Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 02-17-2012, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by la70119

Irenaeus AH 2.22 may have been a source for the statements about Christus / Chrestus in Tacitus and Suetonius.

Tacitus Annales 15:44

Quote:

But neither human help, nor imperial munificence, nor all the modes of placating Heaven, could stifle scandal or dispel the belief that the fire had taken place by order. Therefore, to scotch the rumour, Nero substituted as culprits, and punished with the utmost refinements of cruelty, a class of men, loathed for their outrages, whom the crowd styled Christians*. Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus, and the pernicious superstition was checked for a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judaea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things hideous and shameful in the world find their centre and become popular.

*Originally "Chrestians."

Originally the word "Christians" was written "Chrestians," and photographic analysis has shown this to be so. This, of course, helps explain why Christians INSIST that "Chrestus" in Suetonius is actually "Christus," i.e., Jesus Christ.

Observe, also, that tacitus mislabels Pontius Pilatus as a procurator, for in fact, Pilate was a prefect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_governor#Imperial_governors, Equestrian Procurator

Quote:

The Emperor also had under his control a number of smaller, but potentially difficult provinces that did not need an entire legion. These provinces were put under the control of governors of equestrian status. New conquests generally fell into this equestrian category but most were later changed in status to reflect the changing conditions of Rome's growing empire. Thus, a province would become upon conquest a procuratorial province until it was decided that it should become either an imperial or senatorial province and thus governed by either a propraetor or proconsul. Like the other imperial provinces, the equestrian governors could serve any length of time up to 5 years, or even longer.

Much like the senatorial province of Africa, the equestrian province of Aegyptus (Egypt) was an exception to the general rule of legions only being stationed in imperial provinces. Egypt was not a normal province like any other; it was considered the personal possession of the Emperor, and its governor, the praefectus aegypti, was considered the hold the highest ranking equestrian post during the early empire. Later, the post would fall second to that of the praetorian command, but its position remained highly prestigious.

Though the practice of appointing equestrians to help manage provinces officially began with Augustus, governors from years before had appointed procurators to help them govern. However, it was not until the reign of Claudius that these procurators received the powers of a governor. Though by definition the procurators were prefects, a procuratorship was a more formal way of denoting a prefect’s authority to govern. It is important to note that procurators were not magistrates, so did not own imperium, and merely exercised the Emperor’s, or governor's, authority with his approval.

Indeed, this is reflected in the writings of Josephus' Antiquities, where he differentiates prefects from procurators by the terms ἡγεμόν᾽ and ἐπίτροπος, respectively. And he calls Pilate an ἡγεμόν᾽, that is, a prefect.

Have a look at this article by Richard Carrier - the Pilate section is about halfway down the article.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/...rrier+Blogs%29

Quote:

So Was Pontius Pilate a Prefect or a Procurator?

In actual fact, Pilate was both a prefect and a procurator. An imperial procurator, to be precise. In fact this was true of all the prefects of Judea, and many other regional prefects,....................It was actually commonplace for prefects to also be procurators.

aa5874 · 02-18-2012, 01:06 AM

Let us NOT divert from the issue at hand. The author called Irenaeus did NOT state Pilate was a procurator or prefect.

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 and "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old Under Claudius.

Such a claim signifies that the author was NOT aware of the TF [AJ 18.3.3], AJ20.9.1, Paul, the Pauline writings, the Pauline Churches, Acts of the Apostles and gLuke.

There is ONE writer that appear to support Irenaeus and that is Suetonius who claimed that Jews were Expelled from Rome due to the instigation of Chrestus during the reign of Claudius.

It is logically deduced that all the Canonised writings are AFTER the Fall of the Temple and that the succession of Bishops of Rome are all FABRICATED up to at least the 3rd century.

The Jesus cult of Christians is MOST likely a 2nd century cult based on Lucian of Samosata, a 2nd century non-apologetic writer.

The fraudulent document called Church History has been EXPOSED.

Bernard Muller · 02-18-2012, 10:01 AM

First, Irenaeus never said Jesus was crucified under Claudius.
However he mentioned several times that was done under Pontius Pilate (2.32.4, 4.23.2, 5.12.5). He also wrote Jesus' baptism was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (3.14.3), which is according to gLuke.
All what Irenaeus did was to make an error (voluntary? involuntary?) about the duration of Pilate's rule in Judea.
Of course Irenaeus in AH 2.22 was most intent to "prove" Jesus was not a flash in the pan as a preacher and used gJohn to "demonstrate", first the ministry lasted more than one year, second (at the end of 2.22) it lasted close to 20 years.
Irenaeus was reacting against those (in the vast majority then) who though Jesus' public life was for one year only. So far, there was no 3 years ministry proposed: it looks Origen was the first one to do so.
Ref: AH 2.22 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html

aa5874 · 02-18-2012, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mullerb

First, Irenaeus never said Jesus was crucified under Claudius....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Please examine "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" attributed to Irenaeus.

