Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 07-28-2012, 09:00 AM

Hi All,

Those who argue that the TF reflects a negative or neutral original passage do so on without taking into account that Eusebius is not responding to anything in Josephus. If Eusebius did find a negative or neutral original passage, he could have forged the TF. Logically he would then denounce the negative or neutral original passages as forgeries. Otherwise, he would have been accused of doing the forgery.

This argument of negative or neutral original passage also does not explain why others did not mention the text before Eusebius. Celsus, for example, would have been glad to use a neutral or negative passage should one have existed.

This argument against the TF's wholsale invention does contain the good insight that Eusebius is making specific (one might say bullet) points in response to something. It is however fairly obvious that Eusebius is not responding to anything in Eusebius, but that he is responding to the document called "Acts of Pilate" which he claimed was forged a few years before. After quoting the TF in Church History Book 1 chapter 9, he notes:

Quote:

9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them?

We can perhaps reconstruct what was in the "Acts of Pilate" that Eusebius was responding to by looking at Eusebius' two other uses of the TF. Both of them are pretty much the same. We get a sense of his uses of the TF from the paragraphs following his use of the TF:

Theophania 5

Quote:

45. If therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, He was the doer of wonderful works, and that He made His Disciples,--not only the twelve Apostles, or the seventy Disciples, but also attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles; it is clear, that He possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind. For, How could He have otherwise attached to Himself the many, both of the Jews and Gentiles, unless He had made use of miracles and astonishing deeds, and of doctrines (till then) unknown ? The Book of the Acts of the Apostles also attests, that there were many thousands of the Jews, who were persuaded that He was that Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets.

demonstratio evangelica Book III

Theophania Book 5 chapter 45

Quote:

If, then, even the historian's evidence shews that He attracted to Himself not only the twelve Apostles, nor the seventy disciples, but had in addition many Jews and Greeks, He must evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of other men. For how otherwise could (d) He have attracted many Jews and Greeks, except by wonderful miracles and unheard-of teaching? And the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles goes to shew that there were many myriads of Jews who believed Him to be the Christ of God foretold by the prophets. And history also assures us that there was a very important Christian Church in Jerusalem, composed of Jews, which existed until the siege of the city under Hadrian.

We can surmise that Eusebius did not construct the TF out of nothing, but to refute these main points about Jesus that was in the Acts of Pilate:
1. He did not do anything special. (Eusebius refutes this by calling him a miracle worker and emphasizing his miracles)
2. His followers were gentiles (Eusebius insists that there were many Jewish followers)
3. He preached no new doctrines (Eusebius insists his doctrines were unheard of teachings.)
4. His followers disappeared after his execution by Pilate. (Eusebius insists that his followers did not disappear but established a great Church in Jerusalem.

We can reconstruct the Acts of Pilate from this information. It must have read something.

From Pilate to Tiberius.

Quote:

There was a man named Jesus whose followers claimed that he did miracles, but I found nothing special about him. Nothing he said was new or original. He claimed to be a Jewish savior, but no Jews believed him and he had only a small number of followers who were not Jewish. They all disappeared as soon as he was executed.

This explains why the TF takes the form it does. Eusebius felt that his enemies had completely forged a document by Pilate, so Eusebius felt justified in completely forging a counter-document by Josephus.

I am not sure if anybody has considered this hypothesis before.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

PhilosopherJay · 07-28-2012, 01:21 PM

Hi All,

I was rushing my post so that I could help my daughter with her homework. She was insisting that I had promised to help her at 12 and it was now 12:10 and she had to leave with her friends at 1 PM and if I didn't help her, it would be my fault if she failed and dropped out of school.

I am sorry for the mess in the opening post. Here is the post with some of the typos and language corrected and hopefully clarified:

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Those who argue that the TF reflects a negative or neutral original passage do so without taking into account that Eusebius is not responding to anything in Josephus. Let us say that Eusebius did find a negative or neutral original passage and responded by forging the TF based on it. Logically he would then denounce the negative or neutral original passages as forgeries. Otherwise, he would have been accused of doing the forgery by both Christians and Romans who had the neutral or negative passage in their manuscripts.

In other words, Eusebius would have had to assume that if the neutral or negative passage was in his copy, it must have been in other people's copies. By changing it, he was opening himself up to all kinds of charges and arguments by both Christians and Romans.

