Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 02:11 PM

I don't know the reason why. But let's put it another way. Irenaeus continually emphasizes the Pilate reference. He works it into his creed. But oddly he thinks Pilate ruled during the time of Claudius. The point then is that our most active proponent of the idea was completely fucked in the head. There is also this kooky reference in Justin:

Quote:

But lest some should, without reason, and for the perversion of what we teach, maintain that we say that Christ was born one hundred and fifty years ago under Cyrenius, and subsequently, in the time of Pontius Pilate, taught what we say He taught; and should cry out against us as though all men who were born before Him were irresponsible — let us anticipate and solve the difficulty. We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them; and among the barbarians, Abraham, and Ananias, and Azarias, and Misael, and Elias, and many others whose actions and names we now decline to recount, because we know it would be tedious. So that even they who lived before Christ, and lived without reason, were wicked and hostile to Christ, and slew those who lived reasonably. But who, through the power of the Word, according to the will of God the Father and Lord of all, He was born of a virgin as a man, and was named Jesus, and was crucified, and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, an intelligent man will be able to comprehend from what has been already so largely said. And we, since the proof of this subject is less needful now, will pass for the present to the proof of those things which are urgent. [apology 46]

The understanding is clearly what we would expect - Jesus was born at the beginning of the Common Era and taught under Pilate. Where is the misunderstanding? What was it the heretics were confusing or confounding about that statement?

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 02:15 PM

Another thing that is extremely odd. Justin's appeal to a so-called 'Acts of Pilate':

Quote:

And that He did those things, you can learn from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. And how it was predicted by the Spirit of prophecy that He and those who hoped in Him should be slain, hear what was said by Isaiah. These are the words: Behold now the righteous perishes, and no man lays it to heart; and just men are taken away, and no man considers. From the presence of wickedness is the righteous man taken, and his burial shall be in peace: he is taken from our midst. Isaiah 57:1 [apology 48]

This idea that Pilate witnessed the glory of Jesus is ridiculous. Nevertheless it is very old as we see here. There must have been a Christian forgery made in the name of Pilate. Why? Why is there (a) a creed which forced people to admit that Jesus was crucified under Pilate and (b) a forgery written in the second century which had Pilate witness that Jesus was active in his day.

As most of us know, at the turn of the fourth century an Acts of Pilate was used by the state to teach children that Christianity was a lie. Could it be that the Roman state simply turned around this pathetic forgery against the Christians?

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 02:20 PM

The last reference to Pilate in the Dialogue is the most interesting because it betrays Irenaeus's hand manipulating the original text. Justin is made to introduce the basis for establishing Irenaeus's creed generations before Irenaeus:

Quote:

And for this [rite] we have learned from the apostles this reason. Since at our birth we were born without our own knowledge or choice, by our parents coming together, and were brought up in bad habits and wicked training; in order that we may not remain the children of necessity and of ignorance, but may become the children of choice and knowledge, and may obtain in the water the remission of sins formerly committed, there is pronounced over him who chooses to be born again, and has repented of his sins, the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe; he who leads to the laver the person that is to be washed calling him by this name alone. For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with a hopeless madness. And this washing is called illumination, because they who learn these things are illuminated in their understandings. And in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and in the name of the Holy Ghost, who through the prophets foretold all things about Jesus, he who is illuminated is washed. [apology 68]

Already the idea is introduced that Justin maintained the creed invoking Pilate in the middle of the second century. Why? Why was it so important to invoke Justin as not only the witness to all the anti-Marcionite stuff but also the seemingly unimportant detail of the dating of the crucifixion. My sense is that the Marcionites did not put the death under Pilate

Toto · 02-26-2013, 02:20 PM

Previous threads from the archives
Why Did Irenaeus Identify Pontius Pilate as the governor of Claudius'? by Stephan Huller
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=Pilate

Did any sceptics ever consider Pilate a myth?
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=Pilate

also
http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=Pilate

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=Pilate

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 02:22 PM

2 Apology 6:

Quote:

For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christian men exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs.

Why the repeated empha+sis +

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 02:23 PM

My dog reached up and pressed the return key

Clivedurdle · 02-26-2013, 02:25 PM

Quote:

who was crucified under Pontius Pilate

Could just be a literary device, tie the goody and the baddie together. Very powerful rhetorical trick!

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 02:43 PM

I guess here is another way to look at the problem. There are two dates for Jesus 'relative to this world'

1. his birth in the middle of the reign of Augustus
2. his death usually identified as the fifteenth year of Tiberius because of the one year ministry (Clement, Origen, heretics) and the opening words of the gospel

The birth is consistently connected by Christians with the 70 weeks prophesy. But the birth is unusual because these people also think Jesus had a pre-existence as God. So it's not so much a 'birth' as a God coming into the world through the womb of a woman.

The Marcionites are identified (indirectly or not) by Irenaeus and his supporters as beginning the gospel where Luke says 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.' But I showed in another thread that Clement can be interpreted as saying that the Basilidean gospel read 'in the fifteenth of (the Egyptian month of) Tybi.' The point then is that the year of ministry is an open debate for the Marcionites. The gospel might have - like Mark, Matthew and John - not made specific mention of a year.

If you break the problem down another way. The Catholics say that Jesus came to earth in the middle of the reign of Augustus - albeit through a womb. Then they say that he lived on and thirty years later started his ministry = the beginning of Luke.

