DOES HISTORY MATTER ?
While many arguments presented on this forum concentrate on interpretations of the gospel story and it’s Greek words - my posts have mainly sought to highlight the necessity of considering a historical approach to the NT stories. An historical approach not just to the gospel timeline of Tiberius and Pilate - but to break out of that very limited approach and to consider what historical context would be available for the gospel writers to draw upon.
I recently came across this interesting article on the importance of history:
FROM TRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH
How did the historical tragedy of 37 b.c. (the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus.) impact upon the gospel writers. ? Faced with a tragic past how did the NT writers move forward; move from historical tragedy to historical triumph? For the Hasmoneans, living under Roman occupation, there was no way back; no way to defeat the might of Rome and restore their lost kingdom. How then could they grasp victory from the jaws of defeat?
Gregory Doudna
"Allusions to the End of the Hasmonean Dynasty in Pesher Nahum (4Q169)" (2011)
The major objection raised in secondary literature to this reading of Pesher Nahum, as alluding to a doomed ruler of Israel hung up alive, has actually been a non-textual reason: a perception that nothing corresponds with such an image in known history. Was there ever a Jewish ruler, a Hasmonean king or high priest, in the era of these texts who was hung up alive? Actually, there was.
--------
And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of being executed by Mark Antony.3 In his death at the hands of gentiles Antigonus Mattathias corresponds with the portrayal of the death of the Wicked Priest, and Antigonus Mattathias is the only Hasmonean ruler of the first century bce who does.
------
Antigonus Mattathias was captured in Jerusalem and killed by gentiles in a foreign country. And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of being executed by Mark Antony.3 In his death at the hands of gentiles Antigonus Mattathias corresponds with the portrayal of the death of the Wicked Priest, and Antigonus Mattathias is the only Hasmonean ruler of the first century bce who does.
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 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_
----------
In what may come to be regarded as one of the more unusual, indeed astonishing, oversights in the history of Qumran scholarship, so far as is known it seems no previous scholar has proposed that Antigonus Mattathias, the last Hasmonean king of Israel, executed by the Romans in 37 BCE, might be the figure underlying the Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk or the doomed ruler of Pesher Nahum. The actual allusion of the figure of these texts, Antigonus Mattathias, remained unseen even though it was always in open view, as obvious as it could be. And in wondering how Antigonus Mattathias was missed in the history of scholarship I include myself, for I too missed this in my 2001 study of Pesher Nahum.
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... /dou398018
A fundamental part of the gospel crucifixion story is that it’s Jesus figure was resurrected Interestingly, the Lukan writer, in his Emmaus story, has the disciples not recognize the resurrected Jesus. The gospel Jesus tells Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. Indicating that his kingdom is not a physical, material, political, nationalist, reality. What then is that kingdom ? The only other world in which humans live is the world, the kingdom, of the human mind. It’s not a world out there in outer space - it’s a world of our own making, an intellectual (or spiritual) philosophical world. How then did the NT writers turn the historical tragedy of 37 b.c. into a philosophical/intellectual world.
The NT Paul said - ‘’But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;’’
Hanging a man on a cross/stake was a curse according to the OT. Foolishness for the Greeks. It was, and remains, an anti-humanitarian punishment. Why does NT Paul think otherwise ? He simply found a context in which ‘crucifixion’ could have value. In effect, NT Paul reversed the concept of crucifixion. Physical crucifixion has no value, it is an abomination. But transfer the idea of crucifixion to an intellectual concept and a new philosophy can be generated. It is ideas that get crucified not flesh and blood. Ideas get crucified once their value has expired. Alowing rebirth, resurrection, of new ideas to develop. (Life, death and rebirth - thesis, antithesis and synthesis of ideas). It’s the human mind that allowed NT Paul’s philosophical ideas, his theological’ musings, to achieve the triumph over the tragedy of 37 b.c. From the ashes of the Hasmonean history a new spiritual/intellectual/philosophical kingdom was resurrected. Roman occupation necessitating that the new philosophical awareness be expressed through the medium of an allegory. An allegory that allowed political, theological, mythological and philosophical elements to underwrite, as it were, the new intellectual kingdom.
