Well, not in a Roman sense. Yet if he had entered the Temple as desired, things may have been different, though perhaps only for a short time anyway.
I have so far missed that in the texts of Josephus.Cestius was offered a Bribe.
Well, not in a Roman sense. Yet if he had entered the Temple as desired, things may have been different, though perhaps only for a short time anyway.
I have so far missed that in the texts of Josephus.Cestius was offered a Bribe.
Exactly. Josephus has several places where there are "Holes" where facts should be. Where Alexander Jannaeus is nearly destroyed by Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, you have to construct the story from what Josephus has left out:
Why, if the abomination of desolation is an event which actually happened in Samaria, do Matthew and Mark seem to locate it in Judea?Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:39 pmJosephus has several places where there are "Holes" where facts should be. Where Alexander Jannaeus is nearly destroyed by Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, you have to construct the story from what Josephus has left out:
1. Shechem is near the Temple at Gerizim.
2. Josephus states that the Mercenary Jews left Demetrius Eucerus "out of pity..." after what happened to Jannaeus. I have given up on finding a different way of saying "Absurd!!!" but that is what is True here. "Eisenhower, on delivering a massive defeat to Hitler's troops, was surprised when half of his army went over to the Germans our of pity for the losing troops. He was so scared that he went back to England..." Absurd. Absurd. Absurd.
SO: What would cause Jewish Mercs to leave Eucerus for Jannaeus? If you look at Sequence and events in, say, Mark 13 and certain places in Revelation, you find that the Abomination of Desolation occurs at the "Hole" in the description in Josephus. The implication is obvious. The Jewish Mercs went over to Jannaeus after Eucerus, standing where he ought not, sacrificed a pig (prolly...) on the Altar at Gerizim.
Now: Maybe that isn't what actually happened at Shechem. It makes sense, however. Demetrius Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation (Let the reader note). Josephus' story is hidden at this point.
So it is with Cestius. He may not have been offered a Bribe or, if he solicited one, it was Chump-Change - "This is what you are offering me? I'm outa' here..."
[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have...
"...it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day."
The Actors in this play are being given their lines. If one line in one story implies another line in the other then it's very plausible that Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation and Cestius wasn't happy with the Bribe offered by the "Chief Priests and Elders". Pride goeth before the Fall. The fact that Josephus offers "God Language" here is a small support but a support nonetheless that despite the mutual hatred between the 2 Parties, a Bribe was offered.
It doesn't have to have been so but it makes sense that it did. You didn't read about it in Josephus. The dog didn't bark. The dog barks in Matthew and Acts. That's the point.
andCharles Wilson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 4:26 pm
What is left out, the Clue that would cement a very solid case against Cestius?
Matthew 26: 14 - 16, 27: 3 - 5 (RSV):
[14] Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priests
[15] and said, "What will you give me if I deliver him to you?" And they paid him thirty pieces of silver.
[16] And from that moment he sought an opportunity to betray him.
...
[3] When Judas, his betrayer, saw that he was condemned, he repented and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders,
[4] saying, "I have sinned in betraying innocent blood." They said, "What is that to us? See to it yourself."
[5] And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.
Cestius was offered a Bribe. If he stays, the War does not take place. Verse 4 is where your Thesis gains traction (to me...) and it is powerful. The "chief priests and elders" are not worried about the death of Romans.
.
Are you saying Josephus failed to capture or narrate what the author/s of Matthew captured or narrated?Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:39 pm
So it is with Cestius. He may not have been offered a Bribe or, if he solicited one, it was Chump-Change - "This is what you are offering me? I'm outa' here..."
[Acts 3]
[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have...
"...it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day."
The Actors in this play are being given their lines. If one line in one story implies another line in the other then it's very plausible that Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation and Cestius wasn't happy with the Bribe offered by the "Chief Priests and Elders". Pride goeth before the Fall. The fact that Josephus offers "God Language" here is a small support but a support nonetheless that despite the mutual hatred between the 2 Parties, a Bribe was offered.
It doesn't have to have been so but it makes sense that it did. You didn't read about it in Josephus. The dog didn't bark. The dog barks in Matthew and Acts. That's the point.
.
"Jesus" has to PREdict what is to come and the Story gets rewritten to make it appear that way (Have we had some of this conversation before?...). It is the advantage of theft over honest toil. The Hasmonean Dynasty, which was a threat to Rome, has to be vanquished and its literature either destroyed or rewritten in such a way as to become benign. 3000+ dead at Passover, 4 BCE, leaves an impression. The Priesthood of God is destroyed (Except for a few, Including Zakkai and others!) at the Triumph of Titus in 70 and the Divine is given over to the Romans. The Revolutionaries are transformed into Tax Paying Acolytes of Rome. Jannaeus is a Champion for Israel ("I was sent only to the Lost Tribes of Israel...") and his Story is among those that are kept and rewritten. Thus, the placement of the Original is incidental (What's important to see is the placement in Josephus - Shechem, not Gerizim). The SynApoc is now in the future, as a Sign to those who need one.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 8:20 pmWhy, if the abomination of desolation is an event which actually happened in Samaria, do Matthew and Mark seem to locate it in Judea?Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 6:39 pmJosephus has several places where there are "Holes" where facts should be. Where Alexander Jannaeus is nearly destroyed by Demetrius Eucerus at Shechem, you have to construct the story from what Josephus has left out:
