Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

[StephenGoranson]

I have suggested that 100 years after the death of the last Hasmonean was not a major historical turning-point.
You change the subject.

[maryhelena]

I have suggested that 100 years after the death of the last Hasmonean was not a major historical turning-point.
You change the subject.

I did not respond to that post as I think it's for Jewish historians to make a judgement on their own history.....and what history they chose to remember as being relevant.

I saw fit to respond to your comment regarding my words and "carnival fortune-tellers..."
==============

SETTING THE STAGE: THE EFFECTS OF THE ROMAN
CONQUEST AND THE LOSS OF SOVEREIGNTY1

Nadav Sharon

A Neglected Era

Despite the enormous amount of scholarly work on the Second Temple
Period it seems to me that the period of 67–37 bce, and the dramatic change it brought upon Judea, have been somewhat neglected in modern historical study. The events of this period brought about the end of the eighty-year-old independent and sovereign Judean state, established by the Hasmoneans in the aftermath of Antiochus Epiphanes’ religious decrees and the ensuing revolt. In fact, these events resulted in the almost complete annihilation of that prestigious priestly house.
In 63 bce the independent Hasmonean state, with its large territorial gains, found itself suddenly under the domination of the expanding world empire, Rome, and downgraded to a small semiautonomous vassal state.

Admittedly, at some points during its subsequent history, when it had its own kings, this state enjoyed independence to a greater degree—under Herod the Great and, after a few decades, Agrippa I. However, these kings were none the less vassals, appointees of the Romans, and however one looks at them their kingdoms were very far from independent. (This is, of course, excluding the short-lived kingship of Mattathias Antigonus [40–37 bce], the last Hasmonean king, who was brought to power by the Parthians.) True, one might justifiably argue that objectively, in terms of independence, the situation after 63 bce was probably not any worse than it had been prior to the Hasmonean revolt, and was perhaps even better when those Herodian kings were in power. However, when seen subjectively, through the eyes of Judeans who had just enjoyed eighty years of independence, the events of 63 bce were probably perceived as not much less than a complete loss of independence.

https://utoronto.academia.edu/NadavSharon

[DCHindley]

But mh, while English monarchs might celebrate the 100th anniversary of something as a "jubilee year" is kind of new.

I am not aware of any time division system in use then (in Judea), that used any other system than 7 year blocks of years or multiples (7x7=49 for sabbatical years, sometimes 49th or sometimes 50th year is designated the celebrated Jubilee year). There is the Jubilee time counting cycle of 49 years, and a celebration of the "Jubilee year" either same as the 49th year or sometimes as the 50th year (the first yr of the next 49 year cycle).

If you want to find significance in 2 jubilee cycles (100 yrs using two jubilee cycles plus their celebratory years, which would be weird as they were normally not added to the 49 year cycles but celebrated concurrently), as opposed to a jubilee cycle (49 yrs & multiples of 49), I suppose that is fine, but I have to think it sounds a bit arbitrary.

Can you supply any cases to the contrary? I suggest looking at the apocalypse of weeks in 1 Enoch. There might be, if I recall here was an attempt to re-establish a then disused jubilee year concept by one of the kings of Judah/Israel. He may have chosen a year to be his jubilee year arbitrarily, Queen of England style, but it was probably a sabbatical year, which were observed to allow redemption of debts for rights to use property owned by the temple that had been sold to others for immediate cash. The former possessors can redeem their land by paying back the loan at those set 7 year periods. But there is talk that even that is not necessarily successive 7 year periods, but a 7 year window for redemption, like a modern sales contract.

DCH

[maryhelena]

While the pdf by Steven Pounds does not name Bermejo-Rubio it does make reference to others who uphold the seditious Jesus hypothesis. Bermejo-Rubio's new book, likewise, makes no mention of Steven Pounds. Pound's argument deals with the issue of ''crucifiability'' - a word not used by Bermejo-Rubio. However, interestingly, this word seems to have become a point of issue for historical Jesus research. Why was the historical (assumed) gospel Jesus crucified ? After all this is the whole point of the gospel story - without it christians have no story to tell ie. without a cross there is no resurrection.

