Your initial point was clear. You were making unsupported claims which you further failed to support. Thanks for your efforts.Charles Wilson wrote:Spin stated:
"The little content in your response to me was a repetition of what you'd already said..."
It's a shame you missed the point.
Well, at least you are consistent. You continue to produce assertions with nothing to justify them. Why does this general topic so attract such production of assertions? Vanity of vanities. It seems to be the old "I assert, therefore, I am!" It is just so tiring.Charles Wilson wrote:Looks as if what Whitehead described was correct as Posted.
The Logical Positivists had their Verification Principle: "The meaning of a proposition is to be found in the form of its verification".
Only, there is no proposition, there is not form.
"Red-Here-Now". "Insects-on-Flowers". Positivism on Parade.
Spin, your criticism follows the Form of the Kantian who tells us of his lively Internal Life but, by encapsulating Empiricism, denies that Life to others:
"Thus, for Kant, the process whereby there is experience is a process from subjectivity to apparent objectivity".
- A N Whitehead, P&R, p.156.
Time to move on, Spin, there's nothing to see here. I am certain that you have not considered what I asserted and you are just as certain that what I have asserted may just as easily be dismissed.
Nothing more can be accomplished by the never-ending "Is to, Is to, Is to", "Is not, Is not, Is not". I'm done with it.
Nice Assertions there, Spin, ol' Pal. Lotsa' back-up facts here, it's plain to see! Very nice Interpretations. I'm sure that we can sleep better knowing that your Categories of the Understanding are filtering out all of those retrograde judgments made by the Little People, the Inauthentic, the Halt and the Lame.spin wrote: (And don't be silly relying on any blather Eisenman says about the scrolls, James or the righteous teacher. Note as well, Wise did the philological work only. The introductory nonsense is all Eisenman.)
--------------------------I give my ideas and arguments on this in my 2013 piece in Stacey and Doudna. I make the argument for Antigonus Mattathias as WP and a rival exiled high priest being TR, with texts at Qumran reflecting criticism of Antigonus Mattathias from the standpoint of partisans of the exiled high priest.
#6 - Greg Doudna - 05/01/2014 - 21:29
Josephus, Antiquities 14:490, 95 CEΣόσσιος δὲ χρυσοῦν ἀναθεὶς τῷ θεῷ στέφανον
Hereupon Sossius dedicated a crown of gold to God,
ἀνέζευξεν ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων ἄγων δεσμώτην Ἀντίγονον Ἀντωνίῳ
and then went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony;
τοῦτον μὲν οὖν φιλοψυχήσαντα μέχρις ἐσχάτου
who, on one hand, had a desire of life even to the end,
διὰ ψυχρᾶς ἐλπίδος
by means of cold hope [though],
ἄξιος τῆς ἀγεννείας
[but on the other hand] his cowardly behaviour deserved
πέλεκυς ἐκδέχεται
(the) axe blade he was expecting.
Josephus, Antiquities 15:8, 95 CEταῦτα φοβούμενος
[prompted by] this great fear [that circumstances might turn against him],
πολλοῖς χρήμασι
[Herod, with] a great deal of money,
πείθει τὸν Ἀντώνιον
convinces Antony
ἀνελεῖν Ἀντίγονον ...
to put to death [the means is not specified] Antigonus ...
