This is a question stemming from my ignorance. I am not trying to pick a fight

My question: how well documented is it that Jesus was indeed executed during the reign of Pilate? Are there independent sources for this apart from the Gospels? Would it be possible that he actually lived and died a number of years earlier, therefore be removed further in time from Paul, and that placing the timing of his ministry and execution during the reign of Pilate was a literary construct by the (later) Gospel writers?

fG

Gospel writers were mythmakers and the mythology is for the survival of the tribe. From here nothing really matters and if you disagree with this your faith is or will be built upon the wrong fundamentals. This means that it would be wrong to construct the evidence that Jesus was executed because we would never be able to do the same and live to tell others about it.

Pontius Pilate existed. He was the cause of Joseph's death in about A.D. 23. (A story about re-routing a sacred river) Pilate was paid hush money to cover-up Jesus' release after the crucifixion. The agreed upon story was that the "body was stolen".

Thanks, Offa

Lance

FG: Very poorly. One of the secular ancient sources mentions it in passing, but there is zero hard proof that Jesus was put to death unless you accept the gospels as that proof.

Given the level of factual contradiction within them, I wouldn't.

Interesting and I knew that Pontius Pilate existed but not that he was responsible for the death of Joseph for re-routing the river of life described in Gen.2:10 where the fourth river is the Euphrates which means bright mind. The first two are pleasure and pain in the land of power wealth and beauty, the third rises from his home town and the fourth merely is as in "I AM."

I find it interesting because it confirms my interpretation of the crucifixion and resurrection account.

Thanks, Amos

Jewish historian Josephus speaks of Jesus as being condemned to the cross by Pilate. Antiquities, 18.3.1

Roman historian Tacitus states that "Christ had been executed in Tiberius' reign by the governor of Judaea, Pontius Pilatus." Annals of Imperial Rome, P. 365.

rodahi



[This message has been edited by rodahi (edited May 06, 2001).]

Rodahi,

Don't forget that Tacitus gives the incorrect title for Pilate, "procurator" rather than "prefect," which means that he was probably working from hearsay.

Tacitus' Latin, from http://www.gmu.edu/departments/fld/C...c.ann15.html#1 [the eighth word is "procurator"]:

"auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat; repressaque in praesens exitiablilis superstitio rursum erumpebat, non modo per Iudaeam, originem eius mali, sed per urbem etiam, quo cuncta undique atrocia aut pudenda confluunt celebranturque."

Hi Earl,

I produced precisely what FG asked for: independent documentary literary evidence.

I do not wish to argue for or against the validity of the evidence.

rodahi

Lance

Rodahi: Isn't that the passage in Josephus that is heavily disputed?

FG: We have two, I missed one. However there's a grain of salt here to knaw on. One passage I'm pretty sure is the disputed Josephus one. Only apologetic historians or revisionists try to hold that this wasn't a Christian interpolation later.

The second grain is the incorrect usage of Tacitus of Pilate's civil rank, which would have been extremely important to a Roman...but maybe not someone else. Does this mean it is either hearsay or tampering? Can't really tell you.

I still stand by the "very poorly" remark.

Is it possible that the (few) sources were quoting from the tradition, rather than from actual evidence? This appears certainly possible for tacitus, who confuses Pilate's title - maybe he didn't get the information from Roman records (where the title should have been correct), but from hearsay. As to Josephus, what is the generally accepted dating for that part of the Antiquities that contains the disputed passage? Was this not written after the destruction of Jerusalem or am I way off here? If it was, it may again just be a report of an existing tradition, rather than based on actual records.

fG