Quote:

.. For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified...

The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 and "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" could NOT have known that Paul supposedly preached Jesus was crucified, died and was RAISED from the dead since the time of King Aretas c 37-41 CE. See 2 Cor.11.32-33.

The Entire NT Canon was composed AFTER the Fall of the Temple since the Pauline writings were UNKNOWN by Apologetic and non-apologetic sources like the author of "Against Heresies" 2.22, Justin Martyr, Aristides, Celsus, Municius Felix, Arnobius and Tatian.

la70119 · 02-18-2012, 10:35 AM

maryhelena,

OFFICIALLY, mere procurators weren't appointed to govern provinces until the time of CLAUDIUS.

But what Richard Carrier was saying, was that PREFECTS were appointed to act AS procurators, as well as governors and chief justices of the provincial courts. AND they had power to command legions / troops as well.

Suetonius Claudius 12

Quote:

He recalled none of those who had been banished, without a decree of the senate: and requested of them permission for the prefect of the military tribunes and pretorian guards to attend him in the senate-house; and also that they would be pleased to bestow upon his procurators judicial authority in the provinces.²

² The procurators had the administration of some of the less important provinces, with rank and authority inferior to that of the pro-consuls and prefects. Frequent mention of these officers is made by Josephus; and Pontius Pilate, who sentenced our Lord to crucifixion, held that office in Judaea, under Tiberius. [Ed-M: Uh... no. This bit about Pilate is incorrect. The Tiberius Stone in Israel clearly shows that Pilate held the title of PREFECT.]

Tacitus Annals 12.60 (Claudius giving governorship powers to freedmen and granted them powers equal to his own)

Quote:

It had indeed already been arranged by the Divine Augustus that the Roman knights who governed Egypt should hear causes, and that their decisions were to be as binding as those of Roman magistrates, and after a time most of the cases formerly tried by the prætors were submitted to the knights. Claudius handed over to them the whole administration of justice for which there had been by sedition or war so many struggles; the Sempronian laws resting judicial power in the equestrian order, and those of Servilius restoring it to the Senate, while it was for this above everything else that Marius and Sulla fought of old. But those were days of political conflict between classes, and the results of victory were binding on the State. Caius Oppius and Cornelius Balbus were the first who were able, with Cæsar's support, to settle conditions of peace and terms of war. To mention after them the Matii, Vedii, and other too influential names of Roman knights would be superfluous, when Claudius, we know, raised freedmen whom he had set over his household to equality with himself and with the laws.

Tacitus Histories 5.9 (Claudius appointing freedmen to be procurators of Judea)

Quote:

The kings were either dead, or reduced to insignificance, when Claudius entrusted the province of Judæa to the Roman Knights or to his own freedmen, one of whom, Antonius Felix, indulging in every kind of barbarity and lust, exercised the power of a king in the spirit of a slave.

Tacitus Annals 15.25 (During Nero - looming war in Armenia)

Quote:

Written orders were sent to the tetrarchs, the tributaries, kings, prefects and procurators, and all the prætors who governed the neighbouring provinces, to obey Corbulo's commands, as his powers were enlarged on much the same scale as that which the Roman people had granted to Cneius Pompeius on the eve of his war against the Pirates.

What Richard carrier was arguing, was that Tacitus was dragging Pilate down from his OFFICIAL appointed office of Prefect, to that corresponding to only ONE of his legal duties, that of Procurator. All in order to snipe at the Chrestians / Christians and their gutter-snipe of a cult founder (well, in the Romans' eyes).

Because TACITUS knew the DIFFERENCE between a PREFECT and an ACTUAL PROCURATOR.

Except Suetonius NEVER came across this. Neither did the author of AH 2:22 and Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching. BOTH authors clearly state that Chrestus (Christus) / Jesus Christ was STILL alive and kicking UNDER CLAUDIUS, in 49 CE.