Two Jewish writers, one of who claimed Hasmonean ancestry, had between them the necessary interest, the necessary tools, to move forward a new intellectual philosophical kingdom: Philo and Josephus. It is to these two figures that research into early Christian origins needs to turn.
THE NEW TESTAMENT: LITERAL HISTORY OR PHILOSOPHICAL HISTORY?
From a from a very early period the gospel story was read as history ie that it’s figure of Jesus was a historical figure. However, as hard as they try scholars of the gospels have failed to find historical evidence for this figure. Various alternative theories have proposed figures from Josephus. Figures with no outside of Josephus historical support. In other words, the scholarly search continues. A Jesus from outer space theory, a celestial crucifixion, has also been advanced.
Neither a historical Jesus (of whatever variant) or a Jesus from outer-space/celestial crucifixion theory, do justice to the NT story. Both approaches are a dead end as a search for the root of early origins.
Placed as the story is, in the time of Tiberius and Pilate (14 to 37 c.e.) a time when ‘all was quite under Tiberius’’, the seditious elements within that story relate to, or reflect, a period of time prior to Tiberius and Pilate. The gospel story, in it’s crucifixion element, reflects Hasmonean history.ie it was a Hasmonean King that Rome executed. The 70 th year remembrance of this historical event of 37 b.c. occurred during the time of Tiberius and Pilate. (37 c. e. , being 100 years since the start of Roman occupation in 63 b.c.)
Tertullian wrote:’’ This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity..’’ (31 b.c. to 41 c.e.) The book of Acts says: ‘’’…the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.’’ (Antioch being the place of the Roman execution of the Hasmonean king, Antigonus). Consequently, although the time of Tiberius and Pilate was an important time in the development of the NT story - that time period was not the spring from which it’s story drew it’s strength.
If the search for early Christian origins is to move forward it has, as it were, to go back in history. To consider what it was in Hasmonean history that led to the gospel crucifion story. Yes, the NT story contains more than a crucifixion story. But without a focus, without a root, in history - there is no road forward.
Bermejo Rubio, by following previous scholars who realized that the seditious elements in the gospel story have to be addressed, deserves credit for pursuing this issue. What he has failed to do is establish historicity for the seditious Jesus he has found in the gospel story. The seditious elements within the gospel story are a reflection of sedition, they are not themselves the historical demonstration of that sedition. The historical demonstration occurred during Hasmonean history.
There is no choice between a simplistic, naive reading of the gospel story or an imaginative leap into pure imagination. The choice facing NT scholars, in order to move forward the debate over early Christian origins, is historical research into the political framework from which the gospel writers drew their story. For 21st century minds - there is only one road forward - and that is a historical one.
----------
footnote
The gospel crucifixion story is not the whole of the gospel story. The gospel literal figure of Jesus can be viewed as a
composite figure - thereby allowing other historical figures, deemed to be relevant to the gospel writers, to be represented in the Jesus literary figure. However, to include an itinerant carpenter preacher figure - for which there is no historical evidence - is to let wishful thinking trump historical research. Searching for an assumed needle in a haystack is just simply a waste of time.
While many arguments presented on this forum concentrate on interpretations of the gospel story and it’s Greek words - my posts have mainly sought to highlight the necessity of considering a historical approach to the NT stories. An historical approach not just to the gospel timeline of Tiberius and Pilate - but to break out of that very limited approach and to consider what historical context would be available for the gospel writers to draw upon.
I recently came across this interesting article on the importance of history:
All people are living histories – which is why History matters
Penelope J. Corfield
Historians are often asked: what is the use or relevance of studying History (the capital letter signalling the academic field of study)? Why on earth does it matter what happened long ago? The answer is that History is inescapable. It studies the past and the legacies of the past in the present. Far from being a 'dead' subject, it connects things through time and encourages its students to take a long view of such connections.
All people and peoples are living histories. To take a few obvious examples: communities speak languages that are inherited from the past. They live in societies with complex cultures, traditions and religions that have not been created on the spur of the moment. People use technologies that they have not themselves invented. And each individual is born with a personal variant of an inherited genetic template, known as the genome, which has evolved during the entire life-span of the human species.
