Page 12 of 15

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:56 am
by lclapshaw
God! I love this stuff! :popcorn:

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm
by maryhelena
The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.

HISTORY and Coins
JOSEPHUS: War (about 75 c.e.) Antiquities: (about 94 c.e.)
The Gospel Jesus figure
King Antigonus Mattathias:High Priest of the Jews: Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek…(40-37 b.c.) Antigonus enters Jerusalem: Antigonus himself also bit off Hyrcanus's ears with his own teeth, as he fell down upon his knees to him, that so he might never be able upon any mutation of affairs to take the high priesthood again, for the high priests that officiated were to be complete, and without blemish. War: Book 1.ch.13 (40 b.c.)........................Antony came in, and told them that it was for their advantage in the Parthian war that Herod should be king; so they all gave their votes for it. War: Book 1.ch.14 (40 b.c.) John 18.10; Mark 14.47; Matthew 26.51; Luke 22.50. John and Luke specifying right ear, Mark and Matthew have 'ear'. gJohn stating that Peter cut off the ear the High Priest's servant.
Now as winter was going off, Herod marched to Jerusalem, and brought his army to the wall of it; this was the third year since he had been made king at Rome; War: Book 1. ch.17 (37 b.c.).. Herod on his own account, in order to take the government from Antigonus, who was declared all enemy at Rome, and that he might himself be king, according to the decree of the Senate. Antiquities Book 14 ch.16 gJohn indicates a three year ministy for Jesus. Antigonus ruled for three years.
Then it was that Antigonus, without any regard to his former or to his present fortune, came down from the citadel, and fell at Sosius's feet, who without pitying him at all, upon the change of his condition, laughed at him beyond measure, and called him Antigona. Yet did he not treat him like a woman, or let him go free, but put him into bonds, and kept him in custody.... Sosius ......went away from Jerusalem, leading Antigonus away in bonds to Antony; then did the axe bring him to his end..War: Book 1.ch.18. . The soldiers mock Jesus: Mark 15.16-20; Matthew 27:27-31. Jesus flogged: John 19:1; Mark 15:15; Matthew 27:26. JC crucified. Trilinqual sign over cross: Aramaic, Latin and Greek. gJohn 19.19-21. JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Other variations: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS; THE KING OF THE JEWS; THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
... ...and then .but Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavored to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16. (Slavonic Josephus has the teachers of the Law giving the money to Pilate...) Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3
Wikipeda: 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] 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. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1 Acts: 11:16. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

Was Antigonus beheaded or hung on a stake/cross ? Since being hung on a stake was viewed as being accursed by the Jews, it is possible that a Jewish writer would not want to acknowledge this method of execution for a Jewish King. Perhaps both methods were used for the execution of Antigonus; a flogging on a stake/cross and then taken down and beheaded. (Josephus has an account of a man taken down from a cross and surviving.....albeit for a while...)

Whatever the tragic end of Antigonus the Josephan narrative of that Roman execution has been utilized by the gospel writers as a model for their Jesus crucifixion story.

''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.


Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm
by Leucius Charinus
maryhelena wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
Assuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers composed theological/historical fiction, then ...

(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
(2) who were these fabricators (or in Brodie's terms "this literary school")?
(3) where (or in which scriptoria) was this "fabrication of the Christians" undertaken?
(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:57 pm
by Charles Wilson
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm
maryhelena wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
Assuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers com[;''''''==================]posed theological/historical fiction, then ...

(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
(2) who were these fabricators (or in Brodie's terms "this literary school")?
(3) where (or in which scriptoria) was this "fabrication of the Christians" undertaken?
(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
I'll try to make this a little shorter than usual:

(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
(2) who were these fabricators (or in Brodie's terms "this literary school")?


A. Assume that the NT is a Construction.
B. Assume some form of the Roman Thesis: They did it!

Where to start?

I. Mucianus loved Titus. Mucianus would have deified Titus in a heartbeat. Mucianus was Multi-Lingual according to Tacitus and could spontaneously provide an oration in Greek. John 3: 16 tells us that Claudius gave his only BEGOTTEN son (Not his adopted son Nero) and that whosoever believed in him would not perish but have everlasting life. Titus had a bite of Britannicus' food and was sick for weeks, yet survived. He lived and become Diuus Titus and "Obtained" Everlasting Life as Emperor.

