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
mlinssen
Posts: 1932
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: Sun May 01, 2022 4:55 am
mlinssen wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 3:40 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 2:16 am (and as for anyone interested - I view the gospel Jesus as a composite figure - the crucifixion element of that composite figure reflecting the Roman execution of Antigonus, High Priest and King of the Jews.)
I thought it was Aristobolus II, and now it's his son? Both don't share anything with neither Jesus nor Simon of Cyrene:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antigonus_II_Mattathias

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]

That's two against one, certainly not in your favour.
What does Cassius Dio have to say then?

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/e/ ... o/49*.html

The much quoted source, by Bill Thayer:

CASSIUS DIO ROMAN HISTORY Book 49

22 1 This, to be sure, took place at a later period; at the time under consideration Antony attacked Antiochus, shut him up in Samosata and proceeded to besiege him. But when he found he was accomplishing nothing and was spending his time in vain, and when he also suspected that the soldiers were alienated from him on account of the disgrace of Ventidius, he p387 secretly opened negotiations with the foe and made a pretended compact with him so that he might have a plausible reason for withdrawing. 2 At any rate, Antony got neither hostages (except two and these of little importance) nor the money which he had demanded, but he granted Antiochus the death of a certain Alexander, who had earlier deserted from him to the Roman side. After doing this he set out for Italy, and Gaius Sosius received from him the governorship of Syria and Cilicia. 3 This officer subdued the Aradii, who had been besieged up to this time and had been reduced to hard straits by famine and disease, and also conquered in battle Antigonus, who had put to death the Roman guards that were with him, and reduced him by siege when he took refuge in Jerusalem. 4 The Jews, indeed, had done much injury to the Romans, for the race is very bitter when aroused to anger, but they suffered far more themselves. The first of them to be captured were those who were fighting for the precinct of their god, and then the rest on the day even then called the day of Saturn.​7 5 And so excessive were they in their devotion to religion that the first set of prisoners, those who had been captured along with the temple, obtained leave from Sosius, when the day of Saturn came round again, and went up into the temple and there performed all the customary rites, together with the rest of the people. 6 These people Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he p389 bound to a cross and flogged, — a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, — and afterwards slew him.

P389 Points to the Loeb page number, I guess. What does the Greek say?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... ection%3D1

Cassius Dio Cocceianus, Historiae Romanae
Earnest Cary, Herbert Baldwin Foster, Ed.

[1] ταῦτα μὲν χρόνῳ ὕστερον ἐγένετο, τότε δὲ ὁ Ἀντώνιος προσέβαλε μὲν τῷ Ἀντιόχῳ, καὶ κατακλείσας αὐτὸν ἐς Σαμόσατα ἐπολιόρκει: ὡς δ᾽ οὐδὲν ἐπέραινεν, ἀλλ᾽ ὅ τε χρόνος ἄλλως ἀναλοῦτο καὶ τὰ τῶν στρατιωτῶν ἀλλοτρίως οἱ διὰ τὴν τοῦ Οὐεντιδίου ἀτιμίαν ἔχειν ὑπώπτευσε, [p. 386] διεκηρυκεύσατο αὐτῷ κρύφα, καὶ πλαστὰς πρὸς αὐτὸν συνθήκας, ὅπως εὐπρεπῶς ἀπαναστῇ, ἐποιήσατο.
[2] ἀμέλει αὐτὸς μὲν οὔτε ὁμήρους, πλὴν δύο καὶ τούτων οὐκ ἐπιφανῶν, οὔτε τὰ χρήματα ἃ ᾔτησεν ἔλαβε, τῷ δ᾽ Ἀντιόχῳ θάνατον Ἀλεξάνδρου τινὸς αὐτομολήσαντος παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ πρότερον πρὸς τοὺς Ῥωμαίους ἐχαρίσατο. καὶ ὁ μὲν
[3] ταῦτα πράξας ἐς τὴν Ἰταλίαν ἀφωρμήθη, 1 Γάιος δὲ δὴ Σόσσιος τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς τε Συρίας καὶ τῆς Κιλικίας παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ λαβὼν τούς τε Ἀραδίους πολιορκηθέντας τε μέχρι τότε καὶ λιμῷ καὶ νόσῳ ταλαιπωρηθέντας ἐχειρώσατο, καὶ τὸν Ἀντίγονον τοὺς φρουροὺς τοὺς παρ᾽ ἑαυτῷ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ὄντας ἀποκτείναντα μάχῃ τε ἐνίκησε, καὶ καταφυγόντα ἐς τὰ Ἱεροσόλυμα πολιορκίᾳ κατεστρέψατο.
[4] πολλὰ μὲν δὴ καὶ δεινὰ καὶ οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι τοὺς Ῥωμαίους ἔδρασαν ῾τὸ γάρ τοι γένος αὐτῶν θυμωθὲν πικρότατόν ἐστἰ, πολλῷ δὲ δὴ πλείω αὐτοὶ ἔπαθον. ἑάλωσαν μὲν γὰρ πρότεροι μὲν οἱ ὑπὲρ τοῦ τεμένους τοῦ θεοῦ ἀμυνόμενοι, ἔπειτα δὲ καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι ἐν τῇ τοῦ Κρόνου καὶ τότε ἡμέρᾳ
[5] ὠνομασμένῃ. καὶ τοσοῦτόν γε τῆς θρησκείας αὐτοῖς περιῆν ὥστε τοὺς προτέρους τοὺς μετὰ τοῦ ἱεροῦ χειρωθέντας παραιτήσασθαί τε τὸν Σόσσιον, ἐπειδὴ ἡμέρα αὖθις ἡ τοῦ Κρόνου ἐνέστη, καὶ ἀνελθόντας ἐς αὐτὸ πάντα μετὰ τῶν
[6] λοιπῶν τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιῆσαι. ἐκείνους μὲν οὖν Ἡρώδῃ τινὶ ὁ Ἀντώνιος ἄρχειν ἐπέτρεψε, τὸν δ᾽ [p. 388] Ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας, ὃ μηδεὶς βασιλεὺς ἄλλος ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπεπόνθει, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀπέσφαξεν.

