Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:13 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:02 am Yes, allusions to the Roman execution are evidenced in the gospel crucifixion story - call them parallels if that is what you prefer. But that fact does not change the history upon which they depend - the historical fact that the Romans executed a King of the Jews.

But how do you know that's what the gospels relying on?

There was no other King of the Jews executed by Rome. As the gospel Jesus crucifixion story stands - the Roman execution of Antigonus is the only historical core for that story. If it's a historical core to the gospel crucifixion story is of interest - then Antigonus is the only viable historical option.


I would suggest that the same can be said for the gospel Jesus crucifixion story as Greg is here saying about the DSS - Antigonus Mattathias remained unseen even though (he) was always in open view as obvious as it could be......

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:37 am There was no other King of the Jews executed by Rome. As the gospel Jesus crucifixion story stands - the Roman execution of Antigonus is the only historical core for that story. If it's a historical core to the gospel crucifixion story is of interest - then Antigonus is the only viable historical option.

But Jesus was never a king, was he? Except "in spirit" after his resurrection? Before then, only in mockery and sarcasm. At most an heir to the throne, at very most. I see nothing in the gospel Jesus that is anything like Antigonus. Not a single parallel -- except execution by Romans. That's all.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 4:52 am

maryhelena wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 1:37 am There was no other King of the Jews executed by Rome. As the gospel Jesus crucifixion story stands - the Roman execution of Antigonus is the only historical core for that story. If it's a historical core to the gospel crucifixion story is of interest - then Antigonus is the only viable historical option.

But Jesus was never a king, was he? Except "in spirit" after his resurrection? Before then, only in mockery and sarcasm. At most an heir to the throne, at very most. I see nothing in the gospel Jesus that is anything like Antigonus. Not a single parallel -- except execution by Romans. That's all.

That's all that is necessary. An historical execution by the Romans of a King of the Jew. Ready to be used as a model for the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus figure.

Jesus was never a king - Neil, that's the gospel story, a narrative without historical evidence for it's Jesus figure....

Jewish History	Josephus	Gospels and Acts.
King Antigonus Mattathias II High Priest of the Jews: 40 b.c.e. – 37 b.c.e. Hasmonean Bilingual Coins, Hebrew and Greek.	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	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 of 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 an 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 ministry for JC.
Cassius Dio: Antigonus. These people Antony entrusted to one Herod to govern, and Antigonus he bound to a cross and flogged,—treatment accorded to no other king by the Romans,—and subsequently slew him. Roman History, Book xlix, c.22	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. Trilingual 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, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16.	Judas betrays JC for 30 pieces of silver. Matthew 27.3.
	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. (37 b.c.) Antiquities: Book 15 ch.1.	Acts: 11:16.The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.

''.....elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus....'

I have proposed that the historical Roman execution of Antigonus is one element of the makeup of the gospel literary Jesus figure..

Like any literary figure, the Jesus figure can be created from any number of different historical figures.


As for zealot allusions in the gospel Jesus story: Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth by Reza Aslan




The Roman execution of Antigonus, the Roman execution of a King of the Jews, is history. One can assume that this historical event had no relevance for the Jewish writers of the gospel Jesus story. But, methinks, that is to assume too much. Indeed, one can play safe with OT midrash and the gospel story. However, it is history, the glory and the tragedy, the blood and guts, the lived experience of people, that can provide a backdrop to the gospel Jesus story. Otherwise - one is simply blowing in the wind...

Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

https://www.academia.edu/10232441/_Jesu ... 2014_1_105

“Jesus and the Anti-Roman Resistance. A Reassessment of the Arguments”, Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 12 (2014) 1-105.

I can demonstrate midrashic connections at nearly every passage in the gospels. I cannot do the same for Antigonus. I was hoping maybe a small opening could be found for a discussion of history and how we know things -- as per the OP -- about history and the texts but I was wrong.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 7:32 am I can demonstrate midrashic connections at nearly every passage in the gospels.

Maurice Mergui writes that the challenge thrown usually against the likes of Dubourg is precisely to be able to explain midrashically very every passage, term, action, in the gospels.

Otherwise, the challenge would go, the Jesus' historicity is the default position.

While Carrier eludes this challenge by saying that, even if the midrash is not found for the passage x, the probability increases that a midrashical solution may be behind the angle, given the fact that the 80% of the Gospel story finds already a midrashical solution...

