Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 07-08-2012, 11:26 AM

Hi All,

The two passages in Tertullian referring to Pilate sending information to Tiberius are quite possibly interpolations having little to do rhetorically or logically with what comes just before or after.

Here is what comes before and after what may be the first interpolation. The first interpolation material is in red -- Tertullian's "Apology" (chapter 4):

Quote:

No law forbids the sifting of the crimes which it prohibits, for a judge never inflicts a righteous vengeance if he is not well assured that a crime has been committed; nor does a citizen render a true subjection to the law, if he does not know the nature of the thing on which the punishment is inflicted. It is not enough that a law is just, nor that the judge should be convinced of its justice; those from whom obedience is expected should have that conviction too. Nay, a law lies under strong suspicions which does not care to have itself tried and approved: it is a positively wicked law, if, unproved, it tyrannizes over men.
To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to which we now refer, there was an old decree that no god should be consecrated by the emperor till first approved by the senate. Marcus Æmilius had experience of this in reference to his god Alburnus. And this, too, makes for our case, that among you divinity is allotted at the judgment of human beings. Unless gods give satisfaction to men, there will be no deification for them: the god will have to propitiate the man. Tiberius accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal. Cæsar held to his opinion, threatening wrath against all accusers of the Christians. Consult your histories; you will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome. But we glory in having our condemnation hallowed by the hostility of such a wretch. For any one who knows him, can understand that not except as being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero's condemnation. Domitian, too, a man of Nero's type in cruelty, tried his hand at persecution; but as he had something of the human in him, he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those whom he had banished. Such as these have always been our persecutors,— men unjust, impious, base, of whom even you yourselves have no good to say, the sufferers under whose sentences you have been wont to restore. But among so many princes from that time to the present day, with anything of divine and human wisdom in them, point out a single persecutor of the Christian name. So far from that, we, on the contrary, bring before you one who was their protector, as you will see by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most grave of emperors, in which he bears his testimony that that Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians who chanced to be fighting under him. And as he did not by public law remove from Christians their legal disabilities, yet in another way he put them openly aside, even adding a sentence of condemnation, and that of greater severity, against their accusers. What sort of laws are these which the impious alone execute against us— and the unjust, the vile, the bloody, the senseless, the insane? Which Trajan to some extent made naught by forbidding Christians to be sought after; which neither a Hadrian, though fond of searching into all things strange and new, nor a Vespasian, though the subjugator of the Jews, nor a Pius, nor a Verus, ever enforced? It should surely be judged more natural for bad men to be eradicated by good princes as being their natural enemies, than by those of a spirit kindred with their own.
[chapter 6]
I would now have these most religious protectors and vindicators of the laws and institutions of their fathers, tell me, in regard to their own fidelity and the honour, and submission they themselves show to ancestral institutions, if they have departed from nothing— if they have in nothing gone out of the old paths— if they have not put aside whatsoever is most useful and necessary as rules of a virtuous life. What has become of the laws repressing expensive and ostentatious ways of living? Which forbade more than a hundred asses to be expended on a supper, and more than one fowl to be set on the table at a time, and that not a fatted one; which expelled a patrician from the senate on the serious ground, as it was counted, of aspiring to be too great, because he had acquired ten pounds of silver; which put down the theatres as quickly as they arose to debauch the manners of the people; which did not permit the insignia of official dignities or of noble birth to be rashly or with impunity usurped?

Note how much smoother and more logically the passage flows when we take out the extraneous material. It now becomes a passage strictly about laws, without the diversion about Christian Martyrs (Eusebius' favorite topic).