So understanding the linkages between past and present is absolutely basic for a good understanding of the condition of being human. That, in a nutshell, is why History matters. It is not just 'useful', it is essential.
=======
In all cases, understanding History is integral to a good understanding of the condition of being human. That allows people to build, and, as may well be necessary, also to change, upon a secure foundation. Neither of these options can be undertaken well without understanding the context and starting points. All living people live in the here-and-now but it took a long unfolding history to get everything to NOW. And that history is located in time-space, which holds this cosmos together, and which frames both the past and the present.
https://archives.history.ac.uk/makinghi ... tters.html
Penelope J. Corfield
Historians are often asked: what is the use or relevance of studying History (the capital letter signalling the academic field of study)? Why on earth does it matter what happened long ago? The answer is that History is inescapable. It studies the past and the legacies of the past in the present. Far from being a 'dead' subject, it connects things through time and encourages its students to take a long view of such connections.
All people and peoples are living histories. To take a few obvious examples: communities speak languages that are inherited from the past. They live in societies with complex cultures, traditions and religions that have not been created on the spur of the moment. People use technologies that they have not themselves invented. And each individual is born with a personal variant of an inherited genetic template, known as the genome, which has evolved during the entire life-span of the human species.
So understanding the linkages between past and present is absolutely basic for a good understanding of the condition of being human. That, in a nutshell, is why History matters. It is not just 'useful', it is essential.
=======
In all cases, understanding History is integral to a good understanding of the condition of being human. That allows people to build, and, as may well be necessary, also to change, upon a secure foundation. Neither of these options can be undertaken well without understanding the context and starting points. All living people live in the here-and-now but it took a long unfolding history to get everything to NOW. And that history is located in time-space, which holds this cosmos together, and which frames both the past and the present.
https://archives.history.ac.uk/makinghi ... tters.html
Any historian worth the name—all the more so the historian of antiquity, whose sources on the distant past are desperately scanty—must pay attention to every piece of evidence they can confidently use, so overlooking data is an arbitrary and even meaningless procedure.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 16). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 16). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.
FROM TRAGEDY TO TRIUMPH
How did the historical tragedy of 37 b.c. (the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus.) impact upon the gospel writers. ? Faced with a tragic past how did the NT writers move forward; move from historical tragedy to historical triumph? For the Hasmoneans, living under Roman occupation, there was no way back; no way to defeat the might of Rome and restore their lost kingdom. How then could they grasp victory from the jaws of defeat?
Rabbi Wise: The Martyrdom of Jesus of Nazareth: A Historic-critical Treatise on the Last Chapters of the Gospel. Published by Office of the American Israelite, Cincinnati, 1874 (republished 1916)
III. THE CRUCIFIED KING.
It might appear from the foregoing argument that the crucifixion must anyhow be a historical fact. For, being injurious to primitive Christianity among the heathens, so that the whole story had to be perverted in order to be less offensive, it might have been omitted altogether if it had not been a fact. This, however, is only apparent : it is no real argument. Christ crucified was preached to the heathens by Paul before the existence of a church, and the story was established in Christendom long before it was written. But why should Paul or anybody else have started the crucifixion story if it was not a fact ? There is an answer to this query and we will state it.
There existed, in the. time of Paul, among the Roman- Syrian heathens, a wide-spread and deep sympathy for one crucified king of the Jews, as is evident from Dio Cassius, Plutarch, Strubo, and Josephus. ……………………………….There was one more son left of this heroic family, Antigonus............ At last, after a heroic life and reign, he fell in the hands of this Roman. "Antony now gave the kingdom to a certain Herod, and, having stretched Antigonus on a cross and scourged him, a thing never done In-fore to any other king by the Romans, he put him to death/'*
The fact that all prominent historians of those days mention this extraordinary occurrence, and the manner how they did it, show that it was considered one of Marc Antony's worst crimes ; and that the sympathy with the crucified king was wide-spread and profound. Here we may well have the source of the crucifixion story. That class of heathens, to whom the Gospel was originally preached, knew no difference between David and the Maccabees; both were then extinct dynasties. They had heard of a crucified king of the Jews, who was one of the last scions of a heroic family and a hero himself, young, brave, and generous, whose fate was regretted and whose fame was heralded. Paul, who made use of everything useful, narrated the end of Jesus to correspond with the end of Antigonus, both stories appearing identical, to enlist the prevailing sympathy of the hero of the Gospel story. Therefore he preached "Christ crucified. " So the story was established among the Paul-Christians. All the gospels were written by Paul Christians. John expounds Paul in the Alexandrian method. But, in the time of Hadrian, the story had to be turned in favor of Rome and against the Jews, as we have seen before; and so Mark did. So far, then, there is not the least evidence, outside of Paul and Mark, that Jesus was either scourged or crucified. Let us see, now, how much fact can be elicited from the statements of Mark and his three successors.
