Fernando Bermejo-Rubio

[StephenGoranson]

"....That story can lead to only one place in history. Antigonus in 37 b.c. - and to that Herodian Jew who paid a Roman assassin.''

non-sequitur.

[maryhelena]

Reposting this quote from Bermejo Rubio's new book - as I think the Carabas story in Philo does offer a way out of that gospel box for Bermejo Rubio. Rather than simply refer to the 'young men carrying rods on their shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him in imitation of a bodyguard' a far more historical interpretation of this allegory can be suggested.

In an account of Philo (In Flaccum 6.36–41), which is often cited in the interpretations of Mark, the pagan populace of Alexandria dressed up a certain Carabas as a mock king, and “young men carrying rods on their shoulders as spearmen stood on either side of him in imitation of a bodyguard.” In Mark 10:35–37, when James and John ask Jesus to allow them to sit, one at his right and the other at his left, their request implies closest participation in his royal glory. The seats to the right and the left of the king are of the highest rank and honor after the king (see, e.g., 2 Sam 16:6; 1 Kgs 22:19; Ezra 4:29). The most plausible explanation of the Golgotha scene is accordingly that the Romans considered Jesus to be the leader of the men crucified with him.20
Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 345). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Flaccus

Gaius Caesar gave Agrippa, the grandson of Herod the king, the third part of his paternal inheritance as a sovereignty, which Philip the tetrarch, who was his uncle on his father's side, had previously enjoyed.

There was a certain madman named Carabbas,

....driving the poor wretch as far as the public gymnasium, and setting him up there on high that he might be seen by everybody, flattened out a leaf of papyrus and put it on his head instead of a diadem, and clothed the rest of his body with a common door mat instead of a cloak and instead of a sceptre they put in his hand a small stick of the native papyrus which they found lying by the way side and gave to him; (38) and when, like actors in theatrical spectacles, he had received all the insignia of royal authority, and had been dressed and adorned like a king, the young men bearing sticks on their shoulders stood on each side of him instead of spear-bearers, in imitation of the bodyguards of the king, and then others came up, some as if to salute him, and others making as though they wished to plead their causes before him, and others pretending to wish to consult with him about the affairs of the state.

Then from the multitude of those who were standing around there arose a wonderful shout of men calling out Maris; and this is the name by which it is said that they call the kings among the Syrians; for they knew that Agrippa was by birth a Syrian, and also that he was possessed of a great district of Syria of which he was the sovereign;

https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/tex ... ook36.html

The first thing to note here is that Agrippa was not a Syrian. Raising questions as to why Philo would put such words into the mouth of onlookers.

Embassy to Gaius

I am, as you know, a Jew; and Jerusalem is my country, in which there is erected the holy temple of the most high God. And I have kings for my grandfathers and for my ancestors, the greater part of whom have been called high priests, looking upon their royal power as inferior to their office as priests; and thinking that the high priesthood is as much superior to the power of a king, as God is superior to man; for that the one is occupied in rendering service to God, and the other has only the care of governing them.

https://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/tex ... ook40.html

In Flaccus, Philo has stated that Agrippa is a grandson of Herod. In Embassy to Gaius, Philo has Agrippa claim Hasmonean ancestry. It is that ancestry, rather than from Herod, that Agrippa declares is primary. Philo has Agrippa saying it is the High Priesthood ancestry he views as more important.

If the Hasmonean ancestry is kept in mind when considering the Carabas allegory - then it's use of Syrian, Syria, becomes relevant. Syrian, Antioch, was the city in which two of Agrippa's ancestors were killed by the Romans: Alexander of Judaea in around 49/48 b.c. The last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus, executed in Antioch, by Marc Antony, in 37 b.c.

It is not Agrippa that is being mocked in the Philo allegory. It is Rome. After removing a Jewish king in 37 b.c. - now in 37 c.e. they appoint as King a man with Hasmonean ancestry.

If, as is often proposed, the gospel writers have taken heed of Philo's Carabas allegory - then their use of it indicates they were aware of Philo's intention: connecting Agrippa's newly appointed kingship with the history of his Hasmonean ancestors; ancestors who ended their lives in Syrian Antioch. A gospel story connection with Philo's Carabas story - a gospel story related to a King of the Jews executed by Rome - supports a Hasmonean interest by the gospel writers.