Ἀντώνιος δὲ λαβὼν αἰχμάλωτον τὸν Ἀντίγονον δέσμιον
Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive,
ἔγνω μέχρι θριάμβου φυλάττειν
he determined to keep him for his triumph;
ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἤκουσεν νεωτερίζειν τὸ ἔθνος
but when he heard that the nation grew seditious,
κἀκ τοῦ πρὸς Ἡρώδην μίσους
and that out of their hatred towards Herod,
εὔνουν Ἀντιγόνῳ διαμένον
they continued to bear goodwill to Antigonus,
ἔγνω τοῦτον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ πελεκίσαι
he resolved to behead him (with an axe) at Antioch,
σχεδὸν γὰρ οὐδαμῶς ἠρεμεῖν ἠδύναντο οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι
for otherwise he barely had the power to quiet the Judeans
Plutarch, Antony 36.2, ca. 46 – 120 CE9 μαρτυρεῖ δέ μου τῷ λόγῳ Στράβων ὁ Καππάδοξ λέγων οὕτως
9 And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks:--
Ἀντώνιος δὲ Ἀντίγονον τὸν Ἰουδαῖον ἀχθέντα εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν πελεκίζει
"Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch to be beheaded (by an axe);
καὶ ἔδοξε μὲν οὗτος πρῶτος Ῥωμαίων βασιλέα πελεκίσαι
and this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded (by an axe) a king,
οὐκ οἰηθεὶς ἕτερον τρόπον μεταθεῖναι ἂν τὰς γνώμας τῶν Ἰουδαίων
as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews
ὥστε δέξασθαι τὸν ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου καθεσταμένον Ἡρώδην
so as to receive him whom he had made king in his stead, Herod;
οὐδὲ γὰρ βασανιζόμενοι βασιλέα ἀναγορεύειν αὐτὸν ὑπέμειναν
for by no torments could they he forced to call him king,
10 οὕτως μέγα τι ἐφρόνουν περὶ τοῦ πρώτου βασιλέως
10 so great a fondness they had for their former king;
τὴν οὖν ἀτιμίαν ἐνόμισε μειώσειν ---
that a dishonourable death would diminish [this fondness] ---
τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν μνήμης μειώσειν δὲ καὶ τὸ πρὸς Ἡρώδην μῖσος
and as a lesson would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod."
ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Στράβων.
Thus far Strabo.
Cassius Dio, Roman History, 155 – 235 CE, book 49, chapter 22.6:... πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἀφῃρεῖτο βασιλείας,
... and [Antony] deprived many monarchs of their kingdoms,
ὡς Ἀντίγονον τὸν Ἰουδαῖον,
as, for instance, Antigonus the Judean,
ὃν καὶ προαγαγὼν ἐπελέκισεν,
whom he brought forth and cut off [his head] with an axe
οὐδενὸς πρότερον ἑτέρου βασίλεως οὕτω κολασθέντος.
though previously no other king had been so punished.
Just a note: I find it hard to believe that the Romans had never before executed a foreign king, say after a triumph. Really? Now I wonder whether it was beheading by an axe that was the novelty. It is exceptionally hard to find a good description of how the foreign rulers, generals and other notorious prisoners were killed in the temple of Jupiter at the capital. I think it may have been a form of ritual strangulation or good old throat cutting.ἐκείνους μὲν οὖν Ἡρώδῃ τινὶ ὁ Ἀντώνιος ἄρχειν ἐπέτρεψε,
These [Judean] people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern;
τὸν δ᾽ Ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας,
but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged (literally, he whipped while bound to an upright stake)
ὃ μηδεὶς βασιλεὺς ἄλλος ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπεπόνθει,
—a [punishment] no other king had suffered (literally, been subjected to) at the hands of the Romans,—
καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀπέσφαξεν.
and afterwards also slew him (literally, cut his throat).
Thank you David, for putting all these translations in one place.DCHindley wrote:Alright, I've had enough of all the wild and half formed speculations about what the ancient sources actually really said about the death of Antigonus II Matthias. Here they are, Greek and English. Since the standard English translations frequently take significant liberties with the Greek, I have given my own poor and probably occasionally wrong crib translations. The only saving grace is that it follows the Greek clauses as close as I dared and still be intelligible.
Josephus, Jewish War 1:357, 75 CEJosephus, Antiquities 14:490, 95 CEΣόσσιος δὲ χρυσοῦν ἀναθεὶς τῷ θεῷ στέφανον
Hereupon Sossius dedicated a crown of gold to God,
ἀνέζευξεν ἀπὸ Ἱεροσολύμων ἄγων δεσμώτην Ἀντίγονον Ἀντωνίῳ
and then went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony;
τοῦτον μὲν οὖν φιλοψυχήσαντα μέχρις ἐσχάτου
who, on one hand, had a desire of life even to the end,
διὰ ψυχρᾶς ἐλπίδος
by means of cold hope [though],
ἄξιος τῆς ἀγεννείας
[but on the other hand] his cowardly behaviour deserved
πέλεκυς ἐκδέχεται
(the) axe blade he was expecting.Josephus, Antiquities 15:8, 95 CEταῦτα φοβούμενος
[prompted by] this great fear [that circumstances might turn against him],
πολλοῖς χρήμασι
[Herod, with] a great deal of money,
πείθει τὸν Ἀντώνιον
convinces Antony
ἀνελεῖν Ἀντίγονον ...