https://archive.org/details/martyrdomofjesus00wiserich
III. THE CRUCIFIED KING.
It might appear from the foregoing argument that the crucifixion must anyhow be a historical fact. For, being injurious to primitive Christianity among the heathens, so that the whole story had to be perverted in order to be less offensive, it might have been omitted altogether if it had not been a fact. This, however, is only apparent : it is no real argument. Christ crucified was preached to the heathens by Paul before the existence of a church, and the story was established in Christendom long before it was written. But why should Paul or anybody else have started the crucifixion story if it was not a fact ? There is an answer to this query and we will state it.
There existed, in the. time of Paul, among the Roman- Syrian heathens, a wide-spread and deep sympathy for one crucified king of the Jews, as is evident from Dio Cassius, Plutarch, Strubo, and Josephus. ……………………………….There was one more son left of this heroic family, Antigonus............ At last, after a heroic life and reign, he fell in the hands of this Roman. "Antony now gave the kingdom to a certain Herod, and, having stretched Antigonus on a cross and scourged him, a thing never done In-fore to any other king by the Romans, he put him to death/'*
The fact that all prominent historians of those days mention this extraordinary occurrence, and the manner how they did it, show that it was considered one of Marc Antony's worst crimes ; and that the sympathy with the crucified king was wide-spread and profound. Here we may well have the source of the crucifixion story. That class of heathens, to whom the Gospel was originally preached, knew no difference between David and the Maccabees; both were then extinct dynasties. They had heard of a crucified king of the Jews, who was one of the last scions of a heroic family and a hero himself, young, brave, and generous, whose fate was regretted and whose fame was heralded. Paul, who made use of everything useful, narrated the end of Jesus to correspond with the end of Antigonus, both stories appearing identical, to enlist the prevailing sympathy of the hero of the Gospel story. Therefore he preached "Christ crucified. " So the story was established among the Paul-Christians. All the gospels were written by Paul Christians. John expounds Paul in the Alexandrian method. But, in the time of Hadrian, the story had to be turned in favor of Rome and against the Jews, as we have seen before; and so Mark did. So far, then, there is not the least evidence, outside of Paul and Mark, that Jesus was either scourged or crucified. Let us see, now, how much fact can be elicited from the statements of Mark and his three successors.
https://archive.org/details/martyrdomofjesus00wiserich
Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise (1819-1900), scholar and novelist
40. THE CRUCIFIED KING OF JUDEA . (1880)
Dio says, "Antony now gave the kingdom to a certain Herod, and, having stretched Antigonus to 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 Judea, 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. (page 206)
https://collections.americanjewisharchi ... wealth.pdf
40. THE CRUCIFIED KING OF JUDEA . (1880)
Dio says, "Antony now gave the kingdom to a certain Herod, and, having stretched Antigonus to 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 Judea, 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. (page 206)
https://collections.americanjewisharchi ... wealth.pdf
Gregory Doudna
"Allusions to the End of the Hasmonean Dynasty in Pesher Nahum (4Q169)" (2011)
The major objection raised in secondary literature to this reading of Pesher Nahum, as alluding to a doomed ruler of Israel hung up alive, has actually been a non-textual reason: a perception that nothing corresponds with such an image in known history. Was there ever a Jewish ruler, a Hasmonean king or high priest, in the era of these texts who was hung up alive? Actually, there was.