1. Shechem is near the Temple at Gerizim.
2. Josephus states that the Mercenary Jews left Demetrius Eucerus "out of pity..." after what happened to Jannaeus. I have given up on finding a different way of saying "Absurd!!!" but that is what is True here. "Eisenhower, on delivering a massive defeat to Hitler's troops, was surprised when half of his army went over to the Germans our of pity for the losing troops. He was so scared that he went back to England..." Absurd. Absurd. Absurd.
SO: What would cause Jewish Mercs to leave Eucerus for Jannaeus? If you look at Sequence and events in, say, Mark 13 and certain places in Revelation, you find that the Abomination of Desolation occurs at the "Hole" in the description in Josephus. The implication is obvious. The Jewish Mercs went over to Jannaeus after Eucerus, standing where he ought not, sacrificed a pig (prolly...) on the Altar at Gerizim.
Now: Maybe that isn't what actually happened at Shechem. It makes sense, however. Demetrius Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation (Let the reader note). Josephus' story is hidden at this point.
So it is with Cestius. He may not have been offered a Bribe or, if he solicited one, it was Chump-Change - "This is what you are offering me? I'm outa' here..."
[5] And he fixed his attention upon them, expecting to receive something from them.
[6] But Peter said, "I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have...
"...it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day."
The Actors in this play are being given their lines. If one line in one story implies another line in the other then it's very plausible that Eucerus committed the Abomination of Desolation and Cestius wasn't happy with the Bribe offered by the "Chief Priests and Elders". Pride goeth before the Fall. The fact that Josephus offers "God Language" here is a small support but a support nonetheless that despite the mutual hatred between the 2 Parties, a Bribe was offered.
It doesn't have to have been so but it makes sense that it did. You didn't read about it in Josephus. The dog didn't bark. The dog barks in Matthew and Acts. That's the point.
No. This is about the CONSTRUCTION of the NT. Josephus wrote ("If there was a Josephus, if he wrote...") what appears to be the Only Authorized History of the events of the NT in Judea and Rome, for instance. Only, there are problems. As I have stated there are Holes, elliptical and opaque phrases. Atwill has shown that, to the day, God's Favor went to the Romans on the Day of the Fall of Masada.
ok. Are you saying the Josephean texts and the Gospels were written (or perhaps edited) concurrently? (or both?), or do you give one primacy (over another)?Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:25 pm
... This is about the CONSTRUCTION of the NT. Josephus wrote ("If there was a Josephus, if he wrote...") what appears to be the Only Authorized History of the events of the NT in Judea and Rome, for instance. Only, there are problems. As I have stated there are Holes, elliptical and opaque phrases. Atwill has shown that, to the day, God's Favor went to the Romans on the Day of the Fall of Masada.
. . . .
The Gospels were Constructed and where there is a Gap or Hole, they are places where the Historians wrote their stories - and vice-versa.
. . . .
All I'm doing is following trails. Matthew didn't "forget". Neither did Josephus. The NT was Constructed around these common stories. I still see it that way.
Something like that. My analysis shows that the NT was written no earlier than around 98-ish, more comfortably placed to around 110-ish. The disembodied, unseen Holy Spirit is tied to Domitian, who was given "Damnatio Memoriae" Treatment shortly after his death. Verginius Rufus figures into this and at his funeral, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus are in attendance. They had Means, Motive and Opportunity. See also: "The Empty Tomb" finger print analysis which finds PtY and Tacitus fingerprints all over it.
I have and always will have greatest respect for Joe Atwill. I mean it. Our Theses were developed independently. When Caesar's Messiah was published, everything fell into place for me. Our works are extremely complementary. We sometimes reasoned to contradictory opinions: The Lunatic is possessed by "Legion". Joe Atwill sees this as evidence that Judea is possessed by the Jewish Seditionists who must be rooted out and destroyed. I see "Legion" as meaning exactly what is stated. "Jesus" - a Priest in the Original - is attempting to overthrow Rome and the Herodians. Which is correct? Probably both although that is probably not satisfying to anyone else. So it goes.You follow Atwill's propositions? That Josephus' "works provided the NT with its primary independent historical documentation.." (I have only read the start of Caesar's Messiah.)
While looking at another Thread, verses in Acts were quoted and in examining them, I found the entire Section very interesting. Recall that I believe that "Judas" => "Cestius" and that I also believe that there was a Story that was rewritten, a Story concerning several players in the NT. The Story is about a Priest and a child named "Peter". Do I have to write it out again? I will if you want.Charles Wilson wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:36 amDon't look to the skies, look at what's on the ground. You'll find Galilee and the Mishmarot Priesthood