"I come to praise Maryhelena..."

[Charles Wilson]

I want to continue an idea and not hijack a thread. It's about Dio's possible contribution to the NT Motifs.

1. Note to Maryhelena: I'm not against you. You are focused on the Hasmonaeans and that is to your credit

2. Maryhelena has seen a relation between the death of the Hasmonaean Antigonus, a True High Priest and King, and the Crucifixion Motif in the NT. She uses the report given by Cassius Dio as her starting point. As I stated in another Post, if this is all there is then it may be an interesting speculation but that is about the extent of the possibilities.

3. I then showed that there was another possible contribution by Dio and that is found in Epitome 64 and it is the possible origin of the Eucharist, seen in the battles between Vitellius and Vespasian. Is there more?

4. I believe so. Again, it may lead down a path you do not want to go, but if the alternative is an immortal savior-god who suddenly appeared and therefore always existed, then this is a way to go. It at least makes more sense to look at this...

Here is the Problem: Antigonus was beheaded. No getting around that one. Jesus was not beheaded...Was he?

Dio, Epitome 63:

"...He [[Galba]] then set out for the Capitol to offer sacrifice. As he reached the middle of the Roman Forum, horsemen and foot-soldiers met him and then and there cut him down, in the presence of many senators and crowds of lens, this old man, their consul, high priest, Caesar, and emperor; and after abusing his body in many ways they cut off his head and stuck it on a pole..."

You can read what happened to the head and body of Galba, the death of Otho at the Battle of Bedriacum and the vinegar on a sponge on a hyssop stick to the mouth of...Vitellius after finding his old homosexual lover Asiaticus selling posca at a bazaar.

The Crucifixion was a construction:

John 20: 6 - 7 (RSV):

[6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
[7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.

Dio - or his source material, of course - contributed to the NT, I am convinced. It points to a direction not many on this site want to look.
Maryhelena has seen something that may be correct or at least worth looking at. Antigonus was beheaded and this appears to have not been a part of the Crucifixion - unless there is a Roman Element to the rewritten Story. Examining this, even if you do not agree with it makes more sense than positing an immortal who appears and therefore always existed and always will.

Maryhelena, I hope this helped.

CW

[steve43]

You know what puzzles me?

Just a couple clicks away on this wonderful site are the entire texts of Josephus' works.

Josephus is our only real source on Judaism during New Testament times- along with Philo, of course.

Why not read them?

[maryhelena]

I want to continue an idea and not hijack a thread. It's about Dio's possible contribution to the NT Motifs.

1. Note to Maryhelena: I'm not against you. You are focused on the Hasmonaeans and that is to your credit

2. Maryhelena has seen a relation between the death of the Hasmonaean Antigonus, a True High Priest and King, and the Crucifixion Motif in the NT. She uses the report given by Cassius Dio as her starting point. As I stated in another Post, if this is all there is then it may be an interesting speculation but that is about the extent of the possibilities.

3. I then showed that there was another possible contribution by Dio and that is found in Epitome 64 and it is the possible origin of the Eucharist, seen in the battles between Vitellius and Vespasian. Is there more?

4. I believe so. Again, it may lead down a path you do not want to go, but if the alternative is an immortal savior-god who suddenly appeared and therefore always existed, then this is a way to go. It at least makes more sense to look at this...

Here is the Problem: Antigonus was beheaded. No getting around that one. Jesus was not beheaded...Was he?

When a literary figure is created one does not make a photo-copy of a specific flesh and blood person. One takes elements, aspects, of a person's character, or history, and leave out what is not useful for ones literary purposes. The gospel story does not say that Jesus was beheaded. It says that Jesus was crucified. My position is that the creators of the gospel Jesus, a literary figure/creation, used aspects of the history of Antigonus as a model. That Antigonus was hung on a cross and scourged prior to being beheaded is found in Cassius Dio.

Antigonus II Mattathias

Roman historian Dio Cassius says he was crucified. Cassius Dio's Roman History records: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him.
Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Roman History, book xlix, c.22

The gospel story is dated to the time of Pilate. The latest date for Pilate being 36 c.e. The usual dating for the crucifixion being between 30 to 33 c.e. This means that the gospel crucifixion story has been placed around 70 years from the Roman execution of Antigonus. In the crucifixion element of the gospel story it is Antigonus that is being referenced - or remembered. As we today, remember those who have fallen in war. (the recent big remembrance this year of the Normandy landings and the thousands who lost their lives 70 years ago).

