Ehrman's "How Jesus Became a God" is now out.

[ficino]

Personally, I am inclined top think that Cassius Dio was wrong about the method of execution. He may have heard that the method used "had never before been done to someone of royal family" but not knowing that it was by beheading, may have thought that it was by scourging. Beheading was the manner by which death sentences were carried out on Roman citizens, while non-citizens were scourged and/or hung on a cross. So, using the analogy that a royal scion equated with a Roman citizen, he assumed that the execution could not have been by beheading, but was rather carried out as if he were a pretender = rebel, which the Romans routinely scourged and hung on a cross.

DCH

As I understand and recall, Haas had said that finger bones showed damage from the nails that were still with them in the ossuary. He had also talked about signs of other damage, suggesting at least a severe beating, and he said that the angle of the cut in the neck and jaw showed that the prisoner had already gone unconscious at the time he was beheaded. Haas had no doubt that the prisoner had been scourged and hung.

This is very hard to square with Smith's insistence that the skull was of an "elderly" person and with her belief that the prisoner was a woman. Supporters of Haas/Grintz may be on solid enough ground in supposing that Mattathias Antigonus was of slight build, but the age of the person at time of death is the sticking point. The chronology that you laid out above doesn't support a claim that Antigonus was anything near "elderly." Right now the tomb has been resealed and the owner opposes digging up bodies, so I don't see any chance of further study of the bones any time soon.

[ficino]

To counter Ehrman’s argument (and Crossan) one of the authors of “How God became Jesus” has referenced the Abba Cave and a new article regarding the bones found.

How God Became Jesus: Chapter: ‘Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right’ .Craig A. Evans

A recent study by Yoel Elitzur has confirmed the views of Grintz and Haas. In all likelihood, the ossuary and skeletal remains of the last Hasmonean prince have been discovered.
------------------------
Footnote 24
I say “confirmed” now, because years ago Patricia Smith called into question the Antigonus identification. She described the skeleton as belonging to a small, elderly woman (not a tall young man), and said the nails had nothing to do with crucifixion........ It is now believed that Smith, who was asked to examine the Abba Cave finds after Haas was injured and no longer able to work, examined the wrong box of bones and artefacts. On the curious story of this important find and eventual confirmation that the bones really do belong to Angigonus, see Y. Elitzur, : “The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal Regarding
Abba’s Identity: IEJ 63 (2013): 83 – 102.

-----------------------
The same Abba Cave argument is further made by Greg Monette in his online review of Ehrman’ book (and seemingly in his own book: The Wrong Jesus)

Greg Monette:

What makes this discovery so important relating to Jesus is that it supports the biblical and nonbiblical evidence that executed criminals were given a proper burial following crucifixion (for more archaeological evidence of the burial of the executed around Jerusalem in antiquity see: Craig A. Evans, “The Silence of Burial” in Jesus, The Final Days, 59-64). We may have even discovered the remains of the last member of the Hasmonean Dynasty, namely Mattathias Antigonus, who was quite possibly crucified and beheaded and then given proper burial in a tomb (see my new book The Wrong Jesus, 173-74, 221-22). Needless to say, Ehrman doesn’t appear to be aware of any of this.

http://gregmonette.com/blog/post/why-ba ... ong-part-2

So....it's really a secondary issue for this thread....

That said, methinks I'll do some more thinking on this age issue.....

Evans and Monette talk as though Elitzur has established that the bones were Antigonus', but that is not so. Evans in particular, with his "it is now believed" and "eventual confirmation" is particularly misleading, and I think, intentionally so, with his vague passive constructions.

I think it is important, though, that the Abbas inscription on the ossuary says that he gained the right to bury the remains. Elitzur talks about the pious duty attending to a priest under such circumstances as would have obtained with the dead Antigonus, when there are not others who can bury the body - a met mitzvah. But the argument that extrapolates from this case, if it is a crucified king, to ALL crucifixions is very shaky.

Can someone who reads Hebrew tell us about the new article? I took only two years in college, forty years ago!

[maryhelena]

To counter Ehrman’s argument (and Crossan) one of the authors of “How God became Jesus” has referenced the Abba Cave and a new article regarding the bones found.