The Crucifiable Jesus

Steven Brian Pounds

1.2 The Rhetoric of a “Crucifiable Jesus”

In addition to the explicit use of Jesus' crucifixion as a criterion, within the last two decades the
term “crucifiable” has begun to appear in historical Jesus reconstructions in order to emphasise the
adequacy of a respective work's account of a provocative Jesus, as opposed to portraits of Jesus as
an innocuous teacher. N. T. Wright in Jesus and the Victory of God (1996) was the first to use the
term “crucifiable” in this sense. In discussion of the hallmarks of his announcement of a “Third
Quest”, Wright states, “The crucifixion, long recognised as an absolute bedrock in history is now
regularly made the centre of understanding: what must Jesus have been like if he ended up on a
Roman cross?”42 He then goes on to categorise the principle as a unique application of the
otherwise invalid criterion of dissimilarity stating, “Jesus must be understood as a comprehensible
and yet, so to speak, crucifiable first-century Jew, whatever the theological or hermeneutical
consequences.”43

2.1 Crucifiable Offences

In the first instance, the primary assumption related to “crucifiability” is that Jesus must have been
put to death for a crime that was punishable by crucifixion. However, most historical Jesus works
have only asserted this historical ground on a cursory rhetorical level. Usually, scholars invoking
the criterion assume that someone crucified must have been considered guilty of rebellion or
sedition.74 This is a point emphasised particularly by those who have reconstructed
Jesus as an armed rebel or an anti-imperialist.75 Yet, these assertions often go without any in depth
substantiation.

I thus devote chapters two and three to testing and bringing clarity to this assumption.

footnote 75

75 E.g. S. G. F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity
(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967), 330; Reza Aslan, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth
(New York: Random House, 2013), 153; cf. Dale B. Martin, “Jesus in Jerusalem: Armed and Not Dangerous,” JSNT 37
(2014): 19.

Anyway, the more the merrier - as more and more scholars attempt to deal with Calvary's cross rather than putting it aside (apart from Easter of course) and sing along to Gentle Jesus, meek and mild.....

Peace comes dropping slow.....indeed, peace is never a given - it needs constant work and vigilance...gentle Jesus meek and mild not withstanding...

The Lake Isle of Innisfree

BY WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS

I will arise and go now, and go to Innisfree,
And a small cabin build there, of clay and wattles made;
Nine bean-rows will I have there, a hive for the honey-bee,
And live alone in the bee-loud glade.

And I shall have some peace there, for peace comes dropping slow,
Dropping from the veils of the morning to where the cricket sings;
There midnight’s all a glimmer, and noon a purple glow,
And evening full of the linnet’s wings.

I will arise and go now, for always night and day
I hear lake water lapping with low sounds by the shore;
While I stand on the roadway, or on the pavements grey,
I hear it in the deep heart’s core.

==========
Bonus for Oscar night - with a nod to Cillian Murphy and Yeats.

[maryhelena]

But mh, while English monarchs might celebrate the 100th anniversary of something as a "jubilee year" is kind of new.

I am not aware of any time division system in use then (in Judea), that used any other system than 7 year blocks of years or multiples (7x7=49 for sabbatical years, sometimes 49th or sometimes 50th year is designated the celebrated Jubilee year). There is the Jubilee time counting cycle of 49 years, and a celebration of the "Jubilee year" either same as the 49th year or sometimes as the 50th year (the first yr of the next 49 year cycle).

If you want to find significance in 2 jubilee cycles (100 yrs using two jubilee cycles plus their celebratory years, which would be weird as they were normally not added to the 49 year cycles but celebrated concurrently), as opposed to a jubilee cycle (49 yrs & multiples of 49), I suppose that is fine, but I have to think it sounds a bit arbitrary.

