Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:07 am They make no secret; revised and edited; no conspiracy.
A revised work does not legitimately have an original author saying the exact opposite of his argument. A revised work -- if honest -- will inform readers of what Schurer wrote. It will not flatly have English readers thinking Schurer said the opposite of what he said.

How many revised and edited works have you read -- along with their originals? That point is simply a matter of basic honesty.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by StephenGoranson »

neilgodfrey, I am currently away from my copy of the four volumes. My point, of course, was that these rather skilled, learned historians, along with many others accept that Jesus existed. Though I am not saying their work in perfect, they indeed make no secret *at all* that they have revised, updated, added current bibliography, and sometimes come to different conclusions.
They may be mistaken, or sometimes need further updating, but they were not, as you appear to be claiming, dishonest.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 5:45 am neilgodfrey, I am currently away from my copy of the four volumes. My point, of course, was that these rather skilled, learned historians, along with many others accept that Jesus existed. Though I am not saying their work in perfect, they indeed make no secret *at all* that they have revised, updated, added current bibliography, and sometimes come to different conclusions.
They may be mistaken, or sometimes need further updating, but they were not, as you appear to be claiming, dishonest.
Oh stephengoranson -- it's simply a matter of fundamental professional honesty. Can you really be so disingenuous? A revision of a master's work does not, without explanation, present a master saying the exact opposite of what he said. That's not revision -- unless the readers is clearly informed of the case and why. Nor does an honest revision simply suppress the original logic of the master's argument. There are professional standards even among academics that I believe all academics at least pay lip service to.

If you have the faintest idea of the nature of history and how it is done you will know that historians are fallible and make mistakes -- even the most reputable of them.

As one notable historian said, if you want to understand a work of history then it is first a good idea to get to know the historian who wrote it.

So with that in mind, if you read autobiography of Vermes you will see that V clearly, very much so, sought to live in two worlds, to find recognition and acceptance in both the Christian and Jewish worlds. As Schweitzer said of past historians -- they create a Jesus in their own image. Vermes is no exception. Hence his consistent theme of "Jesus the Jew".

But yes, I am very aware your interest is to present authorities who declare loudly any view that you personally side with. I notice all your arguments are nothing but appeals to authority. That's your style. You then try to sidestep direct challenges to any specific point by saying you don't have time to reply to every post you disagree with! :-)

Carry on - no arguments, or at least very rarely -- merely trot out authority after authority. That's your MO. Oh, laced with a dash of sly insult, of course.

The only reason I butted in with my comment about Vermes-Millar was because I wanted to draw attention to the importance of checking originals -- even "revisions" to see if they really are revisions or a mix of something else, not entirely good, sometimes a little drop of bad.

Vermes is fine enough as a historian when he is dealing with the sorts of materials historians in history departments deal with. But the sources for Jesus belong to a different dimension entirely.

I am not supporting the views of maryhelena, by the way.


P.S. You don't need to be next to your 4 volumes of Schurer. The question raised is only about 1 volume -- and both the English and German versions are available online.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by StephenGoranson »

As I wrote, neilgodfrey, I am unable to quote from the preface or intro to Vermes/Millar’s work; but I recall that they are clear about what they did. And thanks for the note about mh’s views; see that we can agree on some things.

I do happen to have at hand a copy of Geza Vermes’s Providential Accidents: An Autobiography (1998). And, if I may say so, I met him; also I published two articles in Journal of Jewish Studies* while he was the editor of that journal. This is not to say that I agreed with him on everything, including one matter related to Dead Sea Scrolls, which would be yet another tangent in this thread.

On page 165 of his autobiography, the late Vermes wrote about taking over the project from Matthew Black.
“….I gave my provisional consent. But when I began to perceive the real scale of the enterprise, I made my agreement subject to two conditions: 1. that the revision should be made in the text itself and not in a supplementary volume; and 2. That we needed a further expert in Roman history.”
Well, they got the expert in Roman history, Fergus Millar. And they were absolutely explicit that “the revision was made in the text itself.” And fully documented. Obviously, for example, in mentioning Dead Sea Scrolls or recent archaeological digs they were changing the German original.

Honestly.
Openly.

*
"Posidonius, Strabo and Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa as Sources on Essenes," Journal of Jewish Studies 45 (1994) 295-98.
S. Goranson, “Sectarianism, Geography, and the Copper Scroll,” JJS 43 (1992): 282–87. Btw, the copper scroll has Greek loan words.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:38 am And thanks for the note about mh’s views; see that we can agree on some things.

:popcorn:
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Jul 19, 2021 6:38 am As I wrote, neilgodfrey, I am unable to quote from the preface or intro to Vermes/Millar’s work; but I recall that they are clear about what they did.
From the preface:
... the editors have resolved . . . yo revise it directly, introducing the following main types of change.

(a) The removal of out-of-date items of bibliography, and of purely polemical material . . . .

