neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:40 am
maryhelena wrote: ↑Wed Apr 27, 2022 12:16 am
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 11:48 pm
maryhelena wrote: ↑Tue Apr 26, 2022 11:37 pmI don't see, on your side, eagerness to take on board an historical element to the gospel Jesus story.
I don't know why. I do indeed see the first gospel narrative as a direct metaphor for the historical events that were mired in the blood and gore of which I understand you sometimes speak.
My point is that even if the gospel narrative were grounded in history -- as I believe you affirm -- then what we read is still not that particular history that you (or I) believe to be its origins. The Jesus of the gospels is only a cipher for a person or nation in history, whether from the Hasmonean times or later.
Indeed...... but I've yet to see you identify aspects of pre Pilate Hasmonean history that are reflected in the gospel Jesus story. Broad brushstrokes only do so much but being specific enables roots to be identified. Actually, with your literary approach, every nook and cranny is dissected. How about moving from historical broadstrokes to the nooks and crannies of Hasmonean history........
If you have something to say about specific aspects of Hasmonean history, aspects that could have been incorporated or reflected in the gospel Jesus story, I'm all ears....
Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene -- Bedenbender argues that these names recall their Hasmonaean namesakes.
Jannaeus had brought the surviving rebels back to Jerusalem where he had eight hundred Jews, primarily Pharisees, crucified. Before their deaths, Alexander had the rebels' wives and children executed before their eyes as Jannaeus ate with his concubines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Jannaeus#Family
I fail to see any reflection of this in the gospel story about Alexander, son of Simon of Cyrene. A gospel figure that has no external historical evidence for existence. If the name Alexander has a gospel connection to Alexander Jannaeus then it is to Hasmonean history and not to Jannaeus himself. Yes, Jannaeus had two sons - two sons that fought against one another for the Judaean throne. Since the gospel story gives no indication that the sons of Simon of Cyrene were fighting one another - a better interpretation would be to consider Aristobulus II and his two sons.
Simon of Cyrene = Aristobulus II (son of Alexander Jannaeus)
Alexander = Alexander of Judaea (son of Aristobulus II and grandson of Alexander Jannaeus)
Rufus = Antigonus, King and High Priest of Judaea (son of Aristobulus II and grandson of Alexander Jannaeus).
So - there we go - right back to 63 b.c. when Aristobulus II was removed, by Rome, as King and High Priest of Judaea. Taken prisoner to Rome. Judaea now under Roman occupation. All three, father and his two sons, killed by Roman agents. Fitting then that the gospel writers would seek to reflect this family's history in their Jesus crucifixion story. Three historical figures, three Hasmonean 'zealots' are reflected in the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Aristobulus thought to have been poisoned by Pompey's army, Alexander beheaded in Antioch, Antigonus hung on a stake/cross and beheaded in Antioch.
It is being specific, by naming names, that can shine the light of history upon the gospel Jesus story - broad brushstrokes can't do that.