Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller »

The NT/gosepl Jesus is a character in a narrative; a narrative set "in a particular year of the reign of Tiberius while Pilate was in Judea".
No that is all too convenient for many self-described mythicists. The gospel is about a crucifixion that is said to have occurred under the reign of Pilate. That's the claim. One can argue it's a lie. But nowhere in the early Church do we find anyone arguing this was anything but a fact. One can claim that this never happened and those claiming it were liars. But there is no evidence that Christians treated this as a fiction (beyond taking certain statements of the heresiologists out of context).
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller »

Stephan, you cannot support your misrepresentation of my position - "Jesus = Antigonus" by anything that I have posted. Anyone interested in my position has only to search this forum for my postings. Your continual blatant misrepresentation is unacceptable.
See this is what I don't like about you. You can't just put your cards on the table and summarize your fucking position. Your posts depend on a lack of context. If your position isn't as stupid as it sounds then correct me.

Doesn't it ignore the explicit identification of the events of the gospel at the time of Pilate?
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by MrMacSon »

Stephan Huller wrote:Why don't you take the opportunity here to clarify your position. As I understand it you encourage us to ignore the specific dating of the gospel from 'the time of Pilate' to some period before the Common Era based on the 'expert' opinion of the Toledoth Yeshu. My assumption was that Jesus had to have been identified as Antigonus in some way, whether a herald for or a witness to the last Hasmonaean king, in order to justify the appeal to time travel or accepting what is universally considered to be one of the cornerstones of Christian history (i.e. the appeal to Pilate as a witness to the crucifixion).

As you may be aware the Marcionites certainly knew of Pilate. Irenaeus similarly reports that the Carpocratians were in the possession of representative art of some sort (paintings) which they claim Pilate made of Jesus while in Judea. But, most serious of all is Justin Martyr's testimony that in his day 'Acts of Pilate' were known to exist. In other words, as long as we hear from Christians they connect the death of their Savior with Pilate. I just can't see how time travel is justified in any way on your part.

... Once you argue for time travel or ignoring the involvement of Pilate in the Passion narrative something just switches off in my brain.
I don't understand your focus on "time-travel".

Does "the appeal to Pilate as a witness to the crucifixion" mean he was?
How significant is a claim that 'Pilate made paintings of Jesus'?
What is 'Acts of Pilate' alleged to have said?
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by maryhelena »

Stephan Huller wrote:
Stephan, you cannot support your misrepresentation of my position - "Jesus = Antigonus" by anything that I have posted. Anyone interested in my position has only to search this forum for my postings. Your continual blatant misrepresentation is unacceptable.
See this is what I don't like about you. You can't just put your cards on the table and summarize your fucking position. Your posts depend on a lack of context. If your position isn't as stupid as it sounds then correct me.

Doesn't it ignore the explicit identification of the events of the gospel at the time of Pilate?
:popcorn:
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by MrMacSon »

Stephan Huller wrote:
The NT/gosepl Jesus is a character in a narrative; a narrative set "in a particular year of the reign of Tiberius while Pilate was in Judea".
No that is all too convenient for many self-described mythicists. The gospel is about a crucifixion that is said to have occurred under the reign of Pilate. That's the claim. One can argue it's a lie. But nowhere in the early Church do we find anyone arguing this was anything but a fact. One can claim that this never happened and those claiming it were liars. But there is no evidence that Christians treated this as a fiction (beyond taking certain statements of the heresiologists out of context).
That early - ie. 2nd century - Christians believed a gospel-narrative "about a crucifixion that is said to have occurred under the reign of Pilate" doesn't mean those 2nd C Christians are liars. It more parsimoniously means they believed a 'said-to-have-occurred' narrative.
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller »

Sorry Charlie, they believed it happened and there is no evidence to the contrary. I can't even imagine what "faith in fiction" would look like. Can you? Or is this your usual satisfaction with self-serving assertions. You got to stop doing that. One day the Emperor discovers he has no clothes
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by MrMacSon »

Stephan Huller wrote: .. they believed it happened and there is no evidence to the contrary.
This is what Christian apologists do - defer to the early church "fathers".


* Those that "believed-it-happened" may have been a generation or more removed chronologically from those that developed some of the core-ideas/narratives.

* The core-ideas/narratives may have developed or conflated in other communities not aware of the original source of different core ideas.

* There could have been both chronological and spatial separation of the communities developing and then engaging & absorbing these ideas.