Bernard Muller · 02-18-2012, 12:01 PM

My bad: I did not check 'Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching'.
So Irenaeus was consistent with "his error". That does not change the rest of my comments. I object to "Paul was not known" by some. He was not mentioned, sure, but that does not mean he was not known. Paul and his epistles were not accepted by all in the second century or the author did not feel the need to refer to him, that is in their known writings. But the authors of 1Clement, 'Acts', to the Ephesians (Ignatian letter), Colossians, 2Thessalonians, Ephesians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, interpolation in gLuke (22:19b-20), Epistula Apostolorum & Polycarp and Marcion & Ptolemy knew about Paul or/and his epistles.

aa5874 · 02-18-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mullerb

My bad: I did not check 'Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching'.
So Irenaeus was consistent with "his error". That does not change the rest of my comments. I object to "Paul was not known" by some. He was not mentioned, sure, but that does not mean he was not known. Paul and his epistles were not accepted by all in the second century or the author did not feel the need to refer to him, that is in their known writings. But the authors of 1Clement, 'Acts', to the Ephesians (Ignatian letter), Colossians, 2Thessalonians, Ephesians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, interpolation in gLuke (22:19b-20), Epistula Apostolorum & Polycarp and Marcion & Ptolemy knew about Paul or/and his epistles.

The list of writings you have provided are either all forgeries or heavily manipulated.

You seem to have done very little research. ["Your Bad"]

This is a partial list of the writings that are either Wholly or partially manipulated and historically and chronologically bogus..

1. The letters of Ignatius

2. 1 Clement.

3. Acts of the Apostles.

4. All The Pauline writings.

5. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

6. Writings of Polycarp.

7. Writings of Papias

Bernard Muller · 02-18-2012, 02:51 PM

1. The letters of Ignatius: Forged, absolutely, but one of them named Paul. And isn't 2nd century?

2. 1 Clement: The author does not say he is Clement or anybody else. Just anonymous. First century in my book (and for many others), later for some, but most of those placed it in the 2nd century, not later.

3. Acts of the Apostles: First century for many and myself (main external evidence: gJohn and epistle of (allegedly!) Barnabas), 2nd for others

4. All The Pauline writings being forgeries: That's your opinion, not mine and many others.

5. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian: Anyway that's third century. Are you saying, as some, Marcion invented Paul or/and his letters? Or any of (modified) Pauline letters were not in Marcion's canon? Or "Against Marcion" is not by Tertullian?

6. Writings of Polycarp: Forgery or not, I do not care, but still 2nd century.

7. Writings of Papias: Papias did not say a thing about Paul, as far as I know. Are the few writings known through Irenaeus & Eusebius forgeries? I do not think so.

Anyway, except of course for some (7) of the Pauline epistles, it does not matter if the other writings are forged or not, the issue is if they mention Paul or/and his epistles AND written no later than the 2nd century. If, at least, a few do that (both conditions), then this "testimony" goes against your theory.

And what about Epistula Apostolorum & Ptolemy. Forgeries? Not 2nd century?

aa5874 · 02-18-2012, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mullerb

1. The letters of Ignatius: Forged, absolutely, but one of them named Paul. And isn't 2nd century?

2. 1 Clement: The author does not say he is Clement or anybody else. Just anonymous. First century in my book (and for many others), later for some, but most of those placed it in the 2nd century, not later.

3. Acts of the Apostles: First century for many and myself (main external evidence: gJohn and epistle of (allegedly!) Barnabas), 2nd for others

4. All The Pauline writings being forgeries: That's your opinion, not mine and many others.

5. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian: Anyway that's third century. Are you saying, as some, Marcion invented Paul or/and his letters? Or any of (modified) Pauline letters were not in Marcion's canon? Or "Against Marcion" is not by Tertullian?

6. Writings of Polycarp: Forgery or not, I do not care, but still 2nd century.

7. Writings of Papias: Papias did not say a thing about Paul, as far as I know. Are the few writings known through Irenaeus & Eusebius forgeries? I do not think so.

Anyway, except of course for some (7) of the Pauline epistles, it does not matter if the other writings are forged or not, the issue is if they mention Paul or/and his epistles AND written no later than the 2nd century. If, at least, a few do that (both conditions), then this "testimony" goes against your theory.

And what about Epistula Apostolorum & Ptolemy. Forgeries? Not 2nd century?

Your response seems to make ZERO sense.

You MUST know that a forgery can occur Hundreds of years after the original was composed.

For example, the TF [AJ 18.3.3] is a forgery that occured Hundreds of years AFTER Antiquities of the Jews was written.

