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

[neilgodfrey]

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.....

Yes, I have said repeatedly that there is "something there" in your view of Hasmonean history being to some extent an inspiration for the first gospel narrative that we have. But I have the impression that you insist on your view being accepted in total or not at all. Any attempt to suggest that some aspects of your theory might best be modified or even removed (because they lack strong specific analogies to the gospel narrative) has been met, as I understand your approach, with total rejection. But why not be prepared to accept some -- even slight -- criticisms of some of the edges of your view if it means seeing that core ideas that you are presenting are made even stronger?

[maryhelena]

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.....

Yes, I have said repeatedly that there is "something there" in your view of Hasmonean history being to some extent an inspiration for the first gospel narrative that we have. But I have the impression that you insist on your view being accepted in total or not at all. Any attempt to suggest that some aspects of your theory might best be modified or even removed (because they lack strong specific analogies to the gospel narrative) has been met, as I understand your approach, with total rejection. But why not be prepared to accept some -- even slight -- criticisms of some of the edges of your view if it means seeing that core ideas that you are presenting are made even stronger?

Great - 'something there'.....

I'm open to suggestions as to what can be added or removed from any of the ideas I've presented on this forum. Yet, surely, you are not denying me the right to reject ideas that I find to be of no value in searching for the roots of what became early christianity.

You brought in Andreas Bedenbender and his linking Simon from Cyrene with Hasmonean history. I find nothing specific with that idea that can further research - OK - linkage to Hasmonean history. Good - but to stop there i.e. with a broad-brush approach - does not move the research forward.

Some nine years ago, Bedenbender's book was mentioned on this forum. David Hindley produced an English translation of it's table of contents.

For those wondering what the German TOC says, I scanned the PDF to Word (in German) and processed it through MS Translate, to produce the following. I cannot guarantee great accuracy and anyone should feel free to do a better job of it if they can or correct obvious mistakes. It seems like a cross between the convoluted thinking of Robert Eisler's Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist (1931) and the utopian hopefulness of Karl Kautsky's Foundations of Christianity (1908). Throw in some S G F Brandon Jesus and the Zealots for good measure. On the other hand, it is refreshing to see someone attack the matter of the influence of the Jewish war on the formation of Christianity, as I think most scholars want to keep wide of the subject because Christianity becomes merely the effect of a cause rather than a breath of fresh air that sets the truth of the Christian message apart from mere syncretism.

=======

11.6. With the zealots in the dispute about the history of Israel. Simon Maccabee in Mark's Gospel... 325
11.6.1 "John and Alexander" (Acts 4:6): two Hasmoneans in Acts... 326
11.6.2 "Simon of Cyrene, the father of Alexander and the Rufus "(Mk 15:21)...329
11.6.3. Simon Maccabee and Alexander Jannai... 330
11.6.4. Tiberius Alexander... 332
11.6.5. Rufus, the Red... 333


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=331

Simon Thassi/Maccabeus and Alexander Jannaeus were indeed Hasmonean zealots - but they did not fight with Rome. They are not linked, as is Simon from Cyrene, in the gospel Jesus story, with a Roman execution (of a king of the Jews). The King of the Jews executed by Rome was Antigonus II Mattathias, killed in Antioch, by Marc Antony, in 37 b.c. Antigonus, and his brother Alexander of Judah, were sons of Aristobulus II
- hence grandsons of Alexander Jannaeus. -

Why take a broad-brush view of Hasmonean history when a specific account of that history is available ? Surely, the purpose is to move forward research into the background of what became early christianity. Why look beyond 63 b.c. and the loss of Hasmonean/Jewish sovereignty to Rome - when it is the Roman occupation of Judaea in which the gospel writers set their Jesus story.

If you think that Simon Thassi/Maccabeus and Alexander Jannaeus are better reflections of Simon from Cyrene in the gospel Jesus story - better reflections than Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus - then maybe offer your opinion as to why you find Bedenbender's theory more acceptable than the one I've offered.