Bermejo Rubio should go back to Philo's Agrippa allegory as it offers him support for his seditious Jesus hypothese. Yes, he wants to keep the gospel timeline - Tiberius and Pilate - but he can still do that. It's not a case of a time-shift - it is simply a case of remembering past history during the time of Tiberius and Pilate. The years of Tiberius and Pilate were years in which remembrance of past history was appropriate. Luke, for example, used Lysanias of Abilene in his account of the 15th year of Tiberius. i.e 40 b.c. to 30 b.c. a 70 year time span from which the writer of the gospel of Luke remembered Hasmonean history.

Indeed, there are many interpretations of the gospel story - but if these interpretations lack a historical core then they are not just wishful thinking, they are turning a cold shoulder and closing the eyes to historical realities.

[maryhelena]

Epilogue How (Not) to Change a Paradigm


Throughout this book I have argued that we should not gullibly trust the Gospel stories as they stand. As in many other cases of ancient sources, they do not tell us what happened regarding Jesus of Nazareth and other people, but only what the evangelists thought had happened, or what they wanted others to think, or perhaps what they wanted themselves to think had happened. In these circumstances, what really occurred has still to be reconstructed in the mind of the historian or in that of any thoughtful person.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 376). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

The unavoidable conclusion is that the foundational Christian writings do not provide a direct access to history. Even worse, the story told in them is largely false and misleading. The omission of much relevant material entailed the removal of the connections that would have originally made significant and fully understandable the events—such as the collective nature of the crucifixion at Golgotha—and such obliteration has seriously obscured the facts. The existence of a very considerable difference between the story that can be historically reconstructed and that provided in the Gospels is not an aprioristic assumption, but an inference drawn from a critical examination of the sources.


Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 376). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Only a historical reconstruction that unveils the underlying logic in the apparent illogicality of the Gospel accounts can provide a plausible alternative to the traditional view. The investigative critique conducted in this book has brought to light certain neglected, overlooked, or downplayed truths: that Jesus’ story was, since the beginning to its very end, a collective one, to the extent that we should not look again at him in isolation; that his life and his death must be understood along the trajectories of the Jewish anti-Roman resistance movements; that the men crucified with him were not brigands, but patriotic insurgents; that they were closely related to the Galilean teacher as his followers, supporters, or collaborators.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 377). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

The Gospel story is not the mysterious tale of a god or of an immaculate being persecuted by malevolent and devilish humans, but the intelligible story of a Jewish visionary who, along with some of his supporters or collaborators, had to be stopped by the authorities due to a need to maintain public order. While the “explanations” found in the Gospels as well as in modern mainstream scholarship are patently inadequate, Jesus’ actual opposition to Roman rule makes his execution on the cross wholly understandable without the need of convoluted prestidigitation. This explanatory power of the hypothesis, which allows us to provide a unifying rationale for the whole evidence, is a most compelling reason for any independent historian to integrate the seditious aspects into their reconstruction of the Galilean preacher.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 379). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Even though the historical reconstruction set forth in this book is by far preferable to the prevailing ones, the existence of ideological interests and emotional needs at work prevents me from naively harboring any illusions that a paradigm shift will take place. The religious significance of the figure who stands at the head of the entire Christian tradition makes him for millions of our contemporaries (including most of those who boast about doing historical research on him) a very different entity. The view of Jesus as a matchless being coming from outer space and as the Prince of Peace is just a theological construct, but it looms large in the consciousness of humankind, and the scholarly realm is no exception; it is so deeply entrenched that it may be impossible to dislodge. Hosts of scholars will presumably never remove the theological wax from their ears, and they will go on producing volumes that, besides some historical insights, will be dictated by traditional faith assumptions. The reason for this predictable state of affairs is that the prevailing standpoint on the Galilean is conveniently subservient to a formidable network of institutions and structures of ideological power that claim him as their founder, while any perspective making the Galilean teacher an intelligible historical actor similar to others is unpleasant for orthodoxy, and is bound to face straightforward hostility. After all, the view of Jesus as a man sharing the ideology and values of many of his contemporaries gives the lie to the myth of his uniqueness. The view of him as a nationalistic-minded Jew, showing partiality and not being indifferent to the Roman control of his land, deals a fatal blow to the idea of the Universal Lord. The view of him spearheading an armed group debunks the notion of the pacific and meek Man of Sorrows. The view that he was actively involved in anti-Roman resistance makes exceedingly implausible the idea that he went to his death voluntarily and shatters to pieces the moving story of a helpless victim. Key elements of the Christian myth accordingly begin to collapse.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 382-383). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Of course, these musings are, at the end of the day, irrelevant for historians, who honestly do their work irrespective of the corollaries or the echo they will find. The Jewish resisters who constitute the subject of this book belong, by definition, to the history of Judaism, not to that of Christianity. Although the disclosure of the extent of the ideological factors in this field should make us skeptical about the not very promising future, at least we can contemplate the story of the men crucified at Golgotha with a more lucid, insightful, and honest regard, far from narrow parochialism, strange oblivions, and blatantly distorting biases. After all, clearheadedness is, for secular-minded historians, their first intellectual imperative.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 383-384). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

