A smoking gun against the JC historicists?

[Mental flatliner]

Now goodness me - is Herod's coin with the cross symbol the smoking gun? A smoking gun against the theory that the gospel crucified Jesus figure of around 30/33 c.e. was a historical figure?

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

<snip>

How is anything in 37 BC a smoking gun of anything related to the New Testament?

(I don't get the connection...)

Freethinkers, rational, 'superior' posters come to the web to preach their particular folly: antigonus, herod , ceasar, homer, bayes, astrotheology....


But, usually, sceptic preachers are a great deal more pleasant than muslim, catholic, christian, judaic, brahmin, buddhist... preachers.

What's so hard about reading the damn coin and letting it speak for itself?

I'm going out on a limb here: without reading the coin at all, I'm going to predict that it says something about the political climate of 37 BC and doesn't attempt to speak to issues of 30 AD or later.

While I'm out here precariously balancing on this limb, I'll hazard another guess: the people who wrote the gospels had long forgotten all issues of 37 BC as not even in their lifetimes. After all, to claim 37 BC issues impacted their thinking at all, I would have to make a case that they had a public education that included history classes at the same time some are debating whether Jesus' disciples were even literate.

[Andrew]

The gospel writers were obviously literate. I'm sure they would have had some knowledge of the history of at least the century before their birth.

[Mental flatliner]

The gospel writers were obviously literate. I'm sure they would have had some knowledge of the history of at least the century before their birth.

From what source?

According to the Steinsaltz Talmud, Jewish boys were taught Hebrew language only, and history was limited to that given in the Bible.

It wasn't until the second to last High Priest that Jewish rulers instituted any kind of comprehensive education program beyond literacy, and Both Jesus and Matthew had come and gone by that point.

[MrMacSon]

What's so hard about reading the damn coin and letting it speak for itself?

I'm going out on a limb here: without reading the coin at all, I'm going to predict that it says something about the political climate of 37 BC and doesn't attempt to speak to issues of 30 AD or later.

The coin shows a symbol about a pretty well-documented pre-Christian event that was appropriated by by pre-Chritians and early-christians to depict an allegedly Chrsitian event that is remarkably similar in it's process (crucifixion) and its socio-theological-political significance - dispatching of a "King of the Jews".

[Mental flatliner]

What's so hard about reading the damn coin and letting it speak for itself?

I'm going out on a limb here: without reading the coin at all, I'm going to predict that it says something about the political climate of 37 BC and doesn't attempt to speak to issues of 30 AD or later.

The coin shows a symbol about a pretty well-documented pre-Christian event that was appropriated by by pre-Chritians and early-christians to depict an allegedly Chrsitian event that is remarkably similar in it's process (crucifixion) and its socio-theological-political significance - dispatching of a "King of the Jews".

List of claims that are assumptions (and likely wrong):
--The coin shows a symbol about a pretty well-documented pre-Christian event (interpretation has not been verified that I can see)
--that was appropriated by by pre-Chritians (source prior to 27 AD needed)
--and early-christians (source post 27 AD needed)
--to depict an allegedly Chrsitian event (there's nothing alleged about Jesus' crucifixion)

List of claims that might be true:
...that is remarkably similar in it's process (crucifixion) and its socio-theological-political significance - dispatching of a "King of the Jews"

The "socio-theological-political significance" reference covers just about everything except Oprah Winfreh. Some part has to be true.

(Okay, look. You can't just look at a picture on a coin and pretend you know what it means. You're looking at the coin through your 21st century eyes, and you have no access to 1st century BC thinking to correct that problem. You therefore need a source that tells you what the picture is, and the only valid sources would be those involved with the minting of the coin. I suppose you could also reasonably rely on a 1st century BC historian.)

[steve43]

The gospel writers were obviously literate. I'm sure they would have had some knowledge of the history of at least the century before their birth.

From what source?

According to the Steinsaltz Talmud, Jewish boys were taught Hebrew language only, and history was limited to that given in the Bible.

It wasn't until the second to last High Priest that Jewish rulers instituted any kind of comprehensive education program beyond literacy, and Both Jesus and Matthew had come and gone by that point.

I wouldn't rely on the Talmud for anything, frankly. It first showed up in, what, A.D. 400, and who were the writers, and what the heck were they writing about, anyway?

Jewish aristocrats/Second Temple Priests knew Hebrew and the common language of Aramaic in the first century A.D. Most had at least a working knowledge of Latin, and many knew it well- after all, Rome was the big political and economic power in the region. The Jews hated the Greeks for the most part, and so Greek would not have been taught.

