Al Kafirun

Comments by Josephus on Pontius Pilate don't all have to do with Jesus, do they? From what I recall most of it seemed valid and characteristic apart from the brief addition. Seems like all this focus on the Testimonium Flavium is a bit of a digression.

capnkirk

It was not my intent to drag the thread off-topic; rather it was to alert MysteryProf that one of the proffered references to Pilate by Josephus was generally considered to NOT be by Josephus, but by someone inventing evidence to support the gospel crucifiction (pun intended) story. I considered it relevant because MysteryProf's OP was specifically about looking for external references to Pilate to help determine whether the gospel depiction of him was "in character". Since the TF has been claimed as a forgery intent on "proving" that it was, that reference should be evaluated in that context.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Vinnie

Shorter passage attests to the longer passage that preceded it. Relevance, your honor

capnkirk

Two tries and you STILL can't manage to specify chapter and verse {example: Antiquities 18.3.3} so us "dummies" will know for sure what you are referring to. :banghead:

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

spin

I get the idea, Vinnie, that you think if you repeat this idea often enough someone might believe you, but it is still not correct.

The shorter passage, ie 20.9.1, attests to nothing. It has a simple interpolation in it whose purpose is plain, to witness to Jesus, using an expression straight out of Mt 1:16, "Jesus called Christ" (ihsous o legomenos xristos, or in the genitive in AJ, ihsou tou legomenou xristou). It doesn't refer back to 18.3.3: all major scholars reject the statement "he was the Christ" as spurious, so the "Jesus called Christ" in 20.9.1 is doubly dubious. The attempts at translating legomenou as "so-called" fail in Josephus because things are often called (legomen-) by name in the text (eg 20.1.1, "a village called [legomenhs] Mia" and also in 20.9.1, "himself called [legomenwi] Ananas"), so it is normal in Koine without any pejorative intent. Perhaps the same person is responsible for both interpolations, but I doubt it. If he is prepared to say "he was the Christ", why stick to the more biblical "Jesus called Christ"?

I understand why some scholars arbitrarily want to salvage something out of the wreckage of the TF (we won't have this bit, but we'll take that bit). It helps for the historicization of the gospel, and, given the grave lack of historicity, you can understand why such obvious partisan choices are made.

Sorry, Vinnie, but you're backing an obvious loser, when you admit to problems in the TF and then arbitrarily say some bits are ok. You never did say why the second interpolation uses Mt 1:16.


spin

capnkirk

MysteryProf,

I apologize. I (naively) thought that by referencing another thread where this has been discussed at great length, that I could alert you to the problem, yet not hijack your thread. Alas, Vinnie has now attracted Spin to challenge him on a Josephus verse that has nothing to do with this thread. I hope that it will end here, but am not all that confident of it.

P.S. Spin, no offense to you intended.

__________________
Enterprise...OUT.

Toto

Let's keep this thread on Pilate, and start (yet another) thread on the TF if you have something new to say on it. Whether there is a partial interpolation, or just a marker where there was some mention of Jesus, or a complete interpolation, nothing in that passage is at all consistent with the gospel's protrayal of Pilate as an intelligent, reluctant, uninvolved ruler who just bowed to the Jewish mob.

Toto
back to being temporary mod of this forum
so watch your conduct, please

Al Kafirun

Yeah, Pilate seemed cool. LOL I feel anti-semitic because if I was a bad-ass Roman govenor stuck in Judea I'd be a deep, introspective character, too.

Master and the Margarita is a good book on Pilate. Kinda.

MysteryProf

Hey everyone, and thanks for all the responses... even though most of them weren't exactly on topic. FYI, I am well aware of the TF interpolation, but I really just wanted to know if the Christians who tried to justify Pontius Pilate's character in the gospels by using history actually had anything legitimate to say, or if it was just another example of twisting facts to prove fiction.

~MysteryProf

Vinnie

Is this really necessary? If you don't understand the reference (there are only two!) I am not interested in dialoging with you to begin with. No offense intended by this.

Vinnie