Can you supply any cases to the contrary? I suggest looking at the apocalypse of weeks in 1 Enoch. There might be, if I recall here was an attempt to re-establish a then disused jubilee year concept by one of the kings of Judah/Israel. He may have chosen a year to be his jubilee year arbitrarily, Queen of England style, but it was probably a sabbatical year, which were observed to allow redemption of debts for rights to use property owned by the temple that had been sold to others for immediate cash. The former possessors can redeem their land by paying back the loan at those set 7 year periods. But there is talk that even that is not necessarily successive 7 year periods, but a 7 year window for redemption, like a modern sales contract.
)
DCH

David - I am simply using historical dates (as historians supply them). That's all...If there are periods of time - 63 b.c. to 37 c.e - i.e. 100 years between two dates of historical interest - then - I find it interesting what both Philo and Josephus have assigned to the end date. Again, with 37 b.c. and 63 c.e. - what has Josephus done with 63 c.e......

Add to that is the fact of Roman occupation and its limitations of what the occupied Jewish people could openly do for remembrance of their past history. People don't just remember past victories they also remember past tragedies. Holocaust Memorial Day and 9/11 Memorial day. I really find it difficult why anyone would think that the Jews, living under Roman occupation, would not find a means whereby they would remember their past tragedies. And you know what - is that not what the gospel crucifixion story is - a memorial to Hasmonean/Jewish history - a history that includes the Roman execution of a Hasmonean King of the Jews. An allegory retelling via mythology, theology, philosophy, nationalism, political and creative writing - all under the very nose of Rome. Very clever don't you think... Out of historical tragedy a new, spiritual, intellectual, philosophical, road forward is paved....

And what about christians - once a year for what, nearly two thousand years, they remember the gospel Jesus crucified under Pilate (assumed of course - despite it's anti-humanitarian salvation assumptions....)

Calendars - straightforward historical dating suits me just fine.... Yes, Josephus can perhaps muddle stuff up and place stuff wherever suits his argument. What he can't do is change the historical accepted dating of 63 b.c. and 37 b.c. These dates, as
Nadav Sharon says, in the above linked pdf, are a neglected era. Hence, maybe about time that these dates, and the Hasmonean history they reflect, are allowed to throw some historical light upon the gospel Jesus story.

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena above, Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:28 pm, in part:
"I did not respond to that post as I think it's for Jewish historians to make a judgement on their own history...."

But you have made precisely such judgements, hundreds of times.

I agree with David, above Sun Mar 10, 2024 1:36 am, that you have not here shown that ancient people even noticed your 100-year notes.
Of course they remembered major events, good and bad, but most people then were pretty illiterate, or innumerate, long-term calendar-wise.
The last Hasmonean, after the civil war they caused, may not have been seen 100 years later as a great pivot, though you say so.

I do agree with you, though, that Blake and Yeats were great poets. Including both versions of "When You Are Old."

[maryhelena]

maryhelena above, Sat Mar 09, 2024 3:28 pm, in part:
"I did not respond to that post as I think it's for Jewish historians to make a judgement on their own history...."

But you have made precisely such judgements, hundreds of times.

I agree with David, above Sun Mar 10, 2024 1:36 am, that you have not here shown that ancient people even noticed your 100-year notes.
Of course they remembered major events, good and bad, but most people then were pretty illiterate, or innumerate, long-term calendar-wise.
The last Hasmonean, after the civil war they caused, may not have been seen 100 years later as a great pivot, though you say so.

Stephen, I'm not interested in people that were pretty illiterate, or innumerate, long term calendar-wise....
I'm interested in the Jewish historian Josephus, claiming descent from the Hasmoneans, who wrote lots of stuff about history....

I do agree with you, though, that Blake and Yeats were great poets. Including both versions of "When You Are Old."

Poet and Professor Paul Muldoon reading Yeats’ 'The Second Coming' (1920).