[neilgodfrey]

then maybe offer your opinion as to why you find Bedenbender's theory more acceptable than the one I've offered.

because Bedenbender's discussion throws deeper interpretation possibilities into the Gospel or Mark's narrative. B's thesis offers deeper layers of meaning to the whole purpose of the narrative.

When I asked how your linking of a father and two sons group added to our understanding of the Gospel of Mark, and even in particular to Simon of Cyrene and his two sons, you responded that the Hasmonean reference invites us to examine the roots of the Gospel narrative. But I had already tried to point out the weakness of that explanation -- three persons in Mark's narrative do not suffer at all at the hands of the Romans. What is the connection? That Simon assisted the Romans in executing Jesus? That's hardly a clear link between 3 Hasmoneans who are butchered by Romans and 3 characters named in the gospel who are not harmed by Romans.

And the linkage you propose does not answer my question of what interpretative addition such a parallel gives to the narrative.

How does one get from three persons, a father and two sons, who suffer death at the hands of the Romans, over to three persons, one of whom assists Romans in killing Jesus and two sons who have nothing to do with the Romans?

What does the history of the Hasmoneans have to do with the narrative in Mark's Gospel? None that I can see, and you have not been able to offer one, either.

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.

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.

[maryhelena]

then maybe offer your opinion as to why you find Bedenbender's theory more acceptable than the one I've offered.

because Bedenbender's discussion throws deeper interpretation possibilities into the Gospel or Mark's narrative. B's thesis offers deeper layers of meaning to the whole purpose of the narrative.

When I asked how your linking of a father and two sons group added to our understanding of the Gospel of Mark, and even in particular to Simon of Cyrene and his two sons, you responded that the Hasmonean reference invites us to examine the roots of the Gospel narrative. But I had already tried to point out the weakness of that explanation -- three persons in Mark's narrative do not suffer at all at the hands of the Romans. What is the connection? That Simon assisted the Romans in executing Jesus? That's hardly a clear link between 3 Hasmoneans who are butchered by Romans and 3 characters named in the gospel who are not harmed by Romans.

And I pointed out that the connection is crucifixion via a Roman agent.

And the linkage you propose does not answer my question of what interpretative addition such a parallel gives to the narrative.

We have a Jesus crucifixion story in the gospels. We need an historical approach to that story. We have history of a Roman execution of a King of the Jews. The gospel crucifixion story set in the time of Pilate, is not history. It's a 'take' on history, an allegory, a reflection, an interpretation, a finding some meaning or value in history.

Perhaps consider what Greg Doudna wrote regarding Antigonus and the DSS.

And so it seems to me that the wicked ruler of these texts reflects
Antigonus Mattathias, and that the Lion of Wrath alludes to Mark
Antony who hung up alive Antigonus and perhaps other members of
Antigonus’s regime similarly unremarked in Josephus, and that key
Qumran pesharim such as Pesher Habakkuk, Pesher Psalms A, Pesher
Nahum, Pesher Hosea B and others all allude in their various ways to
the downfall of this last Hasmonean ruler, Antigonus Mattathias. And
it is surprising to me that this suggestion seems to be new. Despite
the striking correspondences between Antigonus Mattathias and the
Wicked Priest just named and no obvious counter-indication, so far as
I have been able to discover there has never previously been a scholarly
suggestion that the Wicked Priest might allude to Antigonus Mattathias.
And in asking how Antigonus Mattathias was missed I am
including myself, for I too missed this in my study of Pesher Nahum
of 2001.

https://www.academia.edu/12144236/_Allu ... Q169_2011_

Yes, unfortunately, Greg has gone with Jesus ben Saphat of the war of 70 c.e. - a figure with no external to Josephus historical evidence. However, what he wrote above re Antigonus is worth keeping in mind. It is easy to miss something even when it's in plain sight. The Roman execution of Antigonus is, as it were, hidden in plain sight. It was there for any gospel writer to develop a Jesus story. There was no reason to wait for Josephus and his account of the Jewish war of 70 c.e. No reason to pick one of Josephus's characters as the basis for their Jesus crucifixion/Roman execution story. No need whatsoever. The gospel writers placed their Jesus story 70 years after the historical events of the years 40 - 37 b.c.

