Pompey defeated the Jewish armies in multiple battles, and took the fortresses of Judea. Aristobulus and his sons Alexander and Antigonus were captured in 63 BC.
Aristobulus II escaped in 57 BC, instigating rebellion against Rome in Judea,
Taken prisoner, Aristobulus was released by Julius Caesar in 49 BC in order to turn Judea against Pompey. He was on his way to Judaea with his son Alexander, when "he was taken off by poison given him by those of Pompey's party".[4] His son Alexander was beheaded by the Roman commander Scipio at Antioch.[5]
His son Antigonus led a rebellion against Rome, with help from the Parthians, and became king and high priest in 40 BC, but was defeated and killed by the Romans in 37 BC.
The above is the history that forms the basis of the Josephan story about Judas the Galilean. i.e. this Hasmonean history is reflected in the Josephan story about Judas the Galilean. Sure, if one does not know the Hasmonean history then it is easy to assume that the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean is a historical figure. However, with Hasmonean history in view that assumption of historicity for the Josephan Judas the Galilean looses it's credibility. The Josephan story is based on the Hasmonean history of Aristolubus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus.
Notice where Josephus starts his Judas the Galilean story - 6 c.e. - 70 years from the events of 63 b.c.e.
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
The subject matter, re the OP, is the Josephan figure of Judas the Galilean. Daniel Unterbrink's book maintains that this Josephan figure is reflected in the gospel literary figure of Jesus.
Now, whatever the parallels that one wants to bring forward re any historical figure - are immaterial. Daniel Unterbrink is dealing with Judas the Galilean and the gospel literary figure of Jesus. That's it. We have to deal with Josephus and Acts. Keep focus.....
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
I do believe that Josephus was as honest and scholarly as any other historian of his day; he attempted to present the facts as best he knew them. But no man is capable of absolute truthfulness; we can't know all the facts, and our individual viewpoints only allow us to present what facts we have in a narrative that is intelligible to us. And we all have lapses in honesty, historians included.
And of course we know that the works of Josephus were corrupted by Christian scribes. We don't have anything but those corrupted works.
Still, I find it most unlikely that either Josephus made up the character of Judas the Galilean- why should he?- or that the later Christian corruptions of his works would have inserted such a figure.
We have the brute historical facts of the Jewish Wars (I doubt mh will question those!), and of the birth of the Christian religion; those are what we have to account for, despite all the destruction, distortions, deletions, and delusions between that time and this. We know all our sources are covered in centuries of fingerprints, contaminated by millennia of dishonest copyists who had their own motives and causes to support. At this far remove, through the thick fog, no one really expects to recover all the truth. The best we can do (aside from hope for discoveries of lost ancient texts or artifacts which might shed a bright light on what appears obscure now) is to weigh and judge what we have for coherence and plausibility. By those standards, with what scanty resources we presently have, it appears plausible that Judas was the original character that finally became the pastiche of historical and mythical figures we know today as Jesus Christ.
[25] And there was a woman who had had a flow of blood for twelve years,
[26] and who had suffered much under many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was no better but rather grew worse.
FWIW, and it ain't worth much on this site, I have this Story dated to 8/9 CE, in preparation for the Second Passover of the Mishmarot Service Goup Immer. They were Slaughtered as they waited for God to stand with them at a Passover 12 years previous. This Group will be on Duty for Passover again at the Passover of 9 CE. Such is the Symbolism of the Story. The Woman's Healing will come from the Priesthood, not from "Doctors" who have made things much worse for the People of Judea.
This is why I believe that there is support for a person named "Judas the Galilean" or someone else of similar rank. If this is a Final Call for Glory, coming at the urging of "Jairus", then the Priest who survived the Temple Slaughter is urged to gather the remnants for one more attempt to overthrow the Herodians and Romans. He knows he will be killed but attempts to "muster the troops" one more time. If this indeed does occur in 8/9 CE, "Judas the Galilean" was quite recently on the scene and is given the name of one of the "Doctors", a person who sees himself chosen of God, who will rise up and overthrow the Oppressors as a Representative of Divine Righteousness.
Jobar, over at SC you mention that the author proposes Paul's epistles were written in the 30-40's, does he discuss at all possible interpolations in the epistles that other scholars have argued (such as 1 Thess 2:13-16) sans manuscript evidence? Or the cobbling together of smaller letters into larger letters?
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
perseusomega9 wrote:Jobar, over at SC you mention that the author proposes Paul's epistles were written in the 30-40's, does he discuss at all possible interpolations in the epistles that other scholars have argued (such as 1 Thess 2:13-16) sans manuscript evidence? Or the cobbling together of smaller letters into larger letters?
please take further discussion of this to another thread.
perseusomega9 wrote:Jobar, over at SC you mention that the author proposes Paul's epistles were written in the 30-40's, does he discuss at all possible interpolations in the epistles that other scholars have argued (such as 1 Thess 2:13-16) sans manuscript evidence? Or the cobbling together of smaller letters into larger letters?
please take further discussion of this to another thread.
I don't see why asking how the author treats Paul's epistles in the book under discussion necessitates a new thread.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.
Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.-Giuseppe
Aristobulus II