Word-for-word translation by me, not precise for present and past tense:

[6] λοιπῶν τὰ νομιζόμενα ποιῆσαι. ἐκείνους μὲν οὖν Ἡρώδῃ τινὶ ὁ Ἀντώνιος ἄρχειν ἐπέτρεψε, τὸν δ᾽ [p. 388] Ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας, ὃ μηδεὶς βασιλεὺς ἄλλος ὑπὸ τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπεπόνθει, καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἀπέσφαξεν.
[6] having-left the customary-things he-produced. the-persons-there on-the-one-hand then by-Herod some (the) Antony to-rule he-transferred, (the) on-the-other-hand [p. 388] Antigonus he-flogged to-a-stake being-bound(nom!), which not-even-one king other under the Romans suffered, and after this and he-cut-his-throat

A few noteworthy things:

1. ἐμαστίγωσε is the proper native Greek for flogging that only John uses as the very scene itself: both Mark and Matthew use φραγελλώσας (having flogged him), the Roman loanword
2. σταυρῷ is the exact same word as in the NT, a stake - most certainly never a cross but we know our biased Christian translations by now, don't we?
3. προσδήσας indeed is from the verb προσδέω, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor ... rosde%2Fw0 - to bind or, in general, attach - but that is "c. acc. only, attach" and oddly, the word here is part sg aor act masc nom, not accusative. But my Greek is rusty
4. it ends with ἀπέσφαξεν, cutting the throat: and that comes dangerously close with beheading. From the verb σφάζω, http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3Dsfa%2Fzw - which rests on top of the noun of course,
σφαγή - http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... 3Dsfagh%2F

A.slaughter; the sg. is freq. in E., as Hec.571, 1037, al.; in pl., A.Eu. 187,450, S.El.37, E.Hec.522, al.; ἕστηκε . . μῆλα πρὸς σφαγὰς πυρός ready for the sacrificial fire, A.Ag.1057; πολυθύτους τεύχειν ς. to offer many sacrifices, S.Tr.756: also in Prose, “ὑπὸ σφαγῆς” Pl.R. 610b; “θανάτους τε καὶ σφαγάς” Id.Lg.682e; “σφαγὰς ποιεῖσθαι” X.HG 4.4.2; σφαγὰς τῶν γνωρίμων ποιήσαντες ib.2.2.6, cf. Isoc.8.96, D.19.260; “ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι σφαγὰς ἐμποιοῦντες” Isoc.5.107.
2. with collat. sense of a wound, αἷμα τῶν ἐμῶν ς. S.Tr.573, cf. 717; ἐκφυσιῶν . . αἵματος σφαγήν the blood gushing from the wound, A.Ag.1389; καθάρμοσον σφαγάς close the gaping wound, E.El.1228 (lyr.); “ἐσφάγη . . σφαγὴν βραχεῖαν” Ath.9.381a.
II. the throat, the spot where the victim is struck (“κοινὸν μέρος αὐχένος καὶ στήθους σφαγή” Arist. HA493b7), Antipho 5.69: pl., “ἐν σφαγαῖσι βάψασα ξίφος” A.Pr.863; “ἐς σφαγὰς ὦσαι ξίφος” E.Or.291; so in prose, “οἰστοὺς . . ἐς τὰς ς. καθιέντες” Th.4.48, cf. Sor.2.63; εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν . . διὰ τῶν ς. Arist. HA511b35.