No law forbids the sifting of the crimes which it prohibits, for a judge never inflicts a righteous vengeance if he is not well assured that a crime has been committed; nor does a citizen render a true subjection to the law, if he does not know the nature of the thing on which the punishment is inflicted. It is not enough that a law is just, nor that the judge should be convinced of its justice; those from whom obedience is expected should have that conviction too. Nay, a law lies under strong suspicions which does not care to have itself tried and approved: it is a positively wicked law, if, unproved, it tyrannizes over men.
To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to which we now refer, there was an old decree that no god should be consecrated by the emperor till first approved by the senate. Marcus Æmilius had experience of this in reference to his god Alburnus. And this, too, makes for our case, that among you divinity is allotted at the judgment of human beings. Unless gods give satisfaction to men, there will be no deification for them: the god will have to propitiate the man.{deleted material}
[chapter 6]
I would now have these most religious protectors and vindicators of the laws and institutions of their fathers, tell me, in regard to their own fidelity and the honour, and submission they themselves show to ancestral institutions, if they have departed from nothing— if they have in nothing gone out of the old paths— if they have not put aside whatsoever is most useful and necessary as rules of a virtuous life. What has become of the laws repressing expensive and ostentatious ways of living? Which forbade more than a hundred asses to be expended on a supper, and more than one fowl to be set on the table at a time, and that not a fatted one; which expelled a patrician from the senate on the serious ground, as it was counted, of aspiring to be too great, because he had acquired ten pounds of silver; which put down the theatres as quickly as they arose to debauch the manners of the people; which did not permit the insignia of official dignities or of noble birth to be rashly or with impunity usurped?

Eusebius is talking about tyrannical laws. He mentions that the first of these is that gods must be approved by the Senate. Obviously the Senate having to approve Gods for them to be legal was a problem for Christians, so Tertullian bringing this up makes perfect sense. The next argument is that laws change and bad laws have been changed. We see here the smooth reasoning of a great lawyer and master rhetorician. The whole historical digression about Emperors who persecuted Christians makes no sense here and adds nothing to the argument. It is almost certainly an interpolation by an historian, not a rhetorician.

The second interpolation in Apology 21 is even more obvious. It begins with the words "All these things Pilate did to Christ;" Unfortunately, the previous passage contains only the fact that Pilate Crucified Jesus. To say, "All these things Pilate did to Christ" makes no sense whatsoever. Here is the passage with the interpolated material in red. The orange is probably interpolated too:

Quote:

As, then, under the force of their pre-judgment, they had convinced themselves from His lowly guise that Christ was no more than man, it followed from that, as a necessary consequence, that they should hold Him a magician from the powers which He displayed—expelling devils from men by a word, restoring vision to the blind, cleansing the leprous, reinvigorating the paralytic, summoning the dead to life again, making the very elements of nature obey Him, stilling the storms and walking on the sea; proving that He was the Logos of God, that primordial first-begotten Word, accompanied by power and reason, and based on Spirit,— that He who was now doing all things by His word, and He who had done that of old, were one and the same. But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius Pilate, at that time Roman governor of Syria; and, by the violence of their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them to be crucified. He Himself had predicted this; which, however, would have signified little had not the prophets of old done it as well. And yet, nailed upon the cross, He exhibited many notable signs, by which His death was distinguished from all others. At His own free-will, He with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze. Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives. Then, when His body was taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulchre, the Jews in their eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as He had predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day, His disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away, and the guard fled off in terror: without a single disciple near, the grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One. But nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both to spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to them from the faith, gave it out that the body of Christ had been stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into the public gaze, lest the wicked should be delivered from their error; that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were to teach to others. Thereafter, having given them commission to preach the gospel through the world, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken up to heaven,— a fact more certain far than the assertions of your Proculi concerning Romulus. All these things Pilate did to Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius. Yes, and the Cæsars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Cæsars had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been Cæsars. His disciples also, spreading over the world, did as their Divine Master bade them; and after suffering greatly themselves from the persecutions of the Jews, and with no unwilling heart, as having faith undoubting in the truth, at last by Nero's cruel sword sowed the seed of Christian blood at Rome. Yes, and we shall prove that even your own gods are effective witnesses for Christ. It is a great matter if, to give you faith in Christians, I can bring forward the authority of the very beings on account of whom you refuse them credit.

Notice that Tertullian says that Jesus spent 40 days in Galilee with his disciples. This is not the story in the NT gospels and Acts.

The whole tirade against the Jews is unnecessary since Tertullian is trying to prove that Jesus is the Logos and the logos is the Jewish God. All the minutia from the Gospel of Matthew is simply irrelevent.

It is interesting to note that when we take out the extraneous material, the Tertullian God of the Apology does not get crucified. He spends 40 days with his disciples in Galilee and then disappears in a cloud. This suggests that we can look to Apollonius of Tyana as providing a primary model for Jesus.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi DCHindley et al.,
{snip}
Warmly,

Jay Raskin

maryhelena · 07-08-2012, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

What explains this amazingly close connection between the TF and the Acts of Pilate?