It is totally illogical to date the forged "TF" to the 1st century simply because it is found in Antiquities of the Jews.

Bernard Muller · 02-18-2012, 04:11 PM

Quote:

"You MUST know that a forgery can occur Hundreds of years after the original was composed."

Yes, they can be done also 500, even a millenium after. Or 10, 20, 50, 100 years after. So what? What's your point relative to that thread?
So when do you think the texts I listed (with 'Paul' or/and Pauline stuff) were initially written?
Beyond the 2nd century? Reasons and evidence please.
And what about 1Clement and Ptolemy?

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

02-18-2012, 01:06 AM	#152
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	Let us NOT divert from the issue at hand. The author called Irenaeus did NOT state Pilate was a procurator or prefect. The author of "Against Heresies" 2.22 and "Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching" claimed Jesus was crucified at about 50 years old Under Claudius. Such a claim signifies that the author was NOT aware of the TF [AJ 18.3.3], AJ20.9.1, Paul, the Pauline writings, the Pauline Churches, Acts of the Apostles and gLuke. There is ONE writer that appear to support Irenaeus and that is Suetonius who claimed that Jews were Expelled from Rome due to the instigation of Chrestus during the reign of Claudius. It is logically deduced that all the Canonised writings are AFTER the Fall of the Temple and that the succession of Bishops of Rome are all FABRICATED up to at least the 3rd century. The Jesus cult of Christians is MOST likely a 2nd century cult based on Lucian of Samosata, a 2nd century non-apologetic writer. The fraudulent document called Church History has been EXPOSED.

02-18-2012, 10:01 AM	#153
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	First, Irenaeus never said Jesus was crucified under Claudius. However he mentioned several times that was done under Pontius Pilate (2.32.4, 4.23.2, 5.12.5). He also wrote Jesus' baptism was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (3.14.3), which is according to gLuke. All what Irenaeus did was to make an error (voluntary? involuntary?) about the duration of Pilate's rule in Judea. Of course Irenaeus in AH 2.22 was most intent to "prove" Jesus was not a flash in the pan as a preacher and used gJohn to "demonstrate", first the ministry lasted more than one year, second (at the end of 2.22) it lasted close to 20 years. Irenaeus was reacting against those (in the vast majority then) who though Jesus' public life was for one year only. So far, there was no 3 years ministry proposed: it looks Origen was the first one to do so. Ref: AH 2.22 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html

02-18-2012, 12:01 PM	#156
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	My bad: I did not check 'Demonstration of Apostolic Preaching'. So Irenaeus was consistent with "his error". That does not change the rest of my comments. I object to "Paul was not known" by some. He was not mentioned, sure, but that does not mean he was not known. Paul and his epistles were not accepted by all in the second century or the author did not feel the need to refer to him, that is in their known writings. But the authors of 1Clement, 'Acts', to the Ephesians (Ignatian letter), Colossians, 2Thessalonians, Ephesians, 1&2 Timothy, Titus, interpolation in gLuke (22:19b-20), Epistula Apostolorum & Polycarp and Marcion & Ptolemy knew about Paul or/and his epistles.

02-18-2012, 02:51 PM	#158
Bernard Muller Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 927	1. The letters of Ignatius: Forged, absolutely, but one of them named Paul. And isn't 2nd century? 2. 1 Clement: The author does not say he is Clement or anybody else. Just anonymous. First century in my book (and for many others), later for some, but most of those placed it in the 2nd century, not later. 3. Acts of the Apostles: First century for many and myself (main external evidence: gJohn and epistle of (allegedly!) Barnabas), 2nd for others 4. All The Pauline writings being forgeries: That's your opinion, not mine and many others. 5. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian: Anyway that's third century. Are you saying, as some, Marcion invented Paul or/and his letters? Or any of (modified) Pauline letters were not in Marcion's canon? Or "Against Marcion" is not by Tertullian? 6. Writings of Polycarp: Forgery or not, I do not care, but still 2nd century. 7. Writings of Papias: Papias did not say a thing about Paul, as far as I know. Are the few writings known through Irenaeus & Eusebius forgeries? I do not think so. Anyway, except of course for some (7) of the Pauline epistles, it does not matter if the other writings are forged or not, the issue is if they mention Paul or/and his epistles AND written no later than the 2nd century. If, at least, a few do that (both conditions), then this "testimony" goes against your theory. And what about Epistula Apostolorum & Ptolemy. Forgeries? Not 2nd century?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.