How God Became Jesus: Chapter: ‘Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right’ .Craig A. Evans

A recent study by Yoel Elitzur has confirmed the views of Grintz and Haas. In all likelihood, the ossuary and skeletal remains of the last Hasmonean prince have been discovered.
------------------------
Footnote 24
I say “confirmed” now, because years ago Patricia Smith called into question the Antigonus identification. She described the skeleton as belonging to a small, elderly woman (not a tall young man), and said the nails had nothing to do with crucifixion........ It is now believed that Smith, who was asked to examine the Abba Cave finds after Haas was injured and no longer able to work, examined the wrong box of bones and artefacts. On the curious story of this important find and eventual confirmation that the bones really do belong to Angigonus, see Y. Elitzur, : “The Abba Cave: Unpublished Findings and a New Proposal Regarding
Abba’s Identity: IEJ 63 (2013): 83 – 102.

-----------------------
The same Abba Cave argument is further made by Greg Monette in his online review of Ehrman’ book (and seemingly in his own book: The Wrong Jesus)

Greg Monette:

What makes this discovery so important relating to Jesus is that it supports the biblical and nonbiblical evidence that executed criminals were given a proper burial following crucifixion (for more archaeological evidence of the burial of the executed around Jerusalem in antiquity see: Craig A. Evans, “The Silence of Burial” in Jesus, The Final Days, 59-64). We may have even discovered the remains of the last member of the Hasmonean Dynasty, namely Mattathias Antigonus, who was quite possibly crucified and beheaded and then given proper burial in a tomb (see my new book The Wrong Jesus, 173-74, 221-22). Needless to say, Ehrman doesn’t appear to be aware of any of this.

http://gregmonette.com/blog/post/why-ba ... ong-part-2

So....it's really a secondary issue for this thread....

That said, methinks I'll do some more thinking on this age issue.....

Evans and Monette talk as though Elitzur has established that the bones were Antigonus', but that is not so. Evans in particular, with his "it is now believed" and "eventual confirmation" is particularly misleading, and I think, intentionally so, with his vague passive constructions.

I wonder if Ehrman will pick up on this...

I think it is important, though, that the Abbas inscription on the ossuary says that he gained the right to bury the remains. Elitzur talks about the pious duty attending to a priest under such circumstances as would have obtained with the dead Antigonus, when there are not others who can bury the body - a met mitzvah. But the argument that extrapolates from this case, if it is a crucified king, to ALL crucifixions is very shaky.

I wonder if the "cursed is everyone hung on a tree' has anything to do with having to buy a new tomb for the crucified/beheaded man....Indeed, if the remains are those of a crucified king it would seem unlikely that such would be the procedure for the common man.....

"Three Notes on the Life and Death of Mattathias Antigonus and the Names of the
Last Hasmoneans: A Response to Yoel Elitzur, 'The Abba Cave: Unpublished
Findings and a Proposed Identification'," Zion (forthcoming) [in Hebrew].

That comes from online pdf: Curriculum Vitae – Nadav Sharon

https://haifa.academia.edu/NadavSharon
University of Haifa, Department of Jewish History,
Advisors:Prof. Daniel R. Schwartz

Can someone who reads Hebrew tell us about the new article? I took only two years in college, forty years ago!

I don't think the article is published yet - its forthcoming..

Methinks the whole issue boils down to the age of Antigonus when executed. That Josephus can be read to be indicating a young man could be questioned. I wonder what difference it would have made, to the acceptance of the Smith interpretation of the Abba Cave inscription, if Antigonus was perceived to have been in his late 40's or early 50's.....

I'm wondering if Josephus is conflating two accounts with his Antigonus history. Perhaps the earlier Antigonus (of 104/103 b.c.) was actually the young Antigonus and Antigonus II Mattathias was the older figure. In other words; the brother verse brother killing of 104/103 b.c. is being used, remembered, by Josephus in his history of the later Antigonus. Finally, the war between the two sons of Alexander Jannaeus, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, is over. The young Antigonus (of 104/103 b.c.) is reflected in the Josephan life story of the older Antigonus who was executed in 37 b.c.

[steve43]

I doubt it.

[DCHindley]

My earlier observations about the history of that period (the wars between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, and the immediately following war between Herod and Antigonus II) were not intended to support or refute the identification of the bones in the ossuary with the Abbas inscription as those of Antigonus II Matthias.

They were simply meant to identify some indications of relative age of the sons of Aristobulus II at key points in their lives. The Romans appear to have been unusually lenient with not only Aristobulus II, but with his sons Alexander and Antigonus II.

While the various Roman emperors and claimants had chosen Hyrcanus II as the official representative of the Hasmonean line (and who also happened to be the legitimate heir), they also felt the need to reduce his absolute authority to that of HP of the temple cult of the Judeans, and later "Ethnarch" representative of the Jewish people everywhere, and backed him up with a Roman procurator/governor (Antipater).

