Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by maryhelena »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 1:58 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am
Why the connection between Simon from Cyrene and his two sons to Aristobulus II and his two sons?

Context: crucifixion. Simon carried the cross. Gospel story is fiction re no historical Jesus figure. History? A historical man connected to a crucifixion, an execution by Roman agents, a man with two sons.
Okay, but that doesn't answer my question. How does such a comparison contribute to the message of the gospel? How does it help us interpret or understand the story in the Gospel of Mark any better?
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am History:

Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "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."[6] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[7]

Antigonus II Mattathias

(Josephus also tells a story about a man with two sons - the two sons of Judas the Galilean being crucified.)
Yes, but again, that doesn't answer my question. Alexander and Rufus in the Gospel of Mark were not crucified. Nor was their father. None of those three figures in the Gospel of Mark was executed by any means.
Reflection due to connection to a gospel crucifixion story.
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am
Two crucifixion stories that relate to a man connected to crucifixion. A man with two sons. Turn the page - or click on Wikipedia - and history does relate the story of a historical man, a man with two sons - both sons executed via Roman agents. Aristobulus II and his two sons.
Again, you seem to be avoiding my question. How does a historical narrative of three persons being killed by Romans add any meaning or help us understand in a better way the story in the gospel about three men who were not hunted by the Romans?
I have used the word reflection many times. If you want a correspondence - then by all means search for one in Jewish history - and let me now when you find it.
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am By all means identify another historical man connected to a crucifixion by Roman agents; a man with two sons. I'm all ears.
Josephus talks of thousands being crucified by Romans but what meaning does that add to the story about a father of two sons carrying a cross for Jesus?


We have two stories, one in the gospels and one in Josephus - two stories about a father and two sons. I've looked at Hasmonean history and found an historical account of a father with two sons - one of which was hung on a stake/cross and both executed by Roman agents.
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am
I don't see how identifying the three names of Simon, Alexander and Rufus with those three (Aristobulus II, Alexander and Antigonus) adds any meaning or interpretative value to the gospel narrative.

The proposed identification allows Hasmonean history to be center stage in an investigation into the origins of the gospel Jesus story.
Can you explain how it allows Hasmonean history to be moved centre stage in the origin of the gospel story? What is the actual connection that helps us understand the gospel story in a more meaningful or significant way?
Perhaps re read the quote from Rabbi Wise:

The gospel story has a father carrying a cross in the service of the Romans who are in the process of executing Jesus. Neither that father nor his sons according to the story suffer in any way at the hands of the Romans. How does a historical account of a father and two sons who are killed by Romans help us see the Gospel narrative in a more meaningful way? What is the message that we can read into the gospel from the perspective of the historical persons you are speaking about?
Reflection of historical events via the means of figurative figures in the gospel literary story.
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am
''Dion Cassius says, 'Antony now gave the Kingdom to a certain Herod, and having stretched Antigonus on the cross and scourged him, which had never been done before to a king by the Romans, he put him to death'. 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.

But what does that extract have to do with Simon of Cyrene, father of Alexander and Rufus, in the Gospel of Mark?
The gospel Jesus, re the story, is crucified with the involvement of a Roman agent.
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:14 am What is it Neil, about Hasmonean history, that fails to resonate with you, that fails as a source able to offer insights into the gospel Jesus story? Jewish nationalism? Much safer I suppose to concentrate on post 70 c.e. when Jewish nationalism has been kicked sideways by Rome.
I do not reject the relevance of Hasmonean history as you here infer. I thought I had made that clear by now. I have even in these recent discussions attempted to point out to you that I do indeed see a relevance of Jewish history to the gospel story. [/quote[
Great - then perhaps you can let me know what historical Hasmonean figures we see reflected in the gospel Jesus story.

But if the connection to a historical background does not add any particular meaning or interpretative layer to the gospel narrative then I cannot see how it has any relevance to the gospel narrative.

So how is our understanding of the (fictional) narrative of Simon of Cyrene and his two sons enhanced in some way by the events of a father and his two sons being killed by Romans?
Re read 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.'

User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by maryhelena »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:57 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:25 am My time - and it's been well spent.....
Antigonus was beheaded, according to Josephus

http://pace.hypervisions.it/york/york/s ... yout=split

At this time Herod, now he had got Jerusalem under his power, carried off all the royal ornaments, and spoiled the wealthy men of what they had gotten; and when, by these means, he had heaped together a great quantity of silver and gold, he gave it all to Antony, and his friends that were about him. He also slew forty-five of the principal men of Antigonus's party, and set guards at the gates of the city, that nothing might be carried out together with their dead bodies. They also searched the dead, and whatsoever was found, either of silver or gold, or other treasure, it was carried to the king; nor was there any end of the miseries he brought upon them; and this distress was in part occasioned by the covetousness of the prince regent, who was still in want of more, and in part by the Sabbatic year, which was still going on, and forced the country to lie still uncultivated, since we are forbidden to sow our land in that year. 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.