How does one get from three persons, a father and two sons, who suffer death at the hands of the Romans, over to three persons, one of whom assists Romans in killing Jesus and two sons who have nothing to do with the Romans?

A crucifixion story about a Roman agent's execution of a King of the Jews. A gospel story that mentions a man and his two sons.

What does the history of the Hasmoneans have to do with the narrative in Mark's Gospel? None that I can see, and you have not been able to offer one, either.

A crucifixion story. Hasmonean history relates the execution, the hanging on a stake/cross, of a King and High Priest of the Jews. Fundamental to the gospel Jesus story is a crucifixion via a Roman agent. Now, one can run with the Jewish war of 70 c.e. and use the Josephan figure of Jesus ben Saphat - and argue that it was this historically unattested figure upon which the gospel writers based their Jesus crucifixion story. Or - one can argue for Antigonus II Mattathias as the historical basis upon which the gospel writers composed their Jesus crucifixion story. A linkage observed by Rabbi Wise (previously quoted above).

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 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.......

As for my 'tone' - please Neil - lets not go down that route.....


(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.)

[mlinssen]

(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

[MrMacSon]

... The gospel crucifixion story set in the time of Pilate, is not history. It's a 'take' on history, an allegory, a reflection, an interpretation, a finding some meaning or value in history.

... 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

A crucifixion story about a Roman agent's execution of a King of the Jews. A gospel story that mentions a man and his two sons.

... Hasmonean history relates the execution, the hanging on a stake/cross, of a King and High Priest of the Jews. Fundamental to the gospel Jesus story is a crucifixion via a Roman agent ... one can argue for Antigonus II Mattathias as the historical basis upon which the gospel writers composed their Jesus crucifixion story ...

I think that's feasible, with elements of the composite figure also including entities like Jesus ben Saphat/ben Sapphias, regardless of whether they were attested elsewhere, and also 'motivated' by Josephus's accounts crucifixion https://jamestabor.com/josephuss-refere ... ucifixion/ (I'm not appealing to the account of the one who recovered as he had been taken down (even though Jesus was))

But how does one make what's feasible/possible into likely or even probable (via a cogent inductive argument)?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

fwiw otherwise, in relation to other names in relation to another matter

Antiquities 20.5.2

the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified

[maryhelena]

(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'......................................

[maryhelena]

... The gospel crucifixion story set in the time of Pilate, is not history. It's a 'take' on history, an allegory, a reflection, an interpretation, a finding some meaning or value in history.

... 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

A crucifixion story about a Roman agent's execution of a King of the Jews. A gospel story that mentions a man and his two sons.

... Hasmonean history relates the execution, the hanging on a stake/cross, of a King and High Priest of the Jews. Fundamental to the gospel Jesus story is a crucifixion via a Roman agent ... one can argue for Antigonus II Mattathias as the historical basis upon which the gospel writers composed their Jesus crucifixion story ...

I think that's feasible, with elements of the composite figure also including entities like Jesus ben Saphat/ben Sapphias, regardless of whether they were attested elsewhere, and also 'motivated' by Josephus's accounts crucifixion https://jamestabor.com/josephuss-refere ... ucifixion/ (I'm not appealing to the account of the one who recovered as he had been taken down (even though Jesus was))

Indeed, add in whatever historical figure one concludes fits, works, with the gospel Jesus literary figure. The main issue is to get a foothold in history - from there one can move forward.