<snip>

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The simple explanation is that there was an earlier crucifixion story of JC that connected with the 7th year of Tiberius. That story is the anointed/wonder-doer story from Slavonic Josephus. Birth of that figure in either 25 or 22 b.c.(prior to the 15 th year of Herod the Great.) That literary figure would be around 45 years old in 19 c.e. (gJohn having his JC not yet 50 years old.)

After gLuke was written, there is no way anyone is going to place the birth of JC prior to the 15th year of Herod the Great. gJohn and gMark don't rule out this prior birth narrative. gMatthew has the update - Archelaus 4 b.c. - 6.c.e. thus moving the birth narrative from early in the rule of HG to near the end of that rule.

The problem was, of course, that some people would prefer the older version of the JC story - hence efforts like Acts of Pilate to keep that earlier JC story going. But the JC story had moved on.....leading to forgery charges against any document that was brazen enough to reference the earlier story....And things have not changed today - the Slavonic Josephus is likewise discredited...

So, if we want to search for early christian origins - we can't just confine that search to the accepted, the canonized gospels - it's the discredited sources that need to be put on the table - and let them tell their own story...

mountainman · 07-09-2012, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Just as Christians were wishful in their thinking about the things such a repoort might say, so may have been the imaginations of Maximinus' subjects who sought to garner his favor by circulating these reports.

I'm confused. Is this a forgery or not? If not, then we have a record from Pilate about Jesus.

I also see ambiguity here.

Can someone explain how the Maximinus Daia's Acts of Pilate is related to the text in our possession called "The Acts of Pilate" and sometimes "The Gospel of Nicodemus".

maryhelena · 07-09-2012, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Just as Christians were wishful in their thinking about the things such a repoort might say, so may have been the imaginations of Maximinus' subjects who sought to garner his favor by circulating these reports.

I'm confused. Is this a forgery or not? If not, then we have a record from Pilate about Jesus.

I also see ambiguity here.

Can someone explain how the Maximinus Daia's Acts of Pilate is related to the text in our possession called "The Acts of Pilate" and sometimes "The Gospel of Nicodemus".

[T2]F. F. Bruce writes (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

We should especially like to know if Pilate sent home to Rome any report of the trial and execution of Jesus, and, if so, what it contained. But it is not certain that he must have done so; and if he did, it has disappeared beyond trace.

Certainly some ancient writers believed that Pilate did send in such a report, but there is no evidence that any of them had any real knowledge of it. About AD 150 Justin Martyr, addressing his Defence of Christianity to the Emperor Antoninius Pius, referred him to Pilate's report, which Justin supposed must be preserved in the imperial archives. 'But the words, "They pierced my hands and my feet," ' he says, 'are a description of the nails that were fixed in His hands and His feet on the cross; and after He was crucified, those who crucified Him cast lots for His garments, and divided them among themselves; and that these things were so, you may learn from the "Acts" which were recorded under Pontius Pilate." Later he says: 'That He performed these miracles you may easily be satisfied from the "Acts" of Pontius Pilate."

Then Tertullian, the great jurist-theologian of Carthage, addressing his Defence of Christianity to the man authorities in the province of Africa about AD 197, says: 'Tiberius, in whose time the Christian name first made its appearance in the world, laid before the Senate tidings from Syria Palestina which had revealed to him the truth of the divinity there manifested, and supported the motion by his own vote to begin with. The Senate rejected it because it had not itself given its approval. Caesar held to his own opinion and threatened danger to the accusers of the Christians."

It would no doubt be pleasant if we could believe this story of Tertullian, which he manifestly believed to be true but a story so inherently improbable and inconsistent with what we know of Tiberius, related nearly 170 years after the event, does not commend itself to a historian's judgment.