The ‘Yeats Nobel Centenary’ series is a collaboration between the National Library of Ireland and Seanad Éireann. Together marking 100 years since poet, writer and Senator WB Yeats was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature.

Ok - I'm off now to wash the dishes - and take my seat for the rugby.....

[StephenGoranson]

maryhelena wrote above, in part:
"I'm interested in the Jewish historian Josephus, claiming descent from the Hasmoneans, who wrote lots of stuff about history...."

Did Josephus mention any of your [modern-view] 100-year spans?

[maryhelena]

maryhelena wrote above, in part:
"I'm interested in the Jewish historian Josephus, claiming descent from the Hasmoneans, who wrote lots of stuff about history...."

Did Josephus mention any of your [modern-view] 100-year spans?

If you are asking did Josephus put up a little red flag to indicate that he was going to write something about the 100 years between 63 b.c. and 37 c.e. then the answer is No. That he wrote a story dealing with 37 c.e. is found in Antiquities. Does that story have relevance to earlier Hasmonean history - that question can be raised. And no, Stephen, I'm not going to get into a debate about Josephus with you. The focus of this thread is on the seditious Jesus hypostasis raised by Bermejo- Rubio's new book - - hypothesis raised also by Steven Brian Pounds in the above referenced pdf.

Did the Lukan writer refer to 40/37 b.c. with his reference to Lysanias of Abilene - did he put up a little red flag to indicate to his readers that he was considering the historical events 70 years prior to his Jesus story ? Did he want that Hasmonean history to be taken into account when reading his Jesus story ? A history that references the family connection between Lysanias and the Hasmoneans and his own death, in 33 b.c., by Marc Antony - the very man who had the last King and High Priest of the Jews executed in 37 b.c. ?

Sometimes, Stephen, it's necessary to put up ones own little red flag - indicating that one should be aware that reading stories at face value is not always the best approach..

Interesting advice from Daniel Schwartz.

....at Antiquities 19.321 Josephus reports that
King Agrippa I was once in such a good mood, at a banquet celebrating
his birthday, that he pardoned the commander-in-chief of his army, whom
he had previously exiled. This, then, would seem to be good evidence that
at least this Judean monarch of the mid-first century .......celebrated
his birthday.

=======
Before we put Antiquities 19.321 into our file on ancient Jewish acculturation,
however, it might occur to us that this tidbit is quite reminiscent of
Genesis 40:20, where, in the midst of the Joseph story, we read that Pharaoh
was in such a good mood when he was celebrating his birthday that he sent
for his hitherto imprisoned chief cup-bearer and restored him to office.
Of course, this similarity between the passages need not mean much. But
then again, if we have not just swooped down upon Antiquities 19.321 but
have rather been reading all of Antiquities, or at least its Agrippa narrative
in Books 18–19, we might well recall another three echoes of the biblical
Joseph story:

At Antiquities 18.195–201 Josephus reports that once when Agrippa was in jail
in Rome a German fellow prisoner saw a bird over Agrippa’s head and predicted that
Agrippa would soon be released, adding that when the bird again appeared over his
head he would die; both prophecies were fulfilled (Ant. 18.201; 19.346). The story is
clearly reminiscent of Genesis 40:16–19, a conversation between Joseph and a fellow
prisoner, Pharaoh’s chief baker, whose story is told after that of the chief cup-bearer:
when the chief baker reports a dream about birds over the tray on his head Joseph
interprets this, correctly, to mean that he soon will die. When we notice that,
according to Josephus (§ 201), the German fellow-prisoner asked Agrippa, just as the
biblical Joseph asked Pharaoh’s cup-bearer (Gen 40:14–15), to remember him after
his release and request his liberation too, it becomes nigh impossible to think that
Josephus’ story is not meant to imitate the one in Genesis.