The key function of these texts is theology, not history.

Stephan Huller wrote:I can't even imagine what "faith in fiction" would look like. Can you?
It is unlikely to have been "faith in fiction" - it was faith in sacrifice & salvation theology.

Stephan Huller wrote:
The NT/gosepl Jesus is a character in a narrative; a narrative set "in a particular year of the reign of Tiberius while Pilate was in Judea".
No that is all too convenient for many self-described mythicists.
too convenient ... or ... too plausible?
Last edited by MrMacSon on Wed Sep 03, 2014 2:40 pm, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Peter Kirby »

maryhelena wrote:Anyone interested in my position has only to search this forum for my postings.
Could you produce a nice little potted summary of your position for the average slacker? Might help reduce confusion.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2900
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by maryhelena »

Peter Kirby wrote:
maryhelena wrote:Anyone interested in my position has only to search this forum for my postings.
Could you produce a nice little potted summary of your position for the average slacker? Might help reduce confusion.
Confusion? On Stephan Huller's part - hardly. Blatant misrepresentation. Stephan has relentlessly sought, for years, to belittle my posting.

The chart below was originally posted on FRDB some years ago.

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

Political allegory in the 'exoteric' legend of Jesus

viewtopic.php?p=15048#p15048

Historical artefacts, such as coins, are testimony to the fact that certain individuals were historical figures. That is the bare bones of historical evidence. However, history requires a story; a narrative, to joins up the facts and present a meaningful picture. The picture could be cloudy and unclear or it could be a reasonable explanation of what happened. In the chart that follows, Josephus is the primary source for building that historical narrative. Did Josephus himself, writing after the events, have accurate material to work with? Or is Josephus creating his own narrative - and without a secondary source there is no way to be sure. All one can do is work with his material and question his story when it presents problems.

The chart below has set out Josephan Hasmonean history for Antigonus. It also presents the Josephan history for Philip the Tetrarch. Philo’s story about the mocking of Carabbas and Agrippa I is also used. This chart is the historical backdrop that allows the gospel literary, mythological JC, a veneer of historicity, an ability to reflect historical events. It is this reflection, this veneer of historicity, that has allowed the assumption that the gospel JC figure is a historical figure. That assumption, when considered in the light of history, the Hasmonean and Herodian coins, and that history’s narrative as set down by Josephus and Philo, is unfounded.

HISTORY and Coins Philo (died about 50 c.e.) Flaccus JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.)Antiquities:(about 94 c.e.) The composite gospel Jesus figure based upon the historical figures of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus; Philip the Tetrarch and Agrippa I.
King Antigonus Mattathias II High Priest of the Jews: 4 b.c.e. – 37 b.c.e. Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek. Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.) John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear of the High Priest's servant.
Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared an enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16. gJohn indicates a three year ministry for JC.
Cassius Dio: Antigonus. These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him. Roman History, Book xlix, c.22. Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. ..Antigonus, without regard to either his past or present circumstances, came down from the citadel, and fell down at the feet of Sosius, who took no pity of him, in the change of his fortune, but insulted him beyond measure, and called him Antigone [i.e. a woman, and not a man;] yet did he not treat him as if he were a woman, by letting him go at liberty, but put him into bonds, and kept him in close custody....... The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31.Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilingual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
...and then but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...) Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3.
Now when Antony had received Antigonus as his captive, he determined to keep him against his triumph; but when he heard that the nation grew seditious, and that, out of their hatred to Herod, they continued to bear good-will to Antigonus, he resolved to behead him at Antioch, for otherwise the Jews could no way be brought to be quiet. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1. Acts: 11:16.The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Philip the Tetrarch: Herodian Coins. 4 b.c.e. – 34 c.e. When Philip also had built Paneas, a city at the fountains of Jordan, he named it Caesarea. He also advanced the village Bethsaida, situate at the lake of Gennesareth, unto the dignity of a city, both by the number of inhabitants it contained, and its other grandeur, and called it by the name of Julias, Antiquities: Book 18 ch.2. John 1:43-45. Philip, Andrew and Peter come from Bethsaida. Around the villages of Caesarea Phillipi JC asked the disciples who do people say he is. Peter says: "You are the Messiah". Mark 8:27-30; Matthew 16: 13-16.
(about 34 c.e.) About this time it was that Philip, Herod's brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty seven years. He had showed himself a person of moderation and quietness in the conduct of his life and government; he constantly lived in that country which was subject to him; he used to make his progress with a few chosen friends; his tribunal also, on which he sat in judgment, followed him in his progress; and when any one met him who wanted his assistance, he made no delay, but had his tribunal set down immediately, wheresoever he happened to be, and sat down upon it, and heard his complaint: he there ordered the guilty that were convicted to be punished, and absolved those that had been accused unjustly. He died at Julias; and when he was carried to that monument which he had already erected for himself beforehand, he was buried with great pomp.His principality Tiberius took, (for he left no sons behind him,) and added it to the province of Syria, but gave order that the tributes which arose from it should be collected, and laid up in his tetrachy. Antiquities: Book 18 ch.4. disciples/apostles: John 6:70; Mark 3:14; Matthew 10:2; Luke 6:13. A rich man from Arimathea, Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. Matthew 27:57-59. Mark 15:43. Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus’ body. JC crucified during rule of Pilate - which ends in 36 c.e.
Agrippa I. (d.44 c.e.) Herodian Coins. The mocking of Carabbas:... a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick ..., he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, ....Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians;..when Flaccus heard, or rather when he saw this, he would have done right if he had apprehended the maniac and put him in prison, that he might not give to those who reviled him any opportunity or excuse for insulting their superiors, and if he had chastised those who dressed him up for having dared both openly and disgustedly, both with words and actions, to insult a king. The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. ..... The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. And they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him............Pilate released Barabbas.