This is the classic ANE set-up for management of a "temple state" which is a temple with extensive land under its authority, similar to a Greek city-state. These states were allowed to be run by the priesthood, but were subject to the authority of the king's governor, who usually only interfered on matters of special concern to the crown. As far as I know, it had never before been attempted with a "temple state" so large in area (the province of Judea) or attached to the representation of a people (the Judeans) so thoroughly dispersed throughout the empire.

Now I do not suppose that all land in this province was under the direct control of the temple state, as a lot of choice real estate had been claimed by the preceding foreign and national kings who ruled the region by conquest, and subsequently given as grant land to the ruler's friends and supporters appointed as the elites. The definition of "temple state" is also not as precise as we might like. Some want to restrict the term to Mesopotamian temple complexes run by a high priest appointed from the king's family, with the land farmed by "temple slaves," which is certainly a far cry from the Jewish temple priesthood and High Priest and land allotted to families to farm in return for tithes.

The following MS thesis might help illuminate the subject of Temple States in general:
(Sökmen, Emine) 'Temple States’ Of Pontus - Comana Pontica And Zela (MS Thesis, Apr 2005)
http://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12606089/index.pdf

Still, the Romans had not completely discounted the claims of Aristobulus II and his family. I believe that these claims were taken very seriously, and the Romans were extremely lenient with Aristobulus despite his escape and rebellion, and with his sons Alexander and Antigonus II, at least to a point. Josephus would have it that Herod bribed the Syrian governors and/or Roman rulers to execute Alexander and eventually Antogonus II, but I think that Aristobulus II's children had just pushed their luck too far. Alexander fell afoul of the politics of the Roman Civil War, and Antigonus II placed his lot with Rome's longtime enemy, Parthia. Big mistake! Romans could forgive youthful exuberance, but after a certain age, these scions should know better, and must then pay for their excesses.

DCH

[ficino]

David, in your earlier, informative post you proposed that Antigonus II may have been around 30 in 40 BCE, which would make him about 33 at death. (That age at death - coincidence? I'm not sure whether you think the gospel stories use the death of Antigonus as one of their models.)

Can you with some confidence suggest an age range for Antigonus at death, or do you want to stick simply with your earlier suggestion? I am asking because even if we suppose Antigonus was c. 33 at death, I don't think Patricia Smith's insistence that the skull was that of an "elderly" person can be squared with an age in the early 30s. Not enough time for wear and tear on the cranium, bone degeneration, or whatever it is that happens! Don't forget, she is also trained in dentistry and in using teeth to establish rough age at death.

I know this is a sideline, maybe a derailment, of the OP, but it is fascinating.

As I said before, if we go with the hypothesis of Elitzur et al, that Smith examined bones in the wrong box, we have to conclude that Haas had TWO decapitated skulls in his office. That goes against Haas' explicit statement that the skull in the ossuary was the only one he had found nr Jerusalem from someone who had been decapitated. Smith did confirm decapitation in the case of the skull she examined. Then there's Zias' claim that Haas changed his story during filming in the TV studio, i.e. "somewhat aged individual" became "a man in his 30s." Two other experts on bones also identified the skeleton as that of an aged person.

[maryhelena]

David, in your earlier, informative post you proposed that Antigonus II may have been around 30 in 40 BCE, which would make him about 33 at death. (That age at death - coincidence? I'm not sure whether you think the gospel stories use the death of Antigonus as one of their models.)

Yep, I would think that an execution of Antigonus, Last King and High Priest of the Jews, at age around 30 years should be ringing bells.....Coincidence on the part of Josephus? Possibly - but perhaps more. Killing two birds with one stone type of thing......

Although I have used the crucifixion of Antigonus many times as the historical source, or model, for the gospel JC crucifixion story, I don't think Antigonus was around 30 years old when executed in Antioch by Marc Antony. I think Josephus is conflating two Antigonus stories: The Antigonus of 104/3 b.c. (the young Antigonus) with the longer life story of the later Antigonus II.

The online Jewish Encyclopedia:

ANTIGONUS, Son of John Hyrcanus:

Born about 135 B.C., died 103. He was Hyrcanus' second son, and, though young, proved an able soldier during his father's lifetime.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic ... n-hyrcanus

And keeping gJohn in mind - his JC is not yet 50 years....

Can you with some confidence suggest an age range for Antigonus at death, or do you want to stick simply with your earlier suggestion? I am asking because even if we suppose Antigonus was c. 33 at death, I don't think Patricia Smith's insistence that the skull was that of an "elderly" person can be squared with an age in the early 30s. Not enough time for wear and tear on the cranium, bone degeneration, or whatever it is that happens! Don't forget, she is also trained in dentistry and in using teeth to establish rough age at death.