This argument of negative or neutral original passage also does not explain why others did not mention the text before Eusebius. Celsus, for example, would have been glad to use a neutral or negative passage should one have existed.

This argument against the TF's wholsale invention does contain the good insight that Eusebius appears to be making a response in the TF. That is why I believe it has caught on and become the so-called consensus. The TF is made up of quite specific (one might say "bullet") points in response to something. It is however fairly obvious that Eusebius is not responding to anything in Josephus, but that he is responding to the document called "Acts of Pilate." he claimed this argument was forged in Rome a few years before. After quoting the TF in Church History Book 1 chapter 9, he notes:

Quote:

9. Since an historian, who is one of the Hebrews themselves, has recorded in his work these things concerning John the Baptist and our Saviour, what excuse is there left for not convicting them of being destitute of all shame, who have forged the acts against them?

By "Acts," Eusebius is referring to the Fourth Century Roman forgery, "Acts of Pilate." We can perhaps reconstruct what was in the "Acts of Pilate"based on Eusebius' reaction. Let us look at Eusebius' two other uses of the TF. Both of them are pretty much the same. We get a sense of his uses of the TF from the paragraphs following his uses of the TF:

Theophania Book 5 chapter 45

Quote:

45. If therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, He was the doer of wonderful works, and that He made His Disciples,--not only the twelve Apostles, or the seventy Disciples, but also attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles; it is clear, that He possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind. For, How could He have otherwise attached to Himself the many, both of the Jews and Gentiles, unless He had made use of miracles and astonishing deeds, and of doctrines (till then) unknown ? The Book of the Acts of the Apostles also attests, that there were many thousands of the Jews, who were persuaded that He was that Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets.

demonstratio evangelica Book III

Quote:

If, then, even the historian's evidence shews that He attracted to Himself not only the twelve Apostles, nor the seventy disciples, but had in addition many Jews and Greeks, He must evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of other men. For how otherwise could (d) He have attracted many Jews and Greeks, except by wonderful miracles and unheard-of teaching? And the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles goes to shew that there were many myriads of Jews who believed Him to be the Christ of God foretold by the prophets. And history also assures us that there was a very important Christian Church in Jerusalem, composed of Jews, which existed until the siege of the city under Hadrian.

We can surmise that Eusebius did not construct the TF out of nothing, but to refute these main points about Jesus that was in the Acts of Pilate:
1. He did not do anything special. (Eusebius refutes this by calling him a miracle worker and emphasizing his miracles)
2. His followers were gentiles (Eusebius insists that there were many Jewish followers as well as Gentiles)
3. He was not accepted as the Christ by the Jews. (Eusebius insists that Jews did accept him as Christ).
3. He preached no new doctrines (Eusebius insists his doctrines were "unheard of" teachings.)
4. His followers disappeared after his execution by Pilate. (Eusebius insists that his followers did not disappear but established a great Church in Jerusalem.

We can reconstruct the Acts of Pilate from this information. It must have read something.

From Pilate to Tiberius.

Quote:

There was a man named Jesus whose followers claimed that he did miracles, but I found nothing special about him. Nothing he said was new or original. He claimed to be a Jewish savior, but no Jews believed him. He had many followers who were not Jewish. They all disappeared as soon as he was executed.

This explains why the TF takes the form it does. Eusebius felt that his enemies had completely forged a document by Pilate, so Eusebius felt justified in completely forging a counter-document by Josephus to refute all their charges.

I am not sure if anybody has considered this hypothesis before.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

DCHindley · 07-28-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

This explains why the TF takes the form it does. Eusebius felt that his enemies had completely forged a document by Pilate, so Eusebius felt justified in completely forging a counter-document by Josephus to refute all their charges.

Jay,

I am not sure if that exact hypothesis has been seriously proposed before, but I would not be surprised.

The fact that Tertullian thought that the genuine Acta of Pilate had described amazing miracles related to Jesus, and that rumor also had it that Tiberius was so impressed by this report that he recommended that the Roman Senate deify him, suggests that Christians, at least from the time of Justin, had been speculating about the things a genuine report by Pilate must or should have said.

The publication of a version of these Acta of Pilate under the reign of Maximinus Daia (305-312 CE) that was anything but flattering and contraedictory of prevailing Christian belief about Jesus' life would of course require some sort of reply.