(b) At Antiquities 18.237, when Tiberius dies and his successor, Gaius Caligula,
releases Agrippa from prison, Josephus reports that upon his release, but prior to
appearing before Gaius, Agrippa got a haircut and changed his clothes. Probably we
would assume such mundane things even if Josephus did not report them – all the
more reason to surmise that Josephus wrote them because they are straight out of
Genesis 41:14: when Joseph from released from prison “he shaved and changed his
garments and came to Pharaoh.”

(c) The fact that Josephus, in the same passage (Ant. 18.237), reports that Gaius
gave Agrippa a golden chain upon his release from prison, just like the one Pharaoh
gave Joseph upon his (Gen 41:42), ices the cake.

If we now return to Antiquities 19.321 and ask whether we shall accept it
as evidence that Agrippa celebrated his birthday, we should probably be
somewhat less confident. Rather, it looks like we have here an aspect of a
literary topos, perhaps no more reliable historically, in its literal sense, than
Luther’s talk of the Church’s “Babylonian captivity” or a modern journalist’s reference
to some politician who, in taking a daring step, “crossed the
Rubicon.” In return for giving up this evidence about a specific cultural
practice, however, we shall have gained something else: the recognition that
a first-century Jewish author was interested in applying a biblical story,
that focuses upon a talented Jewish youth making it big in the imperial
capital, when recounting and interpreting the career of another such figure
in his own day. That too is history, but of another type. Anyone who takes
Antiquities 19.321 as evidence for Jewish celebration of birthdays without
considering what the author really meant by the reference, and, accordingly,
without weighing the possibility that the desire to compare Agrippa
to Joseph brought Josephus (or his source) to invent a birthday celebration
(perhaps assuming that his readers will understand his intention, perhaps
not), will be building on quicksand, just as anyone studying the status of
the Bible and knowledge of it in the first century who ignores these texts
will be working with an incomplete file.

Daniel Schwartz: Reading the First Century. Pages 16-18

(my formatting)

Josephus, the Jewish/Hasmonean, historian, using OT images to tell his Agrippa story.
Luke, the gospel writer, using historical figures to tell his Jesus story.

One of my favorite quotes regarding reading Josephus:

The first century CE is like an ancient monument. It is a place of interest with riches that the visitor wants to stand among, their ambience to imbibe. Unfortunately, access to the site is limited to one point of entry. Most of the sources only provide a mere glimpse of the site. The only point of entry which allows you to view the site from within is the narrative of Josephus. The problem is that, once inside, we are offered an ‘official’ guided tour of the site. Josephus takes us to the various locations that he deems are the highlights. Our excitement at entering the site, therefore, is balanced by the requirements of Josephus that he shows us the official tour. It is time we left the official tour party. We have been given access to the site by Josephus but to ensure we are able to explore its contents in detail we must stand apart from him. As such, our visit to the site may take more time than the official tour program allows. But who wants to stay on a tour that does not let you stop and take your own pictures?

James S. McLaren: Turbulent Times? Josephus and Scholarship on Judaea in the First Century CE.

And that, Stephen, is as far as I'm going to go with you regarding Josephus.
Again, the focus of this thread is not Josephus - hence I'm not going to go off on a tangent on whether Josephus put up any red flags when he told stories or whether he left it to his readers to question his stories.....and put up their own little red flags....

[maryhelena]

The Crucifiable Jesus

Steven Brian Pounds

1.3 An Origin in Post-Easter Christological Confession?

A more longstanding and basic rival thesis is that the title “King of the Jews” is primarily a
christological confession and thus did not originate in the life of Jesus. In particular, Rudolf
Bultmann and Wilhelm Bousset set a precedent, especially in German scholarship, for identifying
the origin of “King of the Jews” in the post-Easter period.733 However, Bultmann's own student Nils
Alstrup Dahl unravelled the central thread of this viewpoint and largely turned the tide of
scholarship in favour of the historicity of the titulus crucis by simply noting the actual lack of early
Christian confession or proclamation of Jesus as “king” outside the gospels. As is illustrated below,
motivation for the wholesale creation of the title is lacking, as “King of the Jews” would probably
have been an inconvenient title for early Christians within the Roman Empire.734

