maryhelena

Below is a chart, taken from the book by Daniel Schwartz, detailing the focus of his Josephan study re dating Pilate. In assigning 11 and 10 years respectfully to Gratus and Pilate, Josephus has contradicted his own placement of the TF - within the 19 c.e. context. Consequently, the whole issue of the Eusebuise "forgery" re a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, needs to be reconsidered. Reconsidered from an ahistoricist/mythicist perspective i.e. from a position that is not handcuffed by the assumption of a historical gospel JC.

Antiquities	Historical Details	Years	footnote
18.33b-35	V. Gratus governorship; Pilate appointed.	14/15 - ?	33. This date, which is more or less that of Pilate's appointment (below: F) is at issue in the present study.
18.36-38	Antipas builds Tiberius	19-21
18.39-54	"At that time" - Parthian affairs, Armenia, Germanicus' mission to East and death there.	2 b.c.e - 19 c.e.
18.55-64	Pilate's governorship in Judaea.	? - 37	37. The beginning of Pilate's term is at issue in the present study. As for the end of his term, see above, n.1
18.65 -80a	"In those days" - Isis scandal	19
18.80b -84	"At that time" - Jewish scandal in Rome	19
18.85-89	Pilate suppresses Samaritans and is removed from office	37
18.90-95	Vitellius and the high-priestly vestments	37
18.96-126a	Vitellius, the Parthians, Antipas and the Nabateans; Philip dies	34-37

Pontius Pilate’s Appointment to Office and the Chronology of Josephus’ Antiquities, Book 18-20. By Daniel R. Schwartz:

Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Duvduv

I see the quotation from the Book of Numbers, but I don't see what an interpretation concerning Vespasian would have to do with the messiah since there were plenty of prophecies available specifying a Jewish messiah and not a Roman. Perhaps the intention of such an interpretation is not for a Jewish messiah as such but merely an imperial worldly ruler, although on the face of it one would assume that a prediction about a great person in the Book of Numbers would be referring to a Jewish personality.

a star shall come out of Jacob and a scepter will rise out of Israel. It shall crush the foreheads of Moab and break down all the sons of Sheth. Edom shall be dispossessed. (Numbers 24.17-19)

LegionOnomaMoi

You linked to a source other than Eusebius or Josephus. Specifically Daniel Schwartz and his monograph Studies in the Jewish background of Christianity. Schwartz doesn't just discuss Josephus, or Pilate, or even Gratus, but specifically deals with what Josephus was talking about when he says "forgery" (in Greek, plasma, which can mean forgery or deceit, and here is joined with ὑπομνήματα/hypomnemata or "public records/acts"). The word ὑπομνήματα, which Eusebius uses when he talks about it being a "forgery", doesn't refer to a random report, or rumor, or tradition, etc., no matter how much you wish to treat it as one. When Eusebius claims that this "report" is a "forgery", he actually means "forgery" in the way we use the term: a fake document. Schwartz discusses this document in some depth because he, like virtually everyone else, argues that Eusebius is correct in thinking it was a forgery.

Whether Eusebius is correct or not about the Acta Pilati being a forgery is irrelevant here. What's relevant is that you continue to mistreat your sources, both Eusebius and Schwartz. You state "re forgery" again and again, but never once discuss what this forgery is and what Eusebius is talking about. In fact, it seems as if you don't know, but rather thought that the word refers to a claim Eusebius is making about the falsehood of a rival story or tradition, not an actual, literal forgery.

And you are quite wrong. Now, it's understandable that you might misunderstand the translation, and think that "report" is simply a claim, and thus "forgery" means "false/untrue" rather than an actual forged document. But had you read Schwartz, who discusses this "report" which "Pilate was said to have sent to Rome during Tiberius' fourth consulate", and paid attention to what he said, that should have cleared it up for you. You talk about Eusebius "referencing a 'forgery' regarding a story" but it isn't a story: the report he states is a forgery is a forgery of an official document. Specifically, a document which is supposed to have been written by Pilate. And apart from Eisler, as Schwartz notes, everyone agrees that Pilate wrote no such document.

So, either you wish to argue that Pilate did indeed write something about crucifying Jesus, in which case Eusebius is wrong and this document isn't a forgery, or the document is a forgery, and Pilate wrote no such thing.

Either way, you'd have to deal with what Eusebius actually wrote and what Schwartz actually says, and stop treating this "forgery" as if it was just some "story" (as you put it).

Yes. Because he isn't referencing a passion. ὑπομνήματα doesn't mean "passion" or "story" or "gospel" or anything that can be confused with "passion". The word refers to an official document, and in this case one we know about which was circulating for some time and was a forgery (unless Pilate really did write a document about Jesus).

So read your sources. You think that Eusebius said something he didn't. Your whole argument is based on reading this "forgery" as some kind of alternate passion narrative. Only it's quite clear that Eusebius meant no such thing. Understandably, you didn't read ὑπομνήματα but "report", but you could have gotten the correct interpretation from actually reading Schwartz.
1) You are interpreting Josephus via Eusebius.
2) You aren't capable of reading either, as you don't read Greek.
3) Being unable to read Greek, and therefore misunderstanding the word "report", you could still look up in plenty of places, Schwartz included, what Eusebius is referring to here. You didn't.

aa5874

You are interptreting Josephus via COPIES OF COPIES.

You are incapable of reading the original Josephus.