When the influence of Christianity was increasing rapidly in the Empire, one of the last pagan emperors, Maximin II, two years before the Edict of Milan, attempted to bring Christianity into disrepute by publishing what he alleged to be the true 'Acts of Pilate', representing the origins of Christianity in an unsavoury guise. These 'Acts', which were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus, had to be read and memorized by schoolchildren. They were manifestly forged, as Eusebius historian pointed out at the time;' among other things, their dating was quite wrong, as they placed the death of Jesus in the seventh year of Tiberius (AD 20), whereas the testimony of Josephus' is plain that Pilate not become procurator of Judaea till Tiberius' Twelfth year (not to mention the evidence of Luke iii. 1, according to which John the Baptist began to preach in fifteenth year of Tiberius). We do not know in detail these alleged 'Acts' contained, as they were naturally suppressed on Constantine's accession to power; but we may surmise that they had some affinity with Toledoth Yeshu, an anti-Christian compilation popular in some Jewish circles in mediaeval time.'

Later in the fourth century another forged set of 'Acts of Pilate' appeared, this time from the Christian side, and as devoid of genuineness as Maximin's, to which they were perhaps intended as a counterblast. They are still extant, and consist of alleged memorials the trial, passion, and resurrection of Christ, recorded by Nicodemus and deposited with Pilate. (They are also own as the 'Gospel of Nicodemus'.) A translation of them is given in M. R. James' Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 94 ff., and they have a literary interest of their own, which does not concern us here.
[/T2]

So:

1) Early JC historicists referred to something called Acts of Pilate.
2) Eusebius mentions Acts of Pilate in a negative light - labels it a forgery. It deals with a "passion"/crucifixion of JC in the 7th year of Tiberius.
3) Later JC historicists have another Acts of Pilate. Now contained within the Gospel of Nicodemus.

This version in the Gospel of Nicodemus has a Prologue:

Quote:

"In the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the Romans,"

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

I would suggest that the Acts of Pilate referred to by Justin was composed prior to gLuke and his 15th year of Tiberius. As gJohn and gMark make no reference to a specific date in regard to Pilate - then an early Acts of Pilate probably did the same.

The 'forged' Acts of Pilate, known to Eusebius, has probably used the TF dating of 19 c.e. - and connected that 19 c.e. date to the 7th year of Tiberius (i.e. 19 c.e. would be the 7th year since Tiberius' co-regency with Augustus in 12 c.e.).

The later JC historicists Acts of Pilate, sought to counter the 'forged' version and went, in the Prologue, with the 15th year of Tiberius.

gLuke's update of the JC storyboard, moving that birth to 6 c.e. which necessitates a later than 19 or 21 c.e. crucifixion story - looks to have blindsided those early JC historicists to the prior history of that story. gLuke has, in one sense, shut the door to the past....

mountainman · 07-09-2012, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Just as Christians were wishful in their thinking about the things such a repoort might say, so may have been the imaginations of Maximinus' subjects who sought to garner his favor by circulating these reports.

I'm confused. Is this a forgery or not? If not, then we have a record from Pilate about Jesus.

I also see ambiguity here.

Can someone explain how the Maximinus Daia's Acts of Pilate is related to the text in our possession called "The Acts of Pilate" and sometimes "The Gospel of Nicodemus".

[T2]F. F. Bruce writes (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

We should especially like to know if Pilate sent home to Rome any report of the trial and execution of Jesus, and, if so, what it contained. But it is not certain that he must have done so; and if he did, it has disappeared beyond trace.

Certainly some ancient writers believed that Pilate did send in such a report, but there is no evidence that any of them had any real knowledge of it. About AD 150 Justin Martyr, addressing his Defence of Christianity to the Emperor Antoninius Pius, referred him to Pilate's report, which Justin supposed must be preserved in the imperial archives. 'But the words, "They pierced my hands and my feet," ' he says, 'are a description of the nails that were fixed in His hands and His feet on the cross; and after He was crucified, those who crucified Him cast lots for His garments, and divided them among themselves; and that these things were so, you may learn from the "Acts" which were recorded under Pontius Pilate." Later he says: 'That He performed these miracles you may easily be satisfied from the "Acts" of Pontius Pilate."

Then Tertullian, the great jurist-theologian of Carthage, addressing his Defence of Christianity to the man authorities in the province of Africa about AD 197, says: 'Tiberius, in whose time the Christian name first made its appearance in the world, laid before the Senate tidings from Syria Palestina which had revealed to him the truth of the divinity there manifested, and supported the motion by his own vote to begin with. The Senate rejected it because it had not itself given its approval. Caesar held to his own opinion and threatened danger to the accusers of the Christians."