So the final death is by having his throat cut, whereas the entire stake construction is most peculiar:

Ἀντίγονον ἐμαστίγωσε σταυρῷ προσδήσας - did he flog Antigonus with a stake? Yes, as it is highly likely that the verb above is not the one for binding/attaching, but permitting:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex ... rosde%2Fw2

Herod permitted - and then we are perfectly happy with the nominative of the participium - Antigonus to be "flogged" with a stake, to be beaten with a stick. And of course, no king ever received that most lowly of punishments

I'm sorry maryhelena, but your only witness to a crucifed Jewish king appears to have been created by Christian falsification, and to be non existent

But perhaps my Greek is wrong - still, there are only 3 words here around which your entire theory is built, and the story here ends with cutting a throat / beheading, so it is highly likely that Cassius Dio attests to the exact same thing as his two fellow witnesses
I remember that you said 'Goodbye'......................................
Goodbye to your theory, yes
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: Sun May 01, 2022 2:16 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 12:56 am
Bedenbender mentions names and you are always asking for specifics, for names. Well, I have even given more than Bedenbender in specifics of the names. There are Simons galore from the Maccabees through to Bar Kochba. Yet you dismiss my proposals -- and I think Bedenbender's fewer names -- as broad brushstrokes.
Again - broad-strokes don't move things forward. There is little value in saying a particular name is a name used or connected to figures in Hasmonean history.
I give up. Specific names associated with specific events that inspire specific actions in the gospel as Bedenbender discusses are not "broad strokes".
maryhelena wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 2:16 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 12:56 am I am looking forward to a discussion that involves an exchange of ideas, a give and take. I don't see that in your tone as it comes across here. I am responding to you because I think that is a shame -- your view has more going for it than others on this forum seem to credit. But not in the form in which you seem to demand it be accepted.
Ah - thought that is where this was going - Bar Kochba i.e. post 70 c.e.

Whatever was the value the gospel writers could have inferred from 70 c.e. or 132/135 c.e. does not cancel out the value they could infer from post 63 b.c. There is enough in Hasmonean/Jewish history prior to 70 c.e. for any gospel writer to compose a Jesus story.

My focus is on Hasmonean history/Jewish history prior to 70 c.e. I think that this history is far more fundamental to the gospel Jesus story than the post 70 c.e. history.

A different perspective, a different approach.......
Of for crying out loud, maryhelena. I must have said it at least half a dozen times by now that Bendenber's thesis does indeed cover Hasmonean historical events and persons! You seem to be incapable of grasping that it is possible for the gospel to be based on a more than one historical period with specific names and specific events associated with each.

I really do give up.
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: Tue May 03, 2022 4:58 am
maryhelena wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 2:16 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 12:56 am
Bedenbender mentions names and you are always asking for specifics, for names. Well, I have even given more than Bedenbender in specifics of the names. There are Simons galore from the Maccabees through to Bar Kochba. Yet you dismiss my proposals -- and I think Bedenbender's fewer names -- as broad brushstrokes.
Again - broad-strokes don't move things forward. There is little value in saying a particular name is a name used or connected to figures in Hasmonean history.
I give up. Specific names associated with specific events that inspire specific actions in the gospel as Bedenbender discusses are not "broad strokes".
maryhelena wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 2:16 am
neilgodfrey wrote: Sun May 01, 2022 12:56 am I am looking forward to a discussion that involves an exchange of ideas, a give and take. I don't see that in your tone as it comes across here. I am responding to you because I think that is a shame -- your view has more going for it than others on this forum seem to credit. But not in the form in which you seem to demand it be accepted.
Ah - thought that is where this was going - Bar Kochba i.e. post 70 c.e.

Whatever was the value the gospel writers could have inferred from 70 c.e. or 132/135 c.e. does not cancel out the value they could infer from post 63 b.c. There is enough in Hasmonean/Jewish history prior to 70 c.e. for any gospel writer to compose a Jesus story.

My focus is on Hasmonean history/Jewish history prior to 70 c.e. I think that this history is far more fundamental to the gospel Jesus story than the post 70 c.e. history.

A different perspective, a different approach.......
Of for crying out loud, maryhelena. I must have said it at least half a dozen times by now that Bendenber's thesis does indeed cover Hasmonean historical events and persons! You seem to be incapable of grasping that it is possible for the gospel to be based on a more than one historical period with specific names and specific events associated with each.

I really do give up.
You have failed to give specific examples where Bedenbender's thesis covers Hasmonean historical events that relate to the gospel Jesus story. I have given a specific example of Hasmonean history and offered my conclusion that that history is reflected in a specific element within the Jesus Crucifixion story.