to put to death [the means is not specified] Antigonus ...Ἀντώνιος δὲ λαβὼν αἰχμάλωτον τὸν Ἀντίγονον δέσμιον
Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive,
ἔγνω μέχρι θριάμβου φυλάττειν
he determined to keep him for his triumph;
ἐπεὶ δ᾽ ἤκουσεν νεωτερίζειν τὸ ἔθνος
but when he heard that the nation grew seditious,
κἀκ τοῦ πρὸς Ἡρώδην μίσους
and that out of their hatred towards Herod,
εὔνουν Ἀντιγόνῳ διαμένον
they continued to bear goodwill to Antigonus,
ἔγνω τοῦτον ἐν Ἀντιοχείᾳ πελεκίσαι
he resolved to behead him (with an axe) at Antioch,
σχεδὸν γὰρ οὐδαμῶς ἠρεμεῖν ἠδύναντο οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι
for otherwise he barely had the power to quiet the Judeans
Strabo, 64/63 BCE – ca. 24 CE, from his lost 43 volume History written before his Geography, as quoted by Josephus, Antiquities 15:9-10Plutarch, Antony 36.2, ca. 46 – 120 CE9 μαρτυρεῖ δέ μου τῷ λόγῳ Στράβων ὁ Καππάδοξ λέγων οὕτως
9 And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks:--
Ἀντώνιος δὲ Ἀντίγονον τὸν Ἰουδαῖον ἀχθέντα εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν πελεκίζει
"Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch to be beheaded (by an axe);
καὶ ἔδοξε μὲν οὗτος πρῶτος Ῥωμαίων βασιλέα πελεκίσαι
and this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded (by an axe) a king,
οὐκ οἰηθεὶς ἕτερον τρόπον μεταθεῖναι ἂν τὰς γνώμας τῶν Ἰουδαίων
as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews
ὥστε δέξασθαι τὸν ἀντ᾽ ἐκείνου καθεσταμένον Ἡρώδην
so as to receive him whom he had made king in his stead, Herod;
οὐδὲ γὰρ βασανιζόμενοι βασιλέα ἀναγορεύειν αὐτὸν ὑπέμειναν
for by no torments could they he forced to call him king,
10 οὕτως μέγα τι ἐφρόνουν περὶ τοῦ πρώτου βασιλέως
10 so great a fondness they had for their former king;
τὴν οὖν ἀτιμίαν ἐνόμισε μειώσειν ---
that a dishonourable death would diminish [this fondness] ---
τῆς πρὸς αὐτὸν μνήμης μειώσειν δὲ καὶ τὸ πρὸς Ἡρώδην μῖσος
and as a lesson would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod."
ταῦτα μὲν ὁ Στράβων.
Thus far Strabo.Cassius Dio, Roman History, 155 – 235 CE, book 49, chapter 22.6:... πολλοὺς δ᾽ ἀφῃρεῖτο βασιλείας,
... and [Antony] deprived many monarchs of their kingdoms,
ὡς Ἀντίγονον τὸν Ἰουδαῖον,
as, for instance, Antigonus the Judean,
ὃν καὶ προαγαγὼν ἐπελέκισεν,
whom he brought forth and cut off [his head] with an axe
οὐδενὸς πρότερον ἑτέρου βασίλεως οὕτω κολασθέντος.
though previously no other king had been so punished.ἐκείνους μὲν οὖν Ἡρώδῃ τινὶ ὁ Ἀντώνιος ἄρχειν ἐπέτρεψε,
These [Judean] people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern;
τὸν δ᾽ Ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας,
but Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged (literally, he whipped while bound to an upright stake)
ὃ μηδεὶς βασιλεὺς ἄλλος ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπεπόνθει,
—a [punishment] no other king had suffered (literally, been subjected to) at the hands of the Romans,—
καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀπέσφαξεν.
and afterwards also slew him (literally, cut his throat).
To sum up all of those quote re the execution of Antigonus by Marc Antony: There is nothing in those quotes that rules out, denies, rejects, the possibility that Antigonus was hung up, suspended, prior to being beheaded. Nothing.