It would no doubt be pleasant if we could believe this story of Tertullian, which he manifestly believed to be true but a story so inherently improbable and inconsistent with what we know of Tiberius, related nearly 170 years after the event, does not commend itself to a historian's judgment.

When the influence of Christianity was increasing rapidly in the Empire, one of the last pagan emperors, Maximin II, two years before the Edict of Milan, attempted to bring Christianity into disrepute by publishing what he alleged to be the true 'Acts of Pilate', representing the origins of Christianity in an unsavoury guise. These 'Acts', which were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus, had to be read and memorized by schoolchildren. They were manifestly forged, as Eusebius historian pointed out at the time;' among other things, their dating was quite wrong, as they placed the death of Jesus in the seventh year of Tiberius (AD 20), whereas the testimony of Josephus' is plain that Pilate not become procurator of Judaea till Tiberius' Twelfth year (not to mention the evidence of Luke iii. 1, according to which John the Baptist began to preach in fifteenth year of Tiberius). We do not know in detail these alleged 'Acts' contained, as they were naturally suppressed on Constantine's accession to power; but we may surmise that they had some affinity with Toledoth Yeshu, an anti-Christian compilation popular in some Jewish circles in mediaeval time.'

Later in the fourth century another forged set of 'Acts of Pilate' appeared, this time from the Christian side, and as devoid of genuineness as Maximin's, to which they were perhaps intended as a counterblast. They are still extant, and consist of alleged memorials the trial, passion, and resurrection of Christ, recorded by Nicodemus and deposited with Pilate. (They are also own as the 'Gospel of Nicodemus'.) A translation of them is given in M. R. James' Apocryphal New Testament, pp. 94 ff., and they have a literary interest of their own, which does not concern us here.
[/T2]

So:

1) Early JC historicists referred to something called Acts of Pilate.
2) Eusebius mentions Acts of Pilate in a negative light - labels it a forgery. It deals with a "passion"/crucifixion of JC in the 7th year of Tiberius.
3) Later JC historicists have another Acts of Pilate. Now contained within the Gospel of Nicodemus.

This version in the Gospel of Nicodemus has a Prologue:

Quote:

"In the fifteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the Romans,"

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...s-roberts.html

Thank you MH.

Does anyone know the reason why scholarship has arrived at the above conclusion with respect to the texts labelled (2) and (3) above. The conclusion is that the pagan text (2) was destroyed and a new christian text (3) was authored later in the 4th century, and this is the text we are looking at.

There is a much simpler alternative: there is no later 4th century christian text, and the text before us is the anti-christian (pagan) text mentioned by Eusebius. The quoted text above states:

Quote:

These 'Acts' ...... were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus

In the text before us Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius.

What can be more outrageous and blasphemous than that?

Can anyone shed any light on why scholarship (without any evidence that I have seen) seems to prefer the stated conclusion (i.e. (2) and (3) above)?

What problems can anyone see in the alternative?

Toto · 07-10-2012, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

In the text before us Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius.

What can be more outrageous and blasphemous than that? ...

Saying that Jesus was a bastard would be more outrageous and blasphemous, but the Gospel of N. goes to great pains to deny that.

It seems more probable that the parody claimed that Jesus was the bastard son of a prostitute and a Roman soldier; that's why this version has even the Jews denying it.

maryhelena · 07-10-2012, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thank you MH.

Does anyone know the reason why scholarship has arrived at the above conclusion with respect to the texts labelled (2) and (3) above. The conclusion is that the pagan text (2) was destroyed and a new christian text (3) was authored later in the 4th century, and this is the text we are looking at.

There is a much simpler alternative: there is no later 4th century christian text, and the text before us is the anti-christian (pagan) text mentioned by Eusebius. The quoted text above states:

Quote:

These 'Acts' ...... were full of outrageous assertions about Jesus

In the text before us Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius.

What can be more outrageous and blasphemous than that?

Can anyone shed any light on why scholarship (without any evidence that I have seen) seems to prefer the stated conclusion (i.e. (2) and (3) above)?

What problems can anyone see in the alternative?