--------
And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of being executed by Mark Antony.3 In his death at the hands of gentiles Antigonus Mattathias corresponds with the portrayal of the death of the Wicked Priest, and Antigonus Mattathias is the only Hasmonean ruler of the first century bce who does.
------
Antigonus Mattathias was captured in Jerusalem and killed by gentiles in a foreign country. And of particular interest in light of the allusion in Pesher Nahum is the fact that Cassius Dio, the Roman historian, says that Antigonus Mattathias was hung up alive on a cross and tortured in the process of being executed by Mark Antony.3 In his death at the hands of gentiles Antigonus Mattathias corresponds with the portrayal of the death of the Wicked Priest, and Antigonus Mattathias is the only Hasmonean ruler of the first century bce who does.
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 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_
----------
In what may come to be regarded as one of the more unusual, indeed astonishing, oversights in the history of Qumran scholarship, so far as is known it seems no previous scholar has proposed that Antigonus Mattathias, the last Hasmonean king of Israel, executed by the Romans in 37 BCE, might be the figure underlying the Wicked Priest of Pesher Habakkuk or the doomed ruler of Pesher Nahum. The actual allusion of the figure of these texts, Antigonus Mattathias, remained unseen even though it was always in open view, as obvious as it could be. And in wondering how Antigonus Mattathias was missed in the history of scholarship I include myself, for I too missed this in my 2001 study of Pesher Nahum.
https://bibleinterp.arizona.edu/article ... /dou398018
The Free Review
Edited by John M. Robertson
Vol. II
April to September 1894.
Page 22
There is one more probable historical basis for a
detail in the Jesus myth . It is not credible that Paul's
Jesus , or any other , had been crucified as “ The King
of the Jews ” ; but we know from Dio Cassius that a
Jewish king, Antigonus, was scourged , crucified , and
afterwards put to death by the order of Mark Antony ,
before the Christian era . Such an act must needs have
made a profound impression on the Jewish people ;
even if it was not memorised for them by such a drama
as was spontaneously set up and preserved among the
Peruvians to commemorate the execution of the last
Inca ; and there is every reason to surmise that the
historic fact in regard to King Antigonus was woven
into the Jesuist myth .
https://sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch41.htm
Edited by John M. Robertson
Vol. II
April to September 1894.
Page 22
There is one more probable historical basis for a
detail in the Jesus myth . It is not credible that Paul's
Jesus , or any other , had been crucified as “ The King
of the Jews ” ; but we know from Dio Cassius that a
Jewish king, Antigonus, was scourged , crucified , and
afterwards put to death by the order of Mark Antony ,
before the Christian era . Such an act must needs have
made a profound impression on the Jewish people ;
even if it was not memorised for them by such a drama
as was spontaneously set up and preserved among the
Peruvians to commemorate the execution of the last
Inca ; and there is every reason to surmise that the
historic fact in regard to King Antigonus was woven
into the Jesuist myth .
https://sacred-texts.com/bib/cv/pch/pch41.htm
A fundamental part of the gospel crucifixion story is that it’s Jesus figure was resurrected Interestingly, the Lukan writer, in his Emmaus story, has the disciples not recognize the resurrected Jesus. The gospel Jesus tells Pilate that his kingdom is not of this world. Indicating that his kingdom is not a physical, material, political, nationalist, reality. What then is that kingdom ? The only other world in which humans live is the world, the kingdom, of the human mind. It’s not a world out there in outer space - it’s a world of our own making, an intellectual (or spiritual) philosophical world. How then did the NT writers turn the historical tragedy of 37 b.c. into a philosophical/intellectual world.
The NT Paul said - ‘’But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness;’’
Hanging a man on a cross/stake was a curse according to the OT. Foolishness for the Greeks. It was, and remains, an anti-humanitarian punishment. Why does NT Paul think otherwise ? He simply found a context in which ‘crucifixion’ could have value. In effect, NT Paul reversed the concept of crucifixion. Physical crucifixion has no value, it is an abomination. But transfer the idea of crucifixion to an intellectual concept and a new philosophy can be generated. It is ideas that get crucified not flesh and blood. Ideas get crucified once their value has expired. Alowing rebirth, resurrection, of new ideas to develop. (Life, death and rebirth - thesis, antithesis and synthesis of ideas). It’s the human mind that allowed NT Paul’s philosophical ideas, his theological’ musings, to achieve the triumph over the tragedy of 37 b.c. From the ashes of the Hasmonean history a new spiritual/intellectual/philosophical kingdom was resurrected. Roman occupation necessitating that the new philosophical awareness be expressed through the medium of an allegory. An allegory that allowed political, theological, mythological and philosophical elements to underwrite, as it were, the new intellectual kingdom.