Alexander was beheaded

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_of_Judaea

Three years later, in 49 BC, Caesar's Civil War broke out, and Julius Caesar set Alexander's father Aristobulus II free, and sent him to Judaea to further his interests there. He was poisoned on the journey, and Alexander, who was preparing to support him, was seized at the command of Pompey, and beheaded at Antioch

Aristobolus II was poisoned

http://pace.hypervisions.it/york/york/s ... yout=split

183 NOW, upon the flight of Pompey and of the senate beyond the Ionian Sea, Caesar got Rome and the empire under his power, and released Aristobulus from his bonds. He also committed two legions to him, and sent him in haste into Syria, as hoping that by his means he should easily conquer that country, and the parts adjoining to Judea. But envy prevented any effect of Aristobulus's alacrity, and the hopes of Caesar; for he was taken off by poison given him by those of Pompey's party; and, for a long while, he had not so much as a burial vouchsafed him in his own country; but his dead body lay [above ground], preserved in honey, until it was sent to the Jews by Antony, in order to be buried in the royal sepulchers

Do you have a thread somewhere where you lay out a few of the details?
If you are the least bit interested then I suggest you use this forum's search facility. Over the last 20 or so years I've posted many times here, and elsewhere, on Hasmonean history - so - do the leg work if your interested in this subject. I'm not particularly interested in fighting old battles - I'm long gone from such basic references, reflections, to Hasmonean history within the gospel Jesus story. My interest is in moving forward.........

Anyway, it was not me that brought up Simon from Cyrene....and that's not the subject of this thread.

Neil: Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene -- Bedenbender argues that these names recall their Hasmonaean namesakes.

User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by neilgodfrey »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:33 am
Neil: Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene -- Bedenbender argues that these names recall their Hasmonaean namesakes.

Indeed, maryhelena. And that's what I have been very conscious of. But his argument is entirely different from your own and I find his argument meaningful for the reasons he sets out.

You are disappointed when I don't answer your questions. I do wish you were more interested in other ideas -- including Bedenbender's -- and ask more questions yourself.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by maryhelena »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:33 am
Neil: Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene -- Bedenbender argues that these names recall their Hasmonaean namesakes.

Indeed, maryhelena. And that's what I have been very conscious of. But his argument is entirely different from your own and I find his argument meaningful for the reasons he sets out.

You are disappointed when I don't answer your questions. I do wish you were more interested in other ideas -- including Bedenbender's -- and ask more questions yourself.
Other ideas - bring them on.....provide the details where you see reflections of Hasmonean history within the gospel Jesus story - not broad brushstrokes - be specific, names please.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by neilgodfrey »

maryhelena wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:23 am And, Neil, one does not present ideas - one does not present a theory - without having confidence in it. I'm not interested in playing games - I'm interested in moving the issue of christian origins forward. That requires historical arguments. Hence I'm not interested in being distracted by arguments that resolve around supposed, maybe, probably, historical Josephan characters. That's to shortchange or sabotage the debate over christian origins.
I have tried to engage with your theory, maryhelena, in a positive and productive manner but I find myself coming back to this comment of yours. It is not playing games to look for both pros AND cons in one's theory. I present ideas here sometimes because I am looking for where they can be shot down, to see what I have overlooked, as much as any other reason. Is not that the scientific method? To see if our theories can stand up against criticism or falsification?

It is not moving a discussion forward by simply beating the drum for one theory and declaring all other theories to be missing the point or merely playing games. Discussions are advanced by give and take.

You have the opportunity to give a little by engaging serioulsy with Bedenbender's thesis. If you do, I can assure you that your theory will be modified, change shape a little, but what is remaining will be all the stronger and add a level of meaning to the gospel narrative that your theory at present fails to do.

If one is so goddam confidant in one's theories then I fear one is shutting oneself off from further learning. It's those "probablies" and "maybes" that you seem to despise as time-wasting games that are, in fact, the gateways to learning. What is learned is then tested and made secure or discarded. That's not playing games. That's serious progress.

As I was about to post the above I see a new comment from you:
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:45 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:33 am
Neil: Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene -- Bedenbender argues that these names recall their Hasmonaean namesakes.

Indeed, maryhelena. And that's what I have been very conscious of. But his argument is entirely different from your own and I find his argument meaningful for the reasons he sets out.

You are disappointed when I don't answer your questions. I do wish you were more interested in other ideas -- including Bedenbender's -- and ask more questions yourself.
Other ideas - bring them on.....provide the details where you see reflections of Hasmonean history within the gospel Jesus story - not broad brushstrokes - be specific, names please.
What's this "bring them on" business? It's okay if you are engaging in a prize fight but that's not how serious historical research is undertaken by any serious scholar.