Josephus was fluent in Latin as a young man and that figured in his being chosen to go to Rome in A.D. 62-63. He admits later in writing his books that he had to struggle with the writing of Greek, suggesting he had not learned it earlier in life.

[Mental flatliner]

I wouldn't rely on the Talmud for anything, frankly. It first showed up in, what, A.D. 400, and who were the writers, and what the heck were they writing about, anyway?

Jewish aristocrats/Second Temple Priests knew Hebrew and the common language of Aramaic in the first century A.D. Most had at least a working knowledge of Latin, and many knew it well- after all, Rome was the big political and economic power in the region. The Jews hated the Greeks for the most part, and so Greek would not have been taught.

Josephus was fluent in Latin as a young man and that figured in his being chosen to go to Rome in A.D. 62-63. He admits later in writing his books that he had to struggle with the writing of Greek, suggesting he had not learned it earlier in life.

The Mishnah was written in 135 AD, and those are the historical portions of the Talmud.
Parts of the Mishnah have been confirmed to preserve the philology and concepts that only existed in the Maccabbean and pre-Mac periods.

The Talmud certainly does have the authority to tell us how Jewish boys were educated during the temple period (that's not a stretch).

(The language of Judea in the temple period was Hebrew, not Aramaic, and only professionals and Sadducees would have spoken Greek, not often Latin. A lot of Roman citizens didn't even speak Latin.)

[MrMacSon]

What's so hard about reading the damn coin and letting it speak for itself?

I'm going out on a limb here: without reading the coin at all, I'm going to predict that it says something about the political climate of 37 BC and doesn't attempt to speak to issues of 30 AD or later.

The coin shows a symbol about a pretty well-documented pre-Christian event that was appropriated by by pre-Chritians and early-christians to depict an allegedly Chrsitian event that is remarkably similar in it's process (crucifixion) and its socio-theological-political significance - dispatching of a "King of the Jews".

List of claims that are assumptions (and likely wrong):
--The coin shows a symbol about a pretty well-documented pre-Christian event (interpretation has not been verified that I can see)
--that was appropriated by pre-Christians (source prior to 27 AD needed)
--and early-christians (source post 27 AD needed)
--to depict an allegedly Chrsitian event (there's nothing alleged about Jesus' crucifixion)

READ THIS THREAD (from the beginning)!

early-christians (source post 27 AD needed)

See posts of articles by Hurdato in this thread!

Okay, look. You can't just look at a picture on a coin and pretend you know what it means. You're looking at the coin through your 21st century eyes, and you have no access to 1st century BC thinking to correct that problem. You therefore need a source that tells you what the picture is, and the only valid sources would be those involved with the minting of the coin. I suppose you could also reasonably rely on a 1st century BC historian.)

These are not just my views ... read this thread.

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi maryhelena,

I think your idea that the execution of Jesus is referencing somehow the execution of King Antigonus has a lot of merit. His execution at the hand of a Roman official in 37 B.C.E. really seems to explain the whole Jesus-Kingship thing. The Kingship issue seems to be a whole different issue than the Jesus-God issues. It seems grafted on from another completely different story and the story of Antigonus seems to be the only one where the issue of the right of a Jewish King and an execution arises. The logic of the connection is too good to be a coincidence.

At the same time, I agree with DCHindley that the use of Dio Cassio's description of the possible crucifixion is stretching the evidence and not really helping the case. The scourging of Antigonus before his execution does help the case. Fictions always take liberties with historical events, so we should not expect them to match incident for incident. For example there are dozens of retellings of the story of Wyatt Earp in fictional movies from the 1920's- 2014 (Harrison Ford is now shooting a new Earp movie). Just about all contain the famous shootout at the O.K. corral. However, they all portray it quite differently in each movie and the facts of Earp's life before and after the incident are changed and largely fictional in each movie.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

MH is convinced that JC is an entirely mythical figure

MH prefers the term 'composite literary creation'. For example:

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

Fleming based his fictional creation on a number of individuals he came across during his time in the Naval Intelligence Division during World War II, admitting that Bond "was a compound of all the secret agents and commando types I met during the war".[2] Among those types were his brother, Peter, who had been involved in behind-the-lines operations in Norway and Greece during the war.[3] Aside from Fleming's brother, a number of others also provided some aspects of Bond's make up, including Conrad O'Brien-ffrench, Patrick Dalzel-Job and Bill "Biffy" Dunderdale.[2]

The composite literary creation is dressed in finery taken from the OT and mythology.

created in the 2nd century or later,

Methinks, MH has never given a date for the creation of this literary figure - but a good guess - early rather than later would be first option.

based on the historical personage of the Parthian backed Jewish king Antigonus II Matthias,

See above: composite literary figures reflect as many historical figures as deemed to be relevant to that figures creators.

who was defeated by the Roman backed king Herod,

A Roman appointed King and a Parthian backed King - one King a usurper and one King with a hereditary claim to the throne of Judea.

and according to the 3rd century historian Cassius Dio, was scourged on a cross before being executed for daring to oppose Roman hegemony.