(b) The revision of the bibliographies, retaining the essential earlier items and adding the most important works published up to Spring 1972. _

(c) The correction and modernization of all references to, and quotations of, literary texts, papyri, inscriptions and coin legends in Greek, Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic. . . . .

(d) The addition of relevant new archaeological, epigraphic, papyrological and numismatic material and, again, the adjustment of the notes and text of Schurer to take account of it. . . . .

. . . . .

The numbering of the notes of the latest German edition could not be retained, but the structure of the chapters and subdivisions has been preserved, so that any reader familiar with the original ought to be able to understand without difficulty what fresh material has appeared and what its relevance is. The only wholly new section in the present volume is §3 F on the documents from the Judaean desert . . . .

In conclusion, two fundamental points must be stressed. Firstly, the work remains, as far as the evidence now available allows, that of Emil Schurer.

. . . . Secondly, the volume now presented offers material for historical research, but is not intended as an interpretative synthesis, or as a summary of contemporary interpretations. Still less is it meant to lay undue emphasis on the views of the editors themselves.
Vermes and Millar failed badly in that one detail I have noticed. They deleted Schurer's point about occam's razor and his rejection of tendentious manufacturing of rationalizations to hold on to the TF in Josephus as well as S's appeal to basic logical fundamentals; V and M then replaced S's point with their own views that justify holding on to the TF as historical evidence for Jesus. In doing so they failed to meet the standards they claimed to follow in the above Preface. Had they at least added a footnote to explain how they were contradicting Schurer's views on this point they were not representing Schurer at all in doing so they could be excused.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by StephenGoranson »

neilgodfrey, before I read your message, I copied the following from the first page of the Preface (1973; vol. 1, page v):
"...it was decided to follow a new policy which would entail the insertion of changes at the actual points where they were needed,instead of presenting, as originally planned, a straight translation of the original accompanied by a special volume of supplements."

There already was an straight English translation of one of the German editions, in 1924. Maybe that was out of print, but it's not hard to find in a library or on the used book market. For anyone interested in the history of scholarship role of Emil Schürer, naturally they will want to consult his work in English or German. But for those interested in the history of the times, I find the Vermes/Millar updated project quite useful.
You prefer Schürer on the TF. Fine. You disagree with the updated discussion. Fine. Bibliography on the TF is huge and lively, as Ken Olson could attest. You are free to present your TF analysis and give Vermes/Millar a negative review (a minority view, I guess, without re-checking).

As I mentioned, I do not always agree with Vermes. As I also mentioned, I am not a Coptology expert, and that is why I quoted authorities on Coptic. Authorities are not always reliable, of course, though Coptic experts are on the lookout for additional Coptic texts. But if someone proposes Coptic Gospel of Thomas was written earlier than experts know of Coptic being written, then that requires stronger evidence than I, for one, have yet seen.

Also, on Antigonus Mattathias, Vermes/Millar give some info. He was brought to the throne with Parthian help. I would guess that some people affected back then were tired of the wars between his father and his uncle. Tired of ruling families (including later Herod) killing some of their own family members. Some, maybe the author of Psalms Solomon 8, thought it inappropriate to take the title king. The title "king" has also been used in various ways, including mockingly.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by StephenGoranson »

Old English translation copies are not expensive, I see. And English versions of Schürer’s History have been reprinted. And there is the Schocken Books paperback edition, edited by Nahum N. Glatzer, one of my most memorable teachers at Brandeis.
One can bury one’s head in a metaphorical bowl of popcorn, or preach to the choir, or only to a select, um, anti-choir (?), though Louis D. Brandeis wrote “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2878
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by maryhelena »

StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:47 am
Also, on Antigonus Mattathias, Vermes/Millar give some info. He was brought to the throne with Parthian help.
So - Hyrcanus II tried to retake the throne with the help of the Nabateans forces of Aretas III. Neither Hyrcanus II nor Antigonus II Mattathias would somehow be disqualified as being Kings of Judaea because outside help was called upon...... :facepalm:

I would guess that some people affected back then were tired of the wars between his father and his uncle. Tired of ruling families (including later Herod) killing some of their own family members. Some, maybe the author of Psalms Solomon 8, thought it inappropriate to take the title king. The title "king" has also been used in various ways, including mockingly.

Tired of the civil war - undoubtedly. '..inappropriate' for either Hyrcanus II or Antigonus II Mattathias to take the title of King ? :banghead:

I posted earlier: Antigonus II Mattathias was King and High Priest of the Jews....as his coins testify. A legitimate King of the Jews.

Here is what someone who claims blood links to the Hasmoneans has to say about the Hasmoneans.

Josephus: Life

.....by my mother I am of the royal blood; for the children of Asamoneus, from whom that family was derived, had both the office of the high priesthood, and the dignity of a king, for a long time together.