Acts is radioactive and is not to be trusted at the margins but if you see Titus as the "Jesus" in the "Vision on the Road to Damascus" you can make a good start. Further, "In those days..." is found and that looks back, more than a few years in my opinion (esp.concerning Peter, who was rewritten as a NT character.)

Mucianus is a good place to start.

II. Josephus: J is supposed to be a Loyal Jew, a member of the Priesthood and so on and he won't even mention the Priesthood at the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE - "They returned to their sacrifices as if nothing had happened..." Who? What? Huh? Josephus is indispensable but must be examined for Truth Value before being declared so.

III. At some point years after the Flavian Trilogy of Vespasian, Titus and Domitian, these three must be Objectified and rewritten as "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" (Domitian having been voted what was later termed Damnatio Memoriae.). This puts the Creation of the NT Religion (Through the Objectification) into at least Trajan with the choosing of a savior-god to represent Titus. It is here that the Judean History is chosen for rewriting.

IV. Nicholas of Damascus can be plausibly nominated to provide the Historical Bedrock for the History to be rewritten. He was there, he wrote Histories and reported back to Caesar and Rome about the Inner Court of Herod and Archelaus.

V. Dio and Plutarch and others provide certain details - Dio tells of what became the Eucharist in Epitome 64, Plutach gives details of Pompey.

VI. We cannot forget Pliny the Younger and Tacitus.

VII. Zakkai and the Yavneh School, if existed. They may have provided materials and knowledge of the Priesthood that Rome would probably not have known. The Mishmarot Rotations and celestial Mechanics and Calendars would have known by Yavneh, perhaps even written into the NT without knowledge of the Roman Overlords.

(3) where (or in which scriptoria) was this "fabrication of the Christians" undertaken?

Rome first by way of Caesarea, by way of Jerusalem, although Nicholas of Damascus had no knowledge of what his work was going to by used for.

(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?

Atwill has it right: The Pacification of the belligerant Jews would come about by a belief in a savior-god loyal to Rome. The Authors of John included undeniable Historical Links to the Interregnum from the Julio-Claudians to the Flavians.

(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?

They EXPLAIN the Christian Origins,

CW

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:03 am
by maryhelena
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm
maryhelena wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
Assuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers composed theological/historical fiction, then ..

(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
I don't think fabricate is the word to use as that word usually denotes deception. That the gospel story is not history does not mean it's writers chose to deceive. That the gospel story is read as history reveals the readers judgement not the intent of it's writers.

Since Josephus has referenced a number of gospel figures, Jesus, John the baptizer and James, I would suggest that the gospel story was known pre Antiquities, 93/94 c.e.

(2) who were these fabricators (or in Brodie's terms "this literary school")?
Again, your use of fabricators does, to my mind, suggest an intent to denigrate the gospel writers. The gospel story, as scholars are aware, had many writers. Writers who added or subtracted to suit their individual goals for the story.

(3) where (or in which scriptoria) was this "fabrication of the Christians" undertaken?
Again, Pete, I find your use of 'fabrication' a distraction that does not credit the gospel writers with good faith, good intentions, in what they wrote. Where did the gospel story originate ? I would bet on Alexandra.


(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
'wicked' ? Sorry Pete but your attempt to discredit the gospel story and it's writers is unhelpful.
Perhaps a desire to record their history - a history of Roman occupation and how that Roman occupation led to a reappraisal of their future place in history.

(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
If one is interested in understanding the roots of early christian origins, from a Jewish perspective, then questions of Hasmonean/Jewish history are very relevant.

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:06 am
by Leucius Charinus
Charles Wilson wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 8:57 pm
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm (4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?

Atwill has it right: The Pacification of the belligerant Jews would come about by a belief in a savior-god loyal to Rome. The Authors of John included undeniable Historical Links to the Interregnum from the Julio-Claudians to the Flavians.
Vespasian, Titus and Domitian used the Roman army for pacification. I haven't read the book but does it cite any corroborating archeological evidence? My problem with 1st century Christian origins is the void of physical evidence on the one hand, and the proliferation of Christian frauds and forgeries on the other. A 1st century origins is not impossible (for historical or myth or fiction theories) but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that early. Or C14.
(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?