Dio, Epitome 63:

"...He [[Galba]] then set out for the Capitol to offer sacrifice. As he reached the middle of the Roman Forum, horsemen and foot-soldiers met him and then and there cut him down, in the presence of many senators and crowds of lens, this old man, their consul, high priest, Caesar, and emperor; and after abusing his body in many ways they cut off his head and stuck it on a pole..."

You can read what happened to the head and body of Galba, the death of Otho at the Battle of Bedriacum and the vinegar on a sponge on a hyssop stick to the mouth of...Vitellius after finding his old homosexual lover Asiaticus selling posca at a bazaar.

Charles, the Romans were the 'bad guys'...as such, I see no need to have Roman stories as a basis for any gospel story. The gospel writers had their own Hasmonean/Jewish history - enough there to create a gospel story without seeking Roman 'models'.

The Crucifixion was a construction:

John 20: 6 - 7 (RSV):

[6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
[7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.

Dio - or his source material, of course - contributed to the NT, I am convinced. It points to a direction not many on this site want to look.
Maryhelena has seen something that may be correct or at least worth looking at. Antigonus was beheaded and this appears to have not been a part of the Crucifixion - unless there is a Roman Element to the rewritten Story. Examining this, even if you do not agree with it makes more sense than positing an immortal who appears and therefore always existed and always will.

Maryhelena, I hope this helped.

CW

I don't know enough about Jewish burial customs in the time of Pilate - yes, it's perhaps intriguing re gJohn making an issue over the cloth the head of the gospel Jesus was wrapped in. However, since the gospels are running with a crucifixion not a beheading, for Jesus, there is not much to be gained from speculating.

The gospels do, of course, also have a beheading story: John the Baptist. That aspect of the execution of Antigonus finds it's literary reflection in that figure.

[Charles Wilson]

You know what puzzles me?
Just a couple clicks away on this wonderful site are the entire texts of Josephus' works.
Josephus is our only real source on Judaism during New Testament times- along with Philo, of course.

Why not read them?

You know what puzzles me?

It appears that you have no idea what I have written and even less idea about how I Deconstructed Josephus. I started by looking at Mark and 2 Stories contained therein: "The Woman with the Twelve Year Issue of Blood" and "Jairus' Daughter". I then began looking directly at Josephus and what he did and DID NOT say about a certain Passover Slaughter of 4 BCE. I began Deconstructing Antiquities..., Book 17, Chapter 9, Sections 1 - 3+ and Wars..., Book 2, Chapter 1, Sections 1 - 3+ and I never looked back. I even Cross Checked certain awkward passages against the Thackeray Translation for an understanding of something that Whiston simply hides.

What puzzles me is that you feel that - as Carrier did with Atwill - that you can engage in Post-Cognitive Criticism: Having NOT read what I have written, you have refuted what I state.
It doesn't work that way, Steve43, it just doesn't. I've about given up that someone will actually...I dunno...READ what I have written but I still hold out hope.

Maryhelena and I have had it out but at least we are looking at something not explored:The Hasmonaeans and their contributions to the NT. She sees Antigonus and there is a lot to recommend that idea. I see the entire Hasmonaean Dynasty in terms of the Mishmarot Groups and these Theses have simply not been looked at. It's somehow easier to believe in a savior-god who suddenly appears and therefore always did exist and always will exist than it is to look at Jewish Culture and History and Roman Culture and History and how Empire destroyed the Jewish Kingdom.

"Heaven forfend that the Jews be considered intelligent creatures with opposable thumbs! Why, the very thought of it all!!!"

At least read what I have written. At least look at what Maryhelena has written. Then come back to us.

CW

[Charles Wilson]

When a literary figure is created one does not make a photo-copy of a specific flesh and blood person. One takes elements, aspects, of a person's character, or history, and leave out what is not useful for ones literary purposes. The gospel story does not say that Jesus was beheaded. It says that Jesus was crucified. My position is that the creators of the gospel Jesus, a literary figure/creation, used aspects of the history of Antigonus as a model. That Antigonus was hung on a cross and scourged prior to being beheaded is found in Cassius Dio.

Trust me on this one, MH. I DO know that Story. I actually HAVE read it. It's where we have our disagreement and I doubt we'll ever overcome these differences.

The gospel story is dated to the time of Pilate. The latest date for Pilate being 36 c.e. The usual dating for the crucifixion being between 30 to 33 c.e. This means that the gospel crucifixion story has been placed around 70 years from the Roman execution of Antigonus. In the crucifixion element of the gospel story it is Antigonus that is being referenced - or remembered.