You have repeated quotes from Wise (I have read a lot of his work, by the way) but are not giving clear answers to any of my questions. Why don't YOU for a change take up your own advice and read Bedenbender for yourself. I have his work in translation if you are genuinely interested in learning and not wrapping yourself in our own echo chamber.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by maryhelena »

neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:59 am
maryhelena wrote: Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:23 am And, Neil, one does not present ideas - one does not present a theory - without having confidence in it. I'm not interested in playing games - I'm interested in moving the issue of christian origins forward. That requires historical arguments. Hence I'm not interested in being distracted by arguments that resolve around supposed, maybe, probably, historical Josephan characters. That's to shortchange or sabotage the debate over christian origins.
I have tried to engage with your theory, maryhelena, in a positive and productive manner but I find myself coming back to this comment of yours. It is not playing games to look for both pros AND cons in one's theory. I present ideas here sometimes because I am looking for where they can be shot down, to see what I have overlooked, as much as any other reason. Is not that the scientific method? To see if our theories can stand up against criticism or falsification?

It is not moving a discussion forward by simply beating the drum for one theory and declaring all other theories to be missing the point or merely playing games. Discussions are advanced by give and take.

You have the opportunity to give a little by engaging serioulsy with Bedenbender's thesis. If you do, I can assure you that your theory will be modified, change shape a little, but what is remaining will be all the stronger and add a level of meaning to the gospel narrative that your theory at present fails to do.

If one is so goddam confidant in one's theories then I fear one is shutting oneself off from further learning. It's those "probablies" and "maybes" that you seem to despise as time-wasting games that are, in fact, the gateways to learning. What is learned is then tested and made secure or discarded. That's not playing games. That's serious progress.

As I was about to post the above I see a new comment from you:
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:45 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:33 am
Neil: Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene -- Bedenbender argues that these names recall their Hasmonaean namesakes.

Indeed, maryhelena. And that's what I have been very conscious of. But his argument is entirely different from your own and I find his argument meaningful for the reasons he sets out.

You are disappointed when I don't answer your questions. I do wish you were more interested in other ideas -- including Bedenbender's -- and ask more questions yourself.
Other ideas - bring them on.....provide the details where you see reflections of Hasmonean history within the gospel Jesus story - not broad brushstrokes - be specific, names please.
What's this "bring them on" business? It's okay if you are engaging in a prize fight but that's not how serious historical research is undertaken by any serious scholar.

You have repeated quotes from Wise (I have read a lot of his work, by the way) but are not giving clear answers to any of my questions. Why don't YOU for a change take up your own advice and read Bedenbender for yourself. I have his work in translation if you are genuinely interested in learning and not wrapping yourself in our own echo chamber.
Neil, OK - so you think I'm beating my own drum - so be it.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1931
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by mlinssen »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:45 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:33 am
Neil: Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene -- Bedenbender argues that these names recall their Hasmonaean namesakes.

Indeed, maryhelena. And that's what I have been very conscious of. But his argument is entirely different from your own and I find his argument meaningful for the reasons he sets out.

You are disappointed when I don't answer your questions. I do wish you were more interested in other ideas -- including Bedenbender's -- and ask more questions yourself.
Other ideas - bring them on.....provide the details where you see reflections of Hasmonean history within the gospel Jesus story - not broad brushstrokes - be specific, names please.
ROFL - you are willing to allow my feedback on your theory as long as it serves to strengthen it? And in detail even?

And you've been playing this game for 20 years? No wonder you're so very "winning" at it

Goodbye
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by maryhelena »

mlinssen wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:09 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:45 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:37 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 2:33 am
Neil: Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene -- Bedenbender argues that these names recall their Hasmonaean namesakes.

Indeed, maryhelena. And that's what I have been very conscious of. But his argument is entirely different from your own and I find his argument meaningful for the reasons he sets out.

You are disappointed when I don't answer your questions. I do wish you were more interested in other ideas -- including Bedenbender's -- and ask more questions yourself.
Other ideas - bring them on.....provide the details where you see reflections of Hasmonean history within the gospel Jesus story - not broad brushstrokes - be specific, names please.
ROFL - you are willing to allow my feedback on your theory as long as it serves to strengthen it? And in detail even?

And you've been playing this game for 20 years? No wonder you're so very "winning" at it

Goodbye
:banghead:
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 4792
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by neilgodfrey »

maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:07 am

Neil, OK - so you think I'm beating my own drum - so be it.
No, my point is that I wish you would open up to other ideas that can assist your own ideas even further, even if it means reshaping some aspects of your ideas in the process. The result promises to be a much stronger thesis of yours, even if not exactly the same in all respects as you have presented it up to now.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2367
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 11:22 pm
Location: England

Re: Historicity's Problems And Theudas As Our Only Candidate; 4 Genuine Historical Identifications

Post by maryhelena »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Apr 30, 2022 8:09 pm
maryhelena wrote: Fri Apr 29, 2022 3:07 am

Neil, OK - so you think I'm beating my own drum - so be it.
No, my point is that I wish you would open up to other ideas that can assist your own ideas even further, even if it means reshaping some aspects of your ideas in the process. The result promises to be a much stronger thesis of yours, even if not exactly the same in all respects as you have presented it up to now.
Other ideas ? Please let me know what specific ideas you think will assist my own ideas.....

ah - so you think other ideas will make my thesis much stronger - well now, that is an interesting point of view on my thesis...perhaps you think there is something there after all..... :cheers:
Post Reply