So - a thoughtful ending to Bermejo-Rubio's new book. Anti-Roman resistance and Calvary's cross, a cross that is so central to Christian belief. It could be fair to say that without the crucifixion story Christianity has no hook upon which to hang it's theological assertions. However, the Roman execution of the gospel Jesus figure is a historical claim and has to be addressed as such.

Bermejo-Rubio is a Jesus historicists - hence he has worked from within that gospel bubble - a theological box. But historical research cannot confine itself to the gospel's theological box. It has, if early christian origins are ones focus, to step outside that box.

A big obstacle for the seditious gospel Jesus hypothesis is the statement of Tacitus that 'all was quite under Tiberius'..

A further aspect to be taken into account is that most episodes of resistance must have passed unrecorded, precisely because they would not have had a major scope, but would have rather been minor incidents, such as skirmishes, which hardly leave imprints in the sources—all the more so if they took place in rural areas. Paraphrasing a sentence of the anthropologist and political scientist James C. Scott, who refers to everyday acts of resistance, such isolated incidents “make no headlines.”

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 123). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

The information provided by Josephus and the Gospels, along with the rereading of Tacitus’ passage, constitutes admittedly just a small set of scattered pieces of evidence that does not indicate a generalized revolutionary behavior, but all the reports in concert indicate that the period under the prefects was not as idyllically quiet and peaceful as scholars claim and would have us believe.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 123). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

At the same time, however, we can be confident that the contention that “Under Tiberius all was quiet” should be carefully nuanced. In the phrase “relative peacefulness” the adjective has a specific weight. Given the scarce extant evidence we cannot be sure of the kind of resistance carried out in these episodes and whether their main characters were hardline anti-imperialists or not, but the simplest explanation for the abovementioned scraps of evidence is that an ideology of active resistance was already at work within the prefects’ period.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 124). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Yes, of course that 'ideology' was always there - Josephus putting words into the mouth of Titus:

So Titus charged his soldiers to restrain their rage; and to let their darts alone: and appointed an interpreter between them, which was a sign that he was the conqueror; and first began the discourse, and said, “I hope you, sirs, are now satiated with the miseries of your country; who have not had any just notions either of our great power, or of your own great weakness; but have, like mad-men, after a violent and inconsiderate manner made such attempts, as have brought your people, your city, and your holy house to destruction. You have been the men that have never left off rebelling since Pompey first conquered you. And have since that time made open war with the Romans.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/josephus/war-6.htm

So - a seditious Jesus under Tiberius and Pilate is little more than a ideological fellow-traveller - not engaged in active resistance against Rome. The idea appeals but the flesh is weak....Yes, indeed, a man can be a freedom fighter one day and decide for peace the next. But one can't hold a sword in one hand while simultaneously turning the other cheek. Hence, a time for war and a time for peace. Indicating a progression, a development, or perhaps a 'Damascus' conversion. The gospel story contains both elements; resistance to Rome and 'turn the other cheek', 'love your neighbour as oneself'. Tacitus indicates that in the time of Tiberius 'all was quiet'. Consequently, Bermejo-Rubio needs to break open the door of the gospel theological box and continue his historical efforts. Efforts which will take him to Hasmonean history and the Roman execution of the last King and High Priest of the Jews (in 37 b.c.) Indicating that the gospel seditious elements are part of a remembrance of an earlier historical event.