...Mergui accepts the challenge and he appeals, as you know, to Hebrew gematria and calembours, to explain very every single passage of the Gospels.

Are you more with Carrier from this POV, or are you on the side of Mergui, relatively to this precise point?

It appears to me that in the previous posts, you have given up to appeal, à la Carrier, to terms as 'probability', 'Occam', etc.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 7:32 am I can demonstrate midrashic connections at nearly every passage in the gospels. I cannot do the same for Antigonus. I was hoping maybe a small opening could be found for a discussion of history and how we know things -- as per the OP -- about history and the texts but I was wrong.

I have put history on the table. Historical evidence avaible re coins of Antigpnus. You have chosen to ignore it as having any relevance to the gospel Jesus story. So be it.

Play safe Neil with your midrashic approach to the gospels. History is for those prepared to step outside the gospel story, those prepared to take up the challenge it presents to the gospel story.

I love this quotation from Ulrich Luz, cited at the head of Bermejo-Rubio's stimulating article

Giuseppe wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 8:14 am

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 7:32 am I can demonstrate midrashic connections at nearly every passage in the gospels.

Maurice Mergui writes that the challenge thrown usually against the likes of Dubourg is precisely to be able to explain midrashically very every passage, term, action, in the gospels.

Otherwise, the challenge would go, the Jesus' historicity is the default position.

While Carrier eludes this challenge by saying that, even if the midrash is not found for the passage x, the probability increases that a midrashical solution may be behind the angle, given the fact that the 80% of the Gospel story finds already a midrashical solution...

...Mergui accepts the challenge and he appeals, as you know, to Hebrew gematria and calembours, to explain very every single passage of the Gospels.

Are you more with Carrier from this POV, or are you on the side of Mergui, relatively to this precise point?

It appears to me that in the previous posts, you have given up to appeal, à la Carrier, to terms as 'probability', 'Occam', etc.

If I understand your question, I think you are asking me if I think that "nearly every passage in the gospels" can be explained midrashically because that is "probably" possible, or if I think that "nearly every passage in the gospels" has been explained midrashically (by Mergui). Is that what you are asking me?

I have not read all of Mergui's explanations and some of his proposals I have questions about. I'm not saying I reject any of them; I'm only saying I don't know what to make of several of his explanations.

My own reading of the gospels tells me that "nearly every passage in the gospels" has some midrashic inspiration. That's my observation from my own reading.

I simply don't know if "every" passage in the gospels can be explained midrashically.

But I do not conclude on the basis of probability (as per Carrier) that every passage can be so explained. Probability only tells us what we are likely to expect once the full evidence finally comes to light. It does not give us answers about that the reality is here and now.

neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Fri Aug 13, 2021 2:20 am But I do not conclude on the basis of probability (as per Carrier) that every passage can be so explained. Probability only tells us what we are likely to expect once the full evidence finally comes to light. It does not give us answers about that the reality is here and now.

now it is more clear the difference between you and Carrier, thanks.

Irish1975 wrote: ↑Thu Aug 12, 2021 10:21 am I love this quotation from Ulrich Luz, cited at the head of Bermejo-Rubio's stimulating article

Der bibelkundlichen Phantasie ist keine Grenze gesetzt! [There are no limits to the fantasy of biblical scholarship!]
Das Evangelium nach Matthäus

Further in the same article we see how one such fantasy is produced....

guiding principles for the scholars’ decisions are usually highly subjective, and do not derive from the criteria, but rather determine how the scholars use them (p. 16)

and then comes the obligatory assumption that the gospels must be written by authors attempting to write on the basis of some sort of "reliable historical memory or information" -- otherwise, and this cannot be allowed to happen, we will have "no evidence for what we have always believed to be the outline of Christian origins"!

We should accordingly trust those general impressions: otherwise, the Gospels should be completely rejected as sources from which we can get some reliable information. (p. 18)

Meanwhile, in another camp, the total lack of evidence for widespread anti-Roman fervour or interest in messianism or past kings slain in the "time of Jesus" is once again pointed out:

On [the] inclination to link up post-63 and post-70 anger and lament – under Pompey and after Titus’ destruction of the temple – no one today would readily link feelings in any European country today with those of the 1890s.There is something artificial about imagining a nation, over several generations, in thrall to the same (theological) hopes, and it leads us to downplay the concrete life-situations that occupied the intervening 130 years. -- Steve Mason in Rethinking the Jewish War, 306