I know this is a sideline, maybe a derailment, of the OP, but it is fascinating.

As I said before, if we go with the hypothesis of Elitzur et al, that Smith examined bones in the wrong box, we have to conclude that Haas had TWO decapitated skulls in his office. That goes against Haas' explicit statement that the skull in the ossuary was the only one he had found nr Jerusalem from someone who had been decapitated. Smith did confirm decapitation in the case of the skull she examined. Then there's Zias' claim that Haas changed his story during filming in the TV studio, i.e. "somewhat aged individual" became "a man in his 30s." Two other experts on bones also identified the skeleton as that of an aged person.

[DCHindley]

ficino,

I was not able to identify any indications of when Alesander or Antigonus II were born. A chart of the Herodian dynasty in the back of the revised English edition of Schurer's Jewish People only indicate dates of death, so that likely means that their actual dates of birth are anyones guess. That was why I used the points when Alexander and Antigonus II conducted war activities and how the Romans treated them when they were forced to give up. I figure that age 20+ is when someone would be fit for war (Num. 1:3, and Rashi and Naḥmanides ad loc.)*, and 30 when they were fully of age to be responsible for their command decisions.

Per Wiki:

Captured foreign rulers or generals were paraded in a Roman conqueror's triumph, and on a few occasions the "most prominent, famous, or dastardly" were executed afterward at the Tullianum.[15] These were "strikingly few" in number, and included the Samnite Gaius Pontius, the Gaul Vercingetorix, some "Cilician" pirates, and the Galatian Adiatorix.[16] Jugurtha, king of Numidia, may have been executed at the conclusion of Marius's triumph, or he may have died in prison several days afterward.[17] Most high-status war captives were neither executed nor held for any substantial length of time in the Tullianum.[18]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamertine_Prison

I have so far not been able to find a description of these executions of the captured war leaders after a triumph, but I believe it was by ritual decapitation.

Per Wm Smith's A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities:

IMPUBES In the Roman law there were several distinctions of age which were made with reference to the legal position of a person.

1. The first period was from birth to the end of the seventh year, during which time persons were called infantes, or qui fari non possunt.
2. The second period was from the end of seven years to the age of puberty, which came to be fixed at the end of fourteen or twelve years, according as the person was a male or female [p. 1.1000]（infantia majores).
3. The third period was from the age of puberty to the end of the twenty-fifth year, during which period persons were adolescentes, adulti, puberes, minores xxv annis or annos or annorum, or simply minores [CURATOR].
4. The fourth period was from the age of twenty-five, during which persons were majores.

So, technically, I suppose that both Alexander and Antigonus II could probably be expected to assume military commands at age 20, but subject to punishments as adults by Romans after age 25.

DCH

*https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... 13895.html

David, in your earlier, informative post you proposed that Antigonus II may have been around 30 in 40 BCE, which would make him about 33 at death. (That age at death - coincidence? I'm not sure whether you think the gospel stories use the death of Antigonus as one of their models.)

Can you with some confidence suggest an age range for Antigonus at death, or do you want to stick simply with your earlier suggestion? I am asking because even if we suppose Antigonus was c. 33 at death, I don't think Patricia Smith's insistence that the skull was that of an "elderly" person can be squared with an age in the early 30s. Not enough time for wear and tear on the cranium, bone degeneration, or whatever it is that happens! Don't forget, she is also trained in dentistry and in using teeth to establish rough age at death.

I know this is a sideline, maybe a derailment, of the OP, but it is fascinating.

As I said before, if we go with the hypothesis of Elitzur et al, that Smith examined bones in the wrong box, we have to conclude that Haas had TWO decapitated skulls in his office. That goes against Haas' explicit statement that the skull in the ossuary was the only one he had found nr Jerusalem from someone who had been decapitated. Smith did confirm decapitation in the case of the skull she examined. Then there's Zias' claim that Haas changed his story during filming in the TV studio, i.e. "somewhat aged individual" became "a man in his 30s." Two other experts on bones also identified the skeleton as that of an aged person.

[ficino]

Thanks for trying to find out.

If Zias is right that Haas originally in the TV studio said that the bones belonged to "a somewhat aged individual," then maybe maryhelena's attempt to split the difference on Antigonus' age is the best one can do, i.e. maybe in his later forties...?

[toejam]

For anyone interested, this project by Ehrman is now available as a Great Courses (aka The Teaching Company) video lecture series. 24 half-hour lectures.

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/cour ... x?cid=6522

I've watched/listened to most of the Great Courses lectures on Judaism and Christianity now. Really excellent stuff.