Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hello everyone-

Before my meds kick in and I can get to my first afternoon nap after my last morning nap, I need to put a thought into words.
The Possibilities of this having Truth Value are barely above background noise. Who knows,however, it may even have some worth.

1. "Nicholas of Damascus" was Rome's Political Control Officer over Herod. Most of what he wrote has been destroyed although, as usual, there is enough commentary that we can piece together some of what he wrote.
Nicholas has a most unusual talent: He can see Caesar whenever he wants and he always gives the State Summary for any case presented in front of Caesar. He always wins.
He is at the Temple Slaughter of 4 BCE and he argues that Party Boy Archelaus did just OK when the Passover Coup was put down a week after Herod's death. He has a brother named Ptolemy. Ptolemy is the Keeper of Herod's Seal and Ptolemy confirms Herod's death AND the fact that Herod changed his Will in favor of Archelaus. "I wonder which event came first...?"
Where Josephus goes dry in his descriptions matches very close with the end of Nicholas of Damascus' Commentary. In short, Josephus used Nick's work quite closely.

If he lived today and there was only one private jet for use between Nick and Jon Corzine, Corzine would end up walking. Nick was that important.

2. To load the argument, Nicholas of Damascus was "A Ruler of the Jews". Did he also understand the milieu of those he "ruled"?

3. John 3: 1 - 5 (RSV):

[1] Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicode'mus, a ruler of the Jews.
[2] This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that you do, unless God is with him."
[3] Jesus answered him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
[4] Nicode'mus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"
[5] Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I have no doubt that verse 5 is a construction, an addition for a particular end. "...he cannot enter the kingdom of God" may be original but the other is grafted on for effect. Your mileage may vary. The important point here is that this is an idiom - "You must be born again..." is Semitic and goes back to the Sumerian first appearance of the word "Freedom". That word is "AmargI" and it means, "Return to Mother". The argument made by "Jesus" is one that has been altered to meet a new End.

4. So, this "Nicodemus" is a "Ruler of the Jews" who does not understand a Semitic Idiom. A very interesting "Pharisee" and "Ruler of the Jews" who doesn't understand the language, yes?

5. "So, class, let's make fun of this Nicholas of Damascus by making up a fun name for him and then show him making a stupid blunder in the language, OK?"

A. Take "Nicholas" and chop off the ending: "Nicholas"=> "Nicho-" => "Nico--
B. Take "Damascus" - Anglicized as it is - trim the vowels and hard "sk--". "Damascus" => D-m-ss.
C. Behold! "Nicodemus"

I told you it would barely register above background. Nonetheless, it gives a good joke at the expense of a Roman Political Control Officer who, though much beloved by the Roman Thuggery, was probably hated intensely by the Priesthood - not the High Priesthood Stooges - and the worshiping populace.

'N leave it to the Romans to make a linguistic blunder by Nicodemus into a foundational piece for the New Religion.

I'm tired now...Nurse!...

CW

Is it true that Nicodemus is said to be from Bethany?

Could you further define the "temple slaughter of 4 B.C.?"

There was an execution and a public burning of Matrhias and others who tore down the golden eagle over the lintel of the inner temple gates in 4 B.C.

They did this because they thought Herod was dead. But Herod was not, and recovered, and so ordered the insurgents killed.

Is this the slaughter you refer to?

After Herod's death in the fall of 4 B.C., things were fairly stable as the month-long funeral procession traveled from Jericho to Herodium, where he was interred. There was a contest over the Will that was eventually heard by Augustus.

In the Passover of 3 B.C., insurgents and innovators- Jews who wanted a return to independent rule (or at least rule NOT by a Herod) came out of the hills to Jerusalem. Then, Archelaus, though not formally declared king by Augustus, took the bull by the horns and put down an insurrection, along with Varus of Syria and his brother Philip. Then, there was a bona fide slaughter with thousands losing their lives, and the fighting lasted for almost a year.

So what Temple incident are you referring to?

Source: Hagan "Year of the Passover"

alright steve43-

To Prove: The Passover Slaughter did not occur in 4 BCE, soon after the death of Herod but actually occurred one year later, in 3 BCE.

1- 2 - 3 - Go.

Herod died in the fall of 4 BC. The Passover of 3 BC would have occurred 6 months later.
so please give me more details on this temple slaughter.

Note Nicomedes IV of Bithynia meets Caesar at night like Nicodemus of Bethany meets Jesus at night in 3 John.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/suet-julius.asp

steve43 wrote:Herod died in the fall of 4 BC. The Passover of 3 BC would have occurred 6 months later.
so please give me more details on this temple slaughter.

waiting...

Been away from the Battles a few days, enjoying the sunsets.

1. I've read quite a lot about Herod dying in the Fall of 4 BCE and 1 BCE with the Passover Slaughter occurring in 4 BCE and 3 BCE.

2. One Paper in particular has an analysis claiming that Josephus' descriptions of the Death of Herod - in both Antiquities... and Wars... do not come from copies of anything that Nicholas of Damascus wrote. Josephus used quite a bit of Nicholas of Damascus but evidently not any for the paragraphs describing Herod's Death.

3. The Events after Herod's Death read in a quite direct and succinct manner.

4. Therefore, if the above is true, the Death of Herod in 4 BCE may be confirmed by the appearance of the Mishmarot Group "immer" at the Passovers of 4 BCE and 9 CE, with added confirmation of the appearance of "John", who appears to be of the Service Group "Bilgah". If these are insertions into Josephus, they carry the questions of "Who?" and "Why?".

5. I have no doubt that is not convincing in the least to steve43. Nonetheless, the next step is apparent and coherent data concerning a Story of Mishmarot and the Hasmonaeans continues. This material does not rise to the level of Proof Statements. The evidence is suggestive only but sometimes that' all you can get - until later evidence accrues. 'N it always has so far...

CW

You are forgetting one of the most significant aspects of Josephus' narrative of the last years of Herod's life.

Just before the Passover of 4 B.C., rumors of Herod's death at his palace in Jericho caused folks to celebrate and tear down the Golden Eagle from the lintel of the Temple gates. Herod had them arrested and the ring-leaders burned alive. That night there was a full lunar eclipse.

That's a huge factor in the dating of ancient history, for Herod actually did die six months later.

When evaluating early Christian times, I tend to discount the Talmud, I admit. Josephus is my default authority and it should be for everyone who is serious about these things.

If you poo-poo Josephus, you are left with basically nothing. So any conjecture is pointless.

The Talmud, while interesting, was created hundreds of years later and after two huge and monumental dislocations in the Jewish culture/religion.

The death of Herod the Great was a huge deal, and while Nicolaus of Damascus wrote with authority, there were like several other sources.

Spin your theories as you will, but be true to what Josephus writes.

steve43 wrote:If you poo-poo Josephus, you are left with basically nothing. So any conjecture is pointless.
The death of Herod the Great was a huge deal, and while Nicolaus of Damascus wrote with authority, there were like several other sources.

Spin your theories as you will, but be true to what Josephus writes.

steve43-

I've devoted page after page after page to quoting and analyzing Josephus, as Historian and as possible contributor to the NT. I'm serious: page after page.
There is a very coherent argument to be made as to the Why of Josephus, what he says and what he doesn't say. If you want a page count of my analyses, lemme know and I'll total up what I've written.

Just don't accuse me of trying to minimize Josephus.

CW