But how does one make what's feasible/possible into likely or even probable (via a cogent inductive argument)?

ah - one needs more history - one needs to dig deeper into the muddy waters of history - one needs to challenge the main historical source that we have: Josephus.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

fwiw otherwise, in relation to other names in relation to another matter

Antiquities 20.5.2

the sons of Judas of Galilee were now slain; I mean of that Judas who caused the people to revolt, when Cyrenius came to take an account of the estates of the Jews, as we have showed in a foregoing book. The names of those sons were James and Simon, whom Alexander commanded to be crucified

That's a Josephan story - a story in need of external historical evidence.

[maryhelena]

For anyone interested in crucifixion - take a look at these links:

https://www.academia.edu/4167188/Crucif ... considered

https://www.academia.edu/4167205/Crucif ... ristianity

https://www.academia.edu/4167165/The_Hi ... ucifixions

[mlinssen]

For anyone interested in crucifixion - take a look at these links:

https://www.academia.edu/4167188/Crucif ... considered

https://www.academia.edu/4167205/Crucif ... ristianity

https://www.academia.edu/4167165/The_Hi ... ucifixions

Samuelson 1:

So, when it comes to σταυροῦν and σταυρός, it couldhardly be said that they mean “to crucify” and “cross”. If wethen return to the New Testament and consider the immenseweight the two words to σταυροῦν and σταυρός had to car-ry, I think we have a problem. The description of the deathof Jesus was as have been seen embedded in the semantics ofto σταυροῦν and σταυρός, but the meaning of the words isfar more ambiguous than commonly supposed. They are notso clear-cut, as far as their meaning is concerned, as wemight think.This affects Mark, as well as the other Gospels. If thepassion accounts are taken at face value they show that:

1. Jesus was suspended alive in order to be killed
2. That Jesus (John) and/or a passer-by (the synoptics)was forced to carry a σταυρός to the place of execut-ion.
3. That Jesus was suspended on a σταυρός apparently by being nailed to his hands.Anything beyond that is simply not present in the texts, nei-ther in the biblical nor the older texts.So, if we return to the scholarly contributions regard-ing the punishment of crucifixion in general or the death of Jesus in particular, my suggestion is that it will have someconsequences. The scholarly contributions are filled with in-formation that is not present in the studied texts. Thesewords are without support

It is unclear where he gets the nails from, as the word appears only once in the gospels - in John, after the alleged resurrection

Samuelson 2:

CONCLUSION
By that, my preliminary conclusions regarding these textual andpictorial contributions is that they are not that detailed and coher-ent in their descriptions. And a detailed and coherent descriptionis necessary if we want to support the present and so often de-tailed knowledge about the crucifixion punishment in general, andthe death of Jesus in particular. If we shall return to the historicalpoint that the present paper departed from, the question thatsparked my earlier investigation may still be unanswered: How dowe know?

Samuelson 3:

The designation “crucifixion” may have its linguistic origin in theyears before the Common Era (Seneca the Elder) but got its presentdenotation from Calvary. The designation “crucifixion” is just asmuch off target in describing an impaling or a suspension of a corpseas it is to describe a hanging in a snare. The reason behind this is theconnotation the word has for the contemporary reader. Crucifixion isthat which happened to Jesus.A common and widespread opinion is to trace the origin of “cru-cifixion” to Persia, or at least to the husky areas of the Eastern part of the ancient world.
The connection to Persia is commonly found insome texts from Herodotus, Thucydides and not least the Old Testa-ment.
A better way is to acknowledge the impact of the death of Je-sus, also on this field. We use the label “crucifixion” for that whichaccording to our traditions happened to Jesus on Calvary. So theorigin of crucifixion is connected to Calvary – or rather the
Christianinterpretation of the event on Calvary. Thus, the origin of
crucifixion is not to be found in Persia, but in the church

So, Gunnar Samuelson has 3 papers that all go against the interpretation of crucifixion. For a detailed description of the gospels themselves, I recommend reading

The Gospels testify: did Jesus die on the cross?

https://www.academia.edu/45655884/The_G ... n_content_