Looks like we do have the original text of Cassius Dio - thus, we need other reasons to reject his statements than simply we don't like what he says...

I broadly share your doubts about using Cassius Dio as a reliable historical source, but I think we do have the original text of Cassius Dio here and are not dependent upon Xiphilinus.

IIUC Xiphilinus did an epitome of books 36-80 (i.e. including book 49), however books 34-60 (and some fragments) still survive in the original. So it is only for books 61-80 that we depend almost entirely upon Xiphilinus.

Andrew Criddle

The part about how stories about figures like Antigonus II (and others) floating about the culture crystalized into the flesh and blood JC..is a bit fuzzy.

Same way Ian Fleming created Bond - creative licence.

flesh and blood JC we know and love

Oh, dear. Just which JC is the one being loved? Is it the revolutionary zealot JC, the social reformer JC, the apocalyptic prophet JC, the wisdom sage JC, the something else JC?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

is a bit fuzzy, as it is with pretty much all Jesus Myth advocates.

DCH

Fuzzy? And the historicists search for a JC that they can't even agree on is somehow crystal
clear? Now then, where can that search go except for a ride on the nearest funfair roundabout?

-------------------------
An agnostic interview: Yes, Aslan runs with a historical JC.

Interview with Reza Aslan, Author of 'Zealot'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL6E4eMX-4k

[maryhelena]

Hi maryhelena,

I think your idea that the execution of Jesus is referencing somehow the execution of King Antigonus has a lot of merit. His execution at the hand of a Roman official in 37 B.C.E. really seems to explain the whole Jesus-Kingship thing. The Kingship issue seems to be a whole different issue than the Jesus-God issues. It seems grafted on from another completely different story and the story of Antigonus seems to be the only one where the issue of the right of a Jewish King and an execution arises. The logic of the connection is too good to be a coincidence.

Hi, PhilosopherJay

Yep, the history of Antigonus is very interesting when viewed in connection with the gospel Jesus story. (history via Josephus - so I suppose even there one has to remain open as to what details are relevant). Yes, 'grafted on from another different story' is a great way to put it. My position is of a composite literary JC figure - thus allowing for 'grafting' on of details from the lives of historical figures relevant to the gospel writers.

At the same time, I agree with DCHindley that the use of Dio Cassio's description of the possible crucifixion is stretching the evidence and not really helping the case. The scourging of Antigonus before his execution does help the case. Fictions always take liberties with historical events, so we should not expect them to match incident for incident. For example there are dozens of retellings of the story of Wyatt Earp in fictional movies from the 1920's- 2014 (Harrison Ford is now shooting a new Earp movie). Just about all contain the famous shootout at the O.K. corral. However, they all portray it quite differently in each movie and the facts of Earp's life before and after the incident are changed and largely fictional in each movie.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Not too sure about not taking Cassius Dio seriously.

I do find it interesting that Greg Doudna is working on the idea that the Wicked Priest of the DSS is Antigonus - and that this figure, the Wicked Priest, was hung alive on a cross. (Doudna viewing the DSS 'conflict' as being between the parties of Hyrcanus and those of Aristobulus - and thus of Antigonus).

I'm also interested in Reza Aslan and his Jesus as zealot. The gospel story can be interpreted as reflecting a zealot/revolutionary. The problem for Aslan is that he has the wrong time frame i.e. the revolutionary/zealot Jesus is reflecting the earlier history of Antigonus. Below are some ideas I'm considering re Aslan' book:

------------------------------------------------------------

Reza Aslan: Jesus as a zealot.

There have been a number of online critics of Reza Aslan’s book: Zealot. For instance: Larry Hurtado:

“Zombie Claims” and Jesus the “Zealot”

As an example of a critical refutation of this particular zombie claim, see Martin Hengel, Was Jesus a Revolutionist? (Fortress Press, 1971).
<snip>
So, before people get too lathered up about Aslan’s book, let’s all just take a breath. It isn’t new in its thesis. That thesis has been tried out a number of times previously, and it’s been judged in each case fatally flawed.
http://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2013/ ... he-zealot/

I found an interesting review of Hengel’ book:

Hengel’s closing discussion notwithstanding, the obvious parallels between Jesus and the Zealots was bound to be pursued.