Yes, the Hasmonean repels fought against Rome and their last King was executed by Rome. Whether that execution involved being put on a stake and scourged or beheaded - or both - the historical fact remains that Rome, via Marc Antony in Antioch, executed the last Jewish king.

Antigonus II Mattathias

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."[5] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[6]

=====================

As a side note: A modern day revolutionary, seditionist, rebel was Nelson Mandela. Founder of the military wing of the ANC - uMkhonto we Sizwe - he paid for his activities with 27 years in jail. On his release he did in fact 'turn the other cheek' with his efforts to move South Africa forward from apartheid.

The time comes in the life of any nation when there remain only two choices – submit or fight. That time has now come to South Africa. We shall not submit and we have no choice but to hit back by all means in our power in defence of our people, our future, and our freedom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMkhonto_we_Sizwe
=========

I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realised. But my lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.

— Nelson Mandela, at the conclusion of his speech[4]

A time for war and a time for peace - different time periods reflected within the gospel Jesus story. A remembrance story not a historical account. A remembered history that became the root, the spurt, for a new 'spiritual', intellectual, philosophical, world view.

Nelson Mandela International Day
18 July (date of his birth)

On 18 July every year, we invite you to mark Nelson Mandela International Day by making a difference in your communities. Everyone has the ability and the responsibility to change the world for the better! Mandela Day is an occasion for all to take action and inspire change.

here

[Peter Kirby]

While the “explanations” found [...] in modern mainstream scholarship are patently inadequate

And what does he write in this regard?

[maryhelena]

While the “explanations” found [...] in modern mainstream scholarship are patently inadequate

And what does he write in this regard?

The full paragraph from the book's Epilogue. (concluding comments on the seditious Jesus hypothesis of the book and why Bermejo-Rubio finds arguments against a seditious Jesus hypothesis inadequate.)

The relational approach that, in the wake of some former researchers, has been endorsed in this book makes sense of the Gospel story in an unprecedented way. This conclusion enables us to debunk the widespread view—repeated by mythicists and conservatives alike—that the manifold scholarly reconstructions have “nearly equal plausibility,” so that they “cancel each other out.”4 There is every indication that such judgments are simply and demonstrably untrue. On the one hand, some portraits of Jesus are not mutually exclusive and can be integrated, since people engaged in nationalistic resistance need not be monomaniacs: he can have been an apocalyptic preacher who gathered a group of disciples, harbored a royal claim, and gained fame as an exorcist and healer. On the other hand, and more importantly, the several hypotheses that have been set forth are not at all equivalent; the degree of internal consistency, simplicity, contextual plausibility, and explanatory power of the hypothesis of a Jesus who, whatever else might be true, was somehow engaged in anti-Roman resistance is unparalleled in any other alternative: that hypothesis provides the simplest and most cogent explanation for a large amount of data, and above all for the crucifixion, which can no longer be described as a puzzle or an enigma. The Gospel story is not the mysterious tale of a god or of an immaculate being persecuted by malevolent and devilish humans, but the intelligible story of a Jewish visionary who, along with some of his supporters or collaborators, had to be stopped by the authorities due to a need to maintain public order. While the “explanations” found in the Gospels as well as in modern mainstream scholarship are patently inadequate, Jesus’ actual opposition to Roman rule makes his execution on the cross wholly understandable without the need of convoluted prestidigitation. This explanatory power of the hypothesis, which allows us to provide a unifying rationale for the whole evidence, is a most compelling reason for any independent historian to integrate the seditious aspects into their reconstruction of the Galilean preacher.
=====

Footnote 4.
4. E.g., Price, Deconstructing, 16; Carrier, Proving, 12: “The many contradictory versions of Jesus now confidently touted by different Jesus scholars are all so very plausible.”

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 384). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 379). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

A search of the book brings up four uses of ''explanations''. (i.e. in inverted commas) Three below plus the one above. (the book uses *explanation* or *explanations* 55 times.) I might prefer the word *interpretations*....as it would cover all 'explanations' - those one deemed of value and those who would have a negative view off.