They EXPLAIN the Christian Origins,

CW
I am generally left with more questions at the end of the day than when I started the day. And this has been going on for a while. So I have never claimed any great degree of certainty. We may never know. But I like to know what the evidence is. Especially physical manuscripts, archeology and the non-Christian literary sources.

Be well.

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:40 am
by Leucius Charinus
maryhelena wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:03 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm
maryhelena wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
Assuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers composed theological/historical fiction, then ..

(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
I don't think fabricate is the word to use as that word usually denotes deception. That the gospel story is not history does not mean it's writers chose to deceive. That the gospel story is read as history reveals the readers judgement not the intent of it's writers.
By fabricate I mean to put together or assemble. How many LXX copy paste mappings were assembled? If indeed the NT is a theological/historical fiction without any deception then was it intended to be just a simple and harmless story to get out into circulation and to compete with stories by Homer or other Greek or Roman authors?
Since Josephus has referenced a number of gospel figures, Jesus, John the baptizer and James, I would suggest that the gospel story was known pre Antiquities, 93/94 c.e.
Do you think the TF is legit and Josephus referenced Jesus? Some people think John the Baptist was also interpolated into Josephus. And isn't James the Just one of the twelve which I thought you were happy to view as fictional along with Jesus and Paul?
(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
'wicked' ? Sorry Pete but your attempt to discredit the gospel story and it's writers is unhelpful.
Do you think the gospel writers when composing this theological/historical fiction were never thinking about passing it off as history? If that's the case who had the bright idea of passing off the story as history?
Perhaps a desire to record their history - a history of Roman occupation and how that Roman occupation led to a reappraisal of their future place in history.
That's a reasonable motivation. We may never know. There are a great many ideas out there.
(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
If one is interested in understanding the roots of early christian origins, from a Jewish perspective, then questions of Hasmonean/Jewish history are very relevant.
Thanks. Be well.

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 5:58 am
by maryhelena
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:40 am
maryhelena wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 1:03 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 4:18 pm
maryhelena wrote: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:45 pm The gospel Jesus story contains illusions to the OT. It also contains illusions to Hasmonean history. While history is a matter of established facts it also needs a narrative in order to retell it's story. The historical figure in this chart is the Hasmonean King and High Priest, Antigonus. 40 to 37 b.c. While the Josephan narrative might be open to question it is, nevertheless, useful for research into the gospel Jesus crucifixion story. Once again, it seems that the gospel writers drew upon a Josephan narrative - and placed their own Jesus narrative around 70 years from the tragic events of 37 b.c.
Assuming (a) your historical background Hasmonean reconstruction is valid and also that (b) the NT writers composed theological/historical fiction, then ..

(1) when did the NT writers fabricate the theological/historical fiction?
I don't think fabricate is the word to use as that word usually denotes deception. That the gospel story is not history does not mean it's writers chose to deceive. That the gospel story is read as history reveals the readers judgement not the intent of it's writers.
By fabricate I mean to put together or assemble. How many LXX copy paste mappings were assembled? If indeed the NT is a theological/historical fiction without any deception then was it intended to be just a simple and harmless story to get out into circulation and to compete with stories by Homer or other Greek or Roman authors?
Since Josephus has referenced a number of gospel figures, Jesus, John the baptizer and James, I would suggest that the gospel story was known pre Antiquities, 93/94 c.e.
Do you think the TF is legit and Josephus referenced Jesus? Some people think John the Baptist was also interpolated into Josephus. And isn't James the Just one of the twelve which I thought you were happy to view as fictional along with Jesus and Paul?
Josephus makes mention of Jesus and his friends. Josephus has supported the gospel Jesus story - the 'historical fiction' - not providing that story with a historical stamp of approval. I think that a core TF is Josephan.
(4) what motivated them to compose this wicked theological/historical fiction ?
'wicked' ? Sorry Pete but your attempt to discredit the gospel story and it's writers is unhelpful.
Do you think the gospel writers when composing this theological/historical fiction were never thinking about passing it off as history? If that's the case who had the bright idea of passing off the story as history?
Who had the bright idea to pass the story of as history - well, Pete, maybe that's more your field of interest than mine. My point is that when Hasmonean history faded from view and thus unable to be utilized as a means towards understanding the story - then a purely literal, historical, reading of the story became, as it were, the default view. Fault the readers of the story not the writers. I do however think that one of the priorities of the story was to underplay Hasmonean history - nationalism was put to bed - a necessity in view of Roman occupation.