That pursuit.......came to a head in 1967 when S.G.F Brandon published Jesus and the Zealots. ......In this book....Brandon virtually claimed that Jesus had been a Zealot...There were scores of rebuttals and frequently scathing reviews.......these contributed significantly to the burial of Brandon’s thesis. When he passed away in 1971, the issue died with him.

Sadly, however, if not surprisingly, the ‘Jesus and the Zealots’ issue killed ‘the Zealots’ as well. Hengel’s book had studies ‘the Zealots....the Jewish freedom movement....from Herod I..” But as part of the attack upon Brandon, scholars now discovered ....... that ‘the Zealots’ was not a generic name for all rebels, but rather the name of only one particular group of them, which is first used by Josephus in connection with the 60’s of the first century, long after Jesus was crucified. Moreover, as for “from Herod I’, scholars, taking their cue from Tactius’ ‘under Tiberius all was quite’, now even argued that there is little evidence for Jewish resistance to Rome under Pilate’s governorship: such resistance virtually began, they argued, in the late 40’s or in the 50’s. But if the rebels who were characterized by religious ‘zeal’ appeared not only after Jesus, but also after Paul, and if rebelliousness against Rome was not a major factor in Jesus’ day either, then the topic could be relegated, and was, to the back burner of Christian scholarship.

<snip>

Hengel, however, sticks to his guns: in the latest forward to his volume (pp.xiii-xv) he admits there were social difficulties, but nevertheless that the major problem, which alone was capable of making unrest turn into rebellion against Rome, was the politico-religious one, the “theocratic ideal and its especially pronounced eschatological expectation..” that is, the clash between Rome and the Kingdom of God in His holy land. The reviewer would agree with Hengel........It remains to be seen whether, in the absence of a Brandon to stir the pot and elicit across-the-board reaction, and with the new accessibility in English, such an intermediate opinion will be able to reassert itself.

Daniel R Schwartz

Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 41, No. 1/3 (1991)

Martin Hengel: The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom ‘Movement in the Period from Herod I until A.D. 70, translated by David Smith, T. & T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1989.

[my bolding]

“..a Brandon to stir the pot..”. Well, now, enter Reza Aslan!.. Interestingly, it’s been noted that:

Mr. Aslan does not fall into the anachronism of making Jesus a member of the Zealot Party as described by Josephus. He knows that party did not exist in Jesus’ day but arose later. Mr. Aslan means zealot with a small “z.”)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/06/books ... d=all&_r=0
Still a Firebrand, 2,000 Years Later
‘Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth’
By DALE B. MARTIN

Thus, the argument re Zealots only appearing after the execution of the gospel JC does not apply to the theory put forth by Aslan - as he uses a small ‘z’ when proposing that JC was a zealot.

As noted above, Schwartz makes mention of Tactius:

Under Tiberius all was quiet. (12/14 c.e. to 36/37 c.e.)

The Histories. Book V

http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/histories.5.v.html

Thus, Tactius remains as an objections to Aslan theory that zealots were active during the gospel JC timeline.

Lena Einhorn proposes that ‘robbers’, zealots, were not active during the time of Pilate.

JESUS AND THE “EGYPTIAN PROPHET”
Lena Einhorn,

λῃσταί are mentioned frequently also by Josephus. And in his writings, the term
usually refers to Jewish rebels (“Zealots”, in the wider meaning of the term).14 That this is the
intended meaning also in the Gospels is suggested by Mark 15:7: “Now a man called
Barabbas was in prison with the rebels who had committed murder during the insurrection.”
When Josephus writes about λῃσταί, however, he does so during two distinct
periods: from 63 B.C.E., when Roman occupation begins, until the census revolt under Judas
the Galilean was crushed, ca. 6 C.E. And then again with great frequency after 48 C.E., when
“all Judea was overrun with robberies”.15 This second eruption would eventually lead to the
Jewish War.

Importantly, however, Josephus never once records the presence of ”robbers”
during the time Jesus was active. In fact, there are no mentions of their activity between 6 C.E. and 44 C.E.

http://lenaeinhorn.se/wp-content/upload ... .11.25.pdf

---------------------
I decided to put the material re the book of Reza Aslan in a new thread: Reza Aslan: Jesus as a zealot. Please post any comments re Aslan in the new thread.