The idea is that Jesus’ self-exaltation as eschatological judge would have been considered an affront to God’s honor, and also as an unbearable attack to Israel’s leaders. This “explanation,” however, is extremely weak, since it compels us to accept a whole string of auxiliary hypotheses: that the scene described by Mark does not aim to depict a capital trial, but just a preliminary view (so that it does not collide with the Mishnaic prescriptions); that Jesus actually pronounced in Aramaic the words ascribed to him in Greek in Mark 14:62; that those words meant that he identified himself with the eschatological judge coming on the clouds; that there were witnesses who recorded the facts and transmitted them to Nazoreans; that the Jewish leaders would have interpreted interpreted those words as blasphemy, and not, for instance, as the folly of a deranged mind;27 that those leaders did not have the possibility of applying the capital punishment for religious crimes; and so on. Each one of these hypotheses is doubtful in itself, but their accumulation exponentially increases the improbability of the underlying assessment and its convoluted character.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 42). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

A footnote regarding Antipas.

47. “Antipas could have arrested Jesus if he had so desired. If he did not so desire, it was because there was no evidence of Jesus causing a political revolt, and because Antipas was basically a coward” (Hoehner, Antipas, 201). The first “explanation” is arguably false; the second, just preposterous.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 213). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

The relational approach that, in the wake of some former researchers, has been endorsed in this book makes sense of the Gospel story in an unprecedented way. This conclusion enables us to debunk the widespread view—repeated by mythicists and conservatives alike—that the manifold scholarly reconstructions have “nearly equal plausibility,” so that they “cancel each other out.”4 There is every indication that such judgments are simply and demonstrably untrue. On the one hand, some portraits of Jesus are not mutually exclusive and can be integrated, since people engaged in nationalistic resistance need not be monomaniacs: he can have been an apocalyptic preacher who gathered a group of disciples, harbored a royal claim, and gained fame as an exorcist and healer. On the other hand, and more importantly, the several hypotheses that have been set forth are not at all equivalent; the degree of internal consistency, simplicity, contextual plausibility, and explanatory power of the hypothesis of a Jesus who, whatever else might be true, was somehow engaged in anti-Roman resistance is unparalleled in any other alternative: that hypothesis provides the simplest and most cogent explanation for a large amount of data, and above all for the crucifixion, which can no longer be described as a puzzle or an enigma. The Gospel story is not the mysterious tale of a god or of an immaculate being persecuted by malevolent and devilish humans, but the intelligible story of a Jewish visionary who, along with some of his supporters or collaborators, had to be stopped by the authorities due to a need to maintain public order. While the “explanations” found in the Gospels as well as in modern mainstream scholarship are patently inadequate, Jesus’ actual opposition to Roman rule makes his execution on the cross wholly understandable without the need of convoluted prestidigitation. This explanatory power of the hypothesis, which allows us to provide a unifying rationale for the whole evidence, is a most compelling reason for any independent historian to integrate the seditious aspects into their reconstruction of the Galilean preacher.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 379). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

...pseudo-explanations....

To start with, no compelling reason for such an alleged plot has been ever offered: the Gospel writers ascribe the conspiracy to the “hatred” or the “envy” of the malevolent religious authorities toward the good Jesus—and ultimately it is attributed to diabolic inspiration—but these pseudo-explanations are unusable by any responsible historian.16

Footnote 16

16. These kinds of pseudo-explanations are, alas, used by theologically oriented scholars, some of whom assert that Jesus produced a lethal resistance in the Jewish authorities because of his preaching “love” and “mercy.” Several examples of such nonsense have been unveiled in Sanders, Jesus, 200–202.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 63). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 36). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

[maryhelena]

All four gospels indicate that Pilate found no fault in Jesus.

Mark. ch.15: Then Pilate said unto them, Why, what evil hath he done? And they cried out the more exceedingly, Crucify him.
[15] And so Pilate, willing to content the people, released Barabbas unto them, and delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified.

Matthew ch.17: When the morning was come, all the chief priests and elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death:................
And when they had bound him, they led him away, and delivered him to Pontius Pilate the governor. Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
[23] And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
[24] When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Luke ch.12. :Then said Pilate to the chief priests and to the people, I find no fault in this man............. No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him........And he said unto them the third time, Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him.

John ch.18/19: Pilate saith unto him, What is truth? And when he had said this, he went out again unto the Jews, and saith unto them,I find in him no fault at all.........When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.

As is well known, the Gospels ascribe the moral responsibility for Jesus’ death to hoi ’Ioudaîoi, either in the general sense “the Jews” or in the more specific “the Judaeans” (those who lived in Judaea, or, more
concretely, the Jerusalem authorities).

