating his nativity story to that year. A year of considerable interest to any Hasmonean as it saw the end of Herodian rule in Judea. (Agrippa 1, who the Josephan writer mentions as ruling Judea in the early 40s was, re Josephus, of Hasmonean Herodian decent.)

[maryhelena]

Kenneth Atkinson: On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17.

Although Ps.Sol.17 has traditionally been interpreted in light of the tumultuous events surrounding Pompey’s siege of Jerusalem in 63 BCE, its descriptions do not sufficiently describe this assault. Grammatically, the psalmist uses a series of verbs in the future tense to recount a foreign assailant’s anticipated punishment of the Hasmonean dynasty for this author writes:

(7) But you, O God, will overthrow them and will remove their offspring from the earth, when there arise up against them a man that is foreign to our race.
(8) According to their sins you will replay them, O God, so that it may behfall them according to their works.
(9) God will not have mercy on them.
.....
This historical scenario cannot refer to Pompey, who, although he exiled Aristobulus, reinstated the Hasmonean Hyrcanus II as high priest.....There, this “man that is foreign to our race” must be identified with another individual who besieged Jerusalem and systematically persecuted the Hasmonean royal family.
The events depicted within Ps.Sol.17 more closely match the historical accounts of Herod the Great, who with Roman assistance waged a successful campaign to seize Jerusalem’s throne in 37 BCE.
........
Following his successful siege of Jerusalem, Herod actively sought to eliminate the Hasmonean dynasty. Josephus records Herod’s Idumean ancestry became an effective propaganda tool for those Hasmonean supporters who attempted to undermine his reign. Fearful of renewed Hasmonean opposition, Herod began a campaign to systematically exterminate the remaining members of the Hasmonean family. Between 37 and 30 BCE Herod completed this task by murdering Antigonus II, Aristobulus III, and Hyrcanus II.
.........
If this proposed Herodian is correct, it is conceivable that the horrific events surrounding Herod’s seizure of the throne provides the model for the psalmist’s depiction of the Davidic messiah. Horrified by Herod’s excessive use of violence, the author of Ps.Sol.17 uses scripture to fashion a militant Davidic messiah..........

While the communities that composed Ps.Sol.17, the Qumran texts, and Revelation are commonly regarded as pacifistic, their common image of a warrior messiah suggests that they looked forward with apparent eagerness to great bloodshed and annihilation of their enemies. Perhaps with this image in mind we can better understand the apparent frustration of those followers of Jesus who, having witnesses Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem as king, along with his rampage in the temple and prediction of its very destruction, were disappointed when Jesus became the slain messiah, rather than the slaying messiah.

Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 118, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999) contains: On the Herodian Origin of Militant Davidic Messianism at Qumran: New Light from Psalm of Solomon 17

my bolding

Slavonic Josephus on Herod the Great’s siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison H. Leeming (Editor), K. Leeming (Editor)

For they were saying: ‘The Law forbids us
to have a foreigner (as) king, but we are
expecting the Anointed, the Meek One, of
David’s line. Yet we know that Herod is an
Arab, uncircumcised. The Anointed One
will be called meek but this (king) has
filled our whole land with blood. Under
the Anointed the lame were to walk,
the blind to see, the poor to prosper,
but under this (king) the hale have become
lame, those who could see have gone blind,
the rich are beggared.

my bolding

Slavonic Josephus on the wonder-worker

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm

11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. 12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands. They bade him enter the city,
kill – the Roman troops – and Pilate and reign over

16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us. 17. But that one scorned it.

Luke 24:21
New International Version (NIV)

21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel.

Kenneth Atkinson’ re-dating of Ps.Sol.17 to the events of 37 b.c. looks to have support in Slavonic Josephus. (an account of the events of 37 b.c. that indicates a prophetic interest in this time period.) The question thus presents itself:

Has the writer of Slavonic Josephus used the historical events of 37 b.c. in creating his wonder-worker story? i.e. although the wonder-doer, in this account, is killed in the time of Pilate - is the Slavonic Josephus writer simply retelling the events of 37 b.c. within a story set within a new time slot - and simultaneously, downplaying a military type Davidic messiah for a peaceful messiah type. This writer has already, in his account of 37 b.c. taken up the position of a peaceful future messiah figure. The wonder-worker story giving 'life' to an already upheld position regarding a peaceful messiah.

After the events of 37 b.c., re Atkinson, the hope for a military type messiah figure arose. A hope for a military type messiah figure that would in time give way to the messiah of peace scenario in the gospel story. (echoes of the military messiah figure surviving this development alongside the peaceful messiah that took center stage in the gospel story - the impossibility of military action against Rome ever being successful gives way to a spiritual type victory...)

Atkinson suggests an anti-Hasmonean leaning within Ps. Sol.17. (God is punishing the Hasmoneans) However, the events of 37 b.c. from a Hasmonean perspective, would more likely see the events of 37 b.c. as being about their own ‘slain messiah’ and their future resting upon a man of peace not a man of war. A militant Davidic messiah might well have inspired some Jews in their fight against Rome. For the Hasmoneans - their future hopes lay elsewhere. (Herod having burned the bridges, as it were, for any political/dynastic future). Slavonic Josephus sets down the way forward from 37 b.c. - only a man of peace could 'save' the Hasmoneans - and by extension the Jewish - theological heritage.