See my comment above. My own Internal Analysis shows that the dating given is a non-starter. I think you are too focused on Antigonus here and not seeing a more general pattern but you are just as certain that your exclusions of other Types is correct. There is another Way that includes both of our positions (Michael Weitzman is extremely important here) but we're not going to agree so let's move on...

Dio, Epitome 63:

"...He [[Galba]] then set out for the Capitol to offer sacrifice. As he reached the middle of the Roman Forum, horsemen and foot-soldiers met him and then and there cut him down, in the presence of many senators and crowds of lens, this old man, their consul, high priest, Caesar, and emperor; and after abusing his body in many ways they cut off his head and stuck it on a pole..."

You can read what happened to the head and body of Galba, the death of Otho at the Battle of Bedriacum and the vinegar on a sponge on a hyssop stick to the mouth of...Vitellius after finding his old homosexual lover Asiaticus selling posca at a bazaar.

Charles, the Romans were the 'bad guys'...as such, I see no need to have Roman stories as a basis for any gospel story. The gospel writers had their own Hasmonean/Jewish history - enough there to create a gospel story without seeking Roman 'models'.

Here is the Real Impasse:

Mark 1: 8 (RSV):

[8] I have baptized you with water; but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

The "Holy Spirit" - that disembodied god who will come to institute a better baptism that John's - is disembodied because Domitian was subjected to Damnatio after his death. Every physical representation of Domitian is to be destroyed. This is as Roman as it gets. The only thing left is to find is if ANYTHING from the Jewish Culture managed to survive in the literature SOMETHING DID SURVIVE! Antigonus and the Hasmoneans! Jannaeus! Salome! The question is, "Was this material left there intentionally? I believe it was. We'll NEVER agree to this but I'll continue to support what you see because it's there. We'll simply never agree as to who left it.

The Crucifixion was a construction:

John 20: 6 - 7 (RSV):

[6] Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb; he saw the linen cloths lying,
[7] and the napkin, which had been on his head, not lying with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself.

Dio - or his source material, of course - contributed to the NT, I am convinced. It points to a direction not many on this site want to look.
Maryhelena has seen something that may be correct or at least worth looking at. Antigonus was beheaded and this appears to have not been a part of the Crucifixion - unless there is a Roman Element to the rewritten Story. Examining this, even if you do not agree with it makes more sense than positing an immortal who appears and therefore always existed and always will.

Maryhelena, I hope this helped.

CW

I don't know enough about Jewish burial customs in the time of Pilate - yes, it's perhaps intriguing re gJohn making an issue over the cloth the head of the gospel Jesus was wrapped in. However, since the gospels are running with a crucifixion not a beheading, for Jesus, there is not much to be gained from speculating.

The gospels do, of course, also have a beheading story: John the Baptist. That aspect of the execution of Antigonus finds it's literary reflection in that figure.

Suetonius. 12 Caesars, "Galba":

"Not long after this he learned that Otho held possession of the Camp, and when several advised him to proceed thither as soon as possible — for they said that he could win the day by his presence and prestige — he [[Galba]] decided to do no more than hold his present position and strengthen it by getting together a guard of the legionaries, who were encamped in many different quarters of the city. He did however put on a linen cuirass, though he openly declared that it would afford little protection against so many swords...."

A "cuirass" is a seamless garment (often leather) used to ward off sword attacks. It is seamless in order to prevent a piercing by a sword where 2 seams are sewn together.

John 19: 23 )RSV):

[23] When the soldiers had crucified Jesus they took his garments and made four parts, one for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was without seam, woven from top to bottom;

What's Jesus doing with a "Cuirass"? A woven one? (Important Note: There is a subtle reference to Tacitus, Histories, Book 4 here. Another time...)

Also, I'll put it out there again, not that anyone will consider it:

"Golgotha" <=> "Gabbatha" <=> "Galba=Otho".

MH, keep examining what you are doing. We'll never agree on quite a few things but in one important respect, you are on the right track.

Best to you,
CW

[Charles Wilson]

The Death of Otho:

Pluatarch, Life of Otho:

"During this time there was also a conflict at the river Po, where Caecina tried to build a bridge across the stream, and Otho's soldiers attacked him and tried to prevent it.
...
"These disasters threw Otho's soldiers at Bedriacum into a rage for battle, and Proculus therefore led them forth out of Bedriacum, and after a march of •fifty furlongs pitched his camp, but in a manner so ignorant and ridiculous that his men were troubled by lack of water, although it was the spring of the year and the plains around abounded in running streams and rivers that never dried up..."