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 49). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

This interpretation is fostered by the fact that a little earlier in the narrative Pilate addresses the chief priests and the police with the following words: “Take him yourselves and crucify him; I find no case against him” (John 19:6). The former remarks explain why some Christian scholars have gone so far as to say that Jesus was crucified by the Jews. For instance, the German exegete Ernst Bammel, well known as the editor of a collective volume addressed against Samuel Brandon’s ideas, has surmised that “the Sanhedrin, responsible for the execution, borrowed Pilate’s officers and soldiers to perform the execution, since the Romans had in any case two others to execute,” and in the same article ends up stating that the evidence points “rather to a Jewish execution than to a Roman one.”42 Despite being untenable from a historical standpoint—no serious author would nowadays endorse such an exceedingly unreasonable conclusion, Bammel’s assertion can claim its remote precedent in the Gospels themselves.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (p. 51/52). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

Such a sordid portrait of the Jerusalem authorities is an artificial and polemical device aimed at presenting them as intractably evil, but it does not deserve any credit as historical description.

Bermejo-Rubio, Fernando. They Suffered under Pontius Pilate: Jewish Anti-Roman Resistance and the Crosses at Golgotha (pp. 52-53). Lexington Books. Kindle Edition.

While an ''artificial and polemical device'' argument removes guilt from the Jerusalem authorities (re the gospel storyline) it does not address the question of why the gospel writers put the condemning words into the mouths of the Jerusalem authorities. The consequences of these words have haunted Jewish/Christian relationships ever since. The Jews killed Jesus - a clarion call through the ages of anti-semitism.

For Bermejo-Rubio's seditious Jesus the words attributed to Pilate clearly have consequences. Pilate/Rome found no fault in Jesus during the time of Pilate and Tiberius. From an ahistorical perspective there was no historical Jesus crucified during the time of Tiberius and Pilate. However, a historical perspective of Roman occupation of Judaea can throw some light on what the gospel writers were attempting to reflect.

In 37 b.c. the Roman General Marc Antony executed the last King and High Priest of the Jews, Antigonus. Whether that execution involved being put on a stake/cross, flogging and beheading is, ultimately, of secondary relevance. It's the execution itself that is primary. (Crucifixion being a Roman method of dealing with rebels, seditionists, zealots -
as Josephus details after the war of 70 c.e.)

The interesting point is that the Roman execution of 37 b.c. involved not just Marc Antony it also involved King Herod:

Antiquities book 14: So when Sosius had dedicated a crown of gold to God, he marched away from Jerusalem; and carried Antigonus with him, in bonds to Antony. 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. Which if it were once done, he should be free from that fear. And thus did the government of the Asamoneans cease; an hundred, twenty and six years after it was first set up. This family was a splendid and an illustrious one; both on account of the nobility of their stock, and of the dignity of the High Priesthood; as also for the glorious actions their ancestors had performed for our nation. But these men lost the government by their dissentions one with another; and it came to Herod, the son of Antipater; who was of no more than a vulgar family, and of no eminent extraction; but one that was subject to other Kings. And this is what history tells us was the end of the Asamonean family.

At this time Herod, now he had got Jerusalem under his power,..............He also slew forty-five of the principal men of Antigonus’s party;............................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; (2) 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 dishonourable death would diminish the value they had for Antigonus’s memory; and at the same time would diminish their hatred they bear to Herod.” Thus far Strabo.

A 'dishonorable death' ? Methinks being hung up, on a cross or stake, would be a very Jewish way in which to dishonour Antigonus in the eyes of the Jews. Beheading would have simply made him into a martyr. Crucifixion viewed as a curse ? Well - removing a man's feet from terra-firm indicates such a man is not worthy of standing on it...not worthy of standing on sacred ground.

Rome, via Marc Antony executed the last King and HIgh Priest of the Jews. King Herod paid Marc Antony a great deal of money to execute Antigonus. Who was the real killer - the man who pulled the trigger or the man who paid the assassin. Both, of course, are guilty - and perhaps that is what the gospel crucifixion story is attempting to highlight. Herod, re the above quote, killed 45 of Antigonus's party - Herod killed Hasmoneans. Consequently, it is perhaps more historical to read the Jerusalem chief priests and elders of being of Herod's party - Herodian Jews who called for the crucifixion of the gospel Jesus.

