Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 01:20 PM

I know there's Josephus. But I am generally less than impressed with the reliability of Josephus. What about the other evidence? I think there is a coin somewhere or perhaps more than one. The reason I ask is because of this statement in Clement which has baffled scholars for centuries:

Quote:

Ἡ μὲν γὰρ τοῦ Κυρίου κατὰ τὴν παρουσίαν διδασκαλία, ἀπὸ Αὐγούστου καὶ Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἀρξαμένη, μεσούντων τῶν Αὐγούστου χρόνων τελειοῦται.

As Schaff notes:

Quote:

In the translation, the change recommended, on high authority, of Αὐγούστου into Τιβερίου in the last clause, is adopted, as on the whole the best way of solving the unquestionable difficulty here. If we retain Αὐγούστου, the clause must then be made parenthetical, and the sense would be: “For the teaching of the Lord on His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius (in the middle of the times of Augustus), was completed.” The objection to this (not by any means conclusive) is, that it does not specify the end of the period. The first 15 years of the life of our Lord were the last 15 of the reign of Augustus; and in the 15th year of the reign of his successor Tiberius our Lord was baptized. Clement elsewhere broaches the singular opinion, that our Lord’s ministry lasted only a year, and, consequently that He died in the year in which He was baptized. As Augustus reigned, according to one of the chronologies of Clement, 43, and according to the other 46 years 4 months 1 day, and Tiberius 22 or 26 years 6 months 19 days, the period of the teacing of the Gospel specified above began during the reign of Augustus, and ended during the reign of Tiberius.

The material is translated now as:

Quote:

For that the human assemblies which they held were posterior to the Catholic Church requires not many words to show. For the teaching of our Lord at His advent, beginning with Augustus and Tiberius, was completed in the middle of the times of Tiberius. And that of the apostles, embracing the ministry of Paul, ends with Nero. It was later, in the times of Adrian the king, that those who invented the heresies arose; and they extended to the age of Antoninus the eider, as, for instance, Basilides, though he claims (as they boast) for his master, Glaucias, the interpreter of Peter.

But the original reading seems to indicate 'the middle of the reign of Augustus' as the end of Jesus's ministry.

No one doubts that this section and indeed what follows in the Stromata is corrupt. But how to reconstruct the material? I find it interesting that 'the middle of Augustus's reign' would make Jesus's ministry overlap with what is now understood to be his birth. Could it be that the original gospel understood that Jesus preached at the beginning of the Common Era? Irenaeus seems to think Pilate was governor during the reign of Claudius? How flexible is the evidence regarding the rule of Tiberius? Does Clement of Alexandria even mention Pilate by name?

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 01:24 PM

I just checked all of Clement's writings and Pilate is never mentioned.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 01:26 PM

No mention of any Pilate passage being in the Gospel of Marcion in Epiphanius and moreover and indication that the Marcionites removed at least one reference:

Quote:

There is a falsification from 'There came some that told him of the Galilaeans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices' down to the place where he speaks of the eighteen who died in the tower at Siloam; and of 'Except ye repent' and the rest until the parable of the fig tree of which the cultivator said, 'I am digging about it and dunging it, and if it bear no fruit, cut it down.'

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 01:31 PM

I don't see this is an acknowledgement that the Marcionite gospel contained a reference to Pilate. Do you? Tertullian writes:

Quote:

So when they had led him to Pilate they began to accuse him of saying he was Christ a King, meaning no doubt the Son of God, who was to sit at God's right hand. Surely they would have arraigned him under some other charge, being in doubt whether he had said he was the Son of God, if he had not by the statement Ye say it, indicated that he was what they said. Also when Pilate asked, Art thou the Christ?1 he answered again Thou sayest it, so that he might not seem, through fear of the authority, to have refused to answer. So the Lord is set in judgement, and has set in judgement his own people. The Lord himself is come into judgement with the ancients and the princes of his people,a as Isaiah has it. From then onwards he fulfilled all that is written of his passion. The heathen thereupon raged, and the peoples imagined vain things: the kings of the earth stood up, and their rulers gathered together into one, against the Lord and against his Christ. The heathen, the Romans who were with Pilate; the peoples, the tribes of Israel: the kings, in Herod: the rulers, in the high priests. Also when he was sent by Pilate as a gift to Herod he proved the truth of Hosea's words: for it was of Christ that he prophesied, And they shall bring him in bonds as a present to the king.c So Herod was exceeding glad to see Jesus, yet he heard from him not a word: for as a lamb before the shearer he opened not his mouth,d because the Lord had given him the tongue of discipline, that he might know in what manner he ought to bring forth speech:e that tongue in fact which in the psalm clove to his throat,f he now proved the truth of by not speaking. [Against Marcion 4.42]

Pilate's question was 'Art thou the King of the Jews?': the chief priests asked, 'Art thou the Christ?'—Luke 22: 66 sq. I wonder if Luke contains a reference of Jesus going before Herod because that was all that appeared in the Marcionite gospel. There is one more reference in Book Four:

Quote:

Who is it then that gives up the spirit, if not the flesh? For the flesh breathes while it has the spirit, and therefore when it loses it, gives it up. In short, if there was no flesh, but only a phantasm of flesh, and there was also a phantasm of spirit, and the spirit gave itself up, and by giving itself up departed, then no doubt the phantasm departed when the spirit, which was a phantasm, departed, and the phantasm along with the spirit ceased to be there. In that case, nothing remained on the cross, after he gave up his spirit nothing was hanging there, nothing was begged for from Pilate, nothing was taken down from that gallows, nothing was wrapped in linen, nothing was laid in a new sepulchre. And yet it was not nothing. What then was it? If a phantasm, then Christ was still within it. If Christ had gone away, then he had taken the phantasm with him. It only remains for heretical presumption to say that a phantasm of a phantasm remained there. Though if Joseph knew that that was a real body which he had treated with so great affection—that Joseph who had not consented with the Jews in their crime—Blessed is the man who hath not gone away in the counsel of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of sinners, and hath not sat in the seat of the pestilences. [4.42]

Again this isn't in any way a proof of what was written in Marcion's gospel but rather Tertullian - probably copying an original text of Irenaeus - is confirming what appears in his gospel.

outhouse · 02-26-2013, 01:37 PM

As far as I know, before the stone being found, his historicity was in question.

Toto · 02-26-2013, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by outhouse

As far as I know, before the stone being found, his historicity was in question.

This is not true. We had a long thread on this, and there was no doubt as to Pilate's historicity. Christian apologists try to claim that this is a case of skeptics doubting the Bible until it was confirmed by archaeology, but it's not.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 01:44 PM

If the gospel originally only had the mention of Herod the Great judging Jesus and handing him over to be crucified it would seem that a direct connection between the man who manufactured the temple and the destruction of the temple would be established. Moreover, the rabbinic tradition for some reason thinks Jesus was born in another period altogether.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 01:48 PM

It is unusual also that Pilate is inserted into the creed almost from the time of Irenaeus. Why would 'under Pontius Pilate' be part of the creed unless it was the subject of some dispute? I see no importance to anyone who the Roman legate was unless as I said the heresies put the crucifixion in a different age.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 01:53 PM

It is interesting that 'Herod' is used in the gospels and Acts when 'Antipas' would be more accurate. It is almost as if there was a tradition which identified 'Herod' the builder of the temple as the interrogator of Jesus and then 'Pilate' was added to the tradition. From Justin Martyr's Dialogue 40:

Quote:

And we have thought it right and relevant to mention some other prophetic utterances of David besides these; from which you may learn how the Spirit of prophecy exhorts men to live, and how He foretold the conspiracy which was formed against Christ by Herod the king of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate, who was your governor among them, with his soldiers

Was Antipas ever 'king of the Jews'? I find this increasing suspicious. It almost seems like the bit about Pilate was tacked on to the original statement about Herod the Great and the Jews:

Quote:

He foretold the conspiracy which was formed against Christ by Herod the king of the Jews, and the Jews themselves, and Pilate, who was your governor among them, with his soldiers

The reference that follows is to the Psalm 1 again (just like Tertullian Against Marcion 4.43 above). Moreover the author has just continued to cite Psalm 2 and its particular reference to "The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One." The king is Herod, the rulers the Jews - where is the allusion to Pilate?

Clivedurdle · 02-26-2013, 02:00 PM

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/ar...emple-of-herod

(1906)

Quote:

In the eighteenth year (20-19 B.C.) of his reign Herod rebuilt the Temple on a more magnificent scale. There are many evidences that he shared the passion for building by which many powerful men of that time were moved. He had adorned many cities and had erected many heathen temples; and it was not fitting that the temple of his capital should fall beneath these in magnificence. Probably, also, one of his motives was to placate the more pious of his subjects, whose sentiments he had often outraged.

The Jews were loth to have their Temple pulled down, fearing lest it might not be rebuilt. To demonstrate his good faith, Herod acccumulated the materials for the new building before the old one was taken down. The new Temple was rebuilt as rapidly as possible, being finished in a year and a half, although work was in progress on the out-buildings and courts for eighty years. As it was unlawful for any but priests to enter the Temple, Herod employed 1,000 of them as masons and carpenters.

Having the Christ related to I think the largest Temple on the planet makes theological sense.

But why the time shifts? Does Pontius Pilate make more sense for some theological or political reason?

Interestingly, might Herod rebuilding the Temple have been seen as a very bad move predicting the end times, so that when it was actually destroyed only 90 years later - and still incomplete - there would be more than enough rationale to start a new superstitio.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-26-2013, 01:24 PM	#2
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I just checked all of Clement's writings and Pilate is never mentioned.

02-26-2013, 01:37 PM	#5
outhouse Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auburn ca Posts: 4,269	As far as I know, before the stone being found, his historicity was in question.

02-26-2013, 01:44 PM	#7
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	If the gospel originally only had the mention of Herod the Great judging Jesus and handing him over to be crucified it would seem that a direct connection between the man who manufactured the temple and the destruction of the temple would be established. Moreover, the rabbinic tradition for some reason thinks Jesus was born in another period altogether.

02-26-2013, 01:48 PM	#8
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It is unusual also that Pilate is inserted into the creed almost from the time of Irenaeus. Why would 'under Pontius Pilate' be part of the creed unless it was the subject of some dispute? I see no importance to anyone who the Roman legate was unless as I said the heresies put the crucifixion in a different age.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.