Two Jewish writers, one of who claimed Hasmonean ancestry, had between them the necessary interest, the necessary tools, to move forward a new intellectual philosophical kingdom: Philo and Josephus. It is to these two figures that research into early Christian origins needs to turn.
THE NEW TESTAMENT: LITERAL HISTORY OR PHILOSOPHICAL HISTORY?
From a from a very early period the gospel story was read as history ie that it’s figure of Jesus was a historical figure. However, as hard as they try scholars of the gospels have failed to find historical evidence for this figure. Various alternative theories have proposed figures from Josephus. Figures with no outside of Josephus historical support. In other words, the scholarly search continues. A Jesus from outer space theory, a celestial crucifixion, has also been advanced.
Neither a historical Jesus (of whatever variant) or a Jesus from outer-space/celestial crucifixion theory, do justice to the NT story. Both approaches are a dead end as a search for the root of early origins.
Placed as the story is, in the time of Tiberius and Pilate (14 to 37 c.e.) a time when ‘all was quite under Tiberius’’, the seditious elements within that story relate to, or reflect, a period of time prior to Tiberius and Pilate. The gospel story, in it’s crucifixion element, reflects Hasmonean history.ie it was a Hasmonean King that Rome executed. The 70 th year remembrance of this historical event of 37 b.c. occurred during the time of Tiberius and Pilate. (37 c. e. , being 100 years since the start of Roman occupation in 63 b.c.)
Tertullian wrote:’’ This name of ours took its rise in the reign of Augustus; under Tiberius it was taught with all clearness and publicity..’’ (31 b.c. to 41 c.e.) The book of Acts says: ‘’’…the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.’’ (Antioch being the place of the Roman execution of the Hasmonean king, Antigonus). Consequently, although the time of Tiberius and Pilate was an important time in the development of the NT story - that time period was not the spring from which it’s story drew it’s strength.
If the search for early Christian origins is to move forward it has, as it were, to go back in history. To consider what it was in Hasmonean history that led to the gospel crucifion story. Yes, the NT story contains more than a crucifixion story. But without a focus, without a root, in history - there is no road forward.
Bermejo Rubio, by following previous scholars who realized that the seditious elements in the gospel story have to be addressed, deserves credit for pursuing this issue. What he has failed to do is establish historicity for the seditious Jesus he has found in the gospel story. The seditious elements within the gospel story are a reflection of sedition, they are not themselves the historical demonstration of that sedition. The historical demonstration occurred during Hasmonean history.
‘’…..several items of the Passion narratives do not seem to have been manufactured from the Scriptures. And even some stories and passages that are scripturally indebted could have an anchor in history. Sometimes, the simplest and most plausible explanation for the extant sources is that genuine historical tradition “generated scriptural reflection, which in turn influenced the way the traditions were recast.”
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 81). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 81). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition
There is no choice between a simplistic, naive reading of the gospel story or an imaginative leap into pure imagination. The choice facing NT scholars, in order to move forward the debate over early Christian origins, is historical research into the political framework from which the gospel writers drew their story. For 21st century minds - there is only one road forward - and that is a historical one.
----------
footnote
The gospel crucifixion story is not the whole of the gospel story. The gospel literal figure of Jesus can be viewed as a
composite figure - thereby allowing other historical figures, deemed to be relevant to the gospel writers, to be represented in the Jesus literary figure. However, to include an itinerant carpenter preacher figure - for which there is no historical evidence - is to let wishful thinking trump historical research. Searching for an assumed needle in a haystack is just simply a waste of time.
Statistics: Posted by maryhelena — Sun Feb 25, 2024 12:04 pm