Freethought & Rationalism Archive

PhilosopherJay · 07-29-2012, 06:00 AM

Hi Pete,

Thanks, please go ahead with your suggests. Of course we can't reconstruct the Acts of Pilate that Eusebius complained about exactly, but we can get a rough idea.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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

PhilosopherJay · 07-29-2012, 06:10 AM

Hi stephan huller,

Thanks, good points.

Its kind of like we have hundreds of different smashed jar fragment with a lot of missing pieces. In trying to reconstruct the original jars, depending on what we think is missing and how the fragments fit together, we can get very different shaped and sized jars. Pieces could fit here, but they could just as easily fit there.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

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

PhilosopherJay · 07-29-2012, 06:14 AM

Hi aa5874,

Good catch.

I wonder what Julian meant with the phrase "Writers of the Time?" Did he include Josephus in the time of Jesus and Paul. It is probable he did, but it is possible that he was differentiating between writers of the 30's-50's, the writers in the time of Jesus and Paul, and the writers like Josephus (70's-90's) who came a little bit afterward.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

PhilosopherJay · 07-29-2012, 06:28 AM

Hi Vorkosigan,

Thanks. Good points.

I think there must have been something about the followers of Jesus not being around any more that triggered Eusebius saying that were still around.

There might have been something like "They expected him to rise on the third day, but nobody ever saw him again." That very possibly was behind the phrase "he appeared to them alive on the third day."

We can do this reconstruction:

Quote:

There was a man named Jesus whose followers claimed was a magician 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 many followers who were not Jewish. After I executed him, they expected him to appear alive on the third day, but nobody ever saw him again and his followers gave up and scattered.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

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.

aa5874 · 07-29-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Good catch.

I wonder what Julian meant with the phrase "Writers of the Time?" Did he include Josephus in the time of Jesus and Paul. It is probable he did, but it is possible that he was differentiating between writers of the 30's-50's, the writers in the time of Jesus and Paul, and the writers like Josephus (70's-90's) who came a little bit afterward...

Julian is clearly referring to writers who wrote about EVENTS in the time of Tiberius and Claudius.

No writer that wrote about EVENTS in the time of Tiberius and Claudius mentioned Jesus and Paul and this is confirmed up to TODAY.

Philo, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Cassius Dio and others did NOT write about Jesus and Paul.

PhilosopherJay · 07-29-2012, 09:54 AM

Hi All,

I just noticed that Eusebius makes a point that Jesus had not just 12 apostles and 70 disciples, but many Jews and Greeks.

Theophania book 5.

Quote:

If88 therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, |331 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.78 The bishops, too, who stand first in the line of succession there are said to have been Jews, whose names are still remembered by |144 (125) the inhabitants.

This suggests to me that the Acts of Pilate had said that Jesus had 12 Apostles and 70 disciples. Eusebius corrects this to add that he had many Jewish and Greek followers.

We can include this detail in our reconstruction:

Quote:

There was a man named Jesus whose followers called a magician but I saw him do no wonderful work. There was nothing beyond the rest of mankind about him. Nothing he said was new or original. He claimed to be a savior, but among the Jews he found only 12 apostles, themseves all liars, and 70 disciples. After I executed him, on the advice of the principle Jews they expected him to appear alive on the third day, but nobody ever saw him again and his followers abandoned him.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Vorkosigan,

Thanks. Good points.

I think there must have been something about the followers of Jesus not being around any more that triggered Eusebius saying that were still around.

There might have been something like "They expected him to rise on the third day, but nobody ever saw him again." That very possibly was behind the phrase "he appeared to them alive on the third day."

We can do this reconstruction:

Quote:

There was a man named Jesus whose followers claimed was a magician 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 many followers who were not Jewish. After I executed him, they expected him to appear alive on the third day, but nobody ever saw him again and his followers gave up and scattered.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

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.

DCHindley · 07-29-2012, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

Well that takes care of things. "It's total fiction! I said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"

Quote:

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.....

What makes an author "well known" to a proudly pagan Roman elite? I don't think that Josephus qualifies, but even if he did include him as "well known," I never said he did mention Jesus or Paul.

All I suggested was that Constantine had short phrases added to Josephus' accounts of the governorships of Pilate and his predecessor, at least in copies within his jurisdiction, so as to make the date given in Maximinus' Acta of Pilate impossible. This may have been accomplished by sponsoring publication of a "new" edition of Josephus, perhaps given away to any and all (especially churches), or with an exchange program for old copies turned in for "recycling."

Quote:

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

I'm talking about redaction to Josephus, based on indications of clues in Eusebius' Church History itself. Whether it is pure fiction or not, there are still historical clues about the dates of composition of the first 9 books. See NPNF Series 2, book 1, page 45.

As the first 9 books of the Church History are believed to have been written sometime between 313 and 319 CE, with these nine later updated a slight bit when a 10th book was added around 324 CE (just on the eve of or immediately after the consolidation of the whole empire under Constantine, but before the Council of Nicaea), this would make any redaction of Josephus' Antiquities by Constantine occurring either immediately after Maximinus' death or within 5 or 6 years.

As such a redaction would have occurred relatively recently at the time Eusebius wrote books 1 to 9, and then only in copies kept in the west, not the east, I can see why Eusebius has to proceed cautiously and say "if the testimony of Josephus is accepted." There were copies available in the east that did not state 11 years for Gratus and 10 for Pilate (by comparison with dated events, eastern readers could deduce that Gratus would have ruled only 4 years and Pilate 17 years).

DCH

aa5874 · 07-29-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Well that takes care of things. "It's total fiction! I said it, I believe it, and that settles it!"...

What a load of ABSOLUTE BS. Why do you insist on making total mis-leading statement just to ridicule others??
If you cannot even repeat what I wrote then please do NOT respond to my post.

Please, if you want to be taken seriously then you must show that you understand the magnitude of fraud, forgeries and false attribution that occured in antiquity.

This very thread is dealing with writings that may have been products of fiction.

mountainman · 07-29-2012, 07:59 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I suggest that we need to consider quite calmly and rationally the possibility that the Greek Acts of Pilate that Eusebius complained about may be the text before us, preserved from this 4th century conflict.

The ideas are outlined in this response to Toto on the thread about
The authenticity of Maximinus Daia's Acts of Pilate.

Quote:

The text before us is supposed to have been written by a pair of zombies, rounded up after the mass resurrection event in downtown Jerusalem, and given writing implements. Leucius and Karinus (the zombies are explicitly named) disappear in a blinding flash leaving perfectly identical manuscripts that are entrusted to Pontius Pilate. This could have been written by Monty Python. . .

I disagreed with Toto that this only seems strange to modern eyes. Surely these people of the 4th century could also laugh out loud?

The presence of zombie scribes seem to be a pagan joke on the authors of the One True Canonical Jesus Story that Eusebius was guarding against all impure additions and innovations.

The Greek Acts of Pilate that Eusebius complained about may be the text before us - "blasphemous in all ways" - because it may have been a parody Jesus story - extremely innovative and popular. But it was considered (by Eusebius) as an "unofficial forgery".

Thanks for asking Jay,

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

Thanks, please go ahead with your suggests. Of course we can't reconstruct the Acts of Pilate that Eusebius complained about exactly, but we can get a rough idea.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.