Just a note: I find it hard to believe that the Romans had never before executed a foreign king, say after a triumph. Really? Now I wonder whether it was beheading by an axe that was the novelty. It is exceptionally hard to find a good description of how the foreign rulers, generals and other notorious prisoners were killed in the temple of Jupiter at the capital. I think it may have been a form of ritual strangulation or good old throat cutting.
Roman's with the authority to render punishments had men who carried about axes and rods to symbolize their authority to do so. I understand that originally Roman citizens could be subject to capital punishment were executed by axe, but later they were merely banished, and in extreme cases, beheaded by a sword. Execution by axe continued, perhaps limited to slaves and non-citizens who had not committed acts of rebellion, for which death by crucifixion was the ultimate punishment. The rods continued to be used to punished non-citizens, and there was always a good ol' whipping.
DCH
[my bolding]The major objection raised in secondary literature to this reading
of Pesher Nahum, as alluding to a doomed ruler of Israel hung up
alive, has actually been a non-textual reason: a perception that nothing
corresponds with such an image in known history. Was there ever a
Jewish ruler, a Hasmonean king or high priest, in the era of these texts
who was hung up alive? Actually, there was.
.....
Antigonus Mattathias was captured in Jerusalem and killed by gentiles in a foreign country.
And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is
the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus
Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of
being executed by Mark Antony. In his death at the hands of gentiles
Antigonus Mattathias corresponds with the portrayal of the death of
the Wicked Priest, and Antigonus Mattathias is the only Hasmonean
ruler of the first century bce who does.
And so it seems to me that the wicked ruler of these texts reflects
Antigonus Mattathias, and that the Lion of Wrath alludes to Mark
Antony who hung up alive Antigonus...
Antigonus was kept a prisoner for a few months prior to being executed/beheaded. To rule a out a scourging/whipping on a cross/stake/pole, to rule out a suspension of Antigonus in order to humiliate him, speaks more about the relevance such an historical event would have for an interpretation of the gospel story than it does about any merit such an argument might have. (a gospel story about a 'King of the Jews, was hung alive on a cross/stake/pole.)The chronology of Herod’s conquest of Jerusalem has been studied in detail by numerous scholars.........all these scholars, as others, agree that the conquest was in fact completed in July 37.
<snip>
....for Josephus did not count Herod’s years from the conquest of Jerusalem, although Schurer and numerous others say he did. ..................Josephus in fact counts the thirty-four years from the execution of Mattathias Antigonus. But Antigonus was executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony.........and as shown by the later’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.
Daniel R Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity. Page 176/177.
Never denied this as a possibility. However, the earliest account, Plutarch, writing his Life of Antony around 75 CE, says "and this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded (by an axe) a king." Perhaps that might be better rendered "first man to execute a king with an axe."maryhelena wrote:To sum up all of those quote re the execution of Antigonus by Marc Antony: There is nothing in those quotes that rules out, denies, rejects, the possibility that Antigonus was hung up, suspended, prior to being beheaded. Nothing.DCHindley wrote:Just a note: I find it hard to believe that the Romans had never before executed a foreign king, say after a triumph. Really? Now I wonder whether it was beheading by an axe that was the novelty. It is exceptionally hard to find a good description of how the foreign rulers, generals and other notorious prisoners were killed in the temple of Jupiter at the capital. I think it may have been a form of ritual strangulation or good old throat cutting.
Roman's with the authority to render punishments had men who carried about axes and rods to symbolize their authority to do so. I understand that originally Roman citizens could be subject to capital punishment were executed by axe, but later they were merely banished, and in extreme cases, beheaded by a sword. Execution by axe continued, perhaps limited to slaves and non-citizens who had not committed acts of rebellion, for which death by crucifixion was the ultimate punishment. The rods continued to be used to punished non-citizens, and there was always a good ol' whipping.
