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
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
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: 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.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
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 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....
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
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: 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.
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
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: 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.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
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: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:46 am 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.
Why in your scenario did the author of the first gospel change the names and time settings of these historical persons so that we read "Jesus" instead of the original historical person's name, and the death occurring in the first century of this era instead of in the earlier time?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
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: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:37 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 1:46 am 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.
Why in your scenario did the author of the first gospel change the names and time settings of these historical persons so that we read "Jesus" instead of the original historical person's name, and the death occurring in the first century of this era instead of in the earlier time?
Because, Neil, it would make no sense to name historical figures from a prior century in a story set within a different century. On top of which the main figure in the story, a story set in a later century, is not a historical figure but a literary figure.

Simon of Cyrene and his two sons, Alexander and Rufus, reflect past historical figures. The shadow, the legacy, of Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus, is reflected in a literary story.

Perhaps even Josephus is reflecting the history of Aristobulus and his two sons in his story about Judas the Galilean and his two crucified sons, James and Simon.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
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: Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:39 pm
Because, Neil, it would make no sense to name historical figures from a prior century in a story set within a different century. On top of which the main figure in the story, a story set in a later century, is not a historical figure but a literary figure.
Why did the author choose to create a fictional story in a later century from the plot outline of that historical narrative?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
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: Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:53 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:39 pm
Because, Neil, it would make no sense to name historical figures from a prior century in a story set within a different century. On top of which the main figure in the story, a story set in a later century, is not a historical figure but a literary figure.
Why did the author choose to create a fictional story in a later century from the plot outline of that historical narrative?
That question is a question for the author of the story plotline.....
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
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: Wed Apr 27, 2022 11:11 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:53 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:39 pm
Because, Neil, it would make no sense to name historical figures from a prior century in a story set within a different century. On top of which the main figure in the story, a story set in a later century, is not a historical figure but a literary figure.
Why did the author choose to create a fictional story in a later century from the plot outline of that historical narrative?
That question is a question for the author of the story plotline.....
Did any of the first readers know the story was based on historical events and persons?
User avatar
maryhelena
Posts: 2897
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: Wed Apr 27, 2022 11:24 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 11:11 pm
neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:53 pm
maryhelena wrote: Wed Apr 27, 2022 10:39 pm
Because, Neil, it would make no sense to name historical figures from a prior century in a story set within a different century. On top of which the main figure in the story, a story set in a later century, is not a historical figure but a literary figure.
Why did the author choose to create a fictional story in a later century from the plot outline of that historical narrative?
That question is a question for the author of the story plotline.....
Did any of the first readers know the story was based on historical events and persons?
Neil, first readers of the story are no longer around hence unavailable to be questioned................
Post Reply