How soon did anti-semitism raise it's ugly head? The Jews killed gospel Jesus - no reason to check out their past history under Roman occupation
- the dead was done - Jews guilty....end of story...
Perhaps a desire to record their history - a history of Roman occupation and how that Roman occupation led to a reappraisal of their future place in history.
That's a reasonable motivation. We may never know. There are a great many ideas out there.
(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?
If one is interested in understanding the roots of early christian origins, from a Jewish perspective, then questions of Hasmonean/Jewish history are very relevant.
Thanks. Be well.
Josephus is a big deal as far as researching the Jewish roots of early christianity. I think the OP post was probably my first effort in questioning the historicity of Josephus. Maybe you remember that thread of over 12 years ago - Essenes never existed, were a Josephan invention, claims Rachel Elior

https://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sh ... l?t=264056

I've only recently, while doing other but related research, come back to the question of the historicity of Josephus. Not so much Josephus as an end in himself but as a means to further the research into the Jewish roots of early Christianity. Rachel Elior started the Josephus ball rolling - and on it goes..... ;)

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 9:56 am
by Charles Wilson
Leucius Charinus wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:06 am Vespasian, Titus and Domitian used the Roman army for pacification. I haven't read the book but does it cite any corroborating archeological evidence?
Atwill, Caesars Messiah, Intro, p. 10 (Emph. added):

"By using scenes from Judaic literature as types for events in Jesus' ministry, the authors hoped to convince their readers that the Gospels were a continuation of the Hebrew literature that had inspired the Sicarii to revolt and that, therefore, Jesus was the Messiah whom the rebels were hoping God would send them. In this way, they would strip messianic Judaism of its power to spawn insurrections, since the Messiah was no longer coming but had already come. Further, the Messiah was not the xenophobic military leader that the Sicarii were expecting, but rather a multiculturist
who urged his followers to "turn the other cheek."

"If the Gospels achieved only the replacement of the militaristic messianic movement with a pacifistic one, they would have been one of the most successful pieces of propaganda in history. But the authors wanted even more. They wanted not merely to pacify the religious warriors of Judea but to make them worship Caesar as a god. And they wanted to inform posterity that they had done so..."

Atwill depends a lot on Typology, relating "Fishing for Men" f'rinstance with the Romans spearing the Seditionists trying to swim away from the Romans as if the Romans were fishing in a lake. There's LOTSA' History!
My problem with 1st century Christian origins is the void of physical evidence on the one hand, and the proliferation of Christian frauds and forgeries on the other. A 1st century origins is not impossible (for historical or myth or fiction theories) but I have yet to see any compelling evidence that early. Or C14.
https://www.amazon.com/Settlement-Histo ... ast_sto_dp
We have Settlements on the ground that have been examined and these Settlements existed before Sephoris. They were Hasmonean and were assigned to the Mishmarot Groups. It was a functioning Culture. It was to be eliminated by the Romans and the Cultural and its Artifacts were to be Transvalued in favor of Rome. One of Atwill's Key Points is that the Romans led a campaign that was to end when "the Jews" worshiped Caesar as a god without them knowing it. It was wildly successful and exists to this day.
(5) are any of these questions (1-4) relevant to Christian origins?

They EXPLAIN the Christian Origins,

CW
I am generally left with more questions at the end of the day than when I started the day. And this has been going on for a while. So I have never claimed any great degree of certainty. We may never know. But I like to know what the evidence is. Especially physical manuscripts, archeology and the non-Christian literary sources.

Be well.
Thank you, LC. I agree with you. We deal with Probabilities, not Certainties. We must remember, however, that "Existence is not a Predicate". When "Jesus" appears and nothing that is came about except through him, "Other Functioning Cultures" need not function anymore.

Re: Jesus, Paul and Josephus

Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:53 am
by maryhelena
Just a note to anyone following this thread... I don't support any theory related to a Roman conspiracy to invent Christianity. Others posting on this thread might do so..... Just want to be clear that I don't.

My interest is in researching Jewish roots leading up to what became Christianity. Of course Rome is involved in the Jesus story due to its occupation of Judaea..... but that does not, to my thinking, mean Rome was able to enslave... to occupy.... the Jewish mind.