Antigonus crucifixion vs Caesar crucifixion

[ghost]

Supposedly this corresponds to Mark 15:22.

It's mentioned here…

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jw ... ml#text140
http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jw ... ml#text141

http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jw ... ml#note140
http://www.carotta.de/subseite/texte/jw ... ml#note141

Try to test it.

[ghost]

Here is a description of the wax figure on the tropaeum.

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D147

[EdwardM]

ghost-

It reads as if you are committed to Carotta's Thesis.
CW

Well, Carotta may be 100% correct, for all we know, although I have reached a conclusion that the early Christians plagiarized one or more of the sacred histories of Divus Iulius and Divi Filius in order to rewrite the LXX Jewish Greek Bible for themselves.

[EdwardM]

Here it is…

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... tion%3D148

The people returned to Cæsar's bier and bore it as a consecrated thing to the Capitol in order to bury it in the temple and place it among the gods.

Here's another key for the puzzle. It appears there may have been a "place of a skull" in Jerusalem in the first century CE. There is, at present, a geological feature within the mosque "Dome of the Rock" which is on the Temple Mount, a geological feature which looks uncannily like a skull-cap. Whether this was exposed in the 30s CE is anyone's guess ( my guess is, it wasn't), but I believe it might have been exposed between 70 CE and 135 CE when Hadrian built his Temple to Iuppiter Capitolinus up there, in effect making the Temple Mount a second "Capitoline Hill." This feature would have become obvious to anyone when that Temple was razed under the criminal Constantine. Yet the Empress Mum Helena and the Christian locals decided upon a ridiculous little tipi on the west side of town!

[Charles Wilson]

Caatholic Encyclopedia, "Golgotha":

"The most popular of several sites proposed is that of Otto Thenius (1849), better known as Gordon's Calvary, and styled by the latter, "Skull Hill", because of its shape. Conder is the chief supporter of this view. This site is the elevation over Jeremiah's Grotto, not far from the Damascus Gate. In default of an historic basis, and owing to the insufficiency of the Gospel data — which may be verified equally well on any side of the city — the upholders of the new theories usually take for granted one or other of the following statements, viz: that Christ should have been immolated north of the altar, like the typical victims (Leviticus 1:10, 11); that Calvary was a place of public execution; that the place reserved for crucifixion, if there was one, was identical with a presumed stoning-place; that a modern Jewish tradition as to a fixed stoning-place could be substantiated in the time of Christ; and that the violent mob to which Christ was delivered would have conformed to whatever custom prescribed for the occasion. These affirmations all bear the mark of fitness; but until documents are produced to confirm them, they must inevitably fall short as proof of facts."

The Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't know where Golgotha is. No one has found "Tessellated Tile" in Jerusalem either. Maybe there was another reason for the appearance of "Gabbatha" and "Golgotha" in John within 4 verses of each other.

There was a thread recently asking if Mark knew geography or not. Lotsa' maps 'n stuff. Maybe Mark had a different purpose in mind! Mebbe - I dunno - a LITERARY PURPOSE?!?? Mebbe some other reason besides the chronicles of an immortal savior/god who appears on the scene spouting Gnostic Aphorisms to a puzzled crowd? 'N this idea is the far-out RADICAL idea here???

CW

[ghost]

There was a thread recently asking if Mark knew geography or not. Lotsa' maps 'n stuff. Maybe Mark had a different purpose in mind! Mebbe - I dunno - a LITERARY PURPOSE?!?? Mebbe some other reason besides the chronicles of an immortal savior/god who appears on the scene spouting Gnostic Aphorisms to a puzzled crowd? 'N this idea is the far-out RADICAL idea here???

The distorted topography of Mark is most likely a transposition of the topography of Caesar's civil war from 49 BC to 44 BC. For example, why is "Dalmanutha" similar to "Dalmatia", "Gerasene" to "Ceraunian", "Syro-Phoenician" to "Syria and Cilicia", "Hierosolyma" to "Roma", "Galilea" to "Gallia", &c?

[steve43]

The site of Golgotha is a very interesting topic.

The problem is that Titus' legions not only razed Jerusalem after conquering it in A.D. 70, but during the siege leveled a wide area around the north and west aspects of the walls of Jerusalem. Golgotha was almost certainly a casualty of Titus' massive earthworks project as every previous landmark was obliterated.

I do not know of any Archeologist who seriously considers Gordon's tomb the site of Golgotha. If you look at the site from on top of the north old wall of Jerusalem looking to the north (which I have done- it is cool) there does seem to be a couple of eye sockets on the ridge that could pass for a skull of some sort.

Josephus gives a lot of clues to the probable location of Golgotha (though he doesn't call it that) in his works. For a Josephus-based analysis, I would recommend Hagan's "Fires of Rome."

Most experts on the subject, and Hagan, concur that Golgotha is marked by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.

[ghost]

Well, Carotta may be 100% correct, for all we know, although I have reached a conclusion that the early Christians plagiarized one or more of the sacred histories of Divus Iulius and Divi Filius in order to rewrite the LXX Jewish Greek Bible for themselves.

Carotta says it's organic growth rather than plagiarism. How do we tell which option is closer to reality?

[EdwardM]

How? My suggestion would be to identify all possible sources, then apply Bayes' Theorem to determine the most likely one. If you have a large amount of Caeserean sources, and a large amount of LXX sources, then wouldn't it be more likely that the NT (particularly the gospels) are the result of plagiarism?

(Nota bene: I am not advocating Atwill's conspiracy theory. Qui Bono?)

[ghost]

The evidence that the synoptic gospels are based on Caesar and Octavian bios is definitely there. Carotta shows it with footnotes and references to primary sources.

The evidence of references to the LXX is also there, obviously.

Now how and why did the LXX elements get added? If it was not meant as a continuation of the Divus Iulius cult, then it is definitely plagiarism, because Christians don't attribute the plots of the synoptic gospels to Caesar and Octavian bios.