Yes, David, I realize that it's possible to take the position that you do. For myself, coming from an ahistoricist position, all little details that might mean nothing but might mean something, are considered. When I made the decision on the question of JC for the negative, that this figure, of whatever variant the historicists create, is ahistorical, I have run with it. That 'run' does take me to Antigonus and the events of 37 b.c. Thus, it's not just what Cassius Dio reports about Antigonus that got me looking at the events surrounding Antigonus. Starting with Dio won't get one far. I think, perhaps, that this is a similar approach to what Greg Doudna has done. He has looked at some DSS material and from that has turned to the late Hasmonean history - and to Antigonus - and Cassius Dio.DCHindley wrote:Never denied this as a possibility. However, the earliest account, Plutarch, writing his Life of Antony around 75 CE, says "and this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded (by an axe) a king." Perhaps that might be better rendered "first man to execute a king with an axe."maryhelena wrote:To sum up all of those quote re the execution of Antigonus by Marc Antony: There is nothing in those quotes that rules out, denies, rejects, the possibility that Antigonus was hung up, suspended, prior to being beheaded. Nothing.DCHindley wrote:Just a note: I find it hard to believe that the Romans had never before executed a foreign king, say after a triumph. Really? Now I wonder whether it was beheading by an axe that was the novelty. It is exceptionally hard to find a good description of how the foreign rulers, generals and other notorious prisoners were killed in the temple of Jupiter at the capital. I think it may have been a form of ritual strangulation or good old throat cutting.
Roman's with the authority to render punishments had men who carried about axes and rods to symbolize their authority to do so. I understand that originally Roman citizens could be subject to capital punishment were executed by axe, but later they were merely banished, and in extreme cases, beheaded by a sword. Execution by axe continued, perhaps limited to slaves and non-citizens who had not committed acts of rebellion, for which death by crucifixion was the ultimate punishment. The rods continued to be used to punished non-citizens, and there was always a good ol' whipping.
Josephus, writing his War about this same time, also says Antigonus, because of his cowering, deserved to expect his end by means of an axe blade. To me this suggests that Antigonus' cowering upon his surrender was enough justification for the means of execution employed by Antony, by axe blade, which might have otherwise been considered unusual for someone of his rank.
Twenty or more years later, around 95 CE, in Antiquities 15, he says that Antony executed Antigonus with an axe as an extreme measure. He cites Strabo, who wrote his lost Histories somewhere around the turn of the Christian era, who noted that the method was meant to be a humiliation of Antigonus' memory, only employed to make Herod's appointment as king a little more palatable to those Judeans who were unhappy with it.
Up to this point, it is the method of execution by axe blade that is what seemed unusual to the commentators.
Finally comes Dio, who wrote in 210-222, although the version we have is actually an epitome (condensed version) by the monk Ioannes Xiphilinus who re-wrote Dio's History in the latter part of the 11th century CE!. HE is the one who applies the same adjectives used by Plutarch ("never before," etc) to refer to execution by axe, but applies it to AN ENTIRELY NEW DETAIL, that he was SCOURGED BEFORE having his THROAT CUT.
Perhaps it's just me, but these details in Dio/Xiphilinus are ALL ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN STRABO, PLUTARCH and JOSEPHUS! These new details are the LEAST historically reliable details, based on the fact that we have a tertiary source in a form that was created 1,200 years after the event being described!
DCH
Hi DavidDCHindley wrote:Never denied this as a possibility. However, the earliest account, Plutarch, writing his Life of Antony around 75 CE, says "and this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded (by an axe) a king." Perhaps that might be better rendered "first man to execute a king with an axe."
Josephus, writing his War about this same time, also says Antigonus, because of his cowering, deserved to expect his end by means of an axe blade. To me this suggests that Antigonus' cowering upon his surrender was enough justification for the means of execution employed by Antony, by axe blade, which might have otherwise been considered unusual for someone of his rank.
Twenty or more years later, around 95 CE, in Antiquities 15, he says that Antony executed Antigonus with an axe as an extreme measure. He cites Strabo, who wrote his lost Histories somewhere around the turn of the Christian era, who noted that the method was meant to be a humiliation of Antigonus' memory, only employed to make Herod's appointment as king a little more palatable to those Judeans who were unhappy with it.
Up to this point, it is the method of execution by axe blade that is what seemed unusual to the commentators.
Finally comes Dio, who wrote in 210-222, although the version we have is actually an epitome (condensed version) by the monk Ioannes Xiphilinus who re-wrote Dio's History in the latter part of the 11th century CE!. HE is the one who applies the same adjectives used by Plutarch ("never before," etc) to refer to execution by axe, but applies it to AN ENTIRELY NEW DETAIL, that he was SCOURGED BEFORE having his THROAT CUT.
Perhaps it's just me, but these details in Dio/Xiphilinus are ALL ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN STRABO, PLUTARCH and JOSEPHUS! These new details are the LEAST historically reliable details, based on the fact that we have a tertiary source in a form that was created 1,200 years after the event being described!
DCH