While the chart has set down the historical backdrop in which to view the gospel JC figure, the chart is not the whole JC story. That story goes on to include OT midrash and mythological elements. However, without the historical backdrop, the gospel JC story would have had no legs upon which to run; no legs to allow it to be viewed as a plausible historical account. Crucified itinerant carpenters might well present historical possibilities and assumptions. However, belief in historical possibilities is something down the line, not something immediate. The immediate reality does not allow for possibilities - it allows only for what reality is. And that is historical reality not assumptions or possibilities.

The gospel JC story is not history; it is a mythologizing of history; an interpretation of history; salvation history. History viewed through a Jewish philosophical and a prophetic lens.
--------------------------------------

While a lot of what Josephus wrote re Antigonus cannot be historically verified ie biting off the ear of his uncle Hyrcanus, his writing is what we have. All one can do is put the Josephan account/stories alongside the gospel account and acknowledge the reflection of the Josephan account/stories within the gospel story.

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

Any discussion of this chart should be directed to the thread in which the chart was posted.

(as for Stephan Huller - I won't be replying to anything that he may post in connection with my position on the gospel Jesus story. There is no basis for a rational discussion with someone who is intent upon labelling those with different opinions than he has as "lunatics" )
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
Stephan Huller
Posts: 3009
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:59 pm

Re: Richard Carrier on gMark parallel with Jesus ben Ananias

Post by Stephan Huller »

Mary,

I still don't see a paragraph summary of what you are proposing the relationship is between the story of Antigonus in Josephus and the gospels. I guess you are saying that the author of the gospel developed a pastiche of a number of different sources including the story of the death of Antigonus. But I think the reason you resist summarizing your idea in a coherent paragraph or even a book is that it would force you to face the fact that there is no central cohesive thought here. The assumption seems to be that Antigonus and the Hasmoneans were particularly dear to someone or a group of people - I presume they are Jewish (for who else would care about a Jewish king from over a century ago). There is an appeal also to the parallel with Agrippa's visit to Alexandria as recorded in Philo. But what exactly is the connection between Antigonus and Agrippa other than they were both Jewish kings? Agrippa wasn't crucified so I fail to see why a story of a crucified or beheaded king would be connected to a story of a king who wasn't crucified. I am curious who the audience is imagined to be for this 'syncretic myth' - Jews I again assume, but why? What's the point of all this?

As I said earlier I don't see a coherent though in any of this - a thesis if you will. I think it would be unfair to label this as 'stupid' but only because stupidity reveals itself in its bold simplicity. I can't make heads or tails of what you are even trying to say by any of this. It seems you've grafted a number of loose parallels to the gospels from near contemporary sources that that really shouldn't have anything to do with one another other than their vague similarity to things said about Jesus in the gospel. You are presuming that the gospel narrative never happened as a historical event and that it was developed from 'things that happened to Jewish kings' - but again to what purpose? Who was this written for? And, is there any evidence that the earliest Christians didn't believe that the gospel actually happened in 'real' history in some way?
Post Reply