Give up by all means. Repeating that Bedenbender covers Hasmonean history without specific examples of how that history relates to specific elements within the gospel Jesus story is just wasting both my time and yours.
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

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

Post by yakovzutolmai »

neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 2:12 pm The idea of Christians dying for the gospel is not because the gospel is based in history, but because they believe Jesus was raised from the dead and they will be raised, too, if they maintain their faith, even to death. I don't think any notion of historical truth to the story makes any difference.
Keep in mind the "Sons of Light" from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the (rumored) behavior of the Kitos War rebels who wore entrails of enemies as a rejection of flesh in hope of the coming Kingdom of Heaven. These thoroughly Jewish zealots, perhaps involved in some form of our missing proto-Christianity, believed that purity in the law would lead to the shedding of flesh and assumption of angelic power leading to the secular victory of a political power headed by an incarnation of the Divine Son of the Judeo-Syrian Triad.

Did the zealots and Kitos warriors have a "historical" basis for their faith? Had their coming day when the heavenly gates would open and the army of heaven would pour out and defeat Rome and Persian been validated scientifically prior to their faith? Of course not.

So that later (much later) Christians would believe in the historical veracity of their Christ as sufficient to die for is not evidence of historicity. We assume they must have known something to have such a strong conviction. Yet, what did the zealots know? Their messiah never came.
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 »

yakovzutolmai wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:13 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Tue Apr 26, 2022 2:12 pm The idea of Christians dying for the gospel is not because the gospel is based in history, but because they believe Jesus was raised from the dead and they will be raised, too, if they maintain their faith, even to death. I don't think any notion of historical truth to the story makes any difference.
Keep in mind the "Sons of Light" from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the (rumored) behavior of the Kitos War rebels who wore entrails of enemies as a rejection of flesh in hope of the coming Kingdom of Heaven. These thoroughly Jewish zealots, perhaps involved in some form of our missing proto-Christianity, believed that purity in the law would lead to the shedding of flesh and assumption of angelic power leading to the secular victory of a political power headed by an incarnation of the Divine Son of the Judeo-Syrian Triad.

Did the zealots and Kitos warriors have a "historical" basis for their faith? Had their coming day when the heavenly gates would open and the army of heaven would pour out and defeat Rome and Persian been validated scientifically prior to their faith? Of course not.

So that later (much later) Christians would believe in the historical veracity of their Christ as sufficient to die for is not evidence of historicity. We assume they must have known something to have such a strong conviction. Yet, what did the zealots know? Their messiah never came.
Just by the way ... not directly addressing your comment, but if one relies upon external verifications for both relative and absolute dates and not solely on internal interpretations of the sources, the Jesus for whom the first Christian matyrs died was the Jesus of Marcion and of Justin. Only later does the gospel Jesus surface, that is, the Jesus constructed around certain historical events and circumstances of the Judeans in the Gospel of Mark did not surface in the records until after the first martyrs met their fates.

(That's another spanner tossed into the hypothesis that people only died for "history" as distinct from "myth".)
yakovzutolmai
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon May 17, 2021 6:03 am

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

Post by yakovzutolmai »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:32 pm if one relies upon external verifications for both relative and absolute dates and not solely on internal interpretations of the sources, the Jesus for whom the first Christian matyrs died was the Jesus of Marcion and of Justin. Only later does the gospel Jesus surface, that is, the Jesus constructed around certain historical events and circumstances of the Judeans in the Gospel of Mark did not surface in the records until after the first martyrs met their fates.

(That's another spanner tossed into the hypothesis that people only died for "history" as distinct from "myth".)
Very much so, and an important observation.

Even so, as I said, Jewish zealots were uncontroversially dying for a reality which never manifested. It is much easier to die for a false history which creates a reality that cannot be falsified.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 7467
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

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

Post by MrMacSon »

... the Jesus or Christ for whom the first Christian martyrs were said to have died for would have been the Christ/s or Jesus/es of Marcion, Valentinus, Simon, Menander, Justin and probably others
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 1932
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 »

neilgodfrey wrote: Mon May 09, 2022 8:32 pm Just by the way ... not directly addressing your comment, but if one relies upon external verifications for both relative and absolute dates and not solely on internal interpretations of the sources, the Jesus for whom the first Christian matyrs died was the Jesus of Marcion and of Justin. Only later does the gospel Jesus surface, that is, the Jesus constructed around certain historical events and circumstances of the Judeans in the Gospel of Mark did not surface in the records until after the first martyrs met their fates.

(That's another spanner tossed into the hypothesis that people only died for "history" as distinct from "myth".)
I'll take that one step further:

"the Chrestos Jesus for whom the first Chrestianmatyrs died was the Jesus of Marcion and of Justin"

And the killers were the same Romans that would later turn that same Chrestos into Chreistos, then Christos.
So we have several Jesuses for whom people die, most of them unwillingly I think, and while some would try to argue that at least one of these Jesuses was historical, at least one was myth

And of course my argument is that all of them and their stories were fiction. But yes, Justin was the first "famous" Chrestian, and he testifies to that himself
Post Reply