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Otho":

"Leaving the door of his bedroom open until a late hour, he gave the privilege of speaking with him to all who wished to come in. After that, quenching his thirst with a draught of cold water, he caught up two daggers, and having tried the point of both of them, put one under his pillow. Then closing the doors, he slept very soundly. When he at last woke up at about daylight, he stabbed himself with a single stroke under the left breast; and now concealing the wound, and now showing it to those who rushed in at his first groan, he breathed his last and was hastily buried (for such were his orders) in the thirty-eighth year of his age and on the ninety-fifth day of his reign..."

John 19: 34 (RSV):

[34] But one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at once there came out blood and water.
-----

Vitellius:

Suetonius, 12 Caesars, "Vitellius:

"Beginning in this way, he regulated the greater part of his rule wholly according to the advice and whims of the commonest of actors and chariot-drivers, and in particular of his freedman Asiaticus. This fellow had immoral relations with Vitellius in his youth, but later grew weary of him and ran away. When Vitellius came upon him selling posca at Puteoli, he put him in irons, but at once freed him again and made him his favourite..."

There is a note concerning the word "posca". It reads:

"A drink made of sour wine or vinegar mixed with water."

John 19: 29 (RSV):

[29] A bowl full of vinegar stood there; so they put a sponge full of the vinegar on hyssop and held it to his mouth.

This is Vitellius and John especially shows once again that the Crucifixion is a Construction. You can read the Abdication of Vitellius and the 3 days of the Interregnum - It is 3 days isn't it?
Can you guess who is hailed as Caesar when the troops approach Rome after the death of Vitellius? If you guessed Vespasian, you guessed wrong. It was DOMITIAN, who was proclaimed Caesar both before Vespasian's Ascension and after. Sorta' an Alpha and Omega kinda' thing thing, ya' know?

Yes, MH, the Romans WERE the bad guys and they did need every bit of History they could steal in order to pull off the deceit. A deceit we live with today.

CW

[steve43]

I will only comment that the Passover of the slaughter was not 4 BC but 3 BC. Apparently you didn't read Josephus as closely as you should have.
I have corrected you on this before.

[Charles Wilson]

I will only comment that the Passover of the slaughter was not 4 BC but 3 BC. Apparently you didn't read Josephus as closely as you should have.
I have corrected you on this before.

You can only correct me when I am wrong and you are correct and that is not the case here.

"Immer" began its Course on Saturday Julian 1720066, 2 weeks after March 27, 4 BCE.
This is "The Lamb who appeared to have been slain".
Further, I have shown that on the Duplicate Passover that occurs 12 years later, John's "Preparation Day Gospel" occurs on the last day of Mishmarot Service Group "Bilgah", the Group that gives way to "Immer", the next Group to rotate in on Mishmarot.

John 1: 15 and 20 - 21 (RSV):

[15] (John bore witness to him, and cried, "This was he of whom I said, `He who comes after me ranks before me, for he was before me.'")
...
[20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, "I am not the Christ."
[21] And they asked him, "What then? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the prophet?" And he answered, "No."

The Passover Slaughter occurred in 4 BCE.

CW

[Charles Wilson]

I don't know enough about Jewish burial customs in the time of Pilate - yes, it's perhaps intriguing re gJohn making an issue over the cloth the head of the gospel Jesus was wrapped in. However, since the gospels are running with a crucifixion not a beheading, for Jesus, there is not much to be gained from speculating.

The gospels do, of course, also have a beheading story: John the Baptist. That aspect of the execution of Antigonus finds it's literary reflection in that figure.

Mh-

Before I end my day, i have one or two short comments to make.

1. If I assert that "Antigonus" was the Template for the Crucifixion Motif, with little or no other support for the idea, that is "Speculation". If I provide Historical background, Linguistic Analysis, or even a picture of a coin or two, it may not be convincing or complete in other people's eyes but it might rise above the rank of "Mere Speculation". I do have other Stories of Galba and especially Vitellius, who was very much hated by the Flavians. I have Herod Stories. A large variety of supporting figures that make sense against a background of Roman Rewrites.

I believe that it rises above the level of "Speculation". I always try to put my assertions into a set of texts that support what I say. You may not agree but that's OK. It's like "Antigonus". Where is the data that supports your idea, data that allows the Thesis to rise above "Speculation"? Inquiring minds want to know.

2. The beheading of John the Baptist can be seen in the Passover Slaughter of 4 BCE. John is the Greatest of the Prophets and he did not make it into the Realm of Heaven. In short, he was killed in the murder of the 3000. He is not to be found in a "Literary Reflection" of Antigonus. You don't believe that one either.

Tomorrow, MH.

CW