LegionOnomaMoi

Or I can take it as what it was meant to be: a refutation of a specific forgery in circulation for some time known as the Acts of Pilate. See Scwartz p. 183ff. Eisler claimed that this document was not a forgery, but really was an official document. Schwartz and everybody else agrees with Josephus: it was a forgery.

You seem to think Eusebius was attempting to refute some general claim, or general disagreement, in which case you have misunderstood him and Schwartz: he was refuting an actual forgery, i.e. a specific document.


Absolutely. But then, that holds true of almost every name of every person we know from antiquity, whether we know only a few details or we know a whole lot more. Most ancient historians likewise had only approximations for dates of birth, or disagreements, or didn't give them.

I read what you wrote. You don't seem to have understood your own sources, either Schwartz or Eusebius.

stephan huller

why would it be more reasonable to assume the Emperors stooped to using a second rate forgery but the people living in the gutter had an immaculate testimony?

Toto

The digression on the Criterion of Disputation has been split off here

maryhelena

Schwartz has suggested that the dating of Pilate is questionable. I have not brought Eisler into this discussion of the Josephan TF. It is unnecessary to do so.

Josephus has placed the TF within a context of 19 c.e. That is the issue here. Eusebius has written about a 'forgery' dating the crucifixion to the 7th year of Tiberius - that would be 19 c.e. if dated from his co-regency with Augustus. That is the matter under debate. The Josephan TF, in its context, supports the alleged 'forgery' mentioned by Eusebius in the 7th year of Tiberius. The TF does not support the gLuke crucifixion of JC in the 15th year of Tiberius, around 29 c.e.

Now, you can make charges that I don't understand my sources - well, I can just as easily throw that right back at you! The sources contain simple references. The Josephan TF is dated to 19 c.e. Eusebius tells of a 'forgery' in the 7th year of Tiberius. The Josephus TF, in its context, is supporting the alleged 'forgery' of Eusebius. And that is why, as I have suggested in my original post, that early JC historicists would have trouble referencing the Josephan TF in support of their assumed historicity of JC in the 15th year of Tiberius.

PS: And once you go the route that Josephus has given specific years to Gratus and Pilate - years which contradict his own story re a crucifixion in 19 c.e. - then, by golly - it's open season on Josephus...

Duvduv

Maryhelena, Eusebius referring to forgeries.....well, that sure is the Eusebius pot calling the kettle black......!!

In any case do you know of any references that show all the holes in the books attributed to Josephus? I am also wondering about the historicity issue of Josephus himself since his writings were preserved in the church and there is no early Jewish reference to him at all......not even to challenge his stories that are either absent in traditional Jewish texts or contradict his versions.

maryhelena

No, nothing specific that I'm aware of. I'm often referencing these two books - books dealing with Josephus as a prophetic historian. Both books are of the expensive type - but google book view is available - which I've quoted in many posts.

As for Josephus - he has been in my sights for some time now - I'm after him, I suppose one could say......lots of creative writing going on there....


Dreams and Dream Reports in the Writing of Josephus, A Traditio-Historical Analysis (or via: amazon.co.uk) Robert Karl Gnuse

Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine: The Evidence from Josephus: Rebecca Gray (or via: amazon.co.uk)

aa5874

Come on, Duvduv!!!!

Do you NOT see the Big Hole in your story???

If the writings of Josephus was fundamentally manipulated by the Church then why is it that Jospehus claimed VESPASIAN was the PREDICTED Messianic ruler and NOT Jesus???

Wars of the Jews 6.5.4 Your claim is blown to bits by Wars of the Jews.

But, it will be completely Vaporised by Suetonius "Life of Vespasian" and Tacitus' "Histories" 5.

Both Roman writers ATTEST that VESPASIAN [Not Jesus] was considered the PREDICTED Messianic ruler found in Hewbrew Scripture.

Suetonius Life of Vespasian Tacitus "Histories" 5 The "TF" is a MOST BLATANT forgery.

Vespasian was the ATTESTED and PREDICTED Messianic ruler based on Hebrew Scripture--NOT Obscure HJ.

DCHindley

IIUC, the stated years of governance for these two are the only instances where Josephus does so. In all other cases, he relates the beginning/end of the governance of this or that governor to a year of the reign of an emperor.

DCH

Duvduv

AA, don't you read the word I have used "COMPOSITE"?

If some author sees a couple of manuscripts of historical events that he thinks belong together (including some Christian additions) then he puts them together. What's the big deal? Especially if the Church had exclusive control over the text.

The first thing to throw in the trash from Josephus is the story of Massada. I don't hold it against the novelist who wrote it or even the fact that someone or some clergy thought the story fitted with the rest of what they had that they thought was Josephus.

Then the so-called Four Philosophies including some marginal little group that was called Essenes after what they saw in Philo. The "Fourth Philosophy" of the Zealots. It wasn't comparable to the schools of philosophy in Greece......They were resistance fighters fighting a hopeless cause against the wishes of the sages of the day. Some philosophy. Out of all the Jews in Judea the writer comes up with a group of a few thousand fighters and calls it a philosophy. Well, it's interesting to get a feel for what might have been going on in those days, but one of four major philosophies?!

The story of Miriam and Herod is another fairy tale. No high priest would ever allow his daughter to marry a scion of descendants of Edomite elites who accept the status of slaves. Indeed, the story in the Talmud says she committed suicide by jumping off the roof rather than marry this guy.....But that wouldn't sound good in a history book commissioned by his Roman masters, would it?

aa5874

I do NOT accept speculation and imagination as evidence. It is completely UNACCEPTABLE at any level of a serious investigation.

Let us do history and EXAMINE what is written and stop speculating about what you want Josephus to write.