Antiquities book 14:

This destruction befell the city of Jerusalem when Marcus Agrippa and Caninius Gallus were consuls of Rome (30) on the hundred eighty and fifth olympiad, on the third month, on the solemnity of the fast, as if a periodical revolution of calamities had returned since that which befell the Jews under Pompey; for the Jews were taken by him on the same day, and this was after twenty-seven years' time. So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem, and carried Antigonus with him in bonds to Antony; 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, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain, which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease, a hundred twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one, both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the high priesthood, as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation; but these men lost the government by their dissensions one with another, and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater, who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction, but one that was subject to other kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family.

Josephus quoting Stabo.
Antiquities book 15.

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. And Strabo of Cappadocia attests to what I have said, when he thus speaks: "Antony ordered Antigonus the Jew to be brought to Antioch, and there to be beheaded. And this Antony seems to me to have been the very first man who beheaded a king, as supposing he could no other way bend the minds of the Jews so as to receive Herod, whom he had made king in his stead; for by no torments could they he forced to call him king, so great a fondness they had for their former king; so he thought that this dishonorable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus's memory, and at the same time would diminish the hatred they bare to Herod." Thus far Strabo.

And to that - we can add Rabbi Wise:

The sympathies of the masses for the crucified king of Judah, the heroic son of so many heroic ancestors, and the legends growing, in time, out of this historical nucleus, became, perhaps, the source from which Paul and the evangelists preached Jesus as the crucified king of Judea.'' (History of the Hebrew's Second Commonwealth, 1880, Cincinnati, page 206)

Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist

Wow - seeking to somehow or another to discredit the Hasmoneans - :eek:
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Rabbi Wise and Antigonus II Mattathias

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:47 am neilgodfrey, before I read your message, I copied the following from the first page of the Preface (1973; vol. 1, page v):
"...it was decided to follow a new policy which would entail the insertion of changes at the actual points where they were needed,instead of presenting, as originally planned, a straight translation of the original accompanied by a special volume of supplements."
That makes no difference to the point I posted or the passage I quoted. No reader would infer from the passage you quoted that V&M would have S saying the very opposite of what he wrote in German on a particular point. A flat contradiction --- certainly without explanation -- is not a "revision" presented as an updated view of what the original author "would write today".
StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:47 am There already was an straight English translation of one of the German editions, in 1924. Maybe that was out of print, but it's not hard to find in a library or on the used book market. For anyone interested in the history of scholarship role of Emil Schürer, naturally they will want to consult his work in English or German. But for those interested in the history of the times, I find the Vermes/Millar updated project quite useful.
It is the German text that is point of discussion here.
StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:47 am You prefer Schürer on the TF. Fine. You disagree with the updated discussion. Fine. Bibliography on the TF is huge and lively, as Ken Olson could attest. You are free to present your TF analysis and give Vermes/Millar a negative review (a minority view, I guess, without re-checking).
???? Where does this come from? I don't "prefer" S's point of view at all. I am addressing the flat contradiction between what S wrote and what his revisers present him as having written or would have written if he had the benefit of updated information. V&M failed badly here.

(One does have to wonder if one or both of them were a little too anxious to address a point of vulnerability of the historical Jesus case -- as V himself clearly was at times as evidenced in some of his other work. Perhaps you are a little too anxious to address the same vulnerability, too?)

What "TF analysis" am I "presenting" of mine? Again, where does all of this come from? You are totally jumping the rails of this conversation and deciding to tackle me on what you imagine to be my view on the TF. If you read carefully you will notice I have been addressing the misrepresentation of S in a work purporting to be a "revision" of S. -- That's all. That's my point.

If you want to discuss the TF itself then do it with someone who is interested in that discussion. Don't presume I am saying anything more than I have already said. My focus has been on the history of the scholarship on that particular point and V&M have rewritten a piece of that history.
StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:47 am
As I mentioned, I do not always agree with Vermes. As I also mentioned, I am not a Coptology expert, and that is why I quoted authorities on Coptic. Authorities are not always reliable, of course, though Coptic experts are on the lookout for additional Coptic texts. But if someone proposes Coptic Gospel of Thomas was written earlier than experts know of Coptic being written, then that requires stronger evidence than I, for one, have yet seen.
Merely quoting authorities adds nothing to the discussion, imo. It is evident that those involved are already well aware they are flouting "the authority" view.
StephenGoranson wrote: Tue Jul 20, 2021 2:47 amAlso, on Antigonus Mattathias, Vermes/Millar give some info. He was brought to the throne with Parthian help. I would guess that some people affected back then were tired of the wars between his father and his uncle. Tired of ruling families (including later Herod) killing some of their own family members. Some, maybe the author of Psalms Solomon 8, thought it inappropriate to take the title king. The title "king" has also been used in various ways, including mockingly.
There are many theories trying to shoehorn biblical figures into historical counterparts between 200 bce and 70 ce. My disagreements are usually with the fundamental methods applied than with details of who said or did what when.
Post Reply