The hesitancy by Rome to bestow the title “king” upon local rulers in Palestine demonstrates
the seditious nature and thus the potential danger of using the title without official Roman
approbation. The Hasmonean rulers were the first to be called by the title “King of the Jews”.735
Their short-lived dynasty gave way to Roman rule, and subsequently Mark Antony endeavoured to
have Herod made “King of the Jews” (basile,a kaqista/n VIoudai,wn) due to the previous support of
Herod's father and Herod's own virtue (avreth,n).736 With Antony's backing, Herod was appointed
king by the Roman senate in 40 BCE.737 However, after Herod’s death in 4 BCE Rome's reticence
733 Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christos: Geschichte des Christusglaubens bis Irenäus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1913), 56; followed by for allowing client rule by a “king” in the area is exemplified by the fact that each of Herod's heirs received divided portions of his former domain without being granted the title738 and by the fact that
Archelaeus was replaced by a Roman prefect in Judaea after only a brief tenure as “ethnarch”.739
From the time of Herod until the revolt, no one governing Palestine was known as “King of the
Jews”, and only once for a short period of three years did Rome allow the title “king” to be used by
a client ruler.740

Further demonstrating the potential inconvenience of claiming kingship for someone not
officially appointed by Rome is the evidence that those who were styled as kings without official
endorsement usually met a violent death at the hands of Roman authorities.741 In his depiction of the
mȇlée following Herod's death, Josephus portrays three particular figures as kingly claimants. Judas
the son of Hezekiah, the chief-bandit, gathered a band around Sepphoris and attacked and seized
weapons from the palace there. Josephus states that he sought “royal honour” (basilei,ou timh/j; Ant.
17.272).742 Simon, a former slave of Herod, plundered numerous basilicas, donned a diadem and
was declared king by his followers (Ant. 17.273–74).743 Athronges, a shepherd, also put on a
diadem and was acclaimed as king after gathering an enormous band that included his four brothers
who acted as his generals (Ant. 17.278–84). In two of the three cases Josephus explicitly narrates
violent ends for either the leader or his followers744 and in summary identifies kingly claimants of
the period as “seditionists” (oi] sustasia,soien; Ant. 17.285)

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

In sum, if the numerous accounts of Josephus are any
indication, those styled as kings without Roman approval were often caught and executed and
subsequently labelled seditionists. Against this background, it becomes more difficult to find the
initial motivation for early Christians to create the title “King of the Jews” from whole cloth as a
form of post-Easter christological confession.

footnote 740

40 Herod's grandson Agrippa was given the title of “king” when installed by Claudius in 41 CE, but his rule
was cut short by death in 44 CE; Ant. 19.343–350; cf. Acts 12:21–23. Smallwood, The Jews Under Roman Rule, 192

Interesting - the 'king of the Jews' not a 'whole cloth' creation by the early christians (gospel writers). The 'seditious' King of the Jews executed by Rome was Antigonus in 37 b.c. - King and High Priest, a King that descended from the Hasmonean dynasty but a King not appointed by Rome - as such merited a Roman execution.

As for the gospel composite literary Jesus figure - what the seditious charge of being King of the Jews indicates - is that the gospel writers were reflecting an historical event in their literary Jesus figure. In other words; a seditious Jesus in no way indicates a seditious historical Jesus under Tiberius and Pilate (under Tiberius all was quite...) as there is no historical evidence to support a historical gospel Jesus (of whatever variant). A seditious, King of the Jews, executed in 37 b.c., is being reflected in the gospel crucifixion.

However else the gospel writers developed their story - whether or not they started with a 'turn the other cheek' pacifist Jesus and simply needed a crucifixion story for their theological interests - or whether the historical event of 37 b.c. was a motivating factor, the driving force that led to theological or philosophical insights - the fact remains - an historical execution of a King of the Jews would have more weight, give more plausibility, to their story than any imaginative happening in outer space.