Looking to history for answers, for understanding of the gospel crucifixion story - indicates that while the gospel account reflects history - it is not, in and off itself, an historical account of the Pilate crucifixion story. All was quite under Tiberius.

[maryhelena]

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:

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

[maryhelena]

An interesting point made by Rabbi Wise:

ALL GREEK EXCEPT CALVARY.

The crucifixion story, as before us in the Synoptics, was not written in Hebrew, or in the dialect spoken by the Hebrews of Palestine. This is evident from the following particular points. Mark and Matthew call the place of crucifixion Golgotha, to which Mark adds, "Which is, being interpreted, the place of skull." Matthew adds the same interpretation, which John copies without the word Golgotha, and adds, it was a place near Jerusalem. Luke and Nicodemus call the place of crucifixion Calvary, which is the Latin Calvaria, viz., the place of bare skulls. Therefore the name does not refer to the form of the hill, but to the bare skulls upon it.

Mark and Matthew must translate the word Golgotha, hence they did not write in the Hebrew dialect, or else the readers would have been supposed to understand it. It might be suggested, the Greek translators of Mark and Matthew added the definition which, however, is not the case. They pass over many Hebrew names of persons and places without any definition ; why should they have made an exception just in this case ? Besides, it must be remembered, there is no such word as Golgotha anywhere in Jewish literature, and there is no such place mentioned anywhere near Jerusalem or in Palestine by any writer ; and in fact there was no such place, there could have been none near Jerusalem. The Jews buried their dead carefully. Also the executed convict had to be buried before night. No bare skulls, bleaching in the sun, could be found in Palestine, especially not near Jerusalem. It was law, that a bare skull, the bare spinal column, or also the imperfect skeleton of any human being, make man unclean by contact, or also by having it in the house. Man, thus made unclean, could not eat of any sacrificial meal, or of the second tithe, before he had gone through the ceremonies of purification; and whatever he touched was also unclean.* Any impartial reader can see that the object of this law was to prevent the barbarous practice of heathens of having human skulls and skeletons lie about exposed to the decomposing influences of the atmosphere, as the Romans did in Palestine alter the fall of Bethar, when for a long time they would give no permission to bury the dead patriots. This law was certainly enforced most rigidly in the vicinity of Jerusalem, of which they maintained "Jerusalem is more holy than all other cities surrounded with walls’’, so that it was not permitted to keep a dead body over night in the city, or to transport through it human bones. Jerusalem was the place for the sacrificial meals and the consumption of the second tithe, which was considered very holy there, and in the surroundings, skulls and skeletons were certainly never seen on the surface of the earth, and consequently there was no place called Golgotha, and there was no such word in the Hebrew dialect. It is a word made by Mark to translate the Latin term Calvaria, which, together with the crucifixion story, came from Rome. But after the Syrian word was made nobody understood it; and Mark was obliged to expound it.

This explains the strange fact, that none of the early Christians either mention the spots where Jesus was crucified or buried, or paid the least respect or attention to either, so that none before Eusebius (330 A. c.) refer to them, and then some pointed to the northeast and others to the west of Jerusalem to find Calvary. They did not know it, because there was no such place. So hundred thousands of Christians kneel now spellbound before a holy hole, which they call the holy sepulchre, none knows why, as in former days a Calvary was made, none knows by what authority.

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)

The Syrian word caught my eye.

Calvary

In the standard Koine Greek texts of the New Testament, the relevant terms appear as Golgothâ (Γολγοθᾶ),[18][19] Golgathân (Γολγοθᾶν),[20] kraníou tópos (κρανίου τόπος),[18] Kraníou tópos (Κρανίου τόπος),[20] Kraníon (Κρανίον),[21] and Kraníou tópon (Κρανίου τόπον).[19] Golgotha's Hebrew equivalent would be Gulgōleṯ (גֻּלְגֹּלֶת, "skull"),[22][23] ultimately from the verb galal (גלל) meaning "to roll".[24] The form preserved in the Greek text, however, is actually closer to Aramaic Golgolta,[25] which also appears in reference to a head count in the Samaritan version of Numbers 1:18,[26][27] although the term is traditionally considered to derive from Syriac Gāgūlṯā (ܓܓܘܠܬܐ) instead.[28][29][30][31][32] Although Latin calvaria can mean either "a skull" or "the skull" depending on context and numerous English translations render the relevant passages "place of the skull" or "Place of the Skull",[33] the Greek forms of the name grammatically refer to the place of a skull and a place named Skull.[24] (The Greek word κρᾱνῐ́ον does more specifically mean the cranium, the upper part of the skull, but it has been used metonymously since antiquity to refer to skulls and heads more generally.)[34]