During the subsequent rule of Constantine (306 Caesar in control of Gaul, 312 adds Rome and Africa to his territory, 313 Augustus of Western empire, 324 Sole Augustus ruling from Byzantium in Asia Minor), Maximinus Daia's memory was damned and his statues and honors were erased.

Constantine was likely the party who ordered that the texts of Josephus in his area of command (at least in Rome and the West generally) be altered to completely negate any possibility of the authenticity of the date of events about Jesus stated in Maximinus' edition of Pilate's Acta (21 CE), sometime around 313 CE.

Eusebius, possibility using an already altered copy of Josephus' Antiquities, created the TF as an additional Christian counterpoint to the Acta of Maximinus, putting into Josephus' mouth what Christians were already quite sure would/should have been in any sort of "real" report of Pilate.

DCH

stephan huller · 07-28-2012, 04:28 PM

I also think that Jay's hypothesis has a lot going for it. I sometimes think that things are too dogmatic on both sides of the discussions about Jesus. The something about the gospel narrative was (loosely) based on a historical incident is in my mind a plausible assumption. The only place I depart the company of others is that I can see a scenario where the historical person crucified was not a man named Jesus of Nazareth but someone substituted in his place. This doesn't mean that I can prove that any of this happened. I just think we should all be careful not to define what can or can't work with respect to the gospel narrative solely based on our current limited understanding of the original paradigm.

We should simply go where the evidence leads us. I happen to think that there was an 'Acts of Pilate' which may even have went back to the historical Pilate. It may have mentioned another Joshua, a crucified Judas of the Nazoraean sect - who knows. All I know is that when we evaluate the evidence for the existence of a pre-existent 'Acts of Pilate' rom Eusebius and other sources - one which seemed to assist pagan doubts about the truth of the gospel narrative - I think it is pretty strongly in favor of its authenticity.

As I said we shouldn't rush to any other conclusions

aa5874 · 07-28-2012, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

....Constantine was likely the party who ordered that the texts of Josephus in his area of command (at least in Rome and the West generally) be altered to completely negate any possibility of the authenticity of the date of events about Jesus stated in Maximinus' edition of Pilate's Acta (21 CE), sometime around 313 CE....

Church History attributed to Eusebius is a sources of fiction so it cannot be Presumed that the "TF" was altered when Eusebius was supposedly alive.

Based on "Against the Galileans", Julian seemed UNAWARE that Josephus wrote about Jesus and Paul up to c 362 CE.

Against the Galileans

Quote:

.....for nowhere did either Jesus or Paul hand down to you such commands.......................But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.....

The manipulation of sources of antiquity was widespread and did NOT all occur in the 4th century.

stephan huller · 07-28-2012, 07:14 PM

i shouldnt have said "authenticity." i was rushed. i meant "existence" but i already used the term in the sentence

mountainman · 07-29-2012, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

This explains why the TF takes the form it does. Eusebius felt that his enemies had completely forged a document by Pilate, so Eusebius felt justified in completely forging a counter-document by Josephus to refute all their charges.

I am not sure if anybody has considered this hypothesis before.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Philosopher Jay,

Interesting hypothesis.

It is generally agreed that Eusebius was actively researching all this and writing about the Early Christian History between the years of 312 and 324 CE, so it would make sense that any utterly blasphemous pagan acts of pilate would have to be soundly refuted.

I was going to make certain suggestions about what the original version may have said but I decided against the idea.

Best wishes

Pete

aa5874 · 07-29-2012, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Hi Philosopher Jay,
Interesting hypothesis.
It is generally agreed that Eusebius was actively researching all this and writing about the Early Christian History between the years of 312 and 324 CE, so it would make sense that any utterly blasphemous pagan acts of pilate would have to be soundly refuted.

I was going to make certain suggestions about what the original version may have said but I decided against the idea.

Best wishes

Pete

It is quite remarkable that you believe the writings of Eusebius are an accurate reflection of history.

Please, think about it.

Who would you expect to write the History of the Church??

A bishop of Caesarea or the Bishop of ROME???

"Church History" is most likely bogus in authorship, history and chronology.

It would appear "Eusebius" compiled the history of the Church WITHOUT any input from the Bishop of Rome and mentioned no personal contact with the Bishop.

There appears to have been MASSIVE fraud which may be related to the Donation of Constantine.