But since the Marcionite gospel does not necessarily say 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' and may have agreed with the proposed Basilidean gospel (= in the fifteenth year of Tybi) why do we have to assume that the Catholics and Marcionites disagreed about Jesus coming into the world at the beginning of the Common Era.

For some reason the Christians imagined that the new era began at what is now the Common Era. Why do we have to think that the Marcionites stuck to this otherwise unknown date of 15th of Tiberius. Couldn't it be that the two tradition agreed about the beginning of the new age but that the Catholics through introducing the fifteenth year of Tiberius snookered the Marcionites into a different starting date for Jesus's ministry.

Why did they do that? Maybe they didn't want 1 CE or whatever to be a battle over 'the birth of Jesus' and his descent from heaven? If Jesus came down from heaven in 1 CE then this date conforms to the 70 weeks prophesy quite easily (or at least easier). The idea of God coming to earth in glory seems more of an event than the birth of a child who grows up and later goes on his ministry. Moreover it is important to note that Irenaeus also (stupidly) argues for not only a lag between the birth and the beginning of his ministry 30 years later but the even more preposterous idea that the ministry itself began in the 15th year of Tiberius and then extended almost twenty years when - incredibly - Pilate was procurator and Claudius was Emperor. In other words, there are two lags.

Vorkosigan · 02-26-2013, 04:49 PM

I you've solved the reason why Luke gives such a firm date, since I suspect Luke knows a version of John and was the last canonical gospel started. GLuke had to solve the dating issues the Church was creating for itself when it historicized the story.

IS there another reference in antiquity that copies/references the pilate passages in Josephus? Compare the two. That's how I learned there had been Xtian editing of the Essene material in Josephus.

stephan huller · 02-26-2013, 06:26 PM

Thank you Michael I will look into this. Good suggestion.

Just as another added bit to consider. As to the question why the fifteenth year of Tiberius was chosen - it might have something to do with the restrictions on the seventy weeks prophesy which Julius Africanus somehow made square with that date http://books.google.com/books?id=2Da...0weeks&f=false

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

02-26-2013, 02:20 PM	#14
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Previous threads from the archives Why Did Irenaeus Identify Pontius Pilate as the governor of Claudius'? by Stephan Huller http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=Pilate Did any sceptics ever consider Pilate a myth? http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=Pilate also http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=Pilate http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ghlight=Pilate

02-26-2013, 02:23 PM	#16
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	My dog reached up and pressed the return key

02-26-2013, 02:43 PM	#18
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I guess here is another way to look at the problem. There are two dates for Jesus 'relative to this world' 1. his birth in the middle of the reign of Augustus 2. his death usually identified as the fifteenth year of Tiberius because of the one year ministry (Clement, Origen, heretics) and the opening words of the gospel The birth is consistently connected by Christians with the 70 weeks prophesy. But the birth is unusual because these people also think Jesus had a pre-existence as God. So it's not so much a 'birth' as a God coming into the world through the womb of a woman. The Marcionites are identified (indirectly or not) by Irenaeus and his supporters as beginning the gospel where Luke says 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius.' But I showed in another thread that Clement can be interpreted as saying that the Basilidean gospel read 'in the fifteenth of (the Egyptian month of) Tybi.' The point then is that the year of ministry is an open debate for the Marcionites. The gospel might have - like Mark, Matthew and John - not made specific mention of a year. If you break the problem down another way. The Catholics say that Jesus came to earth in the middle of the reign of Augustus - albeit through a womb. Then they say that he lived on and thirty years later started his ministry = the beginning of Luke. But since the Marcionite gospel does not necessarily say 'in the fifteenth year of Tiberius' and may have agreed with the proposed Basilidean gospel (= in the fifteenth year of Tybi) why do we have to assume that the Catholics and Marcionites disagreed about Jesus coming into the world at the beginning of the Common Era. For some reason the Christians imagined that the new era began at what is now the Common Era. Why do we have to think that the Marcionites stuck to this otherwise unknown date of 15th of Tiberius. Couldn't it be that the two tradition agreed about the beginning of the new age but that the Catholics through introducing the fifteenth year of Tiberius snookered the Marcionites into a different starting date for Jesus's ministry. Why did they do that? Maybe they didn't want 1 CE or whatever to be a battle over 'the birth of Jesus' and his descent from heaven? If Jesus came down from heaven in 1 CE then this date conforms to the 70 weeks prophesy quite easily (or at least easier). The idea of God coming to earth in glory seems more of an event than the birth of a child who grows up and later goes on his ministry. Moreover it is important to note that Irenaeus also (stupidly) argues for not only a lag between the birth and the beginning of his ministry 30 years later but the even more preposterous idea that the ministry itself began in the 15th year of Tiberius and then extended almost twenty years when - incredibly - Pilate was procurator and Claudius was Emperor. In other words, there are two lags.

02-26-2013, 04:49 PM	#19
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	I you've solved the reason why Luke gives such a firm date, since I suspect Luke knows a version of John and was the last canonical gospel started. GLuke had to solve the dating issues the Church was creating for itself when it historicized the story. IS there another reference in antiquity that copies/references the pilate passages in Josephus? Compare the two. That's how I learned there had been Xtian editing of the Essene material in Josephus.

02-26-2013, 06:26 PM	#20
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Thank you Michael I will look into this. Good suggestion. Just as another added bit to consider. As to the question why the fifteenth year of Tiberius was chosen - it might have something to do with the restrictions on the seventy weeks prophesy which Julius Africanus somehow made square with that date http://books.google.com/books?id=2Da...0weeks&f=false

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.