The Fathers of the Church offered various interpretations of the name and its origin. Jerome considered it a place of execution by beheading (locum decollatorum),[13] Pseudo-Tertullian describes it as a place resembling a head,[35] and Origen associated it with legends concerning the skull of Adam.

Golgotha - from a Syrian word, a place that does not exist; a place of skulls, of beheading, a place of beheading and crucifixion, of hanging on a cross/stake ?

Antigonus II Mattathias

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."[5] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[6]

So - hung on a tree, stake, cross - for scourging, taken down and beheaded.

Daniel Schwartz: Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity.

First, however, we must note that it is illegitimate to base one's conception
of Josephus' chronological system upon a datum with which he disagreed. If he
thought the conquest occurred on the Day of Atonement, then, if he dated
inclusively from the New Year prior to the conquest, he could have used 1
Tishri 37. More important, however, is a second point: this whole problem is
only an illusion, for Josephus did not count Herod's years from the conquest
of Jerusalem, although Schiirer and numerous others say he did. In fact, if one
takes the statement in the scholarly locus classicus on Herodian chronology
(SVM I, p. 326, n. 165) that
Josephus states that he reigned 37 years from the date of his appointment (40 B . C . ) , 34
years from his conquest of Jerusalem, 37 B . C . Cf. Ant. xvii 8 , 1 (191); B 7 i 3 3 , 8 (665)
and checks the references, he will find that Josephus in fact counts the
thirtyfour years from the execution of Mattathias Antigonus. But Antigonus was
executed in Antioch by Mark Anthony {Ant. 14.488-490; Strabo, apud Ant.
15.9),"^ and, as is shown by the latter's movements, that occurred in the late
autumn of 37, or perhaps early in 36. Anthony was still in Tarentum in
September—October 37."' Thus, there is nothing here to contradict the usage
of an autumn 37 era. Apparently, Josephus, or already Herod, was only
willing to count the new king's regnal years after Antigonus was completely
removed.

So - Antigonus was kept in Syrian Antioch for a period of time prior to the arrival of Marc Anthony. Allowing time between his scourging on a pole/stake/cross and his later beheading. Interestingly, in 70 c.e., Josephus has three men on crosses - one of whom got taken down and survived - only of course to die another day....

What can one say - those gospel writers managed to tell their crucifixion story in fine form...combining crucifixion and beheading at Golgotha - a place with no known relevance to Jerusalem.

==========

As a side note -

George Wells: This Galilean Jesus was not crucified, and was not believed to have been resurrected after his death. The dying and rising Christ of the early epistles is a quite different figure, and must have a different origin. ...

https://infidels.org/library/modern/g_a ... lding.html

Earl Doherty

"I can well acknowledge that elements of several representative, historical figures fed into the myth of the Gospel Jesus, since even mythical characters can only be portrayed in terms of human personalities, especially ones from their own time that are familiar and pertinent to the writers of the myths."

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset5.htm#Mary

(the link no longer works)

The gospel crucifixion story reflects history from another time and place. However, Wells and Doherty have much to offer with these two quotes. A literary, a composite gospel Jesus figure allows for one of it's components to be crucified and another figure, of interest to the gospel writers, to not be crucified.

[StephenGoranson]

Often, maryhelena, you have written that Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic is not what is important, nor of interest to you to explore, but what is important is story. So this seems a departure. In any case it is not necessarily true that "The gospel crucifixion story reflects history from another time and place." A simpler option is that it is set when it presents.

[maryhelena]

Often, maryhelena, you have written that Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic is not what is important, nor of interest to you to explore, but what is important is story. So this seems a departure. In any case it is not necessarily true that "The gospel crucifixion story reflects history from another time and place." A simpler option is that it is set when it presents.

Golgotha not relevant to the gospel crucifixion story