Pete, check out this link: It has two versions of Acts of Pilate.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P6572_1985146

Quote:

Version A) Pilate says to them: This is not casting out the demons by an unclean spirit, but by the god Aesculapius.

Quote:

Version B) Pilate says: To cure a person that is ill is not a diabolic work, but a grace from God.

Version A has the 15 th year of Tiberius in the Prologue - and Version B something else - which needs a second look.....

Quote:

....when Tiberius Caesar at last swayed the Roman sceptre, in the eighteenth year of his reign, he appointed as king of Judaea, Herod, the son of the Herod who had formerly slaughtered the infants in Bethlehem, and he made Pilate procurator in Jerusalem;

That looks to be counting from a co-regency for Tiberius in 12 c.e. = about 30 c.e. - which is gLuke's 15th year from the sole rule of Tiberius in 14 c.e. And looks to be moving Pilate' appointment to that very date - about 29/30 c.e.

All in all - that gLuke birth story in 6 c.e. caused lots of problems back then - as it continues to do for the JC historicists to this day....

Also of interest is that Version B has 500 soldiers at the tomb site. (ch.12). and 500 who witness the going up to heaven. (ch.14) Version A has no mention of the 500.

Slavonic Josephus, online translation, has 30 Romans and 1000 Jews at the tomb. While Slavonic Josephus, the book with the translation, has 1000 Romans and 1000 Jews....

(scroll to top of link page for list of chapters....)

mountainman · 07-10-2012, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

In the text before us Pilate informs the Jews that Jesus heals by the power of Asclepius.

What can be more outrageous and blasphemous than that? ...

Saying that Jesus was a bastard would be more outrageous and blasphemous,

But would it? Jesus was supposed to be the One True Monotheistic New God who heals and cures and performs miracles by the power of that New God and certainly not by the power of the Old Pagan God Asclepius. The author is equating Jesus with a priest of Asclepius, who according to the archaeology, were quite common and well known to the populace of the Roman Empire.

Quote:

It seems more probable that the parody claimed that Jesus was the bastard son of a prostitute and a Roman soldier; that's why this version has even the Jews denying it.

Let me get this straight. Because Eusebius said the copy of the AoP before him was "blasphemous" this necessarily implies that the text before him is expected to state that Jesus was a bastard. This is pure conjecture and not a very strong argument.

We have a text which basically says Jesus was a priest of Asclepius, the Graeco-Roman God of Healing. I think Eusebius would have called this assertion a blasphemous assertion. Eusebius is exceedingly derogatory about Asclepius, and the priests of Asclepius, in various other parts of his writings. He is extremely insistent on the priority of the Hebrews over the Greeks. He would not like to see a text describing Jesus performing miracles by means of the power of a Gentile God.

Which still leaves for discussion the alternative and much simpler solution. The text before us is the pagan AoP which would have it known to all the schoolchildren in the empire that Jesus heals by a Gentile God. And the conjectural later Christian AoP is not required. The argument can invoke Occam.

mountainman · 07-10-2012, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Pete, check out this link: It has two versions of Acts of Pilate.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P6572_1985146

Quote:

Version A) Pilate says to them: This is not casting out the demons by an unclean spirit, but by the god Aesculapius.

Quote:

Version B) Pilate says: To cure a person that is ill is not a diabolic work, but a grace from God.

Thanks MH,

It would be interesting to know the ms traditions for both texts, and which is the oldest.

maryhelena · 07-10-2012, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by maryhelena

Pete, check out this link: It has two versions of Acts of Pilate.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P6572_1985146

Quote:

Version A) Pilate says to them: This is not casting out the demons by an unclean spirit, but by the god Aesculapius.

Quote:

Version B) Pilate says: To cure a person that is ill is not a diabolic work, but a grace from God.

Thanks MH,

It would be interesting to know the ms traditions for both texts, and which is the oldest.

Indeed, but even if achieved, would not be giving a date for the original ms.

What is interesting in both the present versions of Acts of Pilate - is that both are intent upon moving away from the version known to Eusebius i.e. that 7th year of Tiberius is nowhere to be seen. Perhaps, bits and pieces of earlier version of Acts of Pilate are included in these two present versions - but the important issue is missing - the 7th year of Tiberius that was relevant to Eusebius labeling his known version a 'forgery'.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.