Please, first get the original Josephus if you want to argue about mis-understanding of Greek words.

stephan huller

off topic for a minute - it has always seemed odd to me that if pilate never wrote anything which might be construed as a reference to the events related to the gospel why did christians end up producing countless "positive assessments" of jesus in pilate's name? if the official documents were so obviously forged why the need to make it seem pilate changed his mind about jesus?

the Ethiopian tradition that pilate became a believer (and a saint i believe) fits in here too. these are not late innovations but imo relatively early ones

LegionOnomaMoi

Jesus fucking christ, how is this so complicated? I don't care about Josephus, I'm not talking about Josephus, I'm talking about your misunderstanding of Eusebius. You base your argument on this misunderstanding of Eusebius, and thus Josephus is utterly irrelevant here. This gets at something assumed in your argument, something your argument is built upon: a misunderstanding of your translation of Eusebius 1.9.


This is the problem. Not anything in our "copies of copies" of Josephus. Not anything in the Greek of Josephus. Not anything Eusebius says about Josephus. Despite the fact that I've explained it to you, referred you two sources including your own, and expanded my explanations, you insist on harping on irrelevant points about Josephus or whatever.

The bulk of your initial posts deals with a discussion of a forgery. Only you seem to think this "forgery" was a passion. It isn't. Every scholar, Schwartz included, who deals with this passage knows it isn't. Anybody who reads Greek knows it isn't. There is no way that ὑπομνήματα refers to a passion. In fact, it refers to a document we actually know about (as Eusebius talks about it elsewhere, for one thing; see, for example, book 9 chapter 5). This document is a forgery known as the Acts of Pilate. But the specific name of the document is somewhat irrelevant as the Greek word ὑπομνήματα doesn't refer to a "passion", but an actual, literal "report", specifically an official report.

Once again, then, either Eusebius is incorrect, and Pilate really did write about Jesus, in which case we're dealing with a document about Jesus by the man who executed him, making the mythicist argument obviously false, or Eusebius is correct, and this official document is really a forgery.

Either way, nobody (including you) is going to get anywhere in a discussion about Josephus and Eusebius based on a misunderstanding of what Eusebius says. Until you start dealing with the fact that Eusebius isn't referring to any passion narrative, gospel account, or anything like that, you won't get anywhere trying to understand Josephus via interpreting Eusebius. You will just be wasting your own time.

So, again, as clearly as I can make it:
1) Eusebius was not talking about a passion narrative or similar document (or oral tradition) he claimed was a forgery.
2) Eusebius did talk about a specific forgery: a document which purported to be written by Pilate. In other words, it was a forgery of an official document.
3) Either Eusebius is correct, and this document was a forgery, or Pilate actually wrote something about Jesus' death.
4) If Pilate wrote something about Jesus' death, then who cares what Josephus says, because it means that we have much better proof about Jesus' historical existence.

tanya

Clarity is always welcome.


Two questions:

a. Are there any other late third/early fourth century authors, (whose texts survive,) who may have commented on this controversy regarding some sort of text ostensibly written by Pilate? Strange that there would be nothing in Tacitus about this, nor, apparently in the (Coptic) documents unearthed in Egypt a few decades ago.....

b. Since the event under discussion would have taken place almost three centuries earlier, one wonders what sort of official document Eusebius had in front of him--clearly he would not have had a copy of anything by Pilate, so, who was the author of this "official document"?

LegionOnomaMoi

It's hard to tell, because a christian "acts of Pilate" as well as possibly other references to official edicts or letters of pilate are referred to by authors as early as Justin. Most of these are almost certainly not the document Eusebius refers to, which is anti-christian. However, Lucian of Antioch likewise refers to a clearly anti-christian Acta Pilati.

It's not strange at all that Tacitus has nothing on it, as the document Eusebius refers to was supposed to have been spread around in the early 4th century. In any case, it is almost certainly a forgery and likely written long after Tacitus was dead. Additionally, the Nag Hammadi finds were a rather specific collection. There is a great deal not in there, and there is no reason to think that this text, which was almost certainly either written in latin or greek, would be in that collection.

That's why he calls it a forgery. He doesn't believe it was an official document but a forgery of one. And, with the exception of Eisler, just about every scholar over the last 100+ years has agreed with Eusebius: the document he had was a forgery.

aa5874

You are the one who is confused. Josephus MUST be relevant when one is dealing with statements about his writings in Eusebius.

How in the world can it be shown that someone mis-understood what Eusebius wrote on Josephus without taking into consideration the very writings of Josephus???

maryhelena

And that is it is it not - the bottom line in all of this. Josephus has placed the TF within a context of 19 c.e. And that is a big problem for the JC historicists. How are they going to get past that? How to fix it? Daniel Schwartz raised the question of corruption, interpolation, of the 11 and 10 years for Gratus and Pilate respectively. I've suggested, in the OP, that although the motive would have been there for Eusebius to do this in order to decry the 7th year of Tiberius context within the forged Acts of Pilate for the passion of JC - that it's far more likely that the Josephan writer did the 'interpolations' himself; in order to facilitate gLuke and his 15th year of Tiberius JC story.

my bolding

And of course, from a ahistoricist/mythicist position there never was an official Acts of Pilate regarding a crucifixion of the gospel JC. No historical gospel JC (of whatever variant) means there was no official Acts of Pilate. Never, at any time. All Acts of Pilate (whether Christian versions or from the anti-christians) are all 'forgeries' - they are all dealing with the JC pseudo-historical gospel storyboard.

What we are dealing with is a JC storyline development. And that story took many twists and turns. All the way from a story set from the time of Alexander Janneaus to a story set around the 15th year of Herod the Great (now contained within Slavonic Josephus) to a story that ends up in the 15th year of Tiberius. (gLuke). Josephus, because of contradicting his own TF dating for Pilate, 19 c.e. (adding 11 years to Gratus.....) has left wide open the question of what motive could he have had for doing this. I'm suggesting that motive was to facilitate gLuke's move of the JC storyline to the 15th year of Tiberius. (and it's 6 c.e. birth story)

-----------------------
-------------
my bolding