Vorkosigan · 07-29-2012, 02:54 AM

That's a very interesting hypothesis, Jay. I don't think "they all disappeared" could have been in the M. Daia version of the Acts of Pilate, because clearly they had not disappeared. Perhaps that's why Eusebius added his own "tribe of Xtians" to the end of the passage.

I think you've left out an important claim of the TF "he appeared to them alive on the third day" -- if Eusebius was responding to Maximus' Acts of Pilate, then clearly the Acts denied that Jesus had risen. Pilate posted guards, etc.

PhilosopherJay · 07-29-2012, 05:57 AM

Hi DCHindley,

Thanks, good points. I especially liked the ending:

Quote:

Eusebius, possibility using an already altered copy of Josephus' Antiquities, created the TF as an additional Christian counterpoint to the Acta of Maximinus, putting into Josephus' mouth what Christians were already quite sure would/should have been in any sort of "real" report of Pilate.`

That is exactly it. The TF reads like the report Pilate would have made if Pilate had become a Christian or if Christians had written it for him.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

This explains why the TF takes the form it does. Eusebius felt that his enemies had completely forged a document by Pilate, so Eusebius felt justified in completely forging a counter-document by Josephus to refute all their charges.

Jay,

I am not sure if that exact hypothesis has been seriously proposed before, but I would not be surprised.

The fact that Tertullian thought that the genuine Acta of Pilate had described amazing miracles related to Jesus, and that rumor also had it that Tiberius was so impressed by this report that he recommended that the Roman Senate deify him, suggests that Christians, at least from the time of Justin, had been speculating about the things a genuine report by Pilate must or should have said.

The publication of a version of these Acta of Pilate under the reign of Maximinus Daia (305-312 CE) that was anything but flattering and contraedictory of prevailing Christian belief about Jesus' life would of course require some sort of reply.

During the subsequent rule of Constantine (306 Caesar in control of Gaul, 312 adds Rome and Africa to his territory, 313 Augustus of Western empire, 324 Sole Augustus ruling from Byzantium in Asia Minor), Maximinus Daia's memory was damned and his statues and honors were erased.

Constantine was likely the party who ordered that the texts of Josephus in his area of command (at least in Rome and the West generally) be altered to completely negate any possibility of the authenticity of the date of events about Jesus stated in Maximinus' edition of Pilate's Acta (21 CE), sometime around 313 CE.

Eusebius, possibility using an already altered copy of Josephus' Antiquities, created the TF as an additional Christian counterpoint to the Acta of Maximinus, putting into Josephus' mouth what Christians were already quite sure would/should have been in any sort of "real" report of Pilate.

DCH

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

07-28-2012, 04:28 PM	#4
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I also think that Jay's hypothesis has a lot going for it. I sometimes think that things are too dogmatic on both sides of the discussions about Jesus. The something about the gospel narrative was (loosely) based on a historical incident is in my mind a plausible assumption. The only place I depart the company of others is that I can see a scenario where the historical person crucified was not a man named Jesus of Nazareth but someone substituted in his place. This doesn't mean that I can prove that any of this happened. I just think we should all be careful not to define what can or can't work with respect to the gospel narrative solely based on our current limited understanding of the original paradigm. We should simply go where the evidence leads us. I happen to think that there was an 'Acts of Pilate' which may even have went back to the historical Pilate. It may have mentioned another Joshua, a crucified Judas of the Nazoraean sect - who knows. All I know is that when we evaluate the evidence for the existence of a pre-existent 'Acts of Pilate' rom Eusebius and other sources - one which seemed to assist pagan doubts about the truth of the gospel narrative - I think it is pretty strongly in favor of its authenticity. As I said we shouldn't rush to any other conclusions

07-28-2012, 07:14 PM	#6
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	i shouldnt have said "authenticity." i was rushed. i meant "existence" but i already used the term in the sentence

07-29-2012, 02:54 AM	#9
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	That's a very interesting hypothesis, Jay. I don't think "they all disappeared" could have been in the M. Daia version of the Acts of Pilate, because clearly they had not disappeared. Perhaps that's why Eusebius added his own "tribe of Xtians" to the end of the passage. I think you've left out an important claim of the TF "he appeared to them alive on the third day" -- if Eusebius was responding to Maximus' Acts of Pilate, then clearly the Acts denied that Jesus had risen. Pilate posted guards, etc.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.